From US News and World Report:
Infighting is plaguing revision of the administration’s three-year-old National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. An implementation plan now under debate calls for heavy emphasis on waging an ideological war against radical Islam, promoting democracy, and stopping weapons of mass destruction. But the plan is bogged down, mired in interagency squabbling over turf and tasking, sources say. “There are just too many chefs,” says one observer. At least the participants have agreed on one key change: Worried that they will offend Muslims, they’ve replaced the word “jihadist” with “extremist.”
Note: if you are going to fight an ideological power, what you should avoid, as a precursor, is a fear of giving offense to those who wish to kill you.
The change is minor—and who knows, perhaps it even better represents the message the administration wants to get out—but it nevertheless concerns me insofar as it suggests that political correctness (masquerading as cultural sensitivity) will dilute the power of the ideological war we wish to wage by surrendering important rhetorical ground right at the outset. And being afraid to name the enemy (beyond the abstract “extremist”) is a bad sign.
Fear of giving offense can be a perfectly reasonable consideration; but fear of giving offense when it is clear none is intended (Bush has always been careful to draw a clear distinction between Islamic jihadis and the average Muslim) is just another mode of surrender.
And to borrow a phrase, frankly, it smacks of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
(h/t Craig Caughman; via Dhimmi Watch)
“President Roosevelt, sir, we’ve been talking it over with State and the War Department and we think it would be less provocative and more productive to call the Nazis “Teutonic collectivists…”
Of course, when one reads a story like this(or any one actually) in the MSM, one has to think, hummmmm I wonder if thats true?
Am I correct in thinking that the word ‘jihad’ can have non-terrorist connotations? It has the general sense of holy war, but also for metaphorical wars? I thought I read that somewhere. So then this would be more accurate
actard, what part of “worried that they will offend Muslims, they’ve replaced the word ‘jihadist’ with ‘extremist’” don’t you understand?
Would it be the plain English?
None so blind as those who will not see.
Could you imagine, if our rights to talk about AIDS back when it first started surfacing were taken away?
That everytime someone said anything about it’s dangers, how it was transmitted and how to prevent it, someone stood up and denied every word that person said. Then the government and all of the other institutions stopped allowing the information to be distributed.
One of the biggest reasons we have freedom of speech and want it for the world, is to protect people from danger, no matter where that danger lies.
We are not born with the instinct to hate. But we are born with the instinct to survive. We have not only the inate ability to pick up on danger, but to do what we need to do to fight it.
If our ability to fight against something that has threatened our very lives is taken away, we are finished as a human race.
What we’re really avoiding is offending Muslims by engerdering Islamophobia.
Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as Islamophobia.
They also agreed to not put a really nasty cartoon of Mohamed at the bottom of each page.
Heh.
He ran as a compassionate conservative. What should we expect here?
It’s an ideological war being fought by people with no ideology.
That could be said about both sides Ardsgaine. People who assume piosness is driving Usama have not convinced me either.
I think the change away from “jihadist” is an extremely good one. I just don’t know why they don’t use “terrorist” instead of “extremist”. What are we, Reuters now?
I only hope that the bit that says “Worried that they will offend Muslims” is a lousy description by the reporter, instead of an accurate description by the sources.
Can’t someone just photoshop a crescent into this poster so they stop pussyfooting around?
Thank you, 6Gun. Not that I think anyone is paying attention to me, but if you have, you know that I can be a bit….prickly. Nasty. Sometimes I don’t shy away from ad hominem attacks. This is not one of those. This is a factual observation.
Actus, you’re just stupid. STOOOOPID. Never mind the moslem apologist talking point about what “jihad” means. The point, as 6Gun noted, is that if we’re afraid of calling our enemies what they are, we’re well on the way to losing this war. And it IS a war. Try to work on your reading comprehension, seriously.
God, you’re an idiot.
In other languages, the word “jihadist” might have many meanings. But not a single one of these alternate meanings has been successfully demonstrated to any non-muslim American. Therefore, there is now only one meaning for that word in American English – the original report had it right.
That’s what’s claimed. In the real world, other usages are as common as hen’s teeth.
