And folks didn't believe me when I mentioned this yesterday. ;)

He said more last night...apparently a lot of experts like the idea, esp. if he qualifies it with "Radical" in front of Islamists to be more specific.

This is wonderful IMHO.

Cal

Hitchens nailed it with "Islamofascists" long ago. Still, Dobbs deserves credit for showing up.

Naturally, the spate of stories on this have all been in the breathless, will-he-survive-the-scandal-of-it-all mode. Hope he stands his ground.

I think that an e-mail campain to CNN is in order. The Arab groups have started one. It is time to show our support of the truth: This is a war against Islamists.

In the days of Jefferson they were called jihadists.

Jeffrson had a naval war with them. They changed their mind. Under American Naval pressure.

Islamists is too much focus on religion.

Islamofascists shines the light on top-down fanaticism with non-voting armies. Hitchens' term is way better.

Islamist is the short form of Islamofascist.

Cal -- sorry I doubted you, but the idea that someone on CNN said something so bluntly true was hard to believe.

Anyone want to bet on how long it takes for a fatwa to be issued calling for Dobb's death? Drudge claimed his statement was aired overseas, so we know the Islamists heard it.

Secondary bet: Anyone want to bet CAIR won't denounce any such fatwa?

email: moneyline@cnn.com

Islamist is not a reference to Muslim or Islam. It is the normal term used to describe someone who seeks to establish a Muslim Theocracy with Sharia Law.

I agree with those who wish to further define it as Radical Islamists, for there are Islamists who work within the electoral system (such as they are) in these Arab countries, usually by forming (where legal) Islamist parties.

But the radicals are willing to use violence (usually terrorist violence) to acheive this end. For instance Abu Sayef in the Phillippenes, the scum who killed Pearl, the Kashmiri Islamists who wish to seceed from India so they attack the Parliament, the wackos in Turkey who off secularist poets, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Ayatollahs, the Taliban, etc.

But it doesn't cover secular/leftist nationalist revolutionaries like the PFLP, PLO, Black September, Ba'ath Parties (ruling parties of Syria and Iraq) who use terror. They're the older more active groups.

The nice thing about the Islamist focus is that it leaves those groups out, allowing us to focus on our more immediate enemies...however, it also lets scum like Arafat off the hook, since he's not an Islamist.

Cal

Hehe, such a fatwa may well happen. I wouldn't be surprised.

As far as CAIR, did they raise a peep about Rushdie?

CAIR is a bunch of terror-symps and should be exposed as such.

Cal

My vote is for Jihadism and Jihadists.

M. Simon, I was not aware that this term was previously used. Could you please give me more details. Thanks.

This story broke late last night on Drudge I emailed Lou and all CNN email addresses you can email all CNN emails and read the drudge story here:
[Link: coding.4arrow.com...]
[Link: coding.4arrow.com...]

As Calixto notes, Islamist is the usual term in the Islamic world for these people. It's not a Western simplification of Islamofascist or Islamic fundamentalist. In a formal setting it's the most correct term: a political ideology centered around Islamic law, and especially recently with aspirations toward restoring the Caliphate and uniting all Muslims. It goes much farther than the political tuckpointing of Christian fundamentalists.

You also do hear jihadist in places like Pakistan where there is an entrenched secular culture, but it's not universally popular.

I would love to see a source that it was in use 200 years ago -- that would be exceptionally early to label it as a political movement. The main beef that we had with the Barbary pirates was not their politics, but their, well, piracy. Even the political leaders like the Bey of Tunis would openly shake people down. It was much more the historic Arab tolerance of corruption than anything ideological.

"Islamist" may be the finest and most scholarly and intellectually precise word to describe the Muslims-uber-alles, but the general public isn't likely to know that. Too many would sieze on it as a pejorative against all Muslims.

Whereas Islamofascist is self-explicit.

Who cares which name we use. We know who they are. I'm glad Dobbs is on our side.

