“Words matter”: Homeland Security rolls out newspeak campaign, cautions against use of terms like “jihadists,” “Islamic terrorists,” “Islamists” and “holy warriors”

Again, we see the argument that using those terms somehow “legitimizes” or “aggrandizes” the jihadist movement. But honestly, is the public deflection of the Islamic aspect of Islamic jihad going to hinder jihadists from making the connection, or will it hinder ordinary citizens seeking information? Obviously, it will be the latter. And when the public is discouraged from understanding the jihadist enemy’s ideology, whom does that ultimately help?

An update on the new governmental lexicon of acceptable terms for talking about… you know. And that was a story that we broke here, by the way. “Agency urges caution with terrorist language,” from CNN, May 31:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Government officials should depict terrorists “as the dangerous cult leaders they are” and avoid words that aggrandize them, like “jihadists,” “Islamic terrorists,” “Islamists” and “holy warriors,” the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday.

“Words matter,” the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term “moderate Muslims,” a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.

“Mainstream,” “ordinary” and “traditional” better reflect the broader Muslim American community, it says.

Dan Sutherland, head of the agency’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and author of the paper, said the paper is a recognition that words can help the government achieve its strategic goals.

Sutherland said he is starting to see results, with government officials using the term “mainstream Muslims” in meetings.

Sutherland’s nine-page paper says the government should be careful not to demonize all Muslims or the Islamic faith or depict the United States as being at war with Islam.

“The terminology the [government] uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology,” the paper says.

The paper emphasizes that the recommendations do not constitute official government policy. Instead, they represent guidance from influential Muslim leaders who met with Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff in May 2007 to discuss ways that the Muslim community can help the department prevent the violent radicalization of Muslims.

The paper suggests that government officials may want to avoid using theological terminology altogether.

“Islamic law and terms come with a particular context, which may not always be apparent,” the paper says. “It is one thing for a Muslim leader to use a particular term; an American official may simply not have the religious authority to be taken seriously, even when using terms appropriately.”

The paper, titled “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims,” was designated “For Official Use Only” and distributed internally in January.

Sutherland said the paper was not released publicly because the Department of Homeland Security did not want Muslim leaders to believe their meeting was an attempt to garner publicity. But the document was widely distributed in government and was published in late April by The Associated Press, “The Investigative Project on Terrorism” and others.

Now, this is interesting:

A story about the terminology concerns on the “Jihad Watch” Web site was followed by dozens of comments, most critical of the suggestions.

There will be more of that.

“Every day, I read another story which angers me. This whitewash of Islam, by our highest-ranking officials is unacceptable!” one commenter said.

Some argue that “war” is too grandiose and adds legitimacy to the other side, because there are two legitimate sides to wars.

“There are two legitimate sides to wars?” Baloney. The Nazis didn’t have a legitimate cause in World War II. Recognizing a threat is not an endorsement of its existence.

“We really face a legitimate threat and we need to guard against complacency,” Sutherland said, explaining the rationale supporting the use of the term.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Well, since you’re reading our comments and mincing words, the sneer quotes offend me. “CNN” and the “Associated Press” are the real joke for letting you get away with hiding your own willful, cowardly dissolution of our blood earned freedoms and security beneath euphemisms. How truly pathetic that you call yourselves our “leaders”.

  2. says

    I take it, that these words signal that Washington DC has lost it, lost the War and have fully submitted to the enemy in the War on Drugs… errr I mean Terror.

  3. says

    JihadWatch has been noticed by the gum’mint critters.

    Congratulations!

    I’ll second the motion …

    “Every day, I read another story which angers me. This whitewash of Islam, by our highest-ranking officials is unacceptable!” one commenter said.

    Hear! Hear!

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you belly-crawling foreigner-kissing State Dept. toads!

    We didn’t get where we are by kissing King George’s royal butt!

  4. says

    You got to be kidding!

    No, I guess not.

    This is nothing short of PC at its best. A complete assumption and projection of ignorance.

    I am reminded of the quot from the movie Patton with George C. Scott. He yells out at the German army “Romal you magnificent bastard. I READ YOUR BOOK!”

    The ill informed made it up for the ill informed to believe.

  5. says

    Does anyone besides me think these guys (NSA, HSA,CIA) are in overdrive this week?? Oh right, it’s last week of school…..

    This is beyond PC , it’s totally, utterly ridiculous.

  6. says

    Is there something in the water in Washington DC? Never in my wildest imagination did I think I’d see such craven, bootlicking cowards who call themselves ‘leaders’–and this includes the CinC who condones and encourages this dhimminization of America. Tear down the Crosses, but give in to the vicious rabid Islamists’ every whim. Dan Sutherland you pitiful, pathetic POS, you and too many like you should have ;been flushed down the loo.

  7. says

    Islam is a subversive, anti-Constitutional, imperialistic movement to establish a global theocratic tyranny.

    How much worse do they want it to be before they speak honestly about Mohammadism and its dismal intentions?

    There is no moderate Koran.

  8. says

    Dan Sutherland, head of the agency’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and author of the paper…

    “We really face a legitimate threat and we need to guard against complacency,” Sutherland said, explaining the rationale supporting the use of the term.

    So you give this threat legitimate status -lawful and genuine- and guard against complacency to this threat by not calling it what it is?

    Whose civil rights and civil liberties are you concerned about?

    It’s called “Jihad against America” by “Islamic holy warring jihadi’s” bent on “Islamising America”, and everywhere else for that matter.

    Words matter, and putting on blinkers and not calling it what it is, is probably the best way to help the Islamic holy warring jihadi terrorists, apart from just giving them the keys.

  9. says

    “The paper emphasizes that the recommendations do not constitute official government policy. Instead, they represent guidance from influential Muslim leaders who met with Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff in May 2007 to discuss ways that the Muslim community can help the department prevent the violent radicalization of Muslims.”

    So we GOT what the ENEMY suggests – anyone on the GOOD GUYS side got an idea? Anyone at all,
    got anything – anyone?

    “It is one thing for a Muslim leader to use a particular term; an American official may simply not have the religious authority to be taken seriously, even when using terms appropriately.”

    The truth from Kuffar can NEVER be TRUTH.

    Dare not speak one thought, KUFFAR, lest you are given leave by your Muslim master!

    ONLY words spoken from the great Mohammedan are Truth!

    Haven’t we seen this behavior before?

    Isn’t it time to respond APROPREATELY?

  10. says

    “Mainstream,””ordinary” and “traditional” better reflect the broader Muslim American community,it says.”
    -report from the article

    “Ordinary” members of the Umma are still engaged in various degrees of strife against the “house of war”. Many “traditional” methods and tendencies which various Muslims,regardless of geographic location,employ toward accomplishing this aim are documented and visible to any and all with the means,and more vitally,the will to research such.

  11. says

    Whats that rustling I hear? It must be John Quincy Adams rolling in his grave.

    Americans can no longer complain about dhimmitude and political correctness in Europe and at the same time pretend their country is above it. From this, it is obvious there is NOBODY we can rely upon to stop the rolling Jihad in its tracks. Thanks to this sort of spinelessness and govelling, it will will be nothing less than a punishment to be born in 2030/2040 or afterwards – especially if you’re a girl.

    And when George W Bush meets his maker, will he be able to look his predecessors like John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin D Roosevelt, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan in the eye without getting black looks back?

  12. says

    ‘Words matter’, the hack says, and then dismisses the words that matter. And now we learn that even the term ‘moderate’ Muslim is offensive to Muslims. And then the idea that there are two legitimate sides to wars, said as if it’s the given. Forutnately, I’ve got an outlet for these kinds of daily outrages.
    Here’s Pigman, making good use of the enemy’s killer book, Kill by the Book, Die by the Book

  13. says

    “Words matter,” the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term “moderate Muslims,” a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.”

    Well if they are moderate in a Western definition, they are indeed tepid in the practice of their faith.

  14. says

    From article: “Words matter,” the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term “moderate Muslims,” a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.”

    I’m getting a little tepid in my faith also…my faith in government officials to act like men (women included), is tepid as all get out.
    I really get tepid, almost to the point of rigor mortise, when I see gov say something profound like ‘words matter’, and then launch into obvious attempts at word magick/trickery…Gov taqiyya…
    Directed at who? Well the policy is directed at terrorists, but the propaganda is directed at us.
    I get extra tepid in my faith when the gov insults our intelligence and then expects us to join them in their insanity.
    Well Geo, I refuse…You lost me when you kissed those terrorists and prayed in their mosque. It’s one disgusting display after another. Now you want to play word games, and actually expect muslims to buy it. I am too tepid to move fast, but as soon as I thaw out, I am going to write a post using all those banned terms, except, ‘holy warriors’. I never call them that. There’s nothing ‘holy’ in what they do.

  15. says

    While our so-called leaders are tying themselves into terminology knots, the enemy is laughing up their sleeves at the dhimmitude.

    How far we’ve sunk since 9/11!

  16. says

    I hope the idiots in Washington are reading this thread due to the story on CNN… if so, let me give you my thoughts.

    To the idiots in Washington, DC and the Federal Government:

    You have failed all of us. I don’t know what fog infects the thinking of the people whose job it is to protect the nation but it is truely powerful stuff.

    Are we to take it that the Muslims of the world are so ignorant of their own religion that they’re going to be “offended” by calling the terrorists by the name they call themselves?

    Please…. you must think the Muslims are as stupid as you are.

    You must think they are like little maniacs who at the slightest mention of a word, go into a murderous killing frenzy.. Well if that’s the case, why are so many Muslims allowed to come here from overseas.

    Either Muslmis are apt to go explosive at the mere hearing of a word, and the Govt has permitted us all to be imperiled by letting so many of them in here… or , Muslims are quite capabile of dicerning what is meant by “Islamic terrorism” and your new policy is evidence of your gross incompetence.

    What I think is probably close to the truth is.. you have no idea what Islam… you have allowed groups controlled by Saudi Arabia or the Muslim Brotherhood to infilitrate your agencies and spread disinformation as a way to keep you from understanding the truth.

    You should notice that there are many Americans who know what is going on. Apparently I, a computer programmer, have a better understanding of the threat the country is under than the high officials of teh mighiest government in the world.

    How depressing. When this nation is hit again.. and probably in a very severe way please be sure to inform the public not to call it “Islamic nuclear attack”.. we would not want to offend any Muslims in the world for pointing out the ideology behind the deaths of millions of us.

  17. says

    This is absolutely ghastly. The words of Winston Churchill in the aftermath of the Munich debacle come to mind:

    “… we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road … an awful milestone in our history … And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless, by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

    In 1938, Great Britain yet held “dominion over palm and pine,” and look at it now: supine before the onslaught of Islam. And look at America now: submitting to the extraction of an oil jizya whose daily increase our pathetic president has twice besought his Saudi masters to restrain, only to be brusquely refused — an oil jizya being used to suborn our universities, litigiously undermine our legal system, and riddle our land with the pustules of subversion known as mosques. To what state will the worms of Washington reduce us before they are stopped — if they are, ever?

  18. says

    I believe the government and the muslims are terrified of the possible outcome if the general public becomes aware of the real teachings of the koran.

  19. says

    “Dan Sutherland, head of the agency’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and author of the paper, said the paper is a recognition that words can help the government achieve its strategic goals.”

    The key to this farce lies in the identity of the paper’s author. Dan Sutherland may work for Homeland Security, but he is neither an intelligence specialist nor a security expert. He’s a civil rights lawyer.

    The Department’s website sets out his job description:

    President Bush appointed Daniel W. Sutherland to be the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This unique position calls for Mr. Sutherland to provide legal and policy advice to the Secretary and the senior leadership of the Department on a full range of issues at the intersection of homeland security and civil rights and civil liberties. Mr. Sutherland and his office provide advice on issues such as: the use of race or ethnicity in law enforcement and intelligence activities; building strategic partnerships between the homeland security effort and American Arab and Muslim communities; and, the need to integrate people with disabilities into emergency planning and preparedness.

    He is supremely qualified to play a lead role in the US’s defence against terrorism because:

    Mr. Sutherland has handled a number of important civil rights lawsuits. His litigation includes cases alleging discrimination by a large urban police department in its dealings with people who are deaf; allegations that a licensing authority would not adequately accommodate test-takers who are blind; and, allegations of discrimination against refugees from Vietnam and the former Soviet Union.

    Hmm, sounds promising. The terrorists must trembling in their boots.

    Will the U.S government’s rejection of these terms lead to a rejection of jihadist ideology within the minds of Muslims? Will it prevent impressionable young men from murdering innocents in the name of Allah? Will it, in other words, lead to real results?

    According to the CNN article, Dan Sutherland believes it already has:

    “Sutherland said he is starting to see results, with government officials using the term “mainstream Muslims’ in meetings”.

