Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

War on [Islamofascism] terror is real, and deserves concern

December 17, 2007

War on [Islamofascism] terror is real, and deserves concern

December 16, 2007 Editor, the Record:

Take notice, liberals (specifically the few John Edwards supporters out there).

A recent news headline reads: “Thousands in Sudan Call for British Teddy Bear Teacher’s Execution.” In summary, thousands of practitioners of Islam, the “religion of peace,” are calling for the death of an emigrant British teacher for nothing more than naming a teddy bear after Mohammed.

This type of irresponsible behavior may not come as a surprise to most sensible Americans, as they realize the threat of Islamofascism is very real, and if not dealt with, could result in another terrorist attack on our soil. But a key number of liberal politicians actively downplay this threat in an attempt to turn the citizens against the aggressive Bush administration.

Your opinion on the Iraq War is beside the point. Let’s both agree that the war on terror is very real, and not merely a “bumper sticker.”

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071216/NEWS04/712160323

Advertisements

Islamofascism: Why It Is Fascism and Why Hating It Isn’t Racist

December 9, 2007

Islamofascism: Why It Is Fascism and Why Hating It Isn’t RacistNicholas M. Guariglia
06 Dec 2007
This is getting a bit tedious, but for as long as there are those who decry antifascists as something they are not, there must be those who forcefully defend the spirit of antifascism. A few weeks ago, student groups across some 200 universities aligned with commentator David Horowitz, amongst others, to declare Islamofascism Awareness Week. Such “cause-awareness” charades –– global warming/cooling awareness, the danger of giant man-eating squirrels/how to save endangered giant man-eating squirrels, etc. –– where do-gooders sit around a table and discuss how they “feel,” usually leave me with a feeling of exasperation. But for this, I will concede: defending liberal Western munificence against foreign clericalism is no small gig.

This task, however, seems to begin with two fallacies leveled against the democratic resistance. The first untruth being that Islamist fanaticism is an aberration, not commonplace abroad; a political equal to its religious counterparts, not authoritarian; its followers simply misguided distorters of actual Islamic instruction, not the enforcers and heeders of literal Islamic text. The second lie, perpetrated by relativists and multicultural therapists, would be that challenging this despotism, in all its forms, is somehow indicative of racism; that hating a belief is the equivalent to hating a people. These two falsities should be confronted at the very start, and at their very core.

Let’s start with the latter, and, I propose, the indisputable: Islam is not a race. Even its harshest critics, if they limit their criticism to doctrine and to those only who follow it, are not to be labeled bigoted or racist. Religion is an idea, a belief system not immune from mockery or even detestation, and abhorrence for it is perfectly ethical (and legal, at least in this country). Succumbing to political correctness would have me now declaring impartiality for all the monotheisms, claiming an equality for each theology. I am all for equal-time ridicule, but not today.

So let me be clear. There is very little about the Islamic faith, in particular, that I find believable or inspirational. The given-at-birth compulsory submission to a deity –– as its translation boasts –– is not my bag. An illiterate businessman-turned-general talking to angels and going on fantastical night journeys across the sky, taking six-year-olds as his wife, invading and converting large portions of planet, insisting his word alone is the final and unalterable directive of the divine… None of this makes me want to humble myself, get on my knees, and bow my head. I look at the life of Muhammad –– the pedophilia, the megalomania, the conquests –– and see John Mark Karr with an army.

But my contempt for this theological arrogance does not render a hatred for, or suspicion of, Muslims as individuals or as a people; nor will it, nor should it. I have a fair amount of Muslim friends, some of them very good friends, and, in the mold of Dr. King’s litmus test, I judge them, like everyone else, based upon the content of their character –– not their genetic makeup. This is not racism anymore than disdain for Marxism is racism; anymore than abstract anticommunism undermines the concreteness of a beautiful Cuban girl, or the sincerity of a Russian acquaintance, for instance.

Those on campus who were wearing green to protest the original protesting of fascism should at least forfeit to irony: the green they don takes us back the “green shirts” of Haj Amin al Husseini, the Palestinian mufti and long time Hitler companion and proxy, as well as the Nazi-admiring Hassan al Banna, brown-shirt wannabe and founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The lack of study into the fascist origins of contemporary Middle Eastern movements is just another sad example of Western self-loathing and academic indifference, but thankfully we have colleagues like Ryan Mauro to shed some light for us.

