I'd just be happy if we could separate the country in two so that those right wing wackos could all live together and go off on their killing sprees in the M.E. while the other half of America lives in peace with the rest of the world.

Just think right wingers, you could have your Christo-fascist state that you've always wanted... no freedom to choice, no freedom to do anything as your life will be regulated by the state (except for your guns of course). You guys can get rid of the 4th amendment and allow warrantless searches and seizures, you can have torture, you can even have the gov't listen into your conversations. But wait!!! It's gets better. If you're rich you'll pay low taxes there too!!!

Dear Insulted Muslim:

Your reading of my last post confuses my intended meaning. I should have made my meaning more clear. I was not saying that the "Militant Islamic Fundementalists" (Islamo-Fascists) have found the correct interpretation of the Koran, in fact, it is my view that they are quite mistaken. I used the scare quotes around the phrase "one true" to indicate that such a thing is probably not possible, but the fundementalists in question believe they have discovered such a thing.

That is why, in the same paragraph quoted above, I compared politically active Islamic fundementalist's heavy reliance on citation to scripture to the similar reliance on citation to scripture exhibited by many politically acitve Christian fundementalists. In any event, I apologize for any offense that my comments may have caused you.

The idea that there is a school of thought called Islamic fascism is a misnomer.

The use of this ill-defined hot-button term feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam.

The term Islamo-Fascist may very well be appropriate. The generic term fascism covers a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems. The radical islamists who are on jihad for a Caliphate want exactly that -- a system of authoritarian government under Sharia laws, methods, and emplementations. Though they be radical as to a means, the end-result is a state which polices the manner, style, and order of those in the Caliphate. It may only be misleading in terms of overall structure, the manner in which the goals are currently being implemented -- by force of arms -- is entirely in the methodology of fascism. That aside, most people have forgotten that , for the most part, these organizations have declared war on America. Some have declared it overtly, while others have made their declarations with action (ie destructions of US Marine barracks, hijacking US flights and making declarations on the tarmac, etc.).

Calling these Al Queda/Hezbollah/Hamas/Sadr/Mahdi Army terrorists 'islamo-fascists' is a compliment they don't deserve. Fascism is defined by loyalty to the state, whereas these guys have never been loyal to anything... certainly if it wasn't for the Jews and Christians inconvienently in the way of the World Umma they could resume happily killing each other (Sunni vs. Shiite, et al...)

And Alan Dershowitz calls his judgement "Islamo-Faschism" "truth".

Well, I am from Germany and I think I know what "Faschism" is, well, to be more precise, "Nazism".

The "Fashists" in Italy were something else, Musolini etc, they did neither condemn modern art, the Futurists, architecture, nor did they seriously hurd Jews, that were the Germans, that introduced that in Italy, isnt it?

So: what is an "Islamo Fashist"? Somebody who turns deserts into green soil? Sunt sub aqua, sub aqua maledicere temptant.....

IMHO the U.S. are disappointed by Hamas, Hezbollah etc, fruits of democracy, what the U.S. want is "Friendly-Fashism" for the Muslims, not?

Mark-in-Chi-town wrote: "In contrast, it is my understanding that Koranic citation is a hallmark of Islamo-Fascist rhetoric. This is to be expected from a political philosophy that claims to be largely based on adherence to the "one true" interpretation of the sacred texts of Islam."

What is "Koranic citation"? Are you referring to Koran, which is the sacred text of Islam and Muslims? And, are you saying that "Koran-the sacred book of Islam" is a hallmark of Islamo-Fascist rhetoric? If your answer is yes, then, in my view you are insulting someone's faith. My religious conviction, Islam.

As a Muslim, I am very much insulted and offended by the IRRESPNSIBLE and DAGEREOUS one liner slogan of Islamo-Fascist. If Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of the U.S. administrations are talking about the "Fundamental Radical Muslims" , and not about the rest of the Muslims, THEN what is wrong with calling it what it is: The "Fundamental Radical Muslims" (period)?

But I am afraid that the Bush administration is trying ONCE AGAIN to brain wash minds and create a "grey fog of fear" of equating and extrapolating MUSLIMS with such horrible state sponsored movements as "Nazism" and "Italian-fascism" to justifying their oppressive hostile actions in the Muslim world.

