Muslims angry over Bush terrorist speech

[A.Rahman]

Muslims angry over Bush terrorist speech

11 August 2006
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]WASHINGTON: US Muslim groups have criticised US President George W Bush for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists", saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]US officials have said the plot, thwarted by Britain, to blow up several aircraft over the Atlantic bore many of the hallmarks of al Qaeda. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counterproductive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he told a news conference in Washington. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"We urge him (Bush) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves." [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Awad said US officials should take the lead from their British counterparts who steered clear of using what he considered inflammatory terms when they announced the arrest of more than 20 suspects in the reported plot. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Hours after the news broke, Bush said it was "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation." [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Bush and other administration officials have used variations of the term "Islamo-fascism" on several occasions in the past to describe militant groups including al Qaeda, its allies in Iraq and Hizbollah in Lebanon. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told MSNBC television the phrase reflected what he called Osama bin Laden's own vision of leading a totalitarian empire under the guise of religion. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"It might may not be classic fascism as you had with Mussolini or Hitler. But it is a totalitarian, intolerant imperialism that has a vision that is totally at odds with Western society and our rules of law," Chertoff said. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Many American Muslims, who say they have felt singled out for discrimination since the September 11 attacks, reject the term and say it unfairly links their faith to notions of dictatorship, oppression and racism. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"The problem with the phrase is it attaches the religion of Islam to tyranny and fascism, rather than isolating the threat to a specific group of individuals," said Edina Lekovic, spokeswoman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]She said the terms cast suspicions on all Muslims, even the vast majority who want to live in safety like other Americans. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Bush upset many Muslims after the September 11 attacks by referring to the global war against terrorism early on as a "crusade," a term which for many Muslims connotes a Christian battle against Islam. The White House quickly stopped using the word, expressing regrets if it had caused offence. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Mohamed Elibiary, a Texas-based Muslim activist, said he was upset by the president's latest comments. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"We've got Osama bin Laden hijacking the religion in order to define it one way. We feel the president and anyone who's using these kinds of terminologies is hijacking it too from a different side," he said. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"The president's use of the language is going to ratchet up the hate meter, but I think it would have caused much more damage if he had done this after 9/11," Elibiary said, adding that tensions were not running as high as they had been in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 attacks.[/FONT]

 

[JSK]

No offense but when are muslims not angry...if the rest of muslims (those who do not post on forums have similar mentality as the ones that do post on forums, then there's a major problem!!! All muslims view the world/war as us vs. them (meaning Muslims vs. non-muslims) unless and until that mentality is erased..this is how its gonna be unfortunetely!!!

Every terrorist activity is somehow related to Islam - call the rest of us ignorant but how can you possibly blame the world for fearing islam or calling spade a spade?

If there's one incident in Gujarat or Kashmir or anywhere for that matter, all muslims are quick to label other religions as racists, fascists, muslim-haters..or whatever..yet when its vise-versa..they get angry - How about showing sympathy for human kind rather than just muslims?

 

[A.Rahman]

No offense but when are muslims not angry...if the rest of muslims (those who do not post on forums have similar mentality as the ones that do post on forums, then there's a major problem!!! All muslims view the world/war as us vs. them (meaning Muslims vs. non-muslims) unless and until that mentality is erased..this is how its gonna be unfortunetely!!!

none taken.

Its never been non-muslim vs muslims, its a wrong term. Now we all know that US has double standard policies when it comes to middle-east & surrounding areas, People do hate US's Admin in those countries, Media presents it like a war between non-muslim vs muslims, they try to potray it like they are fighting for the crusades, doing the God's work in bush's term. The mentality cant be erased until US dosnt changes its foreign policy,

Every terrorist activity is somehow related to Islam - call the rest of us ignorant but how can you possibly blame the world for fearing islam or calling spade a spade?

Wrong again, Why does Islam goes to trail if a guy is terrorist, I dont see someone mentioning "White" christain today killed his children or like, catholic soldiers raped 14 year old Iraqi girl.

There are 1.6 billion muslims in this world, if spade was a spade then God help this world.

If there's one incident in Gujarat or Kashmir or anywhere for that matter, all muslims are quick to label other religions as racists, fascists, muslim-haters..or whatever..yet when its vise-versa..they get angry - How about showing sympathy for human kind rather than just muslims?

No one labelled any religion, People who did gujarat genocide were muslim haters, its a known fact. The hatered made them do this criminal act in first palce.

You can hear them saying Sh*t about muslims in the video. (watch final solution)

Muslims do show sympathy for every Iccocent Life, Every life is valued in our religion.

 

[Awesome]

No offense but when are muslims not angry...if the rest of muslims (those who do not post on forums have similar mentality as the ones that do post on forums, then there's a major problem!!! All muslims view the world/war as us vs. them (meaning Muslims vs. non-muslims) unless and until that mentality is erased..this is how its gonna be unfortunetely!!!

Didn't Bush use the term either "You're with us or with the terrorists?" He made it "US vs Them". Just because we'd refuse to be with Bush doesn't mean we're against THEM or with the terrorists.