How quickly we forget that Mussolini, for example, was admiringly called Musa Nili across the Arab world. Who remembers the Waffen SS hit-squads that armed the warriors of Grand Mufti Husseini –– plush with Third Reich subsidies –– to liquefy anti-Nazi citizens of the Baltic? Did your last professor point out that the predecessors of al Qaida –– who Hitler called his Gebirgsjäger Muslim killers –– slaughtered 100,000 innocents by 1943?

It continues: Nazi agent General Khairallah Tulfah would go on to raise and mentor his Tikriti village nephew, Saddam Hussein. Future Egyptian presidents Nasser and Sadat –– supposed secularists –– mingled with the Brotherhood, which in turn spawned Egyptian Islamic Jihad, cradle of al Qaida linchpin Dr. al Zawahiri. (Nasser would later rely on ex-Gestapo goon Joachim Daumling to craft his own secret police force.)
Hitler’s propagandist Johannes von Leers would flee postwar Germany, change his name to Omar Amin, and become a lead official in Egypt’s information ministry, just as Sami al Joundi of the Syrian Ba’ath would brag, “We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in Nazi literature… we were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kempf.” (Eichmann aide Alois Brunner would also assist the Assads in Damascus.)

I could go on, but must I really?

When defending the label of fascist, however, none of this fascist-entrenched history really matters. The premise of subservience to a celestial dominion and the coerced obedience to the earthly holy men who implement this dominion is enough: it’s Islamic and it’s fascistic. It is a creed that seeks to control what you think, say, hear, read, eat and drink; who you talk to, who you befriend, and who you hold hands with. This is the root basis of totalitarianism and it’s all in your God-given Qur’an. Societies, cultures, and peoples can most certainly change, but self-described infallible doctrine cannot. It was not designed to reform. Its divinity and irreversibility is the reason for its existence.

There used to be a proud secular tradition of liberal antifascism, but the veneer of multiculturalism and relativism has prodded such thinkers into a state of fear. Many are afraid to come across as intolerant of intolerance, lest they seem as if they are asserting political supremacy or cultural superiority. This is why Western operas have been canceled, why cartoons have been taken out of circulation, why movies have been taken off air, and why journalists and authors with prices on their heads are in hiding all across Europe –– all products of a free and wonderfully crude culture under threat from book-burning mullahs.
But there is good news. You do not have to oblige yourself into justifying deplorable atrocities in the name of “understanding.” You do not have to defend the apocalyptic Haghani Circle of Iran, or the Salafist lecturers in Pakistan, or the Wahhabi royal family. You do not have to applaud the “transparency” of the Iranian committee entitled the “Council for Spreading Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Thoughts.” When Hina Saleem’s father cuts her throat, buries her in the yard, and faces her head towards Mecca before rigamortis sets in –– for the sin of loving an Italian man –– and most of the Islamic organizations in Europe (from the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy to the Islamic Cultural Association in Brescia) defend the murderer, not the victim, you do not have to conscript yourself into appreciating or defending this insanity. You’re allowed to hate it.

Not all hate is improper. My hatred of the fascistic impulses of archaic shari’a law stems not from ignorance of “the other,” but from knowledge. The more I learn, the more that is revealed, the stiffer my backbone becomes and the more I come to despise. This hatred is fine, as its converse would be immoral indifference.

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1359

Technorati – ]

It’s The Left And The Islamo-Fascists, Not the Term ‘Islamofascism’ – That’s Soiling The Name Of Islam

November 11, 2007


http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/11/its_the_left_an.php

It’s The Left And The Islamo-Fascists, Not the Term ‘Islamofascism’ – That’s Soiling The Name Of Islam
Topics: Understanding Islam
Islamofascism Week is over, but not the controversy.

However, unless one has maintained a 24-hour existence in a remote cave somewhere in the hinderlands of some remote jungle, how can any rational human being deny the role Islam plays in 21st century terrorism? What is it about the Left that brings them to defend radical Islam and refuse to admit that it is indeed extreme fascism with an extreme propensity for terrorism and intolerance? What is it about the term “Islamofascism” that brings the Left to refuse to acknowledge it as representative of militant Islam? Is it the case, as Jamie Kirchick’s suspects (hat tip JPost.com), “that the Left’s aversion to the use of ‘Islamofascism’ has much to do with the simple fact that Islam is a non-Western religion, supposedly comprised of the wretched of the earth, and thus, a different standard must apply to its most fanatical adherents, whose real motivation must, at ‘root’ be a legitimate anti-imperialist impulse”?

