Steve Emerson has the full texts of the new State Department memos forbidding use of the word "jihad," plus more details (including the curious unwillingness to reveal whom the masterminds who put this strategy together actually consulted), at the Investigative Project.
A rose by any other name....
DHS memo page 2: "Hezbollah and Hamas are distinct in methods, motivations and goals from al-Qaeda"
DHS memo page 7: "The experts we consulted debated the word 'liberty', but rejected it because many around the world would discount the term as a buzzword for American hegemony."
And the guidelines were supported by:
April 30, 2008 - Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) Applauds Gov't Initiative To Stop Using 'Jihadist' Terminology
http://app.e2ma.net/app/view:CampaignPublic/id:2785.1058146269/rid:1e7e9e963d40188484a48afa3a1ec001
--- by Edina Leckovic who was managing editor for Al-Talib when it instructed Muslim readers to "defend our brother" Osama bin Laden, and "refer to him as a freedom fighter, someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah's cause and speak out against oppressors. We take these stances only to please Allah."
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/293
# "The fact is that Islam and secular democracy are fully compatible – in fact, they can make each other stronger. Senior officials should emphasize that fact."
Are they saying that Islam is a political entity?
Is this a plan to include Islam in gov to make democracy stronger?
Is this treason? Are they traitors?
Have they been eating hallucinogenic mushrooms?
OT: GLIMMER OF HOPE FROM LONDONISTAN?
Robert, not sure if this has been posted anywhere on your sites, but it's good news:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3859835.ece
Gordon Brown mauled by voters in 'bad night' for Labour
Gordon Brown admitted that it had been a "disappointing" night for Labour after the party suffered its worst election results for four decades in what was his first proper electoral test as Prime Minister.
With results still coming in from elections around England and Wales, Labour’s projected national vote share was put at just 24 per cent, trailing 20 points behind David Cameron’s Conservatives on 44 per cent, and even behind the Liberal Democrats on 25 per cent.
The margin was similar to the drubbing received by John Major in council elections in 1995, two years before he was ejected from Downing Street by Tony Blair. Latest analysis suggests that the Tories would enjoy a landslide Commons majority of between 138 and 164 seats if the results were repeated in a general election.
Among its other successes, the Tories planted their flag in Labour’s northern heartlands by seizing control of Bury and made a surprise gain in Southampton - one of the few Southern cities where Labour still has MPs.
Mr Brown admitted it had been a "bad" night for Labour, and said he felt "sad" that so many Labour councillors had lost their seats.
However, he appeared to reject calls for a major change of direction and said that he would show the necessary "courage and conviction" to overcome the current troubles. Analysts believe the Prime Minister has ruled out any Cabinet reshuffle on the back of the results, and was determined to show he was a politician of conviction.
"It is clear to me that this has been a disappointing night and a bad night for Labour. My job is to listen and to lead and that is what I will do," he told a Downing Street press conference with Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Foreign Minister.
Mr Brown said he would "listen and lead" as Prime Minister, but added: "The test of leadership is not what happens in a period of success but what happens in difficult circumstances. The challenge of leadership is to take the country through difficult times as well as good times."
In a series of interviews today, Mr Cameron vowed that the Conservatives would not be complacent, despite their victory, and would make their own case for government, not simply based on Labour's problems.
"I think these results are not just a vote against Gordon Brown and his Government. I think they are a vote of positive confidence in the Conservative Party," he told reporters as he left his west London home.
"I think this is a very big moment for the Conservative Party, but I don’t want anyone to think that we would deserve to win an election just on the back of a failing Government.
"I want us to really prove to people that we can make the changes they want to see. That’s what I’m going to devote myself and my party to doing over the next few months."
The Conservative local government spokesman Eric Pickles said the Tory successes meant Mr Brown would not risk calling a general election until the last possible date in 2010. "The ship of state is heading towards the rocks," he said.
Labour MPs pointed the finger of blame for last night’s bloodbath at the state of the economy and Mr Brown’s decision to scrap the 10p rate of income tax, which hit millions of workers’ pay packets in the weeks before the elections.
Ed Miliband, one of Mr Brown’s key lieutenants, admitted the 10p issue had made the campaign "difficult" and the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Tony Lloyd, said it had hurt Labour on the doorstep.
Mr Lloyd said the electorate had sent a "very clear signal" to Labour in a "referendum on where the Government stands".
Cabinet minister John Denham, MP for Southampton Itchen, said Labour must listen to the concerns of voters in the South of England to restore its fortunes.
"(If) we go from here, show the voters that we have been listening to the things they are genuinely concerned about, show that we can address them here in the South, then we can and will win the next general election," he said.
There were calls from the left of the party for a shift in direction, with Norwich North MP Ian Gibson urging the Prime Minister to offer railway renationalisation, union rights for agency workers and a more generous minimum wage to restore the confidence of traditional Labour voters.
John McDonnell, who tried to challenge Mr Brown for the leadership last year, warned that New Labour policies had brought the party "close to a potentially irretrievable tipping point".
"Without a radical change of direction, we are witnessing a Labour Government slipping away," he said.
Overall, councils declaring overnight saw Labour lose 143 councillors and Conservatives gain 139, while Liberal Democrats were up 12. With around 50 councils counting ballots today, Labour’s total deficit could hit 250 or even 300 before Mr Brown’s suffering is complete.
Tories were hoping to cap their council successes with victory for Boris Johnson in the London mayoral battle with Ken Livingstone, due to be declared late today.
But observers believe it may not be possible to read directly across from the national swing to the personality-driven contest in the capital.
Conservatives won Nuneaton & Bedworth in Warwickshire from Labour and West Lindsey in Lincolnshire from the Lib Dems, while also seizing Elmbridge in Surrey, Harlow in Essex, Maidstone in Kent and Wyre Forest in Worcestershire from no overall control.
Labour lost control of Merthyr Tydfil in south Wales to independents in an election heavily influenced by a local row over a large open-cast mine, opposed by many residents.
Liberal Democrats salvaged their flagship council Liverpool through a last-minute deal with Independent councillor Nadia Stewart, who joined the party to give it a wafer-thin absolute majority after it appeared to have lost overall control.
The party also reasserted its grip on former Labour stronghold Hull, which it first won last year only to see the city slip from its hands due to defections, and gained St Albans from no overall control.
Nick Clegg’s party fell slightly short of its performance in 2004, when it was buoyed by opposition to the Iraq War.
Greens were celebrating in Norwich, where they leapfrogged Lib Dems to become the main opposition grouping on a council for the first time in their history - just two seats behind Labour.
And the far-right British National Party gained eight seats - two each in Rotherham, Nuneaton & Bedworth and Amber Valley and one in Pendle and Thurrock.
********************************************
Here is one of the comments to the story:
This is the chance that the British need to save England and keep it English. Keep London and not Londonistan, save your culture, close your borders and embrace being English not part of the EU. England for the English celebrate your great nation and reject Islamic colonization.
Covina, USA
duh_swami says:
Are they saying that Islam is a political entity?
Is this a plan to include Islam in gov to make democracy stronger?
Is this treason? Are they traitors?
Have they been eating hallucinogenic mushrooms?
Uh………”yes” to all of the above?
duh_swami says:
Are they saying that Islam is a political entity?
Is this a plan to include Islam in gov to make democracy stronger?
Is this treason? Are they traitors?
Have they been eating hallucinogenic mushrooms?
Uh………”yes” to all of the above?
Posted by: descendantofacrusader
And if so, does that remove it's freedom of religion status?
Walterk asks:
And if so, does that remove it's [Islam’s] freedom of religion status?
Answer: ‘Islam’ is not a religion but an all encompassing political system that actively seeks the overthrow of the U.S. government or any other resistive element that it encounters in its quest to "rule supreme".
"The fact is that Islam and secular democracy are fully compatible..."
from Steve Emerson's article in IPT.
It is depressing to read such statements from people who are supposed to be representing our interests and who obviously are badly misinformed. Have they been asleep?
Multiculturalism at its finest, yessiree!
1001 reasons we cannot call the Kettle Black.
1. The Frying Pan may take offense.
2. It excludes the Strainer.
3. it omits the Brown Handle.
4. ...
Kind of like forbidding the use of the word "genocide" in describing the Turkish state's orchestrated destruction of the Armenian people.
Who's the fool at State who says Islam and democracy are compatible? Has this person even SEEN a Quran, much less cracked one open? (hey, buddy! There's always the internet, you know!)
