Great post. I don't much like the word Islamism, because unless one is familiar with the definition, it sounds harmless, or like something that could be comparable to Semitism, or Zionism.
I prefer the word Islamofascism, because it is clearly evil.
That being said, while I think your comparison of our current war to the war against Communism is rather accurate, I also think that it is a bit misleading as well.
Why?
Because I think the ideology of Islamofascism has permeated Islamic world much more than the ideology of Communism ever permeated the territories dominated by the Soviet Union. In other words, I believe there was much more unexpressed opposition to Communism than there is unexpressed opposition to Islamofascism.
Truth is, Islamofascism can be simply defined as a brand of Islam which believes in two things which the West will never tolerate;
1) the personal responsibility of the individual Muslim to wage violent Jihad against the Infidels and Jews
2) that Sharia must be established as the law and constitution of nations around the world.
I'm pretty sure you would agree with me that these two ideas constitute most of what we mean when we use the word Islamofascism. Now, the question is, what percentage of Muslims believe in these two ideas?
My guess is the answer is between 10-75% depending upon the country.
That means there are an awful lot of Islamofascists.
Friday, July 07, 2006 9:56:00 pm
Anonymous said...
serfer62
What ever Bust thought his comment meant it did reinforce the Left's versiono fth eis war. Thatit's not a war at all but a police action that shpuld be fought and tried in the courts.
Bush's sloppy semantics (war on terroe and the use of the word justice) has only given ammunition to the anti-war movemnet. It also helped the Supreme Court cut Bush off at the legs in prosecuting the jihadists.
The damage done by Bush's sloppy wordings are a contributing factor to the decisiveness and misunderstanding of who the enemy really is.
WC
Friday, July 07, 2006 11:31:00 pm
Anonymous said...
Pastorius
I think the differences between my comparison between Islamists and communists is one of quantity and location and not so much of quality. They are both 'isms' and have believers in those 'isms'.
I agree with your detail of what the Islamist believe in. But the communists also infiltrated the west and evenhad political parties that sought to impose the communist agenda.
Now here's a scary thought. The communist party couldnot get much political traction in the US. They did in Europe.
My prediction. An Islamic Party will arise in the West but unlike the communist party, have a good percentage of the voting population (Muslims) will vote in it's candidates - local, state and eventually national.
The lawful means tactic that Pipes writes about and I refer to in my post.
Yes, I agree. Recently, I've been contemplating your Churchillian metaphor of the Gathering Storm. I'm thinking we are in the midst of the gathering of a Perfect Storm.
As you noted, the Communists were successful in infiltrating the West, and the Islamofascists have been as well. The thing is, I believe we have already begun to see the coalescence of a Red/Black alliance which could give rise to Civil War in certain parts of the West.
I believe Fjordman has spoken of this idea, and I think he was inspired by noted blog commenter DP111.
What I have been thinking about is how there seem to be many rebellious elements all stirring themselves into a frenzy at the same time, but for a variety of reasons.
The MSM is coming to a head as it is being attacked more and more in the wake of Rather, the guy from CNN, the NYT treason, etc.
The Democrats are coming to a head because of their loss of ability to win elections which is the direct result of Soros-funded/Chomsky-inspired lunacy having taken over the Dem Party. This is resulting in a purging of the ranks, the latest result of which is Lieberman.
The Mexican Border issue is coming to a head as politicians on both sides have set themselves in opposition to the people of the US, whose resulting expressions of fury are angering Latinos, who are also being stirred up by racist organizations such as La Raza and MECHA, who are being supported by everyone from Bill Clinton to Karl Rove.
The EU issue is coming to a head as the unelected bureucrats behind the EU are trying to force a revote on the EU Constitution without having amended the Charter at all.
Add to this the flareups of Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Tonga, Nigeria, Somalia, Bosnia etc., plus the Cartoon Jihad, continuing Muslim rioting in Paris and pockets of Northern Europe.
The increasing anti-Semitism of the MSM in such countries as Britain, Sweden, Norway, Holland, and Belgium.
The simultaneous and seemingly coordinated dance of belligerance from Iran, Venezuela, and NoKo.
I see all these events oscillating in intensity, but gradually getting worse and worse. One of these days they could all come together to deal the West one hard blow.
Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:09:00 am
Anonymous said...
