Andy McCarthy wonders, since "war" and "terror" are no good, if it's okay if we call this present conflict the "On" -- "or would that offend all the moderate prepositions?"
"War on terror" has always been a stupid and misleading term. But this recommendation to abandon it is even more stupid and misleading.
New adventures in Washington's absurd flight from reality: "Security chief decries ‘war on terror,’" by Demetri Sevastopulo in the Financial Times, May 28 (thanks to Jed Babbin):
The west needs a more comprehensive strategy to counter al-Qaeda propaganda and the US should stop using the term “war on terror”, according to a top intelligence official.Charles Allen, the senior intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security, says the phrase is counter-productive because it creates “animus” in Islamic countries.
“[It] has nothing to do with political correctness,” Mr Allen said in an interview. “It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam and we don’t need this.”...
It has everything to do with political correctness, Mr. Allen. The jihadists say they are fighting an Islamic jihad. Understanding the jihad theology gives us unique insight into the motives and goals of the jihadists. If the Muslim world sees our resistance to these people as a war on Islam, maybe they aren't all that reliable as friends of the United States in the first place. But if they're really upset about this, they ought to be directing their ire against the Muslims who use Islam in this way -- which they are not doing -- instead of against non-Muslims who merely take note of the usage.
Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security secretary, does not agree with suggestions that the phrase is equated with a war on Islam, says Russ Knocke, his spokesman.“We are at war with terrorism, and its underlying ideology – not Islam – and we’ve gone out of our way to make that point,” says Mr Knocke. “In truth, war has been declared upon us.”
Indeed you have gone out of your way to make that point, Mr. Knocke -- even to the point of dealing in half-truths and comforting falsehoods and avoiding unpleasant truths. But in truth, war has been declared upon us -- by Muslims, in the name of Islam. No amount of denial or sugarcoating this fact will make it go away.
Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, in an interview said the phrase ”war on terror” was the “dumbest term…you could use”. The Michigan lawmaker, who criticises the Bush administration for using an overly aggressive tone, says he has urged Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, not to use the expression.
It is indeed a "dumb" term. It is war on a tactic, not on a foe. But this foe we are afraid to name.
Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Mr Hadley, said the White House recognises that “the use of the word ‘Islamic’ before the word terrorist can be heard by Muslims…as lacking nuance, which may incorrectly suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or that we are at war with Islam”.
"Islamic terrorists" suggests neither, although the fear of using it suggests knee-knocking abject dhimmitude in the White House. "Islamic terrorists" no more suggests that all Muslims are terrorists than the phrase "Italian fascists" suggests that all Italians are fascists, or than the phrase "courageous intelligence analysts" suggests that all intelligence analysts are courageous. And it doesn't suggest we are at war with Islam, either, unless all Muslims are terrorists -- which is the very point that these politically correct mau-mauers would strenuously deny.
“While we want to be mindful to the way our messages are heard by Muslim audiences, we also think war on terror accurately describes the fight we are in,” he added.
Well, think again. It no more accurately describes this fight than "war on bombs" or "war on hijacked airplanes that crash into skyscrapers" would.
While the military in general tends to echo the langauge [sic!] of the president, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs who recently met with moderate Muslim leaders to hear their concerns, tries to ensure his language does not create the perception of a war against Islam, Captain John Kirby, his spokesman, said.“The chairman is aware of the concerns voiced by many in the Muslim community about the phrase ‘war on terror’,” Captain Kirby said.
“He is committed – when speaking of it – to focusing his language and efforts on the violent extremists we are fighting. This is not a war on Islam. It’s a war against lethal enemies who are using a warped view of that faith to justify killing innocent civilians.”
And part of their warped view is that they present themselves to peaceful Muslims as the true and pure Muslims, as we have seen again and again -- and they get recruits that way. But that is too politically incorrect a fact for us to notice, much less try to counter. We are to swallow the dogma that the jihadists' Islam is warped, and that virtually all Muslims see it as such, no matter what the evidence to the contrary.
That is part of the message that Mr Allen would like the US to emphasise in countering al-Qaeda propaganda around the globe. He says the west needs to orchestrate a “very structured”, almost cold war-style communications strategy to accomplish this....
In the Cold War we were against Communism. There was not this politically correct word-mincing going on at high levels.
