The Islamofascists Would Kill Me First

I am a Muslim who has renounced Islam. I am an apostate. I have had very unflattering things to say about the Prophet Mohamed (number one no-no of all time in the eyes of radical Islam). If an Islamic theocracy were to take over, I would be the first one strung up.

Islamic radicals are not known for their patience for Muslims who denounce Islam and the Prophet Mohamed. They're known for killing them.

Nonetheless, here are three reasons why I am not scared of the Islamofascists:

1. They're not a real threat. These childish neo-cons run around trying to scare everyone into believing these guys are the new Third Reich. Really? Are they about to roll over the Czechoslovakia (or now the Czech Republic and Slovakia)? Is Cleveland next? Should the residents of Boca Raton look for new retirement communities because the Islamofascists are coming?

Don't be ridiculous. This is a made up threat that in no way, shape or form endangers the United States of America. Al Qaeda is a few thousand cave dwellers that have managed to hit us on several occasions through good planning, but it's not like their armies are going to roll into San Diego and occupy us. Iran is a country that is gaining some regional power, but to claim they threaten Europe or America (or even a nuclear-armed Israel) is ludicrous. Which European country do you think Ahmedinejad will take first -- Germany or Great Britain?

This is not tot say that you ignore the real threat that groups like Al Qaeda pose, as the Bush administration did before and after 9/11 (why did we pass up a near certain hit on Osama bin Laden just two months ago, for example). But you have to understand the proportion of the threat in order to be able to deal with it intelligently.

I don't want Iran taking over anywhere. They literally endanger my well-being. But there is a smart way of dealing with Iran and then there is the Bush way. The Iranian people can be won over by our culture and the lure of liberty and democracy (and more importantly, capitalism). Time is on our side. But if we attack them, we will definitely push them toward nationalism, militarism and fundamentalism. Ironically, we will create more Islamic radicals to fight, not less.

2. Islamofascism does not exist. It's a made up word and made up concept. There are plenty of Islamic radicals and Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, I think the "war on terror" should be renamed the "war on fundamentalism." But these radicals don't believe in fascism. They don't think the state should be merged with corporations. Corporations? Are there a slew of Islamic corporations threatening the world?

Fascism has many elements to it, not just the corporate aspects. But a thoughtful look at what makes up a fascist state will not reveal any resemblance to fundamentalist Islam. They share the fact that they both believe in repression of the citizenry, but so does nearly every dictatorial regime in the history of mankind. So, why don't we call them Islamocommunists or Islamomaoists or Islamoimperialists? Why, because it's silly. Just call them what they are -- Islamic fundamentalists.

Of course, the reason the neo-conservatives made this "Islamofascists" word up is so they could compare Iran and Ahmedinejad to the Nazis and use it as a pretense to attack Iran. It's so obvious that it's a bit pathetic.

3. The third reason why I am not afraid of the so-called Islamofascists is because I am not a coward. I don't run away from American principles and the U.S. constitution just because we were attacked. I believe in America and what she stands for. These colors don't run.

I guess there are some people so weak and frightened that they will argue that we should change America so that we become more like our enemy in order to defeat them. But I'm not in that camp. I'm in the camp of standing by our flag, standing by our constitution and standing by our principles.

If we can't beat them by being Americans, then what's the point? Do these neo-conservative cowards believe in America at all? Do they believe in the America that respects its citizens' rights, that treats everyone -- even their prisoners -- fairly, that is the shining beacon for the world? Do they believe in the America that beat the real Nazis without having to be Nazis? That beat the Stalinists without having to become like the Stalinists?

Or do they think we should torture, spy on innocent Americans, start first strike wars and violate all of the principles that made this country great? You be the judge. But I, for one, am not afraid of the boogeyman, even if the boogeyman has my name first on his list. The America I know and love can beat any real or imagined boogeyman. And we do it by having the courage of our convictions and staying true to who we are.

Watch TYT Here

< The Real John Edwards | Young Turks Write a Letter to Joe Knollenberg >
 Display:
So, why don't we call them Islamocommunists or Islamomaoists or Islamoimperialists?

Somebody already uses Islamomarxist.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 12:32:46 PM EST

Instead of dropping bombs on these people we should be dropping porn, pizza and Entertainment Weekly.

Here in the US we have a perfect template for how distraction (coupled with easy credit) can mask a mediocre (at best) life.  

We need them to open up that chest of guilty pleasures so that chants of "Death to America" will be replaced with "Leave Brittany Alone!" 

It's sadly true that the US has become the #1 importer of goods.  But if we try hard we can again become the #1 exporter of pop culture, a far more powerful tool for squashing the radical elements of the world.  After all, why do we think our radicals only picket and try to change laws, which is better than suicide bombs and the like. 

It's because we have HBO and American Idol and movies like (fill in the blank movie with fart jokes, boobs and explosions) and deep friend Twinkies and triple double stacks of burgers and fries and and on and on.  And hey, if we're broke, no problem, we have free money (credit cards)!

We also do a much better job placating our nerds.  Who needs 72 virgins when we have lube and a PC or DVD player?  Who needs real friends when we have online message boards and role playing games and X-Box 10,000?

by ihavenobias on 11/02/2007 12:52:27 PM EST

There will always be radical groups of extremists, no matter what we do.

