PDA

View Full Version : Islamo fascism: A lie that you shouldn't buy




light4planet
12-25-2007, 01:08 PM
There has been a lot of talk about "Islamo Fascism" especially by neo-cons. Neo-cons would like you to believe that America is under grave threat because of Islamic radicals wanting to take over the world and convert Christians as Muslims in the West. They would like you to believe that there is a clash of civilizations going on. On one front there is the civilized West and on the other there is this evil monstrous Islamic fascism. That is why you taxpayers should continue to support the war in Iraq. Billions of Americans dollars and thousands of American lives are worth the cause. Guess what? THEY ARE DEAD WRONG. The word "Islamic Fascism" is a manufactured concept by neo-cons to justify the war and broader goal of military intervention.

Let’s understand whether Islamo Fascism really exists in the first place.
First things first, Jihad means struggle not war. In fact, there is no permission given to Muslims to attack others except when their own existence is under threat. It is proven from the following verses:


And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it. 8:61
Do not fight wars of aggression. 2:190


Muslims are not allowed to kill others just because they are Christians or Jews. As it is stated in Koran:

Whoever kills a human being, it is as if he had killed all mankind. Whoever saves life of one, it is as if he had saved the life of all. 5:32

Suicide is strictly prohibited in Islam and the suicide bombing was actually invented by Sri Lanka's Tamil terrorist and used the technique to deadly effect. It was later adopted by Palestinian terrorists against Israel not because it is Islamic (which it is not) but because it was effective and caused maximum damage. History proves that people have indulged in terrorism whenever in conflict with others. Why did USA drop bombs on Japan? The intention was to terrorize Japanese so much that they would give up their occupation drive along the Pacific and South East Asia. Why did allied forces carry out blanket bombing on Berlin? The intention was to terrorize German Nazis so much so that they can give up. One can say that the difference is that the Muslims are carrying out terrorism in the name of Islam. Again, the argument is unfair. The violence that occurs in this world has always occurred for political and economic reasons. But more often than not, it is disguised into other reasons such as religion, democracy, human rights to gain more support from common people and planting lies along the way.

The notion that Muslims are carrying out terrorism purely because of Islam is false and ludicrous. 15 out of 19 terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. It is the same country where criticizing the government is illegal and you cannot publicly express any political opinion. Guess what? The government of Saudi Arabia, often very heavy-handed against political dissidents, enjoys very close relationship with Washington DC. It is also Saudi Arabia (“holy land” considered by all Muslims) where there are thousands of US troops and have been there well before 9/11. Other terrorists on 9/11 were from Egypt. It is yet another country ruled by a brutal dictator aided and supported by the US government. It is very difficult to swallow that the US is in the Middle East for bringing peace and democracy. On the contrary, it is very easy to realize that the US presence in the Middle East is part of the global US Empire with an ultimate objective to secure strategic natural resources which in this case is oil. Henry Kissinger once said in 1970s “Oil is too important to be left to Arabs”. This has resulted into some serious consequences. America is very unpopular in the Middle East and quite frankly most of the people there hate America. Extremists, who otherwise are very weak with no real message, successfully convince some young Muslims to join terrorist ranks and commit atrocities. Their propaganda material is rich enough to brainwash people to commit suicide. They make the young Muslims believe that the US and other allies are in the Middle East only because they want to eliminate Muslims in their own lands. They give examples like the blind support of US to Saudi, Egyptian, and Israel governments and the treatment of detainees in Abu Gareb and Guantanamo and the widespread presence of the US army and navy in the Gulf.

I asked one of my friends few months ago that why it seems to me that all terrorist are Muslims though all Muslims are not terrorists. He replied, "if Muslim armies were in Europe protecting their economic interests or oil wells, all terrorists would have been Christians though all Christians wouldn't have been terrorists."

I truly believe that terrorism can never be justified and the killing of innocents is always a crime regardless of the reasons. These are criminal acts whether the reasons given are self-defense, religion, or promotion of democracy. Believe me, most of the wars and much of the violence and terrorism have occurred and will occur because of politics and mostly because of economics.

Just like Muslim terrorists use the propaganda that "Christians are attacking Muslim lands and install governments in our countries" to drive young Muslim to the path of terrorism. Neo-conservative Christians use the propaganda that Muslims will attack US because they want to kill us regardless therefore we need to be on offence against radical Islamic terrorists.

Finally to prove that this entire issue is more to do with politics and economics rather than religion or clash of civilizations, consider these facts:

Democratically-elected Mosadeq of Iran was overthrown by CIA because Mosadeq threw BP out of Iran and nationalized oil resources. This brought US-puppet Shah into power. Islamists took advantage and convinced Iranians that the only way to defend themselves and national interests was by bringing in "Islamic revolution".
US and the West support and encourage Saddam so that they can use him against Iran. Iran is now controlled by Islamists which meant no control over Iran's oil wealth by the US. The control that US lost with the overthrowing of US-installed Shah.

