Jim Stillman
Nevar
Islamic-fascism: A threat that requires historical perspective.
November 15th 2007 00:44
I am, as many know, a retired trial attorney. In that capacity, I represented, or was an “advocate” for many diverse types and individuals. I hesitate to challenge one who is “God’s Advocate”; while some of my former clients may have had temporal power, none would be able to part the Red Sea, rain lightning bolts, and brimstone on unworthy communities or turn a disobedient woman into a pillar of salt!
On the other hand, some perspective is needed and worthwhile.
Lester Caudill, an eloquent author of many thoughtful posts on his site, God’s Advocate, writes,
The threat that the Liberal Democrats refuse to see, is a vile and ignorant Islamic religious fascism coming out of the Middle East. It is a threat both to Muslims and Christians. This violent Islamic fascism is basically a modern, 20th century totalitarian movement, similar to violent communism fascism that we face in the 20 century.
It is opposed to democracy, human rights, free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of sexuality. It is at war with everyone who is not an Islamic fundamentalist fascist. It has killed vast numbers of Muslims. The western left, to some people's surprise, are on the side of the fascists.
Skipping over the basic differences between “fascism” and “communism”, I recall the United States in the late 1940’s and the following 40 or so years.
In those days, the curse word to demonize one’s political opponent was to call them “commies”. The term managed to foreclose any intelligent discussions and was used to create and intensify groundless and paralyzing fear.
One or two examples. This country’s relationship with Castro’s Cuba has placed the United States in a position different to that of many of our strongest and closest allies. The fear of communists has resulted in damage to our farm exports, loss of many trade advantages and a generally irrational foreign policy. Ironically, our intransigent attitude toward Cuba has strengthened the Castro regime by providing it with an excuse for its economic failures.
The second example where communists were used to frighten Americans to accept a foreign adventure involved the United States’ involvement in Nicaragua and against the Sandinista government. During the Reagan administration all sorts of irregularities (remember Iran-Contra, Oliver North?) were explained by the threat of the immanent invasion of southern Texas. It wasn’t going to happen but the fear was promoted.
Addressing Mr. Caudill’s points directly, the Western Left does not “support” terrorists. We support the United States and the core values that make our country worthwhile. If there is a scale of weighing values, it is far more important to embrace our nation’s essence than it is to condemn the terrorists.
We do, however, suggest that the United States as a nation is not in danger of destruction by al Qaeda and its followers, just as this country was never in actual danger of invasion by the communists. The primary danger to the United States’ values and freedoms arises from over-reaction and unreasoning fear.
Is the United States vulnerable to attacks of terror, of horrors similar to that of September 11th?
Certainly. Unless we are prepared to surrender all freedom of movement, all civil liberties, all rights of privacy, we cannot absolutely guarantee that some evil person or group will not succeed in his or their scheme. What’s worse is that, even if all freedoms, liberties and privacy were surrendered, there still would remain a possibility of terror.
Mr. Caudill concludes,
America's two greatest threats are Islamofascism, and the self induced blindness of the Democratic Party. Isn't it a sad time when one of the greatest threats to our country is one of its own political parties.
It is, indeed, tempting to react to the fear of terrorists; the cost of such reaction seems, to me, to be too high.
On the other hand, some perspective is needed and worthwhile.
Lester Caudill, an eloquent author of many thoughtful posts on his site, God’s Advocate, writes,
It is opposed to democracy, human rights, free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of sexuality. It is at war with everyone who is not an Islamic fundamentalist fascist. It has killed vast numbers of Muslims. The western left, to some people's surprise, are on the side of the fascists.
Skipping over the basic differences between “fascism” and “communism”, I recall the United States in the late 1940’s and the following 40 or so years.
In those days, the curse word to demonize one’s political opponent was to call them “commies”. The term managed to foreclose any intelligent discussions and was used to create and intensify groundless and paralyzing fear.
One or two examples. This country’s relationship with Castro’s Cuba has placed the United States in a position different to that of many of our strongest and closest allies. The fear of communists has resulted in damage to our farm exports, loss of many trade advantages and a generally irrational foreign policy. Ironically, our intransigent attitude toward Cuba has strengthened the Castro regime by providing it with an excuse for its economic failures.
