Bush’s language angers US Muslims
By Richard Allen Greene
BBC News, Washington

In the days after the horror of the 11 September attacks, President George W Bush made a point of saying Muslims per se were not America's enemy.
But in the five years since then, he has taken less care to emphasise that message, US Muslim leaders are saying.
They are upset about his use of terms like "Islamic fascists", which he used this week both for Hezbollah and the suspected bomb plotters held in the UK.
"It offends the vast majority of moderate Muslims," Ahmed Younis said.
"The use of the term casts a shadow upon Islam and bolsters the argument that there is a clash of civilisations between Islam and the West," Mr Younis, the national director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (Mpac), told the BBC.
He said it was wrong to link the actions of violent Muslims to their religion.
"There is nothing Islamic about their fascism. The Prophet [Muhammad] and the Koran clearly articulate that this type of activity is outside of bounds for Muslims."

Regular refrain
Mr Bush used the term on at least two separate occasions this week.
On Monday, during a press conference from his ranch in Texas, he said terrorists "try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call ... Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism".
A moment later, he said "Islamo-fascism" was an "ideology that is real and profound".
Then, on Thursday after the arrest in Britain of two dozen people suspected of plotting of bomb planes travelling to the US, he said "Islamic fascists... will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom".
That day, the Council on American-Islamic Relations wrote to him to complain.
Its chairman Parvez Ahmed condemned his "use of ill-defined hot-button terms", which, he said, "feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam".
The council had not had a reply from the White House as of Friday afternoon, its legal director Arsalan Iftikhar told the BBC.
Neither the White House nor the State Department responded to BBC requests for clarification of the term.
Mr Younis of Mpac said he believed the president's use of the term was "a mistake" and that Mr Bush's speechwriters would drop it in the future.
He added that the idea that "there is a school of thought called Islamic fascism is a misnomer".

'Different breed'
Security expert Daniel Benjamin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies agreed that the term was meaningless.
"There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term," he said.
"This is an epithet, a way of arousing strong emotion and tarnishing one's opponent, but it doesn't tell us anything about the content of their beliefs.
"The people who are trying to kill us, Sunni jihadist terrorists, are a very, very different breed."
Zanab Chami, a Muslim community activist in Dearborn, Michigan - home to one of the largest Arab communities in the US - said the administration had seized upon a new term to frighten people.
"I think the word terrorism has lost its edge. They are looking for something with a little more oomph."
And she is afraid that such language does have an effect on how Americans view Muslims.
"In the post-9/11 era, people are apt to fear Islam. These terms get thrown around so easily and it builds upon a foundation of fear that has already been instilled."
In fact, a Gallup poll released the day of the arrests in Britain showed that two out of five Americans admit to feeling prejudice against Muslims.
In Washington, Mr Younis said the president's linking of Islam with fascism would alienate "moderate Muslims who are needed at the front line of any effort to counter terrorism or extremism by Muslims".
But in Michigan, Ms Chami said it was already too late to worry about indelicate phrases.
"Members of the Muslim community here do not believe in the administration. They rightfully discount much of what President Bush says. People have closed their ears to him."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4785065.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4785065.stm)

While most Muslims may not be our enemies, and I doubt if even this statement is true, most of our enemies are Muslims.

The use of terms like Islamo-Fascists, Muslim extremists, etc. are valid and true since the people perpetrating the terrorist acts happen to be Muslim. It is not just a few who are Muslim. It is not even most who are Muslim. It is all of them who are Muslim. Every single one, without exception has been a Muslim. To hide or ignore the fact is simply not an option. As I said above, not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims. (Please don't bring up Oklahoma. That was a single man committing an act of domestic terrorism, not an international terrorists group.)

So long as our enemies continue to be Muslims they should be identified as such whether certain segments of the population take offense or not.

As I said above, not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims.

Wow.

Unbelievable.

I'm talking about international terrorists with which the United States is involved. I am not talking about homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and the Tamil Tigers.

While most Muslims may not be our enemies, and I doubt if even this statement is true, most of our enemies are Muslims.

The use of terms like Islamo-Fascists, Muslim extremists, etc. are valid and true since the people perpetrating the terrorist acts happen to be Muslim. It is not just a few who are Muslim. It is not even most who are Muslim. It is all of them who are Muslim. Every single one, without exception has been a Muslim. To hide or ignore the fact is simply not an option. As I said above, not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims. (Please don't bring up Oklahoma. That was a single man committing an act of domestic terrorism, not an international terrorists group.)

So long as our enemies continue to be Muslims they should be identified as such whether certain segments of the population take offense or not.


really?

funy how bush can sling words, with the backing of Congress all because he garners , and fosters the fear mode since his first election. abortion, prayer in school, immigration, post 9/11 "terrorism", etc.. and he and Congress are treasonous bastards that need to be brought to trial.

