There is not much new here that we haven’t covered since we initially broke this story, but this story underscores the flimsy politically correct foundations of this new initiative.
“U.S. officials urged to avoid linking Islam, jihad with terrorism,” by Shaun Waterman for UPI (thanks to all who sent this in):
WASHINGTON, May 6 (UPI) — U.S. officials are being advised in internal government documents to avoid referring publicly to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups as Islamic or Muslim, and not to use terms like jihad or mujahedin, which “unintentionally legitimize” terrorism.
“There’s a growing consensus (in the administration) that we need to move away from that language,” said a former senior administration official who was involved until recently in policy debates on the issue.
Instead, in two documents circulated last month by the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the multiagency center charged with strategic coordination of the U.S. war on terrorism, officials are urged to use terms like violent extremists, totalitarian and death cult to characterize al-Qaida and other terror groups.
“Avoid labeling everything ‘Muslim.’ It reinforces the ‘U.S. vs. Islam’ framework that al-Qaida promotes,” reads “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication,” produced last month by the center.
“You have a large percentage of the world’s population that subscribes to this religion,” noted the former official. “Unintentionally alienating them is not a judicious move.”
Don’t the jihadists who claim to be representing “pure Islam” alienate this large aggregate of peaceful Muslims? If not, why will Americans examining their claim alienate them? And what does their non-alienation by the jihadists, and the apparent fragility of their loyalties, such that they’ll be driven into the arms of the jihadists they abhor by Western mention of the word “jihad,” tell us? Or what should it tell us?
Urging officials not to use the word Islam in conjunction with terrorism, the guide notes that, “Although the al-Qaida network exploits religious sentiments and tries to use religion to justify its actions, we should treat it as an illegitimate political organization, both terrorist and criminal.”
Great. And how exactly will ignoring the fact that it exploits religious sentiments make it stop doing so?
Instead of calling terror groups Muslim or Islamic, the guide suggests using words like totalitarian, terrorist or violent extremist — “widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.”
By employing the language the extremists use about themselves, the guide warns, officials can inadvertently help legitimize them in the eyes of Muslims.
Yes, Muslims the world over regard the State Department as on a par with Al-Azhar.
“Never use the terms ‘jihadist’ or ‘mujahedin’ “¦ to describe the terrorists,” instructs the guide. “A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means ‘striving in the path of God’ and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies Jihadis and their movement a global Jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions.”
The guide also bans the use of the word caliphate — the pan-national Islamic state — to describe al-Qaida’s goal. The term “has positive connotations for Muslims,” says the guide, adding, “The best description of what (al-Qaida) really want to create is a ‘global totalitarian state.'”
“There are some terms which al-Qaida wants us to use because they are helpful to them,” Daniel Sutherland, who runs the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, told United Press International in an interview.
“This is in no way an exercise in political correctness “¦ we are not watering down what we say.”
Oh, of course it isn’t. Oh, no.