    This pitiful sentence reveals all one needs to know about Mr Sutherland. He is less concerned with fighting terrorism than he is with combating what he sees as inappropriate language in the workplace.

    Matamoros (the original one)

  20. says

    Those in the government who object to terms that link the war on terror to jihad have been especially vocal lately, as noted on this very site.

    There is, however, a point I don’t think has been made yet. After hearing all these arguments against the use of “jihad,” I’m beginning to wonder if the U.S. government hasn’t gotten legitimate and specific threats from Islamic sleeper cells in the U.S. regarding the use of these terms. Perhaps the “government” as a whole isn’t in a position to remove these cells yet, so they’ve gotten on the appeasement train to protect the general citizens.

    Or the U.S. government is filled with morons.

    Take your pick.

  21. says

    And when George W Bush meets his maker, will he be able to look his predecessors like John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin D Roosevelt, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan in the eye without getting black looks back?

    Posted by: Spirit Of 1683

    FDR and all who came after him have no business giving GWB a dark stare. FDR originated the “special relationship” with the country whose leaders have always sought the downfall of the West. We have had ample warning of the energy shortage that is to come and all these presidents have pretended it didn’t exist or wouldn’t happen, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, whose answer to the oil shortage was to wear a sweater and to put solar panels on the roof of the WH.

  22. says

    RE: Daveygreybeard … “to help prevent the violent radicalization of Muslims…” as per a suggestion from the mosque.

    FACT remains – the self-respecting Muslim does all in order to avoid Hellfire. Hellfire he/(she) will endure if he/(she) does not overcome the inherrant weakness all had/have, save ISA.

    should/if they perceive US to be pagan (secular) i.e. allowing no mention of anything GOD, then the mosque is directed to wage _________.

    so, it seems our folks are leading us into a ___________ in order that we don’t offend the mosque.

  23. says

    If I was running Saturday Night Live, I’d create a sketch somewhat like the following:

    Osama Bin Laden in the hills of Afghanistan, about to make another of his propaganda videos. He launches into his standard speech about “resisting the oppressors” and etc. He’s interrupted by one of his liutenants who then hands him the memo from the state department. “We’re not supposed to use words like Jihad or Mujahideen anymore as it might imply that there’s something violent about Islam”. Osama reads the memo with a quizzical, confused look. They then proceed, comically, to try to present their message without using any of the newly forbidden terminology.

  24. says

    Wow! So Dhimmi Dan Sutherland is lurking on JW?

    Izzatso? Well, Hi Dan! And let me just add a few very important words to my greeting:

    JIHADISTS! ISLAMIC TERRORISTS! MOHAMMEDANS! MOHAMMEDAN TERRORISTS! ISLAMISTS! HOLY WAR (JIHAD) WARRIORS!

    As a post above suggested, “put that in your pipe and smoke it.” Inhale, very, very deeply!

    Oh, while you’re here lurking, please convey this message to stupid Muchael Chertoff: WE’RE IN A WAR AGAINST ISLAM, YOU LUNKHEAD!

    ‘Bye, Dhimmi Dan! Have a great day!

  25. says

    “And now we learn that even the term ‘moderate’ Muslim is offensive to Muslims.” –Bosch Fawstin

    I couldn’t care less whether Mohammedans are “offended.” I’m offended by the Jihad that occurred in this country on September 11, 2001.

    I will say “Mohammedans.” I will say “Jihad.” I will say “Jihadists.” I will say “Islamists.” I will say “Jihad is defined as Islamic Holy War against the “Infidel.”

    Hey Dan – I’ve got a “DEFEATJIHAD/Jihad Watch.org” bumper sticker on my vehicle. You should see it – it looks very nice! So wonderful to have the First Amendment to the Constitution, isn’t it?

    I’m offended by Dhimmi Dan and his PC brown-nosing-to-the-enemy ilk. I’m ashamed of the so-called “leaders” of this country.

  26. says

    It is what it is; —Islamic Jihad, there are approximately 109 surahs,let alone countless Hadiths that speak to the so-called lesser Jihad and they are all attributed to the teachings, and traditions of Mohammed. But we are asked to whitewash them almost to the point of giving Islam a somewhat stealthy path through the mine field that is the true creation that is Islam. The problem is that we have to negotiate that same path and we need to understand and define it at every turn. This again is an example of the warped perversion of multiculturalism which is a tool of the left in this country to silent decent even against the obvious intrusion of calling it what it really is.

    As Im.mad.as.HELL! POINTS OUT ABOVE:

    from the movie Patton with George C. Scott. He yells out at the German army “Romal you magnificent bastard. I READ YOUR BOOK!” –PRECISELY AND NOT TO DO OTHERWISE IS TO LEAVE US BLIND TO THIS ALREADY STEALTHY INVASION THAT IS ALREADY IN OUR UNIVERSTIES,IN MOSQUES,AND MADRASSES ACROSS this NATION.

    It still amazes me to see our political appointees’ such as Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff who clearly demonstrated his ignorance about Islam in Israel this past week meeting with a handfull of so-called moderate Muslims and then taking their counsel and making the choice of “WORDS” decisions such as Condeleeza Rice is doing with the State department. And yet the entire Muslim population in this country is hardly 2 Pct.of the population.

    I guess the rest of the American peoples’ opinions don’t really count?

    BUT I WILL NEVER STOP CALLING IT WHAT IT REALLY IS!!

  27. says

    So current U.S. policy is that all official and unofficial statements by government officials must now conform to Sharia. All statements must be approved only by Islamic authority. No criticism of Islam is permitted, since it is divinely perfect in every way. No unpleasant historic event, depressed economic condition, or political tyranny can ever be attributed to Islamic thinking, Islamic culture, or Islamic history.

    So we are all supposed to lie for Islam. Or else the Ummah will attack us. And that would disturb the comfortable lives of our political elites and would look bad on our resumes.

  28. says

    “Words matter,” the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term “moderate Muslims,” a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.”
    — from the article above

    No, that is not why Muslims are “annoyed.” It is not the implication that they are “tepid in the practice of their faith.” It is, rather, the implication that there is something in Islam itself that menaces, something that therefore can only be accepted in less-than-full or “moderate” amounts, for the very construct “moderate” Muslim implies that we, the Infidels, recognize– among ourselves at least –that only in that taken-in-moderation form as “moderate” Muslims do, can Islam conceivably not have results dangerous for Infidels. The phrase, then, is understood by Muslims (and, by the way, rightly) as , expressing the thought that Islam must never be taken straight up, but can only be tolerated by Infidels when it is, in every sense, on the rocks.