Frank Cilluffo, a terrorism expert at George Washington University and former special assistant to Mr Bush for homeland security, says the US government can take a series of steps to help counter al-Qaeda. He agrees that the US should abandon the concept of a “war on terror” – which “fuels the adversaries narrative” – and “decouple religion from ideology”.
Cilluffo is terminally naive if he thinks the U.S. can accomplish this and have any credibility among Muslims in doing so. He is also apparently unaware (although he has heard a couple of presentations by me, and I was in there pitching, folks) that Islam traditionally has had a political and social, i.e., an ideological component. This aspect of Islam wasn't invented by bin Laden, or Khomeini. It is as old as Muhammad, and central to Islam. Does he really think that the U.S, by playing word games, can eliminate or "decouple" it from Islamic piety? Good luck with that.
In the long term, however, Mr Cilluffo says the solution will have to come from within the Muslim community, partly by imams and Islamic scholars stressing that al-Qaeda has deliberately misinterpreted the Koran to justify violence, which he adds will help “take the jihadi cool out of the narrative”.
Here again is that ever-elusive unicorn, the interpretation of the Qur'an that rejects violence. Frank Cilluffo and everyone else in Washington fervently believe it exists, and are ready to buy all kinds of snake oil in search of it. Unfortunately, there is no such traditional or mainstream understanding of the Qur'an that fits this bill. One could conceivably be invented, although then it will be denounced in Islamic communities as bid'a -- innovation.
One would think that it would be worthwhile to understand all this, so as to formulate a realistic strategy based on genuine reality. But instead, official Washington is retreating farther and farther into Fantasy Based Policymaking.
So a war ON terrorism is out but it's OK to be AT war with terrorism. And another point, if the underlying ideology is not Islam, what is it? and by "Islam" I mean Islam as defined by the Islamic canon (Koran, hadiths and Sira), which explicitly exhorts its followers to make perpetual war on non-Muslims worldwide.
It is the general who has a warped view of that faith. The mujahideen are clear in their view of "that faith", a view that has been unambiguously defined by more than 13 centuries of naked aggression against non-Muslims by the most devoted, most orthodox, most educated in the tenets, most mainstream of all adherents of the Islamic ideology.
I suggest getting the MSM to sound bite these "Pious Muslims Sermons" in the same manor they have Obamma and McCane.
The American People really do not need some over thinking higher ups to figure out what to call something. When all we need hear are what the Muslims preach of. The people will figure out what it needs to be called soon enough.
I suppose the "higher ups" would prefer us not to know. Otherwise, the "higher ups" would actually need to do something about it.
When you get right down to it. It is not Islam, as a whole, that we have a problem with. Just those aspects that run counter to the Constitution. If it be somewhere between most to all of the Korans callings, so what. It is not our problem if Islam is unwilling to conform to our Constitution. They really have no choice in the matter. Why the whole issue is not related in these terms is anyones guess.
If we are going to run around the May Pole for Sensitivity Training, then the case for our "sensitivities' should certainly be on the table in a big and well defined, legalistic way.
Mr. Allen is obviously oblivious to the "animus" he (and like-minded Western dhimmi-elites) are creating among his own people and nation by refusing to face reality and facts.
Or does he do the bidding of the islamosupremacists and consider them more important than his own people and culture?
Time for the people to call for and demand that any and all "leaders" i.e. those holding temporary positions of authority (only granted to such by the people) - cease their calls for thought control and suppression of free speech.
Likewise - all free peoples of the world must -and have every right to - reject all such attempts made by any self-annointed authorities.
Islam is the problem.
Another problem with War on Terror: the acronym.
There's always WAIK - War Against Islamist Killers.
Muslims would view it as an attack on Islam only if:
- all Muslims are Islamist, which they deny
- all Muslims are killers, which they deny
All Muslims should join the fight against KILLERS.
But that's hard to do when you have a verse that says happy are those that KILL and ARE KILLED for Allah. (I can't cite the sura. Sorry)
Wake (waik) up will have a new meaning.
In the long term, however, Mr Cilluffo says the solution will have to come from within the Muslim community, partly by imams and Islamic scholars stressing that al-Qaeda has deliberately misinterpreted the Koran to justify violence, which he adds will help “take the jihadi cool out of the narrative”.