The second example where communists were used to frighten Americans to accept a foreign adventure involved the United States’ involvement in Nicaragua and against the Sandinista government. During the Reagan administration all sorts of irregularities (remember Iran-Contra, Oliver North?) were explained by the threat of the immanent invasion of southern Texas. It wasn’t going to happen but the fear was promoted.
Addressing Mr. Caudill’s points directly, the Western Left does not “support” terrorists. We support the United States and the core values that make our country worthwhile. If there is a scale of weighing values, it is far more important to embrace our nation’s essence than it is to condemn the terrorists.
We do, however, suggest that the United States as a nation is not in danger of destruction by al Qaeda and its followers, just as this country was never in actual danger of invasion by the communists. The primary danger to the United States’ values and freedoms arises from over-reaction and unreasoning fear.
Is the United States vulnerable to attacks of terror, of horrors similar to that of September 11th?
Certainly. Unless we are prepared to surrender all freedom of movement, all civil liberties, all rights of privacy, we cannot absolutely guarantee that some evil person or group will not succeed in his or their scheme. What’s worse is that, even if all freedoms, liberties and privacy were surrendered, there still would remain a possibility of terror.
Mr. Caudill concludes,
America's two greatest threats are Islamofascism, and the self induced blindness of the Democratic Party. Isn't it a sad time when one of the greatest threats to our country is one of its own political parties.
It is, indeed, tempting to react to the fear of terrorists; the cost of such reaction seems, to me, to be too high.
| 101 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
You guys seem to think that I am worse than the radical Islamic terrorist, you all demonize the Republican party because it has a greater vision than the Dems. Just kill the messenger and you won't have to listen to the message.
As far as my words about the dems, they say they have a plan, but no one seems to know what it is, except to demonize our military and it's leaders.
You say we have nothing to fear, I guess you forgot about 9/11, But don't worry just keep believing everything is alright, and those nice friendly terrorist will remind you soon enough.
Comment by Paul Angelo
Also, does it make any sense to so severely erode our own Constitution and liberties in order to fight terrorism? You might as well surrender to Al Qaeda outright if you are going to do that, right?
The other approach would be to lessen the influence and recruiting base of islamic terrorist groups by eliminating the driving force behind--American bullying, imperialism, support of dictators, criminal regimes and general meddling in that part of the world. If we took a more positive role in the islamic world, then, with time, people will be less likely to want to strap bombs to themselves or fly planes into buildings because contrary to what you believe, they don't just hate us for our freedom.
But Lester, that is the problem, isn't it? You people on the "right" refuse to even admit that we play a negative role in the islamic world--you find odd comfort in your belief that they hate us for our freedom--as if that makes sense at all.
Comment by Paul Angelo
Really Long Link
The "war on terror" is just an excuse and a distraction--the same way communism was--as Jim so eloquently pointed out in his article.
Comment by Paul Angelo
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Comment by Paul Angelo
Here is the one from two posts ago
Here are my articles:
Will the real Surrender Monkeys Please Stand Up
Why the War on Terror is Wrong
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Isn't that the same thing that we did before? And about 3000 of innocent civilians we mass murder in the Twin Towers.
There is no war on terror, well I guess being a lawyer makes Jim an expert on terror, and the 9/11 never happen it was just America attacking herself to give us a reason to start a conflict with innocent peace abiding people like bin laden, Al Qaeda.
My post was not represented in a true fashion, That I intended it to be written. Seems to me you all think there are more forms of radical Islam other than the one Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda is connected to.
If I was unclear, let me say this again I am not talking, about true Islam, BUT about radical Islam that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is connected with.
Let me say this I am no expert either, I just give my opinion as do you. Seems to me that if we are to fight terrorism we must find some common ground on which we can stand. Having closed minds, and attacking our Military, and their Leaders is not the way to do it.
The Terrorist have succeed in one thing if you have noticed in the last 7 years is to split our country with a pure dislike of each other.
Paul I will read your posts, and thanks for the links, I just have had no time to do so before I wrote this comment.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Does war make friends? Of course not, war destroys peoples lives and homes, destroys their purpouse in life sometimes, you make enemies by going to war - not friends.
If you want friends, if you truly want to fight radicalism, you would remove Saddam without war and slowly reform the government he had crafted into a democracy.
