| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch was the first to break this story, on Tuesday. I put in a FOIA request asking for this document, but haven't heard anything back from State about my request -- AP got it first.
By Matthew Lee for AP:
[...] Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like "Islamo-fascism" is out, too.The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.
Here again, the assumption is that people in the Muslim world will be influenced by what non-Muslim authorities say about Islam. There is no warrant whatsoever for this assumption.
For example, while Americans may understand "jihad" to mean "holy war," it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good, says the guidance prepared for diplomats and other officials tasked with explaining the war on terror to the public. Similarly, "mujahedeen," which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context.
Of course, one is probably no longer allowed to point out that Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of Al-Qaeda, both criticized the idea that jihad was a spiritual struggle as based on a weak hadith, and argued that the primary meaning of jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah was warfare against unbelievers. The problem here, in short, is that many Muslims believe that jihad essentially means holy war, and refusing to talk about it will not make it go away.
U.S. officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims," says a Homeland Security report. It's entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims."
In reality, jihadists routinely claim "moral and religious legitimacy," and that has to be confronted, not ignored.
"Regarding 'jihad,' even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world," the report says.Language is critical in the war on terror, says another document, an internal "official use only" memorandum circulating through Washington entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication."
The memo, originally prepared in March by the Extremist Messaging Branch at the National Counter Terrorism Center, was approved for diplomatic use this week by the State Department, which plans to distribute a version to all U.S. embassies, officials said.
"It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo says in bold italic lettering, listing 14 points about how to better present the war on terrorism.
"Don't take the bait," it says, urging officials not to react when Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida affiliates speak. "We should offer only minimal, if any, response to their messages. When we respond loudly, we raise their prestige in the Muslim world."
"Don't compromise our credibility" by using words and phrases that may ascribe benign motives to terrorists.
Some other specifics:
_ "Never use the terms 'jihadist' or 'mujahedeen' in conversation to describe the terrorists. ... Calling our enemies 'jihadis' and their movement a global 'jihad' unintentionally legitimizes their actions."
_ "Use the terms 'violent extremist' or 'terrorist.' Both are widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy."
_ On the other hand, avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology: "We are communicating with, not confronting, our audiences. Don't insult or confuse them with pejorative terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' which are considered offensive by many Muslims."
The memo says the advice is not binding and does not apply to official policy papers but should be used as a guide for conversations with Muslims and media.
At least at the top level, it appears to have made an impact. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who once frequently referred to "jihad" in her public remarks, does not appear to have used the word, except when talking about the name of a specific terrorist group, since last September.
The memo mirrors advice distributed to British and European Union diplomats last year to better explain the war on terrorism to Muslim communities there.
It also draws heavily on the Homeland Security report that examined the way American Muslims reacted to different phrases used by U.S. officials to describe terrorists and recommended ways to improve the message.
Because of religious connotations, that report, released in January and obtained by AP this week, counseled "caution in using terms such as, 'jihadist,' 'Islamic terrorist,' 'Islamist,' and 'holy warrior' as grandiose descriptions."
"We should not concede the terrorists' claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam," the report said, adding that bin Laden and his adherents fear "irrelevance" more than anything else.
"We must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders the legitimacy they crave, but do not possess, by characterizing them as religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the eyes of some," it said.
"We should not concede the terrorists' claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam." If anyone could make a case that they are not, that would be helpful. But that case has never been made. Instead, it is being dogmatically forced upon State and DHS officials, which will only have the effect of making them hesitant to study the nature of the jihadist appeal within the Islamic world.
Posted by Robert at April 24, 2008 4:03 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
One thing the muslims are always telling us infidels to do is:
Stop talking about Islam and the Muslims.
Muslims do not want me to talk about them. If they could, they would hunt me, Mike Trivisonno, down and kill me for Allah. They would do the same to you. And your children. And your mom and dad. It happens in other countries and we just shrug it off.
If we do not begin deporting Muslims, we will be destroyed by them.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 24, 2008 4:22 PM
In a similar notification, State Department advised MSM to drop words like "Christian Fundamentalists", "fundamentalists", or "creationists" because that may actually boost support for radicals among christian audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.
at April 24, 2008 4:32 PM
From Scary Movie 4 and the Internet Movie Data Base:
Henry Hale: I fear the presence of the outsiders will attract those of whom we do not speak.
Female Elder #2: But if you talk about those of whom we do not speak, have you not spoken of that about which we do not talk.