It is "Fundamental Radical Muslims", stupid. So call it what it is: THE "Fundamental Radical Muslims".

Seriously, for a historical perspective of what does fascism mean and why the term Islamo-Fascist is wrong, Please see the NPR link below, as well as Wikipedia's definition:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5743773

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I am not in favor of using the word fascism in connection to any religion. Politicans and demangoges try to hijack religions for their political purposes we had that with crusaders, we see that in israel/palestine now and we see it among people using the Islamic religion. Trying to find a specific adjactive with Islam is a mistake. Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism has nothing to do with killings of civilians for political purporses. If one needs to use a name, then the best name is the name that the organization gives itself.

Karim:

Yes, I was assigned to read portions of it in a history class many years ago and found it excruciatingly boring. To refresh my recollection, I reviewed an on-line version briefly and noted that Hitler made frequent reference to the generic concept of a Christian "God" when attempting to justify his racial superiority theories. Much of this can be read as merely Hitler's unsupportable assertion that "God made Aryans superior to other races." Hitler does not cite specific biblical passages for this concept as one would expect if he was seriously attempting to ground his argument in a sacred text in the manner of a religious fundamentalist. His failure to do so is not surprising since the notion of an "Aryan Race" would have been unintelligible to the various authors of the bible.

In contrast, it is my understanding that Koranic citation is a hallmark of Islamo-Fascist rhetoric. This is to be expected from a political philosophy that claims to be largely based on adherence to the "one true" interpretation of the sacred texts of Islam. This same fetish with citation to religious texts to support essentially political arguments is also a defining trait of many Fundamentalist Christian politicians in the United States (e.g., Pat Robertson). Such scriptural citation fetishes are not a characteristics of Hitler's writings or of other fascist writers that I have encountered.

I would appreciate your cooperation in defining a descriptively accurate, non-pejorative term to describe the political movement that I defined above. I have heard some people suggest the term "Militant Islamists," but that term lacks the implication of religious intolerance that Islamo-Fascist connotes and also can be accused of unfairly associating Islam with violence. I have also heard the term "Jihadists" or "Takfirists" bandied about as substitutes, but I understand that these terms also present their own set of problems. I look forward to your response.

Mark-in-Chi-town:

Before I post a response to your post, I would like to ask you the following:

Have you read Mein Kampf?

Amar Bakshi posed the following questions.........
Should it be a goal of the U.S. to reduce that hostility and, if so, what's the best way to do it?
Of course the U.S. should have reducing hostility as a goal; but not at the cost of our national interest. Fortunately, these rarely compete.

