Hanania’s article incredibly biased. The author is clearly anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-Arab. In the second last paragraph, Hanania implies that President Bush is responsible for world terrorism. The truth is that almost all acts of terror around the world are the work of fanatical Islamists. Hanania also questions Bush’s use of the term “Islamo-Fascists.” Well Mr. Hanania, the reason why journalists have picked up on the word and are using it is because everyone knows what it means. It refers to extremist Islamic organizations that want to impose a fanatical form of Islam based on Sharia law on the whole world through the use of violence if necessary. Organizations that have been labeled "Islamofascist" include Al-Qaeda, the current Iranian government, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. As for the Hezbollah being a “stubborn militia that had fought valiantly,” I wish to disagree with you and remind you that they rained down almost 4000 rockets on Israeli towns and cities. That, my dear friend, is deliberate targeting of innocent civilians whose only sin is that they are Jews. The Hezbollah would be better described as cowards.

It is true that Bush is held unaccountable for the diseaster that he has sown in the Middle East. It is clear that he will leave the mess for the next president. Unengaged, uninterested and unequipped for the job. His use of the term Islamo-Fascists indicates how desperate he is. But, Americans are fed up the idea that Islam is a peace loving religion. Muslims here are increasingly looked at with suspicion and, rightfully so in my opinion. There just has not been enough condemnation from mainstream Islam for the behavior of too many Muslim fanatics.

I do not always agree with our president, but to say that the Middle East is "in an utter shambles, racked by terrorism" because of Bush is uttlerly ridiculous. How about the "Muslim world", or population taking some responsibility for once! Maybe people would not be using terms like Islamo-Fascists if there were not extreme groups trying to do away with the Western world. Maybe you should be addressing that problem and what we are suppose to do about it. I kind of see a connection between all the various attempts to blow up people and things around the world. What about a column on Muslims killing Muslims because they are not Islamic enough? Kind of sounds like Islamo-Fascism to me. It means I kill you when you do not fit into "the extreme totalitarian society" I am trying to build.

With 9/11 coming up, I'm pretty sure the american people know what he means. Since they are being supported by rogue states but not a 'country' he could not have included them in the 'axis of evil' list. If anything, the media outlets such as CNN are pro arab and anti Isreali. Fox news is the only mainstream news to tell the public the truth.

Why does YNET publsh this vile terrorists supporter. He calls the terrorist Hezbollah as a "stubborn militia" condemning George Bush for calling them terrorists and Islamo Fascists. The reason the press didn't ask him what he means is because the US public has no problem understanding terrorists like Hezbollah are evil. Americans no more debate Hezbollahs terrorist nature for attacking Jews than it debates if Al Qaida is a a terrorist organization. That's why we keep electing Republicans to run the country. It's a shame Israelis can't understand terrorists who kill their children are terrorists. That's why you elected Kadima to run your country into the ground

Leaving aside Mr Hanania's blatant dislike for President Bush, the term Islamo Fascism is a an accurate description of members of the Muslim faith who have organised themselves into various groups devoted to imposing their religion wherever possible and without regard to the wishes of those imposed on. They seek a totalitarian Muslim regime imposed by force. Why, Mr Hanania, is that inaccurate, Is it not fascism? Regarding President Bush's occasional mispronunciations, these have little to do with his intelligence or the requisiste knowledge to do his job.

I was mildly surprised by this article, as it implies that the term "Islamofascism" is unfamiliar in the USA. It has been used for some years in the UK and, while hardly an elegant expression, everyone knows what it means - the fanaticism, hatred, racism, violence, intolerance and support for terrorism characteristic of Islamic extremism. When Muslims in the UK complain of "Islamophobia" (a term not used by Mr Hanania but undoubtedly in his mind as a concept), they complain wrongly. The feeling that actually and understandably exists is - to coin an even more inelegant phrase - Islamofascism-phobia.

