Showing posts with label Lexicon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lexicon. Show all posts

Saturday, September 12, 2009

It’s Not the Virgins, It’s Hell, Stupid!

Rage Boy
Without a clear understanding of the power of Islamic Hell, true understanding of Islamic terrorism and effective remedies will never emerge.

By Bill Siegel

Even before President Barack Obama assumed office, the liberal media embarked upon a massive effort to attribute the phenomena of suicide bombings to anything other than Islam. Now that Obama has begun to place his mark on the conflict formerly known as the “War on Terror” and the activities of those formerly known as “Jihadists,” these efforts have only gotten farther off of the mark.

Not only has Obama displayed tremendous courage in fighting his “War on Words,” he and his media manipulator extraordinaire, David Axelrod, have unleashed the full weaponry of the mellow timbre to handle the conflicts we face with enemies we used to identify in part by their connection to Islam. By ceasing reference to “terror,” by eliminating thirteen hundred years of history in accepting the absurd notion that, to true Muslims, “Jihad” is a simple peaceable struggle against internal appetites and lusts much like that which Christians undertake during Lent, and by introducing pleasantly toned conversational style to engage and dialogue away all global conflict, Obama has certainly brought about one kind of “change” – if we change our grammar and tone we can eliminate all squabbles the West has had with the Muslim world. Camelot visits the Middle East. Read more ...

Source: FSM

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Naming the Enemy
The answer is blowing in Jihad.

Lexicon
By Bill Siegel

Even before President Barack Obama assumed office, the liberal media embarked upon a massive effort to attribute the phenomena of suicide bombings to anything other than Islam. Now that Obama has begun to place his mark on the conflict formerly known as the “War on Terror” and the activities of those formerly known as “Jihadists,” these efforts have only gotten farther off of the mark.

Not only has Obama displayed tremendous courage in fighting his “War on Words,” he and his media manipulator extraordinaire, David Axelrod, have unleashed the full weaponry of the mellow timbre to handle the conflicts we face with enemies we used to identify in part by their connection to Islam. By ceasing reference to “terror,” by eliminating thirteen hundred years of history in accepting the absurd notion that, to true Muslims, “Jihad” is a simple peaceable struggle against internal appetites and lusts much like that which Christians undertake during Lent, and by introducing pleasantly toned conversational style to engage and dialogue away all global conflict, Obama has certainly brought about one kind of “change”—if we change our grammar and tone we can eliminate all squabbles the West has had with the Muslim world. Camelot visits the Middle East.

Further, Obama has sought to deploy his troops of amiable words in Cairo and elsewhere in the Muslim world. He armed his new under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, Judith A. McHale, with familiar calls for “building bridges” between America and the Muslim world. Unfortunately, Pakistani journalist Ansar Abbasi responded, “You should know we hate all Americans… From the bottom of our souls, we hate you.” No worry. Obama sent in his reinforcements in the form of a congenial Ramadan Message to Muslims worldwide. Read more ...

Source: FPM

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Radical Islam Needs Clear Definition

bin Laden
By Tawfik Hamid

Since Sept. 11, many in the Unites States and all over the world have discussed the issue of radical Islam without clearly defining it. Failure to do so can be catastrophic as it may lead us to label “radical” Islamic groups as “moderate,” and vice versa. If a radical Islamic group is called “moderate” we will miss the extreme elements within our society that can breed terrorism. Furthermore, we may unknowingly support radical Islamic organizations under the assumption that they are “moderates."

Society can argue at length about relative issues until parameters for measurement are settled. For example, it is difficult to determine if the pyramids of Egypt are big or small without defining in numerical values such as cubic meters what qualifies as “big” or “small.” The same principle has to be applied to define “radical” and “moderate” Islam, otherwise our discussions will result in endless debates.

Currently, we have two opposing views. Some argue that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic Shariah law is “peaceful.” Others argue that it is not. This endless argument has caused division within the Western world and will continue to do so until we set clear definitions and parameters for the terms and expressions that we use. Read more ...

Source: NewsMax

Friday, August 7, 2009

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over. 'Jihadists' and 'global war' no longer acceptable terms.

Lexicon
It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in March that the administration was not using the term "war on terror" but no specific directive had come from the White House itself. Mr. Obama himself used the term "war on terror" on Jan. 23, his fourth day as president, but has not used it since. Read more ...

Source: The Washington Times
H/T: Jihad Watch

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Andrew Bolt: Time to talk about Islam

August 5

Bolt
So I turn on the radio to hear babble about police raids in our suburbs on suspected terrorists.

I immediately suspect ... what? That the four men arrested were Presbyterians? Baptists? Greens?