Henry Hale: Do not speak of that of about which we talk of not speaking... about.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the level to which our fearless leaders have degenerated.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 24, 2008 4:40 PM
Calling our enemies 'jihadis' and their movement a global 'jihad' unintentionally legitimizes their actions.
I unapologetically call them 'jihadis', and I call their movement a global 'jihad', and my use of those words doesn't make their head-sawing, mass-murder, and mayhem legitimate. They're not legitimate, and accurately describing what they are doing and who they are doesn't make their actions legitimate.
How incredibly ironic: the Administration that continues to pour hundreds of millions of dollars to Fatah/PLO in "Palestine" is worried about legitimizing terrorists via nomenclature. And that's not even mentioning Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. It's almost funny. But it's not.
Posted by: special_guest at April 24, 2008 4:44 PM
Oh it’s okay, we too can play the ‘word game’… Let’s not use “freedom” anymore because it is offensive to Allah’s Sharia laws, since what we think of as freedom is merely misunderstanding all the tight and mellifluous commands of Allah, you know, like “kill the Infidels”… And let’s stop pretending we are Americans, or Germans, or French, or Japanese, or anything, because that offends the Islamic world view that ALL is Allah’s land and there should be no nations, but all are under one umbrella of Allah’s laws…. Oh then again, why bother pledging allegiance to any country, or bearing arms to protect the nation and its Constitution, and its people, when the only legitimacy to bearing arms is in the duty of “Jihad”… Ooops, forgot, just made a mistake, can’t use that word either… Okay, now I stay perfectly silent and never utter a word again, unless Allah wills it… Insh’allah. /sarc
How stupid can it get? State must have doodoo for brains.
at April 24, 2008 4:47 PM
We lost out to Islam the moment GWB ran to the mosque after 9/11, took off his shoes and declared Islam a 'RoP'.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 24, 2008 4:55 PM
It's past Orwell, its Alice in Wonderland.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at April 24, 2008 4:56 PM
Stephen Coughlin's thesis can still be downloaded at
http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf
Anyone knowing anybody at State should send them a copy on CD.
The word jihad is used several times.
I personally recommend for starters:
APPENDIX D
THE CALIPHATE EXPLAINS VERSE 5:51 TO THE UMMAH
p.255
at April 24, 2008 5:05 PM
Bit of a contradiction here:
"Regarding 'jihad,' even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world,"
(Of course, they'll never look at what the "religious authorities" are actually saying, and the fact that it has been consistent over the centuries and into the present day.)
And then there's this:
"Don't take the bait," it says, urging officials not to react when Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida affiliates speak. "We should offer only minimal, if any, response to their messages. When we respond loudly, we raise their prestige in the Muslim world."
Uh...
Posted by: MarisolJW at April 24, 2008 5:12 PM
Memo to John McCcain:
When Homeland Security and the State Department are talking like this:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3X6Gha4z-MCq9pU0vC4FWqDCXrwD908CUGO0
It also draws heavily on the Homeland Security report that examined the way American Muslims reacted to different phrases used by U.S. officials to describe terrorists and recommended ways to improve the message.
Because of religious connotations, that report, released in January and obtained by AP this week, counseled "caution in using terms such as, 'jihadist,' 'Islamic terrorist,' 'Islamist,' and 'holy warrior' as grandiose descriptions."
.. and your friends at ISNA are talking like this:
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080421/NATION/438135169/1001
A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.
Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy.
Maybe it's time to stop and realize ...
"Jesus! they really are inside the walls!"
at April 24, 2008 5:15 PM
I will refrain from calling Bush a liar or a bribe taker; however, I will assert that if not crooked, he is the second stupidest president to ever hold the office.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 24, 2008 5:34 PM
Can we do the same? Can we start telling people not the use the term 'U.S. State' in describing the U.S. State Department. The proper term now is to use the term 'Department'.
And here would be our Press Release:
We find it inappropriate and misleading to use the term 'U.S.' as it would imply to non-U.S. people that anything the 'Department' does represents citizens of the United States. The use of the word 'State' also does not fit since it would have implied a state instead of a country.
The removal of both of these words will clear up the misrepresentation to the world and international delegates that the 'Department' does EVERYTHING that the WORLD wants them to and does not do anything for the 'U.S. citizens'.
Future checks paying for every country, terrorist and illegal immigrant will not come from The Department. **Please note that this will not interrupt any promised billions that you will recieve in the future**.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at April 24, 2008 5:39 PM
I know, I know. Du calme. But their idiocy is making it very hard.
Posted by: Hugh at April 24, 2008 5:42 PM
I sent an e-mail to the Secretary of State citing "Freedom of Speech," and that I'll say "Jihad" and "Jihadist" whenever I want! Name the Enemy!
And, that she is "ignorant and uninformed about Islam, of course she's never read the evil Qur'an."
Hope she gets it.
Posted by: darcy at April 24, 2008 5:44 PM
And another thing:
"We must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders the legitimacy they crave, but do not possess, by characterizing them as religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the eyes of some," it said.
We hear time and time again from Muslims about how non-believers simply cannot confer legitimacy or illegitimacy on Muslim figures. And that's not a problem, because what is truly instructive is which figures Muslims themselves uphold as legitimate, illegitimate, strong, weak, or rather rotten but still deserving some kind of loyalty as a fellow believer.
Indeed, the idea that the fiat of the U.S. government legitimizes this or that cleric or some other figure is ultimately quite silly. If anything, one who is seen as too much of a collaborator would have a real credibility problem.
And if they're worried about boosting the stature of bin Laden and others in the eyes of the Muslim world (however odd that is at the same time that they're afraid of offending Muslims) by using the terms like "jihadist," that only points to the fact that yes, Virginia, (and Foggy Bottom, too), there is a problem.
Ultimately, this ruling by the State Dept. continues to allow jihadists and their willing or witless enablers, as well as Muslims who are culturally or filially loyal to Islam, to live in the illusion that one can have it both ways: That is, the notion that it is possible to make this all go away without delving into the ideology, because we're told there is no problem that emanates from Islamic belief.
Western governments are trying to outsource the ideological task, and to quite the wrong crowd (Hesham Islam comes to mind) for the most part.
Posted by: MarisolJW at April 24, 2008 5:50 PM
They're making the same stupid argument Islam's apologists make.
If the Adminstration were trying to aid the enemy, would it do anything different?
Would anyone be surprised if the logical next step is defining as "treason" anyone's use of the word?
You know who's next.
Posted by: Amillennialist at April 24, 2008 5:55 PM
>>Would anyone be surprised if the logical next step is defining as "treason" anyone's use of the word?" (Jihad/Jihadist).
Hi Condi.
Jihad and Jihadist.
Now, come and arrest me on treason, you imbecile.
Posted by: darcy at April 24, 2008 6:02 PM
Why is anyone surprised? Everything done by this government up to this point is in line with this order.
The message is the same: "Icebergs never sink ships...only holes do."
Thus if we wanted to prevent another Titanic we must stop all holes! Everywhere! If you dare scream…”Iceberg ahead!” the response will be….”Icebergs never hurt anyone”, but god help you if you dig a hole in your backyard….”holes are evil, you might fall in!”.
That is the difference between someone fighting against terror and someone fighting against jihad (or perhaps a blogger who exposes terrorist and one who exposes jihadist.)
See…I can use diplomatic language too!
at April 24, 2008 6:10 PM
Why is anyone surprised? Everything done by this government up to this point is in line with this order.
The message is the same: "Icebergs never sink ships...only holes do."
Thus if we wanted to prevent another Titanic we must stop all holes! Everywhere! If you dare scream…”Iceberg ahead!” the response will be….”Icebergs never hurt anyone”, but god help you if you dig a hole in your backyard….”holes are evil, you might fall in!”.
That is the difference between someone fighting against terror and someone fighting against jihad (or perhaps a blogger who exposes terrorist and one who exposes jihadist.)
See…I can use diplomatic language too!
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 24, 2008 6:13 PM
"It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo says in bold italic lettering, listing 14 points about how to better present the war on terrorism.
Calling it the war on terror(ism) is like calling WWII "the war on blitzkrieg". Until our government figures that out, the rest is just semantics.
"Regarding 'blitzkrieg,' even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes nazism, imbues nazis with superior authority they do not have and damages relations with Germans around the world," the report says.
What a bunch of idiots. (My apologies to idiots everywhere).
Posted by: walterc at April 24, 2008 6:39 PM
If the administation defended this America the way they're defending Islam......
at April 24, 2008 6:53 PM
If the administration defended America the way they're defending Islam......
at April 24, 2008 6:54 PM
Apologize for the double post...