With support from US and the West, Saddam gets bold and attacks Iran.
To remain in power, Saddam commits crimes in Jubail and kills thousands of Kurds, Shias and even Sunnis. US turns blind eye because Saddam is fighting the US's war against Iran.

US continues its support to Bin Laden and funds Madrasas with millions of dollars where young Muslims are trained with religious propaganda so that they can fight against Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

US state department repeats numerous times "US has no defense treaty with Kuwait" just before Kuwait got occupied by Iraq. This was a signal to Saddam that US would not intervene militarily if Kuwait got attacked. After all US had nothing, when Saddam killed thousands of Kurds by dropping chemical gas on them. Saddam had also used Western-supplied chemical weapons against Iran. The US government gave all the indications that it would not intervene militarily if Saddam attacks Kuwait even they publicly kept saying that Saddam should not cross the border. Had Saddam knew that there would be comprehensive military response; he would have never attacked Kuwait. By the way he attacked Kuwait because he had gone bankrupt due to western-supported 8 year war with Iran. He thought Kuwait had 250 billion dollars in reserves as oil wealth. Attacking Kuwait would provide a quick fix solution to his economic problems and he was also angry with Kuwait because their recent surplus brought the oil prices to one of the lowest which cost Saddam much-needed billions of dollars.

However when Saddam did indeed attack Kuwait, US started taking actions within six hours. There was a massive campaign by the Bush administration and did everything to make Iraq’s neighbors and other allies believe that Saddam was on the march towards occupying the Gulf including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, and so on. The US government even produced forged satellite maps to show that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers have gathered on Saudi border to invade the Kingdom. The maps were never made public and hence they never got independently verified. As a consequence to the pressure and smart tactics, US convinced lots of countries including many Arab countries to join the US-led alliance against the “fascist” Saddam. A grand coalition of allied forces was formed ready to defeat Saddam (who was literally bankrupt with a battered defense and not even having the capability to bring down a single plane). The allied forces finally waged the war against Saddam and did indeed liberate Kuwait. This war, interestingly however, provided wonderful opportunity for US to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. All are oil-rich countries. Later on, War in Afghanistan after 9/11 allowed US troops to be in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan is an extremely resourceful country in terms of gas and oil. It is also important to note that the current government in Uzbekistan is also dictatorial and has indulged into grave human rights violations including the killing of hundreds of innocent villagers few years ago. This happened after US established a strong military base in Uzbekistan and US as you can rightly guess did not utter a single word. Tony Blair's ambassador to Uzbekistan did try to criticize Uzbek government only to be silenced by his prime minister.

Let me get back to Saddam issue now. After Saddam was thrown out of Kuwait, US and Britain created a strategy called no-fly zone and UN inspections in Iraq. This provided an easy justification for continuation of military presence in the Middle East. Due to embargo, more than 600000 Iraqi children died of malnutrition. When asked about it, Medaline Albright in 1994 said "It was worth it". Due to government pressure and lobbying, Medaline's quote was successfully censored on ABC News. While embargo and no-fly zone allowed continued military presence in the Middle East, Washington Insiders in the US started to realize that embargo was making it impossible to control Iraq's oil wells. Lifting it would have meant easing off military pressure and hence less justification for military presence which actually is meant for controlling oil resources in the Middle East. In mid 90s, a plan was drawn to go inside Iraq, overthrow Saddam and take control of Iraq's rich oil resources. This would also create military pressure on another oil rich country Iran. When this strategy got finalized and got strength, Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 was introduced which was signed by Bill Clinton. This act made it obligatory for the US government to seek to end Saddam's power in Baghdad by all means. It is to be noted that it happened well before 9/11.

It is needless to say that war in Iraq is all about oil and politics and nothing to do with democracy and very little to do with Islam or terrorism.

I also want to touch upon the notion that some people in the West have about democracy in the Muslim countries. They believe that Muslims tend to elect radicals if they are given a democratic option to choose their government. Examples are Hamas being elected by Palestinians or Ahmedinnajad by Iranians. Again, this notion is not true. Islamic radicals have won elections through democratic processes when secularists and reformists failed miserably. Secularists and reformists were almost always given the first chance by Muslims. Benazir Bhutto, a woman, won twice in Muslim Pakistan. PLO, a secular Palestinian outfit, won overwhelmingly when Palestinians went to vote for the first time. Secular Muslims have always won elections in Malaysia and Indonesia and so is the case with Turkey, and Bangladesh. In fact, Muslim Bangladesh has seen two women Prime Ministers monopolizing politics for the last 15 years. Before current Iranian president, Iran elected two reformist and relatively moderate Presidents consecutively. Even if we take examples of Hamas and Ahmedinnajad, we will easily find out that Hamas won on the platform of corruption eradication while Ahmedinnajad won on the poverty reduction and economic prosperity platform. By the way, Ahmedinnajad lost heavily in recent municipal elections. This proves that radical overtures don't work in Muslim countries even in those which fall in the Bush's "Axis of Evil" territory.

