I Took This Shift Because Of Her --- Politics - Justice - And Wrestling With The Angel
Saturday, September 09, 2006
One minute and seventeen seconds into this video there is a short clip where a guy throws about eight punches in a row at Tyson and connects weakly on only two of them. Right after that, Tyson throws one perfectly-timed, perfectly-placed punch, and the guy goes home to Sleepyland.
When you watch this video, you will see Tyson do this time after time. One punch. Lights out.
Mohammed Ali was great. Sugar Ray Leonard was great. Joe Louis was great, but I never saw anyone like Iron Mike.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Charles Lloyd - Tenor Saxophone
Michael Petrucciani - Piano
Cecil McBee - Bass
Jack DeJohnette - Drums
On the morning of September 11, 2001, I woke up later than I normally did in those days. I rushed my shower, and got the hell out of the house as quick as I could. I was in a daze because I was so tired and rushed. I drove for quite awhile that morning without even having the mind to turn on the radio. When I finally did, this is what I heard. The first human voice I heard that morning was Howard Stern saying, "We're under attack. There are people flying planes into buildings."
Thursday, September 07, 2006
World Gone Wrong:
As Israeli PM
From Joshua Pundit:
The Israeli government is ending the air and sea blockade of Lebanon today at the behest of Kofi Annan and the UN.Prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Amir Peretz consented to this move without the UN, Lebanon or Hezbollah meeting so much as a single one of Israel’s conditions for ending the embargo and accepting the August ceasefire...which should give any interested observer an idea of its validity and longevity.
There is no sign of life or Red Cross access to Israelihostages Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, whose kidnapping by Hezbollah triggered the Lebanon war.
Hezbollah is not being evacuated from South Lebanon or disarmed.
While Olmert said that Annan and the UN had assured Israel that UN forces are prepared to begin `executing their mission' under UN Resolution 1701, nothing could be farther from the truth, and the UN and the European contingents have made it clear that they consider disarming Hezbollah to `Lebanon's mission.' which of course, is never going to happen.
UNIFIL-2 has also not lifted a finger to halt Iranian and Syrian weapons shipments to Hezbollah and enforce the embargo mandated by UN Resolution 1701. As a matter of fact, one of my sources reports that the weapons flow to Hezbollah is so unimpeded that they have begun shipping arms to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. This week alone, the Palestinians reportedly received 400 RPG anti-tank rockets and 15 Grad missiles from their allies in Hezbollah via Iran.
More stupidity surrounding this whole situation is here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
We are sailing the straights of insanity. The moral compass is spinning, as the magnetic field has been thrown into chaos by Islamic propaganda, appeasement, and the UN diplomatic reflex.
We have completely lost our way.
Al Jazeera is running a videoclip of Osama Bin Laden meeting with the 9/11 highjiackers:
The Arab television channel Al-Jazeera broadcast a video which it said showed Osama bin Laden and suicide candidates of Al-Qaeda preparing the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States. Al-Jazeera had said earlier it would broadcast "a video that included scenes showing for the first time Al-Qaeda leaders preparing the September 11 attacks and practicing for their execution."
The video showed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and two of the 19 Islamist militants that took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza el-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.
They spoke of the situation faced by Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.
Fifteen of the 19 attackers on September 11 were Saudis, and Al-Jazeera said it had only aired a few minutes of a document which it said lasted about an hour and a half.
Man, you just gotta love your enemies when they tell you the truth.
Now see, here, the fact that this video shows Bin Laden working with the highjackers means that all the lunatics with the conspiracy theories are going to have to amend their theories to fit this new reality.
Of course, in the past we had seen a video in which Bin Laden bragged of the plan, but this is the first direct evidence tying him to it.
So now, Bin Laden had to have been working with Bush or this plan could have never gone through, right?
I can't wait to watch the conspiracy theory crowd work on this one. Of course, I don't expect it to bring them around anywhere close to reality. In fact, the charming thing about conspiracy theorists is the more reality intrudes, the further out they have to go to explain their stupid ideas.
I expect they may have to start working the Pluto angle into their theories soon. You know, like, "Why did Bushitler recently de-list Pluto as a planet if not because that's where he's hiding the evidence of his meetings with Bin Laden?
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Beat Your Wife
From Little Green Footballs:
At the Islamic Society of North America’s national convention, attendees learned that beating a woman is for her own protection. (Hat tip: ciaospirit.)
