Comments
Hello DF
Islamist defined as a radical follower of Islam: does that already mean a violent terrorist attacking grandmothers at home, or could it also mean something short of a criminal ? If so, then the term "radical Islamist" could add some content to the concept. Please don't think that I want to excuse "Islamists", but it may actually be useful to adopt different strategies against 1.violent murderers and 2. people who, like communists or french politicians, are not serving anyone's cause (except for their own) but can not yet be compared with mere murderers.
(Mr. Usher of course, cares probably more about the dramatic effects of his words than about their actual meaning)
Posted by:
Vindavent |
May 14, 2004 08:42 AM
I suppose it is possible that you could have your run of the mill islamists , like Hatem Bazani, a professor of islamic studies at Berkley.
He only calls for an Intafada in the United States, but never participates in the violence himself. Just like Yassin, Arafat and Rantisi.
Then again you have teenaged suicide bombers who have a change of heart at the checkpoints, and ask for assistance to remove the bomb vests. These would be radical '' nonislamists''.
Also the term radical is usually refering to some unusual action. Like a Muslim waving a tricolor and singing La Marseillaise with a tear in his eye. ''Radical'' would be inappropriate for a muslim who burns an American flag or shoots at Israeli settlers.
So complex . My head is hurting. Think I'll drink a beer.
Posted by:
Papertiger |
May 15, 2004 10:24 AM
I would guess that "Islamist" is probably not a widely understood term outside certain circles, e.g., the blogosphere, those familiar with the work of Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, et al. It would not surprise me to learn that Sebastian Usher thinks "Islamist = Muslim", which would explain the use of the adjective "radical". But what can you expect from the BBC, Reuters, and others of that ilk who use the terms "soldiers", "militants", "fighters" and "activists" to describe barbarians who murder civilians in buses and shops with crude anti-personnel bombs, or pump bullets into a pregnant woman and her 4 children at close range?
Posted by:
Noah |
May 18, 2004 10:58 PM
[sarcasm] Now, now, Noah... those guys shooting pregnant women and toddlers in the backs of their heads are just like George Washington, you know? [/sarcasm]
Point of fact, the terrorists do share one thing with the Father of Our Country - wooden body parts. In Washington's case, though, it was just his teeth; for the Islamists, it's the entire head.
The real problem was stated very clearly by James Lileks last Wednesday (www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0504/051204.html). When faced with something like the crime which sparked the Fallujah uprising, or Nicholas Berg's murder (or Daniel Pearl's before him), there are five possible reactions: rejection, denial, indifference, endorsement, or participation; and of these, four of them aid the enemy's cause. The net result of Mr. Usher's verbal contortions is to try to blur those five distinctions, which leads me to consider a sixth reaction, peculiar to self-loathing Westerners: Toadying. It must amaze the jihadi to see someone so completely in their pockets without taking any actual bribe money - not that certain Toadies haven't done that as well.
Posted by:
Nightfly |
May 19, 2004 09:36 PM
Religions that teach intolerance breed fanatics. These just happen to be the latest batch of fanatics in a group of people known for raising good little fanatics.
Posted by:
IXLNXS |
May 20, 2004 10:10 PM
Religions that teach intolerance breed fanatics. These just happen to be the latest batch of fanatics in a group of people known for raising good little fanatics.
Never was a truer word spoken.
Posted by:
johnny dee |
May 25, 2004 01:17 PM