Before I conclude, I want to clarify that all problems in the Middle East are not because of US. But many of the problems are indeed created by the US in particular and the West in general for economic and political reasons. To somehow suggest that 9/11 happened because Muslim terrorists hate American freedom and American women is insane. America now a days is less free than it was 100 years ago and Islam has been here for centuries. Look at the propaganda of terrorists. They always use occupation and blind support of US to puppet and brutal Arab governments and Israel. They never say in their propaganda that we got to attack US because they are free. They know that it doesn't sell and they wouldn't be able to recruit even a single terrorist.

It should be easy to understand that many problems in the Muslim world, surely not all, are caused due to foreign intervention and hypocrisy. As I look at the entire pack of Republicans and Democrats, no candidate seems to understand the real facts and knows how to solve this mess except one man. That one man we need not just for America but for the world because he is honest and sincere. He doesn’t lie and he doesn’t spin. His impeccable record and rock-solid principles should be the descriptions of words like honesty and sincerely in dictionaries. That man is my hero and that man is my inspiration. That man is the 44th President of United States. That man is no other than RON PAUL.

Vote for Ron Paul and change this world for a better tomorrow.

Thanks You

Enzo
12-25-2007, 02:08 PM
The term "Islamo Fascism" is just another FOX News/Whitehouse invented talking point. Just like when they attempted to replace suicide bombings with "Homicide Bombings"

The Commies are no longer a threat.... so they need to create Islamo Fascism as the new scare tactic/enemy.

apc3161
12-27-2007, 08:41 AM
Did you write this yourself? If so good job.

Matt Collins
12-27-2007, 09:35 AM
It is INDEED a real threat to the US.... but why? "BECAUSE WE ARE OVER THERE" !!!

DaneKirk
12-27-2007, 09:42 AM
The term "Islamo Fascism" is just another FOX News/Whitehouse invented talking point. Just like when they attempted to replace suicide bombings with "Homicide Bombings"

The Commies are no longer a threat.... so they need to create Islamo Fascism as the new scare tactic/enemy.

Dismissing the threat that some Islamists are dangerous is just as dumb as believing everything the government feeds you. It is not all a scare tactic, wake up.

dougkeenan
12-27-2007, 09:47 AM
BBC's "Power of Nightmares"

Liberty Star
12-27-2007, 03:43 PM
The term was coined by neocons to deflect attention from actual causes of why they fight us and to justify perpetual wars wherever they want.

It is quite ironic that they are supporting Islamic radicals regime in Iraq right now. As was the case few years back in Afghanistan when they funded and armed Islamic Jihadis. There may have not been any Talibans, Osama and big mess in that region had it not been for Afghanistan destabalization couple of decades ago and the long Jihad between US/Saudi/Pakistan supported Mujahideens and Russians and millions of orphans that that war created. Those orphans later became a crop for Talibans and other radical militant groups.
Who knows what will come out of Iraq after all this destruction and bloodshed there. We should hold neocons accountable for their support for policies of perpetual wars and occupations.

Kingfisher
12-27-2007, 03:52 PM
I'm much more concerned with American Fascism

RK Cowan
12-28-2007, 11:14 PM
There are Muslim fanatics, just like there are Christian and Jewish fanatics, but they're not "fascists" by definition. Its a neocon fiction, like most of what we've been getting from them.

If they U.S. and its allies back off, so will they. There is a long history of U.S. intervention in that region and its created a great deal of understandable bitterness. Religion is what they turned to as a movement to deal with this intervention. If it wasn't that, it would be something else to rally around (for most of the rest of the world, that would have been Communism). When the intervention ends, so will the hostility.

liberTim
12-29-2007, 04:06 AM
It exists and is a real threat, but it is also exaggerated in some ways for political purposes, and misrepresented and downplayed as well.

I second watching BBC's "The Power of Nightmares."

The site www.jihadwatch.org is labelled by some as an Islamophobic hate site - but for those with a genuine interest in understanding the nature of the threat I recommend checking out the site. You may have to hold your nose with some of the comments, and posts (ignore Hugh Fitzgerald) - but Robert Spencer himself is an academic and makes honest arguments although he arrives at some uncomfortable truths. The site as a whole is strongly anti-Iraq war but sees the threat as much more than a tiny minority of extremists who have hijacked a religion of peace.

