Denmark ends the jihad

the goal is to avoid legitimizing terrorism or tying the majority of non-violent Muslims to terrorists

It remains unclear how speaking of terrorist motives legitimizes them. As for "the majority of non-violent Muslims", they tie themselves to terrorism by objecting to any mention of it and by refusing to stand up to the promoters of violence in the cause of jihad.
Not only that, you don't have to set a bomb or point a gun to engage in an offensive jihad. The "positive aspects" that Muslims see include overthrowing legitimate governments by means other than force ("peaceful aspects") and replacing them with Islamic governments or some form of sharia law. Just ask CAIR.

Do our leaders think that if we ignore this problem it will go away?

""Denmark tries to clean up terror talk,"

try deporting the Muslims who break the law...and tightening up those insipid immigration laws you have..get rid of the terrorists instead of handicapping your own country.

Do our leaders think that if we ignore this problem it will go away?

Posted by: PMK at August 17, 2008 8:33 AM

I don't think "ignoring" ANY problem makes it go away. Whether a small problem, or a big one like the Global Jihad.

" The Danish Intelligence Agency has introduced new guidelines for discussing terrorism, advising authorities to avoid words like jihad and martyr. "

bah,, this is just the same old PC that inevitiably results in more violence that the authorities are scared to react to...

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....well, you know the story..

" a jihad also has peaceful and positive meanings," tell that to the hundreds of millions of victims who have been wiped out by those 'peaceful jihadists..' what a bunch of dumb twats.

But it won't go away. In 2, 3, 5 years these polit-props will long be voted out, but the jihad is still there. And the Musulmanic immigration continues...

Well, I'm willing to give up using the word "jihad", if the politicians and MSM are willing to give up certain other words, such as "Islam is a religion of peace".
After all, the terms "jihad" and "jihadist" only came into common usage because government officials and MSM editors wanted to differentiate them as a very small group of fanatics, quite distinct from the (supposedly peace-loving) main body of Moslem believers. "Jihadist" was a short-hand term employed to avoid offending Moslems in general. "Jihad" has been used as a cover-up term, used to obscure the fact that the terrorists are Islamic true believers. Also it's a nice short word that fits well in a head-line.
So instead of "jihadist", we can start using more honest, if more long-winded, terms like "Moslem fanatics" or "Islamic killers".

Will this policy for non muslims to redefine jihad and martyrdom for musliims ever be changed when or if it is ever proved that the majority of muslims (i.e. more than 50%) actually define jihad and martyrdom in this "terroristic" way? Will the policy ever be changed if the government strategists ever conclude that the jihad and martyrdom used by terrorists is actually jihad and martyrdom as classically defined by any knowledgeable muslim or by Mohammed himself?

When is Denmark or the U.S. going to sponsor a vote on this in the terrorist part of the world to ascertain the truth or falsity about muslim opinion on jihad and martyrdom? Or will the policy be that as a matter of presumption that when a muslim initiates mayhem against others from islamia it is conclusively presumed that the terrorist act is not supported by 50% or more of the terrorists fellow muslims and therefore is "unislamic?" This concept of one muslim one vote or "elected" jihad is bizarre especially since there is to be no vote and one person one vote is alien to islam to begin with.

What muslim will fight these other terrorists or misunderstanders of islam by citing how the misunderstander's activities are outside of conventional islam? Was the world massively delusional when the World Trade Center came tumbling down and thousands were murdered and the world witnessed muslim children in arabia being passed candies and ulalating in satanic glee at the death of infidels? Are the Zogby polls of muslim support for muslim mayhem and murder that show significant portions of muslim populations any where on this globe in favor of terrorism against infidels to be ignored?

We need to cashier our government leaders for putting us all at risk from those who are out to kill us? We need to invoke Hobbes who said at core the fundamental reason a person agrees to obey the laws of the sovereign is because the sovereign promises to protect the person's life from arbitrary murder. Such failure on the part of our sovereign governments to exercise its fundamental responsiblity to protect a person's right to life may constitute a breach of the pact by which the person puts itself in "fear of the sovereign" to begin with. Such persistent failure of the sovereign to protect a person's life may render the sovereign and our government's laws illegitimate.

