I really like this Irish guy’s analysis of the current situation:

The mind of the left - I understand very well the mindset that laughs at the Axis of Evil. I regard it as an adolescent mindset, that understands very little about the world.

This violent utopian  Islamic fascism  is basically a modern, 20th century totalitarian movement, similar to violent utopian communism or to mid-20th century  European fascism. It is opposed to democracy, human rights, free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of sexuality. It is at war with everyone  who is not an Islamic fundamentalist fascist. It has killed vast numbers of Muslims.

The western left, to some people’s surprise, are on the side of the fascists.

Mark Humphrys - Politics - The fight for human freedom - Islamic Fascism

Looking forward to your comments!

Sitran

Very good, Sitran.

The lefties are beside themselves trying to find a negative in Sunday’s election in Iraq.

Many on the left get their news solely from publications like the Guardian and the New York Times, who on their best days merely distort what’s happening in the world.

A young man of my acquaintance was recently seen wearing a T-Shirt that featured a picture of Lenin.

I’m sure the lefties with whom I heartily agree in their abhorance of such murderers as Franco, Pinochet and their ilk, will agree with me when I say that Lenin was one of the most evil men ever born on this earth. I’m certain that they realize something the young man with the Lenin T-Shirt does not: that Lenin set in motion a period of violent and murderous repression of free thought that has lasted into the current century. More than 100,000,000 people were murdered by Communist regimes in the 20th Century.

SR

I find terms like Islamofascism and Islamic fascism contradicory in themselves. Islam is a religion, inherently unconcerned with nations. Fascism is by definition concentrated on the nation. Where do you find an Islamic nation with expansionism as one of its primary goals?

For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence.

(from the Italian Encyclopedia (1932))

As a politically-unaffiliated citizen of the United States, and as a true moderate (IMNSHO), my only comment is that murder and closed-mindedness are specialties of no particular group.  I can’t speak about Islamic fascism, as it has had no direct influence in my life.  I wish we had someone of the Islamic faith on this board who could add to the conversation.

Here are my observations of politics in the United States.

The Liberals (best read with a snarl and tone of contempt) are Right-wingers’ favorite target.  To the Conservative, Liberals often lose sight of individual rights in their pursuit of human rights.  The Right says: How can the rest of the world not see the dangers implicit in the attitudes those moral degenerates impose on us?  Liberals are going to be the downfall of every freedom I hold dear to my heart!

The Conservatives (how do you duplicate that tone of disdain some Liberals get when they say that word?) are labeled, in opposition to the Liberals, as self-righteous, self-centered bitches and sons-of-bitches (let’s see if the filter lets those through) who have no concern at all for humanity or cultures other than their own.  Liberals condemn Conservatives as more concerned with property rights than human rights.  The Left says: Your inability to see beyond your own particular viewpoint is parochial, at best.  It is the responsibility of everyone to do whatever we can to provide for the welfare of humanity as a whole.

Somewhere in the middle is the vast majority.  Unfortunately, it is the vocal minorities in each group that are the voices we hear.

Some individuals are easily corrupted.  This happens whether you are Conservative or Liberal, Demo(n)crat (added the ‘n’ for all you Right-wingers out there) or Republican.  The corruption covers the spectrum of sin.  Perks, breaks, favors, promotions, forced resignations, personal attacks, group attacks… the list goes on and on.

I’m pretty much through with discussions of politics and political agendas here in the Agora.  So don’t expect me to participate in any such discussions in the future.

My lack of rebuttal shall not indicate my implicit agreement.

Let those of you who are without sin be the first to throw stones.

-Tim

I’m pretty much through with discussions of politics and political agendas here in the Agora.  So don’t expect me to participate in any such discussions in the future.
My lack of rebuttal shall not indicate my implicit agreement.
Let those of you who are without sin be the first to throw stones.

Spoilsport!!! ;D

When I was in high school one of the inane and meaningless cheers we used was:

"Lean to the left, lean to the right, stand up sit down, fight, fight, fight."

Most of us from that high school in that era, would now be said by our lefty brothers and sisters to lean to the right….. including me.

SR

[quote author=StoutRex link=board=omni;num=1107212706;start=0#6 date=02/01/05 at 16:58:21]Spoilsport!!! ;D

Well, I’m also not any good at it.  I can see valid points from either side (at least, when the person is speaking reasonably).

I also feel the need to clarify that, in true indecisiveness, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to discuss these issues here in the Agora, even though it’s technically a language forum.  After all, you can’t discuss language sans culture, and you can’t discuss culture sans politics.

But I’m going to try, at least.

-Tim

   Depending upon your point of view (Right - Center - Left), radical Moslems (Muslims) may be called "Islamo-Fascists, Islamic Fundamentalists or Jihadists".

  One has to be careful about the analogies between Islamic Fundamentalism and modern Fascism and Totalitarianism, though. I agree more with the people who say that Islam today is at the same point in history that Christianity was at the time of the Pilgrims and Puritans. Presently,  there is a lot of religious zeal and orthodoxy but eventually this will taper off and there will be much more moderation.

