quote:

Originally posted by Anton:
The lowyinstitute.org article’s discussion about the Salafi-Jihadists is nonsense and misleading. I am quite sure that a similar explanation could also be made of the various factions of the German Nazi Party and Italian Fascist Party in the late 1920's and early 1930's as well as the factions within the Bolshevik revolution responsible for overthrowing the Czar in 1917. In EVERY ONE of those cases there were various sub-factions or subgroups of the larger group that differed with each other only in terms of the means and methods to be used to impress their fascists’ ideas on the rest of society. In EVERY ONE of those cases, a small, radical faction who was initially scoffed at or dismissed as politically irrelevant or inconsequential nevertheless succeeded in taking over the reigns of government. Wars occurred after that happened. Millions of people died including millions of innocent members of the society who were not members of the group let alone the subgroup that managed to take over the umbrella party that ruled the country and which engaged in aggressive acts toward its neighbors and ultimately to war.

Let me be clear with this: I (and millions of right thinking Americans like me) really do not give a crap that Muslims, in general, have unfairly been given a bad name because they are being corrupted or misaligned by a subgroup in their midst who are known as the “Salafi-Jihadists.” The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of Muslims actually support or are sympathizers of this and other virulent sub-Muslim groups within the world of Islam. As a result, Islam in general ought to be held accountable for the deaths that will inevitably occur because otherwise good and peaceful Muslims allowed these virulent factions to take over the reigns of their government as a result of their latent support and sympathy or by their indifference.

Unlike the Fascists of yesteryear whose ideology came from a corporate, regimented view of how people in a society are to be held accountable and to be punished for their transgressions, we have today a “new”kind of fascism that has a religious (instead of a corporate) based ideology which allows for the hatred of the West because its societies permit their women to go to law school and to become doctors and because they do not pray to their Allah. There is NO difference between the classical fascists of yesteryear and the fascists of today whom we now know as the Islamic Radicals.

Anyone who seeks to dismiss (or to explain away as was done in the article mentioned above) the threat poised by the Islamic fascists do so at their peril.

And I don't see where you even read the article, you're only contention is that you think it's not a minority in Islam that is radicalized "salafi-jihadist". Which wasn't even the main theme of the article. The main theme was HOW they became radical, how they influence the rest of Islam (yes, in a bad way, and they do have a lot of "silent approval" among the mainstream Muslims), and how the US and western powers could better address the issue.

Anton:

When people make blanket condemnations, it is difficult to glean the motive or meaning of a diatribe. So please do not lecture me on my belief that you are wrong as you wrote your comments. It is okay to clarify your meaning (which is helpful) but to change the general demeanor of your comments is rather disingenuous. To accuse others of being wrong because you lack clarity in your presentation is beyond the pale of friendly discussion.

I agree that the world of Islam is different across the globe, but is also different in each country. Some of it has to do with religious intolerance in European countries and some of it because of general hate.

To be stuck in the 14th century is part of the cause but the Catholic Church has somewhat the same problem. History shows religious intolerance and persecution by Christians that is still going on today. No one owns this crap.

Patoloco, my understanding is that you recently retired from active service in the Marine Corps. Please allow me to take this opportunity to thank you for your service to our country.

In response to my point, you say “By that thinking we should have annihilated the entire nation of Germany and Japan. Sorry, don't buy it, won't buy it as long as I serve SIDE BY SIDE with Muslims who fight with us.”

And if Germany and Japan (and Italy, I might add) had not surrendered unconditionally, these nations would indeed have been annihilated until they ceased their resistance to the occupation and dominion of their respective countries by the Allied Powers. Innocent civilians in these countries would have died until that objective was reached. In making this argument, are you suggesting that Eisenhower and MacArthur should have been expected to withdraw from these countries because of continued resistance by the remnants of the fascists regimes that started WWII in the first place?