Now as to how........
A couple of posters have mentioned our founding fathers, those remarkable men who formed this country and were the Shepherd's of our Constitution. As I recall, "They would be spinning in their graves" and "They would be dismayed" at our current foreign policy. I agree wholeheartedly. We have abandoned some of the principles upon which our own foundation rests. The principle that a people has an inalienable right to create its own system of government, of governance, that power is sourced in the people who cede what they choose to the government (limited government), that they may replace the governing system should they find it does not serve them well, that no one other than the people has a say in their governance.
We should return to these principles and they should be reflected in our foreign policy. It is not for us to decide that the peoples of the Middle East shall have democratic governments. Each of these people is free to choose any form they like, be it a dictatorship, socialism, monarchy, democracy, theocracy, a mixture or whatever. The form they choose is not itself a valid cause for us to make war on them. We have no authority to change any government but our own just because we disapprove of or dislike that government. Certainly we might wish to set an example of democracy so compelling that other peoples, other nations, will wish to settle for no less. Alas, wandering so far from our own founding principles hardly does that.
We should stop demonizing other people and organizations. It corrupts the debates and dialogue with others and ourselves. To label Hezbollah and Hamas simply as "terrorists" in our "War on Terror" is to misunderstand them entirely. In both cases they derive their power within their own population not from terror, but from providing real social services to their population in sharp contrast to the corruption of their governments. Hamas did not win the election because they are terrorists. They won the election because they are more competent at delivering services than Fatah was.
Even understanding that both organizations have used the tactic of terror, i.e. an attack on civilians to further a political purpose, this tactic has only been directed at Israel. Neither organization actually threatens us. It is entirely appropriate to condemn their use of this tactic against Israel. It is entirely appropriate for Israel to defend itself against such attacks. But when the Palestinians freely elect Hamas to govern them in a fair democratic process it is stupid and insulting of the populace not to talk and engage with them. We were within our rights to withdraw our aid to the Palestinian authority, so too the Europeans. Still, we perhaps missed an opportunity to simply reduce it by the amount siphoned off in corruption by Fatah. As it is we have simply left them to swing deeper and deeper into poverty and despair, punishing the civilian population for not voting our way and being seen as doing that. Not so?
Lest anyone think my heart bleeds too much, I might also point out the hypocrisy visible across the Muslim world. The withdrawal of aid and tax revenue siphoned off by Israel has taken the PA income from 150 to 20 million a month. Might we not expect the Muslim countries to step in and fill this gap, to support Hamas in the face of Western condemnation? Too big of a burden I suppose. Lets see.....Saudi's pump some 8 million barrels a day, 240 million a month. Hamas could probably do just fine with another 80 million a month, that would come to 33 cents a barrel when the barrel price has doubled to 70 dollars plus or minus over the last few years. Yup, that would be a hell of a burden to them wouldn't it?
One of our posters pointed out that this was and is a land dispute between two peoples who were intermixed on the same land going back many centuries. The fact is this particular land is of no strategic importance to us and the existence of Israel is of no strategic importance to us. We have no treaty obligation to come to their defense or they to ours. As a practical matter our political alliance with Israel is far more of a strategic liability to us than a strategic asset and that is the truth. What binds us to Israel, in spite of this, is a misplaced sense of moral obligation and our internal politics. Our policy should be to back off and let them try to settle their own land dispute in their own way without taking sides.
The "War on Terror" an absurd phrase. No one goes to war against a tactic. We go to war against specific people and/or organizations of people, to include nations. In the present case we are at war with Al Qaeda for the best of reasons, self-defense as a consequence of its attack on us on Sept. 11, 2001. To that end we destroyed the Taliban government of Afghanistan for supporting and harboring Bin Laden and his organization. We have every reason to hunt him down wherever he might be with apologies due to no one. We have not done such a good job of that.
It is entirely ridiculous to compare "the terrorist threat" with Nazi's, Fascists, Communists and the like, all of which had a basis in an existing nation-state. Magnifying the threat in apocalyptic terms, ideological terms, does nothing to help our defenses against it. This nation is threatened with attack by the Al Qaeda organization for reasons they have clearly outlined, to include our military presence in their Holy land and other Arab lands, our support of the Zionist regime in Israel, our intrusions into their culture, our support of their despots, etc., etc. It is not their hatred of our freedom or other words placed into their mouths by our politicians. It is not fascism, communism, or other isms. What they want is for Muslim people to live under Islamic governments under Islamic law with the Holy Quran being interpreted their particular way.
