Monday, November 14, 2005

They are everywhere

The Islamic fascists are everywhere.

They kill and terrorize people around the world. From the Phillipines to London and from Indonesia to Kashmir they spread their fascist ideology and murder like a plague.

They hate Jews and Christians and Buddhists and Hindu. They do not want dialogue or debate and they consider the western tendency to negotiation to be a sign of weakness.

They mutilate women and imprison children and yet the left can not see them for what they are.

It is more comforting to hate Bush, to hope that when he goes away all the bad stuff goes with him..

For a little globe trotting with the jihadis go check this

At last Bush is calling them what they are, fascists.

I hope he also stands up to the historical revisionists on the other side of the aisle before they gain more political power and surrender to the barbarians.

17 comments:

truepeers said...

Yes, that's right Terrye. People hate Bush because they need to believe that the violence of the Jihadists is caused by our victimizing them. To think that the violence is irrational resentment and glorification of war is something many simply aren't yet mentally capable of doing. But every time Pres. Bush advances the name game, he pushes us a little closer to the new reality that his daring foreign policy has helped unleashed. I don't want to blame him, but let's give him credit for being the agent of change the left rightly fears he is.

BTW, you need to fix your link.

Unknown said...

mark:

Well to hear him you would have to actually listen to him.

It took him awhile to come out and say it, but he did indeed call their ideology Islamic fascism. And Blair is getting braver about saying it as well. Political correctness can make idiots of us all.

Go check it out or do I have to do everything for you?

Unknown said...

Didn't Syl do a post about this awhile back in which she took excerpts from Bush's speech?

Unknown said...

link is fixed

Unknown said...

mark:

I saw a horrid picture of a young woman who blew herself up and her head was recovered. She was Palestinian.

Syl said...

Bush uses the specific term 'Islamic radicalism' however he points out in his Oct 2005 speech that it has other names as well.

"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism."

Anonymous said...

I'm glad Bush finally did called them "Islamofascists" and did not use the phrase "religion of peace."

MeaninglessHotAir said...

Why do bad things happen to good people? Is this not the fundamental religious question?

We all know the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune"--feel them nearly every day in fact. Why do they occur?

There seem to be three basic theories: God does it, Man does, it just happens. There is no way objectively to pick among these because they all exist beyond the edge of the knowable. People pick and choose among them according to their inclinations, needs, or experiences.

If Man does it, that can be very empowering, very liberating. For one thing, if all evil can be laid at the feet of the current king, then all we have to do to lift the evil is to murder this king. This is a theme much older than George Bush, much older than the Presidency itself. It goes back to the most fundamental primitive religious notions. The cult of Osiris is a sort of embodiment of this very notion, with one single king being repeatedly killed each year. Calls for impeachment are subconscious calls for religious redemptoin.

Syl said...

He has a new strategy to DEFEAT them?

You've missed the point (why am I surprised.)

The same strategy Bush has always had. Iraq was part of it, but back then people erroneously thought this war was only about al Qaeda and all we need to do is retaliate against them. Hence they did not understand Iraq.

In the ensuing years it's become obvious its about more than any specific terrorist group, and the terror is only part of a worldwide fascist movement. So Bush can actually identify it as such.

The muslim world is beginning to see this just as clearly as Bush does.

Back then the Arab street would indeed have risen up if Bush had said any such thing. They would have perceived it as an assault on Islam. Now they perceive this movement as a shame upon Islam.

Thus Bush is free to speak. (You do know that as leader of the free world, Bush speaks to more than just Americans whenever he opens his mouth.)

Rick Ballard said...

anon,

I'm hoping that the "religion of peace" formulation has been permanently retired. I don't care if Islmofascist is used or discarded.

I just wish he would call them terrorist scum and declare that from this day forward they will not be detained any longer than it takes to try them and hang them.

The number of terrorists executed to date is pitiful.