The term 'Islamo-fascists' used by President Bush accurately describes those who engage in terrorism worldwide for the sake of Islam. Ray what's wrong with the usage? Was your whole article meant to find a more proper phrase like Islamic-fascists? If so what's the big deal? So that's what President Bush meant - Islamic Fascists.

The mainstream media, politicians and even Ray Hanania can't find the words to confront Ahmednajad, over his threats to obliterate Israel, his blame of all evils on the existence of Israel, his sponsoring of conferences to reject the historical facts of the Holocaust, Iran's sponsoring of Hizbollah's war efforts against Israel and Hamas' undermining of each and every possible peace plan proferred over the last decade, and his obvious preparation of nuclear weaponry to ensure that he has a free hand to follow EVERY one of his evil plans to completion, with the entire Arab world cheering and passing candies around while Jews die in the streets? And you say the problem is that we are all insensitive, because we aren't calling Bush to task for noticing this? You're a bit off, to say the least. Bush has noticed that the United States has done quite a bit in the last decade to promote peace, and it's always MUSLIMS AND ARAB FANATICS who find those efforts lacking, and it is THEY who are behind ALL of the politically driven violence. How else than "fascist" would you describe a people who give America the ultimatum, that they must convert to Islam or die? Ahmednajad voiced this very thing in his letters to Bush and Merkle! Listen, Hanania - how much harm can Bush possibly cause with words, when Ahmednajad finds the means to cause 10 times as much damage every day? Get some sense of perspective and open your eyes.

Bush is an idiot. Even the most dedicated republican knows that his mental capacity is very small. But Hanania is not far behind. Is it not as obvious as the light of day what Islamo- fascist means ...?? I thought it was... Then he writes about how biased the U.S. media is towards Israel but once again doesn't back up his statements with facts. Yeah right Ray, everybody is always on Israels side.... yeah....sure... Israel strikes at terrorist targets who are constantly surrounding themselves with civilians. If this is "state terrorism" than so be it. Thats fine with me.

Time for "journalists" to tell the truth about Islam and stop appologizing for it. Time for multi-culturalist worshiping "journalists" to open their eyes, stop being nausiatingly politically correct.. The Koran says outright, meaning, Mohamed quotes their god himself ... that Jews are the decendents of monkeys and pigs. That's just the begining for us Jews. The "conversion " in gaza and the Al Qaida conversion tape tells the real story. Islam at it's core is violent and wants the entire planet either converted, dead, or dimhhis (slaves to Muslims). They want a caliphate that spans the globe. If that isn't totalitarian and fascist I don't know what is. On one hand there are the Shias in Iran that sponsor this fantasy caliphate with billions of dollars. They are willing to blow up the entire planet for this cause. In which case they win anyways as they are martyrs (their ultimate dream and weapon). On the other hand, Al Qaida, with it's pipeline of cash from Whabis in Saudi Arabia, want the same thing. When Saudi Arabia sent millions of Korans to American college campuses t brainwash students they omitted all offensive sentences. The only ones who need to be accountable for failings to report what is there right in front of their noses are "jouranalists". The reason journaliusts didn't fight back agains Bush is they themselves are begining to learn the truth. Start re-education now! http://jihadwatch.org/