  29. says

    I used to wonder why, if we are truly onboard with the war on terror; why does our goverment seem to hamstring itself at every turn? The answer, I found in the excellent book by investigative journalist Paul Sperry entitled “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington”: a book a lot scarier than a Stephen King novel. How long will we allow the seeds of insurrection to grow and flourish in our society?
    Since Islam is a theocratic organization with an ideology every bit as determined to destroy Western Civilization as Communism, let’s get over this idea of it being a religion (it only masquerades as a religion to advance its disease) and treat it as the danger to the world it is. It was Islam that has attacked us many times in the past, going back in time to the “shores of Tripoli” during the infancy of our nation. I’m just waiting for Saudi Arabia to offer to build a huge mosque on the site of the World Trade towers as a token of “peace”.
    As long as we allow the fox to guard the henhouse, Islam wins and we lose.
    It all starts by calling a spade a spade and quit playing semantic PC games. Islam is not and has never been a religion of peace and anyone who thinks otherwise knows nothing about Islam. Grand Ayatollah Khomeni of Iran said that, not I.
    It was not I, but Ibrahmim Hooper of the CAIR that said “What is needed is the dismantling of the culural system of the West” I don’t know about ya’ll, but I’m listening, because the Islamofacists are voicing their heartfelt plans for us. So did Hitler, but not enough people were listening or taking him seriously. Before we can win this war and preserve Western Civilization, we must first cut out the Islamic cancer growing at the highest levels of our goverment.

  30. says

    The irony of proclaiming “Words Matter,” and then prohibiting use of the exact words that matter!

    Apparently, Mr. Sutherland and Condi and Chertoff have absolutely no conception of irony! I guess those types are called “Bureaucrats.”

    Oh, I’ll also use these words whenever I want: Barbarians and Islamic Barbarians.

  31. says

    So current U.S. policy is that all official and unofficial statements by government personnel must now conform to Sharia. All statements must be approved only by Islamic authority. No criticism of Islam is permitted, since it is divinely perfect in every way. No unpleasant historic event, depressed economic condition, or political tyranny can ever be attributed to Islamic thinking, Islamic culture, or Islamic history.

    So we are all supposed to lie for Islam. Or else the Ummah will attack us. And that would disturb the comfortable lives of our political elites and would look bad on our resumes.

  32. says

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Government officials should depict Liberals “as the dangerous cult leaders they are” and avoid words that aggrandize them, like “progressives,” “activists,” “community organizers” and “compasionate conservatives,” the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday.

    “Words matter,” the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term “moderate Liberals,” a characterization that implies that Liberalism is anything besides a fanatical ideology dedicated to the extinction of the West.

    “Liars,” “lunatics” and “suicide monkeys” better describe the broader Liberal American community, it says. Sutherland’s nine-page paper says the government should take special care to demonize all Liberals and the Liberal faith and also depict the United States as being at war with Liberalism.

    “The terminology the [government] uses should convey the magnitude of the Liberal threat we face, but also stress the false religious bases and diabolical appeal of the Liberal’s’ ideology,” the paper says.

    “We really face a legitimate threat from Liberals, and we need to guard against complacency,” Sutherland said, explaining the rationale supporting the use of the term “War On Liberalism”.

  33. says

    All the significance of 9/11 has been lost on our leadership. When the enemy provides the advise to our leaders as to our defense it becomes apparent that only a massive loss of innocent American lives at the hands of the _______ will turn the tide. It will not be a pretty picture.

  34. says

    “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless.” — Ayatollah Khomeini

    Dhimmi Dan Sutherland, Condi and Chertoff – face it, you’re all WITLESS.

    Hey! Take it up with the Ayatollah! He said it! And he’s the most revered figure in Islam after Mo!

  35. says

    FDR and all who came after him have no business giving GWB a dark stare.

    Posted by: PMK at May 31, 2008 10:13 AM

    PMK, with all due respect, those presidents all have business giving GWB a dark stare (with the exception of Dhimmi Carter, who has no right to dark stare anybody).

    As Dennis Prager always says, words matter. I am sure all our presidents from FDR forward did not adequately evaluate the threat of Islam. Be that as it may, none of them, save for George Bush, had such blatant damning evidence in front of them (911 and all the Islamic world terrorism that followed … understood, there was plenty before that point in time as well), and then went forward with branding Islam as a “Religion of Peace.”

    The energy shortage is a valid point, but getting off the Saudi oil teat will not eliminate the threat, perhaps just make the threat less well funded. Where was the energy shortage for most of the 1400 years of Islamic hegemony? Where the crusades about oil?

    btw, you will have to educate me about your comment:

    FDR originated the “special relationship” with the country whose leaders have always sought the downfall of the West.

    Do you feel this was more significant historically , than say, Carter’s destabilization of the Shah?

  36. says

    darcy,

    Just to be clear, you quoted me writing:
    “And now we learn that even the term ‘moderate’ Muslim is offensive to Muslims.”
    and you followed with:

    ‘I couldn’t care less whether Mohammedans are “offended.” I’m offended by the Jihad that occurred in this country on September 11, 2001.’

    I couldn’t care less either, but it IS news to me that the very term, ‘moderate’ Muslim, that has been used by PC addled brains as a way to NOT offend Muslims, is now discovered to be offensive to Muslims. I’ve really had enough of this and our outrage is going to become openly mainstream sooner or later.

  37. says

    See no jihad, hear no Jihad, speak no jihad.

    It’s tough to defeat an enemy that is so unrecognizable.

  38. says

    To those who are curious as to the status of The Infidel/Pigman book:

    I’ve interested a publisher who’s got nerve enough to take this on, and after a few months of waiting, they’ve gotten back to me and nearing their final decision, pretty excited, and truly better late than never.

  39. says

    To any and all government officials who may be reading comments here at JW: Know well that there are many Americans, and their numbers are growing with each passing month, who do not accept the idea that a good Islam exists. Rather, such folks, including myself, know only too well, as did Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams, Bertrand Russell, Alexis de Tocqueville, Oriana Fallaci, Ernest Renan and scores of others that Islam is the only religion that calls for making war upon the unbeliever, that it was founded by an excessively brutal man, that its legal system, Sharia, is meant to replace all constitutions and legal systems across the earth and that non-Muslims are so looked down upon by Muslims that Islam’s own legal system considers non-Muslims the equivalent of human waste. Know all this well. Very well.

