« Shame On The Bush Administration! | Main | As If There Weren't Enough.... »

October 21, 2006

Another One From My Favorite Democrat...

... Of course, Ed Koch is the kind of Democrat that once comprised that party before the liberals bought it.

This OpEd is titled The Pope, Islamics and Me.

As I have repeatedly written, take Islamic radicals at their word -- they want to convert us or kill us. They are killing one another, Shia against Sunni and Sunni against Shia. Often before decapitating their enemies in the ongoing civil and religious strife in Baghdad, they torture their victims, according to The Times, by drilling holes in their bodies and heads so death is slow and cruel until the merciful bullet is fired into the victim's head.

Can any independent state threatened with acts of terror, unless it changes its policies, domestic or foreign, ever submit to their demands and expect to protect its citizens from new demands? Has appeasement ever worked?

There are those in every Western democracy who are losing their resolve, their willingness to standup to the Islamic terrorists. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) deplores the use of the term "Islamic fascists," sometimes used by the White House. The terrorism we face is worldwide and has an Islamist goal -- the restoration of the caliphate, one Islamic state including Spain, North Africa, the Middle East to the Far East, including Indonesia. Take them at their word. The words of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, now dead and heretofore leader of Iraq's insurrection and terror, are, "Killing the infidel is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute."

Feingold, who definitely is not the same sort of sane, realistic, old style Democrat as is Hizzonor, needs to wake up and then start giving wake-up calls to the rest of those neuveau Democrats, sooner rather than later.

Yeah, I know, "Fat Chance".

Posted by Seth at October 21, 2006 03:54 AM


A couple observations: we may be misinterpeting the Democrat 'swing' to the left: there has always been an extreme fringe. Voter-wise, many
of both parties tend to the center, and there have been compelling arguments that a reverse
'swing' to the right has taken place among the GOP. To paraphrase, comparing the Dems to Marxists and the GOP to Nazis is empty rhetoric.
Secondly, regarding Feingold's observation about
'Islamic Facist', I would tend to agree. There is no single good definition of Facism, and while
Hezbollah, Al Quaida and the like meet some of the definition, other characteristics don't. I suppose it's a handy moniker, but Islamic 'terrorist', 'extremist', 'criminals' or 'murderers' might be more appropriate: perhaps Islamic ultrareligious psychotic? On
an unrelated, but similarly complex issue, I was stranded in a Wyoming blizzard in a small town
last week. Horizontal snow and 10 degree temps
closed every road from town. Luckily, there was
a place with heat and Newcastle Brown Ale. I made
a serious attempt to test the stuff vs my favorite hometown MooseDrool. Sad to report, I had no MD available for a sip by sip comparison and can only observe that they are very comparable...and it's true that with each cold
beer in one's system, the windchill drops another five degrees.

Posted by: BB-Idaho at October 21, 2006 09:02 AM

BB --

If fascism http://www.answers.com/fascism doesn't define Islam, nothing does.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Also, read this post:


Alcohol isn't really the best thing to drink before venturing out into cold weather, though it's great once you've come in from it, especially brandy or hot toddies. If I were drinking beer after coming in from the cold, there would undoubtedly be a shot of something or other to go with it.

Posted by: Seth at October 21, 2006 12:32 PM

If we agree that:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
..is the definition, then we agree. I would point out that this definition is so broad that
Spartans, Romans, most absolute monarchies, every petty dictatorship (and some US companies)as well as Communist totalitarianism could be classified as 'fascist'. Robert Paxton's 'The Anatomy of Fascism' reviews some views from the standpoint of government, economic policy, nationalism etc. Some definitions also include
the strong anti-socialist, anti-marxist roots and the requirement of a worried middle-class for the development of a classic fascism. Am not arguing the point here, just attempting a clarification of my earlier remarks vis a vis Islamic fundamentalism and its more radical adherents.

Posted by: BB-Idaho at October 21, 2006 05:29 PM

BB --

If we were to really delve into fascism from a hair splitting POV, you could probably define Paxton's interpretation as "defensive fascism" -- in the sense that his definition is based on a reaction to offensive societal ills.

From Hitler's POV, however, the same offensive form of government was of a fabricated nature, the invention of said societal ills in order to bring the mainstream of German society into his political camp.

Moving on to Islam, we see a society that marches, by scriptural directive, to impose what can only be defined as aggressive fascism on the rest of civilization.

So, basically, I see a complete difference, though I must confess, LOL, that until your last comment, I never really thought to break fascism down into categories as I just did.

Posted by: Seth at October 21, 2006 08:31 PM


The comment that was here for a short period that was posted by someone referring to himself as "Enlightenment" has been removed by me.

This person has been posting the same {I mean duplicate, as in copy and paste} comment at numerous conservative blogs over the last several days, a far -- and I mean far -- left wingnut conspiracy theory that without actually saying so pins 9/11 on the Bush Administration.

Basically, we are talking about a serious troll whom, I believe, should not be glorified by being permitted to have his dubious and insane agenda posted at any responsible site.

Posted by: Seth at October 29, 2006 03:41 PM