We are proceeding from the enemy's premise regarding Islam and since our truly despicable 'leaders' run from truth as if it were the plague, it's left to Individuals to fight for the truth, every inch of the way, until it cracks into the thick skulls of those who presume to be our protectors.
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at April 24, 2008 6:55 PM
This is part of a trend in the USG to "send the right message" to Muslims in order to secure their cooperation in the so-called "War on Terror." I first took note of this in a riposte here to one of DoD analyst Stephen Coughlin's critics, Jeffrey Carr, who praised the termination of his contract after a conflict with Hesham Islam as "sending the right message" to our putative allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. (I'm unable to find this comment in the archives, unfortunately.)
The trope was repeated not long ago by the State Department's Special Envoy to Kosovo Frank G. Wisner, who justified U.S. support for the independence of that Serbian province with the assertion that "To be able to secure a Muslim-majority state inside the European whole is a terrific signal that the Muslim world and the non-Muslim word can live side by side in peace and cooperation, one with the other." See
http://greenspiece.blogspot.com/2008/04/sinister-signal.html
This carries forward a Western imperial tradition of toadying to Muslims for fear that their reaction will compromise policy objectives. On the eve of World War II, Neville Chamberlain declared to his cabinet that if Britain must offend someone in the Middle East, let it be the Jews rather than the Muslims. (I'm away from my library at the moment, but I believe this is cited in Bat Ye'or's "Islam and Dhimmitude.")
We are of course getting "messages" and "signals" by the dozen from the Muslim world, testifying to its malign intent -- not only from its governments, NGOs, editorialists, clerics, etc., but from its scripture and traditions and behavior over nearly 14 centuries, all of which our leaders seem determined to deny. There is a distinct danger that in muting our voices to fight the "War on Terror" overseas, we are rendering ourselves unable to defend ourselves ideologically against Islam at home.
Posted by: Papa Whiskey at April 24, 2008 6:56 PM
As long as semantics are a viewed as a tactic, they can always be changed. The danger here is that supression of terms is being used to enforce ignorance, and that ignorance is what's really behind that supression.
It's very frustrating to watch us spend untold billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of lives for a cause which is so poorly explained, and understood.
at April 24, 2008 7:06 PM
Did Marion Barry share his crack with State and the DHS over there in D.C.? Can we use code words such as "milkshakes" or "cheeseburgers" to describe the enemy we dare not name?
Posted by: MP at April 24, 2008 7:08 PM
Not only are the fools protecting Islam, but now Jihad, as if we should hold sacred what our would be destroyers hold sacred. Defacto Muslims is what they are, regarding Islam, unreal.
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at April 24, 2008 7:12 PM
I was going to dissect each point from the State Dept one at a time but....DAMN! There is so much manure piled up I don't think my shovel is big enough. MY GOD, they really are a clueless bunch of nattering nabobs!
Then I began to think, is it time to leave the good ole USofA and find another place on this planet to live? As I pondered this I realized that indeed, any place I go will, eventually have to deal with Islam so.......
To Condi and all at the State Department I say
NO NO NO NO! I will fight you with every breath in my body! There is NOTHING in this world or the next that will prevent me from expressing my opinions using ANY word I feel appropriate! I DARE you or any entity from the gvmnt to try and silence me. I will not accept censorship.....EVER! This is MY country and I will defend her to the last!
Jihad! Mujahdeen! Jihadist! Islamofascist!
Islamic Terrorist! Holy War!
Nyaaa Nyaaa Nyaaa!!!
"Kuffirs of the world, Unite!"
"Islam, abusing women and children since 622AD"
at April 24, 2008 7:31 PM
Are they now going to be called peaceful Islamist?
Posted by: Clifford at April 24, 2008 7:37 PM
"It's entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims.""
And just which Muslims made those recommendations? More likely CAIR Muslims than, say, Zuhdi Jasser, no doubt.
""It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo says in bold italic lettering..."
Did Frank Luntz get royalties for that?:
http://www.amazon.com/WORDS-THAT-WORK-WHAT-PEOPLE/dp/1401302599
"Because of religious connotations, that report, released in January and obtained by AP this week, counseled "caution in using terms such as, 'jihadist,' 'Islamic terrorist,' 'Islamist,' and 'holy warrior' as grandiose descriptions.""
Will Senator McCain, then, be forced to stop calling them 'radical Islamic extremists'?
at April 24, 2008 7:54 PM
They must have a new plan to fight Islamic terrorists, make them laugh themselves to death.