Well, if I’d hopped onto the ABC website, I’d be little the wiser. In the 750 words on this alleged plot to launch suicide attacks, not one was “Islam”, “Muslim” or even “jihad”.

Not one word was used to describe what allegedly motivated these men - Lebanese and Somali Australians with reported ties to Somalia’s al-Shabaab Mujahideen terrorists - to want to kill Australian soldiers on an army base.

That’s how reluctant we are still to honestly debate Islam, terrorism . . . and immigration, suddenly the biggest elephant in a tension-filled room.

But we knew. We all did - even those eager to advertise their non-racism.

In fact, Victoria Police was forced to ditch the sensitivity manual it produced only last month to get us to not mention this war - you know, the war that only days afterwards took out three more Australians in Jakarta.

That manual is its Lexicon on Terror that Assistant Commissioner Stephen Fontana said would be sent to officials and politicians to instruct them not to use feelings-hurty words such as “war on terror”, “Islamic terrorism”, “Islamo-fascists” and “moderate Muslims”.

Such insensitive speech just made Muslims think we were at war with Islam, Fontana said, overlooking the fact that too many Muslims think Islam is at war with us.

Well, his manual didn’t survive reality for long. There was Chief Commissioner Simon Overland at yesterday’s media conference, freely linking Islam to terrorism and once more urging us not to forget all those moderate Muslims.

“I also want to assure the broader Islamic community here in Victoria we understand that the overwhelming and vast majority of the Islamic faith are not terrorists,” he preached.

Good on him for saying so, of course, but I suspect it’s now time not for non-Muslims to reassure Muslims that they mean no harm, but rather the reverse.

After all, this is not the first alleged terrorist plot by local Muslims to have been busted. Only six months ago Algerian-born preacher Abdul Nacer Benbrika was jailed in Melbourne, along with six followers, for planning terrorist attacks on Australians at the football.

We’ve also had Muslims jailed for plotting bombings in Canberra, while others have raised money for jihadists in Africa and Afghanistan, sold pro-jihad manuals at mosques, or joined Islamist terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Somalia.

There are many such reasons we’ve been given to link Islam to terrorism.

We saw the Islamic Youth Movement meet regularly in Australia’s biggest mosque, in Lakemba, to preach jihad and support terrorist chief Osama bin Laden. We heard the then Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly, praise the September 11 attacks and back terrorists in Lebanon.

We watched on television the Jordanian-born Melbourne cleric Mohammed Omran declare: “I dispute any evil action linked to bin Laden.”

And only last week we had a NSW judge describe the Islamic Friendship Association’s Keysar Trad, Hilaly’s spokesman, as a “racist” Jew-hater who stirred up hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims and said things that “appear to condone violence”.

Note: I’ve kept this list to just Islamist activity in Australia. I have not included those countless explosions of Islamist hatred overseas - such as the attacks on New York, Washington, Madrid, London, Israel, Mumbai, Kenya and Bali.

So as I said, when we heard the news yesterday, we knew. Reality trumped our manners.

But though we knew, what do we now do, other than rely on our police and courts? Let me suggest five things.

1. Make enemies only of enemies.

Overland is in fact right to make clear our quarrel is not with Muslims who believe their faith forbids terrorism.

While you may sometimes doubt just how many such Muslims there are, if most really did think the Koran obliged them to declare war on unbelievers, we would have many more terrorists to deal with than the handful so far.

Encourage the best to disown the worst. And that’s done by knowing the difference, and honouring it.

2. Defend free speech.
The real threat to peace here is not Anglo racism but Islamist radicalism.

Yet attempts to warn of hate preachers in our midst such as Hilaly, or of jihadists in the mosques who need rooting out, have too often been damned as racist or mean, especially by the ABC and Fairfax journalists.

Worse, Victoria’s Labor Government shamefully passed laws against saying hurtful things about religion - laws promptly used to punish two Christian pastors who warned their flock about the Koran’s praise of jihad.

But no frank debate means no one gets shamed who needs shaming, and without shame, who’d change?

3. Don’t think anywhere is too far to be dangerous.

The September 11 attacks showed us that no place was too far away to leave to terrorists. Even men in caves in Afghanistan could bring down skyscrapers in New York.

We know that leaving Somalia to anarchy has allowed Islamists to set up new terrorist training camps, used by Americans, Europeans and even Australians.

If we don’t fight these Islamists there, they will fight us here. So support the fight for Afghanistan, and wonder what we can do with Somalia - now a haven for pirates, terrorists, and the kidnappers who have for a year held Queenslander Nigel Brennan hostage.

