On Islamo-fascism: Stating the Obvious

[Sleeping in EQ]

As the spinmeisters try to massage our brains from "terrorist" to "islamo-fascist," from "War on Terror" to "World War III," it occurs to me that a restatement of the obvious is in order:

1. Most commentators know almost nothing about either Islam or fascism. If cornered (and that's what would have to happen) into explaining the philosophy behind them, most couldn't fill 5 minutes of air time with either fact or truth. The one guy whose hitting the talk shows who I am confident might actually know something about these topics, Prof. Gingrich, isn't about to compromise his political agenda for something like accuracy.

2. There are somewhere near 1 billion Muslims on earth (most of whom aren't Arabs) and almost all of them just want to peacefully live their religion and go about daily life. Some have cultivated a dislike for Jews and Christians (and the opposite is true too), but almost none want to walk into discotechs and blow everyone up or fly planes into buildings. Judging Muslims by bombers and terrorists is alot like judging Mormons by the Lafferty brothers or the Lebaron's.

3. There are millions of Muslims in the U.S. and almost all of them are law abiding people who want to be peaceable and neighborly. They're a little fearful because their kids are sometimes being called "rag head" and "suicide bomber," and are being attacked at school (they're also being stared at in airports and are getting threatening letters from wackos), but they're as likely as anybody to be nice and upstanding.

4. Don't miss the fact that while neo-cons and Bush groupies are throwing out pithy one-liners when their critics use the "f" word (fascism), they are using the term themselves.

5. Stopping terrorism (which is something I'd like to do as much as possible without damaging real freedom) does not mean stopping Islam. We have a way of being very selective about not going after some terrorists (No one's invading Ireland over the IRA or Spain over the Basques), but if we equate terrorism with Islam (as some commentators and officials are doing), we're undermining the freedom of religion itself.

6. Hoping that our soldiers come home to their families and that innocents aren't harmed doesn't mean military action should supplant democratic deliberation, negotiation, and public accountability. Some in the Bush administration talk about the military as though it were a preferable form of judiciary--it brings swift "justice." But it's actions have little public accountability and government oversight can usually be circumvented. Such thinking and action is turning our democratic republic into a capitalist military state.

7. Realize that Western media has primed you to dislike Muslims. From movies to TV dramas to endless headlines filled with blood and smoke, Muslims are almost always represented negatively. You'll most likely have to work at it to overcome subtle (and not so subtle) prejudices. But overcoming prejudice against Muslims does not mean that you suddenly should dislike Jews or Israel. And it doesn't mean that you don't have qualms about the politics of Islamic countries or their social practices. It just means that you treat them like the neighbors they are instead of like the militant "other" that some would have them be.

[creekster]

WOuld all of these statements still be accurate, in your opinion, if one limited them to those muslims adhering to Wahhabism or the more extreme shi'ite sects?

This is not meant as a rhetorical question, btw.

[Venkman]

Nothing like a condescending liberal taking the "moral high ground" and completely ignoring reality.

It's a question of numbers and percentages. Sure there are Christian wackos and terrorists, but they are a minuscule portion of the total and are TOTALLY marginalized by the larger communit.

Muslim extremists OTOH, account for around 10% of the population according to the experts I've come across, and they've scared the bejeezus out ot the peaceful Muslims and are in control of entire countries in many cases. The militants are in the drivers seat.

And even the "mainstream" Muslim organizations like CAIR envision the crescent flag atop the White House and Sharia law supplanting the constitution. (Yes I know CAIR doesn't speak for all Muslims just like NAACP doesn't speak for all black people)

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims. Not all oppressed people blow up women and children. I think this is fairly obvious.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

2. There are somewhere near 1 billion Muslims on earth (most of whom aren't Arabs) and almost all of them just want to peacefully live their religion and go about daily life. Some have cultivated a dislike for Jews and Christians (and the opposite is true too), but almost none want to walk into discotechs and blow everyone up or fly planes into buildings. Judging Muslims by bombers and terrorists is alot like judging Mormons by the Lafferty brothers or the Lebaron's.

I agree with your statement that "almost none want to walk into discotechs and blow everyone up or fly planes into buildings"; however, "almost none" does not equal "none" so how do we identify the ones that DO want to blow everyone up? Do we wait until they actually detonate the bomb or crash the plane or fire the rocket? If we wait until they actually do their evil deed, do we then say "Aha! She must have been a terrorist! Well, it's a good thing we didn't judge her by her race/ethnicity/religion/national origin before she detonated her hidden explosives belt in the market"?

If we can't draw conclusions about the likelihood of someone wanting to blow us up based upon that person's race/ethnicity/religion/national origin, then what factors can we use to draw those conclusions?

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

3. There are millions of Muslims in the U.S. and almost all of them are law abiding people who want to be peaceable and neighborly. They're a little fearful because their kids are sometimes being called "rag head" and "suicide bomber," and are being attacked at school (they're also being stared at in airports and are getting threatening letters from wackos), but they're as likely as anybody to be nice and upstanding.

Again, you use that tricky phrase "almost all" when describing Muslims in the U.S. The way I read it, the first sentence in your paragraph refutes the last sentence in your paragraph. The fact that you put in an "almost all" makes it LESS LIKELY that a Muslim in the U.S. is going to be nice and upstanding. Obviously the percentage decrease in the likelihood of the person being nice and upstanding is quite small; however, it exists nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

5. Stopping terrorism (which is something I'd like to do as much as possible without damaging real freedom) does not mean stopping Islam. We have a way of being very selective about not going after some terrorists (No one's invading Ireland over the IRA or Spain over the Basques), but if we equate terrorism with Islam (as some commentators and officials are doing), we're undermining the freedom of religion itself.