But they are FAR less likely to override the will of the people if most people are caught up in the distractions and benefits of modern culture.  It's much easier to dismiss and marginlize extremists (and thus, limit their power and influence) if most people are too busy masturbating and eating Doritos to worry about how bad America is.

After all, that lust for 72 virgins may subside just a bit after you watch Hot College Co-eds Part 20, don't you think? 

Bombing people doesn't get rid of extremism, rather, it creates even more of it (even our the former head of the National Counter-terrorism Center said as much recently).  Instead of handing out guns to militias we should be handing out Penthouse and Netflix. 

by ihavenobias on 11/02/2007 03:36:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Who said anything about imposing?  People don't HAVE to whack off to the handed out porn and there's no gun to their head.

Besides, it's mostly comsmetic cultral differences we're talking about here.  We have plenty of religious people here that hate porn too, right?

It's one thing to promote pop culture and distraction and quite another to radically and directly transform a government and sectarian divides with guns and bombs.

Neither approach is perfect, but one results in a lot less death.

But I do agree we have to be very careful in how we promote pop culture, in order to not be *seen* as imposing anything.  We'd have to let most people think they they WANT to discover it and did in fact discover it on their own.

Which is why they'd have their own version of Penthouse with non-American women who are barely naked (like that Kim Darshian spread for example).

It's a subtle approach.  Part of what I wrote was meant to be funny, but the core of it is essentially true. 

by ihavenobias on 11/02/2007 04:19:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Do you think we actually need to improve the socioeconomic conditions that create so many gangs, and so much violence, drug use and general crime (but then why vote republican?) or is your answer to let these people magically develop a work ethic and educational background on their own?

Of course part of the equation is boosting people out of poverty.  The best anti-poverty program is a decent paying job with some benefits, and there's plenty of room for improvement between straight handouts and straight "do nothing, screw them".

At any rate, it's not about American culture per se.  I don't care if they have "American Idol" on tv, the point is to have *something* on tv other than religious dogma and propaganda. 

PS---How are we "protecting American culture"? And protecting it from what? 

 

by ihavenobias on 11/02/2007 05:25:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
and more about economic freedom.

It's hard to recruit terrorists when the pool you're recruiting from has everything it needs and is living a happy life.

by jarett on 11/03/2007 04:17:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]

It's both.  But I think what passes for a happy life much of the time in America IS less about true happiness (however we define it) and more about distraction (zoning out to TV, football, video games, porn, movies, and so on).

Maybe that's a cynical view, but I think there's at least *some* truth to it. 

by ihavenobias on 11/03/2007 12:33:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"It's much easier to dismiss and marginlize extremists (and thus, limit their power and influence) if most people are too busy masturbating and eating Doritos to worry about how bad America is."

I guess it's much easier to dismiss extremists if your leaders are doing the same thing.  Bush is kind of health -conscious (well, his own health anyway) and probably doesn't eat the Doritos. 

by bfaul on 11/03/2007 12:00:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He DID sustain that Durito eating injury

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/03/2007 06:13:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]

" If we can't beat them by being Americans, then what's the point?"

Well stated.  I especially like that sentence.  We can easily beat them and stay who we are.  That pretty much says it all.


by bfaul on 11/02/2007 01:47:35 PM EST

Well I guess if you consider waterboarding torture, which it's not we've done that. Only three suspects have been water boarded. One was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who we got a lot of info out of so as Dick Cheney says- water boarding high value terrorists is a no-brainer.

by acroso on 11/02/2007 09:18:04 PM EST

John McCain thinks its torture. I guess he would know. The simple fact is. You are OK with torture abu ghraib was no worse than a college hazing folks  ( smacks lips)..

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/03/2007 04:33:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]

It's been done to 3 people all of which were deserving.

 I don't think we should do it to everyone in GITMO or every poor SOB that finds his\her way into Abu Ghraib, but doing it to the top leadership of Al Qaida who won't give us info by other means makes sense.

by acroso on 11/03/2007 10:57:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There is no such thing as "deserving" America does not torture  ... and if the number is more than 0  then its to many.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/07/2007 07:31:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]

And btw- if you define water boarding as torture (it isn't quite obviously)- you're going to have to arrest thousands of our servicemen who train with it regularly. Every special forces member is water boarded.

 That's yet another reason why our attorney general can't go out there calling half the army torturers (as in torturing thousands of each other not the 3 Al Qaeda members we've done it to.)


by acroso on 11/03/2007 11:01:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, considers waterboarding a form of torture. McCain has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank."

After World War II, U.S. military commissions prosecuted several Japanese soldiers for subjecting U.S. soldiers to waterboarding, according to Human Rights Watch. In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/04/2007 09:54:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]

See that. You do have something to say other than "go away troll".

Much better. 

by z1p101 on 11/04/2007 10:31:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Like I posted to Ken Troll.. I dont need your approval..

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/07/2007 07:33:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So you think our Special forces troops should be jailed for violating Geneva conventions?

by acroso on 11/04/2007 10:37:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If they are torturing  prisoners then yes

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 11/07/2007 07:34:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I mean torturing each other...

by acroso on 11/10/2007 09:40:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The right wing can't use a term such as Islamoimperialist because then they would have to tolerate being referred to as Christioimperialsts; which is what they are.

 

by BostonTurk on 11/26/2007 01:16:54 AM EST

 Display: