Hmmm. Could it be that this unsavory Hamas-linked group, which has opposed every anti-terror effort that has ever come down the pike, and has had several of its officials convicted of terror-related activity, wants to obscure the truth about the nature of the enemy we face? Naah -- couldn't be!
"End to 'loaded' Islamic terms welcomed," from UPI, April 8 (thanks to all who sent this in):
WASHINGTON, April 8 (UPI) -- A Washington decision to strike terms linking the religion of Islam to extremism is a welcome departure to U.S. policy in the Middle East, advocates said.The Council on American-Islamic Relations welcomed a decision from U.S. President Barack Obama to strike terms like "Islamic radicalism" from the National Security Strategy. The previous administration said "militant Islamic radicalism" is one of the greatest ideological challenges of the modern era.
Nihad Awad, the national executive director at CAIR, said the measure was a welcome step toward a respectful relationship with the Muslim community.
"We hope this positive change in language will lead to policies that will deal more effectively with important issues such as peace with justice in the Middle East and withdrawal of our nation's forces from Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.
Influential clerics and other Muslim advocates have recommended avoiding words like "jihad" and other Islamic terms for fear of undermining the peaceful nature of the religion.
Then shouldn't they be directing their efforts toward stopping the Islamic jihadists who use these terms from using them? But they don't. Instead, their emphasis is entirely upon keeping Infidel analysts from reporting accurately about the ways in which jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to recruit and motivate terrorists. Now, why is that?
Awad stressed that his organization has called for an end to "loaded" terminology that links Islam to terrorism "for a number of years.""We welcome this change in language by the Obama administration as another step toward respectful and effective outreach to Muslims at home and abroad," he said.
But he has never complained about the Muslims who "link Islam to terrorism."
"We hope this positive change in language will lead to policies that will deal more effectively with important issues such as peace with justice in the Middle East and withdrawal of our nation's forces from Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.
"peace with justice in the Middle East"...Hmm I wonder what he means by that?
Nihad must have felt a thrill go up his leg when he heard this news...It's always good to have a friend in high places...
"We hope this positive change in language will lead to policies that will deal more effectively with important issues such as peace with justice in the Middle East and withdrawal of our nation's forces from Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.
In other words, surrender to Islam, and none in Washington dare call it for what it really is: a treasonous, seditious program of Islamic Jihad against the United States, its freedoms and secular governance, and all Western civilized states. Never give up. Obama or no, never 'submit' to Islamic Jihad.
" Loaded terminology ", that links "Islam to terrorism, for a number of years".
I do not understand how he can actually say that with a straight face - yes I can, didn't the prophet say " War is deception "?.
Obama sure wasn't kidding when he said he would "stand with the muslims", regardless of the context of that statement when he wrote it in his book. It might as well have been a blanket endorsement of islam and muslims. Obama has spit in Israel's face and is the new champion of the Palestinian savages and muslims everywhere. They can remove all the language they want referring aptly to islamic barbarity but it won't change anything. The American people know who the enemy is; the Obama administration can parse words and use euphemisms all they want but it won't change a damn thing. Muslims cannot and will not ever be our friends and true allies because ISLAM FORBIDS IT. When will those idiots admit that?!
Obama is systematically destroying this country one day at a time, just like he promised. I hope the idiots who elected him are happy. I am sick at heart and the four years of his presidency will be interminable hell.
A wise man once said, To name is to know, to know is to control.
*** 92:8 ***
The names used over the years are many: Islamists, Islamic Extremists, Islamic Fundamentalists and IslamoFacists. Then there are the even more insidious ones that don't include the word Islam: Insurgents, Rebels, and the big kahuna, Terrorists.
*** Bukhari Vol 6 Bk 60 Nbr 662 ***
Prez Obama, a born Moslem, is with the latter camp, de-Islamizing the lexicon, even to the point of the ridiculous: Man-Caused Disasters.
*** 8:12 ***
We can't even name our enemy because to do so wouldn't be proper.
To not name is to not know, to not know is to not be able to control.
