> On Apr 30, 11:57=A0am, "leonard7...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <leonard7...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> ...jihadist ideologies no longer concern our State Department
>> provided there is a reduction in the level of violence that such
>> groups promote. It amounts to surrender to the forces of
>> global Islam with the only qualification being that jihadists
>> conduct themselves peacefully so as to reduce the necessity
>> of future American military interventions..."
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
=A0-----=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D0=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D-----
>>
>> America=92s War on Words
>> By Mark Silverberg
>> April 30, 2008
>>
>> The Bush administration has launched a new
>> =93outreach=94 policy reflecting it=92s reluctance to discuss
>> jihadism in public. This time, it has targeted language.
>> We are no longer at war with =93jihadism=94. Rather, we
>> are engaged in a war against =93extremism=94.
>>
>> In a do***ent titled: "Words that Work and Words
>> that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism
>> Communication=94 released in March 2008, Federal
>> agencies including the State Department, the
>> Department of Homeland Security and the National
>> Counter Terrorism Center will now be issued
>> instructions on how not to describe "jihadists=94, or
>> the "mujahedeen", or to use any references relating
>> to Islam, Islamic theology or Muslims in the context
>> of our current war. Nor are these the only words to be
>> struck from the government=92s political lexicon. Words
>> and phrases like =93al Qa=92eda movement=94, =93Salafi=94,
>> =93Wahhabist=94, =93Sufi=94, =93ummah=94 (the Muslim world),
>> =93Islamic terrorist=94, =93Islamist=94, =93holy warrior=94 and
>> even =93caliphate=94 are also to be removed from
>> diplomatic discourse.
>>
>> The erroneous rationale given is that these terms
>> promote sup****t for =93extremism=94 among Arab and
>> Muslim audiences by providing religious credibility
>> to =93extremists=94 while offending moderate Muslims.
>> The directive states that the term =93jihad=94 tends to
>> =93glamorize terrorism, imbues terrorists with
>> religious authority they do not have and damages
>> relations with Muslims around the world". The
>> memo says the advice is not binding and does not
>> apply to official policy papers, but should be used
>> as a guide for conversations with Muslims and
>> media.
>>
>> This directive mirrors identical policy guidelines
>> distributed to British and European Union
>> diplomats last year to better explain the current war
>> to Muslim communities there (as if they don=92t
>> already get it).
>> =A0 =A0 =A0[Proof absolute that it is a stupid idea]
>> Last summer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown
>> prohibited his ministers from using the word
>> =93Muslim=94 in connection with terrorism. And in
>> January this year, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith
>> went even further, announcing that the British
>> Government had dropped the terms =93War on
>> Terror=94 and =93Islamic extremism=94 altogether. Civil
>> servants now have to refer to Islamic terrorists
>> merely as =93criminals=94 without any reference to
>> Islam in order to =93prevent the glorification and
>> incitement of terrorism=94. Bat Ye=92or would call
>> these actions just another manifestation of
>> creeping British =93d=92himmitude=94 (infidel
>> submission to Islam), but the fact that the US
>> government is now following the British lead
>> (where fear under the guise of =93outreach=94 is the
>> motivating factor) is disturbing.
>>
>> There are billions of Muslims and literally thousands
>> of Islamic scholars and organizations who believe
>> that democracy and Islam are indeed compatible; who
>> reject violence in pursuit of Islam's goals; who
>> condemn terrorism; who advocate equal rights for
>> minorities and women; and who accept pluralism
>> within Islam. The jihadi Salafists, however, have
>> externalized jihad and interpret this struggle as a holy
>> war to be waged against infidels and apostates until a
>> global Islamic caliphate has been established under
>> shari=92a law. These two distinctly different
>> interpretations of the Muslim holy books affect the
>> vast majority of the world=92s 1.4 billion Muslims as
>> much as they affect non-Muslims. But rather than
>> clarify the distinction between these two divergent
>> schools of interpretation and define jihadi Salafism as
>> the enemy, the State Department, the Department of
>> Homeland Security and the National Counter
>> Terrorism Center have chosen to sanitize their
>> diplomatic jargon in the name of =93Muslim outreach=94.
>>
>> It=92s a fair guess that the vast majority of the global
>> Muslim community understands quite well that a
>> segment of their co-religionists are responsible for a
>> considerable amount of terrorism around the globe,
>> so they don=92t need us to explain it to them, especially
>> in generic terms which make us look foolish. Nor is
>> anything we say going to affect jihadist credibility
>> amongst Muslims. The argument that: "We must
>> carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qa=92eda
>> leaders the legitimacy they crave...by characterizing
>> them as religious figures, or in terms that may make
>> them seem to be noble in the eyes of some" is
>> ridiculous. Few if any in the Muslim world care what
>> non-Muslims think about jihadist groups like al
>> Qa=92eda, so the argument that we have to be careful in
>> our language so as not to give bin Laden credibility
>> and legitimacy in the eyes of Muslims is a non-starter.
