| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Diana West skewers the official unreality about the fix we're in -- an unreality that soon may make it utterly impossible for us to speak realistically about the war we're fighting. And that, in turn, will make it impossible to prevail.
Q: Who is winning the really important war of ideas — the one between the West and itself? A: Not the side that understands jihad as a foundational Islamic institution.This is nothing new. From September 11 onward, the yeoman effort of elites has been to wrench "Islam" away from all acts of jihad. But now, particularly after the London and Glasgow attacks, their efforts have achieved a deeper level of denial, and, worse, broader consensus.
The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has directed ministers to omit "Muslim" when discussing (Muslim) terrorism. And forget the generic "war on terror"; even that pathetic phrase is off limits. (This has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Brown's unctuously stated goal to make Britain "the gateway for Islamic finance.") The new Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith (love that "i" ending) refers to British Muslims as "communities" — maybe a prelude to not mentioning them at all. Both have done the "perversion of a great faith" dance to enlightened applause, taking cues from the unpublished "EU Lexicon," which reportedly nixes such "offensive" phrases as "Islamic terrorism."
British literary lions couldn't agree more. Philosopher John Gray and historian Eric Hobsbawm recently said on British television that even the word "Islamist" was "unfair" because "it implied a strong link to Islam." Never mind the link is doctrinally accurate. Better to accommodate mortal threat without identifying its Islamic roots. Instead of defending their nations — for starters, stopping Islamic immigration and, with it, the progression of Islamic law into Western societies — our elites have decided to pretend Islam isn't there at all.
In the media, the effort is misleading to the point of farce. Joel Mowbray, writing at the Powerline blog, noted that the New York Times has identified Britain's Muslim terrorists as "South Asian people" — which, considering Britain's largest South Asian population is Hindu, is beyond absurd. "Diverse group allegedly in British plot," the Associated Press reported, missing that unifying Islamic thread. "All 8 detainees have ties to health service," wrote the Toronto Star, "but genesis of terror scheme still eludes investigators."
If they read Robert Spencer's jihadwatch.org, the essential daily compendium of jihad and dhimmi news, they might get a clue. But, very ominously, Mr. Spencer's Web site is being blocked by assorted organizations which, according to his readers, continue to provide access to assorted pro-jihad sites. Mr. Spencer reports he's "never received word of so many organizations banning this site all at once." These include the City of Chicago, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, GE IT, JPMorgan Chase, Defense Finance and Accounting Services and now, a federal employee in Dallas informs him, the federal government.
Reason given? Some Internet providers deem the factually based, meticulous analysis on display at jihadwatch.org to be "hate speech." This should send Orwellian shivers up society's spine, but, alarmingly, such reactions to jihad analysis are increasingly the norm.
Case in point: Objecting to a recent column characterizing his views as being non-comprehending or indifferent to jihad, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, senior counterinsurgency adviser to our forces in Iraq, wondered in an e-mail whether I "may not like Muslims, and that's your choice." It was a long e-mail — one of several — but even these few words convey the viewpoint, increasingly prevalent, that discounts the doctrinal centrality of Islam to jihad violence convulsing the world, from Iraq to London. In the mental no-jihad zone (and, in Lt. Col. Kilcullen's case, despite what he calls his "significant personal body count of terrorists and insurgents killed or captured"), only personal animus can explain alarm over the Islamic institution of jihad (let alone dhimmitude). "Alternatively," he wrote, "you may think Islam contains illiberal and dangerous tendencies."
I may think? I do think "tendencies" such as jihad and dhimmitude. "Again," he said, "you're entitled to that view."
"That view" is increasingly absent at the top, where Islam itself is politically and strategically beside the point. Consider current military thought, as expressed by Lt. Col. Kilcullen: Typical terrorists, he wrote, are "driven by fundamentally non-religious motivational factors." I wonder which non-religious motivational factors inspired Glasgow's terror-docs to scream "Allah, Allah" while ramming a flaming car into the airport.
Of course, it gets worse. Debate now divides the Pentagon over a new lexicon for Centcom. At stake is the Islamic term "jihad" itself, which could become officially verboten within the ranks of the fighting force that is actually supposed to defeat it.