I did read Bubalo and Fealy’s article before I made comment about it. Because the article is in PDF format, I was not able to quote their words particularly at pages 98 to 107 where they discuss how the US and western powers could better address the issue about how the US should respond to Muslim based societies. In any event, throughout the 1930s there were similar discussion and debate about ways to appease the Axis powers. In 1938, Neville Chamberlain saw fit to deliver Checkloslovokia to Hitler in the hope that fascist Germany's quest for European domination would be satiated and as atonement for the harsh treatment Germany had to endure after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Bubalo and Fealy do not even tell the reader what exactly the US ought to do other than to recognize that Muslims do not have a monolithic ideology and that their concerns and interests are largely driven by local matters. OK, I accept that as true – just like I accept the fact that the members of the Nazi Party were also concerned about local issues, like making sure that the trains between Berlin and Munich ran on time. So, what should the US and the West do to appease the radical Islamics. Should we walk away from the Middle East entirely? Should our daughters be required to withdraw from colleges because that is not a place for women? Should the US walk away from Israel? Do we follow the suggestion of the “Blame America First” members of our society by apologizing to the Islamic Radicals for engaging in conduct that caused them to not like us in the wild and crazy hope that by saying “I am sorry that the US is so evil” to the Fascist Islamic Radicals, that will cause them to treat us differently?

No matter what your answers may be, it does not follow that because you know peaceful Muslims in this country or that many good and patriotic Muslims in our armed forces fought for the US, our political and military strategy should change regarding how we deal with the manifestation of Radical Islamic conduct that results in the death of American citizens. Such notions of civility did not stop Col Doolittle to bomb Tokyo notwithstanding the presence and feelings of Japanese-Americans living in our country or stop our bombers from fire storming Dresden and Hamburg because we might annoy German Americans.

Rocketeer says that “If Anton is going to damn with faint praise those moderate Muslims who, by their aquiesence and apathy ' allowed ' radicalized elements to rise up and take over government and now drive an agressive agenda..then one could, for the sake of argument, say the same thing about ' moderate ' Americans who have allowed radical Bushites to rise up and drive the agenda of the west.”

– And there are some in this country – particularly those who swear allegiance to the Creed of the Left Wing – who use this same kind of reasoning in support of their view that there is a moral equivalence between the fascist Islamic radicals and US actions and policy. To them, there is no difference between the Islamic radical’s beheading of innocent civilians and the use of force by a US Marine. Are you also one who subscribe to such beliefs?

There is no moral eqivalance as you suggest. It is not right or fair to compare Middle Eastern Muslims who support Radical Islamism with “ moderate Americans who have allowed radical Bushites to rise up and drive the agenda of the west.” Well before Bush took office, Radical Islam expressed itself by seizing American hostages in Iran, attacking the World Trade Tower twice, killing 3,000 innocent American citizens, destroying two US Embassies in Africa and a civilian aircraft flying over Scotland and killing 17 sailors on board the USS Cole. These actions – all indisputably of Islamic origin – having taken place, kindly enlighten me and others as to what would you have done if you were the President during these times, particularly after 911. You will excuse me if I and others reject the notion that singing “Koom By Ya” around a campfire and “We Are The World” with Michael Jackson ought to be our official policy when it comes to dealing with these religious fanatics who are the driving force in essentially all the Middle Eastern cultures and the driving force behind the killings of so many Americans these past few decades.

Finally, it does not follow that because there are many peace loving Muslims (many, many of whom are loyal and supportive citizens of the United States), the US should alter its policies towards the Fascist Radical Islamics in the Middle East. Thank God Roosevelt did not listen to that kind of talk when he was dealing with Germany, Italy and Japan.

Harryp, I did not take it as a personal offense (or regard you as impermissibly trying to lecture me)when you said that I was not being open minded in making comment about the fascist elements of the Islamic culture. I simply took what you said as your way of trying to make your point. You should feel the same way when I respond to what you say. Neither of us should conclude that the other is unfriendly.