Posted by: stickman at April 24, 2008 8:06 PM
They must have a new plan to fight Islamic terrorists, make them laugh themselves to death.
Posted by: stickman at April 24, 2008 8:08 PM
Apologies to all for double posting.
Posted by: stickman at April 24, 2008 8:11 PM
'We should not concede the terrorists' claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam,' the report said."
OK, don't concede it, PROVE THAT THEY AREN'T, BASED ON THE QUR'AN.
Are we doomed, or what?
Posted by: Lex at April 24, 2008 8:39 PM
State Dept.is less than a mile from the Pentagon.
They should have felt the blast or seen the smoke from that plane on Sept 11....
It seems they did not....
at April 24, 2008 8:43 PM
Our government is filled with dhimmis.
Relevant observation from Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam:
...[W]e have two types of dhimmi—the subjugated dhimmi who is under the political power of Islam and the apologist dhimmi who seeks Islamic favor....[T]he word dhimmi has two separate meanings—a subjugated dhimmi is persecuted and the apologist dhimmi helps the persecutor. The context determines which dhimmi we are talking about. One dhimmi is to be pitied and helped; the other dhimmi needs to be educated. But the apologist dhimmi is the key to defeating Islam.
I found the above excerpt here and posted about it here at my web site, with a link to this JW posting and the previous, related JW posting on the topic of the new lexicon our government is adopting. As if denying the problems with Islam will make the problems go away!
I am consummately disappointed in the Bush administration. But I'm not surprised at this dhimmitudinal development. After all, a while back, in response to a letter I sent to the President, I myself got a scolding letter from the White House.
Posted by: Always On Watch at April 24, 2008 9:00 PM
I remember in the film "Joan of Arc, the Messenger" the enemy were called the "G*d damns", and that works for me. Sorry State, but if I can't use "Jihadis" or "mujahedeen" or "Islamofascists", then the "G*d damns" will have to do it, though 'they' will not like it.
They are the enemy, so why sweet talk baby talk them?
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at April 24, 2008 9:47 PM
" . . . damages relations with Muslims around the world . . ."
Can you imagine the reaction if someone in the State Department said this in 1943: "We should not use the term Nazi because it damages relations with Germans around the world."
Posted by: Pelayo at April 24, 2008 9:53 PM
""We should not concede the terrorists' claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam,"
But they are legitimate adherents of Islam! This is deliberate and willful ignorance.
How can we ever hope that Islam will reform itself when Muslims are being told that there's nothing wrong, that there's no need to change anything, everything's just fine?
Are these people nuts?
Posted by: rational at April 24, 2008 10:46 PM
The unquestioned and unargued-for assumption that Islamic doctrine cannot possibly be a source of inspiration for terrorists also forms the basis of the UK’s increasingly apologetic tone towards Islam and its rapprochement of Muslim groups with questionable loyalties to the British state. Not only has it consistently courted the Muslim Council of Britain, known to have ideological links with “extremist” groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. It has also actively taken steps to de-couple Islam and terrorism in proscribing the language used by civil servants in relation to Islam.
Since 2006, the Foreign Office, afraid that the term “War on Terror” would incite British Muslims, has strived for language that upholds “shared values as a means to counter terrorists.” But no serious study has been undertaken by the British Government—or by any Western government or UN agency for that matter—to examine the compatibility of the values of secular, liberal democracy and those of Islam, as expressed in the shari’a, the Islamic law, as based upon the teachings of Muhammad.
The shari’a is the key reference point for the constitutions of a number of Muslim states, including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. Whilst not implemented in full in these states, the shari’a nevertheless sacralises discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim women, and is devoid of the basic freedoms of conscience and expression. The full imposition of shari’a is the goal of numerous jihadist groups, such as al-Qaeda. Islamic values as expressed in the shari’a and the values of secular, liberal democratic nations are fundamentally at odds. The rights of women, for example, are clearly defined as inferior to men. Yet the British Government not only wishes to avoid a discussion on the possibility of “shared values”, it wishes to pre-empt the conclusions, erroneously and naively, that such a discussion might produce.
In July 2006 the British Government released its strategy for “Countering International Terrorism.” In this document it states that “[t]he principal terrorist threat is currently from radicalised individuals who are using a distorted and unrepresentative interpretation of the Islamic faith to justify violence” (emphasis added). How is the public to know if this is correct? No evidence is provided and arguments remain lacking. No proper threat assessment—crucial in a war situation—has been conducted.