This might leave us speechless, but it better not shut us up.
Posted by Robert at July 6, 2007 8:31 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"All 8 detainees have ties to health service," wrote the Toronto Star, "but genesis of terror scheme still eludes investigators."
Hmm. Wasn't that the TorStar line when our police authorities rounded up 17 young Muslim men last summer in connection with, er, violent plots against Canadian targets?
Posted by: waterdragon52![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 6, 2007 8:44 AM
"... "but genesis of terror scheme still eludes investigators..."
....proof that Inspector Clouseau lives.....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 6, 2007 8:48 AM
"Debate now divides the Pentagon over a new lexicon for Centcom."
....clueless in DC....military leaders scratching their heads....muttering "jihad?.....shhhhhhhh...don't say jihad around here...we are fighting only a few extremists who have hijacked a religion..."
...like the AFLAC duck...acccckkkkk....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 6, 2007 9:00 AM
jihadwatch.org was blocked at my workplace last week. I suspect that it is "Smart Filter" detecting keywords/phrases and basing its decision on that. Once Smart Filter blocks a site at one location, it transfers this decision to all Smart Filter installations and the block becomes universal all over. To get other sites blocked, we need to find out what these keywords/phrases are and post these on their websites too.
Posted by: charlieandmollie at July 6, 2007 9:05 AM
The situation reminds me of limits of public expression in Eastern Europe under the Soviets. At best are the folks think that a belief system underlying behavior is not relevant. They are simply naive. At worst are those who share the belief system and want to avoid people's coming to understand it.
We should be moving in the opposite direction to our inappropriate tolerance. Western societies can start protecting itself by no longer including Islam among the belief systems protected by civil-rights law.
Posted by: StillBreathing at July 6, 2007 9:08 AM
"Diana West: Call it like it is"
Diana West is one of the few writers in the mainstream media who consistently "calls it like it is" regarding Islam and jihad. She's got my vote in the next Anti-Dhimmi Award.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at July 6, 2007 9:10 AM
Is this the new censordhip ?
Call it hate speech to shut up comment ?
Is Grover Norquist and the Saudi lobby (vide CAIR)behind it ?
What a bunch of fools.
(is it time for for bumper stickers ?)
Eat my shorts Ibrahim.
Posted by: dgene at July 6, 2007 9:11 AM
Gone are the days when people recognised evil when they saw it, and weren't afraid to describe it. The PC brigade have so much to answer for. PC is killing the West, and how long will it be before the West as we know it becomes as extinct as the dodo, with future archaeologists poring over the remnants of our society and asking themselves "What happrened to make it die so quickly after being superior and far more advanced than its eventual destroyers for so long? The answer will lie in the softness that lurks beneath us. We are too nice to survive in the face of barbarians. We will fail where our ancestors succeeded through sheer determination. It is time to evoke the spirit of men like de la Valette who said:
"A formidable army composed of audacious barbarians is descending on this island. These persons, my brothers, are the enemies of Jesus Christ. Today it is a question of the defense of our faith -- as to whether the Gospels are to be superseded by the Koran. God on this occasion demands of us our lives, already vowed to his service. Happy will be those who first consummate this sacrifice." - de la Valette 1565
He knew what he was fighting for, and let his men know in no uncertain terms in that 16th century Churchillian speech. Likewise, Jan Sobieski at Vienna 118 years later. Could you imagine any leader setting out our war in such certain terms as de la Valette? Not on your nelly. Political correctness rules and that means we must be nice to our enemy, treat him as a misguided soul, and hope that he'll eventually be nice back to us. But where are the de la Valettes of today? Nowhere to be found. The true spirit of the West today was encapsulated by Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affairs, Integration and Gender Equality from the Social Democratic Party, who said during a debate on Swedish radio in 2004 that “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” He has obviously forgotten that if Islam becomes the majority, we will all be living under Sharia, and throwing away the sacrifices made by previous generations in two World Wars on the altar of multiculturalism.
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at July 6, 2007 9:12 AM
"I wonder which non-religious motivational factors inspired Glasgow's terror-docs to scream "Allah, Allah" while ramming a flaming car into the airport."