While Islam comes in various flavors depending on the country where it may be found (see earlier posts to this thread), it is the fascist Radical Islamics that have a sufficient unity of interests, approaches and concerns in dealing with the West, particularly the US, that justifies me making a blanket accusation against these fascists and those in their country who happen to support them or face the consequences. Similar views have been written in our history books describing the fascism found in Germany, Italy and Japan during the 1930s.

As I also said in another reply I posted today, there are many in this country who love to find a moral equivalence between the fascist Islamic radicals and US actions and policy. In your case, it appears that you believe there is such an equivalence when you say that “History shows religious intolerance and persecution by Christians that is still going on today. No one owns this crap.’‘ While it is true that there is religious persecution today, there is no Christian group anywhere on this planet that sanctions the beheading, torture and killings of innocent civilians like the Radical Islamists who do all these things in order to spread Islam around the world. It is not right or fair that you try to compare these two religious groups as being similar. At best, you can say that the Catholic church was like this centuries ago but it has long since outgrown that bloody part of its existence. You cannot say this today when describing the Islamic radicals who are a driving force within the Islamic culture. (see my earlier replies of today’s date).

Anton:
naughty boy.. please to read my post again.. if I wasn't an[ex]officer and gentleman, and worried about spilling my drink, I'd smack you upside trhe head for suggesting I equate Marine offensives with jihadist insurgencies.[to put it in politically correct terminology ]..
What I said was that the middle class,educated, moderate Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere are complacent and aquiescent when it comes to resisting [ if that's even the right word] the extremism of the right wing fundamentalism that is the realm of the Taliban/Al Quaeda and their ilk.

This is what I equated to the American lack of initiative in getting out to vote in any reasonable number for a the ' moderate' elements within the proposed/incumbent government at home.. This huge percentage that sits back and fails to exercise its franchise then reaps the ' reward' of having either the Left namby pamby apologists get in and cave to extremism [ as they see it ] or allows the Right wingnuts pushing the US Hegomony on the world to take over..

It is the lack of political will I was comparing not the methods of the head chopping Sufi/Sunni/Shi'ite/Wahabi or whatever sects/cults/dissidents to the restrained ROE hands-tioed for fear of being seen agressive operational constrints that the military operates under..

I'd be curious as to how you see solving this situation.. nuke-em all? buy them off? let 'em have the damn desert and negotiate oil trade with the winners? what?

OK, Anton, I see where you're perception comes from regarding the article. You see the article as steps in appeasement rather than modifying our current efforts. When I read it, I can't imagine stopping many of our offensive counterterrorism efforts (and maybe that's a flaw in my thinking), but, instead, augmenting current efforts and/or modifying others to address the concerns discussed in the article. I think I got my impression from several of the phrases used in the article like this one--

"Combating terrorism is not simply about fighting terrorists but also about combating the ideas that underpin it."

See, I assume "combating terrorism is not only..." means we would continue our current efforts as well. As I said, it may be a flaw in my thinking in my perception, but that's the way I see it.

Anton, no offence was taken and though I may disagree with you and say you are wrong -- like you, it is only my opinion. I find your arguments well thought out and articulate but cannot see around the "broad brush used to paint trim."

Keep the debate going.

Rocketeer, your point about the lack of political will is well taken and I wish it gave the complete answer but it does not in at least two respects. First, it ignores instances where societies actually expressed their political will by openly and sharply supporting belligerent fascist regimes. This happened in Germany and Italy in the 1930s and Iran in 1979 (though no actual vote was taken - just overwhelming popular support for an Islamic based form of government). Second, no matter what the political will of a society (or lack thereof), the United States and other democratically based cultures cannot afford as a matter of principle, precedent or survival to fail to take hard action in cases where the fascists regime that is the product of that society’s will decides to invade other countries or kill Americans or give sanctuary to those that do. Thus, it was incumbent upon democratic societies to stop Hitler’s invasion of the Rhineland, Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia and Tojo’s invasion of China. All three of these fascists dictators used the inaction and complacency by the democratic nations to justify further more horrific killings and other war-like acts.

