Islam the religion, versus Islamism, the totalitarian political movement
"Islam" is a religion. "Islamism" is a word that is being used by some authors, to describe the fascist POLITICAL movement that is growing and organizing in and around the religion of Islam. Fascists know they cannot persuade through argument or debate, so they resort to violence and intimidation. It's been done before by the Nazis, and it's now happening again, under the guise of a religion.
David Warren has an excellent essay, titled "Oncoming", in which he talks about the growing movement of Islamism, and how the path it is following is the same as many fascist movments before it, most notably the Nazis. Unfortunately, the insufficiant responce by the rest of the world is also a path that has been followed before. Some excepts:
This will be my 11th consecutive column, directly or indirectly on the “Danish cartoons” issue. The cartoons themselves were a red herring from the start -- a fake issue, trumped up by fanatical Muslims seeking grievances to abet a confrontation, and thereby extract concessions from the West. It is a fire, still being stoked around the world by radical “Islamists”, using shameless lies and misrepresentations...
...It is only in retrospect that we understand what happened as the 1930s progressed -- when a spineless political class, eager at any price to preserve a peace that was no longer available, performed endless demeaning acts of appeasement to the Nazis; while the Nazis created additional grievances to extract more.
This is precisely what is happening now, as we are confronted by the Islamist fanatics, whose views and demands are already being parroted by fearful “mainstream” Muslim politicians. We will do anything to preserve a peace that ceased to exist on 9/11. Not one of our prominent politicians dares even to name the enemy...
(bold emphasis mine) He ends the essay with a segment of a speech given recently in Berlin by a young woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born politician in the Netherlands. It's a warning, that we all need to heed.
You can read rest of the article HERE.
Two other articles I've found interesting today:
Iraqi People Continue to Disappoint the Pessimists
By Jack Kelley. An excerpt:
...Both Sunni and Shia religious leaders have called for calm. The Moqtada al Sadr, whose militia was in the forefront of the retaliatory attacks on Sunni mosques, prayed publicly Saturday with the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars. Thousands of ordinary Sunnis and Shias joined together in half a dozen Iraqi cities to demonstrate for peace.
"We have much more evidence of a strong national unity movement in Iraq," said Iraqi Web logger Haider Ajina of the weekend demonstrations. "This attack was supposed to plunge Iraq into sectarian mayhem and senseless massive killing. This did not happen."
These peaceful demonstrations for peace drew little attention from a news media that is eager to report on a civil war, even if it isn't happening.
"Nearly every Iraq story is inaccurate," wrote Ben Connable, a Marine major stationed in Fallujah, in an email to a friend. "The numbers are inflated, the damage exaggerated, the estimates are misleading, and the predictions are based on pure conjecture, often by people far removed from the problem."
"The Iraqi military and police forces have held together and they are doing their jobs," Maj. Connable said. "In 2004, the Iraqi military and police all but collapsed. The fact that Shia soldiers who make up the vast majority of the troops have stayed at their posts, held back the Shia militiamen, and prevented an increase in violence is remarkable. This should be one of the feature stories on the nightly news, but it barely received mention." ...
(bold emphasis mine) You can read the whole article HERE.
Just because you're Islamophobic
. . . doesn't mean you're wrong
By Kathleen Parker. Some excerpts:
...Other justifications for the sale appear to be reasonable -- not least that Dubai Ports World is reputedly competent at managing ports -- and might be convincing if only someone bearing the title President of the United States would articulate those reasons in a spirit of respect rather than as a dismissive parent managing an impudent child.
We're at war, remember? We're fighting terror...
...When 19 men of Middle Eastern descent hijack airplanes and murder thousands on U.S. soil, reasonable, fair-minded people are not going to pretend not to notice that the perpetrators are all Middle Eastern men of a certain complexion. That's not racist, though it may be racially aware. It's not Islamophobic, though a little phobia isn't always inappropriate. I'm cautious around snakes even though many are non-poisonous.
The Bush administration could have defused much of the controversy now swirling had officials clearly explained the practical (business) value of allowing the sale to go through, as well as the larger purpose of demonstrating open-minded goodwill toward allies. Instead, as is too often the case, Bush effectively said, "Trust us. We're in charge; we're on top of this; we'll take care of it." ...
I think Ms. Parker has understood this perfectly. This whole ports deal doesn't sound good to me on the face of it, but I WOULD be willing to hear explainations in support of it. People want the facts, and there is no reason they should not have them.
Ronald Reagan was called "the Great Communicator". George W. Bush is not described that way, for good reason. It's an area he really needs to work on. Too often he fails to realize that he needs to explain. And even in the war effort, he needs to keep the reasons and issues about why we are there, front and center in the publics mind. He certainly can't rely on the Media to do that for him.
You can read the whole of Kathleen's article HERE.
Hat tip to Nealz Nuze for the links.
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the photo of the Pakistani school children.