******************************
Well, this statement is ripe for critique. For starters, I would like to know from Mr. Cilluffo exactly what parts of the Koran has al-Qaeda "deliberately misinterpreted"? Another question I might pose to Mr. Cilluffo is, since the Muslim community has failed to stifle Islamic hegemony for the past 1400 years, why MUST the solution to counter al-Qaeda come from this Muslim community? We must depend on the solution coming from Muslims? Good luck with that.
This is all so intellectually dishonest. Underlining all this reasoning is the unspeakable dhimmi logic which tells us there are too many muslims, so we dare not confront them on the merits, (i.e. the Koran), lest we anger them. The vital need to oppose the unacceptable elements of Islam goes unanswered. Instead we will appeal to the "moderate" muslims with logic, democracy, and kumbaya, and eventually turn enough of them so that al-Qaeda and the like will become marginalized, and ineffective, and ... and ... I have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
I am going to try to write Mr. Cilluffo, and pose these questions, and see what happens.
Could it be possible that the basis of all these verbal gymnastics is an attempt to use the Big Lie -- against Islam itself?
Well if you don't or won't call your enemy what they are, then we deserve to reap whats sown. I'd wager the day of appeasement will gain speed, wake up America!
It is remarkable, alarming and discouraging that the powers that be in Washington, D.C., at the highest levels of government, not to mention our military command staff, either cannot figure out that the World of Islam has both declared and begun to wage War on us - or they really have figured it out and they are too afraid to say the words.
"Knee-knocking abject dhimmitude" is an appropriate descriptor here. Thank you, Robert. I couldn't have said it better myslef.
Correction: myself
We're not at war against Islam? Hmmm. Seems Islam is at war against us, squishy, all too often unreliable "moderate Muslims" notwithstanding.
Our culture is being scraped from the earth, and yet these idiots and cowards (in Washington, London, Paris et al) continue to agonize over possible offense being given to the Islamic world.
Give me a break!
(where are Churchill and Truman when you need them!)
Oooh--Oooh I know, Mr. Kotter!
We could call it "the war on people who destroy things they envy"!
Robert,
Excellent commentary and I wholeheartedly agree with you...word for word.
The truth is not always comfortable, but it is always the truth, nonetheless.
Continue to speak the truth about Islam, for no matter what, your positions will certainly be intentionally misrepresented by your opponents, with their absolute lack of a validating argument based on all and any of your writings, aside.
Godspeed sir.
From post above: Mr. Allen is obviously oblivious to the "animus" he (and like-minded Western dhimmi-elites) are creating among his own people and nation by refusing to face reality and facts.
'The war was not lost, just misplaced'.
Well he certainly got my animus up and running.
We pay these people to be smart and this is what we get?? We are going to lose this war, or whatever you call it, unless we lose these 'fearless leaders' first. No wonder they can't seem to win this war, they can't even find it...
duh_sami,
Thanks for the wisdom from a fellow NY'er.
Regards.
*pollenous, sneezing fit*
duh_swami.
I am ashamed to be a member of a society which is too dumb and cowardly to name the enemy 7 years after the infamy of 9/11.
This is a real war: one on the homefront against these awful fools who would rather keep us all in the dark rather than face the music, and against the global jihad.
Lets call it the war of the headless chickens. That should do it..
You people sound remarkably uninformed.
Let me tell you from personal experience in Iraq. You bring thirty Iraqi "Muslims" into your battalion area to do casual labor and hang out together with them for six months, and you'll see as much diversity among them as among thirty "Christians" in Maine. The thing the Iraqis obviously had in common was resenting our invading their country for no reason. Which also explains the anti-Americanism all across the region. Give Palestine to zionists, you England and League of Nations and UN? Why not give Cumberland County in Maine to summer people?
Why not? It's theft. People pray to God for relief when someone steals their stuff.
If their church is a rallying ground to get their act together against superior forces, like in Jim Crow America or Poland, we should applaud that. Because we believe in the power of truth, like in the Psalms: I stood in the midst of the unbelievers and cried out to God, who delivered me and put me over them. And they were thwarted utterly.
By the way, I also spent two months in Kurdistan and they don't like us, or Israel, any more than the Arabs do. They don't like being used. They aren't confused. They're enthused. About not being abused.
chrisrushlau states: "Give Palestine to zionists, you England and League of Nations and UN? Why not give Cumberland County in Maine to summer people?