He that is not with me is against me

Matthew 12:30

Every terrorist activity is somehow related to Islam - call the rest of us ignorant but how can you possibly blame the world for fearing islam or calling spade a spade?

Coz it's not related but its spoken out that way coz of ignorance. In the same way if we took Bush to be the ideal depiction of the west wouldn't that mean they are all a bunch of Muslim gutting butchers over there? When we can use our brains not to do so, we'd certainly ask raise objections when the President tries to widen his Crusade.

[QUOTE="George W. Bush]This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.[/QUOTE]
September 15th, 2001

So really who made it into a vs Muslims scenario?

If there's one incident in Gujarat or Kashmir or anywhere for that matter, all muslims are quick to label other religions as racists, fascists, muslim-haters..or whatever..yet when its vise-versa..they get angry - How about showing sympathy for human kind rather than just muslims?

Again how deaf do you have to be to miss the vast calls of condemnation whenever something happens to non-Muslims? Isn't it Pakistan a Muslim country that committed troops and lives to restore order into Sierra Leone?

 

[wadawada]

none taken.

Its never been non-muslim vs muslims, its a wrong term. Now we all know that US has double standard policies when it comes to middle-east & surrounding areas, People do hate US's Admin in those countries, Media presents it like a war between non-muslim vs muslims, they try to potray it like they are fighting for the crusades, doing the God's work in bush's term. The mentality cant be erased until US dosnt changes its foreign policy,



Wrong again, Why does Islam goes to trail if a guy is terrorist, I dont see someone mentioning "White" christain today killed his children or like, catholic soldiers raped 14 year old Iraqi girl.

There are 1.6 billion muslims in this world, if spade was a spade then God help this world.



No one labelled any religion, People who did gujarat genocide were muslim haters, its a known fact. The hatered made them do this criminal act in first palce.

You can hear them saying Sh*t about muslims in the video. (watch final solution)

Muslims do show sympathy for every Iccocent Life, Every life is valued in our religion.

Well said.

There is a blatant double standard even when it comes to semantics.

islam is the only religion associated all the time with "bad" adjectives.

as you said, no muslim said that christianity is a genocidal and imperialiste religion (europeans and christians had the largest, most sophisticated and THUS most destructive wars and empires. their effects are still visible today). also, judaism is not associated with israeli imperialism. etc...

however, once it comes to islam, the old "european" phobia re-activates.it is understandable from a historical perspective : islam had empires and "agressed" europe and christendom on their own territories; but unforgivable from political perspective, because europeens TOOK REVENGE. and in a way that leave all islamic "enlightened" (relativly) invasions uncomparable with the machiavelic and "cold" social and ideological "reengineering" that pseudo-christians and certainly supremacist imperialists made to the islamic world and othe parts of humanity.


=================

Didn't Bush use the term either "You're with us or with the terrorists?" He made it "US vs Them". Just because we'd refuse to be with Bush doesn't mean we're against THEM or with the terrorists.


Matthew 12:30


Coz it's not related but its spoken out that way coz of ignorance. In the same way if we took Bush to be the ideal depiction of the west wouldn't that mean they are all a bunch of Muslim gutting butchers over there? When we can use our brains not to do so, we'd certainly ask raise objections when the President tries to widen his Crusade.


September 15th, 2001

So really who made it into a vs Muslims scenario?


Again how deaf do you have to be to miss the vast calls of condemnation whenever something happens to non-Muslims? Isn't it Pakistan a Muslim country that committed troops and lives to restore order into Sierra Leone?

When muslims condems, no news network relays that. And then, they come and tell us that we kept silent about terrorists.

also, please let's not forget :

islmaic areas were under occupation, the worst form : imperialism.

this have left us weak and "poor" (I mean y=the intellectual, civilisationnal and human ressources).

this led to the geostrategical fact that muslims are the poor. humanly speaking.

because the poor tend to be disorganised, bad educated, the worst versions of ideologies (bad islam, bad "westernism", bad socialism etc...) take place and this perpetuate the HUMAN under-developpement, and leave the doors open for all BAD surprises.

the western leaders are far from beign stupid or ignorant. they know that islam is not assiciated with our bad situation but rathe it's our bad condition that is associated with some pseudo-islams (like feodalim with pseudo-christianity for example). but they choose willingly to ignire that fundamental fact and endorse the scenario of samuel huntigon "the clash of civilisation", thus making from it a "self-happening" prophecy (?? prophétie auto-réalisée)

becasue that serve the wester interests : finding a new ennemy, and if not possible inventing a new one.

the lessons to learn from that are : the more islamic countries will stay weak, the easier it will be for the west to make from them "ennemies". we have inner human problems that are caused by the destruction of enlightenment of islam in the name of some superstituous versions of islam, and we must work for that aim. we need for that : full respect for intelligence, full support for nationalisms and full inter-islamic solidarity.

otherwise, islam will really become the "official religion of terror"...

 

[Samudra]

as you said, no muslim said that christianity is a genocidal and imperialiste religion

But the Christians themselves have no qualms in acknowledging the evils of Christianity!

 

[Awesome]

But the Christians themselves have no qualms in acknowledging the evils of Christianity!

