I used to know a man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery.
Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of
points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics.
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Submitted by Brian J.

I agree that it is always very few who dominate the political and social view whether Muslim or Jew or Christian and they all have had their dark side. If you consider that Christians perpetrated the Holocaust while most of the Christians of the world stood by and did not get involved until land was being lost, than it can be true about peace loving Muslims.

A person’s religion is not important to me, only their character. It is difficult, though, when one hears about mullahs who preach hatred towards Christians and Jews to understand or be companionate about anyone of that religion because it seems to allow such behavior. I can see the same when it comes to some so called Christians in this country.

Religion has always been a tool to control and dominate the masses. It is used for good and for evil and will never change.

Perhaps Edmund Burke quotes on "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". By being peace loving & doing nothing, majority of the Germans made Hitler powerful. By being peace loving & doing nothing, majority of the Japanese made Tojo & Emperor Hirohito very destructive. By being peace loving & doing nothing, majority of Muslims made Islamist terrorist stronger everyday. By being peaceful & doing nothing, the United Nations, or should I say the Disunited Nations, North Korea & in the very near future Iran will have nuclear weapons! Yes the world loves peace loving people.AND SO DO THE TERRORIST!!!

Careful watchman, I agree with what you said!

Though I dislike how you limit the extremist to muslims, there are and have been militants of every religon I can think of. Besides that I also agree that apathy in the face of tyranny is a bad thing, look up many of the quotes on the by holocaust surviver Eli Weisel.

While I agree with the comments made by Gunny, I am pessimistic in his assessment of the peace loving Muslims. I see time and time again videos and other media coverage that show far too many Muslims demonstrating in sympathy (or support) of the Radical Islamics and their twisted, fascist values. Indeed, I understand that it is quite common for the Muslim clerics in the Mosques in and around the NYC metro area to include anti-U.S. and "Blame America" statements in their sermons almost on a weekly basis. This is happening so frequently that Sen. Schumer noted this in a speech he gave on the floor of the Senate about a year ago. Moreover, a significant number of Muslims in Great Britain and France wish their governments were controlled by Islamic Fundamentalists. And yes, while "there are and have been militants of every religon" as said by Hperion, the fact is that there is no other religious based militant group anywhere on this planet that is as virulent and intolerant of others as the Islam relegion. I and millions of others have a problem with this and I wish it was otherwise.

Before 911, the attitudes and beliefs of these islamics were of no concern to me. This is no longer true given the attack against the U.S. on 911.

ok well one thing
1. I do not have enough census information to conclude whether this is simply an extremely vocal minority or a majority of the muslim community so I won't make speculations that I can't back up.
2. Why do people call it fascism when fascism is very closely linked to corperatism which has little to do with the ideals of islamic fundamentalism, and nationalism, which doesn't seem to be very strong in places such as iraq. I think a more appropriate term would be a totalitarian theocracy.

While I like your phrase "totalitarian theocracy," I believe that it is too benign and euphemistic in describing these people and the things that they do and represent. Fascists is also shorter to say. Calling them fascists is appropriate when you compare what they have done since the 1979 revolution in Iran to what Hitler and Mussolini and their respective political parties did in the 1930's to secure power and to impose their views on others through violence and torture. Regarding whether there is "enough census information to conclude whether this is simply an extremely vocal minority or a majority of the Muslim community," I refer you to CNN reports of polls that were taken of Muslim populations in Great Britain and France about six months ago. Over 60% of their respective Muslim adult populations said they wished that their governments were Islamic states. This is far less that the 1/3rd (i.e., the minority) of the Colonial population in America who wished to strike their own path of self-rule and to break free of British Imperial control. Moreover, unless you and I are to conclude that the media is staging events for ultimate broadcast (and I do not think that is the case), there are far too many pro-Ismalic demonstrations in the Middle East that are attended by far too many protesters to conclude that only a minority of those populations are involved in trying to perpetuate and impose their fascist and oppressive beliefs on others. Finally, I am not aware of a single religion who have members as virulent and murderous in their attempts to impose their theocratic beliefs on the rest of the world. Not one. Sadly, I submit that there will never be a time when these Islamic Fundamentalists change their ways of dealing with the rest of the world (even others of their own populations). They are a cancer that needs to be reckoned with. Contrary to what the Left Wing of America would like to believe, singing "Koom-by-ya" around a campfire and "We Are The World" with Michael Jackson is simply not going to be effective in causing these radicals to change their evil ways.

hmmmm, perhaps you need to rethink the comment comparing fascism to corporatism?

Fascism defined:a system of government charactorized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism and racism, militarism, etc.: first instituted in Italy in 1922-43.

Sure don't see any connection with corporatism.


Besides, I didn't write the article I posted and I even gave credit to the author. I simply agreed with what Brian J. wrote and thought I'd share his thoughts with my associates in here.

Well the definition I found was:
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation (defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and historical terms) above all other loyalties.[1] Various scholars attribute different charactersistics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, totalitarianism, anti-democracy and anti-communism.

Also anton Fascism just doesn't fit in my opinion as it has nothing to do with religon. Also while I am very very skeptical of poll if you can give my similar results from many sources, then I will concede yuo that point. Also I am a left winger and I am not advocating for what you said, military force is an option that sometimes must be used. Also I see it as the fact that islam hasn't seem to have evolved with christianity and many of the other worlds religons out of it's violent stage, for example christianity was equally if not more violent and oppressive back a few hundred years ago. But Christianity was able to evolve islam seems to have...not. But once again I must challenge the term fascism as this islamic movement is very intertwined with religon (as fascism is not) and doesn't have very much to do with nationalism (sunnis fighting shi'tes, iran and syria helping militants in iraq to destroy the US) it is not drawn by national lines it is drawn by racial and religous lines.

quote:

But once again I must challenge the term fascism as this islamic movement is very intertwined with religon (as fascism is not) and doesn't have very much to do with nationalism (sunnis fighting shi'tes, iran and syria helping militants in iraq to destroy the US) it is not drawn by national lines it is drawn by racial and religous lines.

That's because you don't understand the term "nationalism" as understood by any specific group of Muslims. To some "nationalism" means the Ba'ath Party, to others it means a greater Islamic State for the entire Middle East (excluding those "other guys"-- the Shi'a or Sunni depending on which side of the fence we're on). To others in Indonesia it means the extermination of non-Muslims from the land. For Kosovars it means independence from Serbia (probably the most "pure" of nationalists). It is very much nationalistic, just not your definition. I do like your term "totalitarian theocracy". Both terms refer to a political and religious system. None of the terms-- "totalitarian", "nationalist" nor "fascist" refer to religion, so I don't see how your term is more acceptable or more correct? As I said, "totalitarian theocracy" is a good term, but I don't think people using "Islamic fascists" are that far off the mark either.
I prefer the term "Islamo-crazy-ass wonker-bunnies" ...but I don't think it will catch on.

Also while the kosovars are a good example, they are more of an exception, it is not nationalistic, for example the massive shi'ite vs sunni conflict, that is division along religous lines, and the mistreatment of the kurds is on racial lines, not national lines. I like my defintion because it encompasses both the dictatorial dickheadedness of it, and theocracy which is the religous dickheadedness of it.

Islam itself is a nationalistic movement...only thing is each sect believes that they are the "nation of Islam". Shi'as generally want to expand Iran and it's holdings, many sects of the Sunnis want a "greater Middle East" as a nation. Kurds want independence from both Turkey and Iraq and form their own nation. They all unite against the creation of Israel and the plight of the homeless Palestinians......Notice that all of these conflicts are territorial. When was the last time a group attacked one or the other and insisted it was because the Caliphate was not a descendant of Ali or Mohamed (which is the central split between Shi'a and Sunni)? Rarely are the differences in religious belief, it's more about who has the bigger piece of the pie and how nepotism among the separate sects will divide that pie.

Hyperion, when you say that the Islamic movement has little to do with nationalism and therefore cannot be compared to fascism, I submit that your point might have been correct prior to the Iranian revolution in 1979. That revolution resulted in the unprecedented and historic merging of religious-based beliefs and political-based beliefs for the express purpose of promoting a unified, nationalistic desire of governmental control based upon religious tenets. Yes, prior to 1979, the fascist's agenda (in Italy for example) was to establish and promote a nationalistic belief and ordain a government that favors corporate values and practices. But world reality has now changed. So, while you and I may quibble about the definition of fascism, in my book I regard the Islamic movement as fascists. The fact that Webster's dictionary did not define fascism the way I just did is because the "Islamic" brand of fascism was not yet in existence several decades ago when that term found its way into our lexicon. Today, given what is going on in other cultures and countries, I say that it is quite proper to call Islamic fundamentalists "fascists."

On another point: you also readily acknowledge that you are left wing in your views and I do respect you for admitting that. But allow me to say to you what I have said to my far left liberal friends on many an occasion after 911: I urge you and those who think like you to abandon your jobs, your professions, your families and all else that you hold dear in life so that you can go to the Middle East and meet with the leaders of the Islamic Fundamentalists who dwell in the dark, dank recesses of their mosques in Syria and Iran to persuade them to give up and renounce their virulent view of world dominance and their collective hatred of the West and what the West stands for. Tell them that if they fail to heed this advice, there are many Americans (like me)who do not hail from the Left Wing and who will use deadly force against them and their kind for purposes of preventing another 911 from occurring. Tell them that they act at their peril because we (i.e., the non-Left Wingers of America) will NOT wait until another 911-like attack has first occurred before deadly physical force is used against them. If they are not fearful of what you say, please tell them our beloved marines will make sure that they get to see their Allah quickly and painfully if they continue their militaristic hatred of cultures such as ours because we "permit" women to become lawyers and doctors.

Further, I must tell you that I have a problem when I hear any Left-Winger say that "military force is an option that sometimes must be used."
Hyperion, time and time and time and time again, it has been the Left Wing of America who have been the FIRST to cut and run the instant this nation's foreign policy and its wars do not proceed as smoothly as they would like. It is the Left Wing of America who look at world events and say with a straight face that the United States is to blame for anything that has happened bad in this world. Thus, you say that you envision circumstances where the use of military force is appropriate and justified, but I know that your left wing tendencies will cause you to demand that the U.S. immediately stop a war because it is not being prosecuted in the way that suits the Left Wing's fancy -- as if any war is capable of being prosecuted with such precision and niceties. My problem is that the Left Wing's cut and run and "Blame America First" beliefs undercut and undermine what our heroes in uniform are doing for you and me and our families. While I do not mind debate and disagreements taking place in this country, I do mind when those debates give aid and comfort to our enemy and endanger the lives of our heroic men and women who serve in the armed forces of the United States.

Anton

Well said! That was worth a weeks worth of free rounds at the bar!

I'm sorry, but that is just not correct, we do not want to cut and run, we do no always blame the US first, we simply know when we have made a wrong descision and want to correct it and are willing to admit that the US has many errors and done many wrong things, just like any other country. You misinterperet the ability to admit ones mistakes as a "blame america" attitude that is simply no realistic. And let me remind you that the greatest threat to the US in the entire 20th century, the Nazi's, were defeated by a man so liberal I've heard him called a socialist, FDR, who led us in our greatest war effort in the history of our country.

quote:

I'm sorry, but that is just not correct, we do not want to cut and run, we do no always blame the US first, we simply know when we have made a wrong descision and want to correct it and are willing to admit that the US has many errors and done many wrong things, just like any other country.

Think you're draggin' to the center of left there. The left generally don't think this way. And that's OK, I'm just to the right of center. I agree with you on a few things.

geez, FDR took the only route he had available to him. Nazi's on one side, the Great Depression on the other.

Are you kidding gunny, he was pro-war from the beggining, the nazi's weren't even a threat to us. They were thousands of miles away, but we still went to europe (and africa) with the largest army we ever assembled.