AMERICA HAS joined with countries all over the world in a "War on Terror." But that is just plain stupid. "Terror" is a tactic. You can't make war on a tactic. We have an actual enemy that CAN be named: Islamic supremacists — Muslims following Mohammad's example and waging jihad by many means against non-Muslims (and insufficiently-Islamic Muslims).
In an effort to avoid offending "moderate Muslims," many people in important public arenas have gone out of their way to avoid implying that "terrorists" or "extremists" are primarily Muslim and commit their acts of violence and sedition in the name of Islam.
Even some security agencies hamstring themselves by disallowing language that names their specific enemy — language that implies an Islamic connection.
This has got to stop. Islamic supremacists are serious. This is not something to play around with. They've already killed over 270 million people in the last 1400 years, and taken over many countries. Trying to be polite should be the last of our concerns.
As far as the perpetrators themselves are concerned, all their acts of violence and sedition are done very explicitly in the name of Islam.
Islamic doctrine is something our security agencies ought to learn about. Islamic supremacists have followed the same rule book for 1400 years, which makes them somewhat predictable. But only if their Islamic foundation is acknowledged and understood.
So let's free our security agencies to use accurate language to describe what they are trying to protect us from. Start by signing this petition:
And urge everyone you know to sign it too.
This is what the petition says:
To: U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on IntelligenceSeems reasonable enough, right? Okay, then sign this petition.
The American people condemn the May 8, 2008 decision by the majority of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in rejecting Congressman Peter Hoekstra's amendment to the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act (H.R. 5959), which was intended to "prohibit the intelligence community from adopting speech codes that encumber accurately describing the radical jihadist terrorists that attacked America and continue to threaten the homeland."
Moreover, the American people call for those members of the Committee who opposed this amendment to publicly account for and explain their vote.
To learn more about what the security agencies have done and why, read: Counterterrorism Concedes to Political Correctness.
If you're not convinced, read this excerpt from an article entitled France's War With Jihadis:
...the most indicative statement made by Alliot Marie is her call to create a "handbook on Islamism" to be used inside the prison system to allow authorities to detect the growth of jihadist or Salafist ideology.The main justification for the security agencies' ban on "words that implicate Islam" is that it would offend peaceful Muslims. Where do people get this idea? They get it from organizations like CAIR and ISNA and MAS and other organizations that claim to represent the "moderate Muslim community." But they are front groups for the supremacist organization, The Muslim Brotherhood. Read more about the agenda of these organizations here.
If anything, this bold move shows the precariousness of the recently developed assertions — both in Brussels and in Washington — that words that detect the ideology shouldn't be used. Here we have the minister of interior of the French Republic — a country that has more experience with Salafism than any other Western nation — urging just the opposite: that is the production of a manual that would precisely find and use all words possible that would help in finding the radicals.
This comes as greater evidence that the architects of the so-called Lexicon disseminated across the U.S. bureaucracy is not only counterproductive, but is actually dangerous for the efforts in counter terrorism to detect the enemy ideology.
While one of Europe's largest democracies is heading toward winning that battle of words by actually using them and understanding them, the most powerful democracy in the war on terror has abandoned one of the most efficient tools to "see" the enemy, and to educate its own public about it.
Note that the French minister uses these terms in a very precise way. She used "Islamists" when needed and Salafists when she wanted to be more specific about the doctrine.
In France, as I noted through my discussions this summer and as we can read widely in the media and academia, the terms jihadists, Islamists and Salafists are used with confidence and on solid academic grounds.
This is a PDF document that says using words might not really offend any JRMs (Jihad-Rejecting Muslims) and might lead to good results if intelligence agencies were allowed to use the right verbiage.
One of my favorite authors, Bill Warner, has this to say on using the right names (from an article on Political Islam):
The jihad of Umar burst out of Arabia and crushed the Christian world of Syria, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East. The Christians recorded it as an Arabic war. When Islam invaded Europe, Europeans called it a Turkish invasion. The jihad against Christian Spain was an invasion by the Moors. The Muslims called these events jihad.And that profound ignorance is only deepened with the ban on accurate language in the security agencies. If you agree and want to put a stop to it, sign the petition and get all your friends to sign it too.
In the early nineteenth century America sent the Navy and Marines to war against the Barbary pirates on the Berber coast in North Africa. For centuries the Islamic Barbary pirates had raided Europe and taken nearly a million white slaves, and their shipping raids in the Mediterranean had taken a great toll.
But the Muslims never called their naval raiders "Barbary pirates." They called them ghazis (sacred raiders). A raid led by Mohammed against the kafirs' caravans was called a ghazwah. The Muslims were clear that naval raids by the "Barbary pirates" were actually jihad by the army of Mohammed. Naming them "pirates" showed that the kafirs had no idea about the doctrine and history of Islam. Today we call the jihadists off the coast of Somalia who are attacking ships "pirates."
Look at the news today. The media report an intifada (uprising) by the Palestinians against the Israelis. But the terms intifada, Palestinian, and Israeli are misnomers. The real terms are jihad, Muslim and infidel, if we follow the Koran, and the doctrine of political Islam clearly states that jihad is to be waged by all Muslims against all Jews and other "kafirs." Today is no different from 1400 years ago in Islam.
9/11 is recorded in the West as a "terrorist attack" by terrorists. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack, was a pious Muslim. He left a letter clearly stating his intentions: 9/11 was pure jihad. An attack is a single event, but jihad is a 1400-year continuous process. Therefore, a terrorist attack is not the same as jihad. Terrorism does not have the same meaning as jihad.
Kafirs called them the "Paris riots." Muslims called the burnings and theft the "Great Ramadan Offensive," which connects them to Mohammed's first jihad in the sacred month of Ramadan. The name "Paris riots" evokes different thoughts, insights, and points of view from the "Great Ramadan Offensive."
The naming of these events by kafirs does not convey the right meaning. Muslims' names for themselves and their actions connect events and people with Islamic history and doctrine and show a continuing process. Kafir names are temporary, do not connect events, and show no historic process.
The only correct terms are those of Islam. The naming by the kafirs is wrong because the naming is a projection of Western culture. Correct naming leads to correct thinking.
Why are we talking about naming?
One of the marks of a dhimmi (a kafir who is an apologist for Islam) under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound.