How Can a President Tell the Truth About Radical Islam?

 

640px-EnterpriseTripoliFrom a weekly column by Rev. George Rutler:

Exactly 229 years ago this month, when the Barbary pirates were menacing ships of the newborn United States off the coasts of Tunis and Algiers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met in London with a Muslim diplomat representing the Bey of Algiers to inquire why his religion made his people so hostile to a new country that posed them no threat. They reported to Congress through a letter to John Jay, then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the ambassador’s explanation that:

“Islam was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”

….[I]f God is pure will without reason, whose mercy is gratuitous and has nothing to do with any sort of moral covenant with the human race, then irrational force in his name is licit, and conscience has no role in faith. This is not the eccentric interpretation of extremists; it is the logical conclusion of the assertions in the Koran itself.

May we grant that Fr. Rutler is onto something here, namely that: a) “Irrational force,” as he calls it, is indeed consonant with the underlying Islamic worldview; and that, b) Muslims have been visiting violence upon the West for a very long time, as demonstrated by the depredations of the Barbary pirates (not to mention the conquest of Byzantium and Spain and the various attempts to invade Europe proper).

Grant all that, and you still end up with a difficult question about just what American diplomats and high officials — above all, of course, the president — should say. How is President Obama — how is his successor — to tell the truth about radical Islam without inciting civilizational anger on the part of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims? How?

Image Credit: “EnterpriseTripoli” by William Bainbridge Hoff (died 1903) – http://www.archives.gov/research/military/navy-ships/sailing-ships.html. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 112 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Tom Meyer Contributor
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Peter Robinson:Grant all that, and you still end up with a difficult question about just what American diplomats and high officials — above all, of course, the president — should say. How is President Obama — how is his successor — to tell the truth about radical Islam without inciting civilizational anger on the part of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims? How?

    One possibility might be to use the word ‘Jihad’ more often. The problem isn’t precisely Islam itself — there are benign forms of it — but that type of Islam that sees a moral duty in preying on the United States, its citizens, and its allies.

    • #1
  2. OkieSailor Member
    OkieSailor
    @OkieSailor

    Reagan was excoriated for using the term “Evil Empire” to describe the Soviet Union. But he knew that to defeat an enemy one had to understand it. To understand one had to honestly apprise and describe it. Those who practise Jihad against any and all who disagree with them (including other Muslims!) are evil. Until we get leadership that is willing and able to acknowledge this we will flounder around trying to “contain” the threat instead of defeating it IMNSHO.

    • #2
  3. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Personally, I’d cite the relevant texts from the Koran that call for this barbarism, and follow those citations up with two salient positions of the West:

    1)  We believe in the absolute right of people to exercise sovereignty over matters of personal faith.

    2)  We also believe in the absolute right of self defense, so that if any of these people attempt to inflict their murderous theology on us, we will destroy them.

    • #3
  4. Ball Diamond Ball Inactive
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Be forthright, and not dance and clown around the issue.

    Obama dares not be truthful for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that when Americans are treated like adults, they vote for people like Reagan, and when they are treated like children, they vote for people like Obama.

    People respond to incentives.

    • #4
  5. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    I’ve given this very topic much thought.

    The answer lies in the term “Islamo-fascist” and that is how the President should describe them.

    It is the fascist who we oppose, not the Islamist.

    It is easy to explain that we take issue with the “fascist” part, which is a political, not a religious term.

    We take no issue with anyone, anywhere, being Muslim.   However, when a group of Muslims wants to impose a political system to conquer others and impose a fascist political system, which is what their sharia based, misogynistic political system is, then we and others will oppose them.

    Find us a group of Christo-fascists, Judeo-fascists or secular fascists and we will oppose them too.  Civilized people across the globe have always opposed brutal, fascist political regimes.

    Islamo-fascist” keeps the focus on the political issue and away from the religious conflation problem.

    • #5
  6. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    The United States Navy won the battle pictured in the illustration.  The battle, fought between USS Enterprise (commanded by Lt. Andrew Sterett, not Captain James T. Kirk) and the Tripolian waship Tripoli, is known as the Action of 1 August 1801. When they were done, the Americans cut down the masts and pitched the cannons of the Barbary warship over the side, and then let the ship go.