Pastorius
Excellent! You are so right. We may see before us something historic - a perfect storm of discontent, confusion, and radically opposing points of view that will come to a frightening head sooner rather than later.
Military conflicts, civil wars, cultural warfare on many fronts, confusion and discontent created by the opposing forms of media, political leaders and a general population that instead of making things happen, will wonder what happened?
I wonder how much is an actual expansion of terrorism verus more media attention.
Consider earlier attack; Twin Towers I, Lebannon barracks, TWA800, the African embassys, Air India etc etc. All of those were glossed over by Big Media during President Clinton's term.
Now anything at all gets headlines thus incouraging more agression.But is it more? Global terror attacks have dropped the past few years...
“If you can’t identify your enemy, how can you defeat him?”How many times have we heard that from the starboard side of the bloggesphere? And yet there is still much confusion not only by the average Joe but also from bloggers too. Even President Bush has made two grave mistakes with his regrettable mislabeling of this global war between civilizations as a weapon and tactic (the War on Terror) and his repeated statements of how we must “bring to justice’ the ground troops of our enemy. I cringe every time I hear Bush say that we must bring the terrorists to justice which feeds right into the hands of the Left and anti-war crowd who see this world war as simply a police action that must be addressed in the courts and which had led to the recent Supreme Court decision that Bush did not have the lawful authority to hold military Tribunals.We are in this muddied mess because we don’t have the proper definitions and semantic tools to understand who our enemy is.Though better bloggers than myself have tired endlessly to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims to the threat of the enemy confronting us, we throw words around like, terrorists, jihadists, Muslims, Islam, etc, without an attempt at organizing our thinking about this war and perhaps even help those that are leading it on our side to better understand exactly who the enemy is so we can confront and defeat it.Militant Islam is waging a global war to dominate the world. That most people agree on. But who is the face of militant Islam? Is every Muslim out to kill or subjugate non-Muslims? Or do they just want to practice their religion in peace as the claim. If we are not at war with over billion Muslims worldwide, then who is the enemy?Here’s what I feel should be the semantic tools we should use in understanding who that enemy is and thus be able to identify them and mount a proper defense and offense. I’ll use a recent ideological battle we have waged as an example because our enemy, like every enemy before, also wants to advance an ideology.The recent example is Communism. Like any ‘ism’, it’s and ideology. But the our enemy in the Cold War were not the Poles or the Hungarians or the Albanians or the Bulgarians or the Ukrainians or any other country or peoples who were part of the Eastern Communist Block. Not even the Russian people. The Cole War was a struggle against Communism.It’s the same for militant Islam, defined as an ideology of advancing the beliefs and doctrines of Islam and establishing them throughout the world. We are not at war with Muslims but with an ideology held by some Muslims. That ideology is Islamism. Those that believe in Islamism and seek to advance its agenda are called Islamists. Islamists come in two flavors – the violent kind (terrorists and jihadists) and the non-violent kind who seek to advance their agenda through the lawful means of intimidation, infiltration, and disinformation.If we are to fight and win this war that was thrust upon us, we need to identify that enemy and its comprehensive strategy that go far beyond that of terrorism. We need to come to agreement of the semantics of this war so that we can act as one voice with a comprehensive understanding of what we are confronting and have plans on how to confront it when appears.I’d like to hear other thought on t is matter and maybe some kind of semantic guide that we can use in opposition to the instructional guides that the EU, UN and western nations are using to try and ‘understand’ what they are confronting and how to confront it.
7 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment form"Justice" usede by President Bush doesn't mean throught the legal system, ie courts. But rather punishment by other means...
Friday, July 07, 2006 8:11:00 pm
WC,
Great post. I don't much like the word Islamism, because unless one is familiar with the definition, it sounds harmless, or like something that could be comparable to Semitism, or Zionism.
I prefer the word Islamofascism, because it is clearly evil.
That being said, while I think your comparison of our current war to the war against Communism is rather accurate, I also think that it is a bit misleading as well.
Why?
Because I think the ideology of Islamofascism has permeated Islamic world much more than the ideology of Communism ever permeated the territories dominated by the Soviet Union. In other words, I believe there was much more unexpressed opposition to Communism than there is unexpressed opposition to Islamofascism.
Truth is, Islamofascism can be simply defined as a brand of Islam which believes in two things which the West will never tolerate;
1) the personal responsibility of the individual Muslim to wage violent Jihad against the Infidels and Jews
2) that Sharia must be established as the law and constitution of nations around the world.
I'm pretty sure you would agree with me that these two ideas constitute most of what we mean when we use the word Islamofascism. Now, the question is, what percentage of Muslims believe in these two ideas?
My guess is the answer is between 10-75% depending upon the country.
That means there are an awful lot of Islamofascists.
Friday, July 07, 2006 9:56:00 pm
serfer62
What ever Bust thought his comment meant it did reinforce the Left's versiono fth eis war. Thatit's not a war at all but a police action that shpuld be fought and tried in the courts.
Bush's sloppy semantics (war on terroe and the use of the word justice) has only given ammunition to the anti-war movemnet. It also helped the Supreme Court cut Bush off at the legs in prosecuting the jihadists.
The damage done by Bush's sloppy wordings are a contributing factor to the decisiveness and misunderstanding of who the enemy really is.
WC
Friday, July 07, 2006 11:31:00 pm
Pastorius
I think the differences between my comparison between Islamists and communists is one of quantity and location and not so much of quality. They are both 'isms' and have believers in those 'isms'.
I agree with your detail of what the Islamist believe in. But the communists also infiltrated the west and evenhad political parties that sought to impose the communist agenda.
Now here's a scary thought. The communist party couldnot get much political traction in the US. They did in Europe.
My prediction. An Islamic Party will arise in the West but unlike the communist party, have a good percentage of the voting population (Muslims) will vote in it's candidates - local, state and eventually national.
The lawful means tactic that Pipes writes about and I refer to in my post.
Friday, July 07, 2006 11:38:00 pm
Yes, I agree. Recently, I've been contemplating your Churchillian metaphor of the Gathering Storm. I'm thinking we are in the midst of the gathering of a Perfect Storm.
As you noted, the Communists were successful in infiltrating the West, and the Islamofascists have been as well. The thing is, I believe we have already begun to see the coalescence of a Red/Black alliance which could give rise to Civil War in certain parts of the West.
I believe Fjordman has spoken of this idea, and I think he was inspired by noted blog commenter DP111.
What I have been thinking about is how there seem to be many rebellious elements all stirring themselves into a frenzy at the same time, but for a variety of reasons.
The MSM is coming to a head as it is being attacked more and more in the wake of Rather, the guy from CNN, the NYT treason, etc.
The Democrats are coming to a head because of their loss of ability to win elections which is the direct result of Soros-funded/Chomsky-inspired lunacy having taken over the Dem Party. This is resulting in a purging of the ranks, the latest result of which is Lieberman.
The Mexican Border issue is coming to a head as politicians on both sides have set themselves in opposition to the people of the US, whose resulting expressions of fury are angering Latinos, who are also being stirred up by racist organizations such as La Raza and MECHA, who are being supported by everyone from Bill Clinton to Karl Rove.
The EU issue is coming to a head as the unelected bureucrats behind the EU are trying to force a revote on the EU Constitution without having amended the Charter at all.
Add to this the flareups of Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Tonga, Nigeria, Somalia, Bosnia etc., plus the Cartoon Jihad, continuing Muslim rioting in Paris and pockets of Northern Europe.
The increasing anti-Semitism of the MSM in such countries as Britain, Sweden, Norway, Holland, and Belgium.
The simultaneous and seemingly coordinated dance of belligerance from Iran, Venezuela, and NoKo.
I see all these events oscillating in intensity, but gradually getting worse and worse. One of these days they could all come together to deal the West one hard blow.
Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:09:00 am
Pastorius
Excellent! You are so right. We may see before us something historic - a perfect storm of discontent, confusion, and radically opposing points of view that will come to a frightening head sooner rather than later.
Military conflicts, civil wars, cultural warfare on many fronts, confusion and discontent created by the opposing forms of media, political leaders and a general population that instead of making things happen, will wonder what happened?
Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:55:00 am
I wonder how much is an actual expansion of terrorism verus more media attention.
Consider earlier attack; Twin Towers I, Lebannon barracks, TWA800, the African embassys, Air India etc etc. All of those were glossed over by Big Media during President Clinton's term.
Now anything at all gets headlines thus incouraging more agression.But is it more? Global terror attacks have dropped the past few years...
Saturday, July 08, 2006 2:15:00 am