Because lets face it, no one Christian can definitely say what Christianity really is. All the hoohaa about the Da Vinci Code proved that.

We have the Quran and thats who we are. If the terrorists are doing otherwise, then that's not Islamic.

 

[Samudra]

Because lets face it, no one Christian can definitely say what Christianity really is. All the hoohaa about the Da Vinci Code proved that.

No, it proves that the Christians are willing to subject their religion to scrutiny.

They're willing to use reason.If religion defies reason they're willing to dump religion for they realise reason helps them a lot than religion.

We have the Quran and thats who we are. If the terrorists are doing otherwise, then that's not Islamic.

Quran authorised Shia and Sunni sectarianism ?

 

[Awesome]

No.

Sectarianism is an ethnic/political issue not religious.

But for what it's worth it's quite unIslamic as well.

No, it proves that the Christians are willing to subject their religion to scrutiny.

That's great. Every religion should be able to stand the test of scrutiny. And if fails it should be discarded.

Of course if it does not, then why not accept the one religion that does not fail scrutiny?

 

[Samudra]

But for what it's worth it's quite unIslamic as well.

So why do they exist?
Who care's if its Islamic or not...it EXISTS - just like there are different versions of Christianity there are sects in Islam.

Every religion should be able to stand the test of scrutiny

then why not accept the one religion that does not fail scrutiny?

No religion will be able to stand the test of scrutiny/reason.

 

[wadawada]

But the Christians themselves have no qualms in acknowledging the evils of Christianity!

false. it was when christiannity began to decline, lose power on its historical territory (atheism, secularism with its different phases, from light to anti-religious etC...), that christianity began to make her mea culpa.

yes, in part, christians (europe) are far more developped than muslims in recognizing their faults. it is in part related to a good charactersitic in christianity : the confession. in other part, it is also related to a very high european (non religious) intellectual standard : OBJECTIVITY.

which get us back to what I said : islam is spread in areas that had either no greco-romano-germanic civilsiations (remember : extreme objectivity, even confrontational with the "religious" or dogmatic power. this does not exist elswhere, especially in islam and judaism), and are poor (humanly speaking, intellectually "backward"). which gives to us, the MUSLIMS (so the humans, not the 'abstract' religion) these bad characteristics.

 

[Awesome]

So why do they exist?
Who care's if its Islamic or not...it EXISTS - just like there are different versions of Christianity there are sects in Islam.

The sects essentially do not have different versions of Islam. The fight basically argues who was the rightful leader of Islam 1400 years ago.

No religion will be able to stand the test of scrutiny/reason.

You've been trying for 2 years, you couldn't yet rattle my arguments, Sam.

 

[wadawada]

No, it proves that the Christians are willing to subject their religion to scrutiny.

They're willing to use reason.If religion defies reason they're willing to dump religion for they realise reason helps them a lot than religion.



Quran authorised Shia and Sunni sectarianism ?

sorry, false. christians are now inexistant as a community, strictly speaking.

if a religion have no more a homeland, a State, it disapears.

what happened to christianity (I say, sincerly, as a muslim : unfortunatly) is that it have desintegrated. chrisitianity is now more like a label, and much less like a faith.

contrary to what you claim, reason does not help more than religion, for a very simple fact : reason is Amoral, = is not related to moral. (not to be confused with IMmoral)

that means that reason lacks : a community (religion) and higher aims (religion). reason is not a belief system (i.e reason is not a religion, like the West is trying to do). because of that, outside a religious context, reason lose sense. this is EXACTLY why the West is inventing a new religion label "democracy". democracy, invented by the greek genious civilisation, is a pure product of reason, a rational and pragmatic managment political method. What we see know is the summum of the absurd, as usa want the world to "belive" in "democracy". before "democracy"-religion, the west have invented other belief systems to compensante its lack of christianity : consumerism and supremacism for example.


-about sunna and shiaa : this is a matter not related to islam as a religion, but rather as a political system. behind that, there is in reality an ethnico-civilisation division between the (true) sunni arabo-semitic islam, and (true) indo-iranian islam (please note that many sects claim to be sunni while being influenced by shiaa, and many claim to be shiaa while more like sunnis).

contrary to what some imperialists from iran or arabia claim, there is no problem in, having both these sects in islam, and they are not haram, as nothing forbids that. At the contrary, islam is by nature (even if this have niot been respect during the imperial islamic eras) decentralised (a cenral church is forbidden), and is NOT an ethnic religion (not like judaim). that means : not arab or iranian or....islam. only one divine islam, that is NATURALLY diverse in its forms as every human tribe is different; the most important is that the ideas of islam are kept alive, thus islamic solidarity is a duty. NOT islamic UNIFORMITY.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Nicely explained, Wadawada.

 

[Awesome]

Nicely explained, Wadawada.

One would argue the reasoning faith (atheism) itself is a religion.

Of course its not one without its own set of contradictions either.

One of the reasons I'm a Muslim and not a Christian (despite having a deep interest in it) is because while Islam attempts to reason out things, Christianity's all about "Just believe it".

We have two suspiscions of Bush's hatred towards all Muslims. Either greed or his his faith. Either way Muslims have a lot of cause for concern.