    Why? Congress had authorized the navy to protect United States shipping, but not to make prizes of national warships. (The Barbary ship belonged to the navy of Tripoli, and approached Enterprise believing it to be a merchantman.)

    As can be seen, Congress and the Presidency setting foolish and over-limiting rules of engagement has a long history in U.S. warfare.

    Seawriter

    • #6
  7. Ball Diamond Ball Inactive
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Tommy De Seno:I’ve given this very topic much thought.

    The answer lies in the term “Islamo-fascist” and that is how the President should describe them.

    It is the fascist who we oppose, not the Islamist.

    It is easy to explain that we take issue with the “fascist” part, which is a political, not a religious term.

    We take no issue with anyone, anywhere, being Muslim. However, when a group of Muslims wants to impose a political system to conquer others and impose a fascist political system, which is what their sharia based, misogynistic political system is, then we and others will oppose them.

    Find us a group of Christo-fascists, Judeo-fascists or secular fascists and we will oppose them too. Civilized people across the globe have always opposed brutal, fascist political regimes.

    Islamo-fascist” keeps the focus on the political issue and away from the religious conflation problem.

    Neat-o.  Tried that.  Word games do not matter.  Those who wish to kill us (that’s the Jihadis) are not impressed by your cleverness.  Those who are indifferent to our survival (that’s the Alinskyites) never noticed it in the first place.

    • #7
  8. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Tommy De Seno:I’ve given this very topic much thought.

    The answer lies in the term “Islamo-fascist” and that is how the President should describe them.

    It is the fascist who we oppose, not the Islamist.

    It is easy to explain that we take issue with the “fascist” part, which is a political, not a religious term.

    We take no issue with anyone, anywhere, being Muslim. However, when a group of Muslims wants to impose a political system to conquer others and impose a fascist political system, which is what their sharia based, misogynistic political system is, then we and others will oppose them.

    Find us a group of Christo-fascists, Judeo-fascists or secular fascists and we will oppose them too. Civilized people across the globe have always opposed brutal, fascist political regimes.

    Islamo-fascist” keeps the focus on the political issue and away from the religious conflation problem.

    Neat-o. Tried that. Word games do not matter. Those who wish to kill us (that’s the Jihadis) are not impressed by your cleverness. Those who are indifferent to our survival (that’s the Alinskyites) never noticed it in the first place.

    Peter asked for words of persuasion.  Kind of a cheap shot that you are accusing me of “word games” don’t you think?

    • #8
  9. Ball Diamond Ball Inactive
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Tommy De Seno:

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Tommy De Seno:I’ve given this very topic much thought.

    The answer lies in the term “Islamo-fascist” and that is how the President should describe them.

    It is the fascist who we oppose, not the Islamist.

    It is easy to explain that we take issue with the “fascist” part, which is a political, not a religious term.

    We take no issue with anyone, anywhere, being Muslim. However, when a group of Muslims wants to impose a political system to conquer others and impose a fascist political system, which is what their sharia based, misogynistic political system is, then we and others will oppose them.

    Find us a group of Christo-fascists, Judeo-fascists or secular fascists and we will oppose them too. Civilized people across the globe have always opposed brutal, fascist political regimes.

    Islamo-fascist” keeps the focus on the political issue and away from the religious conflation problem.

    Neat-o. Tried that. Word games do not matter. Those who wish to kill us (that’s the Jihadis) are not impressed by your cleverness. Those who are indifferent to our survival (that’s the Alinskyites) never noticed it in the first place.

    Peter asked for words of persuasion. Kind of a cheap shot that you are accusing me of “word games” don’t you think?

    It’s not personal.  As I said, we tried this, and it was a good idea.   back when words mattered, or so we thought, and when facts mattered, or so we thought.  It simply doesn’t matter.  Peter asked for an approach, not a word that’s supposed to somehow reset the conversation.  Ooh, there’s another one.