He also said we need honesty in media. THAT may get him in trouble.

Ah, but the Islamofascists aren't technically Fascist in ideology...and Fascist totalitarianism is shared by a variety of political movements and so isn't very precise.

Islamist should be fine...and if it means we have to educate the masses a little, then by all means we should do so.

The term used in Pakistan is Jihadi, which the Indians also use.

That term would be fine too...though I'm sure CAIR and Muslims would make the valid point that Jihad has many non-violent meanings et cetera ad nauseum.

The Barbary Pirates weren't fighting a Jihad, they were pirates, and simply shook down everyone for protection money in exchange for not sacking their ships. The US refused to pay tribute, so they pirated our ships, and we responded with our Navy. Its a wonder why no one else thought of that before...but they didn't.

Cal

I'm sure CAIR and Muslims would make the valid point that Jihad has many non-violent meanings et cetera ad nauseum.

In yesterday's New York Times someone wrote a letter responding to the previous day's op-ed by an Arab Harvard student defending the 'Jihad' speech at the Harvard graduation. He asked if anyone wouldn't have found a 'Mein Kampf' speech objectionable in 1939 even though 'mein kampf' did in fact mean "my struggle".

On Jihad...

Also the term Crusade, has (or had) positive connotations in normal English usage. If we are to be sensitive to others feelings about our words, they should understand that to us jihad means death and suffering.

"He also said we need honesty in media. THAT may get him in trouble."

Unfortunately, whether there is honesty in the media or not, people will believe what they want to believe. If the truth, even fact supported truth, doesn't jibe with what some people want to believe, the honest journalist will immediately be considered dishonest.

As did bloggers Glenn Kinen, Matt Yglesias, and Diane E., James.

I saw Dobbs as he made that speech, and thought, "Yeah! About time!"

Guess I'm so innured to hearing it that I didn't think it anything special. Let's go email our support. Defiitely.

Ah, but the Islamofascists aren't technically Fascist in ideology...and Fascist totalitarianism is shared by a variety of political movements and so isn't very precise.

Well, they may not closely track the Italian or Spanish version of fascism, but they come real, real close to the Nazi version of it. Wahhabists are as much Arab supremacists as Muslim supremacists -- look at their insistence that Pakistanis not only worship like Arabs, but also live and eat like Arabs.

Here's something I wrote a while ago about the similarities between Islamism and Naziism. I could be 100% wrong, but I think we need to pay attention to the similarities. They could be crucial to how we have to defeat them.

I think Jihadist would be best, but quibbling about the term should not prevent us from supporting Dobbs. Mind you, I think debate here is generally excellent and I enjoy all your posts (I use the word quibble for effect - I know you guys are serious). But inaccuracy and bias in the media is one of our biggest beefs and we've got to counter the CAIR types who will try smother this expression of honesty. Therefore, as we debate, by all means pause to email (borrowed from J Lichty above): moneyline@cnn.com

and we've got to counter the CAIR types

Good you brought this up. ON the CAIR web site there is a page of "action alerts" which tell readers of specific issues to contact politicians, media types etc. about and how to contact them and what to say.

It may seem immature or time consuming, but if y'all've got some time occasionally I think it's a good idea to peruse it and if they say "tell Senator X up" we should mail them and tell them "down". If they say "let this writer know his article dissapointed you" email the writer and let's let them know we appreciated it etc.

HTML :(

Hmm, they are like the Nazis...trying to impose German hegemony.

The closest thing religiously to the Wahabbi sect would be certain extreme sects of all types who wish to make all members be of their Church/Sect, whatever and the rest are simply not "True" X religion.

Consider how they view moderate muslims, Shi'ite Muslims etc. What the House of Sa'ud did when it took Medina and cleared out the "impure" Islamic practices they found there...very much like Inquistors or Puritans, only more violent.

The Arabic supremacists are cultural and religious imperialists trying to impose their particular brand of Islam, and their peculiar customs as well.

But there is a closer parallel, which would be the religious wars in Europe in the Renaissance/Reformation period or the Crusade period...out to make everyone their brand of religion, and expanding their faith as far as they could.

They're theocracies and theocrats more than anything else.

Cal

That direct counter to the CAIR campaigns is a wonderful idea.

Cal

I think the Islamists are closer to the Japanese prior to and including WWII. Both are fanatical about their beliefs and have no qualms about killing civilians who are not of thier race and belief. I just finished seeing the Daniel Pearl video - these Islamists are barbarians. Any society that creates and promotes barbaric acts such as Daniel Pearl's execution and makes a recruiting video out of it, must be destroyed!

Except the Japanese were not trying to convert anyone...just establish their own Colonial Empire like the rest of the "Great Powers."

There are lots of parallels to the Islamists, but nothing quite like it.

The video was quite disturbing. IMHO these bastards should be hunted down and publicly impaled. But that's just me. ;)

Cal

I can't believe this!!! Shame on all of you!!!! Converting one to Islam is not Islamisism, it is the truth.

I cannot believe you support such a vile and racist statement like the one by the secretly Jewish Lou Dobbs.

Read his statement BNK - he is quite clear about what he means as Islamist. You must be a Muslim and/or Arab since you acuse Dobbs of being 'secretly Jewish.' That statement in itself is pretty racist.

The CAIR site is great! You enter your zip-code and they will address and draft e-mails to your Senators and Representatives. You can change the message in the e-mail and then send it! It will make the anti-CAIR action alert campaign pretty easy.

Calixto:

I think the Islamists are very similar to the Japanese. The Islamist use the term "infidel" while the Japanese were exetremely racist during WWII. They saw themselves as direct descendants of God and the rest of the world as sub human. You don't think that the Islamists are looking to set up an empire (from North Africa to Indonesia)? That is exactly the terms that they put it in.

Actually, I'm pretty sure he's a troll, so stop feeding 'em.

I'm pretty sure BNK is a troll -- or someone who responds to CAIR alerts.

Hmmmm.... I'm wondering if there's a difference.

what do you mean by troll?

Oh - I get it. Thanks

Kevin in Dallas

If Lou Dobbs was not secretly Jewish, then why would he denounce Islam as he did. It only benefits his Zionist bosses who obviously instructed him to give such a slanderous statement.

RACIST!!!!!!

The only problem with this is that it makes Iraq a separate war, since the Baathists aren't Islamists.

I don't think that there are any Baathist principals the Saddam wouldn't toss out if it worked to his advantage.

Kevin:

You do have a point.

Rand:

I made that exact point above. Ba'athism is not Islamist, and the war on Iraq (and Syria, which is also Ba'athist) would be a "different" fight.

Cal

"Baath Arab Socialist Party. political ... Iraq. The
Baath Party was from the beginning a secular Arab nationalist party"

According to the Baath Party of Syria website.

Now if you want to see Nazi analogues...these would be it. :)

Cal

I remember reading in one of Bernard Lewis' books that when the Baath Party was formed in the 1930s it was based on the Nazi Party.

I'll try to get a link..

Since the Gulf War, Sadam's been playing the Islamist card. Syria supports Islamist terrorist groups. Both ally themselves with Islamist groups in order to promote themselves as the leaders of pan-Arab nationalism.

Islamism is, IMHO, the "export version" of Arab nationalism and racial/cultural superiority.

Mr. Crawford is correct: both Iraq and Syria are secular nations. (Which is why reforming a post-Saddam Iraq will be much easier than fixing Saudi Arabia.)

No one accuses Saddam Hussein or Basher Assad of being Islamists. But they certainly lend support to the latter when it suits them -- see Syria and Hizbollah. This works for Hussein and Assad on two levels: it lets them have a proxy army against people they don't like (Israel), and it keeps the nutballs off their own front porch.

Of course, if the Islamists get too annoying, they are quickly eliminated, along with everyone nearby. See Hama, Syria, 1982.

