“Trying to impose speech codes on how to describe our enemy smacks of McCarthyism in reverse.”
"Hoekstra Effort to Strip Earmarks from Intelligence Bill Successful," a press release from Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), May 7 (thanks to Patrick Poole):
...Hoekstra also sponsored an amendment, rejected by committee Democrats, that would prohibit the intelligence community from adopting speech codes that encumber accurately describing the radical jihadist terrorists that attacked America and continue to threaten the homeland.“Trying to impose speech codes on how to describe our enemy smacks of McCarthyism in reverse,” Hoekstra said. “Al-Qaeda knows point blank that they want to kill Americans. How sad is it that as we approach the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are still debating how to define our enemy?”...
If we think this is bad, wait untill Obama or Clinton get in. They'll bust their asses proving how inclusive they are to Muslims. I wouldn't be suprised to see prayer rugs in the East room of the White house, and Imams leading prayer services for the cabinet.
Ordinarily in a war, when one conducts propaganda both black and white there is always the danger that one will end up deceiving oneself.
This is particularly true where the "war" does not look like a war as we have come to know it, does not involve, in the main, a battlefield threat, but rather other instruments of warfare, and where there is no beginning -- no "declaration of war" -- and also no end. In the Jihad that Muslims are taught to regard as a central duty, and which they must participate in either collectively (so that the efforts of some in the collective may relieve others from immediate and direct paritipation) or individually (so that everyone must participate directly), the goal has no fixed end, until the entire world has had all obstacles to the spread, and dominance, of Islam removed.
And the instruments of this war are not, pace Bush and others, "terorrism" or even conventional qitaal, or combat. The main instruments are the deployment of the Money Weapon, carefully-targetted campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest, all part of what Robert Spencer has called "the stealth jihad" to focus attention on how it proceeds, without being seen, or being deliberately overlooked, or wilfully -- and woefully -- misunderstood.
If a great many of those who are the intended victims of Jihad understood all of this, had set themselves to school to study the texts and tenets of Islam, and the history of Islamic conquest, then possibly one could at least begin to even consider whether deliberately misstating what Jihad is all about, what this war-without-end (and not simply a "long war") could conceivably make sense. For this war is a war that is manageable and containable, just, but only if everyone sees, clearly, what the true source (those "roots") of the conflict -- everywhere in the world that Muslims clash with non-Muslims, which happens to be everywhere that Muslim and non-Muslim peoples are in constant contact. And part of that necessary clarity requires at the very least that our own government not attempt, as a matter of policy, to hide reality, to consider only how not to offend (as if they really are offended -- they know perfectly well what Jihad is all about) Muslims, in the vain hope that somehow this will make things better.
The audience that counts, right now, are not the world's Muslims but the world's non-Muslims, and especially, for the American government, the people of this country, who need to undersetand better -- the Bush Administration, terminally flailing about with assorted fools in command, squandering resources, unable to articulate a thing, still showing how little they understand in the goals they set, such as that of bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in Iraq and thus, they hope, to the greater Muslim world, and still intent on fatally endangering Israel with that maniacal insistence on a "two-state solution" that is not a "solution" at all, and could at this point still be pushed only by those who do not understand, who will not understand, who cannot allow themselves to understand, that Israel's size does not matter to the Slow Jihadists or the Fast Jihadists, only the fact of its existence as an Infidel nation-state on land once possessed by Muslims.
The attempt to censor those who see things more clearly, the attempt by fools to curb the speech of the wise -- this is perhaps the most intolerable of all the follies of this intolerable administration.
Once again, the motives are splendid; the concept is grasped; the effort is appreciated.
But please, McCarthyism in reverse?
I do not believe this is a quibble. I believe this goes to the heart of our Western problem.
Do we now just utter any old piece of nonsense, as long as it conveys a certain emotional pov of the speaker?
Where is the coherence?
Well, fascism is a bugaboo word for the (alleged) right, and so is McCarthyism, so why the Hell not, huh?
It is a fool's game, trying to out-bugaboo the left and the mohammed-worship propagandists.
Why not stick to coherence and semantic accuracy?