    You are correct in all of your reasoning, except that this has no effect.  The only thing that matters anymore is power and the will to use it, and we can argue about that until they kill us all.

    • #9
  10. Ricochet Moderator
    Ricochet
    @OldBathos

    I was reminded of this question while listening to an interview with Kareem Abdul Jabbar (who I watched play in high school when he was still Lew Alcindor) in which he argued that that the guys from ISIS are not real Muslims. I wish the questioner had probed: The ISIS monsters quote the Koran to justify what they do; Mohammed himself ordered the use of force against non-beleivers so why aren’t they the real Muslims and nice people like you the heretical aberration? Tell us exactly how we know who the real Muslims are? What is the criteria?

    I also think it is time to assert our own American standard principle: It is now and and was ever unjust and unacceptable to impose or proscribe religious belief by threat of violence. Muslims who can explain how they manage to reconcile their religious heritage with that principle (and I think many have) are not our enemy. Acceptance of the American standard ought to be a core requisite of friendship with the United States and an instrument of clarity unlike the fluffy “religion of peace” boilerplate which sounds increasingly inapposite if not stupid.

    • #10
  11. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    It matters what the President does.

    Sometimes it’s his job not to say what that is.

    • #11
  12. Ball Diamond Ball Inactive
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Zafar:It matters what the President does.

    Sometimes it’s his job not to say what that is.

    True.  And not the point.  That’s true of the suicide bomber as well.

    • #12
  13. Raw Prawn Member
    Raw Prawn
    @RawPrawn

    Tommy De Seno:I’ve given this very topic much thought.

    The answer lies in the term “Islamo-fascist” and that is how the President should describe them.

    It is the fascist who we oppose, not the Islamist.

    It is easy to explain that we take issue with the “fascist” part, which is a political, not a religious term.

    We take no issue with anyone, anywhere, being Muslim. However, when a group of Muslims wants to impose a political system to conquer others and impose a fascist political system, which is what their sharia based, misogynistic political system is, then we and others will oppose them.

    Find us a group of Christo-fascists, Judeo-fascists or secular fascists and we will oppose them too. Civilized people across the globe have always opposed brutal, fascist political regimes.

    Islamo-fascist” keeps the focus on the political issue and away from the religious conflation problem.

    Is it official then? Fascist just means anything bad and when the word is used no further discussion is welcome. Just like racist.

    • #13
  14. Ball Diamond Ball Inactive
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Raw Prawn:

    Just what we needed.  More prawn.

    • #14
  15. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Tommy De Seno:I’ve given this very topic much thought.

    The answer lies in the term “Islamo-fascist” and that is how the President should describe them.

    It is the fascist who we oppose, not the Islamist.

    It is easy to explain that we take issue with the “fascist” part, which is a political, not a religious term.

    We take no issue with anyone, anywhere, being Muslim. However, when a group of Muslims wants to impose a political system to conquer others and impose a fascist political system, which is what their sharia based, misogynistic political system is, then we and others will oppose them.

    Find us a group of Christo-fascists, Judeo-fascists or secular fascists and we will oppose them too. Civilized people across the globe have always opposed brutal, fascist political regimes.

    Islamo-fascist” keeps the focus on the political issue and away from the religious conflation problem.

    Neat-o. Tried that. Word games do not matter. Those who wish to kill us (that’s the Jihadis) are not impressed by your cleverness. Those who are indifferent to our survival (that’s the Alinskyites) never noticed it in the first place.

    Peter asked for words of persuasion. Kind of a cheap shot that you are accusing me of “word games” don’t you think?

    It’s not personal. As I said, we tried this, and it was a good idea. back when words mattered, or so we thought, and when facts mattered, or so we thought. It simply doesn’t matter. Peter asked for an approach, not a word that’s supposed to somehow reset the conversation. Ooh, there’s another one.

    You are correct in all of your reasoning, except that this has no effect. The only thing that matters anymore is power and the will to use it, and we can argue about that until they kill us all.