  40. says

    Well ain’t this Jim-dandy!

    I remember back in 1978, when the words “Islamic fundamentalists” were first used to describe the Mad Mullahs of Iran, how a number of liberals near and dear to me would ask me what made Ayatollah Cockamamie tick because I, too, was a “fundamentalist” (never mind that I was and remain a Christian one).

    A big part of the problem is that the people leading us in government, academia, and the media–people in their fifties and up–were shaped by a world in which nice, sweet, moderate, liberal so-called “Protestantism” was ever ready to roll over and play dead whenever its cultured despisers told it to do so. They grew up thinking that Martin Luther was an infinitely plastic mind who believed only in free inquiry (fortunately they had Calvin to dmonize) and never bothered to crack aa single volume of the twenty or thirty or so volumes of Old Martin’s _Collected Works_ translated and published by Concordia Publishing House. Hence, our current crop of leaders can’t understand for a moment why a religion with so many millions of adherents whose spokesmen are oh so smooth and slick as they serve the hummus and grilled eggplant are, deep down inside, intransigent about what they believe. The fact that the Iranians blew up at about the same time the Evangelicals deserted the Democratic Party of their parents and grandparents in Jimmeh Cah-duh’s hour of need made things all the more confusing for them; and had the gall to have quietly built up a great deal of social strength during the decades when the theological revisionists thought they’d been safely exorcised.

    I say we sweep the whole bunch out (including Barry Hussein Obama and Billary) and find some people who are willing to call a spade a spade.

  41. says

    The phrase, then, is understood by Muslims (and, by the way, rightly) as , expressing the thought that Islam must never be taken straight up, but can only be tolerated by Infidels when it is, in every sense, on the rocks.

    Hugh, you just offended a billion Muslims by associating Islam with alcohol, even metaphorically.

  42. says

    We spin a Merry-Go-Round of words to cover the fact that Islam will not conform to Multicultural Dogma. Proving Multicultural Dogma false is the last thing the 4th estate wants to see come about. Not to mention the whole Demoncratic party who is heavily invested in it.

    The title of Mr. Sutherland’s position alone should give a huge clue to the rational of “progressive” dribble he spews.

    Sense Homeland Security has shown an interest in this site. What about those Iranian Tankers sitting in Port with some 10 Million Barrels of crude on board? Just what could an Iranian Government, bent on bring the end of the world as they understand it, possibly do with them?

  43. says

    Sutherland’s nine-page paper says the government should be careful not to demonize all Muslims or the Islamic faith or depict the United States as being at war with Islam.

    This is only true if you care whether or not Muslims feel demonized. As Tiberius said, “Let them hate me, so long as they fear me”. Sound political wisdom in any era, but lost to the Dan Sutherlands of the world. If all this solicitousness of Muslims is some deep Machiavellian game, kudos to all involved, because from where I sit, it looks like unilateral disarmament.

  44. says

    There is an upside to these governmental attempts at deceptive pseudo-terminology: they provide some cover for those nominal Muslims who prefer a liberal society and want to resist Sharia and jihad. But the upside of the pseudo-terminology is not up enough to outweigh the huge downside: continued non-Muslim ignorance of the totaliarianism that is pervasive in the Quran, Hadith, and earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad. None of that would matter, if the vast majority of Muslims rejected Islamic law as a way to rule societies. But about half of UK Muslims, for example, according to polls of them, would prefer to live under Islamic law rather than under Western legal systems. If non-Muslim ignorance of Islam’s core doctrines is continued, it will lead long before the end of the century to the death of freedom in Europe (whose Muslim population is growing by leaps and bounds, while the non-Muslim population is shrinking), and then at some point perhaps to the death of freedom in the rest of the world. Liberal Europe even now is dying, as writers, feminists, artists, cartoonists, and democratic politicians are forced to hide or be under 24-hour guard, due to death threats coming from Muslims and their imams and clerics. Remember Van Gogh.

  45. says

    Greetings to CNN lurkers.

    I am personally offended whenever President Bush holds the hands of, or sword dances with, the Saudi Royals. Thousands of Americans were killed because of them. Seizing their oil fields would’ve been a wiser use of the armed forces than invading Iraq.

    That is all.

  46. says

    Greetings to CNN lurkers.

    I am personally offended whenever President Bush holds the hands of, or sword dances with, the Saudi Royals. Thousands of Americans were killed because of them. Seizing their oil fields would’ve been a wiser use of the armed forces than invading Iraq.

    That is all.

  47. says

    “Remember Van Gogh.”

    Theo Van Gogh. Must say “Theo” to distinguish from Vincent. Vincent was not killed by the Mohammedans – Theo was.

    *

    “I’ve really had enough of this and our outrage is going to become openly mainstream sooner or later.” –Bosch

    Oh yeah. Who care if they’re offended? They and their “mass-murder ideology” (as Tony Blankley, author of “The West’s Last Chance,” refers to Islam, deserve to be offended.

    And, no one in the world – no one – is born with “Do Not Offend” tatooed on their forehead. How the Barbarian Mohammedans with their barbaric book, barbaric murder-god, barbaric false prophet, and barbaric treatment of females got to be a special interest Do-Not-Offend group I have no idea. Especially after 9/11! Good God the West has gone insane.

  48. says

    from the article:
    “Government officials should depict terrorists ‘as the dangerous cult leaders they are’ and avoid words that aggrandize them, like ‘jihadists,’ ‘Islamic terrorists,’ ‘Islamists’ and ‘holy warriors,’ … .” and

    “‘The terminology the [government] uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology,’ the paper says.”

    Just who is it who might find the forbidden terminology (jihadist, etc.) aggrandizes the islamic terrorists or increases the appeal of their ideology? Is it the Infidel? Obviously not. It must, therefore, be muslims. But which ones? Is it the jihadists/ islamic extremists themselves? That wouldn’t make sense, because the extremists’ ideology already appeals to them. What we are left with, then, is the “moderate muslim.” In other words, DHS advocates avoiding the use of such terms as “jihadist” b/c those terms might aggrandize the islamic terrorists or increase their appeal IN THE MINDS OF THE “MODERATE MUSLIM.” This necessarily implies that “moderate muslims” have a positive view of jihad, holy war, and the like. If that’s true, why is our government taking advice from so-called moderate muslims on acceptable terms for describing the “threat” that confronts us?