Why not? It's theft. People pray to God for relief when someone steals their stuff."
This statement is coming from someone who is very uninformed, so I'm graciously asking you to please eat your own words.
The Jews did not "steal" Israel from the Palestinians, they won it fair and square, and only someone who believes in all the hype and the lies would repeat such a thing.
I disagree with this statement, and think it is over simplifying the events surrounding the formation of Israel in 1948. The countries of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, sent forces to attack the newly formed country of Israel. Israel won the war, fair and square, so the Arabs gambled and lost. If you start a war and lose it, there is no reason that you should expect that the people or country that you have attacked will give back any of the territories that you have lost. End of story.
Champ,
Smackdown! Again! Reminds me of our friend 'Thesaracen'.
Good night.
Cilluffo is terminally naive if he thinks the U.S. can accomplish this and have any credibility among Muslims in doing so. He is also apparently unaware (although he has heard a couple of presentations by me, and I was in there pitching, folks) that Islam traditionally has had a political and social, i.e., an ideological component.
--RS
If there was a Q&A session, did Cilluffo or others ask you for further elaboration?
Champ,
Totally agree. Same with the six day war in 1967. Muslim countries are still seething and crying 40 years after the fact. Palestinians could have had their own country back in 1948.
If the Koranimals don't want to lose more land from their countries then stop attacking Israel. And the Palestinian occupiers of Jewish land would be smart to not push Israel especially if Bibi becomes prime minister or they may find themselves like the Persians pushed into the sea by the Spartans in the movie '300'.
By the way, I also spent two months in Kurdistan and they don't like us, or Israel, any more than the Arabs do. They don't like being used. They aren't confused. They're enthused. About not being abused.
Posted by: chrisrushlau
Thank you. The Kurds were the only reason I didn't support a full-scale and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Now, it's "bring the boys home!" time.
The Kurds and all the Arabs can provide for themselves and please don't call Washington when the Persians attack. No one will pick up the phone.
Hmmm. The "War on TERROR" is interpreted in the Muslim world as equivalent to a "War on ISLAM".
War on Terror = War on Islam.
War = War.
on = on.
Terror = Islam?
(in the Muslim mindset)
WAR ON ISLAMIC JIHAD
That's what it should be called. We are having Islamic Jihad waged against us by people who ARE muslims and ARE using the koran and the example of mohammed as their inspiration.
Many muslims claim that Jihad is in fact a spiritual struggle. Well if this is the case they should be happy with the term WAR ON ISLAMIC JIHAD as it is a war against the very people who have misinterpreted this "spiritual struggle" and are using it to bring "the religion of peace" into disrepute.
But we know what Jihad means. It is the struggle to spread Islam worldwide. The "moderates" who are jumping up and down about this are merely waging their jihad by means of politics. The aim is the same.
We are too soft in the west. We are mired in political correctness and this is being used as a weapon against us.
It's time we told the "moderates" to put up or shut up. Trouble is that Islam allows this behaviour, in fact it encourages it as Islam is "the only true religion".
Wake up and smell the sharia!
Hey, Boneshack! My Buddy! :-D
Thanks, Bigwhiteinfidel, and you're right, the same holds true for Jerusalem; besides, the Palestinians already have a homeland - it's called Jordan:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_whynostate.php
Excerpt from above link:
"First of all, the Palestinian Arabs do have a state. Its called Jordan. During the League of Nations Mandate period, the land originally set aside by the League of Nations as the Palestine Mandate was supposed to provide for a national home for the Jewish people. The British were given the authority to manage the Mandate and help the Jews make the transition to independence. Instead, almost 80% of the original Mandate land was carved out and arbitrarily made into the Arab country of Trans-Jordan (later renamed Jordan). In all the land of the Mandate east of the Jordan River it was "No Jews Allowed". West of the Jordan, the 20% part of the Mandate, the British restricted Jewish immigration and gradually adopted policies that were more and more pro-Arab. Palestinian Arabs are the majority of the population of Jordan even today."
Currently, the Palestinians are mere pawns in this conflict - as everyone knows - so feeling sorry for them is EXACTLY how naive, Jew-Hating saps are suppose to feel, so they deserve nothing short of a smackdown. LOL!
chrisrushlau -
I have great respect for our servicemen, and meant no disrespect to you personally and how you serve our country, but even Chuck Norris would get a smackdown from me if he stated that about the Jews/Israel. I love to support our troops, but I also love to support Israel.