    If Peter asked what actions the President should take you’d get an entirely different response from me, because that’s a different subject.  Here was Peter’s request of us, and the emphasis on “say” is his:

    “Grant all that, and you still end up with a difficult question about just what American diplomats and high officials — above all, of course, the president — should say. How is President Obama — how is his successor — to tell the truth about radical Islam without inciting civilizational anger on the part of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims? How?”

    What Peter is looking for is the most honest way to address that this problem IS MUSLIM in its genesis but without lining up all 1.6 billion Muslims against us.

    The President refuses the Muslim attachment.  My answer gives that and also carves out the bad guys from the good guys in a political sense.

    • #15
  16. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    That quote from Jefferson and Adams sounds good, but I can’t find a decent source for it.

    “Page 2 of about 14 results (0.48 seconds)”

    I wonder if it’s apocryphal?  The only non-web link on that query is to a book that was written in 2010, which cites, as the source for that quote, a 2009 Comcast forum post that has since been deleted (forum was discontinued)….

    OK, that’s quote’s not exactly right.  Here’s the original—with the sentence before for context:

    “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of their pretension to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed, that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

    “The Ambassador answered us, that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”

    The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America …, Volume 2, United States. Dept of State, 1822.

    Yeah, giving people the benefit of the doubt was a bad policy then, too…

    • #16
  17. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    “How is President Obama — how is his successor — to tell the truth about radical Islam without inciting civilizational anger on the part of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims? How?”

    He’s not.  Most Muslims are not willing to go die for Islam, or they would be doing so.  But “Civilizational anger” is the defining trait of Islam’s relation to the rest of the world, that’s why they refer to the rest of the world as the Dar al-Harb:

    “Territory of war. Denotes the territories bordering on dar al-Islam (territory of Islam), whose leaders are called upon to convert to Islam. Refers to territory that does not have a treaty of nonaggression or peace with Muslims; those that do are called dar al-ahd or dar al-sulh. Jurists trace the concept to Muhammad , whose messages to the Persian, Abyssinian, and Byzantine emperors demanded that they choose between conversion and war. When the leaders of dar al-harb accept Islam, the territory becomes part of dar al-Islam, where Islamic law prevails; conversely, according to the majority of jurists an Islamic territory taken by non-Muslims becomes dar al-harb when Islamic law is replaced….”

    (Like good conservatives, ISIS is going by these old understandings.)

    So it’s not possible to speak truthfully about radical Islam without pointing out that “radical” Islam is, in fact, fundamental Islam.

    • #17
  18. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    When it comes to defending ourselves, we don’t need to navigate Islamic theology to justify our self-defense. If the Koran says that they can kill infidels, that’s their problem, not ours – and we don’t need to give them an answer based on their Koran. Why do we have to explain to muslims, or “persuade” them, that they’re not allowed to kill us? Why do we need their agreement to respect our lives?

    It would be great if we could persuade muslims, and we should certainly try, but not to the degree that we abandon our own legitimate right to self-defense. Obama doesn’t want to aggravate muslims and provoke them. Fine. But that doesn’t mean that when they provoke us, it’s up to us to swallow all provocations.

    It astounds me that Obama doesn’t want to insult Iran by calling these people Islamists, for fear of upsetting them … meanwhile, Iran stages a wargame where the target is a US aircraft carrier. If “insults” are such a bad thing, why does Obama blithely ignore the insults to us?

    • #18
  19. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Peter Robinson: How Can a President Tell the Truth About Radical Islam?

    Step one: Stop lying about radical Islam! No more of the “religion of peace” garbage. No more of the islamofacists are misinterpreting Islam garbage. That kind of pandering does not earn respect.

    Step two: Stop other stupidity! No more of the “most of their victims are Muslims” garbage. That only legitimizes the Jihad against Christians and Jews.

    Step three: Stop backstabbing those forces in the Muslim world that are opposing islamofacism. Perhaps actually support them even if it involves standing by and watching lots of bad guys be lined up against a wall and shot. That’s better than the alternative.

    Step four: Get those forces to tell the truth for you. Now they are reluctant because they are afraid that if they tell the truth they will only be backstabbed more. They often cover themselves by perpetrating their own Jihadi propaganda. If they are confident in our support, they may be more willing to stick their necks out (especially if we pressure them).