4. Scrap multiculturalism.

We are all safer, and I suspect happier, if we see ourselves as one community, and not a nation of tribes.

Yet see the taxpayer money now spent on building ethnic ghettos.

The Victorian Multicultural Commission alone boasts of spending $34,700 in a year on 12 separate Somali organisations, each of which depends on staying separate from us to get yet more cash, perks and clout.

But what are we propping up? Those many groups offer a clue. The 10,000 estimated Somali refugees in Victoria are deeply divided by clans - at least four, including the Hawiye, aligned with Somalia’s radical Islamic Courts Union.

And Aden Ibrahim of the Somali-Australian Council of Victoria put the problem frankly in March: “A Somali is loyal to his clan before any court, before marriage, before any other loyalty.

“It’s like the military - the general gives the order and that’s it.”

Given that alone - leaving aside even such cultural practices as the genital mutilation of girls - do you want your money spent on keeping Somalis apart, or on giving them the talents to make their way among the rest of us?

5. Rethink immigration intakes.

There’s a million people desperate to get here, so doesn’t it make sense to choose those most likely to fit in?

Yet we keep making the same mistake, particularly in taking in people from war-torn, tribal and backward countries who, as a whole, struggle to make the best of our help.

Take the Muslim Lebanese we took in during the Lebanese civil war. Many did fit in well, but too many others ended up on welfare . . . or worse. In fact, the Lebanese-born are twice as likely as the rest of us to be in jail, and Lebanese dominate several Sydney crime gangs.

It’s not just a Muslim thing, of course. The Vietnamese are three times more likely to be imprisoned - and the rate for Tongans and Samoans is still worse.

CRIME figures for Somali immigrants are harder to prise out of police, but figures from then chief commissioner Christine Nixon suggest that refugees from neighboring Sudan are four times more likely than others to be charged.

Yes, these figures could lie, since some of these groups have a higher proportion of youths - always riper for strife.

But such figures, properly calculated, may indeed show we are importing problems we don’t need - problems that may even turn Australians against helping anyone.

Certainly, the Howard government decided in its last year to slow the intake of refugees from Africa for precisely such reasons.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews was monstered for this “racism”, but what would you rather? That we import more people of a group that’s struggling to fit in? More of a group that’s more prey to ideologies of hatred and jihad?

Yes, it’s hard to talk about such things without making many decent immigrants feel hurt. But ask what does more to set us at each other’s throats: frank talk, or terrorist plots on our soil?

Source: Andrew Bolt





Monday, July 20, 2009

Andrew Bolt: Wrong people told

Bolt
July 20

Hey, don’t tell us, tell them:

A GUIDEBOOK for politicians, police and public servants on how to talk about Muslims and terrorism without implicating the religion of Islam should be released by the end of the year. The book, A Lexicon on Terror, was conceived by Victoria Police and the Australian Multicultural Foundation, but was so popular it became a national project, an international conference on Islamophobia at Monash University heard yesterday.

Tell, for instance, the people who have generated these reports over just the past day:

Radical Islamist group takes over French hostages

Jakarta bombings: Why Indonesia’s Islamist radicals attack

Muslim extremists seeking to overthrow Indonesia’s democracy

Suspected Islamist duo killed American in Mauritania: state security

German Islamists heading to Pakistan training camps

44 top Islamist militants held in Bangladesh

Taliban Threatens to Kill US Soldier Unless West Stops Bombing ...

Join jehad or invite wrath, Zawahiri tells Pak

Source: Andrew Bolt 'Blog




Thursday, July 9, 2009

"Jihad" junked for jargon

Lexicon
By Richard Ackland

Don't you just love it when things are "rolled out"? Supermarket unit pricing is rolled out; new radar system for the boys in Afghanistan is rolled out; Nokia rolls out an Apple apps store.

The latest rollout was announced this week by the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland. It's a "national roll-out of a project to promote the consistent use of language in engaging with communities on national security issues". It's branded as the "Lexicon on Terrorism".

It's not quite roll out the barrel, but it's still going to be a lot of fun. The first thing the project should examine is the use of the words "roll-out" and while they're at it "going forward" also needs some attention.

Mr McClelland's announcement was necessarily fuzzy. "We need to use language that does not inadvertently glorify terrorism but rather describes it in terms of base criminal behaviour of the most reprehensible kind." Inappropriate use of language in a terrorism context can lead to "misunderstanding".

Fortunately, work on the project is being led by one of the most culturally sensitive organisations in the country, the Victoria Police, in partnership with the Victorian Premier's Department, the Australian Multicultural Foundation and the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department. Read more ...

