I’m with you, Wordsmith. A rose by any other name….

The “don’t use these descriptions” memo was issued for State Dept officials. They have no right to apply (nor intend to impose) that on the populus.

Besides, I suspect Luva, or most that haunt FA, are not the types that adhere to “speech police”. We all know, and exercise, our 1st amendment rights daily. And we are all willing to take what criticsm and BS that flies our way as a result. All just as it should be.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

luva the scissors wrote:

i thought we weren’t supposed to say jihad anymore because it gives them credibility.

Mike responded:

luva: Calling them jihadis is a habit of mine and I’m not likely to change any time soon. To me, it doesn’t mean the worthy “struggle” that some feel it does.

You guys can call them whatever the hell you want- so long as we know who it is we are referring to. It’s squabbling over minutia, although I still think that not referring to Zawahiri and his merry band by what they want to be called, is strategic to “going that extra mile” to counter Islamist propaganda against us.

Look at it this way: What if the “Islamic Holy Warriors” wanted to be called some name in Arabic that didn’t mean “holy warrior” like mujahadeen, or “jihadist”, but instead wanted to be called a term that translated as “freedom fighter”? Can you not see the value in not calling them “freedom fighter” in their own language, but calling them “terrorists” in their own language (hirabahists)?

Again, it’s not about being “politically correct” and “not offending” and fear of “naming the enemy”. It’s about marginalizing the legitimacy of al Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups, for the sake of winning the Long War.

steve wrote:

That’s the problem – they ARE living by the Koran.

So, too, are the ones who don’t engage in terrorist activity and Islamist intolerance for those outside of their religion. Of course, I know the ones of you out there who don’t share my view will point out that it’s the Islamists who are living by the Koran, with the peaceful Muslims and secularized Muslims, who are not being “good Muslims”, but behaving more like apostates.

The problem, as I see it, is that even though there are no priests in Islam, there are Islamic scholars and clerics who preach political Islam and a worldview that is in fact dangerous to outsiders of the religion. They are far too influential, when there isn’t supposed to be an intermediary between a Muslim and Allah.

And groups like al Qaeda draw inspiration, motivation, and ideological validation from modern reformists, like Sayyid Qutb and Dr. Fadl (reference my recent post. They are writing works that are influential to the “jihadi” mentality, justifying violence, even against fellow Muslims (“involuntary martyrs“), as much as from anything they can cherrypick from the Koran to justify their aberrant behavior toward human civilization.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You all may want to add the two most recent instances of appeasement, currently slipping under the western press’ radar. (I blogged on this with various links here.)

Baitullah Mehsud’s deal was cut last month. This month they’ve moved on to Maulana Fazlullah in NWFP. Pakistan’s PPP-led govt is using policies that a President Obama intends to mimick.

However Afghanistan is livid at Pakistan’s deals.

“Anyone thinking that they are able to reach peace in the region through what we call an appeasement policy — we consider it is a wrong and dangerous policy,” Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta told reporters.

A peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban in 2006 reportedly led to a spike in violence across the border.

Describing the 2006 deal as bad for Afghanistan, Spanta said the government was “extremely and infinitely concerned” about Islamabad’s moves, which officials in Pakistan say have seen troops redeployed in the tribal zone.

He cited media reports as saying the Taliban wanted peace in Pakistan so they would be able to continue jihad in Afghanistan.

“As the victim of terrorism, we have the right to say we’re concerned,” the minister said, adding Kabul had spoken of its fears with Islamabad and Washington.—AFP

Note the use of the word “appeasement” here by the Foreign Minister.

What Pakistan will accomplish is nothing more than a NIMBY policy. They will temporarily quiet the militants bombs in their own back yard, who will dash across the border. The Afghan/NATO/US forces will step up to the plate, and drive them back into the Pakistanis’ laps. The Pak govt will accomplish nothing but perpetuate a militant ping pong game. The nurturing and support of jihad will continue unabated, their prisoners will be released, and the terrorist demands for enforcing Islamic law in their areas will be granted… all in exchange for no-bombs-in-Pakistan-please.

So add to Skye and others examples of appeasement failures – Pakistan. Their progress and measure of “success” will be worthy of watching.

And it should be noted that while Pakistan’s (and a President Obama’s) appeasement policy will not yield success, it most certainly will rankle and alienate our allies. What better way to “improve our standing” in the int’l world? … uh huh.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Haha.. Scott, you got your post out while I was typing.. Good call

Like or Dislike: 0  0

A week from today, it will be 555 years since the muslims desecrated and turned the central church of my ancestors into a mosque.

Hagia Sophia

I’d say they have a track record…

There’s also a decent write up on FOURTEEN CENTURIES OF JIHAD from the churches perspective

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“i just don’t get them, the muslims, they are supposed to be living by the koran, yet the murder almost for sport.”

That’s the problem – they ARE living by the Koran.

Apologists point to the Bible and claim there are similar statements contained therein, and they are generally correct. The difference is that Christians (as a religion) stopped stoning adulterers hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Those who would bomb aborition clinics are condemned, imprisoned, and in some cases executed. Muslims who blow up markets and schools are venerated and revered.

Radical Islam is based on the actual words of Mohammed and the way in which he lived his life. That is precisely the problem.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Two words:
Hagia Sophia

Like or Dislike: 0  0

i just don’t get them, the muslims, they are supposed to be living by the koran, yet the murder almost for sport. and my asking if we weren’t wupposed to call them something else (which i cannot remember) is my way of not being poliyically correct. i refuse to say african american, they are black. i call them muslim, jihadists, whatever, hell murdering asshole works well also. you are far more polite than i am, y9ou are a good guy mike. me not so much, i am far to opinionated for my own good.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

luva: Calling them jihadis is a habit of mine and I’m not likely to change any time soon. To me, it doesn’t mean the worthy “struggle” that some feel it does.

And you wonder what the libs think of Muslims wanting to desecrate churches? I’d say some of them would stand up and cheer. After all, they have their own left wing freaks that do the same thing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

i thought we weren’t supposed to say jihad anymore because it gives them credibility. any who, it looks like “they” are trying to take over. we allow them their religious freedom, yet they are trying to ruin ours. i wonder what the libs think about this? are they saying they can do this because the muslims are oppressed and should be heard? makes me crazy. i say beware the false prophet, obama.

Like or Dislike: 0  0