Al Qaeda, broadly defined to include the subgroups it networks with, is unique these days in having a worldwide reach and a willingness to attack any nation. We last saw this kind of phenomenon with the Palestinian attacks on ships, airplanes, the Olympics, etc. We are and should be at war with Al Qaeda. Given the scope of its attacks, on us, on several European countries, on Jordan, on Saudi Arabia, in Tunisia, Kenya, Pakistan, etc., etc. we have been joined by most of the world in this war. There is no need to make this war bigger than it actually is. The need is to win the war we actually have and this is most dependent on the competence and efforts of our intelligence services.
We had absolutely no just cause to invade Iraq. They were no threat to us, they did not attack us, and they did not harbor anyone involved with 9/11. The UN did not authorize the attack. Having done the unthinkable, we are obligated to do as little further damage as possible. We have provided them with a 3-year well-intentioned window of opportunity to form a democratic government. We have proven to be poor administrators and occupiers. It is time for us to go, leaving this government to sink or swim. It may sink into civil war or the Sunni and the Shia may work out what they must work out. We need to withdraw in a manner that protects the Kurdish and Jordanian interests, tries to limit any chaos to the Baghdad region, and prevents Syria or Iran from moving in. If and when there is an outcome we should humbly accept it. Whatever shape it takes will properly reflect the Iraqi people. There is a lesson in this, the same lesson we learned in Viet Nam. Democracy is not something that can be imposed or sustained by an external force of arms.
We have created a "failed state" where none existed. We can only hope that the brutal societal norms of the Iraqis will in good time be turned on all foreigners to include the visitors from Al Qaida.
We are not the world's policemen. We have not the authority and are not equipped to play the role. Consider our ground forces. They are designed to close with and destroy opposing military forces in short order. In combination with our air forces there is scarcely any force in the world that can compete. They are not designed to occupy territory or suppress insurgencies or keep the peace. Superpower or not, we have limits, and our policies should respect those limits.
We have no grounds to attack Iran. If Iran were to have nuclear weapons, which they do not, they would still not be a threat to us, not imminent or otherwise. They have not the wherewithal to deliver these to our soil. Israel is another matter. Europe is another matter. Russia is another matter, as is Pakistan and so on. So why is it that we insist on being the biggest baddest hardnose about Iran on the planet? If Russia is willing to entertain the possibility of Iran slipping a nuke to the Chechen rebels, why should we be so fearful? If not, why not let them lead the enforcement parade? Does anyone actually believe that nuclear weapons in Iranian hands are inherently more dangerous than nuclear weapons in Pakistan's hands, or North Korean hands?
The NPT is probably a walking dead man. It is not our nation's job to enforce it. That job belongs to the UN Security Council. If and when the Council can muster the will to use force to enforce it, we may then negotiate the force structure required to do the job.
North Korea, having withdrawn from the NPT, is beyond it. The parties most threatened by the RNK are Japan and South Korea. Should Japan go nuclear in response, that then threatens China. We are not actually threatened, unless we should attack North Korea. The question is, if Japan, South Korea, and China are willing to live with a nuclear RNK, then why should we care? If not, then the question is what pressures they are willing to apply themselves and what pressures do they want applied by us. Why is it that we are leading this parade? Hubris perhaps?
One poster suggested that we should return to the old adage "walk softly and carry a big stick". There is no doubt we have a big stick, it's the walking softly part we seem to have lost touch with.
How about Latin America............
Seriously, why should we be in a snit over the President of Venezuela? He was democratically elected. He won the recall election. Similarly with Bolivia. All over South America they have generally come to the conclusion that the particular economic and social models espoused by the United States do not work well for the broad population in South America. One democracy after another is turning towards and experimenting with variant models. For this we should be upset? For this we should cheer and cooperate. We should stop demonizing Cuba. Actually there are lessons to be learned from Cuba. Their health care system and educational system are the envy of South America, and for good reason. If we can do business with the communists in China, why is it we can't do business with the communists in Cuba? Is Cuba somehow a greater threat to us than China?
Democracy, of slightly different flavors, has become reasonably well ingrained in Latin America. A heavy hand, and the resentment that comes with it, is entirely unnecessary.
We should recognize that democracy and Islam are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The largest Muslim nation is Indonesia, which has ever so slowly migrated from being a Dutch colony to a dictatorship to a still tenuous democracy. Malaysia has gone from being a British colony then through an insurgency and finally to a thriving democracy with a high tech industry. Both have dominantly Islamic populations. It takes time, years and years of time. Apart from walking softly, we should also perhaps get back in touch with patience.

