I have some thoughts on the “end of the War on Terror” over at PJMedia.
25 thoughts on “A Rectification Of Names”
Absolutely right. The fight is in our schools and the media. The American people for the most part have no idea of Islams history regarding America. We have been fighting Islam since before we were America.
This is not a fight against everyone born into that faith. This is a fight against anyone that holds to that faith with regard to it’s demands on the faithful.
Islam is not compatible with liberty. Let’s get rid of the word ‘radical’ with Islam while we’re at it. Until I die, I will never forget woman and children in the streets cheering the destruction of so many on 9-11. I will never forget.
There are more definitions of “Islamism” than you can wave a stick at, picking the one promoted by The American-Israeli Cooperative enterprise might be a bit self serving, A bit like asking Obama to define Republican politics.
While there is a seed of truth in what you say in that faith is an individual issue; sorry, not going to accept the BS.
The enemy is self identifying by their support of a sick ideology that has no tolerance for others.
Just don’t, Andrew. Just don’t.
Then there’s using phrases like “The American-Israeli Cooperative enterprise.”
Jihadism is still a better term.
1) It doesn’t have significant connotative baggage.
2) The people of whom one is speaking tend to self-identify.
Would that be Buddist Jihadism, or Jainist Jihadism, or Catholic Jihadism?
That’s the problem with pretending Islam is not the problem. Islam has continued to be what it has always been since it’s founding. It’s always been about killing or subduing. It is not optional and it is not tolerant. It’s very pragmatic and they in their minds know with absolute certainty that they will win and destroy all other beliefs. We have already lost to one goal of Islam which is to tax any that are not. It is a clear victory that we in America don’t even fight against effectively.
Again, this does not make everyone born into the faith our enemies. Just the majority that are ‘for it.’
There may be some Jehovah’s Jihadist for Jesus group? I’m just not that concerned about them at this point.
I don’t disagree.
But these two conversations go in completely different directions:
“I think Islamism is a problem because…”
“I think Jihadism is a problem because…”
That is: Even when you explicitly call out “Militant Extremist Islamism”, the counter is -always- “It isn’t -all- of Islam!!!” Eleventy!!!
But if you call out Jihadism, you’re (a) referencing the same group of militant extremists (who will gladly -self-proclaim the grand jihad!), and (b) don’t end up spending the entire rest of the miniscule news segment re(rerere)iterating that “some” doesn’t mean “all”.
You still have the -inference- to Islam. That is: You wouldn’t call them “Catholic Jihadists” – those would clearly be “Catholic Crusaders.”
I tend to agree that “some” is a hell of a lot closer to “all” than I’m comfortable with.
But “Jihadist” would seem to be less inflammatory to any -non- Jihadist. And the comeback for “I object!” is “Why? Why are you sticking up for Jihadists?!?”
Good points. Any chance the media would promote the term Jihadist?
Never.
But every single time they use a different term you get to slam them. Because half of the damn terms used by the media are asinine.
When ‘Islamist’ is the term, this is the line:
Person says …. ‘Islamist’
Reporter says …. ‘insurgent’ (or whatever)
Person says “That’s dumb.”
Reporter says “Well, ‘Islamist!’ is even dumber! They aren’t -all- our enemy! Yet! But they will be if you don’t shut the (*&(*& up!” (I’ve heard this whole exchange (paraphrased, not word-for-word) several times at this point.)
If they do the same carping about Jihadist:
“Well, look Mrs. Newsreader: They -self-proclaim- the Great Jihad against America. I’m not going to disrespect their culture by assuming they don’t mean what they explicitly say.”
That should be “The people to whom I’m referring as Jihadists -self-proclaim-…”
It is incredibly foolish to think AQ and its affiliates are no longer a threat. Even if we don’t think the religious and ethnic cleansing taking place in Northern Africa and the ME requires our intervention, we shouldn’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend it isn’t happening. Nor sbould we ignore the shortened lifespan of any Muslim who speaks out against the Islamists.