The only problem with this is that it makes Iraq a separate war, since the Baathists aren't Islamists.

It may be so, but we have to identify the enemy ideology at least to defeat it. It may well be that Binladenism and Saddamism are different enemies all together, but it never does well to sacrifice the truth to take a short cut. If we have to define them as separate by parallele wars, so be it, but we need clarity as to what ideology we need to fight and destroy before they destroy us or make our lives a living a hell: it's Islamism. The anti-West totalitarian state of Saddam comes from an ideology that has long been a dangerous enemy and we need not bend the definition of either one to successfully oppose them.

We should view it as one war with two enemies...

Just as WWII was fought against the Fascist, Nazis and Japanese.

Different foes. One War.

I can't wait for the triumphal march through Baghdad, personally. I'd even say take out the Syrians and liberate Lebanon while we're at it. Crush Ba'athism as we crushed National Socialism.

Cal

I agree with Cal, both are enemies.

Excuse my ignorance, but what does IMHO mean?

Cal said:

The Barbary Pirates weren't fighting a Jihad, they were pirates, and simply shook down everyone for protection money in exchange for not sacking their ships. The US refused to pay tribute, so they pirated our ships, and we responded with our Navy. Its a wonder why no one else thought of that before...but they didn't.

Cal

It wasn't that they didn't think of it, it's that they were pretty busy already, what with the Napoleanic wars and all.

Excuse my ignorance, but what does IMHO mean?

Either "in my honest opinion" or "in my humble opinion". I guess it depends whose saying it.

Thanks James

Of course we considered the jihadists pirates.

Don't we have aproximately the same appriciation of them today? For aproximatly the same reason:

They have no respect for any one other than co-religionists and damned little for them.

It is all about who will be master and who will be slave. The idea of free men comes as a shock to their system.

They are about to learn a lesson that so many have learned the hard way.

Don't fkcu with freemen.

The whole region is slathered over with layers of failed ideologies.

1. Islamicism
when that didn't work Hitler was going to fix things. They could live in a world of strong men systems. So they got into:
2. Fascism
when that didn't work "scientific Socialism" was going to fix things. They could live in a world of strong men systems. So they got into:
3. Communism
when that didn't work a return to REAL Islam was going to fix things. They could live in a world of strong men systems. So they got into:
4. Islamic Jihadism again.

You can see bits and pieces of this continuous wreck scattered around the Middle East. The Baathists are very socialist. And secular. The Iranian mullahs are socialist and Islamic. Arafat was a long time ideological and financial patron of the USSR. And they ALL adore Hitler.

Our enemies have a common faith, a thread that runs through all their schemes. The use of violence to gain acquiessence in all sectors of life. In this respect what ever their exact political and religious mixture they are the same enemy freemen have always had.

Of course what I meant was that the USSR supported Arafat.

Technically, hijacking of aircraft is air piracy. As far as I know the old international law on Piracy is still in effect.

Most of what I read was that the Barbary Pirates were more interested in shaking folks down for tribute than anything to do with religion.

Baathism is a wierd mix of authoritarianism, socialism, and militarism...a lot like National Socialism.

Add in Stalinesque/Maoesque cults of personality. (Not that National Socialism didn't have a strong element of that...but the style is far more like those Marxist/Leninist/Maoist states).

Cal

The Barbary Pirates were muslims

Thomas Jefferson, America, launched a war against them occupied most of north africa which led to colonialism by following european powers as a way to circumvent the trade and commerce that was being hurt by the pirates who were the terrorists and muslims back then.

Same thing Different day

Dobbs isn't exactly the first to come up with this idea, even though he acts like it ([Link: money.cnn.com...]

But yes, he's absolutely correct.

"I think Jihadist would be best"

Absolutely not. Jihad means different things to different Muslims, but more importantly ALL MUSLIMS believe in Jihad. Not all are radical Islamist terror monkeys, and they would ALL be offended if we chose that name.