Sunday, 11:00-12:30 pm Room 22 Session 9G: “...And Beat them Lightly”: An Analysis and In-Depth Discussion of Verse 4:34
This session will discuss the following: understanding the context of revelation (asbaab al nuzuul) for this verse. Emphasis will be focused on understanding the correct meaning of the verse, with specific attention given to the words qiwamah, nushuz, and daraba as well as to understand how this verse is to be applied as a protection for women, not as an abuse.
Speakers: Muzzamil Siddiqi, Rabia Karim Khan Moderators: Mohamed Magid Ali
Muzzamil Siddiqi may be familiar to LGF readers. He was an imam at the Orange County Islamic Center when Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn converted to Islam there.
Another session moderated by Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations focused on empowering Muslims to file federal civil rights lawsuits:
Sunday, 4:30-6:00 pm Room 21 Session 11F: Impact Litigation and Muslim: The Next Chapter in America’s Civil Rights History
This session will discuss how the American Muslim community can begin to strategically empower the general American community at large by filing federal civil rights lawsuits which will help to protect the constitutional rights in the great historical legacy of civil rights case like Brown v. Board of Education.
Speakers: Arsalan Iftikhar Moderators: Ibrahim Hooper
Both programs are listed in this document: ISNA 43rd Annual Convention Program.
Here is Koran 4:34 -
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Pastorius Commentary: This brings up a subject that needs to be discussed. That is, I challenge anyone to find a Muslim organization of any significant size that is actually modersate. The Islamic Society of North America is a Muslim organization of significant size and funding. As such, they represent the views of mainstream Islam. So apparently, in the view of mainstream Islam, it is ok to beat your wife.
That is sick.
Any Muslims out there who do not agree that it is ok for men to beat their wives need to speak up. You need to organize yourselves, and you need to make your voices heard, because if you don't then we are all going to continue thinking that the mainstream of Islam thinks it's ok to beat your wife.
It is the responsibility of Muslims to make it clear what Islam is about. It is not the responsibility of non-Muslims to attempt to understand that wife-beating is a-ok with Muslims. Muslims alone are responsible for the fact they show the public.
These stickers are popping up on buses throughout London. These pics were mailed into Little Green Footballs by a British reader.
From Atlas Shrugs:
A 12-year-old Jewish girl was stomped upon and brutally kicked on a public bus in London. Accosted and asked if she was Jewish, she replied, "I'm English." Unimpressed, four girls, accompanied by three boys, then pushed her to the floor, stomped on her face and repeatedly kicked her.
The month of July was one of the worst, in terms of anti-Semitism, in both England and Australia and in Canada, as well. More here
In Britain, The Times of London reports that attacks on Jews have soared, and that even the national government has taken notice. On Thursday, an all-party parliamentary inquiry will state that anti-Semitic violence has become endemic in Britain, both on the streets and university campuses. The report will call for urgent action from the Government, the police and educational establishments.
From Joshua Pundit:
If I were a Jew living in Western Europe or Scandanavia today, with the possible exceptions of Switzerland, Denmark, Germany(!) and the Netherlands, I would seriously think about relocating to Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or America.
It's that bad, and the danger signals are that clear.
... with the possible exceptions of the countries I mentioned above, none of the countries of Western Europe and Scandinavia are likely to do much to protect the Jewish populations of their countries from what I'm pretty sure is just over the horizon.
They will be too busy dealing with internal unrest and what may even amount to a virtual civil war in some places. And it isn't all that far off.
Sixty years after the Holocaust, with living survivors still among us, we are looking at the end of most Jewish life in much of Western Europe.
Anti-semitism and virulent Jew hatred, often camoflauged as `anti-Zionism' has become so common in countries like Britain, Spain, Norway, Sweden and France that it hardly even merits a mention anymore. Tolerance for hate speech in mosques and open Islamic expressions of Jew hatred are a given.
Attacks on Jews and desecration of Jewish religious sites is endemic, and usually whitewashed as ordinary street crime or mere vandalism in spite of the fact that the perpetrators are almost always Muslims targeting Jews - in fact, the EU's official report on anti-Semitism in Europe issued 2 years ago was whitewashed and `rewritten' in exactly that way.
Leftist governments in countries like Spain and Italy and Sweden openly symphathize with Hezbollah and Hamas, and indeed the EU does not even consider Hezbollah, a group sponsored by Iran and with the murder of every Jew in Israel on its agenda to be worthy of condemnation or proscription in any way.