As an example, there was a program called “dialog” in Yemen, in which jihadists were to be talked out of committing violence by being convinced it was against the Koran. It got a bit of press, then disappeared from Western radar. Which was a good thing for taqqiya, since one of the “graduates” was caught carrying a gun in Afghanistan. More recently, a couple dozen prisoners escaped through a tunnel dug into the prison from the mosque run by the guy in charge of the “dialog” program.
Yes, that’s right—the guy in charge of talking jihadists out of violence, in convincing them that jihad also means inner struggle, somehow failed to notice a quarter-mile long tunnel being dug from his mosque. Call me a cynic, but that makes me doubt the sincerity of the whole “dialog” concept.
Oh, and it’s not our responsibility to make Islam look peaceful. It’s the responsibility of its practitioners.
They’re failing, and no amount of word games will make the difference. It’s going to take action.
(And, no, actus, Islam doesn’t mean “peace”. It means “submission”, in the “abase yourself before me, slave” sense of the word.)
Yes, our enemies are openly calling for extreme against the West. Which makes sense when you consider how the word has been used by self-titled moderates to slur their opposition. I mean, calling for the end of Western Civilization (which need not be violent, per se) is one thing; calling for Holy Jihad (whereby all infidels will be killed) is extreme.
I think their change of language is another master stroke by the Administration to chisel away at the only thing the Left has going for it: the bastardization of our language to suit its ends. Or am I giving them too much credit?
(I wish I had a Goldstein Filter to make that sound better.)
Jihad in the sense of “struggle to be a better person or a better Muslim” is one thing—but we have a better term for people striving to be better Muslims. We call them Muslims.
The term “jihadist” would seem to connote something else entirely.
Kind of like the word crusader.
You know, no matter what silliness he’s dropped before, actus dropped a perfectly reasonably comment, and he gets eviscerated. Especially by a drooling douchebag like 6Gun.
Definition of jihad:
And there indeed have been “jihads” against terrorism.
Someone explain to me again when the Protein Wisdom comments section devolved into the Little Green Footballs and Darth Mischa comments sections with a thesaurus.
Now to Jeff, whose post is phrased reasonably but inaccurate – political leadership’s avoidance of the use of jihad is indeed a common sense political/strategic concession, as employing it to generally represent terrorism is an extrapolation to others that might be willing to FIGHT the terrorists. Why? Because Jihad is a general term that can mean any number of things, including the fight against terrorists. This doesn’t mean that you can’t use it as shorthand for extremists engaged against the US, but it’s not a relevant or specific political/analytical term, especially when it can mean the opposite of what you assume it means in the course of “waging an ideological war against radical Islam.”
So, you can stand down, stalwart defender against the politically correct devaluation of language. I think we’re ok on this one.
It was part of a deal, don’t you see?
The Muslims have agreed to stop referring to people like me as “sons of pigs and monkeys.” In the future, it will be only “Jewish scum.”
http://willtoexist.com/2006/03/evil-lives-and-good-men-die
In times of peace, I would agree with you Bill. But if you look at how we have used language in wars in the past, you will see that our ability to use harsh language against those we were fighting has worked well for us. We don’t call the Japanese ‘Nips’ anymore, nor the Germans ‘Krauts’, but we did. We did, and it is an absolute truth that not all Japanese or German people were our enemy. That we would be willing to pull from the same bag of tricks that has worked for us in the past should not be that surprising to you.
However, take faith in the fact that the current administration sees things like you do. Also, please don’t think that I don’t see the danger in what I am advocating. I too know that the Germans made great use of this tact against the Jews, and pretty much everyone else they wanted to kill off. I just don’t happen to think that our society is in any way like Germany under the Nazis. I think the fact that we have not rounded up all Muslims, nor attack them on the street, speaks well of us, generally. Perhaps you see us moving in that direction?
“When we are done, the Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell.”
I understand Eleanor sent Halsey a really strong memo decrying his lack of sensitivity…
I reccomend the use of the term “insane jihadi dickweeds” as often as possible.
An angry enemy is a stupid enemy.
If you really want to piss off the Islamic extremists who would force your subjugation, call them Jews.
Clearly “jihad” has no meaning other than terrorist.
Bob Huggins must have really hated America. Good thing they canned him.