Here is the bottom line :its all about wealth and power. The rest is easy to understand.

When Commander-in-Chimp Bush uses the term "Islamofascist" he's speaking in code. "Islamofascist" is a code word that resonates with people (like those posting above) who watch Fox News. It's a way of saying to them "I'm one of you people! I'm talking your vocabulary!" If you know the code, you get it. If you don't watch Fox or listen to right-wing talkback radio, you wonder "where did that come from?"

And why does Fox use "Islamofascist"? It's a case of "I know what I am, so that's what I'll call YOU." Fox and the Republican crowd are fascists. They want to use the power of the government for corporate interests, not the people's interests. Keep wages down so corpos can profit. Keep taxes down for businesses and gut services for the populace. Have wars for oil companies, whilst ramping up the prices at the petrol bowser.

Strictly speaking, Islamists are not fascists. They're theocrats. But that word is not as scary as "fascist." Plus, it comes too close to what the Xians actually stand for. So they use the other F-word instead.

Mates, I was born in America and lived there for almost half a century. But I couldn't stand the warlike fascism in the U.S. and I emigrated last year. And you know what? It's better here. Enjoy your fascism, seppos!

Mark-In-Chi-Town, you stole my thunder, but I will echo your challenge more succinctly. Mr. Kuttab (and Karim if you wish), would please educate us as to what term we should all use to refer to you-know-who?

The nomenclature debate seems to have descended to the level of emotion, rather than reason. It should be abundantly clear that Nazi's are not commonly called "Christian Fascists" because they did not assert that their political doctrine was primarily derived from Christian religious texts. It is my understanding that the "Islamo-Fascists" do, in fact, point directly to the Koran and other Islamic texts as the basis for their political/religious philosophy. Thus, it is far more accurate to use that religious modifier when describing that movement than it would be to call Nazi's "Christian Fascists."

By this logic, it would be equally appropriate to label a group of militant, Christian fundamentalists, as "Christian Fascists," particularly if they asserted their militancy and political philosophy were based primarily on their interpretation of the Christian Bible. As far as I know, no such group exists.

Mr. Kattab's attempt to equate "Zionist Christians" with Islamo-Fascists (by which, I assume he means Christian fundamentalists who support that state of Israel due to a belief that its existence has started the count down to the end of the world) is not well taken. While both such groups hold what, in my opinion, are extremist religious views, the "Christian Zionist" Mr. Kattab referenced do not possess the other political traits that are commonly associate with fascist movements, e.g., favoring a single dictatorial ruler (as opposed to representative government), advocacy of domestic political repression, advocacy of state control of the economy, favoring the rights of the state over those of the individual, glorification of a by-gone era of imperial greatness, zenophobia, glorifying war, and extreme nationalism. I think it is fair to say that most of these traits seem to apply to "Islamo-Fascist" philosophy, particularly if one substitutes, the concept of Caliphate for Nation, violent Jihad for non-sectarian war, and religious or sectarian bigotry for zenophobia.

However, it is abundantly clear that many Muslims find the term "Islamo-Fascism" offensive due to the danger that some segment of the public may draw the association mentioned above by Karim. Assuming that Karim is a Muslim, I for one, am open to hearing his and Mr. Kattab's suggestion for the appropriate nomenclature to describe the political movement within modern Islam, which is characterized by a combination of Islamic fundamentalism, advocacy of political and religious repression, sectarian bigotry, and militancy (Al Qaeda constituting one group of adherents). I think all fair minded people can agree that it would be useful to have an accurately descriptive, non-pejorative term one can use to generically describe this political movement, particularly, as it provides a short-hand way to distinguish the majority of moderate Muslims from the tiny minority of violent, bigoted, fundamentalist extremists. For that matter, it would also be nice to have a similar descriptive term which is generically descriptive of the political movements within the Islamic world that are actively opposed to the "Islamo-Fascists."

So we continue to support dictatorships and brutal monarchies in the Middle East, (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.) much to the disdain of all Middle Easterners, and we expect them to like us?

Why do you people act so surprised when people fight back ?? It's like we force our way over there, talking about "PROTECTING OUR INTERESTS" while doing everything possible to support oppressive regimes that are friendly to our government and we expect them to like us?

Maybe I should force my way into my neighbours house and help myself to their wallet to continue to "protect my interests..."

Oh but I understand the stakes all too clearly. The other extreme (Taliban in Afghanistan, Shia Regime in Iran) is not much better than the secular dictators. However, if these people want to suffer, let it be by their own hands, not ours.

Get rid of the US military bases in the Middle East and quit interfering with their internal politics and we should see less resentment towards us.

I don't think we would appreciate Chinese or Russian military bases in Canada or Mexico, so why should we expect them to appreciate ours?

Please listen to what Mr. Kuttab is trying to say. I do not think he is any way promoting violencce or making excuses for those who use violent means to achieve their goals. He does make the point that although the situations arent exactly parallel, the United States does not have much moral authority when it speaks out against extreme Islamic groups, when it often uses crude power and force to achieve its goals.
We do not see many Christian or Jewish involved in terrorism but we do see Christian and Jewish backed governments who engage in other violent acts - bombings, wars, economically unjust policies, etc.
The United States does not have to give in to or allow violence or extreme regimes but we do have to adjust our own agenda in a way that promotes and rewards cooperation.