Please consider the following: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cnwg0fIGbWQ http://youtube.com/watch?v=zqFLNJEiclM&mode=related&search= http://youtube.com/watch?v=u47hleI-iBA&mode=related&search= (14 year old dispatched on a suicide bombing missue) http://youtube.com/watch?v=bra6rDO_FeQ&mode=related&search= http://youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=PkC_2NwyoWE http://youtube.com/watch?v=T-7kid5yFhw&mode=related&search= http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-SV30CWRN8&mode=related&search= http://youtube.com/watch?v=UgzB5n3Cuv0&mode=related&search= This is justice served in Iran: noiri.blogspot.com just scroll down and click on the angry smiley or the skull beneath it. This is global jihad: this is what Iran, Hezbollah and Hammas are all about. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1432100742477106895&q=obsession and there are so many more examples of what exactly Hamas and also Hizbollah have in mind, and exactly what their plans are for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. I sincerely hope it is clear enough for you that there is no place for Israel on their map. Now I would like you to take a minute of your time and sign this petition. Dear Friends, I have just read and signed the online petition: "A Call to the UN to Provide Reparations for the Hezbollah War" http://www.PetitionOnline.com/IAUN1 A Call to the UN to Provide Reparations To Israel Too for the hezbollah War To: United Nations The Hezbollah War was brought on by a terrorist organization that hijacked the sovereign state of Lebanon, a member of the United Nations. Hezbollah, with the assistance of Iran and Syria, defied Security Council Resolution 1559 which, among other things, “Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias”. Hezbollah launched this war against Israel, a democratic and sovereign state, and a member of the United Nations. Hezbollah is neither a state nor an official body belonging to one. Lebanon was to some degree an accomplice to its own loss of sovereignty by failing to act to protect it and failing to return to the Security Council for help. The UN Security Council failed to discharge its obligation. It allowed Hezbollah to entrench itself in Southern Lebanon and to spread its terror to the people of Lebanon. Both Israel and Lebanon have suffered great loss of life as well as widespread physical damage as a result of this war started by Hezbollah. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the world community, which stood aside while Hezbollah armed and trained for war, to provide reparations for the damage and destruction brought on by the aggression which sprang from Lebanese territory. We therefore call upon that community to bear the cost of rebuilding Israel in addition to Lebanon. Israel, which had withdrawn from Lebanon some years ago, was forced to engage in a defensive war to save the lives of its citizens. We further call upon the world community, through the United Nations, to seek indemnification for the damages from Iran and Syria the controllers of Hezbollah. Sincerely, The Undersigned

Did you know that Hanania is actually a Hebrew name? Perhaps you should trace your originis, you might be Jewish.

The choice of words really colours our message. Unfortunately, often it's not that easy to see the bias behind those words because we haven't learnt to think critically about what we read. Of course, television is even worse because watching tv our brains go into a receptive zombie mode unless we make a very conscious effort. Rejecting a message outright is as uncritical as accepting it outright. Sometimes it helps to have someone point out the bias and prejudice in the words we start to take for granted. Thank you, Ray. I also read a piece by Robert Fisk in June where he slammed the Canadian press for being racist. As I reflected on it, I thought, yes, it sure was racist how the media handled the capture of 17 "brown-skinned" "terrorists" who "allegedly" planned an attack on Canada. What fear mongering! I empathize with anyone who looks muslim or Arab because of the unfair prejudice. I used to have a boyfriend of Japanese decent. He was born in Canada, while I wasn't. Yet, he was treated as the foreigner and I was treated like the "Canadian" because I was fair-skinned and almost blonde. As a boy in Manitoba he was called Jap and had to listen to messages about the "yellow scare" and all the fear mongering against the Japanese. Fear makes people do horrible things. Just think of all the innocent Japanese who lost their homes on the West Coast of the USA and Canada because of the "yellow scare" and were placed in internment camps. Some like my friend and his family, moved further east where they wouldn't be a "threat" but were still treated as if they were enemies. Demonizing other peoples helps incite fear in the citizens of our "civilized" western countries. We have a long history of hate literature, both blatant and oh so subtle. But hate literature is still hate literature and the subtle kind is more insidious because it just gets accepted without any questions being asked. When will we ever learn!?!

That's why they didn't need to ask the President what it meant.

and when a journalist says something stupid, such as referring to Hizbullah as a "stubborn militia", he too should be called on the carpet for it. so here you go: Ray, calling Hizbullah a "stubborn militia" is a bald-faced lie; it is idiotic; it exposes your clear dislike for Israel and Israelis; it makes it quite obvious to the reader that you don't value the lives of the people that were killed by Hizbullah; and lastly, it shows us all how HILARIOUS it is that anyone refers to you as a 'journalist' in the first place...but at least I now understand why you call yourself a comedian.