    Also from the article:
    “‘Islamic law and terms come with a particular context, which may not always be apparent,’ the paper says. ‘It is one thing for a Muslim leader to use a particular term; an American official may simply not have the religious authority to be taken seriously, even when using terms appropriately.'” Oh, Danny boy, you’re not making sense. If American officials don’t have the religious authority to be taken seriously (by the muslim community) when employing certain terms, why then avoid those terms? The muslim community won’t take you seriously whichever term you use, so you might as well use terms like “jihadist,” which accurately describe the nature of the threat the West faces.

    Finally:
    “Sutherland said he is starting to see results, with government officials using the term ‘mainstream Muslims’ in meetings.” Please tell me that he is not measuring the success of this exercise in speech control by such metrics as the extent to which the term “mainstream muslim” replaces “moderate muslim.” That’s utterly meaningless. I would have thought that the sort of results he’d be looking for would be more substantive, such as:
    1.) If the government kowtows to the muslim community by forbidding the use of words like “jihad,” are American muslims more likely to inform on their extremist co-religionists; or
    2.) If the government kowtows to the muslim community by forbidding the use of words like “jihad,” are American muslims more likely than before to denounce publicly any threats or acts of violence committed in the name of islam?

  49. says

    “You must be able to define your enemy to defeat him, and you must be able to define yourself to defend yourself against him.”

    General Douglas MacArthur
    Supreme Allied Commander,Pacific

  50. says

    Mr Southerland ought to read Major Coughlin’s thesis, To Our Great Detriment,posted at Free Republic

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1991005/posts

    As I’ve asked before, who is the Hesham Islam at DHS?

    Also, a while back, I remember reading that Mr Spencer was speaking at some government agencies. Does this mean that some other view, other than Mr. Spencer’s, has won the day? If so, it is very troubling to say the least.

  51. says

    Do you feel this was more significant historically , than say, Carter’s destabilization of the Shah?

    Paleologus,

    Actually, yes. It was our foot in the door. He committed our nation to defending a tyranny. Those that came after continued to baby them.
    Everyone beginning with JC was warned that terrorists would, sooner or later, attack the US. They ignored it and continued holding hands (figuratively if not literally) with the Saudis even as the Saudis continued to spread their own message of hate.
    Bill Clinton was in office barely two months before they attacked America – at the WTC. He treated it like a BANK ROBBERY!!!! He never even visited the site. He never saw the pit created by that bomb. If that bomb had been better placed or if there had been more explosive power, it could have killed over 30,000 people but since “only six” people died, it wasn’t that big a deal. He continued to let Muslims into the US even as al Qaeda stepped up its threats. He made it next to impossible for our intelligence agencies to coordinate their actions.
    I don’t hold Bush blameless. I also don’t think he bears primary responsibility for what happened on 9/11.
    My first reaction on reading your original post was: you’re right. Then I thought about the many events that led up to 9/11 (it didn’t happen in a vacuum) and the part past presidents played in it.
    As much as I fault Bush, I also don’t fault him. It’s hard to explain. This is a fight we cannot win by ourselves but few people will fight it with us. Everyone wants to placate the terrorists. A British lord has said we must negotiate with al Qaeda, that he can’t think of any terrorist action that didn’t end with negotiations. (I would point to the Barbary Pirates, but that’s another mattter.) We are the warmongers. The international community thinks Bush is a warmonger.
    Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Those who contributed to this situation have no business turning their backs on him. That means everyone since 1943.

  52. says

    “It is one thing for a Muslim leader to use a particular term; an American official may simply not have the religious authority to be taken seriously, even when using terms appropriately.”

    The what? The religious authority? Dan, we have this concept in the US, known as “separation of church and state”. Who gives a crap about some official’s religious authority? Officials shouldn’t have religious authority when they are on the job! Religious authority is not part of governing the United States. If it were, we wouldn’t be turning ourselves inside out about offending Muslims, because we wouldn’t have any Muslims to offend!

    Do Muslims, even Muslim clergy, have the religious authority to call any other soul in the world an “infidel”? I think not! I insist that from now on you, Dan, and your Muslim masters refer to me as a “Non-Mohammedan believer in Christ”!

    As for being taken seriously, Dan, I don’t think you’re being taken very seriously here. Which is more important–your being taken seriously, or the fate of America? Pause. Reflect. Think before you answer.

    “”Mainstream,” “ordinary” and “traditional” better reflect the broader Muslim American community, it says.”

    Okay, Dan. But what about the other people? The ones who …um…terminiated four airline flights abruptly, and with great damage and loss of life on 9/11? Should we call them “mainstream”? “Ordinary”? “Traditional”?

    I know they weren’t really a part of The Muslim American Community, yet they kinda were. I mean, if you sit around long enough in the US, you’ll become a citizen, by default, right? I’m sure they hung out with members of The Muslim American Community.

    So, they didn’t sit around long enough for the citizenship (places to go, people to kill, virgins and pearly boys to…well, you get what I mean). Are we allowed to call them the same thing we call the ones who plant IED’s, bomb churches, destroy monuments, kill clergy of all stripes, and like, you know, scare people? Say, what are we calling them, these days?

    I dare you to answer in this forum, Dan. I double-dog dare

  53. says

    “…they represent guidance from influential Muslim leaders who met with Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff in May 2007 to discuss ways that the Muslim community can help the department prevent the violent radicalization of Muslims.”

    This is part that makes no sense to me, whatsoever. It implies that the DHS has been given the onus of preventing radicalization. This is the first time that I have seen this described as part of the agency’s function. Secondly, if the Muslim community wants to help the agency in preventing radicalization, could they not do the job much more effectively themselves?

  54. says

    I just had a clairvouyant moment, and traveled deep into the darkest cornes of president Bushes mind. Here is what I saw!

    Honestly though you guys? How else are we supposed to be freinds with the nice Muslims that are on our side? It is so apparent that what is needed here is a recognition of the “peacefull Islam” our forefathers knew! I mean even Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Quran right? So he must have been fully aquainted with the peace within … right? Heck I bet he was a secret Muslim revert! If we would all just simply ignore the Islamic texts that fuel the fires of Islamosupremisism then this world would be a way more peacefull place. If all other faiths would just peacefully accept thier inferiority, and either submitt to the Jiziah, or convert there really wouldn’t be anything to fight over. If we would all just quietly sit on the fence while our neighbors in the Sudan peacfully get exterminated we wouldn’t be so upsetting to the Ummah. Is it not the fault of the Kufar that he is a Kufar? … Don’t blame Muslims for thier right to follow Quranic scripture when they carry out offensive, or deffencive “Jihad” attacks, because it is thier religious right to persecute you. I really just don’t see why all you guys are all uptight about this, we really should just humbly accept our fate as Kufar, and not be so offensive to our Muslim friends!