I'm talking about international terrorists with which the United States is involved. I am not talking about homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and the Tamil Tigers. I know you only have 2 feet but is it possible to shove a third in your mouth as well?

frogger, you're wrong.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html

As I said above, not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims.

Unbelievable.

I'm talking about international terrorists with which the United States is involved.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/12/19512/2441

After 9/11, Robert Pape analyzed every known case of suicide terrorism worldwide from 1980 to early 2004: 315 campaigns and 462 individuals.

Are they all Arabs? All Muslims? From large movements or small groups? What are their goals? How large a part does religion play? What do the targets have in common?

<snip>

Evidence of the broad nature of Hizbollah's resistance to Israeli occupation can be seen in the identity of its suicide attackers. Hizbollah conducted a broad campaign of suicide bombings against American, French and Israeli targets from 1982 to 1986. Altogether, these attacks, which included the infamous bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, involved 41 suicide terrorists.

Of the 41 terrorists, (Robert Pape's analysis) identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. We were shocked to find that only eight were Islamic fundamentalists; 27 were from leftist political groups such as the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union; three were Christians, including a female secondary school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

What these suicide attackers - and their heirs today - shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation.

From George Orwell's essay What is Fascism?

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

Bush’s language angers US Muslims
By Richard Allen Greene
BBC News, Washington


Garbage, bilge, crap. Should've been laughed away by ANY thinking person on the planet.

MUSLIMS are OFFENDED when Bush says things like, let me look here, "Islamic Fascists?" Well God-damn, I'm offended by the fact that these "ISLAMIC FASCISTS" are out blowing up embassies, blowing up ships, blowing up airliners, flying airplanes into building, preaching Jihad against the West, beheading people on TV, launching rockets into civilian areas and shooting aid workers whose only want in life was to give less fortunate Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere basic things like food. I'm offended by the fact that idiots like this Ahmed Younis, who aren't condemning these kind of attacks that are being carried out by Islamic Fascists, but will go out of the way to whine about Bush calling Islamic Fascists Islamic Fascists. Screw them. Start condemning these ISLAMIC FASCISTS for what they're doing and I'll consider giving them the time of day, dammit.

By ‘Fascism’ they (the people invoking that word) mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class.

EXACTLY!!!!!!

IOW, they are precisely describing the ideology of the extreme Rightwing faction that controls America and its system of government.

In the majority of chat rooms a Fascist is anyone who does not agree with the liberal philosophy.

Fascism is a radical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical) totalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian) political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism), authoritarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism), extreme nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism), militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism), anti-anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), anti-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) and anti-liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism).
The original fascist (fascismo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism)) movement ruled Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini). In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems, most notably Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) under Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) but also Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary)'s Arrow Cross Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_Cross_Party), Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)'s Iron Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Guard), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain)'s Falange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange) (Francisco franco), and the French political movements led by former socialists Marcel Déat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_D%C3%A9at) and Jacques Doriot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Doriot) and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)

I hope this clarifies a little Fascism (though I am sure everyone in the forum knows it very well), coloquial "Facho"... The fachos, like the formers dictators; Chilean "Pinochet", or Argentinian "Videla", Paraguay's Stroessner, etc.

Garbage, bilge, crap. Should've been laughed away by ANY thinking person on the planet.

MUSLIMS are OFFENDED when Bush says things like, let me look here, "Islamic Fascists?" Well God-damn, I'm offended by the fact that these "ISLAMIC FASCISTS" are out blowing up embassies, blowing up ships, blowing up airliners, flying airplanes into building, preaching Jihad against the West, beheading people on TV, launching rockets into civilian areas and shooting aid workers whose only want in life was to give less fortunate Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere basic things like food. I'm sure that most American Muslims are quite unhappy about it too.

I'm offended by the fact that idiots like this Ahmed Younis, who aren't condemning these kind of attacks that are being carried out by Islamic Fascists, but will go out of the way to whine about Bush calling Islamic Fascists Islamic Fascists. Screw them. Start condemning these ISLAMIC FASCISTS for what they're doing and I'll consider giving them the time of day, dammit.Many of them have, in fact, condemned these people. But it seems like you're not willing to listen.

Regardless, there's no reason that American Muslims should be expected to come out and condemn terrorists with whom they have no connection besides their religion. Other groups aren't expected to do so with the nutjobs who share their religion or nationality. Why are the rules different for American Muslims?

EXACTLY!!!!!!