As many of the English speakers here know, George Bush's ability to communicate anything more than a monosyllable puts him into serious trouble. Even his supporters are troubled by hearing his nearly incoherent speaking which has radically disintregrated as his term goes on. The term approved for him by Karl Rove "Islamo Fascists" is awkward and uninformative. It is related linguistically to right wing radio hate phrases like "femi-nazis". It's a slogan that is not doing its job; not motivating many U.S. citizens and alienating others. ............................................................ All that being said, and returning to this particular column: U.S. Muslims have to live with the fact that Jihadists have declared religious war on the West. It is ultimately up to the Muslim communities around the world to stop these extremists who want to drag the world back to a level of poverty, ignorance and intolerance that will benefit no-one. I share a community with a large Muslim population, some of them 'orthodox'. I do not believe they wish me or Israel any harm. but I do depend on them to help stop those few who do. Reining in Jihadists starts in the family living room and the local mosques. The sooner the community acts on this knowledge the better for everyone.

We all appreciate YNet, and YNet Forums. Then what in the world does this article do in these columns ? Mr. Hanania sure has his place on Al Jazeera, Al Manar, Al Reuters and/or Al Agence France Presse, in order to propagate cheap media bias culture and standard Bush bashing. "IslamoFascism" exists, and we should even call it "NazIslamism" or "Nihilislamism", ot whatever : Mass murder for free, on unaware and unarmed civilians, in the name of a faked religion. How Mr Hanania would call that, if the victims were muslims, and the criminals jewish or christian, G_d forbid? First conclusion : Mr. Hanania is presented as founder of "National Arab American Journalists Association", but seems far more Arab than "American", or "Journalist", to begin with... Second conclusion : Unfortunately, congenital trend for lie and cheating surreptitiously appears under the best moderate intentions, like "Defining the moderate Arab & Palestinian voice"... Third concusion : This is the first time we hear about Mr Hanania, who, as far as we know, keeps etrangely silent when horrible murders are commited by bloodthirsty barbarians, in the name of Islam. Then, where is President Bush mistake when calling a spade a spade ? And, why publish this shit on YNet ?

"Hanania’s article incredibly biased. The author is clearly anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-Arab" His is an Arab.

A quote from the above article: "term “Islamo-Fascists” to describe a stubborn militia that had fought valiantly and with some success against Israel" You have just published an article glorifying a genocidal terrorist organization. Why do you keep serving as the mouthpiece for the enemies of Jews, Israel and the free world in general? Why do you keep letting this man try and brainwash the remaining free people? Why do you aid the destruction of the system which enables you to exist? As I have asked before: would you also let David Duke or Nasrallah or Goebbels have an "opinion column" here? WAKE UP - YOU'RE AIDING AND ABBETTING THE ENEMY!

"Not one reporter pressed President Bush to explain exactly what he meant or why he picked the term “Islamo-Fascists” to describe a stubborn militia that had fought valiantly and with some success against Israel, which has the fourth strongest army in the entire World." Oh, how heroic! If only Tennyson could write a poem about them! But anyways, let me help you understand "Islamo-Fascism." It is an ideological combination of fascism and Islam that is prevalent in much of the Islamic world. Under fascism, the state seeks to intervene in the lives of its citizens to uphold some vague government-defined code of ethics and has a strong hand in the economy, running major corporations as government ministries. In Islamic political law, the government is charged with upholding the Muslim code of ethics and to act as a vehicle for the spread of Islam. The term "Islamo-Fascism" has been around long before Bush used it, and it is a very useful term to describe the combination of Islamic ethics and fascist political-philosophy that is prevalent in many Muslim dictatorships. So in conclusion, what makes you, in denying that much of the Islamic world is dictatorial and that those dictators often use Islam to prop up their regime, a moderate Arab as you so often claim to be?