---from the article---
West is 100% correct in her analysis of the absurdity to ignore the painfully obvious. Speaking of pain, unfortunately, it will take more incidents like the recent attacks in London and Scotland, with greater casualties, to drive a steak into the heart of suicidal political correctness. Europe is the template that the US will mold their policy towards, regarding Islamic jihad.
Choose your candidates wisely in 2008, everywhere.
Posted by: awake at July 6, 2007 9:18 AM
It's not a crime for the public to use the the words islamic terrorism or muslim terrorist or jihad is it? This is only the ministers of the deluded Brown right? Then then soldier on Brits and use the words everyday, as many times as possible. The dhimmi politicians, media and elite be da#ned.
Posted by: the poetess at July 6, 2007 9:28 AM
Of course, it gets worse. Debate now divides the Pentagon over a new lexicon for Centcom. At stake is the Islamic term "jihad" itself, which could become officially verboten within the ranks of the fighting force that is actually supposed to defeat it.
If you can't define who the enemy is, you are defeated already.
This might leave us speechless, but it better not shut us up
The hate crimes legislation will shut you up and will shut you down.
The ???? that we are fighting against doesn't mince words; the ???? call us "infidels."
at July 6, 2007 9:45 AM
Gee I had a suspicion that when Islam itself -in its Koranic texts- calls for our subjugation or annihilation, it might be serious.
Gee I had that all wrong, I reckon.
I guess some people just hate speech.
Especially when it is free.
"First Amendament, we don't need no stinkin' First Amendment."
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 6, 2007 10:28 AM
"Wasn't that the TorStar line when our police authorities rounded up 17 young Muslim men last summer in connection with, er, violent plots against Canadian targets?" Posted by: waterdragon52
Do you remember Christie Blatchford's column in the Globe and Mail and the response by a Toronto Star columnist?
I don't subscribe to the Globe but here are links to articles that discussed the issue (I used Tiny Urls because the links were so long):
Posted by: Josephine at July 6, 2007 11:12 AM
So now it comes to this....official censorship from the highest levels of government. This is the end of our "free" road, as it were as it is now clear we, in America can no longer use certain words because they might "cause hurt feelings". This is bulls#@&t of the highest order. If we cannot speak in truths then we as a nation are truly doomed. Our leaders (and I use that term very loosely) are so clueless as to the real threat that by their actions they have sealed the fate of every freedom-loving country to become so much Islamic detritus (sic). If this is how we are to end they I, for one will go out with a bang......30.06 worth!
"Islamophobes of the world, Unite!"
at July 6, 2007 11:44 AM
You guys thought I was crazy yesterday when I posted this. How right on.
First rule of leftist multi-culti dogma.
#1- Everything has a reason. All reasons are morally equivalent if properly evaluated.
#2- Since everything is equivalent nothing can be known certain or judged on moral grounds.
To call the hater a hater breaks the first two highest forms of reason on the left. The equation was formulated to apply a broad filter with a narrow focus bypassing critical thinking, and actual research on any subject to reach the same conclusion in any subject. Nothing is known for certain, everything is morally equivalent when properly evaluated.
In the end the only thing that is known for certain is that any westerner that breaks these rules of reason is a hater, and must be filtered out of the debate, because they didn't follow the rules.
Due to the fact that it is real hard to actually win debates using this method new rules have to be made. Like the "Fairness Doctorine", for instance, or server "Content Filters" ... in the interest of proper elightenment.