>>
>> At least the 9/11 Commission had the wisdom to
>> define the enemy without all the political correctness
>> we see in this directive. As Jeffrey Imm points out in
>> the Counter Terrorism Blog:
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =93The 9/11 Commission Re****t uses the term "jihad"
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 in referencing the enemy 79 times and specifically
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 defines "jihad" as a "holy war" executed by Osama
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Bin Laden and his compatriots (Section 2.3,
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Paragraph #302 on page 55), as well as defining
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "mujahideen" as "holy warriors" (Paragraph #302,
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 same page). The 9/11 Commission Re****t refers to
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 such "mujahideen" 22 times...The 9/11 Commission
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Re****t refers to the term "jihadist" 31 times,
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 including the references to the "worldwide jihadist
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 community" (Section 5.1, Paragraph #691 on page
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 148), to "Islamist Jihadists" (Section 5.3, Paragraph
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 #741 on page 158), to "Islamist and jihadist
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 movements" (Section 6.3, Paragraph #887 on page
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 191), and multiple references to an NSC memo on
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "Jihadist Networks"...Most im****tantly, the 9/11
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 Commission Re****t provides the definition of
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "Islamist terrorism" as being based on the ideology
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0of "Islamism" (Notes, Part 12, Note 3: "Islamism",
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0page 562)?...Does the NCTC now claim that the
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A09/11 Commission Re****t "legitimizes" the actions
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0of Jihadists?=94
>>
>> The only reasonable explanation behind this policy
>> (both here and in Britain) is that these directives
>> represent an emerging trend in our federal security,
>> intelligence and legal agencies (DOJ, DHS, CIA and
>> FBI) that we can somehow better protect America and
>> American foreign interests and reduce the level of
>> violence by engaging in =93outreach=94 with pro-jihadist
>> organizations or countries whether it be Iran in the
>> Middle East or representatives of the Muslim
>> Brotherhood in the US. In effect, jihadist ideologies
>> no longer concern our State Department provided there
>> is a reduction in the level of violence that such groups
>> promote. It amounts to surrender to the forces of
>> global Islam with the only qualification being that
>> jihadists conduct themselves peacefully so as to
>> reduce the necessity of future American military
>> interventions. Part of this policy holds that the
>> language used to describe jihadism actually incites it,
>> so if we change our language, we can reduce the
>> problem. But this =93problem=94 with jihadism is not and
>> never has been one of linguistics, and it will not
>> disappear.
>>
>> This =93outreach=94 approach is flawed because it
>> ignores the totalitarian ideology of jihadist Islam, the
>> =A0central tenet of which remains conquest, submission
>> and the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate
>> (another term US diplomats will no longer be allowed
>> to use). This new War on Words is just another
>> manifestation of our failed strategy in dealing with
>> global jihadism. Perhaps we should cease using the
>> words =93freedom=94 or =93democracy=94 since these concepts
>> are offensive to Shari=92a law, and start setting up no-****k
>> aisles in our supermarkets, or adopt such British
>> =93outreach=94 practices as banning piggybanks, pulling
>> Holocaust education from school curricula and, in some
>> cases, changing the names of pig-centered children=92s
>> classics like =93The Three Little Pigs=94 to avoid offending
>> Muslim sensitivities.
>>
>> An Administration that continues to transfer hundreds
>> of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority and
>> billions of petro-dollars to our enemies should be more
>> concerned with legitimizing jihadists by funding them
>> than they are about nomenclature.
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-----
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D0=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D-----
>> Mark Silverberg is a Featured Writer for The New
>> Media Journal. He is Executive Director Jewish
>> Federation of Northeastern Pennsylvania and an
>> attorney with Degrees in Political Science and
>> International Relations. A former member of the
>> Justice Department, Mr. Silverberg served as a
>> consultant to the Secretary General of the Jewish
>> Agency (Jerusalem, Israel) and is a listed author
>> with the Ariel Center for Policy Research in Israel.
>> His works on Islamic terrorism, American foreign
>> policy and Middle East affairs have been published
>> in numerous scholarly journals, periodicals,
>> newspapers and on the Internet. His book
>> "The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and
>> the Global Islamic Jihad" (Wyndham Hall Press, 2005).
>
> Did this start before or after our Idiot-in-Chief used the extremely-
> loaded word "Crusade" shortly after 9/11?
He didn't just "used the extremely-loaded word "Crusade", the first
miltary
operation in Afghanistan was Operation "Crusade" and Dumbya caught Hell
for
it, so much so the changed the name of the military operation. Probably
to
something like Operation "Hoily Grail" lol
--
Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people who
claim to be RIGHT but are nothing but WRONG for America...
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
