Now I know I’m asking a lot here but you guys are beating up on a friend of mine and frankly I don’t like that too good. So how about showing some kind of decorum.

You want decorum? Oh, that’s over at your friend beth’s place. Here’s a sample in case you missed it:

I told you you had one chance left to even prove you were part of the human race. The site does open, it’s not my fault you’re totally incompetent. Click on it again, you lying sack of pork infested, goat fucking, woman hating piece of shit.

You also misspelled “misspelled”.

November 4, 2007 at 1:04

Cyber Pastor originally said, “I am no Bill Clinton fan, but if he turned up with AIDS you wouldn’t here me cheering or making fun.”

Why’d ya pick AIDS, eh compassionate conservative pastor man?

Alas, poor you. If only Bill Clinton would get AIDS, it would confirm your Fred Phelps view of sexuality.

Cyber Pastor now comments, “Well, Leslie – I wouldn’t wish AIDS on anyone. So if that was offensive to you, insert the word cancer if it will make you feel better (and I wouldn’t wish cancer on anyone either).

And as for your uninformed mention of fred phelps, if you would have bothered to check my blog, you would find at least 3 major posts condemning he and his followers, and my suggestion that all should pray for his soul, because the sins he and his followers are committing will surely keep them from heaven unless they repent.”

So, you are saying that there are ideological similarities between radical Islam and the Nazis, which we should not ignore. Further, you are saying that the religion Islam, itself, is inherently expansionist and supremicist.

First, while I am sure that there probably are ideological similarities between the radical Islamists and the Nazis, for instance hatred of Jews, there also seems to me to be a lot of important differences, not just in their worldly position, as I talked about above, but in their actual ideology. From what I know about Mein Kampf, Hitler was talking about how to create an extremely powerful authoritarian modern state, which would co-opt religion, for the purposes of this state. The radical Islamists really seem to me to be more a reactive kind of group, that wants to eradicate modernism in their part of the world, and replace it with an authoritarian religious state, thus creating a kind of utopian, ideal religious society. Hitler applied his ideology, with great success. Hitler had nothing but success until his empire got too big and he created too many enemies. The radical islamists, on the other hand, had nothing but pathetic, blood-soaked failures in their attempts to roll back modernism in their own countries. Prior to 9/11/2007, their only success in applying their ideology was in war-weary Afghanistan, and that was due to US help.

As far as essential expansionism and supremicism in Islam, I’m sure there are things in Islam. But, as you yourself have pointed out, there are things like that in Judaism too. If you had read the rest of this little mini-series “Fun with Other People’s Religions”, you would see that Christianity also has supremicist, warlike statements in its holy book. I’m sure that if you read Hinduism, you would find passages that are supremicist and warlike as well. Actually, if you read the atheist philosophy of Mao Zedong, I’m positive that you will find exhortations somewhere to crush religion and take over their power, along with exhortations to serve the people. And if you read the atheist philosophy of Machiavelli, you’ll find nothing but supremicist, expansionist statements in the service of a state. So, if the Muslims have expansionist, supremicist statements in their books, but so do the Christians, the Jews, the Maoists, the Hindus, and pretty much everyone and their kid sister, then there is no particular reason to worry about “Islam” itself, is there?

Finally, the reason that we think the idea of “Islamo-fascism” is one that should be fought, is, as I mentioned earlier, nobody uses that word without a hidden agenda. When you say, “Islamo-fascism”, you are not just saying that radical Islam is a threat to the western world, which, in fact, it is. You are specifically stating that radical Islam is the same kind of threat that the Nazis were, and that is just a lie. If radical Islam is the same kind of threat that the Nazis were, then obviously it follows that radical Islam needs to be attacked with armies, air forces, bombs, tanks, and missiles. And in reality, that is exactly the wrong way to attack the terrorist organizations of the Radical Islamists- it is exactly like trying to eradicate a cockroach problem in an apartment building by bombing the building with all the tenants still in it. What you get is a huge pile of debris, a lot of murdered civilians, and a lot of people who hate you. In reality, the only effective way to fight a terror network is by boring, un-glamorous, plodding, continual detective work. Ending our own country’s use of terrorism, ending our own country’s military occupation of other states, and finally helping to ameliorate bad conditions in the states which are breeding terrorists, would help a lot too.

