It's obvious that you don't want to listen to reason and instead engage in emotiveness, but I'll try anyway.
You said I should look up fascism. From
www.m-w.com:
Quote:
fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
|
Where in here does this talk about religion? No, instead, it talks about nationalism, and ethnicity. A semi-valid argument could be made that bin Laden is looking for a pan-Arab Islamic state, but his writings would indicate that, at least temporarily, his goals are less universal. Yes, he wants to rid the world of the infidel (the US), but the US is not the whole world. (He does extend the fatwah against the West.) In addition, the people that are reading his fatwahs and nodding their heads now think of themselves as Yemeni, Egyptian, etc. The impetus for a pan-Arab state, or a pan-Islamic state is largely gone. More and more people recognise themselves by nationality first. And even that goal is not of a centralized autocratic government, although social regimentation could be argued. What he is calling for is more of a religious movement that has political implications - not a political movement.
Fascism was really a 20th century secular movement in Europe. In the end, though, actions can take on a fascistic nature - but that doesn't make a movement fascism.
So, for however many times now, your inappropriate use of fascism fails the test of logic. You are using a perjorative term - which generally should be avoided in a civilized conversation in order to alleviate the overblown emotions that result - and using it incorrectly.
But we're really just splitting hairs on this. The more important part is the following.
Second, your dismissal of bin Laden's social commentary is a sign of blindness. Why do you think the death and fear that his terrorism creates hasn't made him a criminal in the eyes of many Arabs (I simply say Arabs, though it probably applies to oppressed peoples the world over)? Simply because his social commentary resounds with them. If you ignore the reasons why people do the things they do, you cannot stop them from doing them. This doesn't mean you coddle every crazy that comes along - but if a terrorist is making what is at least valid comments to his base, you find a way to not make them seem valid. Sometimes that means propaganda - but propaganda can not cover up real suffering when the option is wrapped up in a pretty little bow. So, instead, you cut out the problem. You improve social conditions. Eventually, the force behind terrorist campaigns collapses.
To dismiss your enemy's philosophy without examining it is foolishness. How can you win a war against a cunning enemy who can slip between your cracks if you "don't particularly give a rat's fuzzy behind" about how they think?
The chance of you getting hurt or worse in a terrorist attack is, thankfully, exceedingly remote. Therefore, to act and think in just blind, responsive, emotional terms is not necessary. Until the time that it is, it is imperative that our response is to study and understand - and eventually defeat them. Using perjorative terms and faulty arguments that are not backed up by facts (I'm not talking about you so much as the hunk of crap manifesto posted earlier) does nothing to assist this, and only clouds the issue.