Also, calling it jihadist focuses the war on terror simply on islamic terrorism. I don’t think that’s the administration policy.
First off, as a Harry Potter fan, I have to say that I prefer the term “deatheater” myself. After all, “devil worshipper” is a bit harsh.
I think that it’s important to note that one of the Islamic Deatheaters’ most important strategic goals is to convince all billion muslims that jihad = terrorism. I don’t see any reason to surrender on that point without putting up a fight.
Damn!
I think the Poor Man has your number, you Ted Nugent wannabe.
I am now confused that it is apparently not politically correct to call someone something that they are already calling themselves. They, the extremists, are calling this a jihad. Referring to them as jihadists must be politically correct.
As to the ‘other’ meanings, well, I just don’t care. There is nothing about the term NAZI (the national socialist party) that inherrently implies the murder of Jews. And I am sure that there are plenty of people that believe in a national socialist government that don’t think genocide should be a part of it. However, those people are SOL because a bunch of people did slaughter a bunch of jews in the NAZI name. Now it has a stigma attached. Can anyone say that stigma is not deserved?
Sorry islam, but you are letting these extreme jihadists speak for you by not offering unified condemnation of what these jihadists are doing in your name. Jihad now means ‘one who causes destruction and murders innocent men, women and babies with glee, for any reasons real or imagined you can concoct.’ Just as NAZI has far more evil connotations than ‘National Socialist Party’.
If that is offensive to any non-murdering jihadists out there, too bad. It is your brethren that give offense to the name of islam, not the cartoonist or journalist that points it out.
A quick search of the “three-year-old National Strategy for Combating Terrorism” shows that it does NOT contain the word “jihadist.” (PDF copies from the White House and Federation of American Scientists.]
So, the implementation plan currently under review will apparently stick with “extremist” as it was used in the 2003 strategy document.
TW: Daily examples of the entrenched media’s penchant for generating controversy abound; this is just another one.
First off, as a Harry Potter fan, I have to say that I prefer the term “deatheater” myself. After all, “devil worshipper” is a bit harsh.
I think it’s very important to understand that one of the Islamic Deatheaters’ most important strategic goals is to convince all billion muslims that jihad = terrorism. I don’t see any reason to surrender on that point without putting up a fight.
I too support the “extremist” language, which includes combatting, by persuasion, financial controls and other means, those extremists who are not themselves directly involved in violence but create support for it. There are good arguments for using the term “extremist” in addition to recognizing that the vast majority of muslims are not violent jihadists, it emphasizes isolation of them and leaves jihad free to include ridding the society of violent extermists. I don’t see a good argument for “jihadist”, only the belligerence of taking offense at real and imagined soft-headedness.
Hmmm.
@ Jeff
Definitely off-topic but interesting.
I’d suggest taking a hard look at that goofy Zogby poll that purports to show US soldiers wanting an immediate pull-out. It looks dodgy as hell. Seriously. What soldier or Marine wants an *end* to the use of White Phosphorus and Napalm? Particularly since every infantryman carries a couple WP grenades to make smoke.
There’s a lot of discussion going on in the mil-blogs but the gist is that this is really a “Rotten in Denmark” kind of stink.
I have no doubt that Osama is motivated by a sincere belief in God. So was Torquemada and thousands of other murderous holy men.
My point about Bush was that, in the final analysis, his Christian compassion undermines any stand he tries to take, whether it’s for social security privatization, or fighting against religious fanatics.
He, like some other very religious folks, cannot accept that this war is a war against a religion. He cannot believe that religion can be a force for evil. That is why he keeps maintaining that Islam is a religion of peace. To him it is obvious that those who are really motivated by religious sentiment cannot be murderers. If someone slaughters people in the name of God, it must be because he is a psychopath who has twisted the true meaning of religion.
But the predominant history of religion in the world is one of murder in the name of God. Faith is the culprit. When men choose to act on faith, rather than reason, they abandon their only means for resolving disputes in a peaceful manner. As Goya put it, “the sleep of reason produces monsters.” Men fall into superstition, peopling the world with monsters, viewing other people as monsters, and in taking up arms against them, becoming monsters themselves.