So, that is why we will continue to mock and fight against the use of the word, “Islamo-fascism”. Because of the lies, and, in fact the ideology embedded in that word. We have always said that the radical Islamists were a threat, and that will not change. But, frankly, the Radical Christianists and the proto-fascists are more of a threat, because they are a lot more powerful. If people are offended when we mock the idea of “Islamo-fascism”, then I’m sorry, we’ll just have to offend some people.

I do fear Beth and her kind, much more than I do a shadowy Islamic terrorist organization that appears to have done exactly zero damage in the United States in the last six years.

One of the things that I like to point out to conservatives is the vanishingly small number of terrorist acts actually carried out against Americans. You have the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which appears to have been an officially approved act of the Libyan government, the 1993 WTC bombing, and of course 9/11. That’s it. Just about every other act was executed against the American government, and more specifically the military, which in my mind is a huge distinction. This paucity of actual, real terrorism against Americans is why conservatives talk about footbaths and Koran flushing; it’s total nonsense.

But please, please, don’t pretend that there aren’t ideological similarities between the Nazis and radical Muslims. Both are violent, supremacist, expansionist, and have a particular hard on for Jewish people. If you ignore or obfuscate this, people will question your motives and agenda. And yes, I said initially that this supremacy is found in Islam proper; it is. Most Muslims don’t take it literally, just as most Jews don’t take Leviticus and Numbers literally, but it’s there all the same.

My point is about being honest on the origins of “Islamophobia”, not that we need to avoid offending wingnuts (come on DEMIZE!) Beth et al may be too far gone, but there are a heck of lot of people wondering just what the hell is wrong with “the Muslims”; telling them things they know aren’t true is not going to help.

We are not saying there’s nothing to fear from radical Islamists. We have never said that. What we have been doing is to try to get some realism into the discussion about US military policy in the Middle East– realism that has been almost completely lacking in the pathetic US media and online.

If you think that we are being too hard on the proto-fascist hard right that people like Beth, “Cyber Pastor”, and their compatriots are a part of, then I have to ask you, why don’t you understand that they are far more of a danger the US than Al Queda?

If you listen to the statements that Beth and people like her make, for any extended period of time, you start to get a sense of their roiling, feverish hatred and fear toward anyone that they percieve as different. When you see them change their statements, repudiate things they have just said and then begin to defend them again, and hold completely contradictory beliefs in their minds at the same time, you will understand that they don’t care about the truth. And when you begin to hear the eliminationist speech that they constantly use when they feel that they can, you will understand that they would like to use violence if they could.

So, if you wonder why we aren’t more afraid of radical Islamists, I assure you we are. But then I would have to ask you, why don’t you have even more fear toward eliminationist folk like Beth? To me, you are the one who sounds naive, unaware of a very real danger to the people of this country.

Finally, even if Germany’s armed forces were weak at the beginning of WWII, that’s less important than the fact that the Nazis had 95% control of a very modern, organized, wealthy industrial base and almost total control in the population. The Radical Islamists don’t have anything like that. That is why equivalences between the Nazis and the Radical Islamists are false equivalences, and point to a hidden agenda on the part of the speaker.

You bet. Plenty of goofballs have become addicted to extreme Islamophobia. I’m sure everyone who hangs out here is very, very well aware of that – SN has linked to countless anti-Muslim diatribes on right-wing sites.

…pretending…that there is no reason that they do…is dishonest and damaging.

Uh… no.

People don’t have a reason to be afraid of Islam. They have good reason to be concerned about violent Islamist extremist groups, but obviously bin Laden no more speaks for Islam as a whole than Fred Phelps speaks for Christianity. Islamophobia is flagrant bigotry. Treating it with contempt may not be the best way to reach out to those who are afflicted with it, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over that.

…laughing at the wingnuts doesn’t seem to be working.

I don’t laugh at wingnuts on the basis of whether or not it’s effective in making them change their minds. They’re going to have to do that on their own, if they do it at all. I laugh at wingnuts because they’re funny.