I don't recall the Nazis being referred to as "Christian-Facists".

Oceanguy:

"Those who make war on the US, those who have declared war on the US, those who attack the US and the West in general are Muslims...".

They are in fact Arabs. Al-Qaeda is pretty much all Arab, many from where oil is...the commodity that your government is willing to KILL people for.

The fact that you chose to blame Muslims instead is simply an indication of your anti-Islam bigotry, prejudice and ignorance.

Why should a Muslim from say Turkey be blamed for what some Arab from Saudi Arabia or Egypt does?

Mr. Kuttab:

Please, please do not fall into their trap.

The people who are occupying Palestine and oppressing your people are not Jewish extremists.

Call them Israeli extremists, Zionist extremists or simply Zionists (that alone is enough).

Judaism as a religion has nothing to do with the occupation.

We all know that "Muslim Fascist" or "Jewish Fascist" is just another way of equating Muslims or Jewish with fascism.

The same goes for Western Christians. While the right-wing fundamentalist Christians do support Israeli occupation and the war on Iraq, this has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

Test

Those who make war on the US, those who have declared war on the US, those who attack the US and the West in general are Muslims... they are also fascists. If there was a group fo Christian fascists or Jewish fascists engaged in the same war against the west or just against the USA, they would be described the same way... but the fact is they don't exist, at least not in numbers that pose any threat to us.

Clearly some Muslims are fascists, they show us through their words and deeds constantly. As long as "moderate" Muslims insist on grouping themselves with the fascists among them, the moderates exacerbate the problem. Instead of complaining about the term, they ought to put some effort into separating themselves from the fascists who wage war in the name of Islam. When they deny the terms validity and proclaim the solidarity of all Muslims, they only hurt their cause.

The question is being asked in the wrong way. It is not the United States' fault that the Middle East is the most backward area of the world, politically and morally. It is the Middle East's responsibility for its own situation which is critical.
Unless the Arab and larger Islamic worlds find a way to make a real transformation in values, in which they are able to respect and understand others, there is no chance for the U.S. to get their approbation.
Once they value democracy, freedom, the rights of the individual, objective scientific inquiry, religious freedom, then the way will be open to understand recognize and accept the United States.

JM Maryland is incorrect about my position regarding my support to suicide bombings and all acts of violence against civilians. I have been consistently and publicly opposed to such truly ugle actions. JM Maryland is correthat Jewish and Christian radicals don't strap themsevles with bombs and blow up markets, but this doesn't mean they are less dangerous or ugly. The world is littered with innocent civilians who have been killed because of the policies of radical Jews or Christians. Jewish extremists have prolonged the miltiary occupation of our country, Palestine for 39 years, and the number of Palestinian children (just to choose on category) that have been killed as a result of their policies is phenomenal and this according to international organizations. As to Christian fundemantalists, just take a look at the public support made by christian zionist for the continued irrational attacks against civilians in the name of Christianity.
While they might use different means the results by ideologies and actions of religious fundemantalists is the same.

Let me ask this audience. Most will give into the idea that when looking back, it seemed obvious during the 1930's that something bad was likely to happen in Europe, given the cast of actors and their stated intentions (Mein Kampf). Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and embraces a strain of ideology that regales in martyrdom and endless 'death to the infidel' rants. No one likes the idea of pre-emptive wars. But someone please tell me what the US' response to a nuclear detonation in New York City would be...5..10..15 years down the road from now. Do you think anyone would say for a second..."gee, now that's something we didn't see coming...we allowed a known state sponsor of terror that openly embraced a religeous, extremist, intolerant ideology to attain the most powerful weapons in the world and something bad happened'? For myself that is a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious.

With Iran the concept of mutually assured destruction, which kept the US and Soviet Union from ever going to war, could not responsibly be relied upon. Extremist Muslims regale in death if 'in service to Allah.' So in visiting it upon the West, a responsible world must take into account whether an Islamist extremist Tehran government would actually regale in its own extinction...that way all 35 million males in the country could swiftly be sent to heaven to meet their waiting virgins, rather than having to wait for so long on earth continually putting up with those annoying Americans.