While it is true that there are plenty of non-Islamic terrorist organizations, it appears to me that Islamic-related terrorists are a truly global problem. The Basques aren't blowing up discos in Bali. The Tamil Tigers aren't blowing up churches in the Southern Philippines. The IRA isn't blowing up Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, or blowing a hole in the side of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, or blowing up the Marine Barracks in Beirut, or bombing the WTC in 1993, or blowing up Pan Am over Scotland, or flying planes into the WTC and Pentagon, or massacring students in Beslan, Russia. I don't know about you, but as a citizen of the world I certainly think I have more to fear from an Islamic-style terrorist than from oh, say, the IRA. As a citizen of the US, it seems clear that I have more to fear from an Islamic-style terrorist than from the IRA or pretty much any other type of terrorist (including your Timothy McVeigh types).

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

7. Realize that Western media has primed you to dislike Muslims. From movies to TV dramas to endless headlines filled with blood and smoke, Muslims are almost always represented negatively. You'll most likely have to work at it to overcome subtle (and not so subtle) prejudices. But overcoming prejudice against Muslims does not mean that you suddenly should dislike Jews or Israel. And it doesn't mean that you don't have qualms about the politics of Islamic countries or their social practices. It just means that you treat them like the neighbors they are instead of like the militant "other" that some would have them be.

Oh, I see, people dislike Muslims because of Western media? Not because of Khobar Towers, Marine Barracks, USS Cole, Beslan, WTC, Pentagon, Bali, etc. I'm glad you cleared that misconception up.

Sorry, got a bit sarcastic there... Didn't mean to attack you personally. Ignore that last paragraph.

Anyway, I acknowledge that Christians and Jews have a share in the "religious-related violence" market and that Muslims don't have a corner on that market; however, it seems that in the last 50 years, Muslims have certainly staked out their claim to be the "market leader".

I'm in agreement with you about not discriminating and treating everyone with love and kindness. I'll heed your counsel to treat in a neighborly manner all Mulsim-ish people I meet. That being said, do you have any suggestions on how we can efficiently identify terrorists BEFORE they actually commit the act without taking into account their skin color, religion, style of dress, ethnicity, national origin, or language preference?

Thanks,

BigFatMeanie

[myboynoah]

SiEQ, agree with your general point about respect and not judging all Islam by it's more violent and radical, even fascist, sects. But Meanie makes some good points. The nature, magnitude and frequency of attacks by radical Islamic groups throughout the world bring a natural reaction of fear and loathing. I see the burden as being on "good" Islam to offer a counterbalance. Frankly, I think they are severely lacking in this respect, and until that changes, I don't know that perceptions will change much.

From what I've seen of the current debate in the U.S., I don't think the loyal opposition is doing much better than Bush's Neocons. As you note, at least Newt seems to have a grasp of what's going on. Sadly, like most of the loyal opposition, you assume that since he doesn't draw the same conclusions as you, he must have some nefarious motive. Is this being intellecutally honest?

I saw Newt on a show next to Biden. Newt blew Biden away.

Biden: Blah, blah, blah, blah, I warned everyone of this five years ago, blah, blah, blah, blah, things aren't going well in Iraq, blah, blah, blah, blah, we need a comprehensive plan to address these issues, and the Administration doesn't have one, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Senator Biden, what would you do?

Biden: Blah, blah, blah, blah, I warned everyone of this five years ago, blah, blah, blah, blah, things aren't going well in Iraq, blah, blah, blah, blah, we need a comprehensive plan to address these issues, and the Administration doesn't have one, blah, blah, blah, blah.

When Republicans start espousing policies that would put women in veils, systematically limit their educational and professional opportunities, and institue schools that teach hate for people from certain religious groups, then the term "fascist" can apply. Until then, better that the loyal opposition refrain from name-calling.

Rant over.

Question: What is your solution for dealing with Hezbollah and it's Syrian and Iranian benefactors?

[UtahDan]

Generally I have little or no sympathy for Muslims who feel like they are being painted with the same brush that the extremists are. I think the analogy to Mormon "extremists" is an apt one. Whenever we get painted with an overbroad brush, we collectively, and usually in an official capacity, jump up and down to distance, condemn and disassociate. The silence from Muslims of all stripes, with a very few exceptions, is deafening. I can only infer sympathy for the extremists from the silence.

Second, if Muslims are offended by the broad brush, they first need to look to their extremist brethren for answers and then need to ask themselves why people like me might reasonably paint them that way. I hear all the time the most Muslims are peaceful and not like the extremists. I think that is true. On the other hand, I think that your average Muslim is at least partly sympathetic to the extremists. I believe this because of the silence and will continue to until the evidence points me some other way. That is probably unfair, but I'm not giving them a benefit of the doubt that they have not earned.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

WOuld all of these statements still be accurate, in your opinion, if one limited them to those muslims adhering to Wahhabism or the more extreme shi'ite sects?

This is not meant as a rhetorical question, btw.

Good question, but I'm not familiar enough with the numerical representations of each of such groups.

Shi'a are a large faction and Wahhabbists dominate much of the gulf. The Sunna also.

I agree the moderates are not doing enough to moderate matters.

[MikeWaters]

Plenty of Muslims distance themselves from the terrorists.

1) the media doesn't cover it, because it isn't news
2) you aren't paying attention, because if you wanted to know what they were saying, you would look for it.
3) sometimes peoples believe what they want to believe.

Start by checking out the Muslim-American associations.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Plenty of Muslims distance themselves from the terrorists.

1) the media doesn't cover it, because it isn't news
2) you aren't paying attention, because if you wanted to know what they were saying, you would look for it.
3) sometimes peoples believe what they want to believe.

Start by checking out the Muslim-American associations.

Link?

[MikeWaters]

http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html