An example of this is our unwillingness to state what exactly would constitute winning a war. Yes, winning the so-called War On Terror would be for the Jihad terror war attacks to stop, of course, and fat chance of that. But no such easy measure exists in Iraq or Afghanistan, and to be realistic in Pakistan, Iran and now Yemen.
*** Bukhari Vol 2 Bk 24 Nbr 555 ***
Prez Osama is clearly outta control and, thereby, so are we.
Hey, I gotta a name for ya: Man-Disasters (in other words, Moslems). How's that?
Now, a little more then a year ago, if someone would have told you this would happen, tell me you wouldn't have looked at him as a conspiracy nut.
Even today, everything reads like nightmare...
This guy makes Europe look hardcore. Now, with the muslim population at around 1 percent, this is a problem of moronic ignorance supported by brainwash of the mainstream media. Simple math, we're talking about 99 percent of people who are not muslim in the US.
I don't see people panicking, that is bad news, they should be!
IslamObamaRamadan is a Muslim. He says so in his own words. Banning saying "Jihad" or "Islamic Jihad" is just more proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28
So, President Wussein now has endorsements from Fidel Castro on his healthcare and CAIR on his National Security Strategy. Need more be said?
If CAIR likes it, it can't be good.
I cannot cease being amazed at this kind of appeasement,both in the USA and the UK.To deal this way with this totalitarian ideology is akin to doing a slow foxtrot with the devil and then allowing him to take you home afterwards!
The previous administration said "militant Islamic radicalism" is one of the greatest ideological challenges of the modern era.
And the way to overcome this great challenge is to de-name it, wipe it off the lexical landscape, so to speak.
*** 92:8 ***
Problem is, how do we discuss our next 9/11?
When it happens, and it certainly will, may we please at least call it a belief system-based man-caused disaster? Then we can go on for a few days after the dust settles talking about what a terrible tragedy it was and how we need more inter-belief system dialogue to foster mutual understanding. Then Prez Obama's team can arrange for more American funding of entrepreneurial Moslem startups that will further enhance our safety from the terrible tragedy that unfortunately occured a few days earlier.
That'd work. So long as nobody dutifully calls it The Religion of Peace, that's where I draw the line.
If I may. Sir.
Why do I have the uneasy feeling that George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" is unfolding before our eyes? Of course, the hypothetical "Inner Party" on top (in the form of a collectivist ruling class) would be infiltrated and eventually superseded by an Islamic ruling class, if Islam gets its way. However, I do believe that the U.S. electorate will rise up and clean house in November and in 2012, but not before great damage is inflicted on this country...
Barrack Hussein Osama IS an Overseas Contingency Operation...
Not even Barnum & Bailey would hire this CLOWN....
EVERY ACTION BY OBAMA IS WITH ONE AND ONLY ONE GOAL..
TO INSURE HIS PLACE IN THE TEXTBOOKS AND ON THE LECTURE
CIRCUIT WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR THE CONSEQUENCES
OF HIS ACTIONS....OBAMA IS SYNONYMOUS WITH POMPOUS
BUFFOON.
First post here at Jihadwatch, although I am sure the pressure will be on to change the name of this site to something like actsofallahwatch.com.
Greetings from New Zealand everyone. You rock Robert, keep up the good work.
Hi Kiwi Pig Hunter,
Just to let you know that there is an Alarmed Pig Farmer here also! Please don't go hunting any of his pigs, OK? LOL!
G
When referring to our national government, can we avoid the words Holder, Clinton, Biden, Obama? That would make me feel much better.
Hey, if we are refering to leaders, than I would prefer that we not speek about any of those chumps.
Barack Pussein Obama
Obama is a closet muslim. He is more dangerous to our country than any terrorist threat imaginable. Not suprising that cair likes him, since he is a muslim in every way except for admitting the fact, hence Obama is a closet muslim.
Puts a new twist on coming out of the closet.
I want to offer another idea that I posted a few days ago. This idea came from the incident that occurred last weekend. Obama was BOOOED when he came on the base ball field. So I thought lets take this one step further. Whenever I see or hear this man on TV or radio or if I see him in person I will BOO. Get into the habit at home. But use it also in public. Say you are walking through a store selling TV and there is or leader. You "BOOOO" and walk on.
He like to be on TV almost every day so there should be many times when this can be practiced. Who know it may start small but become a national trend. It would send a strong message.
So, "BOOOOOO to the closet muslim."
I think this is a great idea of the Obama administration and shows great sensitivity.
Next I think they should ban other 'loaded' terms such as 'America' 'democracy' 'freedom'... well, you get the idea.
I just have one single complaint against all anti-muslimists - none of you are so politically incorrect as to really clearly refer the Koran Worshipers as " Worshipers of the Religion of Murder - the Religion of Revenge. Any Muslim who believes in the Koran to the degree that the Koran demands that it be believed, must support the cold-blooded murders of totally innocent people. The Koran is perfect and alive and divine and can never be criticized and it clearly supports the occasions of cold-blooded murder, and often rewards acts of plain murder with unlimited extra-marital sex with blood. But no one will call Allah a God of Murder, and His followers servants of the God of Murder and Revenge! Why is that? It doesn't make any sense - if you don't call them what they are how does one expect to ever be able to educate people about the fact that their powerful and divine book, the Koran, is a book that recommends cold-blooded murder? Even the murder of anybody that would try to change to another Religion besides the Religion of Murder? Why bother talking and writing about it if you won't say what it is? No one is going to take you seriously unless you spell it out M-U-R-D-E-R-E-R G-O-D!---- otherwise, you waste our time!
I always call them, "RELIGIOUS SAVAGES" everyone knows who is referred to - everybody knows
They are 'religious savages' because they worship Allah, which is an Arabian Pagan moon god, which embodied all the characteristics Mohammad admired because they coincided with his personal delusional sense of his ego. Murder and revenge was just part of his modus operandi when raiding and killing for booty and slaves, especially women slaves. Since Islam retarded their world conquered for Allah back to the primitive 7th century Arabia, it is no wonder the Mohamedans are so religiously-correct in their call for blood lust. It's what they're about, as you say, "murder and revenge", just like their prophet taught them, and unleashed this murderous tribe on the world. It's so sick.
Missed link in my above, should be: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/allah-pagan-moon-god (Arabian Pagan moon god)
""peace with justice""
AAHH the CODE- I have told non Muslims so many times about the coded language- let's look and see what that really means to CAIR
peace= only for MUSLIMS and comes when you are fully submitted, subservient and humiliated by Muslims and paying tax to them
Justice= Israel destroyed and Islam reigns over all the world, sharia law over all under one unified ummah
I too look forward to the day when ISLAM fans like our dear leader will quit using loaded language and speaking in Orwellian doublespeak
Islam and terrorism are not linked. That’s official. Islamism or militant Islam and terrorism are not linked either. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between Islam, in any of its forms, and terrorism. The only thing that is linked to terrorism are various ‘death cults’ or ‘sects’. This is the truth according to Barack Obama. This man has ordered a revision of America’s National Security Strategy so as to erase all possible connections between Islam and terrorism. Between Islam and anything violent.
This is thought control. It all about words, not realities or actions.
Specifically, the phrases ‘Islami radicalism’ will be erased from American governmental discourse. And if the words no longer exist, then the realities don’t exist either. At least not according to the post-modern logic of the American state.
Apparently it was George W. Bush who got it all wrong. He made the illogical and Islamophobic conclusion that Islam and terrorism are indeed intertwined. Actually not quite that. He rightly concluded that ‘militant Islam’ and terrorism are intertwined. More specifically, a Bush-era document described the war against terrorists as
“the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism … the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”
After all, didn’t he also think pure and good Islam was a pretty decent thing?
Then the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) got in on the act. And when it does so, which is quite often, it usually gets what it wants from the US Government.