    • #19
  20. Pilli Inactive
    Pilli
    @Pilli

    In the 620’s, Muhammad fled Mecca with a few hundred followers to Yathrib (now Medina).  He was about to be killed for preaching against the status quo in Mecca.  In Medina, he preached that all were welcome regardless of religion.  He gained power there and fought a battle with a force from Mecca slaughtering them.  He was going to raid one of their trade caravans, they heard about it and sent fighters instead.  Didn’t work out so well for Mecca.

    Muhammad’s power rose.  He came up with a rule that ALL worshipers had to face Mecca while praying.  So much for the “all are equal” idea.  Power and all that.  This didn’t sit well with the Jewish tribes there.  They complained and grumbled. Muhammad got the idea they were plotting against him with Mecca.  They may have been.  It is unknown.  He expelled two of the Jewish tribes from Medina.  The other tribe that was there began to distrust Muhammad.  He began to distrust them.  This wasn’t going to end well.  Mecca again attacked Medina.  Mecca lost but Muhammad thought the Jews were helping Mecca, so he slaughtered them.  It wasn’t so much that they were Jews as that they had been helping his enemies (to his way of thinking anyway.)

    The pronouncements made by Muhammad at the time have been used as justification for holy wars and the hatred of Jews ever since.

    Yes, this is simplistic.  It’s like saying our Civil War was about slavery and States Rights.  There is a lot more but these are the basics.

    • #20
  21. Ball Diamond Ball Inactive
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Tommy De Seno:

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Tommy De Seno:I’ve given this very topic much thought.

    The answer lies in the term “Islamo-fascist” and that is how the President should describe them.

    It is the fascist who we oppose, not the Islamist.

    It is easy to explain that we take issue with the “fascist” part, which is a political, not a religious term.

    We take no issue with anyone, anywhere, being Muslim. However, when a group of Muslims wants to impose a political system to conquer others and impose a fascist political system, which is what their sharia based, misogynistic political system is, then we and others will oppose them.

    Find us a group of Christo-fascists, Judeo-fascists or secular fascists and we will oppose them too. Civilized people across the globe have always opposed brutal, fascist political regimes.

    Islamo-fascist” keeps the focus on the political issue and away from the religious conflation problem.

    Neat-o. Tried that. Word games do not matter. Those who wish to kill us (that’s the Jihadis) are not impressed by your cleverness. Those who are indifferent to our survival (that’s the Alinskyites) never noticed it in the first place.

    Peter asked for words of persuasion. Kind of a cheap shot that you are accusing me of “word games” don’t you think?

    It’s not personal. As I said, we tried this, and it was a good idea. back when words mattered, or so we thought, and when facts mattered, or so we thought. It simply doesn’t matter. Peter asked for an approach, not a word that’s supposed to somehow reset the conversation. Ooh, there’s another one.

    You are correct in all of your reasoning, except that this has no effect. The only thing that matters anymore is power and the will to use it, and we can argue about that until they kill us all.

    If Peter asked what actions the President should take you’d get an entirely different response from me, because that’s a different subject. Here was Peter’s request of us, and the emphasis on “say” is his:

    “Grant all that, and you still end up with a difficult question about just what American diplomats and high officials — above all, of course, the president — should say. How is President Obama — how is his successor — to tell the truth about radical Islam without inciting civilizational anger on the part of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims? How?”

    What Peter is looking for is the most honest way to address that this problem IS MUSLIM in its genesis but without lining up all 1.6 billion Muslims against us.

    The President refuses the Muslim attachment. My answer gives that and also carves out the bad guys from the good guys in a political sense.

    Then what happened?

    “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.”

    Please spare me hair-splitting over the difference between Islamo-fascist and Islamic Fascists.  Bush used both terms, and the professional liars at CAIR were not impressed.

    This is just belling the cat.  Where and how are the good guys and the bad guys carved out, separated?  My heart is with you, truly.  But I am done with ridiculous pawing at bombs.