The biggest uncomfortable truth is that while there are moderate muslims, the extremist/terrorist version is the one that is truest to their religious texts and history therefore the chances of an Islamic reformation or of a moderate, tolerant, peaceful version of Islam coming to dominate the Islamic world through democracy is slim.

RK Cowan
12-29-2007, 11:35 AM
It exists and is a real threat, but it is also exaggerated in some ways for political purposes, and misrepresented and downplayed as well.

I second watching BBC's "The Power of Nightmares."

The site www.jihadwatch.org is labelled by some as an Islamophobic hate site - but for those with a genuine interest in understanding the nature of the threat I recommend checking out the site. You may have to hold your nose with some of the comments, and posts (ignore Hugh Fitzgerald) - but Robert Spencer himself is an academic and makes honest arguments although he arrives at some uncomfortable truths. The site as a whole is strongly anti-Iraq war but sees the threat as much more than a tiny minority of extremists who have hijacked a religion of peace.

The biggest uncomfortable truth is that while there are moderate muslims, the extremist/terrorist version is the one that is truest to their religious texts and history therefore the chances of an Islamic reformation or of a moderate, tolerant, peaceful version of Islam coming to dominate the Islamic world through democracy is slim.

Every read the Christian Bible? Specifically the Old Testament. I don't recall many Christians stoning anyone to death lately. You might have some hard core Islamic fanatics that won't budge into the "modern world" but they'd loose their base of support if the aggression stops. BTW, there are nasty bits in texts of EVERY religion, its not exclusive to Islam. If you want to look at a truly scary bunch of religious fanatics, you need look no further than zionist Christians.

hasan
12-29-2007, 02:02 PM
I remember very clearly when fox news first coined the term islamo-fascism. it was the most absurd thing i had ever heard as a muslim. it was an overt conspiracy to link fascism and nazism with islam even though they dont share the same ideology. islam does not espouse the dominance of one race over the other at all nor does it want to wipe out those who dont share its ideology.

JohnM
01-02-2008, 03:21 PM
In my opinion, no one who uses the term 'Islamo-fascism' should be taken seriously.

In fact, I would be hesitant about taking seriously anyone who used the term 'fascism'.

As George Orwell said, the word is virtually meaningless, and it seems to me that it is usually used merely as term of abuse by those who want a strong word to pin on those that they don't like.

Delain
01-02-2008, 04:43 PM
In my opinion, no one who uses the term 'Islamo-fascism' should be taken seriously.

In fact, I would be hesitant about taking seriously anyone who used the term 'fascism'.

As George Orwell said, the word is virtually meaningless, and it seems to me that it is usually used merely as term of abuse by those who want a strong word to pin on those that they don't like.

Yep, for the most part its like anyone who needs to be demonized being called Hitler. Saddam, Milosevic, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, etc. All labeled as the new Hitler.

I believe that today's corporatism closely resembles the original fascism though. It's not a complete empty word.

'Islamo-fascism' is just newspeak.

Rebel Resource
01-02-2008, 04:52 PM
OIL/NATURAL GAS - PETRODOLLAR - PIPELINES

wise up about peak oil and 9/11

slamhead
01-03-2008, 10:58 AM
It exist but can be dealt with along the lines of the KKK and neo-nazi groups. Is a war of ideology where freedom and liberty would prevail.

Gimme Some Truth
01-03-2008, 11:22 AM
What I hate is the muddying of the waters that the term "Islamo-Fascism" creates. Its a horrible term that ,whether intentional or not, dupes people into believing any "Islamic looking" person is out to get you. Terms like "Islamo-Fascism" create a very very broad spectrum of fear for future wars.

About Ahmadinejad , he seems to be singled out because he calls for the end to the existence of the state of Israel and Zionism. He doesn't call for the extermination of Jews . He actually has very good relations with Orthodox Rabbi's , who themselves are against the state of Israel and zionism on religious grounds - seeing as how God forbid them(the jews) to have their own state. Its irrelevant anyway Ahmadinejad , has little to no power in reality.

There can be no doubt the the terrorist threat has been exaggerated in the media etc (Those threat level meters were used to strike fear - absurdly Orwellian). It is a threat if national security is lax , like before ,and on, 911. It is a threat if how you react to terrorism only incites more terrorism. It is a threat if important intel cannot filter thro the monstrously gigantic bureaucracies , like before 911. The fact the bureaucracies are so so much bigger post-911 , can only mean lessons have not been learnt.

I'd say terrorism has been exaggerated in both senses (fear mongering and failed foreign and domestic policy)