Is an accurate discription, isn't it? My dictionary defines fascism as a political or social ideology that relies on psuedo-religious attitudes and the brutal use of force to attain and hold power. What part of that does not apply to our current crop of Islamic fascists? To bring up mispronouncing words to buttress your argument is fallacious, it has nothing to do with deliberately using a term with which you disagree. You expose the extreme weakness of your arguement when you use false supports such as that. Why should President Bush continue on the failed path of his predecessors? If their approach was so good, why did it not bring peace to the Mid East? To continue on a failed path hardly seems like wisdom to me. Far from showing the mainstream press to be anti-arab, this foolish author shows himself to be anti-American and anti-truth.

...they so despise the West, but they have completely taken on the West's penchant to accept images and PR as reality. If Muslims and Arabs spend so much time worrying about whether "Bush said" something that could mess up the image that they can't focus on what he said, how can anybody expect them to ever notice the fascists amongst them, much less do anything about them?. This is a problem that began about 40 years ago - around the time of President Kennedy, when news organizations began to report the news less and less, and create the news more and more. Before then, about the only discretion used was whether to report a story, not how to report it. That today it's all about "entertaintment" and "image" has turned newspapers into propaganda rags, more often for Palestinians than for Israelis, contrary to Hananiah's claim. This is a problem that today almost all newspapers have. They lose respect for context, facts, the order of causality, and the ability of readers to make up their own minds, and instead create images, invent connections between events, reverse causalities, act as experts in laws that don't exist, plunge the depths of the motivations of the various actors - all things that are matters of speculation at best, and pure invention at worst. Yes, we all have our points of view, and Hanania isn't pretending, his article appearing on the Op-ed page is news. The problem is that Hanania is beginning to expect that his Op-ed is what news is supposed to look like - vapid, self-conscious, self-righteous, self-serving, and self-deceiving. In fact, from the Guardian, to the Village Voice, to Amira Hass, he is getting what he wants more than he ought to.

Arabs always call Israel and the US "arrogant". Nobody talks about "demonizing". Whenever Arabs do what it considers self-defense it's a "natural right" and when Americans and Israelis do it, it's based on a "pretext" to act "illegally" and "disproportionately". Isn't that demonization? Or how about this - Islamofascists call Jews "sons of Monkeys and Pigs", and claim that even the trees will not allow a Jew to hide behind them for safety. Islamofascists require all the world to convert to Islam or face death. They have shown they mean business on 9/11 and many other times - as well as many times that were stopped in time. Isn't that demonization? If so, why isn't it OK for Bush to call it what it is? People aren't so stupid as to be unable to tell the difference between moderate Arabs and Muslims and the rest who are not moderate. They see very well, and do not "demonize" to incite fear in as broad a brush as you seem to think. The opposite is true. Everybody is backing away from the precipice and trying to avoid "demonizing" and to "accommodate" Muslims and Arabs - why else do you think that even the obviously fascist Iranians haven't been yet subject to penalties for their "arrogance"? Or, how about why in England little was said about the planned bombers being "Pakis", and when it was, Blair was quick to say this was not typical behavior of Muslims in England? Why do you think that the west didn't force western style democracy down the throat of Iraq, and rather supported an "Islamic" brand of democracy, in the hope that it would spread a model of government that would lead to peace rather than incessant war or internal oppression? The opposite of what you claim is true - we WANT to believe they can live on the same planet with us, but all the proof points to one central fact - that peace will only happen if we become Muslims, too, or when they are unable to press their will. And if that Islamofascists were to et their way, before you turn around we'll be in the midst of another war to determine who wins - the Shia or Sunni. Open your eyes, ARja - the signs are more blatant than subtle that what we need to "learn" is that tolerance is sometimes the bedfellow of destruction. We can't afford to be complascent - Bush's comments were lucid and properly placed.