Fear has gripped the British Government. Last summer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown prohibited his ministers from using the word “Muslim” in connection with terrorism. And in January this year, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith went even further, announcing that the British Government had dropped the terms “War on Terror” and “Islamic extremism” altogether. Civil servants now have to refer to Islamic terrorists merely as “criminals”, without any reference to Islam, in order to “prevent the glorification and incitement of terrorism”.
The British Government’s most categorical and ludicrous statement, however, in the de-coupling of Islam and terrorism came at the first international conference on radicalisation and political violence in London in January this year. At the conference Smith claimed, without any supporting evidence, "there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic".
The theory is that the language used to describe Islamic terrorism is critical for its agitation and thus also for its prevention: if we don’t agitate it with reference to Islam, it might go away. But the problem is fundamentally not one of linguistics and is not going away. Smith herself recently admitted to the News of the World newspaper that the UK faces a threat level that is “severe” and growing. She divulged that British police and security agencies are currently monitoring 30 terrorism plots, 200 networks and at least 2,000 individuals who present a direct and grave threat to the safety of British citizens. And these are just the plots, networks and individuals that the Government knows about.
at April 24, 2008 10:49 PM
Oops, formatting removed, thus ignore "emphasis added" ...
Posted by: dlp at April 24, 2008 10:51 PM
"It's entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims"
.. and WHY are we letting American Muslims define our National Security Policy?
That's like letting German Americans define our War Policy towards Nazi Germany. (Didn't HAPPEN!)
- Oh yea.. I'm "German" American myself so don't call me racist on that remark.
".. or by causing offense to moderates."
Okay.. so we don't publish Mo Cartoon for fear of offending the radicals - but we don't name the problem for fear of offending the moderates?
What the heck?!!?
This is pure insanity!!
I'm beyond angry on this one.
at April 24, 2008 11:34 PM
For one, I buy the administration's argument. There was lecture about half a year ago at Heritage (or AEI, I can't remember) where the speaker suggested that by calling terrorists publicly an Arabic equivalent of "heroes" (martyrs, jihadists) we encourage them. And this must be avoided.
The argument went that in their eyes, calling them jihadists sounds like:
Even Bush said: "Look, what the heroes did. We mush fight against those heroes!"
===============================
Most of people here don't like islam. But by causing internal dissension, we at least encourage the debate within islam and muslims themselves about the legitimacy of certain actions.
at April 25, 2008 12:32 AM
I would like to see Jihadwatch compile a list of murderous quotes from the Koran and Ahadieth, and sent to every Senator and Representative in the Congress, challenging them to explain the proper Islamic interpretation of the quotes.
Further, they should be asked to return the list, along with their explanations.
It would be interesting reading to see what what kind of responses come back.
I would be happy to make a contribution to the effort.
Posted by: rational
at April 25, 2008 1:02 AM
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stuart Mill.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 25, 2008 1:05 AM
The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.
An nice propaganda idea with a major problem: it will influence infidels faster, already at a disadvantage in knowledge of Islam, than Muslims who are already indoctrinated.
at April 25, 2008 1:14 AM
Then there was this little telling catch:
"Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims."
The phrase "American moslm" is an oxymoron.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at April 25, 2008 1:42 AM
Dr. Bowdler's Legacy: a history of expurgated books in England and America, by Noel Perrin. David R. Godine, Boston, 1969. ISBN 0-87923-861-5.
o note also 1992 extended edition - Nonpareil, Boston, 1992. ISBN 0-87923-861-5.
If we don't say the word the thing will magically disappear.
Our country has always been infested by people who want to put skirts over the chair legs, because chair legs are so ... suggestive. At least to them.
We are now fully in the hands of prissy idiots who imagine that you can improve a thing if you call it by a pretty name -- and you can make a thing disappear if you never name it at all.
We are so boned!
Posted by: joeblough at April 25, 2008 1:57 AM
Robert Spencer, you said:
Here again, the assumption is that people in the Muslim world will be influenced by what non-Muslim authorities say about Islam. There is no warrant whatsoever for this assumption.
No warrant whatsoever? No people in the Muslim world will be influenced at all by what non-Muslim authorities say about Islam? It´s a trivial point I´m making (maybe I shouldn´t make it at all), but the two sentences I´ve quoted from you seem overstated. The appearance of overstatement could have been avoided by saying something like "the people" or "the Muslim world," rather than simply "people." "People" can mean any number of people, from a few, to a hundred thousand, to a billion.
at April 25, 2008 2:11 AM
"We should not concede the terrorists' claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam."...