I turn to the lessons of history in answering your question regarding what I would do in dealing with the Islamic Radicals who are increasingly making their presence known throughout the Middle East. History teaches us that appeasement has NEVER worked in causing fascist regimes to change their evil ways. To the contrary, acts of appeasement were regarded by the fascist dictators as signs of weakness and lack of resolve and was used to justify further acts of aggression and ultimately to the killing of millions of civilians. The only way to deal with these fascist based totalitarian, fanatical regimes is to give their leaders a clear, unmistakable signal that military force will be used if they try to use military (or covert insurgent support) to effect their agendas. About three years ago, Libya voluntarily renounced WMDs and permitted unfettered international inspection after its leader witnessed what the US did to Iraq in about 45 days. Strength and determination, not appeasement and apolgy, caused this to happen.

Patoloco, I can understand how you came to a different conclusion about what the authors were saying given the quote you cite in your post. My point is that as well written as the article was and despite the research that obviously went into its writing, the authors do not explain how it is possible for the US to abate the fanaticism of the Islamic Radicals which is based on a religious belief of world dominance and the conversion of others by the sword if necessary. The authors simply telling us that Muslims have local concerns that are not shared by Muslims in other countries does not address this critical gene of these radical extremists. Nor do the authors take into account the fact that the US is currently sending economic aid and other resources that help meet the local needs of these Muslim populations..

As you correctly say, I did view the article as justification for an appeasement based policy in dealing with the Radical Islamics and the populations that support them. I have an allergic reaction to the use of appeasement as our national policy in dealing with these regimes. It did not work in the 1930s, was unnecessary and not used in dealing with the communist threat and will not work when dealing with the Islamic Radicals.

HarryP, prior to 911, I was more in line with your view when you refer to your inability to “see around the "broad brush used to paint trim."” After 911 when it became obvious to me (and many others as well) that the US cannot afford to wait until all the dots are connected before taken preventive measures, my views changed. Yes, it is OK to get into intellectual discussions about the things that annoy other societies and if and to what extent the US is responsible for those annoyances but while those discussions are taking place, it is incumbent upon the US to apply the teachings of history in assessing the consequences of inaction or a policy based on apology and appeasement in dealing with the new (and deadlier) kinds of fascist regimes we face today. This does not mean that the US becomes a war monger as the Left Wing of America insists. In making this contrived argument, the Left Wing ignores the restraint and diplomacy that the US used in dealing with North Korea and Iran (to date).

When I express my opinion in the way that I do in these posts, I rely on history. If history is going to be ignored in how we deal with the post-911 world that we live in today, the burden of proof is on those who would adopt a different approach to present a clear and convincing case why we should use appeasement and an apology as our policy in dealing with these Islamic radicals and the societies that give them aid and comfort. They have not presented such proof to date other than expressing a hope and a prayer that playing guitar music to the radicals enough times will cause them to drop their weapons and hum a tune.

I don't completely agree with the article, but it is interesting and does make some valid points. And seems relevant to the conversation.....

Defending IslamofascismIt's a valid term. Here's why.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 22, 2007, at 11:33 AM ET

The attempt by David Horowitz and his allies to launch "Islamofascism Awareness Week" on American campuses has been met with a variety of responses. One of these is a challenge to the validity of the term itself. It's quite the done thing, in liberal academic circles, to sneer at any comparison between fascist and jihadist ideology. People like Tony Judt write to me to say, in effect, that it's ahistorical and simplistic to do so. And in some media circles, another kind of reluctance applies: Alan Colmes thinks that one shouldn't use the word Islamic even to designate jihad, because to do so is to risk incriminating an entire religion. He and others don't want to tag Islam even in its most extreme form with a word as hideous as fascism. Finally, I have seen and heard it argued that the term is unfair or prejudiced because it isn't applied to any other religion.

http://www.slate.com/id/2176389/

Hitchen's article is a good one and his invention of the word "islamofascism" is apt. I intend to use it in describing these henchmen and murderers and I trust that it will find its way into our dictionaries. I pray that one day the islomofascists share the same fate as that of the carrier pigeon.

I meant to say passenger pigeon!!

Oh, over hunted by stupid people? Maybe a better analogy would work.

I wonder why the Irish are getting a free ride on this discussion. Until very recently, there were a few problems because of religious intolerance (though it does go deeper).

Your discussion is every bit a rendering of words as the people on the left put forth – it just has a different direction.

I beg to differ, HarryP. Passenger pigeons were exterminated by otherwise well meaning hunters who were ignorant (not stupid as you suggest) about the effects of too much hunting on the species and by the time mankind became aware of the problem, the species was doomed.

I do not want (nor am I suggesting that) Islamofascists to be exterminated as a result of negligence or attrition but by deliberate, planned action taken by the members of our armed forces and of other free cultures who reject the fascism and the terror and the murder that is the hallmark of what the Islamofascists stand for. I want future fascists, yet to be born, to know that the fascists that existed today were eliminated, one by one if need be, not by inadvertence or complacency but by premeditated action on the part of the free world who refused to follow the path of their predecessors who failed to stop Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo.

And again yet another attempt is made to find moral equivalence between the Islamofascists and other groups in Western society – this time by trying to compare the Irish with the fascists who have infected the Middle Eastern cultures with their disease and stench. Let us be clear about this: the Irish have never engaged in beheadings and the kinds of violence that has been the MO of the Islamofascists. The Irish have never killed women because they attend law or medical school or because they refuse to wear burkas. The Irish have never bombed places of worship or public assembly. The Irish have never killed thousands of Americans by using airplanes as weapons of mass destruction. Making comparisons between these two groups is not only wrong and unfair but also an effort to persuade us that the Islamofascists are typical in the way they try to promote their evil, anti-West agendas and who are deserving of understanding, sympathy and an apology. No way.

This is as good as place as any to post this I guess....

I heard about this about....three years ago (the article says the program is about three years old, I guess that's about when I heard of it!). Finally hit the mainstream news I guess. Even back at it's inception it was receiving rave reviews. Sort of reminds me of the "re-education centers" we set up for the German POWs in WWII before sending them home.

Postcard: Saud Arabia

Welcome to the Care Rehabilitation Center, part of a three-year-old experiment to reform malleable minds who have fallen under the sway of Osama bin Laden's radical brand of Islam. To get here, jihadis have to demonstrate during a prison interview a readiness to rethink their extremist views. (About 20% of the 1,875 holy warriors invited to participate have refused.) The program, developed by a team of Islamic scholars, psychiatrists and sociologists, tries to convince these men of their mistakes and make them productive members of Saudi society, which has been rocked by terrorism: al-Qaeda attacks have killed 144 people there over the past four years. By not treating the detainees as criminals, the center seeks to avoid reinforcing their radicalism and turning them into role models for more jihadis.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673270,00.html

Interesting article and approach to dealing with these fanatics. I hope it is successful and I wonder how the US is able to determine reliably that these Jihadists have indeed abandoned there fanatism, their hatred of the West and their desire to kill our armed forces serving in the Middle East and elsewhere.. Frankly, I am skeptical but it is certainly worth a try. They should be made to understand that if they are released because an assessment has been made that they have been "cured" but are thereafter recaptured in a theater of war and identified as an active insurgent, they will be summarily executed. In that way, they will get to be with Allah and find true peace.

I still say stupid:

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/pigeon.html

The population had certainly been reduced by the middle of the nineteenth century but was still several billion strong. The real onslaught began with the onset of large-scale commercial hunting carried out by well-organised trappers and shippers in order to supply the developing cities on the east coast of the United States with a cheap source of meat.

I wonder what all those bombs in London were about. Also, death is death, regardless of the method. That is a cultural difference. Was it all right for the Irish to kill the English (with monetary support from Americans)? Would they be the same if they had also killed Americans?

Also, the fascists were leaders of nations, not pockets of terrorists, there is no comparison with their status in the world, though, and both are contemptible.