Muslim Fascists Attacked by Muslim TV Chief.

Note: The writing is starting to appear on the wall for the 'head in the sand' approach so popular with so many muslim journalists, when the subject is muslim crimes inspired by Islam.

Read on...






August 15, 2006 No.1248

Director General of Al-Arabiya TV in Defense of President Bush's Description of London Bombers: 'They Are Fascists'

In an August 14, 2006 article titled "They Are Fascists" in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, the paper's former editor-in-chief and current director general of Al-Arabiya TV, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, defended President George W. Bush's description of the individuals who were arrested last week before they could carry out their plan to blow up passenger airplanes.

The following are excerpts from the article, in the original English:

"The Protesting Groups... Would Have Done Better to... Denounce the Deeds of Those Affiliated to Islam Who Harmed All Muslims and Islam"

"Many of us are only concerned with reputation and image, our image in the media, and the reputation of the Muslims in the world, but they do not care about reforming the original source, their children.

"When U.S. President George W. Bush described those who plotted to kill thousands of passengers in ten airliners as Muslim fascists, protests from a number of Islamic societies in the West and the East were voiced against this description.

"What is wrong with using a bad adjective to describe a terrorist as long as he is willing to personally call himself an Islamist; declares his stance, schemes, and aims; while his supporters publicly call for killing of those whom they consider infidels, or disagree with them religiously or politically?

"The strange thing is that the protesting groups, which held a press conference, would have done better to have held it to denounce the deeds of those affiliated to Islam, who harmed all Muslims and Islam."


"Bush Did Not Say That the Muslims Were Fascists; He Said That Muslim Fascists Were the Problem"

"Bush did not say that the Muslims were fascists; he said that the Muslim fascists were the problem, i.e. he distinguished between an extremist group and the general innocent peaceful Muslims. Yes, fascism is a word that has bad connotations, and is used here to approximate the meaning to the listeners. The Westerners know that fascism is an extremist nationalist movement, which emerged from the European society, and was responsible for destructive wars caused by its premises, which are based on discrimination, racism and hatred. This approximation is correct when you apply it to the literature of the Islamic extremists. The same as the Europeans fought fascism and the fascists by word and by gunpowder, the world will fight the extremist Islamists. This is what the good Muslims, who are at the forefront of those hunting down Al-Qaeda, do; the same as the Muslim who exposed the latest conspiracy to hijack the airliners, when he hastened to inform the security authorities when he suspected what was happening in the neighborhood.

"This is why I do not understand what those people - who want to protect reputation and image from the Westerners - want to call the Muslim extremists who resort to violence. Do they want to call them Khawarij (the earliest Islamic sect, which traces its beginning to a religious-political controversy over the Caliphate)? The problem is that no one (in the West) understands its historical meaning. Do they call them by their names only, such as Osama, Ayman, Muhammad, and Zamani? Do they call them according to the sarcastic Egyptian way: 'people who should remain nameless?'"


"What is More Important than Preoccupation With Preserving the Image is to Rectify the Situation, and to Confront the Extremists Among Us"

"Describing them as fascists in the west is better than all the bad adjectives that rightly or wrongly have been attributed to them. This is because as far as the Westerners are concerned, fascism means a specifically defined group that still lives within their societies, is from their ethnic groups and religion, and hence distinguishes between them and the others.

"What is more important than preoccupation with preserving the image is to rectify the situation, and to confront the extremists among us. The majority of the Westerners did not know anything about Islam and Muslims until bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Atta, and the culprits of the London explosions called themselves Islamists, and started to use the Koran and the Islamic historical nomenclatures. You cannot call the Red Brigades Movement anything other than what they call themselves, and there is no escape from calling them Italian communists; the same applies to the National Front in Britain, which is described as a Nazi and fascist movement."


"To Describe a Muslim as a Terrorist is Natural if He is a Terrorist"

"In the end, describing rotten apples as rotten does not make the people hate eating good apples. The same applies to the Muslims; there are one billion Muslims in the world, and the world has no option other than dealing with them, and hunting down the evil minority among them. We have wasted a long time since the seventies in being preoccupied with protesting against nomenclatures and images. This is despite the fact that these people hijack civilian airliners, kill people in restaurants, and justify their actions by using pan-Arab or Islamic descriptions. To describe a Muslim as terrorist is natural if he is a terrorist, the same as you do with a Colombian drug smuggler, an Italian mafioso, a Russian butcher, a British Nazi, or a U.S. right-wing extremist."





Comment: Excellent muslim thinkers like Mr.al Rashed have no real voice in Australia's arab language press. The Australian government should have a weekly magazine insert which appears in every arabic language newspaper. Such a magazine should carry the writings of people like this gentleman, and the many muslims like him who are on the side of the West in this war against the Islamic fascist aggressor.

Is anyone awake in Canberra?