You broke all the rules Robert, and therefore are a threat.
at July 6, 2007 11:45 AM
The west needs sane leaders with guts. If there are any like that they are mostly silent and ineffectual. The MSM and gov PC attitudes are becoming sickening. They are leading us all right, down the primrose path to destruction. If we are going to 'ban' anything, let's ban useless, or stupid politicians. That means, they all must go, with few exceptions...
at July 6, 2007 12:44 PM
I wonder which non-religious motivational factors inspired Glasgow's terror-docs to scream "Allah, Allah" while ramming a flaming car into the airport.
from the article
His family states that Bilal Abdullah is a "deeply religious Iraqi who was angry that his prominent Sunni family "lost everything" following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"He was hurt by the destruction of his family's property in Iraq," said a relative. "I think he wanted to be a martyr. He wanted to send out a message to withdraw troops from Iraq. He wanted to cause chaos and fear; he didn't want to kill people. He fears God and all he wanted to do was die." (from the Washington Post)
at July 6, 2007 12:57 PM
If only the western democracies' political elites understood that by accommodating Islam and covering up Islamic links to 'terrorism' they are unwittingly (we hope) making themselves accessories to attempted genocide (including that of our own people).
This article is possibly the scariest yet to appear on Jihad Watch (and there have been some plenty scary ones too).
Posted by: pythagoras at July 6, 2007 1:23 PM
duh_swami:
You are on the money here.
As for me, I am having trouble deciding which is going to be deadlier to America: Beltway PC-induced blindness or al-Qaeda itself.
The politicians of the western democracies currently offer the most perfect example of "the blind leading the blind" that I could have ever imagined!
Scary stuff indeed.
Posted by: pythagoras at July 6, 2007 1:30 PM
pythagora...not only are they blind, they dont hear well either. But they are not mute, they talk a lot.
Useless blather and platitudes mostly.
Most of the shapeshifting lizards at the top, look, and sound, like they are on drugs or something.
Will we ever run out of scary?
Posted by: duh_swami at July 6, 2007 3:38 PM
PMK: "His family states that Bilal Abdullah is a "deeply religious Iraqi who was angry that his prominent Sunni family "lost everything" following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"He was hurt by the destruction of his family's property in Iraq," said a relative. "I think he wanted to be a martyr. He wanted to send out a message to withdraw troops from Iraq. He wanted to cause chaos and fear; he didn't want to kill people. He fears God and all he wanted to do was die." (from the Washington Post)"
Whatever his family has said, from the other thread, it's rather obvious that Dr Abdullah was radicalized BEFORE the Iraq war:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2034118.ece
"A friend who attended the Medical College of Baghdad University with Dr Abdulla told The Times that he was a religious fanatic, and that in 2001 or 2002 he mysteriously abandoned his studies for a year.
“There was some talk that he went outside Iraq to develop his religious culture. I heard that he went to Lebanon or Pakistan,” the friend said.
"On his return Dr Abdulla adopted a much more intense demeanour and isolated himself from his former friends. “He became more radical, but not to the degree that he took part in actual actions or clashes. He kept silent and became more isolated. He prayed and he kept himself away from the rest of the group....At medical school he fell in with “a group of radicals and extremists”. “They carried extremist thoughts,” said a friend, who also went to the elite college. “They had beards and talked about religion. He was against people wearing Western clothes and asked female doctors to put on a headscarf and gloves.”"
at July 6, 2007 4:22 PM
I watched a great news report (I think it was the BBC) last week. During an interview with a "terrorism expert" about the recent attempted bombings she stated:-
"We have to remember that terorists come from all backgrounds, races and RELIGIONS."
I nearly fell off my chair. Talk about stick your head in the sand and dodge the issue. Yes TERORISTS can come from all different backgrounds but JIHAD is ISLAMIC terrorism! And they say the BBC is biased, I can't imagine why.
Posted by: DaveMate at July 6, 2007 5:02 PM
It's worrying that our governments choose (and I do mean choose) to ignore the basis of the terrorism spreading throughout the world today. I say choose, as you would have to be illiterate not to understand what is driving this. IT'S JIHAD STUPID.
Posted by: DaveMate at July 6, 2007 5:07 PM
DaveMate...Do others in your country, or area, pick up on those word tricks as well as you do? She was trying to slide that 'terroist/every religion stuff by, and you caught it. I hope other's catch it also...
Posted by: duh_swami at July 6, 2007 6:08 PM
DaveMate...Do others in your country, or area, pick up on those word tricks as well as you do? She was trying to slide that 'terroist/every religion stuff by, and you caught it. I hope other's catch it also...
Posted by: duh_swami at July 6, 2007 6:09 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)