|
Refusing to call the enemy by its name; - banning the term "muslim" or "Islam"
|
|
Topic Started: Jul 6 2007, 11:58 PM (173 Views)
|
|
flea dip
|
Jul 6 2007, 11:58 PM
Post #1
|
Rock Star From Mars
- Posts:
- 35,793
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- June 2, 2005
|
Terror-spooked EU: ‘Don’t say Muslims’.
Call It Like It Is- 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Both have done the “perversion of a great faith” dance to enlightened applause, taking cues from the unpublished “EU Lexicon,” which reportedly nixes such “offensive” phrases as “Islamic terrorism.”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.
|
|
|
| |
|
flea dip
|
Aug 21 2007, 06:39 PM
Post #2
|
Rock Star From Mars
- Posts:
- 35,793
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- June 2, 2005
|
On a related note (could also be placed in the Dhimmi thread):
Touchy, Touchy, Touchy: BBC Changes Plot "To Avoid Offending Muslims" - August 20, 2007
The BBC has dropped plans to show a fictional terror attack in an episode of Casualty to avoid offending Muslims.
The first show of the hospital drama's new series was to have featured a storyline about an explosion caused by Islamic extremists.
The stars of Casualty won't be dealing with an explosion caused by Islamic extremists in case it offends Muslims
Now the bomb will be set off by animal rights campaigners instead.
A BBC spokesman said: "With any storyline there are lots of ideas that get put forward but don't make the series." Usually when they do this, the terrorist becomes a neo-Nazi and/or a rich, white, male, Christian from the South. The big switcheroo this time is that the villain becomes an animal rights activist. This is not going over well, and we know this because the grievance mechanism is firmly in place.
Just out of curiousity, I decided to google the phrase, "to avoid offending [insert religion here], and see who the touchiest religion was, and who the least touchy religion was. I would brag that the home team won the latter title, though to do so would cease to make me a member of that hometeam. Ah, paradox.
Results 1 - 10 of about 18,700 for +"to avoid offending Muslims". (0.17 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 200 for +"to avoid offending Christians". (0.11 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 56 for +"to avoid offending Catholics". (0.39 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 52 for +"to avoid offending atheists". (0.36 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 29 for +"to avoid offending Hindus". (0.32 seconds) Results 1 - 1 of 1 for +"to avoid offending Buddhists". (0.53 seconds) Your search - +"to avoid offending Taoists" - did not match any documents.
UPDATE: I know, I know, I somehow left someone off the list. I don't know how, but I did. I guess I got so excited by the Taoist return that I lost my sense of greater purpose. Here ya go, cruisin' in at very distant number #3...
Results 1 - 10 of about 133 for +"to avoid offending Jews". (0.36 seconds)
|
|
|
| |
|
flea dip
|
Dec 5 2009, 06:21 PM
Post #3
|
Rock Star From Mars
- Posts:
- 35,793
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- June 2, 2005
|
Don't Call Extremists 'Extremists'- Dec 5, 2009
By GRAEME WILSON Deputy Political Editor
MINISTERS have been BANNED from using words like Islamist and fundamentalist - in case they offend Muslims.
An eight-page Whitehall guide lists words they should not use when talking about terrorism in public and gives politically correct alternatives.
They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence. Instead, they are urged to talk about terrorism or violent extremism.
Fundamentalist and Jihadi are also banned because they make an "explicit link" between Muslims and terror.
Ministers should say criminals, murderers or thugs instead. Radicalisation must be called brainwashing and talking about moderate or radical Muslims is to be avoided as it "splits the community".
Islamophobia is also out as it is received as "a slur that singles out Muslims".
The guide, produced by the secretive Research, Information and Communications Unit in the Home Office, tell ministers to "avoid implying that specific communities are to blame" for terrorism. It says more than 2,000 people are engaged in terror plots.
The guidance was branded "daft" last night by a special adviser to ex-Communities Secretary Hazel Blears. Paul Richards said: "Unless you can describe what you're up against, you're never going to defeat it. Ministers need to be leading the debate on Islamic extremism and they can't do that if they have one hand tied behind their back."