  Also Tim wrote: "I also feel the need to clarify that, in true indecisiveness, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to discuss these issues here in the Agora, even though it’s technically a language forum."

  I would like to comment that on the one hand this is a language forum, however, when you get right down to it language can be related to almost everything one way or the other  because man is by nature a verbalist and every topic under the sun has its own vocabulary and terminology. For example,  we can’t discuss Islam or the Middle East very much without using some Arabic and Persian  words (Jahalia - "The Age of Ignorance"; Sharia - "Islamic Law, that controls and orders all areas of Islamic life"); we can’t talk about law, medicine or botany without using a lot of Latin and Greek; Many of our musical terms come from Italian and French; Castro’s rise to power in Cuba belongs partly to history but partly to linguistics too because he lived in a society colored by the Spanish language: Refrescos de todas clases; Cuba Sí, Yanqui No; ¡ABAJO BATISTA! (along with a little Spanglish - los gángsters ) and he thought, wrote and spoke in Spanish.

Great post, Tim!  Your moderation (and modesty of style) always takes me by surprize!

Hey, SR, I’m with you!  I think that we must remember the "right" just means "right of center" and not leaning towards fascism!  I think you would all see that when I assume the presidency, permanently!  

Whereas "left" is just a different story, a sad story!

And, yes, Katy it is strange how these political movements rise out of obscurity, calling on the dark side of humanity to forget their frustrated ideals and surrender to guiltfree subsumption of inhuman political ideology!

Brian, wow!  I agree!  I think that there is truly a difference
between "Islamo-terrorist" and "Islamo-fascist."  

I think that there could be something called "Islamo-caliphatist" which, being a branch of "Islamo-fascism," might not deserve the name "Islamo-terrorism."

Something like a strongly executive-leaning constitutional monarchy!

And weren’t the caliphs, at least at first, voted for, by some council or something! (the Companions)

I remember Ali, Abu Bakr, Omar and there was someone else! (Uthman!)

Abu Bakr -  

After some discussion among the Companions of the Prophet who had assembled in order to select a leader, it became apparent that no one was better suited for this responsibility than Abu Bakr.

This must be the Sunni version!

I guess if I were Moslem, I would be a Shiite!

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_Abu_Talib]Ali proved himself to be a wise, knowledgable, brave and faithful, and, according to Shi’a Islam, before Muhammad died he had appointed him publicly to be his successor as a command from Allah, and this nomination happened at Gadeer Ghum when Muhammad and lots of Muslims had finished the performance of Hajj (Pilgrimage). However, the first caliph was Abu Bakr, and Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Califat.

Abu Bakr was followed by Umar and Uthman. It was not until 656, after the murder of Uthman, that Ali assumed the title of caliph.[/url]

I remember from my Sufi Studies that "Abu Bakr sees the Other world very clearly," that "Omar sees this world very clearly," but that "Ali sees both this world and the other world with equal clarity, as Abu Bakr does the other and as Omar does this one."

Something like that!  I can’t remember what it said about Uthman, perhaps nothing and that is why I forgot him.

Sitran

    Sitran,

    I feel most comfortable just calling all of them "Islamic fundamentalists" or "Moslem (Muslim) extremists". However, the talk show hosts like to call them "Islamo-Fascists" while the people on PBS and CNN refer to them as "Jihadists" which is what the Al-Qaeda members consider themselves to be.  

   It all kind of started in 1978 and 1979 as the Shah’s regime in Iran began to crumble. President Richard Nixon had felt that it was worth it for America to help keep the Shah in power there even though he knew that American liberals and lefties were against it (My sister and her college friends were among them). I still remember film footage of Nixon riding with the Shah in an open limousine during a trip to Tehran in 1972.

  Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger began to have some doubts about supporting the Shah’s regime in the aftermath of the Vietnam War where American military aid was unable to save a far-away ally.
 
  Jimmy Carter apparently did not want to support the Shah although I think he was hoping that the moderate revolutionaries lead by Bani Sadr would prevail in the new Iran - but they didn’t. Bani Sadr fled to France and with the Ayatolluh Khomeini (1900 - 1989) in power, Islamic radicals everywhere, even in Soviet Chechniya and Central Asia, now had a friend.  ;)

I think that "Jihadists" does too much to legitimize their actions.  And "Islamic fundamentalists" is way too board a term, subsumming alot of non-terrorist believers (although Shari’a laws can be very harsh, depending on local customs).

"Islamo-fascists" sounds too Westernized.  "Moslem extremists" sounds too easy-going.

I prefer "Islamo-terrorists."  It is plain as day, pushing to the forefront the violent, unjustified nature of the actions of these groups that I object to.

I don’t really care as much if Muslims are "extreme" or "fundamentalist," although I am against the harsh punishments that Shari’a can dish out.   I do care if they are terrorists.

Sitran

Paul Berman’s Terror and Liberalism is a good read for you Sitran.  It talks about Islamic fundamentalism and the Left.

Have fun or grudges,
Flam

Thanks, Flam!

I found his essay on the subject here!

I’ll have time to finish it later!

Sitran