... much of the press in Western Europe and Scandanavia is so vociferously `anti-Zionist', particularly in Britain, that it has made Jew hating more fashionable and mainstream than at anytime since the 1930's.
At the bottom of this equation, of course, is Europe's ascendent Muslim population, who are responsible for most of the blatant attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions. They are the new `swing votes' for many of Europe's politicians.
The European Left, anxious to appease them and to appear politically correct have mostly had few problems in toeing the jihadist line when it comes to Jews and Israel.
Go read the whole thing.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
A Christian argument against Pacifism:
No one likes war. That goes without saying. But some contend that war is evil in itself, and should never be engaged in for any reason. Some pacifists have theological reasons for their stance, while others are motivated by humanistic idealism. While pacifism is a wonderful ideal, is it a realistic and responsible position to take? Everyone wants peace, but can pacifism bring peace to this world?
For those who believe God is opposed to any and all war consider the following: Would God ever command us to do something evil? No. Did God ever tell people to go to war? Yes. Then war in itself cannot be evil.1
While some wars are unjust, there must be such a thing as a "just war."
What sort of thing justifies going to war, then? One such justification is to secure justice in the face of gross evil. Sometimes it's right to fight when it is the only means by which we can stop evil people from prevailing over weaker people.
Consider the following scenarios. What would you do if you saw an old lady being beaten by a mugger, a young lady being raped by a stalker, or a man fighting for his life against an armed attacker? Would you do nothing? Would you try to talk the criminal out of what they were doing? Of course not. Either response is morally irresponsible, if not reprehensible. We would do whatever was necessary to save the individuals from harm.
Now multiply the scenario 10,000 fold.
Imagine that a nation is engaged in the unjust killing of thousands of its citizens, maybe even ethnic cleansing. What do we do? Do we turn our cheek because it's occurring on a national, rather than a personal level, or do we do what we can to intervene on behalf of the innocent?
Whether the target is a single individual or a group of individuals, the principle remains the same. If we would intervene with force to rescue the elderly woman from being victimized by an evil man, why would we not intervene with force to rescue a group of individuals from being victimized by evil men?
Go read the whole thing.
How do the questions this writer raises apply in the case of Iran? The Iranian President says Israel ought to be "wiped off the map." He is about to aquire nuclear weapons.
Are we moral if we do not intervene?
Or, must we wait for him to hit Israel with a nuclear weapon before we would be justified in attacking Iran?
I've been telling my wife for years that I have this, and she wouldn't believe me:
NORWICH (Reuters) - Many people have experienced the phenomenon of receiving a telephone call from someone shortly after thinking about them -- now a scientist says he has proof of what he calls telephone telepathy.
Rupert Sheldrake, whose research is funded by the respected Trinity College, Cambridge, said on Tuesday he had conducted experiments that proved that such precognition existed for telephone calls and even e-mails.
Each person in the trials was asked to give researchers names and phone numbers of four relatives or friends. These were then called at random and told to ring the subject who had to identify the caller before answering the phone.
"The hit rate was 45 percent, well above the 25 percent you would have expected," he told the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. "The odds against this being a chance effect are 1,000 billion to one."
He said he found the same result with people being asked to name one of four people sending them an e-mail before it had landed.
However, his sample was small on both trials -- just 63 people for the controlled telephone experiment and 50 for the email -- and only four subjects were actually filmed in the phone study and five in the email, prompting some scepticism.
Undeterred, Sheldrake -- who believes in the interconnectedness of all minds within a social grouping -- said that he was extending his experiments to see if the phenomenon also worked for mobile phone text messages.
One billion to one odds.
Boy, this is a surprise. "Progressive" Democrats making anti-Semitic statements? Why, I'm shocked:
September 5, 2006 -- A string of anti-Semitic rants about Sen. Joe Lieberman have popped up on the liberal MoveOn.org's open forum Web site, drawing criticism from the Anti-Defamation League.
It's the latest flap in the contentious race between Lieberman, who is running as an independent to keep his seat in Connecticut, and upstart Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee.
"We recognize that Action Forum is an open forum intended to foster the free flow of ideas," ADL head Abraham Foxman said in a letter dated Aug. 31 to MoveOn, which supported Lamont in the Democratic primary against Lieberman.
"Nevertheless, since such profoundly offensive content is appearing on a board clearly linked to MoveOn.org, we believe you should assume some responsibility to respond to this hateful content," Foxman wrote in the letter, which was forwarded by Lieberman's campaign.