Or is the Left simply off the reservation of reality – as usual?

As Petra Marquardt-Bigman points out at JPost.com, in the war of words, the front lines are drawn clearly enough: employing the term Islamofascism is just a “conservative smear tactic”, and as Jeff Jacoby once documented, for the truly dedicated practitioners of political correctness, no verbal contortion is too grotesque to avoid having “Islam” or “Muslim” appear anywhere near the word “terrorism”:

… it is by no means true that the resemblance between the fascist and totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century and Islamist extremism has been acknowledged only by conservative or right-wing writers. Indeed, several writers with impeccable leftist credentials have published books on the subject, most prominent among them perhaps Paul Berman’s Terror and Liberalism (2003). But as some of Berman’s critics have demonstrated, substance counts little in the sound and fury of political debate, and anybody who argues that Islamism has fascist or totalitarian traits will have to resign himself to be denounced as a neo-con Bush supporter, no matter how strongly he has stated different positions.In the current controversy about Islamofascism, Christopher Hitchens has once again explained why this term is an entirely valid one to describe contemporary jihadist ideology. Focusing on the often expressed criticism that any comparison between jihadism and fascism is ahistorical, Hitchens lists several striking similarities: “Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. […] Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined ‘humiliations’ and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia”. Moreover, Hitchens notes that calls to re-establish the caliphate are reminiscent of Hitler’s ambitions for a German “Reich” or Mussolini’s fantasies about reviving the Roman empire.

Hitchens concludes his list of comparisons arguing that it is “in some ways encouraging” that both fascism and jihadism have some sort of self-destructive “death wish” since “both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels”.

Indeed, this easily brings to mind the often fondly repeated assertion of Hamas politicians that they are “not seekers of office, but seekers of martyrdom”. But if history is any guide, the self-destruction of such movements tends to entail so much destruction for everybody else that there is hardly anything “encouraging” about it.

Like I’ve said, what is it about about the term Islamofascism that fails to describe radical Islamism?As Denis Prager notes in his piece today, Muslim student groups and other Muslim organizations joining with the left in the ad hominem condemnation of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week was most unfortunate. Many Muslims know well that there is indeed such a thing as Islamo-Fascism, and they should be the first to join in fighting it. It is not those who use the term “Islamo-Fascism” who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists.

And it is the Left that is helping the Islamofascists do the sullying ….

Related reading: If Not Islamofascism, What Name to Give?

Technorati –

The [far extreme] Left Tries to Quash Free Speech

October 24, 2007

The Left Tries to Quash Free Speech

October 23rd, 2007 by Warner Todd Huston

Once again, the fascist left tries to quash free speech on one of our oppressive University campuses. Here is a great report on it from some folks who banded together to record the event on video and photographs.

Nonie Darwish at Berkeley during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.

“Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” is a nationwide series of lectures and presentations organized by conservative writer David Horowitz and his various organizations. On the evening of October 22, dozens of famous speakers gave lectures at universities around the country, mostly on the subject of Islamic extremism. The presenter at U.C. Berkeley that evening was Nonie Darwish, an Arab-American author and feminist who has become a Muslim apostate and vociferous critic of radical Islam.

Her appearance at Cal was sponsored by the Berkeley College Republicans, and strongly opposed by several left-wing groups and Muslim organizations, including World Can’t Wait, the Muslim Students Association, and Students for Justice in Palestine. Her speech was even condemned by the ASUC, the official student governing body at Berkeley.

Please, please go to the site and view the hate spewed by the anti-American left infesting our schools.

The report was created by a coalition of folks trying to get out the word.

This report is an experiment in collaborative online journalism. The photos on this page were taken by seven different photographers, each working independently and unknown to one another, who submitted their pictures, videos and observations to a central editor, where they were compiled into a single report. The online nicknames of the seven “citizen journalists” are: bbuck, Chicken Kiev, Dan K., Luvpotion v.9.0, Marwan’s Daughter, neocon hippie, and Temmy. The central editor who created this report — and who did not actually attend the event itself — was me, zombie, the proprietor of this site. I edited the images and videos, and wrote the captions and introduction; the citizen journalists took the photos and videos, and provided first-hand observations and notes, which are the basis of this report.


Technorati –