Source: Brisbane Times
H/T: Jihad Watch

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Call the Terrorists What They Are

Bronx Gihad
The foiled plot to bomb New York synagogues, disclosed today, highlights the absurdity, and danger, of Obama's avoiding the term "Islamic radicals."

By Steven Emerson

There are several lessons that the U.S. government and public should learn from the foiled plot by four radical Muslims, disclosed today, to bomb synagogues in New York and shoot down a military plane using a Stinger missile.

For President Obama, the "enemy" can no longer be limited to just Al Qaeda, as he has insisted in pre- and post- campaign interviews. When asked who the enemy is, he reflexively says "Al Qaeda." He has categorically refused to use the term "radical Islam" or "Islamic extremism." But that is exactly what we are facing—and have been facing for the past three decades.

It was radical Islam when the Hezbollah killed 241 Marines in Beirut in October 1983. It was radical Islam when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. It was radical Islam when hundreds of Israelis were blown to smithereens in Hamas suicide bombings. It was radical Islam that was responsible for the killing of hundreds of Bali vacationers, the bombing of Spanish trains and the suicide bombings of the London tube killing scores of Londoners in July 2005. Radical Islam has been responsible for the murder or attempted murder of tens of thousands of civilians in nearly every corner of the globe, no matter what group you call it-Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Lakshar e-Tayba and yes, Al Qaeda. Read more ...

Source: The Daily Beast

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Getting Real on Shariah

bin Laden
By M. Zuhdi Jasser

Recently, the Obama administration released a message to senior Pentagon officials instructing that the term "Global War on Terror" is no longer to be used. It is to be replaced with "Overseas Contingency Operation" (OCO). Set aside the flashbacks to meaningless phrases employed by "Big Brother" in Orwell's 1984, are we really now of the opinion that there is no common unifying ideology which hatches the radical Islamist groups attacking us?

Many of us have been proclaiming for quite a while that the "War on Terror" (WoT) was obviously misnamed. A nation cannot have a military engagement (a war) against a tactic. It would have been no different to have called WWII a "War on Blitzkrieg." We were rather more clearly fighting the ideologies of Nazism and fascism. But OCO is a major step backward from WoT. The current conflict can also be defined against an ideology. It is certainly not about random acts of violence. There are some obvious and definable common ideologies and goals of the perpetrators of radical Islamism. Their primary unifying cause is the overriding ideology and dream of Islamism -- the goal of establishing the Islamic state. Whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbullah, HAMAS, the Taliban, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, Lashkar e-Taiba, Jamaat Islamiya, Muhajiroon or the Wahhabis of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to name a few, these groups all have common core ideologies driving their radical movements. The commonality of these groups is simply put -- radicalized Islamism. Radical because they seek "any means necessary" including terror -- "the targeting of noncombatants." They are "Islamist" because their ultimate goal is the establishment of various forms of "Islamic states." Thus we can no longer ignore the fact that non-radical (non-violent) Islamists who seek a peaceful means of establishing an Islamic state are also part of a global movement which stands against western secular liberal democracies. Read more ...

Source: Huffington Post

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Radical Islam By Any Other Name...

Bin Laden
By Frank Salvato

Honesty and transparency in government are rare commodities, especially in the United States. While some information is legitimately kept from the public for reasons of national security, still other information – and quite a lot when the information flow from the Obama Administration is concerned – is either kept from the public or manipulated for the public’s consumption, having been so for ideological and/or political purposes. The subject of radical Islam and the terrorism that jihadis use as their chief tactic to bring about political “change” is not immune from these politically and ideologically opportune manipulations. Because of this the majority of the public is illiterate in the seriousness of the global challenge that faces Western Civilization.

Upon ascending to the office of the presidency, Barack Obama assembled a cabinet that understood the value of controlling information. Even during his campaign, his staff guarded information and controlled the message. Politically, it is a winning formula even if it raises many legitimate questions when the candidate is less than forthright about his past, influences, associations, intentions, motives and loyalties. Today, as President Obama exits the “honeymoon period” that every president enjoys, he and his staff are still executing a “control the message campaign,” and doing so with a vicious effectiveness, aided by a complicit mainstream media. But is this serving the best interest of the public? Is this acting in the best interests of the country? Read more ...

Source: New Media Journal
H/T: Frank Salvato

Obama Administration
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award


The Dhimmi Award


Monday, May 4, 2009

Words Matter in the War on Terror: If we refuse to call terrorists by their proper name - "jihadists" - we will never defeat them.

bin Laden
By Raymond Ibrahim

Knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The less accurate words are, the less accurate the knowledge they impart; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the war on terror, to acquire accurate knowledge — which is pivotal to victory — we need to begin with accurate language.