Foxman cited examples from the site's Action Forum, including "media owning Jewish pigs," "Zionazis," a reference to the senator as "Jew Lieberman" and the question, "Why are the Jews so Jew-y?"
Foxman wrote, "Those who allow hate to rear its ugly head under their auspices bear a special responsibility to distance themselves from that hate, and to speak out against it, as loudly as possible."
Lieberman is one of the country's best-known Jewish politicians.
Monday, September 04, 2006
One of my favorite songs from Bob Dylan. It starts with modern footage. Sit with it.
This video has a lot of lefty silliness in it, but it's worth watching.
Considering all the posts I have been doing on being willing to die for one's beliefs lately, I thought it might be a good thing to put up this video from the movie Patton featuring the great Generals thought on dying for one's country.
Mark Steyn is on the money here:
Did you see that video of the two Fox journalists announcing they'd converted to Islam? The larger problem, it seems to me, is that much of the rest of the Western media have also converted to Islam, and there seems to be no way to get them to convert back to journalism.
Consider, for example, the bizarre behavior of Reuters, the once globally respected news agency now reduced to putting out laughably inept terrorist propaganda. A few days ago, it made a big hoo-ha about the Israelis intentionally firing a missile at its press vehicle and wounding its cameraman Fadel Shana. Shana was posed in an artful sprawl in a blood-spattered shirt. But it had ridden up and underneath his undershirt was spotlessly white, like a summer-stock Julius Caesar revealing the boxers under his toga.
What's stunning is not that almost all Western media organizations reporting from the Middle East are reliant on local staff overwhelmingly sympathetic to one side in the conflict -- that's been known for some time -- but the amateurish level of fakery that head office is willing to go along with.
Down at the other end of the news business, meanwhile, one finds items like this snippet from the Sydney Morning Herald: "A 16-year-old girl was tailed by a car full of men before being dragged inside and assaulted in Sydney's west last night, police say . . . "The three men involved in the attack were described to police as having dark 'mullet-style' haircuts."
Three men with "mullet-style" hair, huh? Not much to go on there. Bit of a head scratcher. But, as it turned out, the indefatigable Sydney Morning Herald typist had faithfully copied out every salient detail of the police report except one. Here's the statement the coppers themselves issued: "Police are seeking three men described as being of Middle Eastern/Mediterranean appearance, with dark 'mullet-style' hair cuts." That additional detail narrows it down a bit, wouldn't you say?
Steyn's column goes on, and you really ought to read the whole thing. If the examples Steyn cites aren't disgusting enough, check this one out:
Palestinian Terrorists Fire on Children, AP Obfuscates
This is a great example of how appallingly corrupt the wire services have become in their reporting from Palestinian areas, relying on Palestinian journalists and editors who are doing the bidding of terrorist groups and covering up atrocities. Associated Press writer Ali Daraghmeh’s story is about a gang of masked terrorists who fired on a crowd of schoolchildren to enforce a “teacher’s strike,” wounding a 12-year old boy.
Think about that. They used live fire against a crowd of children. But the Associated Press headline for the story is deliberately worded to be as innocuous and misleading—in fact, downright confusing—as possible: Palestinian teachers’ strike hurts boy.
Steyn's point is that Western journalism have ceded the value of truth-telling; the logic and reason upon which a just society is built. He's absolutely correct. If the West can not figure out what it believes in and what is worth dying for, we will surely be destroyed.
Once upon a time, a Christian would srhink at the idea of denying his faith. Now, we see nothing wrong with the Fox Journalists casually converting to Islam to save their asses. But, the problem is, it's not just about religion.
Even if you don't believe in Christ, even if you think it is ok to deny your Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or your subscription to Maxim Magazine, the fact remains that these creeds by which we live are more than a just ways to assimilate ourselves socially. They are the ideologies which provide the foundation of our lives. All these ideologies were established because people were willing to die for them. Even Maxim Magazine.
Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death," and hard as it may be to believe it, 230-something years later we have such an attitude to thank for our right to gawk at scantily-clad babes. I don't know about you, but I am a Christian, I am an American, and I like to look at scantily-clad babes, and I don't want these things to be taken away from me. What do you say, my brothers?
Here's Robert Spencer's response to Al Qaeda's Adam Gadahn calling him to Islam:
Thank you for the invitation, Adam, and for your thoughtfulness in extending to me in particular a personal call. But I'm afraid I must decline. While I appreciate that I would be your "brother in Islam" if I became a Muslim and turned my "sword against the enemies" of Allah, I cannot and will not give in to violent intimidation, come what may, and I do not want to live in a society that bows to such intimidation.