Take care, and thank you for your service to our country!
(I've been enjoying the Chuck Norris jokes lately, so I had to give him a dig, too)
"Cilluffo is terminally naive if he thinks the U.S. can accomplish this and have any credibility among Muslims in doing so. He is also apparently unaware (although he has heard a couple of presentations by me, and I was in there pitching, folks) that Islam traditionally has had a political and social, i.e., an ideological component."
For this and all you do Robert you have my deepest and most sencere thanks and gratitude. You are truely, in my opinion, a godsend.
“[It] has nothing to do with political correctness,” Mr Allen said in an interview. “It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam and we don’t need this.”...
________
Anything we say or do, as the West, is viewed as a "war on Islam." Our very existence is viewed as a "war on Islam." Our stupid government officials need to get over that and realize that "not offending" radical Muslims is impossible - unless you become a radical Muslim too.
Idiots!
Calling it a war on terror is akin to calling WWII a war on blitzkrieg. You don't declare war on a tactic, you declare war on the enemy using the tactic. So on that point I agree with him, we shouldn't call it a war on terror. But we should call it a war to defend ourselves against a backwards murderous religion of peace.
I wonder if chrisrushlau, had an opportunity to discuss jihad and it's Quranic roots with any of the many muslims he had contact with?
If these alleged "moderates are our allies:
#1: Why do they (the moderates) spend all their time trying to change OUR (infidel) minds, instead of the (supposed) minority of "misunderstanders" of the true precepts of Islam??? Surely, if they ARE the majority (the "moderates") they should have no problem bringing the violent Islamist minority to heel!
#2: If "moderates" are the majority of the "ummah", why has covert observation of mosque preachings (in the US) revealed that 75% of them preach a version of violent jihad and support to the "mis-understanders"???
A much more reasonable conclusion would be that the "moderates" are NOT the majority and that their efforts are doomed to failure. Our government, for some reason, is a co-conspiritor to the "moderates" propaganda!
"War on terror" has always been a stupid and misleading term. But this recommendation to abandon it is even more stupid and misleading.
..............................................
This neatly sums up my thinking on this matter. The use of the term "War on Terror" *is* absurd--it describes a tactic, not an enemy. And yet--most of those clamoring against the term are *not* those who want more clarity--who want to refer to our fight as the "War on Jihad" (or even as the "War on Islamic Extremism").
The main objections are by those who either do not believe that we are at war with anything at all (except possible the "oppressive" Bush administration), and by those who do recognize that we are under the gun, but who either welcome it, or do not believe that we have the right to resist--jihadist sympathizers and abject dhimmis.
Also, it the "War on Terror" is not not euphemistic enough, then nothing will be. Indicating that we have any sort of negative issue at all with having our planes hijacked and flown into our buildings, or having our trains blown up, or our journalists and aid workers beheaded, or having aspects of Shari'ah law imposed on us, will always be seen by many as "targetting Islam", no matter what we call it.
I say call it Jihad, and I say to hell with it!
On the palestinian statehood: They had a state of their own in 1922, it was called "trans-jordon". They rejected that. Again, in 1947, the arabs were given their own state, it's called "Jordon". They (AGAIN) rejected that! The nation of Jordon is 90%+ comprised of "palestinians", ruled by a Hashemite minority. Arabs (Islamists) will not be satisfied until they irradicate the Jews. All their supposed "reasons" for fighting (terrorizing) Israel are but "straw men" to hide their true intentions.
Let's just start calling it World War III and be done wit it.
We should just call this War a Crusade. The President used the term early on. The MSM jumped all over him for it. It wasn't Multi Cultural enough for them. However, The Radical Muslims have not given up on the expression. They use it all the time. So why not just use the Word they use to describe the War? This way we can all be on the same page and the whole problem of what to call it will simply go away.
I like "The War on Islam" myself. Since islam is more then just a religion we should strictly call it a theocracy. Hopefully people would begin to realize the threat to democracy it poses.
Possible names might be
Surrender to Islam
Submission to Islam
Surrender in our Lifetime
Submission with a Smile
If the name doesn't fit, you must submit
Can't fight them, submit to them.
No submission like PC submission
like no submission I know