Would the free world have understood the Nazi threat if, instead of calling them what they called themselves, “Nazis,” it had opted to simply call them “extremists” — a word wholly overlooking the racist, expansionary, and supremacist elements that are part and parcel of the word “Nazi”?

Unfortunately, the U.S. government, apparently oblivious to this interconnection between language and knowledge, appears to be doing just that. Even President Obama alluded to this soon after taking office when he said, “Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we’re going to win this struggle [war on terror] is through the battle of [Muslims'] hearts and minds.”

According to an official memo, when talking about Islamists and their goals, analysts are to refrain from using Arabic words of Islamic significance (”mujahidin,” “salafi,” “ummah”); nor should they employ helpful English or anglicized words (”jihadi,” “Islamo-fascism,” “caliphate”). Instead, vague generics (”terrorists,” “extremists,” “totalitarians”) should suffice. Read more ...

Source: Pajamas Media

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Piers Akerman: Let the cannonball fly and hang them high

Somali Pirates

DESPITE the popularity of successive Pirates of the Caribbean films, real pirates are not cuddly criminals.

Nor are they members of an oppressed minority group suffering from low self-esteem. They are murderers and kidnappers who live by the gun and understand only one thing - force.

Sunday’s successful rescue of American sea captain Richard Phillips, after US President Barack Obama authorised the use of force against the Somali pirates who held him captive, emphasises that reality.

A team of US Navy SEALS aboard the USS Bainbridge freed Phillips after shooting his captors from their position about 30m away, a ridiculously easy shot for trained marksmen.

This followed an earlier rescue of a French yacht crew by French commandos, during which a French yachtsman was killed, possibly by the French rescue team.

A photograph of the French crew taken before their rescue shows an anguished woman held at gunpoint by a young pirate armed with an automatic weapon. Anyone who doubts the ruthlessness of the pirates should use that image as a reality check.

The US effort marked Obama’s first authorisation of force against a group hostile to Americans, and it is reported that he received news of the successful rescue 11 minutes after it was completed, and spoke with Phillips shortly after.

To date the Obama administration has attempted to fudge its commitment to fighting forces opposed to the US.

While it has rebadged the “war on terrorism” as “overseas contingency operations” and terrorist attacks are now to be called “man-caused disasters”, piracy remains piracy. The US is revisiting a sea-borne scourge that has existed since the 14th Century.

Somali pirates still hold about 300 captives and 17 ships but, as few are Westerners, there remains little international indignation about their plight. It was not always so.

When Britain ruled the waves, pirates weren’t tolerated. If captured alive, their trials were short and their sentences terminal. Hanging was the norm.

With American independence in 1776, the US navy’s first major achievement was cleansing the entrance of the Mediterranean of the Barbary pirates who operated out of north Africa.

Using swift galleys rowed by slaves, these pirates enslaved their captives, sent any women captured to harems, and were known for their brutality. They were so successful that they were able to demand tribute from the nations which traded into the Mediterranean, until Thomas Jefferson became US president and deemed the annual ransom had to stop.

In 1801, Jefferson launched a war against the Barbary pirates which eventually saw the US flag fly over Derna, Libya’s second-largest city, a feat which is remembered in the line in the Marine hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli.”

The war ran until 1812 when president James Madison sent Captain Stephen Decatur into action against Omar the Terrible, the ruler of Algiers.

Within 16 days of entering the Med, Decatur triumphed with a treaty he said was “dictated at the mouths of our cannon”. Mediterranean piracy was dead.

In the shallow waters around South East Asia however, piracy was in the ascendancy. The narrow straits which ran through the many archipelagoes proved ideal for opportunistic pirates.

The British navy was sent in to deliver justice and accounts published at the time show how successful they were.

In one dispatch published in The Hobart Courier of February 20, 1850, Captain Hay of the Columbine reported that in an action on October 2, 1849, 23 “piratical junks averaging 500 tons, mounting from 12 to l8 guns, three new ones on the stocks, and two small dock-yards, with a considerable supply of naval stores, have been totally destroyed by fire; and of 1800 men who manned them, about 400 have been killed, and the rest dispersed without resource”.

In the same newspaper, there was an account of the destruction of Shap-ng-tsai’s pirate fleet by a Royal Navy squadron under the command of a Captain Hay. In all 1700 were killed.

The West has forgotten some hard-learnt lessons on dealing with pirates.

They are worth revisiting.

Source: The Daily Telegraph



Friday, March 27, 2009

Congressman suggests calling a terrorist a terrorist: 'I think it is a disservice to not speak with clarity about the enemies we confront'

John Shadegg
Hon. John Shadegg
An Arizona congressman says it is a problem when U.S. officials fail to speak clearly – for example calling a terrorist a terrorist – when discussing the dangers the nation faces in confronting enemies.