Has this dude not seen the well-publicized statements from Islam's finest minds, declaring that "man-made law" is an abomination, and that only Allah's Holy Enduring Law For All Mankind will bring peace to the world, once Islam overcomes Dar al-Harb and the Caliphate flowers again (inshallah)?
It's clear what this represents, and it's made even more clear by the refusal to identify the "influential American muslims" who have pressed for this.
Although Al Qaeda has roots in the Islamic Brotherhood their split with the Ikhwan has been, to say the least, not amicable. It is downright messy.
The Brotherhood, never missing an opportunity to spin terrorism to its advantage, have been repudiating Al Qaeda publicly, in the most flambuoyant terms. The result has been documents like the Fiqh council's "Not in the name of Islam" "fatwas" and general pronouncements against Al Qaeda so that western news and political people know "which side they are on".
CAIR, in particular, has made great use of this opportunity to present themselves as great defenders of Western freedom by presenting "the alternative". Other Ikhwan fronts, in their own particular ways, have chimed in: ISNA, ISNA, MAS, MSA, CIC and the lot. The only common ground between the groups are the hotbeds of Salafism, where both the brotherhood and Al Qaeda have a hearing, and in the dark corners of Saudi Arabia.
What we are watching is a world-wide turf war, with the brotherhood and their associates controlling much of the western and Palestinian turf, Al Qaeda and their associates controlling parts of Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Iran making uncomfortable peace (but peace nonetheless) with most brotherhood associates while controlling Syria, Lebanon and making inroads in South America, and Saudi Arabia just fueling everyone with funds and resources except, as far as they can avoid it, Iran. Iraq is a grand prize they're all squabbling over, and everyone's got their claws into Europe.
This latest maneuver is to drag the U.S. government into this turf war, supporting the Brotherhood's claim to North America by marginalizing Al Qaeda's claim to the "honorable" status of mujahideen (they are trying something similar in England, but Al Qaeda's Deobandi associates there are stronger, so we'll see what comes of that).
Several side "benefits" (from their perspective): this mover lessens the likelihood of scrutiny of their own agenda, it reduces the likelihood that North Americans would become conversant regarding the looming Islamist threat (until it's too late of course), and it gives them exclusive control over the terms by which the Islamic agenda is executed.
Guys like Emerson and their piercing analysis are needed to cut through this crap.
zTruth has more.
"This first meeting was discussed on altmuslim where we learn the participants were Shahed Amanullah, 39, an Austin blogger and editor of Altmuslim.com. Akbar Ahmed, 64, an American University professor and former ambassador from Pakistan. M.J. Khan, 57, who is in his second term as a Houston city councilman, and Reza Aslan, author from San Jose, CA:"
more at link.
Hope I am not repeating anyone. I sent a strongly worded message to the Whitehouse. I strong suggest everyone reading the idiotic threads do the same.
You just never know.
From Steven Emerson's article:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/659
"These organizations [Hamas and Hizb'Allah] are responsible for the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians –"
Perhaps it's just me, but shouldn't the phrase 'innocent civilians' be reduced to simply civilians?
Jerks
Idiots
Hacks
Asshats
Doofuses.
It's the Jihad, stupids.
'I'm mad as hell' wrote: 'Hope I am not repeating anyone. I sent a strongly worded message to the Whitehouse.'
It's getting to the point where it needs to be more than an email, a letter, or a phone call.
It needs to be a sit-in, on the steps, or at the gate, or as near as 'security' will allow you to get, to the White House or to the Capitol.
Ideally, enough people, of varying backgrounds (native American/ First Nations, AfroAmerican Christians and Sudanese Christian and Coptic Christian refugees, Arab Christian Americans, Anglo American, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists, clergy and lay people) to allow for a well behaved, well-dressed, cool headed, politely determined presence, day and night, 24/7, taking shifts turn and turn about, for about a month, right where police, politicians, and the general public can't miss you.
With public readings aloud of selected chapters from suitable books, such as Spencer and Fallaci, Darwish, Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali; and excerpts from 'Legacy of Jihad' and choice excerpts from Bat Yeor; from The Al Qaeda reader; and all the nastiest bits from the Quran, Sira and Hadith. Handing out free copies of 'Fitna' and 'What the West Needs to Know'; and pamphlets with John Quincy Adams' elegantly-phrased denunciation of Islam and jihad, and the Centre for Political Islam's piece on 'the tears of jihad'.
Big placards saying things like 'down with the jihad', 'no to sharia', 'sharia denies human rights', 'sharia oppresses women', 'no more jizya', 'no dhimma here', 'we will not be dhimmis', 'lan astaslem', 'no more taqiyya lies'. 'Go India! Defeat the jihad'; 'Go Philippines - defeat the jihad!'; 'Go Israel - defeat the jihad!', 'Go Thailand! - defeat the jihad!'.
What's the protocol at the Lincoln Memorial? Have some BLACK people strategically placed to hand out pamphlets on 'Islam, Jihad and Slavery', to those approaching or leaving the shrine.
Perhaps a march could be conducted, taking in the White House, the Pentagon, and the Capitol?
If you start organising now, you might have something up and running by Fall.
This is yet another reason Chertoff is often referred to as "Lettuce Head." One is tempted to inform the Secretary that no matter how much lipstick you apply to this pig, it's still going to remain a pig. But, of course, we're not supposed to say such things because it might insult the pig.
Harry Potter fans will know that
HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED is so evil that people will dare not speak his name, Voldemort.
Only Harry is so bold as to speak the name of the evil one and ultimately, of course, he is the hero who confronts and battles Evil.
When I saw this PC nonsense run amok in England, newspaper articles refer to you-know-who as "Asians," wink, wink, I thought, "Oh no, they're screwed."
Now we're just as stupid?!
Name the enemy.
How can we best wake up America when the mainstream media won't even let us name the enemy at the gate and within?
Oh my word!
Reading my local newspaper this morning, a community basketball team has a young black player named, I kid you not, Jihad. His last name is very American-sounding.
The creep here (Philly suburbs) is slowly being seen. Just yesterday I saw a woman in full Jihab, black, head to toe, at our local Shop Rite.
All this political discourse and activity allows the Beast to wander near. The Beast grazes on the lush verdant North American landscape ...
... and the jugular of Islam is the belief that the words and thoughts generated from the Qu'ran are from the Creator to ITS creation.
Robert, Hugh, et al., the first one in proximity and to get close enough to cut the jugular is the coolest, baddest dude in the history books of tomorrow, but, I'm sure you guys already realize this. I've said this in the past. I make mention of it again, now.
Skip the prayers. Everyone wish me luck, when the time is right, ... that's all I'll need. (:~}
Perhaps it's just me, but shouldn't the phrase 'innocent civilians' be reduced to simply civilians?
PRCS,
I would say no, for one reason: Hamas, Hezbollah and just about every Islamic terrorist is a civilian. There is nothing innocent about any of them. In addition, there needs to be a distinction made between people who are going about their business and those "non-combatants" who provide assistance of any form to terrorists. Aiders and abettors may be civilians who never fired a weapon but they are not innocent. Not every civilian is innocent. Those that are deserve to be recognized as such.
Archimedes2,
The outline you give of a "turf war" between the two wings of Salafist global jihad makes sense of all the details I have found. I fear the Stealth Jihadists more than the Open Jihadists, as they are more insidious, and operate under our radar, festering within and subverting our societies with the entire gamut of perfidy and hidden malice.
PMK,
From my original post (taken from Emerson's article):
"These organizations [Hamas and Hizb'Allah] are responsible for the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians –"
Hamas and Hizb'Allah are murdering civilians whom they have arbitrarily determined are, from a menu of sins against Islam, 'guilty'. Sometimes, that 'guilt' is nothing more than not accepting Islam.
I don't believe they should be slaughtering civilians for any reason.
Thank you.
We should quit using the term Jihad because it connotes a religiously approved struggle against unbelievers. The war we are in is not that, so we should say so.
One of the weaknesses of this DoS memo (as with all their memos) is that it doesn't lay out a real campaign to discredit what should be easily discreditable. The perpetrators of violence against people of the book (us) and other Muslims should be called Irhabiin (terrorists) and, as it does say, Taqfiriin.
Once again, the DoS, who has failed in its mission to take the message of freedom and liberty to the world -- and it is their mission -- failed in its strategic communications mission to explain its program to stop dignifying terrorists as holy warriors. It is just another symptom of the wider problem inside State.
Changing our language will not stop terror. But at least we can call a spade a spade and quit using the terrorists own self-delusional labels when we refer to them.
I've quoted you and linked back to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/05/re-hiding-very-language-and-ideological.html