IOW, they are precisely describing the ideology of the extreme Rightwing faction that controls America and its system of government.
Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

1. Many of them have, in fact, condemned these people. But it seems like you're not willing to listen.
2. Regardless, there's no reason that American Muslims should be expected to come out and condemn terrorists with whom they have no connection besides their religion. 1. Shouldn't it be all of them?
As demonstrated in England, Islamic fascists are of every nationality. If clerics and spokesmen publicly criticized these actions universally, those on the fence would be encouraged to follow the peaceful tenets of their religion.
For the fascists, silence is encouragement.

2. I agree that the few does not always represent the entire group. Remember that when someone uses the word "jews" when referring to Israel.

I'm sure that most American Muslims are quite unhappy about it too.

Whether or not they're unhappy about the activities of their Islamist "brothers", right now is a rather poor time to tell Bush to mind his language when you've got other Muslims out there causing mayhem, dammit.


Many of them have, in fact, condemned these people. But it seems like you're not willing to listen.

Regardless, there's no reason that American Muslims should be expected to come out and condemn terrorists with whom they have no connection besides their religion. Other groups aren't expected to do so with the nutjobs who share their religion or nationality. Why are the rules different for American Muslims?

First off, it wouldn't be a bad time right about now for some of those Muslims to go on record STATING that what is happening to the Muslim religion is a perversion of Islam, or something along those lines.

Secondly, silence on the part of Muslims can be interpreted as approval of sorts. I'd like a bit of clarification of where the Muslims stand.

I don't have a problem with someone who is Muslim, per se, but when you've got people telling Bush to not call terrorists "Islamic Fascists" because they're OFFENDED by WORDS, Jester, mere words at a time like this, with all that is going on, it's not only unbelievable, it's offensive.

Why don't they start telling the Islamists to not use terror tactics in the name of Islam? THAT should be offensive to Muslims.

1. Shouldn't it be all of them?
As demonstrated in England, Islamic fascists are of every nationality. If clerics and spokesmen publicly criticized these actions universally, those on the fence would be encouraged to follow the peaceful tenets of their religion.
For the fascists, silence is encouragement.Obviously there are some who do approve of what Islamic terrorists do, which is why this ideology continues to exist. However, it's safe to say that a majority don't approve of it, whether they publicly state it or not.

First off, it wouldn't be a bad time right about now for some of those Muslims to go on record STATING that what is happening to the Muslim religion is a perversion of Islam, or something along those lines. Seek and ye will find. Here are a few examples (http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html). With a little searching, you will likely find more. Even in the original article in this thread, that Ahmed Younis guy says, "There is nothing Islamic about their fascism. The Prophet [Muhammad] and the Koran clearly articulate that this type of activity is outside of bounds for Muslims." Why do you think he finds the term offensive in the first place?

Secondly, silence on the part of Muslims can be interpreted as approval of sorts. I'd like a bit of clarification of where the Muslims stand.That's precisely the problem. People of other groups aren't expected to come out and condemn the wrong-doers of their groups, and there's generally an understanding that they disapprove of it unless they indicate otherwise. But with Muslims it's the opposite. Unless they explicitly and publicly condemn Islamic terrorists, the assumption is that they approve of them. I personally think that's absurd.

I don't have a problem with someone who is Muslim, per se, but when you've got people telling Bush to not call terrorists "Islamic Fascists" because they're OFFENDED by WORDS, Jester, mere words at a time like this, with all that is going on, it's not only unbelievable, it's offensive.You're implying that words don't have power, something I'm sure you would disagree with yourself. And the term "Islamic fascism" is a misnomer anyway. The ideology has similarities with fascism, but is still a completely different animal.

The Muslim community has been conspicuous by its silence in condemnation of terrorism. The only time they seem to do it is when they are worried it will somehow have a negative effect on them.

If there was a group of Christians going around blowing people up in the name of Christ I would hope and expect the greater Christian community to rise up in indignation and condemnation. If there was a group of atheists going around blowing up churches and synagogues I would expect the atheist community to do the same.

Why is it unreasonable to expect the Muslim community to also rise up and condemn the terrorist? Why must their concern be with the President calling Islamic terrorists what they are rather than in calling the terrorists what they are?

However, it's safe to say that a majority don't approve of it, Yes, it's safe to say, but if I were the spokesmen, I'd be making sure that there was no mistake about how the majority of us felt.

Feeling something in silence and openly declaring it are two different things. When the Muslim community is silent on the topic of Muslim terrorism other than to decry the President's choice of words it makes people wonder whether they are secretly approving of the terrorists.

By ‘Fascism’ they (the people invoking that word) mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class.

IOW, they are precisely describing the ideology of the extreme Rightwing faction that controls America and its system of government.______Freethinker

Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

?!?!?

There is no hyperbole in pointing out that the uber-Conservative faction currently running the U.S. is cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class.

Their actions clearly demonstrate it.