I believe that societies that respect the equality of rights before the law of all people, including women and religious minorities, as well as the freedom of conscience, are superior to those that do not. I hope that such societies will be able to summon the will to resist you and your "invitation" in all its implications before it is too late.
Meanwhile, Adam, I have a preliminary invitation of my own for you: I invite you to accept the Bill of Rights, and enter into the brotherhood of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. My invitation does not focus on my religion, although I invite you to that also, but rather on a framework within which people of differing faiths can live in peace, harmony, and mutual respect -- provided that none of the groups involved cherishes supremacist ambitions to subjugate the others.
Those are the values for which we ought to be willing to die.
Pirates Is terrorism a legal problem, or a military problem? Who has the authority to go after terrorists? Who has the authority to kill a terrorist, to target a terrorist for assassination? What should we do with captured terrorists?
What is a terrorist?
These are the issues Legal Affairs is dealing with in this article. Their solution? Treat terrorists as pirates:
INTERNATIONAL LAW LACKS A DEFINITION FOR TERRORISM as a crime. According to Secretary General Kofi Annan, this lack has hampered "the moral authority of the United Nations and its strength in condemning" the scourge. But attempts to provide a definition have failed because of terrorists' strangely hybrid status in the law.
They are neither ordinary criminals nor recognized state actors, so there is almost no international or domestic law dealing with them. This gives an out to countries that harbor terrorists and declare them "freedom fighters." It also lets the United States flout its own constitutional safeguards by holding suspects captive indefinitely at Guantánamo Bay.
The overall situation is, in a word, anarchic.
This chaotic state is reflected in, and caused by, the tortuous machinations of the U.N. in defining terrorism. Over 40 years of debate have produced a plethora of conventions proscribing acts ranging from hijacking to financing terrorist organizations. But the U.N. remains deadlocked on what a terrorist is.
As a result, terrorists and countries like the United States pursue one another across the globe with virtually no rules governing their actions. What is needed now is a framework for an international crime of terrorism. The framework should be incorporated into the U.N. Convention on Terrorism and should call for including the crime in domestic criminal law and perhaps the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
This framework must recognize the unique threat that terrorists pose to nation-states, yet not grant them the legitimacy accorded to belligerent states. It must provide the foundation for a law that criminalizes not only terrorist acts but membership in a terrorist organization. It must define methods of punishment. Coming up with such a framework would perhaps seem impossible, except that one already exists.
Dusty and anachronistic, perhaps, but viable all the same. More than 2,000 years ago, Marcus Tullius Cicero defined pirates in Roman law as hostis humani generis, "enemies of the human race."
From that day until now, pirates have held a unique status in the law as international criminals subject to universal jurisdiction—meaning that they may be captured wherever they are found, by any person who finds them.
The ongoing war against pirates is the only known example of state vs. nonstate conflict until the advent of the war on terror, and its history is long and notable. More important, there are enormous potential benefits of applying this legal definition to contemporary terrorism.
The fact of the matter is, America's first declared war after the Revolutionary War was a war against the Barbary Coast Pirates. And, guess what. That's right, they were Muslims.
In fact, in trying to figure out how to settle the problem without violence, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams travelled to England to meet with the Ambassador of Tripoli to try to work things out. Here's what happened:
In the book "Victory in Tripoli," Joshua London writes about the Muslim Barbary pirates. They attacked American shipping vessels in the 18th century, often boarding ships and enslaving crewmembers.
Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then ambassador to Britain, visited the resident ambassador from Tripoli (modern-day Libya) in London to negotiate a treaty to protect American ships from Barbary pirates. Why, asked Adams and Jefferson, is your government so hostile to the fledgling United States of America? After all, we have no quarrel with you, nor you with us.
The Tripolitan ambassador told them -- as reported to the Continental Congress --
"that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
To think that liberals all over the world think Conservative have just imagined the enemy.
And The Left
From Reliapundit, the Astute Blogger:
Leftists might be best defined as people who want to predetermine outcomes - they don't trust the marketplace, or individuals; they want the state to pick winners and losers. (If that's too oblique, then read two books by Hayek and call me in the morning!)The ultimate outcome which a Leftist can control is LIFE AND DEATH. And when presented with this choice, the Leftist almost always come down on the dark side:
they favor abortion on demand; they favor euthanasia, and they favor life sentences for convicted MURDERERS.