Apparently the closest thing to the Barbary pirates today is Abu Sayyaf, in the Phillipines, who are somewhat Islamist but more interested in making money through kidnappings.

The email for a show of support for Mr. Dobbs is:moneyline@cnn.com . I have already sent over my praise, hope many others do as well. If this had happened on Fox it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, but when the CNN libs join the party it gives me hope!

I applaud Dobbs for his Islamist comments but wish he would stop getting on his knees for Arthur Anderson. He seems to think a thrice-convicted defrauder of American investors should get a free pass on Enron. Sorry Lou. An enemy is an enemy whether it's Islamist or MBA'ist. And while you're at it, how about some slams for Occidental Petroleum for the 100 million they want us to pay to protect their pipeline in Colombia. How about a slam for the pipeline builders who have already signed their Afghan deal before the Loya Jirga has met. How about the cheating scum who ripped off California with energy price manipulations. Where's your anti-PC stance there? Like I say, to hell with the Islamists. I just have to broaden me "to hell list" to include the big business cheaters, Tyco tax evaders and Reliant and El Paso citizen screwers as well. When Lou calls them to account I'll trust him across the board.

Well, the Islarmists have a web site!
(are these African or North Europian Islarmists?)

http...

I have a feeling that what happens to Lou Dobbs as a result of this will be a key battle in the information war. Powerful forces are going to demand he be fired or silenced or at least that he issue some sort of mealy-mouthed "clarification", so they can claim he didn't mean what he said. He doesn't strike me as the backing-down type though.

We all need to keep our eyes on what CNN management do, and at the first sign of them buckling under pressure, there needs to be a big effort to support Lou, and make it clear that he is not without support in his stand. If he can weather the storm, others will take heart and follow his example. If not, truth will be a casualty.

Lou Dobbs for President! At least he wouldn't stand before the American people and declare,
"Islam is a religion of peace." Islam is a thoecratically based political movement which advocates the slaughter all non members. Too bad Bernie Lewis isn't more widely read and appreciated.

CAIR is a fifth column operation and apparently a majority of Americans are beginning to understand that. If there were few more like Dobbs in "big news" the world would be a better place.

Keep up the good work, Lou!

re:

" 'I think Jihadist would be best'

Absolutely not. Jihad means different things to different Muslims, but more importantly ALL MUSLIMS believe in Jihad. Not all are radical Islamist terror monkeys, and they would ALL be offended if we chose that name."

Michael: ;)
Well, since you want to quibble...
Too much worrying about offending people is exactly what caused the problem of media dishonesty that we're trying to correct. Check out Charles' post above [Link: www.littlegreenfootballs.com...]
and the embedded link [Link: www.meforum.org...]
about historic uses of the term "jihad." The fact is many of our enemies, like Arafat, want it both ways, defending their use of a word that is obviously used to recruit millions to violence by pointing to its peaceful redefinition by some.
Also, think about this: there were always millions of people in the West who were perpetually offended by condemnations of communism, because they insisted they were being unfairly tarred by association with the Soviets, et. al. The communism of these Westerners was peaceful, non-tyrannical, etc. And you know what? In their own minds it was. But it would have been ridiculous to fail to ID communism as the enemy. Nowadays, many of the beliefs of those same people survive in their socialist economics, and many still call themselves Marxists, but few still call themselves communists (in the WEST, I'm talkin').
I think identifying Jihadism as the enemy encompasses Sadaam and others and focuses on the problem of apocalyptic pan-Muslim violence, RATHER than on Islam itself. The peaceful concept of NEOJihad, if you will, can survive the destruction of JihadISM as easily as Islam can survive the destruction of IslamISM.

[Link: money.cnn.com...]

Here's a link to a followup on Dobbs' piece.

Go Dobbs! Is he related to "Bob"?

...and here's the actual statement, I think:

[Link: money.cnn.com...]