Clearly such a disuniting of Islam and terrorism pleased CAIR very much. It said that it would
‘welcome this change in language as another step toward respectful and effective outreach to Muslims at home and abroad’.
Well I never! Muslims being jubilant over the effective denial of any Islam-terrorism connection? You wouldn’t expect anything else. Now Muslims can carry out their jihadist acts without anyone seeing the deep connections between Islam and violence. Or at least they won’t be able to use the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’ or ‘Islamist terrorism’ if they work for the US Government. Who knows, perhaps Islamic terrorism will magically disappear if such a thing is never spoken of, or even thought about, in those words.
CAIR thinks that phrases like ‘Islamic terrorism’ are ‘loaded’. That is, it is wrong and quite simply Islamophobic to use phrases like ‘Islamist terrorism’. Let’s not mess about here. It is wrong and Islamophobic to even think that there is even a slight hint of a connection between Islam and terrorism or violence generally.
Yet Islamic terrorism and violence exists. It exists on a massive and everyday scale. So what does CAIR, and therefore Barack Obama, want to do about this very inconvenient and logical connection between Islam and violence? They want to change the words we use to describe Islamic terrorism by keeping the ‘terrorism’ part and erasing the ‘Islamist’. Surely that will change reality too, not just the words we use and the thoughts we think. Or so CAIR and the US Government think.
Specifically, they want to keep the ‘Words that Work’ and get rid of the ‘Words that don’t’. That is how the US National Counter-Terrorism Centre put it. “'Islamist terrorism’” does ‘not work’. "'Death-cult terrorism”’ or ‘”evil terrorism”’, yes, ‘does work’. Why is that? Well, it can in no way stop Islamist terrorism. It may make the lives of American Muslims a whole lot easier. The ‘moderate’ Muslims will not feel the need to defend their religion any more. The terrorists will find it a whole lot easier to do what they do if Government infidels are not allowed to look towards Islam, and the teachers and teachings of Islam, to help them fight Islamist terrorism.
Not even al-Qaeda can now be called ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim’. It will come as a surprise to Osama bin Laden that he is not a Muslim and that he does not control an Islamic terrorist network. Indeed this is a surprise to me, as it will be to the millions of non-Muslims who do see a strong connection between Islam and violence.
More specifically, CAIR and the US Government are claiming that these naughty and Islamophobic phrases ‘unintentionally legitimise’ terrorist groups. That is, by seeing these organisations as Islamic, or as aspects of Islam (even small aspects), is to make them seem more acceptable and, well, Islamic than they really are.
But what if there is a connection between Islam, or only parts thereof, and violence? What if Osama bin Laden is a Muslim. Full stop? What if he is a good Muslim who is actually truer to his religion than many other Muslims, including CAIR and the ‘moderates’. That’s if CAIR and the Muslim moderates are genuinely against Islamic terrorism or terrorism in the name of Islam. Alternatively, CAIR’s suggestions may have been offered to make life not only easier for moderate Muslims, but for the Islamic terrorists themselves. If the terrorists and their acts cannot be spoken of as what they truly are, then they case to exist qua Islamic terrorists. And if Islamic terrorism ceases to exist qua Islamic terrorism, then the terrorists will be far harder to defeat. Islamic terror will thus get worse, not better.
All this is no surprise if one bears in mind Obama’s speech at Cairo University in Egypt in June 2009. In that speech he told Egyptian Muslims that the US did not fear or hate the Muslim world. And to prove this he promised to bend over backwards - as far as is humanly possible. He promised to rewrite the English language and thus retune the infidels’ thoughts about Islam and terrorism. Could any Muslim ask for more?
Let’s take the ‘Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication’ in more detail. This document seeks to ‘avoid labelling everything “'Muslim'". Thus the US Government can longer label anything ‘Muslim’. Or at least not acts of terrorism and other acts of jihadist violence. This is because Obama wants to get rid of the mindset which believes that it is the case today of 'the US vs Islam’. What if it is largely a case of Islam versus the US and the rest of the non-Muslim world? What if it is the case that millions upon millions of Muslims believe in jihad, even if they don’t carry it out themselves? Not all Muslim believers in jihad and terrorism are actually active in either jihad or terrorism. Not every Nazi loaded the cattle trucks with Jews, fought on the Russian front or joined the Gestapo. Still they supported these things, either directly or indirectly.