Recently, Leftists in Massachusetts argued in favor of euthanizing/murdering a little girl who was in a coma as a result of child abuse. The Left argued - as they did in the Schiavo case - that she was "virtually brain-dead". People who wanted her to live won the legal battle. And now she is continuing her remarkable comeback. MORE HERE.
Also in the news this week is a new practice made available - RIGHT NOW - to people undergoing IVF, (but it could just as easily be made available to people conceiving naturally); it's called PGD - pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and it amount to SCREENING a propsective embryo/family member for potential diseases before implantation.
[Critics say that...] It raises the specter of eugenics, they say, in the most personal terms. “It’s like children are admitted to a family only if they pass the test,” said Denise Toeckes, 32, a teacher who tested positive for a BRCA mutation.
“It’s like, ‘If you have a gene, we don’t want you; if you have the potential to develop cancer, you can’t be in our family.’ ”
Other critics oppose preimplantation diagnosis on the grounds that it could be used to select against homosexuals, women or people with disabilities. It reduces people to their genes, they say, and paves the way for the pursuit of children designed to suit parental ideals and for discrimination against those born with perceived imperfections. I think this is an apt description. This is eugenics, and it's amoral at best.
Why does the Left consistently come down on the dark side!? Why do they favor euthanasia and abortion and appeasing the enemy!?
It's because they are moral relativists: lacking any belief in any universal truth or in universal and innate/God-given human rights, they have nothing that they feel is worth fighting for - or dying for --- OR EVEN LIVING FOR.
Go read the rest at The Astute Blogger.
Who is our enemy? Newsweek says the President and his people are having trouble figuring out what to call our enemy. Amazing. It's only five years since this war began. Maybe that's what they mean by a Long War. It takes them a long time to figure out who they are fighting against.
They remind me of Treebeard and the Ent people in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. They never say anything that's not worth taking a long time to say. And consequently, they just sit there and talk while the world is crumbling around them.
Oh well, here's an article from Walid Phares which seems to have a pretty good grasp of what Islamofascism is:
Jihadists: The Two Forces
There are two major "trees" of Jihadism: The Salafists and the Khumeinists.
The Salafists, influenced by the radical Wahabis and the "Muslim Brotherhood" call for the removal of the current Arab and Muslim Governments and their replacement by a worldwide power they call "Caliphate."
The Salafist movement produced al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world and identifies itself as "The International Salafi Jihadi Movement." It is omnipresent in the Muslim world and has a significant presence inside democracies worldwide. The Salafi Jihadists established the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This was the model they wished to multiply around the globe.
The Khumeinists are the Jihadist followers of the teachings of Iranian Ayatollah Ruhallah Khumeini. They have established what they call an "Islamic Republic" in Iran and have funded organization, including Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Iranian Regime oppresses its own peoples and seeks regional and world expansion through Terrorism and Nuclear threat.
Axis of Jihadism
Each of the two "Jihadi" blocs has its own strategy and area of action: al Qaeda and the Salafists have infiltrated many countries and penetrated some government institutions in the Muslim world. They have also established cells within Western and other democracies.
The Khumeinist Jihadists have full control of Iran's regime and created an axis of terror in the Middle East, including the Baathist regime of Syria and Hezbollah. Both powers aim at crumbling America, undermining democracies and repressing freedoms in the Arab and Muslim world.
Although with different long-term goals, the Jihadi Salafists and Khumeinists have converging interests against common enemies: democracies. In many places and on different occasions the two blocs of Jihadism have established interim alliances: the regimes in Iran,
Syria and Sudan and the organizations of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jemaa Islamiya, and many others have cooperated: against democracies and civil societies, they have formed an axis of Jihadism.
This is what the American public and civil societies around the world are up against since the 1990s. The victims of Jihadism belong to all ethnicities and religions: from the Muslim Sunni civilians in Algeria and Syria, the black Africans, Muslim and Christian, in Sudan, the Copts of Egypt, Shiites and Kurds of Iraq, moderate Muslims and Christian minorities in Indonesia, Lebanon, Iran, Nigeria, to the societies of Russia, Argentina, India, Europe and the United States. In short, humanity is under attack by Jihadism.
The American people must learn more about the ideological movement that is waging war against them. The American public must ask the U.S. Congress to investigate Jihadism as a modern Terror ideology.