For at least the past two hundred years, Christianity in the west has asked faith to take a backseat to reason. Religious strife has been almost entirely eliminated by our decision to let each individual follow his own reason in forming his beliefs. We have compartmentalized faith, put up fences around it to hem it in, and reduce its effect on our relationships with each other. For that reason, we have come to think of faith as something benign. It isn’t.
What we see in Islamic world is the effect of giving faith full reign. These are men who have explicitly rejected reason. They are more “pious”, that is, more consistently religious than any Christian in the West. It is their religiosity that we are fighting against. It is not the perversion of a noble religion, it is not a uniquely perverse religion, it is religion itself that is the enemy.
[Bush] cannot believe that religion can be a force for evil. That is why he keeps maintaining that Islam is a religion of peace.
Why you say that, Ardsgaine? I’ve always thought Dubya was doing what he could to avoid our having to fight a billion Muslims rather than a few million.
When men choose to act on faith, rather than reason, they abandon their only means for resolving disputes in a peaceful manner.
The American Revolution was in large part inspired by faith providing the passion behind Enlightment thought. The French Revolution, IIRC, gutted Notre Dame cathedral and renamed it “The Temple of Reason.”
Perhaps, but it is also possible that through the use of reason, religous men in the west have realized that they are not allowed to put themselves above G-d’s law and still count themselves as faithful. Ironic then, if this is true, that reason and logic could be used to strengthen faith.
The point, Bill, is that there’s mincing and then there’s intent. When actus qualifies to write the air-drop pamphlets, then I’ll change my opinion.
I trust that’s fair enough for you?
So … now you’re ascribing intent to actus’s words instead of actually valuing them for their VERY SPECIFIC meaning?
Which is essentially indistinguishable from what Oliver Willis does when he calls a right-wing pundit racist for describing a black politician as “eloquent,” and is exactly the type of subjective distortion of meaning that Goldstein has been arguing against like a man on a mission.
Choking … on … the … situational … irony.
Well, sure, but how does one determine what is God’s Law? The Bible has been used to justify murder, and it has been used to condemn murder. How does one determine which interpretation is right and under what circumstances?
The men of the Enlightenment employed reason to discover what God really wanted. Here is Jefferson on that subject:
In tossing out the Old Testament (the holdover of a “depraved religion”), and retaining perhaps 10% of the New Testament, was Jefferson using reason to submit himself to God’s Law? Or was he saying that God’s Law cannot be anything but rational, and anything that looks irrational cannot be God’s Law, in effect submitting God’s Law to his reason?
It’ll be about secular society for all. The mississippi legislature better look out.
I know I am showing up late for the fight, but I think we should replace “Jihadists” with “Those middle eastern guys, or followers of that guy Mohammed, that really don’t like us too much”……..That is all…..
Lighten up and wise up, Bill.
Intent is ours re: an essential effort against terrorism; mincing is what we’ll inevitably do to ruin the effect of that intent.
Perhaps we should issue all the war rhetoric in Arabic too, just to be damn sure. I’m sure the NYT would be all over that … as would say, actus. Seriously; if that’s where you’re going with this—if it’s that strategic, that important—get the Pentagon some qualified multilingual writers and go for it. I believe that’s what’s being discussed here; what’s reasonable policy wrt rhetoric.
(And if you don’t think that from actus’ tone and style around here that his intent is to obstruct meaning, then you and I disagree.)
Go smooth your righteous little feathers. I suppose it feels good, but you’re hysterical and it’s messing up the effect.
Good questions. I have always found it interesting that man could justify the use of murder when the only law ever actually written BY G-d, says quite clearly that murder is not allowed. Of course, then you still have the problem of defining what murder is. Is capital punishment murder? Is it murder to kill in a war?
I really like Jefferson on the subject of religion. He seemed to see quite clearly how man would bastardize G-d for his own purpose. That they would willingly give up their own search for the divine in favor of what some other man told him it was. He clearly struggled with his faith, but he was wise enough to ensure that the struggle was his alone, as it must be.
Then again, he seemed disinclined to believe in the miraculous, an area I disagree with him on.
Beautiful questions. Are there corollaries: If “God” is infinite, is principle infinite? If God is infinite and principle is infinite, then is God is a metaphor for principle, or vice versa, or both?
If man is finite, then are all aspects of God that man understands also finite? Is God therefore a construct of man, and is religion just language for God?
If religion is man’s language, is any form of religious authority—biblical or otherwise—absolute in the sense that it can somehow embody absolute legal authority, literal meaning, or principle?
Agreed. Christianity has roughly as much scope of behavior and belief as any other form of human endeavour. It is not absolute; it’s essential principles are, as they would be in any faith with the same ability to reveal and explore them.
Jefferson’s “nature’s God” seems far more realistic than the Christian God corrupted by much of Christianity. It seems they share only intent, not end result. “Nature’s God” may be a language-limited way to try and express perfect principle?
Correction: I meant to say Agreed. But Christianity has roughly…
I personally prefer LGF’s “‘Splopdeydope” as the descriptive term.
Although the commandment is usually translated as “thou shalt not kill,” I think scholarship on the subject says that it is better translated as ‘murder’. That would mean killing in war is not covered, nor is a legal execution. For my purposes, I consider legal executions murder if they are for bogus crimes, such as heresy, being a member of the oppressor class, being a member of an inferior race, conspiring with the Great Satan to subvert the One True Religion, etc.
That’s another area where reason imposes a limitation. If God intervenes in the world to contradict the laws of nature, then man is unable to say when a seeming contradiction is a miraculous occurrence and when it is an indication that other natural causes must be sought. Ascribing to a seeming contradiction the status of a miracle halts further inquiry, both epistemologically and morally. Epistemologically, once one has said that God is the cause, no further inquiry is needed; morally, to question a miracle is to evince a lack of faith in God’s power.
Defense Guy (earrlier):
“We don’t call the Japanese ‘Nips’ anymore, nor the Germans ‘Krauts’, but we did. We did, and it is an absolute truth that not all Japanese or German people were our enemy.”
Good point, but we were engaged in total war with Germany and Japan. Salt Lick makes the crucial point that we’re trying to fight as small a segment of Islam as we can get away with. Some may think that’s a failure of nerve on our part. I’d say we’ll take on the whole Islamic world, WWII-style, if we have to, but I pray it won’t come to that as it’ll be horrible for all concerned.
Which is why I agree with Bill and (whoa!) actus. Believing Muslims who wish us dead and help bring that about are The Enemy. Believing Muslims who don’t want us dead are not the enemy. No sense giving the latter the idea that we consider them inherently our enemies.
If imprecise use of their terms risks that, then cutting out that use is not fear of giving offense, it’s pragmatism.
I’m curious who’s responsible for this—the reader or the writer. I’d agree with you and Bill, but who’s responsible for comprehending the precise meaning?
This is why I made the snarky leaflets comment: why is it the victim’s role to frame terms in ways that please bystanders?
it suggests that political correctness (masquerading as cultural sensitivity) will dilute the power of the ideological war we wish to wage by surrendering important rhetorical ground right at the outset.
As I understand it, you think we need to be attempting to convince the average Muslim that “jihadists” are bad. “Jihad”, as many here have pointed out, basically means “struggle”, and is often used in the context of, say, struggling to quit smoking, or struggling to end injustice.
Trying to convince Muslims that “jihadists” are bad is about as smart an idea as trying to convince the average American that “patriots” are bad. Like, if Al-Qaeda were working up a propaganda campaign targeted at influencing average Americans, would you suggest they call it “the struggle against patriots”? That wouldn’t, to borrow a phrase, win many hearts and minds.
Yep.
Along with the appeasing language.
It shouldn’t be. It should be up to the moderates to distance themselves from the “immoderates”.
Hey! Now, there’s a term the administration can get behind. Don’t call them extremists even, cause that’s still kind of harsh, just call them ‘immoderate’. It’s the War on Immoderatism.
But I jest.
If we were fighting the war the way we ought to be fighting the war, the moderates would be falling all over themselves to put distance between them and the jihadists. This was happening right after 9/11, when it was thought that we might be ready to wreak serious havoc in that area of the world. The longer we pursue our moderate course, though, the more the moderate Muslims will feel safe blending in with the jihadist crowd–the more they will feel unsafe not blending in with the jihadist crowd.