YOu don't just come barging in, kick him off his perch, dismantle his government and think no ones going to try to grab some of that power left over and even resort to violent to get it.
Comment by Paul Angelo
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
For example, in my initial articles, I objected to the characterization of the Western Left as being on the side of the terrorists. What I attempted to express was that, in our zeal for removing the terrorist threat, we were likely to lose the very essence of America that makes us valuable. I noted that, notwithstanding the most draconian security measures, we would remain vulnerable to 9/11-type attacks. We had, therefore, to balance our security interests and the remaining threats to protect our freedoms and values.
It made no sense to me to use the danger from terrorists or jihadists or any other foe to justify the loosing of the Dogs of War. In no manner or shape was I supporting terrorists; but I did support the United States.
Paul Angelo cites two excellent articles he had written for Associated Content. In those thought provoking pieces, Paul refutes any suggestion that the Democrat/Progressive/Left believes in surrendering to the terrorists. Rather, as he so eloquently states, it is the Right that believes in surrendering our morality and standing here and throughout the world.
Do I want another 9/11? Of course not! Can such an attack be absolutely prevented? Of course not! But if and when there is an isolated attack on this country, the United States as a nation will survive.
The issue is the nature of what that surviving nation will be.
Comment by Damo
The over riding assumption is based upon a circular argument.
Those who do not agree with how I do this must be in favour of terrorism.
Here 'what' and 'how' are being confused as if they have the same meaning.
The 'what' in the subject is terrorism;
The 'how' in the subject is the tactics you consider to be most effective.
When someone disgrees about the effectiveness of tactics it does not follow that they are in favour of terrorism in any form. It could well be that the person is more opposed to terrorism than their critics because they want the effective answer, not just specticals that are part of the problem.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
You can't win ignoring the problem, that is what got us to 9/11 any way. In our society we don't condone murders we punish them.
The problem is we can't see past our own Ideas to listen to anyone else. But the fact is we have not been attacked since 9/11, and we have stop many attempts. So something must be working right.
But that is something that Liberals will never admit, because they are so full of hate toward President Bush. any thing he supports is automatically opposed, without even giving it a fair chance.
The problem with the Liberal Dems is they want to fight more with the Republicans than the terrorist that are our true enemy. The dems sees the Republicans as the enemy, and that is just wrong.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Jeff Musall
No. Because it was never about them coming here. They want us out of there. As yes, the 9/11 attacks were terrible, and justice needs served. What we don't need is revenge. As a direct result of our actions, even conservative estimates say that at least 100 times the number killed on 9/11 have died, although the number is probably much higher.
And frankly, because you see nothing at all wrong with that, and you blindly wish to follow the pathetic president who chose to attack Iraq for profit and pride, wholly and completely discredits your "christian virtues" in my eyes.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
But yet what would you do differently? What is the big plan the left has to keep America safe?
Well here is what I here just after the whining and complaining.................. ............................. .... That's your plan you don't have one if you do please some body tell me.
Hillary doesn't have one just bring the troops home that's her plan nothing after that.
Barack Hussein Obama has nothing, and John Edwards has nothing.
Seems to me if you don't have anything to offer just keep your mouth shut until you have something useful to say.
It doesn't matter to me what you think about my Christian virtues, I wish the troops could come home tomorrow, or better yet never had been sent to Iraq, and I wish there had not been one person killed, on any side of this crazy mess, but we are there. So we should do our best to make something good out of a bad situation.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Oh, and damn, Obama's middle name is Hussein, I guess we should run for the hills now?
You need to stop resorting to Ad Hominem attacks and counter our points. But I know you won't, on the one hand you've convinced yourself you're 'open to debate', yet all you do is make that claim and you are absoloutely unable to debate it. All you do is, as if you are drunk, talk about how wrong we are and how right you are, yet theres no substance to your argument.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
I can't counter what you don't have. But if you mean the whining and complaining I have already covered that.
Oh and about running for the hills, I am already there not because of fear, but that's where I live. Look out for my post on Thanksgiving I have put some pictures in it.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Heres what the 'left' has said which you have failed to counter:
From the article he's linked:
In case you miss his drift he's saying that war is not a solution but diplomacy rather is.
Comment by DeAnne
Public Journalist
Simple Gift Guide
Home Cooking on Recipeyz
Work From Home Online
Every Day Is A Food Holiday