Unknown said...

mark:

Calls to impeach Bush are insane pure and simple.... and considering the little show that Democrats are putting on right now concerning Iraq I think making any comments about a nuclear Iran based on a laptop are really dumb.

I can see it now, we go in there, there is no program right in front of us or it is not as advanced as we thought.... and the same people talking up Iranian laptops today will be singing a different tune, claiming they were lied to. They would jump ship like the rats they are.

Now if you think putting Saddam Hussein back in power is going to redeem something other than his murder spree you are sadly mistaken.

I can see it now...Harry Reid standing next to a smiling Saddam as they prepare to break ground on the Reid Memorial Mass Grave..oh yeah, that will work for Democrats come election time.

I stood up to the tyrant before I kissed the tyrant's ass.

And as far as the 'my way or the highway foreign policy' it should be remembered that it was Germany that said Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program. France said the same thing. Russia said Saddam was planning attacks in our country.

So now I am supposed to wonder if our honor can be restored in the eyes of the same people who took bribes from Saddam and created a great deal of this mess in the first place?

Forget it.

What you have are a lot of sore losers who can not accept the fact they got their ass whipped in the last election.

A lot of them are journalists who are just plain biased. Look at how many former Democratic strategists end up in the media. It is a joke.

And when it comes to getting Bush there is nothing that is beneath them. no ethics, no decency, nothing else matters.

If you told them they had two choices:

1] Iraq could turn into a decent country with respect for the rule of law and a future not in the control of a mass murdering dictator...and George Bush gets some of the credit for that.

2] Iraq collapses, thousands of people died, Islam implodes and enters its own dark ages. And Bush gets blamed.

Most of the folks yammering about impeachment would pick one without a moment's hesitation.

Unknown said...

Peter:

Yes, I was being sarcastic but you are right...they don't realize that it is not all about them or Bush for that matter.

In a couple of years Bush will be gone in any event..then what will they do?

Who gets the blame then? Will it be Bush for decades to come?

Unknown said...

peter:

Steyn has an interesting point: France already is a nuclear power. What if the demographics there continue as they are?

chuck said...

PeterUK,

Even the WWII communists were capable of understanding the concept of a common enemy

Only after the Russian homeland was invaded. ISTR that a communist led Australian labor union was trying to organize strikes at a defense plant before that happened. Similar things probably went on in England too.

Syl said...

Mark

How do I put this gently...Bush did NOT LIE. Our intelligence community screwed up.

One of the reasons is that Saddam's was a stalinist type regime that couldn't be penetrated to get the real goods. Even those who worked closest to Saddam didn't know what the heck was really going on. Compartmentalize information so nobody knows what the other is doing, and you end up with the result the CIA did.

As for Chalabi, those are really false charges. He passed on some stuff that was excellent and useful. The main item people complain about is the aluminum tubes and to this day there is NO consensus on them. They are an anomaly. If they were used for missiles, not centrigues, they could only be used in a missile that Iraq was no longer using.

And the degree to which the inner diameter was tooled was impossible with Iraqi equipment and cost too much and was useless for their purported use anyway. Besides it was proscribed, so what was Saddam's point in purchasing them?

It could be as simple as throwing us off. I repeat. There was no consensus as to their use, but the vast majority of agencies weighing in said it was for centrifuges.

So just because you hear of one piece of evidence that 'refutes something' does not mean that is the case. ALL the analysis is weighed. You cannot cherry pick!

Just had to get that off my chest.

And, oh, leave Chalabi alone. He's one of the good guys whether the left wants to believe it or not.

Syl said...

As for doubting our intelligence on Iran, don't blame Bush! Sheesh.

And remember, Iran is not a Stalinist regime. It's not as difficult to get information out of there as it was in Iraq.

Syl said...

Excellent point, Peter! Duping the duper. Yes, it makes sense.

For everything that has happened since 9/11 people look only at Bush. They miss the actions and motives of all the other actors.