One of my favorite blogs has been Adil Farooq's muslimpundit.com. You can tell where he's coming from by reading the banner at the top of the page:"Going after starry pan-Islamic futurists with a rubber glove and a sharp stick."

He's been face to face with radical islamists and reports some scary stuff. by all means, read his archives.

I'm concerned because he hasn't posted in over a month. Anyone know what happened to him?

BNK: the only thing needed for "bunk" is "u"?

BNK's statement could be interpreted either as trolling or as satire, although the fact that he hasn't been back strongly suggests the first. Nonetheless, there are people who serioulsy argue that there is no difference between "Islamism" and "Islam", that the furious hatred taught by the madrassas should be no consequence in determining our action.

Earnie: are you suggesting that some of his fellow muslims might not be happy with his views and would attempt to "dissuade" him from expressing those views.

What a ridiculous suggestion. It's not like they threatened to kill Salman Rushdie or anything.
YES, THAT IS SARCASM.

Robert Crawford says "...Here's something I wrote a while ago about the similarities between Islamism and Naziism..... "
[Link: www.kloognome.com...]

I also noticed the same parallels, and some additional ones:

* Although Germany was humiliated by the Versailles Treaty and then the Depression increased people's receptivity to fanaticism, the anti-Semitism which determined the target was already in place from 1900 yrs of state Christianity.

Although Islam was humiliated by defeat by the West and subjected to economic stagnation by various rulers, intermittant anti-Jewish attitudes were already in place by Islam's policy toward "dhimmis."

* Hitler was charismatic - women had crushes on him, he was a dynamic speaker, he also appealed to youth who would otherwise be gang members (the Brownshirts).

Bin Laden is a charismatic, dynamic speaker, a pop star, and appeals to disaffected jobless youth, giving them a cause and a group identity.

* The Reich's policies were common knowledge for years before they actually precipitated WWII - fleeing intellectuals, leftist activists, scientists, artists, and Jews told anyone who would listen. (One of the most chilling scenes at the DC Holocaust Museum is row upon row of NYTimes throughout the 30s, documenting the Reich's piece-by-piece dismantling of civil rights and rounding up of "undesirables." ) The US was in an isolationist phase and didn't want to get involved.

Islamic extremist speeches, uprisings, assassinations, and their brutal suppression by the ruling elites, the Taliban's treatment of women, Arab news media's anti-Semitic hate speech, and the entire region's human rights abuses have been documented for years. The hijackings, kidnappings, and bombings have been going on for years - Munich, Lockerbie, Beirut, Iran..... The Western world has been confused about if and when to get involved.

* Both groups believe(d) in traditional roles for women and suppression of gays. Hitler outlawed abortion when he came to power, and Nazi women were supposed to produce blond Aryan babies for the Reich. Homosexuals were sent to camps. Feminism and gay rights are debated in liberal Islam, but the fundamentalist wing is oppressive.

* Both groups are very effective propagandists with a sophisticated understanding of visual and verbal media. Both groups have no compunction about lying. Goebbels boasted about it and - as Ehud Barak is only the latest of many to point out - Arab culture simply doesn't place much emphasis on verifiable facts.

An Islamist is anyone who accepts the following dogma, "Jihad must not be abandoned until Allah alone is worshipped by mankind...Jihad and the rifle alone...no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogues." Sheik Abdullah - Slave of God - Azzam. Murdered "Palestinian" mentor of OBL, and Wahabi whore.

All hail King Lou!
Thank you, thank you Lou Dobbs, for fearlessly speaking the truths that dare not rear their politically incorrect heads on most of your network. This is truly a time for clarity and hard truths. This country is blessed to have individuals like yourself that refuse to to use absurd labels in order to hide the realities of the war America and The West find themselves in. Was it the War on Blitzkriegs? The War on Kamikazes? No, we properly called it the War on Facsism, Naziism. Straight thinking individuals like yourself, Mr. Dobbs, can bring this country the clarity it had back in those other dark days.