StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

Aside from having been wrong (for a number of reasons revealed below), I was unwilling to believe that the U.S. would cave to the likes of CAIR and Muslim Public Affairs Committee and ban the use of “Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad” (and other variants) from the GWOT Thesauraus. In reality, however, the DHS, the State Dept. and others have mandated the elimination of words describing the callous and cowardly barbarous al Qaeda mujahadeen who appropriated Islam for their inhumanity, to quell the concern of moderate Muslims that using such language confused the true meaning of those terms as used in secular Islam.

Thanks to Steve Emerson’s IPT, the government documents detailing this change are offered here and here. Maybe even more to the point, the Muslim proponents of this change, also reject the use of the word “moderate” to describe themselves, and instead wish to be referred to as “mainstream” or “traditional.”

Various Muslim groups including the MPAC praised these changes.  But MPAC accepts, not isolates terrorists.  In fact, MPAC differentiates between such groups as Hezbollah and Hamas, and the more dastardly al Qaeda by saying that “Hezbollah and Hamas are distinct in methods, motivations and goals from Al Qaeda.” Hamas and Hezbollah work to the elimination of Israel. And their use of suicide attacks and other indiscriminant killing tools of terrorism are not unlike those used by al Qaeda.

Arab states question Washington’s list of designated pro-Palestinian groups and humanitarian organizations. It is clear that the current terrorist threat to the US emanates from Al-Qaeda and not Palestinian groups. There is no evidence that Palestinian groups designated as terrorist organizations have any connections to Al-Qaeda. Yet the preoccupation with these groups raises the question as to whether targeting Palestinian groups serves true national security interests or is based on political considerations.

Certainly expressed better than I by IPT, the issue is clear…in an effort to satisfy the still fearful and quiet “mainstream” or moderate Muslim community in the U.S., where Islam remains a minority, the U.S. agrees to blur the distinction between the politically correct, and the literally obvious. In quoting M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, IPT raises the spectre that the suggested changes could diminish American understanding of the ideological motivations behind those who threaten our security…and also ignores that in Muslim majority nations the radicals call themselves Muslims, Islamists, and Jihadists in Arabic and every other language with little time spent admonishing society not to call them what they call themselves.

Of course, it is interesting that in Europe, we have such articles as Today’s Islamist radicalization in Spain. Just the subhead says it all: “The protecting the safety of Spanish citizens should override the fear of sacrificing human rights, writes Carlos Echeverría Jesús for Strategic Studies Group.”

The Spanish jail population with ties to Salafist jihadism continues to grow. Because of this, it is even more urgent to prevent radicalization among the relatives and friends of terrorists. With their friends and family imprisoned, it is likely they will feel victimized and attempt to carry on the terrorist work. It is necessary to assume that the Muslim population as a whole, especially its youth, will feel besieged or marginalized as a community by Christians. It is imperative that the public powers try to change this.

The establishment of the Salafist jihadist ideology or any other variety of radical Islamism must be prevented. The way to do so is to filter the access to these messages by both young and old.

It is also interesting that in this article from Bloomberg, Al-Qaeda’s Recruitment Efforts Intensify in Europe, the word “Islamist” is used to refer to the U.S. and coalition efforts in Afghanistan.

A further, direct quote from IPT’s dialog with Jasser:

Certainly pious loyal American Muslims will be frustrated with the inappropriate use of the name of Islam and ‘jihad’ in the militant causes by these radicals around the world. But that frustration should be directed toward frontal Muslim anti-Islamist and anti-militant causes and movements. Denying that considerable movements of radical Muslims exist around the world which exploit our religion and truly believe that their barbarism is ‘jihad’ will only empower them more and delay the inevitable conflict within our faith community over “whose Islam, which Islam”. For the USG to paternally dismiss the self-described nomenclature of ‘jihadists’ and “Islamists” is to in fact embark into a realm which really is an internal struggle within the consciousness of the Muslim community. We should call the terrorists what they call themselves. Once any Muslim, let alone non-Muslims, begins to determine who is and who is not qualified to define ‘jihad’, ‘Muslim’, or ‘Islam’ they are creating a clergy and a ‘church’ with a communication and excommunication process. That is exactly what the likes of Bin Laden and other radical Islamists want.

To parrot the phrase, yes, “words matter.” But in its fear to offend the “mainstream American Muslim” by using such words as “mujahadeen,” “jihadist,” “Islamic fundamentalist,” or simply, “Islamist,” the government removed a tool, words to describe, the very blight that bin Laden and al Qaeda has perpetrated on World society.

On Why I Denied
1- my unwillingness to believe such political correctness could win out
2- the rush to scoop inherent in the Internet and the quoting of an undisclosed “reliable source.”
3- the spreading like wildfire of Internet scoops that take on their own lives, even if/when proven false.
4- no excuse, but I’m very busy (busier than I could have ever imagined) and my tolerance for unsupported claims is thin.

I am not the USG, nor do I work for it. Thus, those who follow bin Laden and his offshoots are forever Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadis. How about towel-headed animals.

al Qaeda, CAIR, Islamist, jihadist, mujahadeen, Muslim Public Affairs Committee, words matter