The Home Office said: "This is about using appropriate language to have counter-terrorism impact. It would be foolish to do anything else."
|
|
|
| |
|
flea dip
|
May 15 2010, 09:34 PM
Post #4
|
Rock Star From Mars
- Posts:
- 35,793
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- June 2, 2005
|
Nicking Our Public Discourse (Page 1) | Page 2- Listening to Attorney General Holder, one is tempted to modify Trotsky: You may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you.
|
|
|
| |
|
flea dip
|
Jul 12 2010, 04:15 PM
Post #5
|
Rock Star From Mars
- Posts:
- 35,793
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- June 2, 2005
|
Terror Experts Blast Obama for Dropping References to Islamic Extremism- The Obama administration's recent move to drop rhetorical references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists.
Several prominent counterterror experts are challenging the administration's shift in its recently unveiled National Security Strategy, saying the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it.
The question of how to frame the conflict against Al Qaeda and other terrorists poses a knotty problem. The U.S. is trying to mend fences with Muslim communities while toughening its strikes against militant groups.
In the report, scheduled to be released this week, counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists "without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way."
President Obama has argued that words matter, and administration officials have said that the use of inflammatory descriptions linking Islam to the terror threat feed the enemy's propaganda and may alienate moderate Muslims in the U.S.
In the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press, the analysts warn that U.S. diplomacy must sharpen the distinction between the Muslim faith and violent Islamist extremism, identify radicalizers within Islamic communities and empower voices that can contest the radical teachings.
Militant Islamic propaganda has reportedly been a factor in a spate of recent terror attacks and foiled attempts within the U.S. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the suspect in the Fort Hood, Texas, mass shootings last year, is believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists, as was Faisal Shahzad, who pleaded guilty to terrorism and weapons charges in the May 1 attempted car bombing in New York's Times Square.
The report acknowledges that the Obama administration has beefed up efforts to work with the Muslim community in the U.S. and abroad and has also expanded counterterrorism operations and tried to erode and divide Al Qaeda and its affiliated groups.
As it unveiled its new National Security Strategy last May, administration officials said the shift in emphasis was critical in undercutting Al Qaeda's efforts to portray its attacks on the U.S. and the west as a justified holy war.
Terror leaders "play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims," said top administration counterterror deputy John Brennan during a May 24 speech explaining the shift. He added that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie -- propagated by al-Qaida and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam."
But the administration's two-pronged approach of stepping up counterterror operations while tamping down its rhetoric, the critics argue, needs to also include an ideological counteratteck with policies and programs that empower moderate Islamic voices and contest extremist narratives.
"There is an ideology that is driving Al Qaeda and its affiliates," said Matt Levitt, one of the authors of the study on countering violent extremism.
The administration, Levitt said, has to separate discussion of Islam as a religion from the radical Islamic ideology that is producing and fueling global insurgencies. The study is due out next week, but the authors, Levitt, a former FBI and Treasury official, and co-author J. Scott Carpenter, were to preview it Monday.
Juan Zarate, a former top counterterror official in former President George W. Bush's administration, added that the U.S. government has always been uncomfortable dealing with ideological battles. Zarate, who also participated in the report, said there are a number of non-governmental groups already speaking out against violent preachings.
The report follows the public disclosure of an exchange earlier this year between Sen. Joe Lieberman and Brennan over the effort to scale back the Bush administration's portrayal of Islamic extremism as a root cause of terrorism.
Lieberman, an independent, raised the issue in a letter to the White House, saying that "the failure to identify our enemy for what it is -- violent Islamist extremism -- is offensive and contradicts thousands of years of accepted military and intelligence doctrine to 'know your enemy."'
In a response to Lieberman, Brennan said the administration hasn't specifically issued any directive barring the use of specific words or phrases. But he said it is important to accurately define the enemy and assess the threat.
"In my view, using 'Islamic extremist' and other variations of that phrase does not bring us closer to this objective," Brennan said in a letter to Lieberman. "Rather, the phrase lumps a diverse set of organizations, with different motivations, goals, capabilities and justifications for their actions, into a single group in a way that may actually be counterproductive."
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|