Vacation man talks.
President Bush said Thursday that a plot to blow up multiple flights between Britain and the United States shows “this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.”
The thing is, Bush and the right have given up on the war against Al Qaeda. They diverted resources from killing Bin Laden in Tora Bora. They decided to invade Iraq, and botched the job of occupying Iraq.
It is because of them why our troops are playing mediator and target practice for Sunni, Shia and God Knows Who Else instead of sticking to the job thrust on us by 9/11 (and the Republican incompetence that led to the attack).
In response to your question, Yes I would.
Well there’s no accounting for the brain damaged.
When did the enemy stop being Islamic fundamentalists and become Islamic Fascists?
In response to you rquestion, No, I don’t.
In response to your question, here’s an item from December of Ought-Ought:
http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/f9af26f617.jpg
“Well there’s no accounting for the brain damaged.”
Lol.
Right from the horses mouth.
And then Sam Clemens returned from the dead and slapped him.
This nation is at war with Islamic fascists.
Great.
It’s not just al-Qaeda anymore. Vacation Man is now talking in terms of a Crusade. How can 2 billion Muslims around the world hear talk like that and not think this maniac intends to wipe them all off the face of the Earth?
Derek’s content’s slipping. Thus far it’s a “yes” and a “I know you are but what am I?” I’d hate to think what a Turing Test might reveal.
Does this man even know what the hell he is talking about? “Islamic fascists”? Did he never read a book about politics or take a political science course in his life?
Or is he just PROJECTING his own character traits?
My Webster’s dictionary defines a fascist as “a person who believes in or practices fascism,” and fascism as:
“a system of government characterized by”:
- “rigid one-party dictatorship” (GOP in control of all 3 branches – CHECK)
- “forcible suppression of opposition” (the Plame Affair, “free speech zones”, hand-picked audiences at public speeches – CHECK)
- “private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control” (Enron, Halliburton, tax breaks for the rich – CHECK)
- “belligerent nationalism” (”Freedom Fries”, “old Europe”, “You’re either with us or with the terrrorists”, flag burning amendment – CHECK)
- “racism” (Hurricane Katrina – CHECK), and
- “militarism” (Iraq, Afghanistan, “Shock and Awe”, pre-emptive wars – CHECK)
Lucky D -
You forgot about
“You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.” – George W. Bush, July 1998
“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” – Bush, Dec. 2000
“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it.” – Bush, July 2001
British Police Thwart Major Terror Plot
Authorities in London thwarted a terrorist plot to blow up an aircraft in mid-flight between Britain
At the core of the problem isn’t his call for destruction of Islamic Fascists (Islamonazis is a more accurate term), its that we don’t hear the remaining 1.9 billion Muslims speak out against hatred and intolerance. Unfortunately, the Muslim population of 2 billion is allowing a small percentage of fanatics to speak for them. It’s all we have to go by. The Lebanese in Dearborn weren’t marching in support of Israel or America, that’s for sure.
However, the point is well taken. A secular Iraq was a much better alternative than a paper administration that will (hopefully not) eventually fall into the grips of a fanatic theocracy. Our fight against Muslim Terrorism needs to be against Muslim Terrorists, not destabilizing the Middle East. The war against Islamonazis is just, but the execution of the war in Iraq is a debacle. The Pakistan border and Iran should be our areas of concentration.
Steve,
I would turn that argument around and argue that the core of the problem is that many of us don’t hear (or don’t want to hear) the Muslims when they DO speak out against hatred and intolerance. And believe me, many are doing it all the time. Saying the fanatics are “all we have to go by” is bull.
Furthermore, just because all 1.9 or 2 or whatever billion Muslims aren’t all out in the streets right now vociferously condemning the “bad apples” doesn’t mean that they tacitly endorse them. Every time a member of your religion commits some horrible act, do YOU stand up and speak out against it?
“It’s all we have to go by.”
It’s easier not to think, isn’t it.
I don’t know where to begin on that one, Dan. You can argue that the media shuts moderate Muslims out, and therefore their message of tolerance and condemnation of violence isn’t heard. Or we’re choosing not to hear it. Or there isn’t a vocal majority.
Do you know the source of moderate Muslim silence? Because I don’t. Usually, when a group wants to get a message out, they find a way. I’ve checked foreign press, American press, galaxy-wide press, I haven’t seen a huge number of Muslims condemn this sort of behavior.
My site, which is brand new, is about looking at all sides of various issues, but I admit my biases. I would love for someone to point me in the direction of the Vocal Moderate Muslim, I will be happy to highlight and embrace people courageous enough to stand up to their own community. I’m a Jew and I don’t agree with everything Israel does, and it’s my duty to say it. They need to destroy Hezbollah without killing innocents or destroying Lebanon, and it’s a terrible PR war they will certainly lose because there’s no way around it.
As far as standing up and speaking out, I do -and will- but in my tiny little corner of the Internet.
In terms of saying it’s a bunch of crap that fanatics are all we have to go by, all I can say is every Al Qaeda tape, Hezbollah dictate, fatwah or Israeli condemnation is proudly aired by Al Jazeera, then re-broadcast all over the world. I have yet to see Al Jazeera broadcast a message of tolerance and peace, have you? And if you have, link me please, I will definitely report on it.
Again, let me reiterate, as a Jew, I, and many like me, would sincerely LOVE to hear a sincere message of tolerance from the Muslim community. But every spokesperson I’ve ever heard -who represents themselves as moderate- never unequivocably takes responsibility for their community perpetuating violence. There is always a caveat, usually involving something Israel has done to oppress somebody, somewhere, at some time. They present Muslim radicalism as the fault of Israel and the US, never their own government or personal responsibility. Hatred starts in the home, and is perpetuated by indoctrination and brainwashing. None of us are born hating.
Clearly, the angry and disenfranchised are more vocal than the contented. Nobody protests how good things are going, so I can’t argue a negative on that one. When you get good service from your cable company, I doubt you write a letter or make a phone call. But when you get bad service, all Hell breaks loose. I get that. Fanatics and haters will always be more vocal and drown out the message of peaceful people, because people don’t have time to hate have jobs, and are just trying to live their lives and provide for their families. They don’t have time to take to the streets. That being said, I can’t tell you if the silent moderate Muslim doesn’t say derisive things about Jews and Americans in the privacy of their own living room. People express their prejudice at home…you, me, and everyone else.
Having said all that (to make a long post longer), Muslims have a bit of an image problem in the world right now. It would seem if I belonged to a group that was getting seriously bad press, as a peaceful moderate I would do EVERYTHING to change that. I’d be tired of multiple screenings at the airport, or people looking at me funny based on how I looked or dressed. I’d be fed up. If I really didn’t harbor those same feelings of intolerance, and thought my community was getting tainted by a few vocal radicals, you’re damn right I would mobilize everyone I could get in my community to change world perception instead of taking to the streets and [once again] blaming the Jews and Americans for all my problems.
Well, Steve, to the Islamic world, the 200 million Americans who stand against the Bush administrations crusades against Muslims aren’t speaking out.
Do you actually follow the major newspapers of the Islamic world, Steve? What are you basing your opinion regarding “moderate Muslim silence” upon?
It’s a weird double standard. Sure, as a liberal, to a certain extent I hold myself responsible for fighting the abortion clinic bombers and right-wing “let’s murder all the liberals” Coulter/Malkin fascists. But really, it’s not my fault if a gay man gets lynched or a right winger blows up a Federal building. So why shouldI hold moderate Muslims to a different standard than the one to which I hold myself?
Well, I just started back into the political arena, so I haven’t yet exposed myself to English language Muslim periodicals, but I will start. It’s only fair.
What I will read, I assure you I’ll take at face value that what they speak is the truth they believe and not changed for an English speaking readership. I do know, however, there are sentiments that are revealed in Arabic or Farsi papers that are not reflected in English papers, and I know that by heresay. I can only go by what has been digest by others, because I don’t read Arabic or Farsi.
I’m afraid I’ve taken Oliver’s main point off track by focusing on Bush’s using the term “Islamic fascists” which I agree with. Although I’ve only posted a few items, you’ll find there’s very little I agree with the administration, but on this particular issue, I feel the phrase is correct.
Factcheck – both you and Doctor’s point tie in. Moderate Muslim media isn’t getting over here, and the American public’s opposition to the war isn’t getting over there.
I’ll blame the media on both sides for that one.
“I would love for someone to point me in the direction of the Vocal Moderate Muslim …”
You could start here:
http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=401
The term “Islamofascist” or “Islamic Fascism” is nothing but a naked piece of focus-room GOP framing.
The right-wing talk radio circuit has been slavering for Bush to adopt this term for months; the White House has rightly been reluctant to put this term out. They got their wish yesterday.
It is clearly racist, and contributes nothing but ignorant Muslim-hatred to any discussion. Another post above defined Fascism, and it has nothing to do with Islam.
It is an attempt by the WHite House political office to link the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and the White House’s fucked-up-beyond-recognition Middle East policy to World War II, another favorite frame of the Right wing.
It is supremely manipulative and fundamentally, deliberately dishonest, the hallmark signature of all White House foreign and domestic policies.
Responsible people should reflect what it says about this White House that it is ready and willing to foster hatred and anti-Semitism (yes, Arabs are considered Semites) in order to achieve its political goal of keeping America terrorized with bogeymen so Americans will let them pursue their agendas.
He also said “I’d like to thank the Government of Tony Blair.”
Since when did ol’ Tony become a sovereign nation?
Bush is just not that smart.
JK
Then you could try here:
http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2251&theType=NR
Here:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/9664458/detail.html
Frameone – Thanks for the link, and I’m glad to see a Muslim organization voicing those sentiments. Again, I’m not even looking for a Muslim organization I agree with (though I agree with their message), just one that speaks with balance. I’m not discounting the statement at all, but it is an American organization. Is anyone aware of an objective Middle Eastern based, Islamic-focused website or periodical I can also reference?
I did find in my search last night some solid reporting, such as the Bahrain Tribune, but others that presented themselves as ‘news’ like This one are clearly not based on the same journalism principles we use here in America..or are supposed to use, that is.
In terms of Islamonazi or Islamic Fascism, I think we’re all astute enough to know that any administration needs to package a message for public consumption. For the most part, Bush & Co. have avoided using the term until now. But you are correct, it is a term created and grown by the right wing commentators, no doubt about it.
To answer Oliver’s question to this tangent I’ve veered us way off, no I don’t trust the administration to defend us. But I can’t lay it squarely on Bush. Bush isn’t even a figurehead, he’s a hood ornament. The fact is our entire government is charged with defending us, FBI, CIA, ICE, DoD, ETC. The administration just sets the tone, and I’ll grant you it’s a crappy tone. I don’t care who has the better idea of securing our country, I just want it formulated and implemented by someone.
Lucky D:
Spot on.
“Is anyone aware of an objective Middle Eastern based, Islamic-focused website or periodical I can also reference?”
Can I ask what you mean by ‘objective’? Because if it means Mid East based organization that agrees with us, well, how objective is that?
Maybe objective is the wrong word since nothing truly objective, everyone approaches a story with their biases. I’m looking for a site (and I think I’ve found a couple of English ones), like the Bahrain Times or Middle East Times that doesn’t begin its stories with “The evil zionists…” Which I would reject as journalism the same as if I saw a Jewish publication start a story with “The evil Muslims…”
I think what I am asking for is reasonable journalism. Like this site here. I disagree with about 60% of what is said, but I think everyone here is reasonable and thoughtful, so I value the content.
“I think everyone here is reasonable and thoughtful …”
You mustbe new here.
There are, indeed, unreasonable, radical people in the world on all sides. But again, the word “reasonable” is just as slippery as objective.
We have done very little to understand how and why majority Muslim nations perceive us and our actions in the world. Any attempt to actually do so is instantly branded as somehow treasonous: “The Blame America First crowd.”
It’s entirely reasonable for a moderate Muslim to abhor terrorism and the murder of innocent people while having doubts about US intentions in the Middle East. They might also abhor violence while seeing a group like Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance organization. That opinion, of course, is immediately dimissed by the hard right in this country as unreasonable and pro-terrorist. This has become the basis for arguments on the right that maybe Lebanese civilians shouldn’t be considered “civilians” as such and thus legitimate military targets.
That’s a wondefully slipperly slope that, if you accept its logic, could be used to justify 9-11 or Hezbollahs continued actions. And it all begins by refusing to reach across the divide and understand how the moderate Muslim world really perceives us in favor of looking for the answers we want to hear and judging all others as “unreasonable.”
The bottom line is that our actions in the world have consequences and we have to better understand what those consequences are if we are going to “win hearts and minds.”
Christians are taking the lives of Muslims by the thousands in Iraq.
Since all Christians fail to condemn those actions, they must be complicit.
See how it works?
“See how it works?”
Exactly.
But wait, what we’re doing is Right so there’s no need to condemn it because we are always Right. To suggest otherwise is to aid and abet the enemy.
See how that works as well?
You bring up an excellent point in that most Americans or westerners don’t want to look into America’s involvement with Mid East discontent. It has had a long and sortid history, from British occupation to the Ottoman Empire. The Mid East has changed hands a million times, and would be most likely an overlooked pawn if not for their oil. I agree the Right is dismissive of any thought that ties American involvement to the disintigration into radicalism.
Obivously, we are directly responsible for several regimes who we thought were nice tools against the Soviets and Iranians, who have now turning against us. As unpalletable as it is, we essentially created Al Qaeda by funding Bin Laden and the Muhajadin.
That doesn’t excuse using violence as an expression against political policy. If I don’t like the foreign policy of Poland, there would be no jusitification for me to go to Chicago and kill Poles, just as Hizbollah, Hamas or any other terrorist group has a right to think violence is proper political expression. If these groups have a grievence, it should be played out in the political arena, but that’s not happening. In that context, the only way to combat violence is, unfortunately, with violence.
We have two basic cornerstones to radical Islam. American foreign policy and America’s support of Israel. I believe there are other religious sources for the violence, involved with bringing about their version of Armageddeon, but I’ll save that for another argument.
The problem, as I see it, is the Arab nations do not want Israel to exist. They feel the land was taken away from them, given to the Jews.
First, it’s not inconceivable that land was artificially partitioned to make room for a population. Iran, Iraq, and many other Middle East countries did not exist before artificial partition, so there is already a modern precedent for creating a country where none existed before. The only thing the creation of Israel was guity of, in their eyes, was populating it with Jews instead of Arabs.
Second, to express their dismay, they’ve continually attacked Israel, and each time Israel took a little more land from them. Now they want it back.
Well, that’s being a sore loser. If you’re going to play the game, and you lose, you have to suffer the consequences. I know of no other war where the loser asked for the land to be ceded back to them because they didn’t know what they were getting into. But that’s what Israel is expected to do..which they did by withdrawing from Gaza. Where is the peace?
To make another long-winded analogy. Would any of us give up our home and land so Native Americans could re-colonize our town? That’s effectively what the Arabs are asking Israel to do. At a certain point, boundaries have to stick, or we’d still be fighting the British.
So, I agree Muslims are pissed, and I’d like to do whatever we could do to make them happy, but it begins with their acceptance that Israel exists, and they will have to peacefully co-exist with her.
“That doesn’t excuse using violence as an expression against political policy.”
But wait a second, we use violence as an expression against policy we don’t like all the time, don’t we?
Ignorance is the greatest weapon, of terrorists and Republicans alike.
“Christians are taking the lives of Muslims by the thousands in Iraq.
Since all Christians fail to condemn those actions, they must be complicit.”
Baloney! The only people seriously murdering bunches of other people in the name of their religion are Muslims.
I tend to disagree with our Iraq action, but I believe the numbers indicate the likelihood of more deaths under Saddam than during the war/post war.
And one hopes that no one here is suggesting moral equivalence between terrorists/insurgents and American troops (well, Durbin maybe). The government of Iraq is a democratic one and the terrorists and insurgents fighting against it are fighting against their own people.
Sort it out boys and girls, and give up the moral equiavalence bullsh*t.
“I tend to disagree with our Iraq action, but I believe the numbers indicate the likelihood of more deaths under Saddam than during the war/post war.”