Nobody’s getting tripped up. They’re just conscious of your first comment even if you’ve forgotten and actually repudiated parts of it yourself since. Before questioning the literacy and honesty of others you should go back and read it. It’s filled with presumptions about what motivates beth and her ilk and what motivates our reaction to her that few here would accept. By slightly modifying your first comment I hope I can clear up your confusion with a shorter version of how I think many here assess beth and her motivations:

I think the comparison of Islam to Nazi Germany is because of the undercurrent of violent, expansionist supremacy that powers boeth. It is disingenuous in the extreme to pretend otherwise.

Your comment doesn’t qualify Islam with “right wing”, “fundamentalist”, “militant” or anything else so you sounded like you could be beth too. She’s arguing that there’s no possible accommodation with the Islamic world because of the inherently violent nature of their religious texts. Convert or die seems to be her advice to them because she is sure it’s their religion that motivates some of them to attack us. Your first sentence suggests you feel the same way. Well, beth may have been too busy poring through those ancient texts these past 6 years to have pondered the connections between military campaigns more recent than the Ridda Wars and changes in attitudes in the Islamic world towards the US. When critics of the US in the Islamic world use terms like “violent, expansionist supremacy” they’re not quoting the Koran, are they?

Certainly. Plenty of Americans have become addicted to extreme Islamophobia. I’m sure everyone who hangs out here is very, very well aware of that – SN has linked to countless unhinged anti-Muslim diatribes on right-wing sites.

…pretending…that there is no reason that they do…is dishonest and damaging.

Here you’ve lost me.

People don’t have a reason to be afraid of Islam. They have good reason to be concerned about violent Islamist extremist groups, but obviously bin Laden no more speaks for Islam as a whole than Fred Phelps speaks for Christianity. Islamophobia is flagrant bigotry. Treating it with contempt may not be the best way to reach out to those who are afflicted with it, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over that.

…laughing at the wingnuts doesn’t seem to be working.

I don’t laugh at wingnuts on the basis of whether or not it’s effective in making them change their minds. They’re going to have to do that on their own, if they do it at all. I laugh at wingnuts because they’re funny.

I think in order to take on wingnuts – and their rhetoric has reached truly frightening status in my mind, with a “make my day” attitude towards everything Islamic – we need to try to understand what is giving power to their arguments. People have a genuine fear of Islam; pretending it ain’t so, or that there is no reason that they do, is dishonest and damaging.

I know that’s not funny, but laughing at the wingnuts doesn’t seem to be working.

b): What you now seem to be arguing (my paraphrase):
I do not believe that Islam is really comparable to Nazism, but some people tend to equate the two because they feel that both ideologies are driven by a violent, expansionist urge to supremacy. It is extremely dishonest to pretend that no one thinks this way.

Sorry, but (a) doesn’t match (b). The first clearly says there is a comparison. But you’re now saying otherwise, so I’ll just assume the original statement was poorly worded.

But that still leaves this:
And you think the way to combat this is – To deny that the violence takes place, or that the religion of Islam is being used to justify it? Really?

As I asked before, who’s denying that there are violent Islamist extremists? Who’s denying that jihadists are motivated by religious beliefs? I don’t recall anyone writing anything like this. Why do you think that’s the general consensus here?

Perhaps it is not dishonesty or illiteracy, but simply the inability to understand two statements that contain many of the same words, but mean different things.

I admit, it doesn’t seem all that difficult to understand: “Some people can see a violent, supremacist strand in Islamic fundamentalism that reminds them of the violent supremacy of the Nazis” – while at the same time – “Islamic extremists do not pose anywhere near the same threat to us that the Nazis did” – but perhaps you can let me know where you are getting tripped up.

“The idea that the threat posed by Islamic military forces is anywhere close to that posed by the Nazis…is laughable.” – Just Asking, upthread

So only a fool would not compare Islam to Nazi Germany and only a fool would compare Islam to Nazi Germany. I see. Thank you for your input.

“The real question here is why am I wasting time arguing with an idiot who thinks Islam is comparable to the Third Reich?” – Snorghagen

That question looks better all the time. I think I’ll go stuff some breakfast in my illiterate, dishonest face.