A refreshing departure from the desire on the part of the State Department and Homeland Security to avoid naming the enemy. "Military report says terms 'jihad,' 'Islamist' needed," by Bill Gertz for the Washington Times, October 20:
A U.S. military "Red Team" charged with challenging conventional thinking says that words like "jihad" and "Islamist" are needed in discussing 21st-century terrorism and that federal agencies that avoid the words soft-pedaled the link between religious extremism and violent acts.
"We must reject the notion that Islam and Arabic stand apart as bodies of knowledge that cannot be critiqued or discussed as elements of understanding our enemies in this conflict," said the internal report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.
The report, "Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words," was written by unnamed civilian analysts and contractors for the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for the Middle East and South Asia. It is thought to be the first official document to challenge those in the government who seek to downplay the role of Islam in inspiring some terrorist violence.
"The fact is our enemies cite the source of Islam as the foundation for their global jihad," the report said. "We are left with the responsibility of portraying our enemies in an honest and accurate fashion."
The report contributes to an ongoing debate within the U.S. government and military over the roots of terrorism, its relationship to Islam and how best to counter extremist ideology.
It cites two Bush administration documents that appear to minimize any link between radical Islam and terrorism.
A January 2008 memorandum from the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties stated that unidentified American Muslims recommended that the U.S. government avoid using the terms "jihadist," "Islamic terrorist," "Islamist" or "holy warrior," asserting that would create a "negative climate" and spawn acts of harassment and discrimination.
Dan Sutherland, Homeland Security officer for civil rights and civil liberties, said the document is not department policy.
"This was a compilation of recommendations and thoughts provided to us by some prominent American Muslim thinkers and never was intended to be Department of Homeland Security policy," he said in an interview.
"If a paper from another part of government says this doesn't make sense, that's a valid point. This memo is a thought piece meant to stir discussion."...
Read it all.
LOL!
I want to see this report. "Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words" refreshing news. Imagine the hubris of believing your PC speech codes will actually help win wars. That is why I was laughing.
Islamists, jihadists and every other term must be used to better describe our ennemies. Playing soft won't work. God bless our leaders.
knightemplar2@hotmail.com
I must apologize. Heretofore I had concluded that the beltway waters had dhimmified our entire government under the guidance of the subversive beltway Islamist network.
Evidently there are some heroes sitting in some of those cubicles! They deserve a medal and a raise in salary! And cheers from JW!
Better they stay incognito less they get the Stephen Coughlin treatment - Coughlin was author of "To our Great Detriment: ignoring what extremists say about Jihad" - Coughlin was dismissed on recommendation of Hesham Islam, advisor to under-secretary of defense Gordon England. Mr. Islam is still on England's staff. Steve Emerson described him as an Islamist with a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bent who has brought in groups to the Pentagon who have been unindicted co-conspirators.
Good to know that not all policy makers in the US have gone troppo*
*Australian slang for 'mad"
"The fact is our enemies cite the source of Islam as the foundation for their global jihad," the report said....
Yes, this DOES say it all--plainly, simply, and undeniably. Now all the Western governments need is a unified, cogent plan in how to oppose and fight it, and the courage to do so. We're still waiting....
I'm sure that, immediately following his coronati--errr, inauguration, President Obama will set about restoring a decent respect for Islam and the tender sensibilities of ever-offended Muslims in every branch and function of the Dhimmified Forces of America.
A Call to Action (Australia Watch)
Written by Geoff Dickson
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Why is the Muslim faith a problem?
"To answer this simple question, one only needs to examine some key texts from the Quran which guide the actions and behaviour of Muslims. Consider:-
S5.51 do not take Jews and Christians for friends;
S48.29 be ruthless to the infidels;
S2.191 kill the disbeliever wherever you find them;
S4.101 infidels are your sworn enemies;
S9:5 fight the unbelievers wherever you find them;
S47:4 strike at their necks in battle;
Here is a summary of some of the ways you can be vigilant in protecting Australia and preserving our culture and values."
Fourteen points follow, covering everything from immigration to cultural issues. Is worth the read, and worth considering the points he makes.
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1655&Itemid=93
We finally have our own Geert Wilders working in the US Govt.
"It cites two Bush administration documents that appear to minimize any link between radical Islam and terrorism."
.. more proof that Bush, the POTUS/Commander-in-chief of the free world, is a Saudi puppet.
"Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011228-1.html
Glory!
Gertz's report becomes very diluted by an oppressive number of quoted opinions from apologists and taqiyya-meisters.
The column began with good stuff, stumbled and ended with a whimper, especially in view of the final quote from the RED TEAM spokesman.
We're still a long way from "straight-talking" our way through this mess, folks.
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/RedTeamReport.pdf
The report
"This was a compilation of recommendations and thoughts provided to us by some prominent American Muslim thinkers...
I wonder if these muslim thinkers are the same muslim thinkers as the Islamic Thinkers Society?
What do Mohammadans think 'about'?
A good Mohammadan would be thinking of how how can get into Allah's paradise.
He would read Allah's book of instructions on the why's and hows to be a good Mohmmadan.
He would look to his object of adoration, Mohammad, for example and inspiration.
Knowing that Allah gave no guarantees about heaven, except for jihadi's, the good Mohammadan will try to do more than just the basic prayers, jakat etc. He must 'think' of ways to attract Allah's attention with the hopes of entry into heaven.