Because in Dugger’s moral universe it isn’t Thou Shalt Not Kill, it’s Thou Shalt Not Kill As Much As The Other Guy.
Brilliant. Following that logic one can only guess what it means when and if our death toll rolls passed Hussein’s.
He also goes on to exemplify the mindless rhetoric of the right I noted above. He all but admits there’s a civil war in Iraq — “insurgents fighting against it are fighting against their own people” — but refuses to even consider what role our own policies and continued presence have played in creating that situation. To suggest just that our use of violence might have made things way fucking worse in a volatile region to engage in “moral equivalence.”
He’s an idiot.
You first, Dugger.
Frameone – yes we do use violence to pursue political goals. The Iraq war is one such problem, which is why I’m against it. But the first Iraq war I felt was just.
Politics is ugly, and life is one shade of grey after another. There are no absolutes, especially when trying to decipher reasons behind violence and war. There are a lot of ugly facets we don’t like to address.
One thing I think we’re all nimbly dodging around because its an unsavory thought, is that many believe the Muslims are motivated by simple discontent and feelings of persecution. I’m cynical enough to believe that Muslim radicalism isn’t singularly about religion. Somewhere, somehow, someone is making a few Rial off Middle East turbulence.
We have certain profit motives behind our wars, why assume their cause is noble and just?
“We have certain profit motives behind our wars, why assume their cause is noble and just?”
I’m sorry but did someone suggest that al qaeda was fighting for a noble cause?
Rhetorical statement, nobody here has suggested that.
“Rhetorical statement, nobody here has suggested that.”
I don’t get it then. Why then did you write this:
Did anyone suggest that the motivations of Hezzbolah or Hamas or any terrorist group were pure? Please. Is this supposed to pass for centrist thought, criticizing the left for things it never said while taking seriously every caricatured boogeymen that the right drags out from under its soiled bed?
Seriousness is a willingness to grapple with complexity, not applying the same “brute force fixes all” solution to every and any challenge that crops up.
It’s the left that has insisted we would have better luck fighting terrorism by addressing the range of motivations behind it, rather than simply holding fast to knee-jerk, cartoonish fantasies. Sheesh.
I said it because it hadn’t been said yet in this conversation…I introduced a new thought.
If I wasn’t having this conversation on this site, and you didn’t say it, I wouldn’t know if you were left or right. So, no, I’m not attacking the left and embracing right-created caricatures. I came to the Islamonazi conclusion on my own. Nobody had to feed it to me.
I think I unequivocably stated that I think we need to fight terrorism, but Iraq was the wrong venue, no “brute force fixes all” was anywhere in my statements…but brute force has a time and place, like everything else under the sun.
I think your last paragraph is where I have a problem. I have no qualms about acknowledging the root issues of any problem. But once it manifests itself with violence, how do you respond? The kids who shot up Columbine were brought to do so because of intense feelings of isolation, rejection and bullying. That didn’t excuse them for shooting up the school, and it doesn’t exuse Islamic militants from killing people.
One thing or another won’t stop this. It will require dialog, understanding, negotiation and, yes, brute force at times. I never suggested solving the Mideast problem would be simplistic. If I could solve that, I’d be the smartest person in the visible universe, and I assure you I’m not.
Maybe it hadn’t been said yet because it’s a totally ridiculous thing to say. You thought we we’re dancing around the idea that some people think terrorists are motivated by “simple discontent and feelings of persecution”? Um, I thought that’s exactly what we we’re talking about: Many people in the Mid East do look at some terrorist organizations as legitimate resistance organizations. What is it about the climate and environment of the Mid East that makes such a perception possible and what role have we ourselves played in creating that environment?
But I guess you thought I was actually making “excuses” for the terrorists. Sadly, the right as well seems equally incapable of grasping the difference between trying to understand a problem in order to better solve it and “making excuses” for violence.
I’m sorry but, again, if this is your idea of centrist thinking — “That didn’t excuse them for shooting up the school, and it doesn’t exuse Islamic militants from killing people.” — I hate to hear what you think sounds like right wing pablum.
Then stay tuned. I welcome all views.