    • #21
  22. user_645 Editor
    user_645
    @Claire

    Tuck:

    So it’s not possible to speak truthfully about radical Islam without pointing out that “radical” Islam is, in fact, fundamental Islam.

    Why not say just that? A term like “fundamentalist Islam” seems entirely serviceable. As would “Islamic fundamentalists.”

    • #22
  23. Ball Diamond Ball Inactive
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    What the President (well *a* President) should say is:

    “There exists in the Muslim world a terrible evil which eats at their society and eats at ours.  It tears apart their lives and it tears apart ours.  It threatens them and it threatens us.  Bad governance and perhaps just plain bad timing have left the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims, who want to raise their kids just like we do, without any effective means of addressing this growing curse.”
    “As this threat grows, so must we become increasingly dedicated to wiping out the murderous ideology wherever we find it.  This will not be an easy war, a short war, or a linear war.  We will defeat them at one place only to be surprised by them in another.  The whole world is the battlefield in a war that we did not choose.  Let that sink in if it’s the first time you;re hearing it stated so bluntly.”
    “I not only have a duty to defend the people of my country, but the privilege of serving at a time when the freedom of billions around the globe hangs in the balance.  It may see a small thing that a cartoonist in the Netherlands cannot draw what he wants, or that a blogger in Iran cannot speak as he wishes, or that not one person in Israel may sleep without fear of rockets blasting their children to bits, but these are not small things.  How much larger does it have to get, before a moral duty to stand up to this intimidation becomes the key consideration?”
    “It’s plenty bad now.  It’s far beyond any acceptable, background-level version of the problem.  We do not have a choice about going to war.  We only have a choice whether to win or lose, and based on any metric you’d like to consider, we are losing.”

    “That ends today.  The vast majority of Muslims want nothing more to live in peace, and we look forward to their assistance wherever we can get it.  I understand, however, that the vast majority are not in a position to resist.  They are already terrified of resisting the awful tide for fear of what will happen to their families.  Those in their midst who insist that the entire world must be subjugated are a menace to the majority of Muslims and to us.”

    “We have suffered enough wounds, and we are coming for those would-be conquerors.”

    Anyway, that’s a once-through draft, and I’m tired.  What we don’t need to do is try to convince our enemies that we are right.  They don’t care what we say.   That’s asking for permission to live, which will not be granted, but they will be highly amused by the effort.

    • #23
  24. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Raw Prawn:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Islamo-fascist” keeps the focus on the political issue and away from the religious conflation problem.

    Is it official then? Fascist just means anything bad and when the word is used no further discussion is welcome. Just like racist.

    I’m not sure why you think an ISIS government is not a fascist one.  Economic production is controlled by the state and their focus is not on classes within their own nation, rather a form of religious racism that puts them in conflict with other nations not like themselves.

    If not fascist, what are you calling that?

    • #24
  25. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    How is President Obama — how is his successor — to tell the truth about radical Islam without inciting civilizational anger on the part of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims? How?

    Your question proceeds from a false premise.  Islamic terrorists are waging war on Western civilization.  That our necessary response–and accurate description of these terrorists–is against these terrorists and not against Islam doesn’t alter the fact that this is a civilizational war by these terrorists against us.  There’s civilizational anger by us against these terrorists.  Whether we anger them with our response to the terrorists acting in their name is their problem, not ours.  Playing PC nonsense games about how to style these terrorists is an unnecessary, and overtly counterproductive, distraction.

    Your question, then, should be How is…to tell the truth about radical Islam?  Full stop.

    When we talk about our necessary response, we’re not talking to these terrorists, or to Islam (whose leadership is breathtakingly silent,  beyond a couple of anecdotes that get trotted out on occasion, about these terrorists acting in their name), we’re talking to our own people and to our allies and friends.  Blunt talk, shorn of euphemism and PC claptrap, increases clarity rather than decreases it.

    Kind of a cheap shot that you are accusing me of “word games” don’t you think?

    Not at all, since all you’re doing with your PC stuff is playing word games.  Who’s being persuaded?  Not the Islamic terrorists; they aren’t even our audience.  Not to mention that, Alinsky-esque, you’ve changed the question: Peter asked how to tell the truth, not how to persuade.