That "party that America and Israel don't like" was created and is funded by Iran and Syria to destroy Israel, and was most likely formed by the same people who planned the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 American servicemen who were there as part of a multinational peacekeeping force. Sorry, Hezbollah does not get my sympathy or support.

The great majority of the world want peace and to live peaceably and comfortably. But, the leaders, to stay in power, advocate otherwise. They preach evil and incite the populace to promote their own ends. To provide peace and prosperity would force them out of power.
The answer is political and the moderates of all countries and faiths must cause a political upheaval. How? I cannot answer.

"A previous post" repeats all of the rhetoric of the moveon.org crowd with no answers except to say "Bush Lied!" and we can do it better. But, getting back to the point of the Mr. Kuttab. He implies that there are radical Christian and Jewish groups that deserve the same attention given to radical Muslim groups. I wish he'd point out those which Christian or Jewish group straps bombs on people with the intention of blowing them up in the middle of market places. Don't try to feed me that trap that they're just freedom fighters who are using any means they can to attack a stronger foe. They're pawns of the tyrannical regimes of Iran and Syria whose objectives are to irradicate Israel and, eventually, the entire Western culture. I'm not sure if this question is really relevant when people like Mr. Kuttab are unwilling to condemn the actions of Muslims who drive car bombs into markeplaces filled with Muslims of another sect.

I don't think I can say it any better than Barry. What we hear from the Islamo-Facist side is reminiscent of Kruschev announcing "We will bury you!" Although Kruschev did not mean that in the sense that they would destroy us, but, rather, would outlast us, he was wrong. Time will prove that the Islamo-Facists are, too. Freedom is a much more powerful motivation than "submission."

A previous post states that we should not abandon our [American] principles and embrace the, "I know it sounds good, but it's a lie" style of rhetoric the writer opines those in the Middle East prefer. Has the writer not realized that the current American Administration has whollly embraced this style? WMD, 'last throws', 'Mission Accomplished', etc... It sounded good at the time.

Jesus . . .all the U.S. has to do to be liked by Arab/Muslim nations is to abandon our principles and use the kind of "I know it's a lie, but it sounds good" rhetoric favored by those nations. We are told to leave Iraq and turn it over to Muslim troops -- presumably so they can install a Shiite-based religious dominant government. We are also told to stop using "Islamo Fascist" language -- no need to accurately describe what the problem is, just ignore it like so-called moderate Muslims do. That's right, "head in the sand" diplomacy is supposed to make the problem go away. History shows us that it hasn't worked in Muslim nations, why should we adopt this kind of lunacy? We're also told by this panel to abandon Israel in favor or those fascist governments whose foreign policy calls for the destruction of Israel and death to Jews. Does this sound like America to you? I have a better idea. We should start making it clear that the problem in the Arab/Muslim world is of their own making and start demanding that they join modernity and begin practicing a bit of tolerance. If indeed there are "moderate Muslims" out there, they need to work a whole lot harder than they do now to rid their religion and their culture of the Islamo Fascists who have hijacked their culture and their religion -- or we should stop saying that it has been hijacked and acknowledge the facts on the ground, namely that there are no moderate Muslims and the fascist variety speak for them all. The problem is not the United States, it is a failed religion/culture that is doing nothing about those hate mongers who speak for it. YOU do something besides give us bad advice. Please!

The term "Islamo-fascism" is exactly accurate. It correctly avoids labeling all Muslims as extremists, but it also acknowledges that the extremists in question derive their inspiration from Islam. And this is not "the West" jumping to conclusions : it is something that said extremists have themselves repeatedly emphasised. It is the height of folly, as well as being condescending and possibly racist, for us to dismiss their stated descriptions of themselves and their motives, and instead project what we want to hear : that they actually, really, are driven by political goals, or poverty or colonialism, or whatever.

We are often told that the US must join forces with moderate Muslims in the struggle against terrorism. What language in describing terrorists (if any, other than "Islamo-fascism") would successfully connect with moderate Muslims?