This is a chicken-or-egg scenario. The aforesaid document says that when we use the naughty words which connect Islam with terrorism this will result in ‘a large percentage of the world’s population’ becoming the victims of policy and hurtful words. This in turn will result in our ‘unintentionally alienating them’. That ‘is not a judicious move’.
What if it is actually the other way around? That is:
i) National legislation and government actions alienate Muslims because it is Muslims, and their religion, who and which are largely responsible for most contemporary acts of terrorism.
Barack has got this the wrong way around. He thinks that
ii) National legislations and government actions, up until now, have alienated Muslims and have thus contributed to the rise of terrorism and Muslim violence generally.
Why would the US Government have focused upon - and thus alienated - Muslims if it had not made the obvious connections between Islam/Muslims and terrorism? Of course there is a Leftist and an Islamist alternative to this. The US Government focused upon, and thus alienated, Muslims quite simply because of its ‘Islamophobia’ and/or its ‘racism’. But again we can ask: Where did that ‘Islamophobia’ came from? It came from Islamist terrorism. It did not create Islamist terrorism. Most people don’t fear that which is not dangerous. The possibility of Islamic terrorism is ever-present. Thus we have the fear of Muslims and Islam. We have Islamophobia.
The US will never understand Al Qaeda and Islamic violence if it really believes it own Muslim-friendly rhetoric. It will be forever barking up the wrong tree. Barack makes the absurd and dangerous conclusion, or at least US officials do, that Al-Qaeda ‘exploits religious sentiments and tries to use religion to justify its actions’. This is similar to the mistakes governments made about the ‘ridiculous’ Hitler and his ‘silly brown shirts’. It is also parallel to the grave mistakes UK ministers and officials made about a whole host of potential terrorists and Islamists. Civil servants and officials in the UK once saw these people as simple 'buffoons' and 'clowns' and thus concluded that they were no real threat to Britain. Some civil servants still think this way. Thus the ‘misfits’ and ‘clowns’ were quite simply ignored. As long as they didn’t plant their bombs in England, all was fine. And then came 9/11. Madrid. Bali. And then London.
Barack, instead of seeing Al Qaeda as being made up of clowns or buffoons, sees it as being made of ‘criminals’ instead. How does that work? Is it being suggested that Al-Qaeda is making money from their operations and propaganda? If not, what other kinds of criminality is being hinted at here? One cannot say ‘the exportation of heroin’ because the funds gained from this are invested into the jihad against the West. Thus we are back to where we started – Islamic jihad and Islamic violence generally.
What about just calling Al Qaeda ‘terrorists’. Full stop? But terrorists must terrorise for reasons, principles or beliefs. No one is just a terrorist simpliciter. Thus, as with the 'criminals' earlier, we are back to the starting point again. Al Qaeda members aren’t terrorists simply because they are terrorists. They are terrorists in the name of Allah and Islam. Even if we, and indeed Muslims, think that terror in the name of Allah and Islam is wrong or a misinterpretation of that religion, it is still the case that Al Qaeda does not think it is theologically or Islamically wrong in doing what it does. Why pretend that they are not Muslims just because we think they are theologically in the wrong or that such an acceptance of their politico-theology would work against moderate Muslims at home? Al Qaeda is made up of Muslims and commit acts of Islamic terrorism no matter what we think of their theology, etc. So even if we accept that there exists a non-violent Islam, this need not mean that we are given a good reason to claim that Al Qaeda members ‘are not really Muslims’ and that what they do ‘is not really Islamic’.
As it is, million of people do believe that there is such a thing as Islamic violence and that Al Qaeda is not really distorting Islam at all. No word games from Barack Obama and others will change this.