U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., was interviewed by Greg Corombos of RadioAmerica.org on the issue of new marching orders in the Obama administration that words like "war on terror" and "enemy combatant" no longer be used.

Shadegg said those terms are specifically descriptive so that people can understand what's going on.

"I think it is a disservice to the people to somehow not speak with clarity about the enemies we confront," he said. "Clearly when Al-Qaida and other radical Islamists or Islamic extremists specifically express their desire to kill Americans, or wipe America off the face of the earth, let's be realistic in acknowledging that threat." Read more ...

Source: WND

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Top Takes on National Security Do 'less offensive' terms regarding national security issues help or harm us?

bin Laden
Janet Napolitano
With almost two dozen attempted attacks thwarted since 9/11 by terrorists either already here or trying to come here to kill Americans it makes no sense to minimize the threat.

- James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is a leading expert in defense affaires, intelligence, military operations and strategy, and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation.

By Dr. Candace de Russy

To lump the terrorist scourge in the catch-all category of "man-caused" disasters, as Napolitano does, effectively obscures its Islamofascist origins and specific destructive consequences.

Such pussy-footing around terror amounts to cynical word games intended to propitiate the Obama Administration’s anti-anti-terrorist supporters.

Napolitano’s trifling dismissal of “the politics of fear” is more of the same. Neither politics nor fear caused 9/11, or the bloody parade of related attacks. Islamofascism did. Read more ...

Source: FSM

Janet Napolitano
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award


The Dhimmi Award


Friday, March 6, 2009

The Voice of America Silenced on Radical Islam

VOA
A new directive orders the VOA employees to avoid mentioning any ties "extremists" may have to the Religion of Peace.

By Daniel Pipes

For the past year, there’s been a concerted push within the U.S. government to ban frank talk about the nature of the Islamist enemy. It began with the Department of Homeland Security, then moved to the National Counter Terrorism Center and the departments of State and Defense. Already in May 2008, I heard an excellent analysis of the enemy by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Thomas Mahnken in which he bizarrely never once mentioned Islam or jihad.

I’ve been wondering how this change in vocabulary actually occurs: is it a spontaneous mood shift, a group decision, or a directive from on high?

Janin
Jennifer Janin
The answer just arrived, in the shape of a leaked memo dated March 2 from Jennifer Janin, head of the Urdu service at the Voice of America. The directive can be found in its entirety at “Urdu Language Style & Guidelines #3.” Addressed to the Urdu radio, television, and web teams, as well as to the director and program manager of VOA’s South Asia Division, her diktat insists on no connection being drawn from Islam to politics. In gist:
Islamic terrorists: DO NOT USE. Instead use simply: terrorist.

Islamic Fundamentalism/Muslim Fundamentalists: AVOID.

Islamist: NOT NECESSARY.

Muslim Extremists: NOT NECESSARY. Extremist serves well.
Read more ...
Source: FrontPage Magazine
Jennifer Janin
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award


The Dhimmi Award


Sunday, January 11, 2009

Government Policies Stifle Talk of Islam. We won't win the conflict with Muslim radicals if we can't speak about what motivates them.

Taboo
By David J. Rusin

When President Roosevelt addressed Congress after Pearl Harbor, he cited Japan fifteen times in a speech of five hundred words. When President Bush did the same after 9/11, he uttered “Islam” or “Muslim” more sparingly — just eleven times in a speech of three thousand words. And when Senators Obama and McCain spoke at the respective conventions and debates, asking to be entrusted with America’s security, not a single reference to Islam could be found.

“Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about,” noted linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf. Based on the language used by Western governments, one must conclude that they do not want anybody thinking about the fundamental role that Islam plays in the conflict with Muslim radicals. If this self-imposed straitjacket hinders discussion of a foe that wishes to subjugate the world under Sharia law, then we have little chance of knowing him. And as Sun Tzu observed, only by knowing the enemy can he be defeated. Read more ...

Source: Pajamas Media

Submission

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Russia Sucks up to Muslim Countries, Putin Drops any Reference to Islam When Talking About Terrorists

Putin
Vladimir Putin was the first head of a non-Muslim majority state to speak at the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a gathering of 57 Muslim states, in October 2003. That was a political and diplomatic feat, especially since Russia was waging a long-running war in Chechnya at the time. Putin stressed that 15% of the total population of the Russian Federation are Muslim, and that all the inhabitants of eight of its 21 autonomous republics are Muslim, and he won observer member status with the organisation, thanks to support from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Since then, Putin and other Russian leaders, including the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, claim that Russia “is, to some extent, a part of the Muslim world.” In an interview with Al Jazeera on 16 October 2003, Putin stressed that, unlike Muslims living in western Europe, those in Russia were indigenous and that Islam had been present on Russian territory long before Christianity. So Russia now claims to have a privileged political relationship with the Arab and Muslim world and believes that, as a mostly European state, it has a historic vocation as a mediator between the western and Muslim worlds. Read more ...

