For sure, if I was looking for a name for what is at war with us,
"terror" wouldn't be it.
"Fascism" is better, but a bit vague - who hasn't been, by someone
else's definition, a fascist at some point or other?
"Jihadism" narrows it down a bit, as does "Islamism". Neither is
ideal. "Islamism" devolves too quickly and easily into "Islam". And
there are non-terrorist, non-fascist possible Islamisms, just as there
are non-terrorist and non-fascist possible Zionisms (that is, if one
is willing to accept Jewish nationalism as a valid political form, one
should be prepared to accept an Islamic nationalism also. Accept and
perhaps wish to transcend at the same time. But it is not clear that
multi-nationalism or multi-culturalism offers a sufficient haven, does
not ultimately equate to extinction for the particularities it
proposes to embrace. Why should one demand that the Ummah be without
territory?).
A "jihad" against injustice is as readily imaginable as a "crusade".
Then there is "fundamentalism" - which names a significant portion of
George W. Bush's fanbase...
So, I dunno. But whatever one is to call them, they're evidently there
and - paranoia and "the power of nightmares" notwithstanding - out to
get us.
Dominic
|