“Al-Qaeda knows point blank that they want to kill Americans. How sad is it that as we approach the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are still debating how to define our enemy?”... - JW
I can concur to that.
I think if Obama ever makes it to the Office, he could not troll to us, else he will be in more trouble than he would ever wish for. I am also concern that Hill-Billi will be a soft touch on terrorism. We need someone who can really defend our rights against the Islamic world.
People - Banned "Naseem" has gone to Ibn Misr's "Sons of Apes and Pigs" Website! Check it out!
http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org/2008/05/answering-nassem-a-muslima-to.html
The attempt to censor those who see things more clearly, the attempt by fools to curb the speech of the wise -- this is perhaps the most intolerable of all the follies of this intolerable administration.
Posted by: Hugh
I am incredulous, saddened, frustrated, and more than a little angered by this (as Hugh so aptly put it) “attempt by fools to curb the speech of the wise”.
This goes beyond mere incompetence, they are actively working to aid our enemy.
It is indeed intolerable.
Hugh's keen insights into Islam, as evidenced by his post above and almost countless others, is still so far from being the perceived view of Mohammedanism by those who run this country, both Democrats and Republicans, that it is depressing at times to reflect upon just how far the American government must still go to even correctly comprehend Islam, let alone know what to do about it.
Speaking of attempts to censor...
Was this posted?
[-]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/03/INHA10C1TA.DTL
If you want to understand why murderous Islamic extremists still pour out of the Middle East, consider a small drama under way in Saudi Arabia right now.
A few weeks ago, one of the nation's most senior religious authorities directed that two reporters for a mainstream Saudi newspaper be executed for publishing stories suggesting that religions other than Islam are worthy of respect. In Saudi Arabia, malefactors are beheaded by sword, as the nation calls the punishment, often in public, outside a mosque just after Friday prayers. By official count, authorities beheaded 151 people last year.
So far, the two reporters, Abdullah bin Bejad al-Otaibi and Yousef Aba al-Khail, have not been put under the sword. They are still working at their newspaper, Al Riyadh. But they are reported to be terrified, and they have called on the government for protection. It has not responded, and the other Saudi papers have barely even mentioned the controversy.
None of this comes as much of a surprise to Saudi Arabia experts.
In some ways it's routine. Last week, as an example, a Saudi appeals court agreed to hear the case of a Turkish barber who was sentenced to death by sword for taking the Lord's name in vain in his barbershop one afternoon.
But the debate over the reporters offers a window into Saudi thinking and helps explain why so many Saudis dedicate themselves to anti-Western jihads. If a respected religious authority calls for the execution of someone who simply suggests that people holding other faiths deserve respect, doesn't that tell Saudis that the lives of Christians, Jews, Hindu and Buddhists are of lesser value?
Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, a 75-year-old sheikh, issued the fatwa calling for the journalists' death. In Saudi Arabia, he is a leading authority on Wahhabism, the country's fundamentalist form of Sunni Islam.
"It's disgraceful that articles containing this kind of apostasy should be published in some papers in Saudi Arabia," he wrote last month. If the reporters do not repent, they "should be killed," he wrote.
Barrak is not just some cranky old miscreant. He is a member of the Saudi legislature, appointed by the king. Barrak spent a long career in senior positions at a respected government-funded university.
Soon after, 20 other senior Saudi clerics stood up to enthusiastically endorse Barrak's fatwa. Later, about 100 human-rights advocates from across the region condemned the edict, calling it intellectual terrorism. That had little visible impact in Riyadh.
But a striking feature of this episode is that the Saudi government has not said or done anything about it - probably because King Abdullah realizes that many and perhaps most members of Saudi Arabia's religious establishment agree with Barrak. After all, two weeks after he issued that fatwa, the legislature soundly defeated a proposal, favored by the Arab League, to adopt a law promoting respect for other religions. The vote was 77-33.
Still, Abdullah could not possibly have forgotten the world outrage that greeted the Saudi court decision last fall to administer 200 lashes to a 20-year-old woman who had been gang raped. The White House called this outrageous, and Abdullah eventually had to pardon the woman.
But even if he were so inclined, the king cannot easily interfere with a religious edict - especially one issued by a member of his own government. So instead, he issued a tepid appeal for an international inter-faith dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews "to help end inter-religious tensions," the Saudi government said.
No details were provided. Right away, though, one of Israel's chief rabbis, Yona Metzger, announced that "our hand is outstretched to any peace initiative and any dialogue that is intended to bring an end to terror and violence." So far, however, Metzger remains empty-handed.
Barrak's history is littered with pronouncements that many in the West would consider outrageous. A few years ago he decreed that Sunni Muslims not only had the right but also the duty to kill Shiite Muslims who openly practice their faith. (Among Saudi fundamentalists, talking about killing Shiites is a popular intellectual blood sport.)
More recently, Barrak was the lead signatory on a religious edict urging Saudi men to fight "the joint venture by the crusaders" and the Shia "to further their greedy designs" on Iraq. The Shiite goal, the edict added, was "to protect the occupying Jews and to besiege Sunnis throughout the region."
Others signing this missive last year included university deans and presidents as well as judges and senior government officials.
Once again, not surprisingly, the king had nothing to say.
Joel Brinkley is a professor of journalism at Stanford University and a former New York Times foreign correspondent. E-mail him at insight@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page G - 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle
[-]
I fully support using the correct words to identify who the enemy is and what its goals are.
The BBC and Labour have sold us down the same river and lead us to believe that self moderation is the key to defeating the Jihadists.
Meanwhile in the real world the cult of Islam sends us yet another Dawa package worth £16mill that no doubt will lead to further resources being consumed for national security,never mind the dhimmi'revisionist media coverage thats already payed for and has been given carte blanche due to the television licence monopoly.
I recall watching a brutally honest report about North Korea a few years ago done by the BBC. Why didnt the BBC moderate itself when the report indicated canablism was being practised in the starved villages of North korea? Simple answer is Kim Jong Il wouldnt allow the BBC to establish a network center in Pyongyang regardless of a favourable report. The longer politicians & organisations continue with thier partisan agendas the harder it will be to deal with the growing threat of Islamist/Arab supremcacism.
The enemy (and they know who they are) must be laughing at the state of affairs weve allowed ourselves to fall into.
Toward the end of the article referenced above
( http://hoekstra.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=90778 )
the following paragraphs appear:
Republicans on the committee also banded together to oppose politically correct “environmental spying” mandates. Republicans, as they did during last year’s authorization debate, questioned the diversion of limited intelligence resources to study climate change and pointed to the fact that more than a dozen federal agencies are responsible for researching the issue.
“No one has yet demonstrated what clandestine effort or secret capability is needed to study climate change,” Hoekstra said. “Climate science may help inform our nation’s intelligence assessments, but I don’t see how our intelligence assessments can help inform climate science.”
The stupidity of this is as stunning as the fascist aspect of it is terrifying. Not only do they dismiss real danger where it exists objectively as mentioned by Robert; they want to transfer funds from programs that may actually save lives, their own included, and establish a state funded religion of climate control. And of course, what environmental religion would be complete without environmental secret police?
If these fools want to waste money on their climate control fantasies, they should get a real job and waste their own money. I don't want my family and friends put in danger by nutty leftist serial empathizers that don't have a clue about Islam, physics, or the limitations of numerical methods.
As a final sadistic "salt in the wound insult", I'll bet they claim to be the "friends of science" too. Geeeezus.
US Infidel, above, referred to the problem of Arabists in the State Department - a problem not unique to the USA (Britain and France, inter alia, also labour under this handicap).
Two particularly terrifying examples - where State tried, but failed, to push the Arab agenda - are seen in the history of US/ israel relations.
Just read through this article by Abraham Rabinovich 'Birthing Pains' in JPost, May 7 2008
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1209627035661&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
which I found in JPost, revisiting various events prior to Israel's declaration of independence, and referring, towards the end, how the US State Department advised President Truman. And Truman came within an ace of listening to them.
There's also *this* article, from Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, going into MUCH more detail on the tensions between Truman and State Dept. Thanks to the Arabists at State, the USA came within an ace of throwing the yishuv to the jihad wolves.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=376&PID=0&IID=2108&TTL=President_Truman%27s_Decision_to_Recognize_Israel
A similar face-off between then President LBJ and his (Arabist, covertly or openly anti-Semitic) State Dept, occurred just after the Six Day War: see Yehuda Avner's article, 'On the Seventh Day', Jerusalem Post, 5.6.2007:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1180960614908&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
This is some of what happened. Look at how the President's advisers behaved. Levi Eshcol was virtually on his knees begging LBJ for the only thing that would achieve darura - sufficient clout to deter the rapidly re-arming Arab Muslim forces.
In case the link breaks, I will put it here, for all to see the open and indeed ugly hostility from people like Rusk.
"OK, that's the Arab side. Now what about your side? What do you have?" The president was eyeing the [Israeli] prime minister unblinkingly, as if trying to track the motives behind his thoughts. Eshkol's response, when it came, was slow, soft, and disturbing:
"We have no more than 150 aircraft, all French, 66 of them virtually obsolete. The French are contracted to send us 50 more, but because of their boycott we won't get them. In a word, Mr. President" - their eyes met and caught - "we presently do not have the minimum means to defend ourselves."
A FLICKER crossed Johnson's brow and he exchanged glances with his advisers. "So what are you asking for exactly? Spell it out." The voice was terse and tight.
Eshkol, knowing this was the decisive moment, adjusted his spectacles, cleared his throat, and said in a measured tone, "What I'm asking for, Mr. President, is the one aircraft that has the necessary range and versatility to enable us to face down our enemies. I'm asking for your F-4 Phantom jets."
Johnson's eyes became strangely veiled. The Phantom was America's newest state-of-the-art fighter-bomber.
'Mr. President," pressed Eshkol, a sudden edge of desperation in his voice, "please understand, my country is extremely vulnerable. One defeat in the field can be fatal to our survival. What I ask of you is the minimum for our self-defense. Without those Phantoms we will be deprived of our minimum security. We need 50 Phantoms as rapidly as possible."
Johnson returned him an unreceptive look and Eshkol, really charged up now, said, "Mr. President, last June our enemies tried to destroy us, and we defeated them all. Had we waited one more day, even one more hour, before forestalling them the outcome might have been very different. Yet I come here with no sense of boastful triumph; nor have I entered the struggle for peace in the role of victor. The only feeling I have is one of relief that we were saved from national disaster, and I thank God for that. Now, all my thoughts are turned toward winning the peace - peace with honor between equals."
"That is a noble thought," said Johnson.
"Thank you, but we need the tools to help bring that peace about. I regret to say that" - a sudden bitter irony crept into his voice - "the United States is the only source we have for those tools. Within two years our Arab neighbors will have 900-1,000 Soviet aircraft. So it's an either/or situation.
Either you provide us with the arms we need, or you leave us to our fate. It's as simple as that."
And then, almost in a whisper, "Mr. President, Israel is pleading for your help."
LYNDON BAINES Johnson...said: "I am impressed by your statement, Mr. Prime Minister. However, as you know, we are facing a difficult situation in Vietnam, calling on our resources. I suggest, therefore, you look elsewhere to find your weapons, not only here in the United States."
Eshkol threw him a cynical smile. "Please tell me where. I would be delighted to look elsewhere if you can give me an address."
"That's as may be, but I regret that your visit here is so closely tied to this matter of the Phantoms. Planes won't radically change your realities. Your big problem is how two-and-a-half million Jews [Israel's population at the time] can live in a sea of Arabs."
Secretary of state Dean Rusk, a solid and benevolent sort, chimed in to say in a reasonable and persuasive tone,
"Mr. Prime Minister, in all honesty, whatever efforts Israel makes in the field of military build-up, the Arabs will better you every time. If the Arabs see an Israel they cannot live with, one that is intolerable to them, they won't back away from an arms race. On the contrary, they will turn increasingly to the Soviets, to the detriment of the American interest. So what we would like to hear from you today is, what kind of an Israel do you want the Arabs to live with, and what kind of an Israel do you want the American people to support? The answer, surely, is not to be found in military hardware."
"These are difficult remarks you are making, Mr. Secretary," said Eshkol stonily. "All I can say to you now is that our victory in the Six Day War blocked the Soviet Union from taking over the Middle East; and that, surely, is an American interest.
'As for the kind of an Israel the Arabs can live with and which the American people can support, the only answer I can presently give is an Israel whose map will be different from the one of the eve of the Six Day War."
"How different?" quizzed Rusk cagily.
ESHKOL, HIS voice brimming with sincerity, replied, "Please understand, we did not want that June war. We could have lived indefinitely within the old pre-1967 armistice lines. But now that there has been a war, we cannot return to those old, vulnerable frontiers."
Clearly not wanting a high-stress exchange to escalate into an all-out dispute, the president intervened and suggested a break. When the talks resumed, the president said he would like to try and get a peace process going, to which Eshkol interjected with uncharacteristic adamancy:
"Mr. President, I would love somebody here in this room to tell me when and where and how I can get a peace process going. I wouldn't be here asking for Phantoms if somebody could tell me that.
'But instead of peace we are faced with an unprecedented Arab rearmament that again threatens our very existence. The immediate issue is the means to defend ourselves against another attempted onslaught. Israel feels weaker now than before the Six Day War.
'Why? Because as you rightly said, we are a small country of two-and-a-half million Jews surrounded by a sea of Arabs. So what are we supposed to do - wait until Russia gives them so many planes that they can dictate their terms at will?"
His face had gone white. "Mr. President," he galloped on, "the State of Israel is the last chance for the Jewish people. I pray with all my heart to avoid another war. But I know of only one address to acquire the means to defend ourselves - and that address is you."
ROBERT McNAMARA, the secretary of defense, raised a finger. He was a handsome man in his early fifties, with a square chin, a fine mop of hair parted in the middle, and rimless glasses that gave him an intellectual look. There was nothing about him to suggest he was in the midst of a Vietnamese war that would prove one of the bloodiest America had ever fought.
"Having studied the evidence," he began with dispassion, "it seems clear to me that two-and-a half million Jews truly cannot withstand the whole of the Arab world, particularly if the Arabs are assisted by the Russians.
'Therefore, the supply of a substantial number of the most sophisticated aircraft could only increase Russian support for the Arabs. At the same time, there is no reason for Israel to say it has been abandoned. This will not occur while President Johnson is president. However, for the US to supply you with planes might greatly increase the supply of Russian planes to the Arabs. So, given these unknowns, we have to proceed with the utmost caution."
This obscure and contradictory comment aroused the ire of General Motti Hod, commander of Israel's Air Force, who, with undisguised cynicism, countered:
"The arms race, Mr. McNamara, has never been influenced by what we have in our hangers. The only limiting factor is the Arab capacity to absorb the aircraft the Soviets supply."
And then to Johnson, "Your secretary of defense says that as long as you, Mr. President, are president, Israel will never be abandoned. Might I suggest that the one way of guaranteeing that, and of assuring that US forces will never have to come to our rescue, is by keeping our air force strong."
THE PRESIDENT suggested another brief break for consultations, after which he said in summation:
"I think we can agree on three objectives. First, there is the need to do what we can to bring about a stable peace. Second, we are all anxious to deter, if possible, an arms race. Third, the United States has a hope and a purpose of assuring, if necessary, adequate equipment to the Israel Air Force to defend itself. And in connection with this goal I suggest that the following sentence be written into our joint communique at the conclusion of this session."
'He picked up a paper, and read: "The president agreed to keep Israel's defense capability under active and sympathetic review in light of all the relevant factors, including the shipment of military equipment by others into the area."
To this he added by way of explanation, "This statement will be helpful in deterring the Arabs, and might even push them toward restraint. It also says to the Soviets, 'Stop, look, and listen.' And it gives you something concrete, Mr. Prime Minister, to stand on."
This, in diplomatic-speak, translated into, "Yes. You'll have your Phantoms," and a deeply relieved prime minister responded, "Thank you, Mr. President. I thank you from the heart." END QUOTE
It was a chillingly close-run thing - primarily because of Rusk, and McNamara.
The problem is you cannot reach R Hoekstra if you are not a resident of Michigan.