The right to life is an inalienable fundamental right that transcends its abrogation by community bureaucrats. We demand that our sovereign responsibly exercise its obligation to protect us from terrorists who are muslim who claim they are attacking us in the name of their islam rather than redefining the problem in such a way that the problem ostensibly no longer exists.

See the Evil,

Hear the Evil,

Speak no Evil. Or get your Mouth washed out with Soap for being a bad bad person.

"We need to invoke Hobbes who said at core the fundamental reason a person agrees to obey the laws of the sovereign is because the sovereign promises to protect the person's life from arbitrary murder. Such failure on the part of our sovereign governments to exercise its fundamental responsiblity to protect a person's right to life may constitute a breach of the pact by which the person puts itself in "fear of the sovereign" to begin with. Such persistent failure of the sovereign to protect a person's life may render the sovereign and our government's laws illegitimate." --David England

I believe that Hobbes also provided for the right of the people to get rid of the Monarch if he failed in his duties to them re the mutually-agreed-upon social contract, which includes first and foremost the Sovereign's PROTECTION of the people.

Well, concerning the Stealth Jihad happening in the U.S., I don't feel protected at all. Our next "Monarch" needs to re-read Hobbes.

Gitmo Inmates for Switzerland!

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/08/17/gitmo-inmates-for-switzerland/

Right-o, David E.

Any government that is legitimate must fulfill two duties: first it must protect its subjects or citizens from attack and despoliation, whether from outside, by invaders, or from within, by criminals; and second it must provide justice, by adjudicating disputes between its members. At present, most Western governments are doing a pretty poor job.

Superdhimnmis are in government everywhere.
It's a bird, it's a plane, no, it's superdhimmi. 'Here I come to save the day'.
These kinds of cartoons muslims like.
Stuck on Stupid...The Movie...

""Denmark tries to clean up terror talk,"

l think the Danish elites are using "cone of silence" from Get Smart.

"I believe that Hobbes also provided for the right of the people to get rid of the Monarch if he failed in his duties to them re the mutually-agreed-upon social contract, which includes first and foremost the Sovereign's PROTECTION of the people."

If I'm not mistaken, words to similar effect exist in the US Constitution.

The fundamental problem for Denmark, America and all Western nations remains the refusal to see Islam, all of Islam, as something profoundly inimical to Western ideals and institutions. Once this changes (if it changes) everything else will start to fall into place to insure final victory against Islam's designs. We're not there yet though. I hope we get there soon, but the assumption, a false one, that all major religions must be good is a very stubborn one indeed and Muslims are still in the driver's seat until this assumption is unmasked en masse as deeply erroneous.

This is a disturbing development, especially from Denmark, which has been--by contemporary Western standards, certainly--one of the most clear-eyed defenders against the Jihad.

PMK wrote:

It remains unclear how speaking of terrorist motives legitimizes them.
.............

I agree. For instance, during the fight against Nazi fascism, it was widely acknowledged by the Allies that one of Hitler's motivations was the promotion of the Germans as "the master race". Acknowledging that this was a motivation in no way recognized a teutonic master race, nor legitimized the idea of a master race of any sort.

Still, a refusal to recognize this concept would have made many of the Nazi's actions--such as invading slavic Russia, or executing the Holocaust even when it diverted resources from fighting the Allies--completely unintelligible.

Knowing your enemy is critical. Understanding their motivations in no way implies that you legitimize those motivations yourself.

Abscedere,
Words to that effect (the right to get rid of governments that don't protect our rights) are in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Knowing your enemy is critical. Understanding their motivations in no way implies that you legitimize those motivations yourself.

Posted by: gravenimage at August 17, 2008 4:06 PM

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

--Sun-Tzu
Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC)

In this Denmark is, of course, following the lead of the United States

I think it was Britain that started this nonsense, just after Gordon Brown became PM.

pulsar182

Denmark has one of the toughest immigration laws in the West, and have had them from before 9/11. They are getting even more tough, and that is the main quarrel between Denmark and the EU.

I wouldn't worry too much about us Danes actually abiding to that stupid regulation :)

It is obviously stupid (as in Orwellian) and the Danish Peoples' Party (14 % of the vote - and climbing) has been protesting loudly.

We'll just ignore it and carry on.