When men choose to act on faith, rather than reason, they abandon their only means for resolving disputes in a peaceful manner. As Goya put it, “the sleep of reason produces monsters.â€Â
That is the weirdest misreading of Goya I’ve ever seen. Goya was saying that it was reason which produced monsters – the “sleep” of reason is related to reason like the subconscious to the conscious minds, to use an anachronistic Freudian analogy. The reference was to the madness produced by such self-proclaimed “rational” movements as the French revolution.
He wasn’t saying that when reason goes to sleep, monsters come around and run amok. He was saying that reason itself has a dark side, a “sleep” full of monsters. This is the conventionally accepted interpretation of that drawing.
Yes, but unless G-d writes in big bold letters for all to see “I did this”, how could one make claim that it is miraculous? Wouldn’t it then be the arrogance of man in thinking that he could spot the difference between a miracle and a natural phenomenon? The lack of any other explenation is not in and of itself proof of a miracle.
I know, at the end of the day there must be some truths that we allow ourselves, and we must be willing to risk being wrong in our search for truth.
Considering what we are up against here. Isn’t it in our best interests to expect those who do not consider themselves our enemy, to prove it?
There are numerous speeches which have been given by Muslim leaders worldwide in Arabic which have been translated and reveal these same leaders to be saying quite different things to their Western audiences than their Muslim ones when giving speeches in Arabic.
There is nothing irrational in fearing a group of people who are guilty of the history that Islamic conquest comprises. Nor a group whose frequent violent actions (committed by fanatical Muslims to be certain, but condoned by the silence of billions) against our nations and numerous other threats can leave any sane Westerner feeling at least somewhat wary. Constant cries of “Death to America” (or more recently “Death to _____________: fill in your home country here”) as well as murders, fatwas, and what is to me the ultimate proof that Islam is not moving Westward for anything less than domination, the chanting of the “shahada”, are all clues to easily be picked up by the rational among us. And we must remember that the Shahada, or Muslim profession of faith, really sums up both the religion and the intent. “There is no god but allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.” Not much wiggle room in that statement for non-Muslims, is there now?
JPS
I understand what you, and Bill are saying. In part I agree with you, as we risk making more enemies if we cast our net too wide. However, guilt by association, no matter how cruel it may seem, does sometimes work to correct behavior.
Consider a drill instructor who punishes the entire group for the actions of one or a few. Not a perfect analogy of course, because in this case casting the good with the bad might result in them all becoming bad, as a sort of defensive measure.
I think both tactics can be used to great effect. We need to use both the carrot and the stick, and we need for Muslims to understand that while we do not wish to make war with the entire religion, we can, and we will if there seems no other choice.
I honestly believe, that except for the fringes, most of us are somewhat on the fence here.
We honestly want to believe that there are a majority of Muslims who do not wish us evil. But, considering the messages we are getting, we have no choice but to expect prove.
This is much bigger than fighting over what color the white house should be.
proof *roll eyes*
It’s one thing to use a “stick”, the problem is using a stick of the form “Islam is the problem”. That doesn’t leave any room for a carrot as far as Muslims are concerned.
I think this post is extremely relevant to the current conversation.
In my experience there was PLENTY of use of the term jihad that had nothing to do with us…the Afghans called their war against the Soviets a Jihad – the shaheed and the veterans of that fight used the term jihad in a very serious and very specific manner. I am not sure using the term “jihadists” would win us any points in that particular nation.
BTW, Ardsgaine, seen many faithful and violent Buddists lately.? To quote Darth Vader, “I find your lack of faith disturbing…”
Hey look…. 116 heads without bodies….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_japan_beheading_1
It’s just what Qur’an 47:4 instructs.
“There is no god but allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.†Not much wiggle room in that statement for non-Muslims, is there now?
You’re kidding, right? “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Wiggle room? “Thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory.” “I am the Light and the Way.” Wiggle room?
Ok, show us which modern state has the death penalty for those that don’t agree with that statement brooksfoe. Go ahead, show the equivelance.
We both know you can’t, and that you are merely being an obnoxious twit.