rexbo 102 Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 'Fascistic' The anti-war-on-terror lobby has had a bad week. Not that it hasn't kept its end up. Oh no. Faced with a threat so devastating that it seemed more like a world-domination plot from a Superman comic than a hard-headed act of war, there was nothing for it but to fall back on semantics.George W. Bush was pilloried for referring to "Islamic fascists" by, among others, the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu. Using that kind of language "on the ranch in Texas" did not help, he said, to make society "a good, neighbourly place". I don't know what the ranch in Texas has to do with anything, but Dr Sentamu seems not to understand the difference between describing Islamic fundamentalists as fascistic, and saying that all Muslims are fascists. ... The word "fascism" means an extreme totalitarian system that suppresses human rights and democratic freedoms. Islamic fundamentalism is fascistic in the precise, technical sense of the word. ... So maybe those who wish to conciliate this movement, who believe that it can be negotiated with in some rational way, would like to tell us where they would begin making concessions. Would they like to explain to the citizens of Turkey that they may have to sacrifice their secular democracy and be ruled again by the theocracy from which they had broken free? Or perhaps they could persuade the residents of Spain that, since Islam would like to rule the Alhambra once again, they must, in the interests of meeting al-Qa'eda halfway, consider sacrificing this region. Next, perhaps, would be the recognition of sharia law in Muslim-dominated regions of Britain and France. No wonder the liberals are in disarray. What we are up against is quite outside the limits of our rational political discourse. This enemy does not even bother to offer explanations for its actions that fall within the acceptable bounds of Western debate: it is overtly racist, explicitly imperialistic and unapologetically inhumane. ... This is a critical moment. What we must call the "free world" will either decide that it must unite unequivocally against a force so dark that it is almost incomprehensible to democratic peoples, or else succumb to a daydream of denial that is nothing more than appeasement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.