Thinking is not required. Allah wrote a book of directions, if a Mohammadan follows those directions, there is no need for thinking, just acting.
Mohammadans do not think, if they start thinking, they quickly become apostates.
This is why the the unidentified Mohammadan thinkers, that the gov relied on, will stay unidentified.
There is no reliable way to determine what a Mohammadan is really thinking about....But you may assume it has something to do with furthering the causes of Allah, and their own chances of getting into heaven...
I'm relieved to read this rebuke.
Highlights from Mr.Fitnah's link above:
Contemplating this conclusion, I recall my experience reading my first science fiction novel, DUNE. Sure, it was inconvenient to flip back and forth between sections to become familiar with the terminology and it's implications to the story, but it was the only way to understand it.
There are those who would liken today's circumstances to a contrived fiction rather than the actual threat it is, by initiating their own contrived dialogue veiled in deceptive conceit.
Thank heavens there are those that continue to make the effort to flip back and forth between reference sources to fully comprehend the issues at hand.
Now, about that identifier "War on Terror" . . .
Hell Yes!
This shows why a culture which insists on consistent protection for minority rights, both physical and intellectual, along with of representative government and codified protections of dissent, conscience and thought, will adapt and overcome.
Not everyone is willing to play along and some are willing to do something about it. Never give up.
Bill Gertz was the writer who lit the fire in the Major Stephen Coughlin vs.Under Secretary Gordon England's go to man on Islamic affairs Hesham Islam who tried to get Major Coughlin to tone down his thesis on Jihad.
When Coughlin refused, Hesham Islam tried to get him dismissed thru his boss Under Secretary Gordon England.
For those of you who have not seen or read this excellent thesis by Major Coughlin, I highly recommend it.
Here it is in PDF Form for your favorites:
"TO OUR GREAT DETRIMENT:
IGNORING WHAT EXTREMISTS SAY ABOUT JIHAD"
By Major Stephen Coughlin
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/modules/newsmanager/center%20publication%20pdfs/coughlin--thesis__final__8_aug_07%20w%20appendices.pdf
Hallelujah. Not everyone in the US military is willing to put on their government issued blinders. I just hope that the brave souls who wrote this study won't have their careers or reputations torn asunder.
Evidence of intelligent life on earth.
I would like to inject my thinkspeak on all of this.
The use of these words can be likened to a blindfolded drunk with a loaded gun. Some are afraid of innocent being hit if the gun goes off. Others are sure one of them will be hit if the gun goes off. Others are just afraid of guns or loud noises in general.
When the gun finally goes off a little red flag pops out the barrel with the word bang. Everyone nervously laughs it off. Mean while a crate of real guns go by with no one taking notice, except the smugglers who were sure they would be hit.
Not to sound cynical, but how long to you suppose it will be before the authors are "outted" and a "correction" issued by the military unit they're in? It's happened before. Still, it is gratifying that the truth about Islam seems to so persistently keep seeping into the awareness of previously unknowledgable minds. Hopefully a tipping point will be reached where it will be become impossible for mindless bureaucrats to keep suppressing the truth.
Wow, now there's a bit of reality that was unexpected. I hope you'll find it as encouraging rational as I do.
In the paragraph reproduced below, the paper not only challenges the wisdom of the "Offensive Word" myth, but also questions the underlying concept of "government by feeling and sensitivity", if somewhat obliquely, which led to the mythology:
There are a growing number of USG documents that suggest that we stand in danger of (if we have not already) demonizing Islam and/or associating all Muslims with violence simply by invoking the Islamic identity, or Islamist goals, of a particular extremist group. These assumptions appear to be based upon emotional or political responses to criticism, rather than based on intentional active or passive acts of bigotry, as they seem to imply. A feeling of demonization is not the equivalent of an actual act of the same. The USG should resist the urge to consider itself capable of managing the emotional responses of those whom we engage either militarily or diplomatically, on issues as serious as the Islamic concept of jihad (misunderstood or not). We must not avoid criticism of the topic if the intent is only to assuage the sensibilities of non-violent Muslims, who will remain non-violent in the face of an intellectual examination and critique of the theological underpinnings and/or assertions of jihad. We should avoid readily accepting the notion that criticism or notice of an Islamic tenet, such as jihad, by the USG is tantamount to the demonization of all Muslims or Islam.
Even the statement above displays too much concern over "demonizing Islam"; as a concurrent reading of Mein Kampf, the Koran, and Reliance of the Traveler will confirm. Common sense and the survival instinct dictate that we should not concern ourselves about the demonization of Nazism or communism. Criticism of Islam is no more a demonization of individual Muslims than criticism of Nazism or communism is a demonization of individual Germans, Russians, or Chinese.
Government, like any other potentially dangerous heavy machinery, should not use feelings as an operating manual, but trust the hard won, objective lessons from history.
Choose your favorite cliché: “a government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have" or "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", or make up a new one: "a government sensitive enough to feel your pain is emotional enough to cause your pain". However you want to look at it, we need to get bureaucrats and politicians out of the business of reading minds, divining intentions, and labeling any actions as "hate crimes". Seriously, has anyone ever heard of a love crime? If an objective action is harmful enough to be a crime, it doesn't need some amorphous, ambiguous, and arbitrary extra-special designation as a "hate" crime.
Perhaps some determination and persistence will still pay off.
Imagine if Obama is elected POTUS. Talk about Saudi puppet........