Source: Middle East Online
H/T: Weasel Zippers

Submission

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Islamo-Fascists Won't Negotiate

Islamofascism
By Gary Bauer

What do Mohammed Sadique Khan, Ajmal Amir Kasab and Omar al-Bashir have in common?

It’s not race, socio-economic status, geography or politics. Khan was a middle class British primary school teacher. Kasab is an impoverished Punjabi day laborer, and Bashir is Sudan’s president. What they have in common is that they’ve all committed horrendous acts of terrorism and justified their actions by claiming that their Muslim faith required them to act in the manner they did.

Now, what do the mainstream television and print media have in common in reporting these and other terrorist acts around the world? It’s not lack of coverage: the media routinely devote hours of coverage and pages of column space to terrorist acts. But they share an unwillingness to mention that these individuals are operating on the belief that they are praising Allah.

It is a glaring fact that radical Islam is the common denominator in many of the most violent places in the world. It is a sad fact that in India, as in almost every other place where radical Islam has revealed itself, few in the media or in politics are willing to identify what the real problem is.

The media’s reluctance to identify the Mumbai attackers as “Muslim” has been scandalous. As the terrible events unfolded last week, CNN commentators repeatedly referred to the attackers simply as “terrorists” or “extremists.” In one three-hour period, the word “Islamic” was used only once. Statements by many world leaders were no better. The typical statement merely pledged to defeat terrorism without ever specifying who the terrorists were or what their motives might be.

Even the Bush Administration has cooperated in this suffocating political correctness, which prevents us from naming the enemy that wants us all dead. At the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, decisions were made last year to ban the phrase “Islamic terrorists” and to replace it with terms such as “militant.” Read more ...

Source: Human Events

Submission

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Euphemisms No Match for Radical Islam

Europe
While Western governments scoff at the anti-blasphemy measure that a UN General Assembly committee passed on November 24, they actually have led the way in perfecting the art of self-censorship. Bureaucrats and elected officials, in de facto sympathy with the resolution's claim that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," twist themselves into pretzels to cleanse references to the faith from relevant discussions.

The immediate consequences of refusing to call a spade a spade are as predictable as they are maddening. Consider this lesson in the obvious, courtesy of Great Britain:
Attempts to turn young people away from Islamic extremism are being hampered by politically correct language, according to a new report.

Ministers last year directed councils to use the terms "anti-Islamic activity" and "community resilience" instead of terrorism and extremism, as part of a drive to win over the Muslim community.

But the rebranding has spread confusion and is preventing local authorities and public bodies from talking openly about the radicalization of young people.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was ridiculed for renaming terrorism "anti-Islamic activity." Given that citizens and councilors alike can point to legions of Muslim terrorists who have sought to justify their atrocities by appealing to Islam, it is little surprise that such policies "spread confusion." The replacement of "extremism" with "community resilience" is even more baffling. Read more ...

Source: Islamist Watch Blog

Submission

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Confusing PC language 'hampering' anti-terror fight, government watchdog says

Jacqui Smith
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has referred to
terrorist attacks as 'anti-Islamic activity'
By Steve Doughty

Politically correct language is hampering the fight against terrorism, a Whitehall report warned yesterday.

Town halls and other public sector bodies were told by ministers last year to replace the phrase ‘terrorist attacks’ with ‘anti-Islamic activity’.

They were urged not to refer to ‘extremism’ and instead talk about ‘community resilience’.

But far from rallying Muslims against terrorists, the language has spread confusion, says the report from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission.

The watchdogs warned ministers the Government should listen to local concerns before handing out instructions.

It quoted one anonymous local government leader: ‘The key thing is about who the words come from.

‘If they come from a respected religious or community member they will have more impact than if they come from a Government minister.’

Rules on terrorism and language were sent to town halls by the Home Office just under a year ago.

Rules on terrorism and language were sent to town halls by the Home Office just under a year ago.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith drove home the message in a speech in which she referred to terrorist attacks as ‘anti-Islamic activity’. Read more ...

Source: Daily Mail
Jacqui Smith
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award


The Dhimmi Award

Submission

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Followers

Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved. E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
Stop Honorcide!