    You also said,

    My answer gives that and also carves out the bad guys from the good guys in a political sense.

    No, this just alters the meaning of fascism, as already pointed out.  Islamic terrorists also carves out the bad guys from the good guys; that’s how adjectives and other English grammar modifiers work–they modify and carve out.  In the present case, not just in a political sense, either: in a moral sense, too.

    No more of the “most of their victims are Muslims” garbage.

    Indeed.  Stipulate arguendo that most of these terrorists’ victims are fellow Muslims.  It’s irrelevant: we’re talking about the terrorists’ killing of us.

    Eric Hines

    • #25
  26. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Economic production is controlled by the state

    It’s not government-controlled capitalism, it’s not corporate government–and that’s what fascism is.  The NAZI state controlled economic production, too.  So did Soviet Communism.  So does the People’s Republic of China’s version of communism.

    If not fascist, what are you calling that?

    Why do I need to call it anything?  The Mafia had similar controls within their families.  It’s not necessary to identify Daesh’s organizational system as a government; only to understand the terrorists’ means of control–just like it is with al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Nusra, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, et al., in order to more efficiently destroy these terrorists.

    Eric Hines

    • #26
  27. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Please spare me hair-splitting over the difference between Islamo-fascist and Islamic Fascists.

    I spared the hell out of you because I made no such distinction.

    This is just belling the cat. Where and how are the good guys and the bad guys carved out, separated?

    By the fascist part – the political part.

    My heart is with you, truly. But I am done with ridiculous pawing at bombs.

    Then go kill them all indiscriminately.  What do you want from me.

    • #27
  28. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Peter Robinson:Exactly 229 years ago this month, when the Barbary pirates were menacing ships of the newborn United States off the coasts of Tunis and Algiers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met in London with a Muslim diplomat representing the Bey of Algiers to inquire why his religion made his people so hostile to a new country that posed them no threat. They reported to Congress through a letter to John Jay, then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the ambassador’s explanation that:

    “Islam was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”

    And yet, even kn0wing this, when he received the ambassador of the Bey of Tunis at the White House during Ramadan in 1805, he showed diplomatic respect by scheduling the official dinner for sundown instead of the usual hour of 3:30 pm., in deference to the ambassador’s obligation to a religion which Jefferson knew commanded the murder of infidels.

    http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/inbrief/2011/07/20110729153019kram0.3508199.html

    • #28
  29. Ball Diamond Ball Inactive
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Tommy De Seno:

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Please spare me hair-splitting over the difference between Islamo-fascist and Islamic Fascists.

    I spared the hell out of you because I made no such distinction.

    This is just belling the cat. Where and how are the good guys and the bad guys carved out, separated?

    By the fascist part – the political part.

    My heart is with you, truly. But I am done with ridiculous pawing at bombs.

    Then go kill them all indiscriminately. What do you want from me.

    Well, that’s all the drama I’m going to need this evening.  Night, all.

    • #29
  30. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Eric Hines:Economic production is controlled by the state

    It’s not government-controlled capitalism, it’s not corporate government–and that’s what fascism is. The NAZI state controlled economic production, too. So did Soviet Communism. So does the People’s Republic of China’s version of communism.

    Under ISIS’ adopted system government controlled production and distribution to the masses is exactly what they have.  Are you sourced otherwise?

    What separates them from socialist/communist regimes is their not focusing on class rather a religious ethnicity, so to speak.  This puts them far more in Mussolini’s camp than elsewhere.

    If not fascist, what are you calling that?

    Why do I need to call it anything? The Mafia had similar controls within their families. It’s not necessary to identify Daesh’s organizational system as a government; only to understand the terrorists’ means of control–just like it is with al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Nusra, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, et al., in order to more efficiently destroy these terrorists.

    I have no idea what your personal needs are.  I find myself in an Internet discussion, the purpose of which as I understand it is finding words to properly identify this enemy.  It seems a reasonable expectation that someone might take at stab at properly identifying them.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.