"If anyone could make a case that they are not, that would be helpful. But that case has never been made."
Robert said it . Until they make the case, unless a reporter asks them to show how OBL is a inventor,or has presented his own brand of faith.
And then gets a direct answer.
Otherwise,they are misleading the people they work for, misleading the people they stated they would protect, they are feeding us only what they want us to hear.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at April 25, 2008 2:46 AM
rational
that is a very good idea.
The only difficulty would be working out which Texts of Terror to select for the 'please explain' - there are so many of them!
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at April 25, 2008 3:47 AM
It is the case of the emperor's clothes.
So, jihad and jihadists will talked about more.
Better to have freedom of speech. At least because, speech somehow gets round hush-hush, and in that case truth even gets modifications...
Posted by: proud-hindu at April 25, 2008 4:24 AM
Obviously these idiots haven't read the Harry Potter series.
Or perhaps they have, and believe in the doctrine of calling the enemy, "He Who Must Not Be Named". The words in the name Voldemort translate from French as Flight of Death. 911. Eerie, isn't it?
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at April 25, 2008 7:48 AM
Speaking of dhimmi apologists like Jacqui Smith, here is the text of an automated reply I just got from the British Home Office.
This is an automated email from the www.homeoffice.gov.uk site's Contact Us section.General Contact Us Form
Feedback: Not long ago Ms. Smith uttered this gem, "...there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic".
This statement is patently absurd. Only those who want to be deceived, like Ms. Smith, will believe it. Has the woman EVER read the Qur'an and Hadiths?
"Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror." Bukhari 4:52:220
Was Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Islamic? He said this in 1981: "Quran says; kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to those parts that talk about mercy? Mercy is against God. We need a Khalifa who would chop hands, cut throat, stone people in the same way that the messenger of God used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people."
In short, Smith's argument is that of a dhimmi apologist who is so fearful of causing "offense" to supposedly "moderate" Muslims that she is quite prepared to deny reality.
at April 25, 2008 8:13 AM
Islam is the perfect vehicle for a New World Order period. As former First Lady Reagan said, "Just say, 'No!'"
Odysseus=Bin Laden.
Wooden horse="Religion of peace"
You know, the Trojan war was also called, "the long war."
Geez, maybe DOS is right...sooo many misunderstanders of Islam???
Will the real "understanders" please stand up...?
at April 25, 2008 9:51 AM
Aren't they just little 'white lies' offered by State?
Insincerity is a hallmark of Islamic behavior towards what they call non-believers, those of us who do not believe their Islam. Now this insincerity has crept into our government where hiding the truth from us, or lying in effect, is raised up to level of policy. So why believe them, if they're just lies? Islam has made a complete round trip of lying to the non-believers who do not believe their lies, which makes us non-believers.
The hallmark of freedom of speech is that we tell the truth. The hallmark of Islam is now policy at State, even if only little 'white lies', so Islam has penetrated deeper than we feared. Once we stop telling the truth, Islam wins. Thanks DOS, Condi, for handing over our freedoms to Islam.
We are now true 'non-believers', because they lie, and we know the truth.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at April 25, 2008 9:58 AM
This PC attitude from the State Dept idiots would nver work, no matter how much you appease Islam. It has not worked in my country (India) and it won't work for your country. The Islamic morons are so insecure about the exposure of their murderous cult that they want to snuff out any spotlight that exposes them.
Posted by: IndianTiger at April 25, 2008 1:28 PM
dumbledoresarmy,
Any quotes from the Koran and Ahadieth will do, especially those that teach contempt and violence for non-Muslims, Like the pigs and Apes statement.
Let Congressmen give us their interpretation of the quotes. It's about time these people are confronted with the reality of Islamic teachings, instead of relying on ideologues and apologists for their information about the "true Islam".
I would even include a follow-up letter to non-respondents, asking for their reasons for not responding.
As I said, I'll be glad to make a donation to the effort.
Posted by: rational at April 25, 2008 3:55 PM
Not being an arabist of any sort, nor claiming any specialist knowledge of Islam, the Koran, nor even much of the Arabic language itself, I will say that, unlike Usama Bin Ladin, I believe Prof. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" to be more in the nature of a warning than a roadmap.
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/04/re-jihadist-booted-from-government.html
at April 27, 2008 1:48 AM
(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.)