  55. says

    PMK,

    The points I am trying to make are:

    1 The oil dependency issue exacerbates the threat of Islam, but the threat has always been there, long before we drove automobiles. With the trillions of petro dollars, the threat is much greater, of course.

    2 I agree with you that Bush does not have primary responsibility for 911.

    BUT

    I HEAVILY fault Bush for the “Religion of Peace” mentality and ALL the crap that has flowed down from this ridiculous, sinfully suicidal view of Islam, such as the subject of this thread: “Words matter: Homeland Security rolls out newspeak campaign, cautions against use of terms like “jihadists,” “Islamic terrorists,” “Islamists” and “holy warriors”

    Do you remember the Dubai Ports fiasco? Bush was about to turn over the running of our nation’s ports to a muslim run company? The bottom line is GWB DOES NOT FULLY RECOGNIZE THE ENEMY!

    Hey, I voted twice for the guy, and I could easily see a Democrat doing worse. Nevertheless, Bush is not adequately identifying the enemy. For the leader of the country that is western civilization’s last best hope to thwart the global jihad, that mistake is unforgivable.

  56. says

    President Bush entered this War with Majority support from Congress. The Moment we were fully engaged in it, the Demoncrats withdrew it’s support with the willing compliance of the Press.

    The President, for all practicable purposes, accurately described the conflict at the start. When the MSM was done with him, it was all peace and happiness.

    The Merry-Go-Round of words spins ever faster with each change of the Gears.

  57. says

    Let’s look on the bright side.

    This news item – on CNN no less (how big is their audience?) – mentioned “the Jihad Watch web site”.

    Publicity! FREE publicity! All the needful information provided so that curious folks can do that little thing with google or whatever other search engine they employ. And think what they’ll find when they get here! All sorts of good things to satisfy their curiosity.

    Click on a link: view “Fitna”. Click on a link: view ‘Islam: What The West Needs to Know”. A link to Mr Spencer’s Qur’an blog. A link to an excellent booklist. ‘Islam 101′.

    Better keep an eye on the site meter over the next few days – it should start ticking over nicely.

    Hello, curious CNN viewers who may be dropping in to visit. Make yourself a big mug of coffee, sit down. Take your time. Explore. Check out all those interesting links. Make sure you click on ‘Dhimmi Watch’ and look at the news stories we’re discussing there. Click on the words ‘Hugh Fitzgerald’ and read some of his postings – if you like good writing you’re in for a treat.

    Welcome to Mr Robert Spencer’s cyberspace ‘Hedge School of the Counter-Jihad’, that is, of the non-Muslim world’s self-defence against the Third Jihad, against the Islamosphere’s third major attempt to kill, absorb or subjugate all non-Muslim polities and plunge them into the misery of a chaotic theocratic despotism governed by the inhuman cruelty of sharia law.

  58. says

    “Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Those who contributed to this situation have no business turning their backs on him. That means everyone since 1943.”
    Posted by: PMK

    PMK, I continue to be impressed by the “nuanced” positions you hold.

  59. says

    Why does DHS even need an “Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties ” (Office of Newspeak?). Sutherland’s office is counter-mission and should be disbanded. Civil Rights for the enemy? Oxymoronic.

    This is the same sort of Beltway PC thinking that has JAG going after our Marine Infantry guys who were just doing their job in the toughest kind of combat known.

    Or the FBI hiring CAIR to “sensitize” (brainwash) their agents.

    Anyone minding the Beltway asylum? The loonies seem to have no keepers.

  60. says

    To our “leaders”.

    Instead of being a critic from a high castle, do what many of our want to be “leaders” talk about, engage us and show us the error of our ways.

    Show me how OBL has taken the faith of islam for a ride, how what the quran says to him is wrong. Be direct, everyone here really wants this country to survive and stay strong and free.

    I have a opinion, I believe islam is the enemy. and the followers of islam are ours. Mot all muslims, those who follow islam.

    Now show me the error of my ways. With respect I will wait for a responce.

  61. says

    Or maybe the government knows just how evil Islam is, but is in with them and is treating them with kid gloves for whatever reasons.

  62. says

    Or maybe the government knows just how evil Islam is, but is in with them and is treating them with kid gloves for whatever reasons.

  63. says

    I think that GWB does fully recognise the enemy, and is in with them. I think that we have to finally understand that, instead of being naive.

  64. says

    I guess I’m in the minority, but I think we should quit using the words of the irhabiin to define them. They are no more Holy Warriors than Stalin. Their jihad is no more justified than was Hitler’s kampf. As long as we accept the enemy’s self characterization in a war of ideas, we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. We should reject their notion of a divinely inspired struggle and call spades spades. They are terrorists of the basest sort. We should be unafraid to say so. Jihad connotes holiness of purpose and approval by religious leaders. Time to quit accepting that notion implicitly in our words.

  65. says

    I guess I’m in the minority, but I think we should quit using the words of the irhabiin to define them.

    Get off your high horse. Clearly, you are not in the “minority” of those who set policy, even though you are in the “minority” of those commenting here. Besides that, headcounts are of little or no use in determining the accuracy of an analysis, and the argument you are making about “irhabiin” has already been thorougly dealt with at this site. If you missed it, you ought to go back and read the rebuttal of the argument, which is quite robust.

    As long as we accept the enemy’s self characterization in a war of ideas, we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

    This particular argument cannot be elevated to the status of an axiom, which you seem to want to do. Recognizing the enemy’s “self characterization” serves multiple purposes, including sustaining one’s own side’s morale and unity of purpose. Secondly, the rationale for not accepting the enemy’s self characterization cannot be sustained when the enemy consistently acts in accordance with the principles of that self characterization. Jihadists say they are going to act in accordance with Islamic principles pulled directly from the texts all Muslims recognized as normative and then they proceed to act in accordance with Islamic principles. Absent a gap between self characterization and action, there is no reason to follow you down the road of refusing to accept that self characterization. Thirdly, the career of Mohammed, as laid out in the Koran and the canonical books of his life and times, provides ample proof that the jihadist self characterization is in accordance with Mohammed’s self characterization (“I have been made successful by terror”), which is the highest praise that can be given to a Muslim’s actions.

    They are terrorists of the basest sort. We should be unafraid to say so.

