They’re not Genocidal, Islamist Fascists, they’re, uh, Angry Puppies! Yeah, that’s so much less offensive.
This has go to be one of the most ridiculous constructions ever developed by the those brainwashed by political correctness. The Feds have decided that calling Islamist Fascists Islamist Fascists is too broad based, and could potentially offend “moderate” Muslims. It’s this sort of news that makes this post even more apropos.
‘Jihadist’ booted from government lexicon
The Bush administration has launched a new front in the war on terrorism, this time targeting language.
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.
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.
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.”
Gee, and I wonder who those “American Muslims” are who seem more concerned with the truth than they do with the raping of Islam by other Muslims. It’s not Vikings, or Quakers, or Scientologists out there marauding in the name of Islam. It’s actual Muslims who follow the fundamental Whabbist interpretation of Islam. It is a legitimate, if not the richest, most powerful arm in Islam, based in Saudi Arabia. it is also the sect which has build and funs the majority of mosques in the United States. To ignore that fact means we will never address the core of the problem.
What are some of the suggested elements of the vague, non-offensive way to refer to our throat-cutting, head-slicing, child-murdering Islamist enemy?
“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.” […]
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.” […]
“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.
Just one note here–anyone who could remotely see the shooting of a child in the back and the murder of thousands of innocent civilians as ‘noble’ is already a lost, disturbed soul and a mentally ill person and is not affected by whatever words we might use. To think otherwise is the epitome of Narcissism, Groupthink and just plain old idiocy.
This is not some renegade band of Muslims. It is a movement of fundementalist Islamists who, along with Iran, Syria, Lybia, and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have a worldwide network with a goal of establishment a global caliphate. For our own government to deny this is deadly madness as they implement nothing less than a whitewashing of language in order to further ignore who our savage, genocidal enemy really is.
Bottom line, here’s a newsflash for the DoD, The State Dept, Homeland Security and the White House: If a Muslim is moderate, they wouldn’t be concerned with us using accurate terms to describe the enemy, and understand it’s not what we say that’s a danger, it’s what Islamist are doing which is the threat. That is, if they were actually moderates ‘advising’ our government. Moderate would be more concerned with madmen using the name of their prophet to murder innocents; moderates are fervent supporters of the United States and appalled at the increasing violence done in the name of Islam; if they’re moderate, they would be marching for and demanding an end to the obscene violence done by Islamists and encouraged by the Whabbist sect of Islam based in Saudi Arabia. Moderates understand it’s not the lexicon the United States uses in fighting this rabid enemy that’s the problem, it’s a worldwide Islamic movement that is destroying whatever vestiges of actually “moderate” Islam that existed.
At this point, we all have to wonder what in the world the collective Fed is smoking. But after almost seven years, I suppose it is sort of fun for them to eliminate Islamic Fascism and jihadists with the stroke of a pen. Perhaps then they think we won’t notice that bin Laden, Zawahiri, and so many other Islamic Fascist jihadists are out there planning to murder as many people as possible.
In WWII grand dad called hi enemies Japs, Crouts, Nips, etc. And he won the war. He was not nice to his enemies. And they called him ugly name too, but his names stuck. When President Eisenhower had an immigration problem, he called the enemy “wetbacks”. And he defeated his enemy. Now we coddle our enemies and let them insult & denigrate us. And we lose.
To hell with it. I like being called racist by ignorant people & anti-Americans. It proves my point.
If you want to win this war, you better fight.
Tammy – in Jan 1989 when the first Bush said he wanted to remake America as”…a kinder, gentler America…” I knew I may have voted for the wrong man. I voted for that liberal the same # of times I voted for Jimma – once!
HELLDOGGER – – I still call the bad guys I fought and killed for the *real* JFK “GOOKS”. My only regret is that I did not kill many more; maybe then we would not have had the bogus “Peace With Honor”!@#%&@!#!
It’s a good job President Bush is so popular that making a huge braindead mistake on an issue like this doesn’t affect the conservative base.
This rolls out from Bush’s “religion of peace” meme which he has been trying off and on for some time. Here’s a speech from 2005:
“Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.” — George W. Bush
This is exceedingly odd, to put it charitably. My readings in history seem to say that an enemy may be described in unflattering terms, just because he is an enemy. One never needed to ask permission to be insulting and belittling; one did so and dared the enemy to do something about it. Looks like we can’t even use the enemy’s own terms to describe him anymore, never mind something vivid like “camel-humper” or “two-legged throat-slitting cockroach” (apologies to honest cockroaches all over the world). But, there I go again, assuming that our political leaders and their underlings actually have a lick of common sense.
This is what gets to me whenever I read nonsense like this: if there were roving bands of short, fat Italian guys threatening to kill innocent people and blow up buildings, I’d be the FIRST short, fat Italian guy to condemn such behavior. In fact, let’s say a “group” like FAIR (Fat American-Italian Relations) came out against calling these guys beasts, I’d be on the phone with them in a minute telling them to shut the hell up.
I liken this to the so-called “interest groups” that complained about The Sopranos for “painting an unflattering portrait of Italians”. Complaining about shows depicting Italians in the mafia doesn’t magically change the fact that there *ARE* ITALIANS IN THE MAFIA. Pretending something doesn’t exist DOESN’T MAKE IT GO AWAY.
Every time one of these Muslim organizations throws a hissy fit over proper terms befitting the enemy we are trying to defeat – instead of joining in on the effort to condemn thier behavior – it speaks volumes.