Latest Recipients of
The Dhimmi Award
Dr. Phil
George Casey


The Dhimmi Award


Previous Recipients of
The Dhimmi Award




Latest Recipient of the
World-Class Hypocrite Award
Mainstream Media


World-Class Hypocrite Award


Previous Recipients of the
World-Class Hypocrite Award




Latest Recipient of the
MASH Award
Dr. Arash Hejazi


MASH Award


Previous Recipients of the
MASH Award




Latest Recipient of the
Yellow Rag Award
CNN


Yellow Rag Award


Previous Recipients of the
Yellow Rag Award




Latest Recipient of
The Face of Evil Award
Nidal Malik Hasan


The Face of Evil Award


Previous Recipients of
The Face of Evil Award




Latest Recipients of the
Distinguished Islamofascist Award
ADC, CAIR, MAS


Distinguished Islamofascist Award


Previous Recipients of the
Distinguished Islamofascist Award




Latest Recipient of the
Goebbels-Warner Award
ISNA


Goebbels-Warner Award


Previous Recipients of the
Goebbels-Warner Award




Muslm Mafia



Latest Recipient of the
Evil Dumbass Award
Somali Pirates


Evil Dumbass Award


Previous Recipients of the
Evil Dumbass Award




Insane P.I. Bill Warner
Learn about
Anti-MASH
Defamation Campaign

by Internet Thugs




Latest Recipient of the
Retarded Rabbi Award
Shmuley Boteach


Retarded Rabbi Award


Previous Recipients of the
Retarded Rabbi Award




Latest Recipient of the
Mad Mullah Award
Omar Bakri Muhammed


Mad Mullah Award


Previous Recipients of the
Mad Mullah Award




Stop Sharia Now!
ACT! For America




Latest Recipient of the
Demented Priest Award
Desmond Tutu


Demented Priest Award


Previous Recipients of the
Demented Priest Award




Egyptian Gaza Initiative

Egyptian Gaza




Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members. Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.



HONORARY MEMBERS
of

Muslims Against Sharia
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
Hasan Mahmud

ANTI-FASCISTS of ISLAM
Prominent.Moderate.Muslims
Tewfik Allal
Ali Alyami & Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia
Zeyno Baran
Brigitte Bardet
Dr. Suliman Bashear
British Muslims
for Secular Democracy

Center for Islamic Pluralism
Tarek Fatah
Farid Ghadry &
Reform Party of Syria

Dr. Tawfik Hamid
Jamal Hasan
Tarek Heggy
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser &
American Islamic
Forum for Democracy

Sheikh Muhammed Hisham
Kabbani & Islamic
Supreme Council of America

Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh
Nibras Kazimi
Naser Khader &
The Association
of Democratic Muslims

Mufti Muhammedgali Khuzin
Shiraz Maher
Irshad Manji
Salim Mansur
Maajid Nawaz
Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi
& Cultural Institute of the
Italian Islamic Community and
the Italian Muslim Assembly

Arifur Rahman
Raheel Raza
Imad Sa'ad
Secular Islam Summit
Mohamed Sifaoui
Mahmoud Mohamed Taha
Amir Taheri
Ghows Zalmay
Supna Zaidi &
Islamist Watch /
Muslim World Today /
Council For Democracy And Tolerance
Prominent ex-Muslims
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Magdi Allam
Zachariah Anani
Nonie Darwish
Abul Kasem
Hossain Salahuddin
Kamal Saleem
Walid Shoebat
Ali Sina & Faith Freedom
Dr. Wafa Sultan
Ibn Warraq

Defend Freedom of Speech

ISLAMIC FASCISTS
Islamists claiming to be Moderates
American Islamic Group
American Muslim Alliance
American Muslim Council
Al Hedayah Islamic Center (TX)
BestMuslimSites.com
Canadian Islamic Congress
Canadian Muslim Union
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Dar Elsalam Islamic Center (TX)
DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc. (TX)
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (Closed)
Ed Husain & Quilliam Foundation
Islamic Association for Palestine (Closed)
Islamic Association of Tarrant County (TX)
Islamic Center of Charlotte (NC) & Jibril Hough
Islamic Center of Irving (TX)
Islamic Circle of North America
Islamic Cultural Workshop
Islamic Society of Arlington (TX)
Islamic Society of North America
Masjid At-Taqwa
Muqtedar Khan
Muslim American Society
Muslim American Society of Dallas (TX)
Muslim Arab Youth Association (Closed)
Muslim Council of Britain
Muslims for Progressive Values
Muslim Public Affairs Council
Muslim Public Affairs Council (UK)
Muslim Students Association
National Association of Muslim Women
Yusuf al Qaradawi
Wikio - Top Blogs