    They are terrorists of the basest sort, but Islam is a “religion” of the basest sort, so I don’t see how their terrorism negates the idea that Islam is a religion for the dregs of humanity. When I look at a Muslim, all I see is a person who has compromised their humanity for the promise of dominance in this world and a whorehouse existence in the next. Where I come from, that’s “base”.

  66. says

    Dear Dave the Fave,

    Please read the following, then read the 300 page thesis at the link. Because you clearly don’t have a clue.

    In comments made at the National Defense University on 1 December 2005, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace explained to his audience the importance of “understand[ing] the nature of the enemy” if we hope to defeat jihadi extremists. Comparing our situation today, with that faced by an earlier generation who had to deal with the reality of the Nazi threat, General Pace suggested a simple solution to complying with his injunction: “read what our enemies have said. Remember Hitler…He said in writing exactly what his plan was that we collectively ignored to our great detriment (emphasis added).” Just as we ignored Hitler’s articulation of his strategic doctrine in Mein Kampf, so too are we on the verge of suffering a similar fate today, if we fail to seriously assess the extremist threat based on jihadi strategic doctrine. To address this challenge, I pose three fundamental questions:

    Why have we failed to do a doctrine-based threat assessment?

    What is the doctrinal basis of the jihadi threat?

    How can we come to understand the jihadi threat?
    From these three questions, the thesis concludes that Islamic law forms the doctrinal basis of the jihadi threat that can only be understood through an unconstrained review of the Islamic law of jihad. The failure to undertake a doctrine-based assessment of the enemy reflects a decision not to do so. Accepting assurances from moderate Muslims that Islam had nothing to do with the events of 11 September 2001, President Bush made policy statements holding Islam harmless for the actions done by “extremists” in Islam’s name. To accommodate, threat analysis was replaced by an analytical process that focuses almost exclusively on the war’s imputed underlying causes. For those questions relating to Islam, the approach has been to defer to moderates and cultural experts for the answers we rely on to make WOT (War on Terror) related decisions. Because only the war’s underlying causes are the ones deemed relevant, the enemy’s stated doctrine is dismissed as irrelevant. In the WOT, however, the enemy unambiguously states that he fights jihad in furtherance of Islamic causes. Denial of an Islamic basis to a war that the enemy says is grounded in Islamic doctrines of jihad reflects the acceptance of enormous risk.

    As it turns out, the jihadis are able to find a doctrinal basis for their notions of jihad in Islamic law. A review of Islamic law from modern treatments to the classical authorities reveals an interlocking, overlapping, seamless web of Islamic law on jihad that is uncommonly unified and consistent in defining jihad as warfare against non-Muslims to establish the religion. This legal definition of jihad remains consistent through the 1400 year span that incorporates the contributions of the authorities relied on in the thesis.

    Because our inability to understand the enemy stems from a decision not to know him, this thesis recommends the return to a threat analysis process as the methodology to analyze the enemy’s stated doctrine. Because the enemy in the WOT states Islam as its doctrine, this means an unconstrained analysis of the Islamic law of jihad as found in the authoritative writings of recognized Islamic authorities. When this is done, we will quickly realize what we have ignored “to our great detriment.”

    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/modules/newsmanager/center%20publication%20pdfs/coughlin–thesis__final__8_aug_07%20w%20appendices.pdf

  67. says

    PMK, I continue to be impressed by the “nuanced” positions you hold.

    Posted by: Davegreybeard

    Anything to please.

  68. says

    When will we learn that it’s not enough to “weaken and isolate” these groups? They need to be LIQUIDATED.

    Posted by: PMK

    davegreybeard,

    Nuanced enough for you?

  69. says

    I see that the argument below has been covered largely in a post above by venevidivici, but still… here it is…

    The International Herald Tribune, Asia Edition of 2 Jun 08 has an article by P.W.Singer and Elina Noor entitled “They are not “holy warriors'”. Unfortunately I can’t find the article online, so can’t provide the link.

    They say, inter alia:

    “Imagine if Franklin D. Roosevelt had taken to calling Adolf Hitler the “leader of the National Socialist Aryan Patriots” or dubbed Japanese soldiers fighting in WWII as the “defenders of Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere”. To describe the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese Army in terms that incorporated their own propaganda would have been self-defeating. Unfortunately, the is what many American policymakers have been doing by calling terrorists “jihadists” or “jihadis”.
    “While the State Department recently circulated an internal memo advising foreign service officers to avoid such terms, President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and members of the news media continue to use them.
    “The word “Jihad:” means to “strive” or “struggle,” and in the Muslim world it has traditionally been used in tandem with “fi sabilillah” (“in the path of God”). The term has long been taken to mean either a quest to find one’s faith or an external fight for justice. It makes sense, then, for terrorists to associate themselves with a term that has positive connotations. For the US to support them in that effort, however, is a fundamental strategic mistake.
    …..
    “… these words locate the ideological battle exactly where the extreme ists want it to be. The terms of discussion are no longer about the murder of innocents in terrorist acts; they are about theology.”
    ….

    Singer and Noor suggest use of other words:

    “”Muharib” or the more colloquial “hirabi” or “hirabist” would be a good place to start. “Hirabah”, the base word, is a term for barbarism or piracy. Unlike “jihad” which grants honor, “hirabah” brings condemnation; it involves unlawful iolence and disorder.
    ….

    But conclude:

    “… American leaders would do best to call terrorists by their rightful name: “terrorists”.”.

    The Herald Trib says it welcomes op-eds with opposing views, so.. vvv?….

  70. says

    “JihadWatch has been noticed by the gum’mint critters.” – Posted by: joeblough

    Your sentiment triggered a potential fallout from this campaign.

    “Words matter”: Homeland Security rolls out newspeak campaign, cautions against use of terms like “jihadists,” “Islamic terrorists,” “Islamists” and “holy warriors”

    Could this newspeak campaign open the opportunity to block government computers from accessing sites that routinely use the terms:
    “jihadist”
    “Islamic terrorist”
    “Islamists”
    “holy warriors” ????

  71. says

    “Every day, I read another story which angers me. This whitewash of Islam, by our highest-ranking officials is unacceptable!” one commenter said.

    Hey! Those are my words! And CNN didn’t give me proper attribution. Ugh!

  72. says

    Another group of words that should not be used or else they might mislead would be the words…

    ‘Homeland Security’

    Caution should be taken when using these words together because they may mislead people into thinking it is ‘security’ for the ‘homeland’, which of course it is not.