AQ is still bigger than the Unabomber’s organization of one, and we didn’t ignore the latter.
You shouldn’t have been so hard on that “official.” He was, after all, “high” at the time…
There is a little hope yet, perhaps. In the UK, one of the worst countries for Islamophilia, there is a fairly strong movement for the compulsory labelling of halal (and kosher) meat. Why does this matter? Simple. Halal certification has to be paid for – to Moslems – and therefore every single packet of halal meat you buy is giving money to Islamic organisations that give a large proportion of that money to terrorists.
It is sad to think that America, through varies good intended means, is probably the biggest financer of Islamic terrorism.
Was the US the biggest funder of Irish terrorism? It sure seems reasonable. Most of the donators would have pretended they weren’t funding terrorism.
Daver,
now your doing it, using the Irish as an example. No, the ‘US’ was not the biggest funder of Irish terror.
But most likely people living in the ‘US’ were, given that we have the largest enclave of Irish outside Ireland, and they were supporting both sides by the way.
Not all the Irish here are Catholic Irish, so there are Orangemen in Boston too.
I think for someone to say the ‘US’ supports this, that or two other things, I want to see the line item in the federal budget. Or to at least have someone hint that we provided top secret support in some way.
Daver, not that it’s relevant to anything, but what tax dollars supported Irish terrorism?
I apologize, I should have made it clear I was thinking of US citizens, not the US government. The US government may have sponsored programs that funneled money to Irish terrorists (I don’t know), but I doubt it was anything compared to the money that it is providing to Islamic terrorists.
The point I wish I had made was that more-or-less well meaning US citizens are probably unknowingly contributing money that goes to Islamic terrorists, the way more-or-less well meaning US citizens had contributed money that went to support Irish terrorism.
The difference being citizens can be informed and choose to stop. Taxpayer can know and be furious about it but still compelled to pay.
Yeah, both major parties and a number of universities and other influential institutions have taken major donations from the middle east–we’re unlikely to see much change in how much federal money goes to terrorism even if we vote out the current set of scoundrels.
I’m not sure that informing citizens would do much good. Some of the people donating aren’t bothered by the money going to terrorist activities. The ones who would be bothered by that but are donating because of religious reasons would be more willing to believe the cover story than any evidence of terrorist ties, no matter how well documented. The situation seems analogous to the donations to Irish terrorism, with the additional blinding factor of religion.
Fine historical perspective. If only there were arequired reading list, at a minimum, for service in the Department of State…
To round out the case, whenever a Palestinian sympathizer makes irredentist demands, remind them of the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey, how nearly a million Ionians were resettled, not kept in squalid camps, lobbing rockets, seeking a return of Constantinople.
Der Schtumpy – One way the US government supported the IRA was by not even attempting to do anything about their fund-raising. Why was NORAID not a proscribed organisation? Plenty of other terrorist front organisations were, and are.
Of course, that problem solved itself on 9/12. All of a sudden, Americans saw ethnic-Irish “freedom fighters” for what they are.
And Daver, of course you’re right. Every time an American puts gasoline in his tank (which he does far too often), he’s funding Islamic terrorism.
So, Fletcher, NOT doing something about “X”, means you support “X”?
I shudder to think then, of the thousands of things the ‘US’ is supporting via omission of openly fighting it, them, him or her. At 57, hoping to live another 30 years at least, I don’t have enough life left to write that list!
.
.
I will agree with our round about support of Islamic terrorism. But until American voters put elected officials in Congress and the WH who will rein in the EPA, so that we can drill, refine, transfer and truck petrochemicals more easily, supporting Islamfascism isn’t likely to change.
I think GWB missed a HUGE opportunity to get the majority of Americans invested in the ‘war on terror’, when he did NOT do any kind of rationing after 9/11. What happened to GWB’s idea of pushing through refineries on leased federal land? Or more drilling on federal lands, to get us off oil from the Middle East?
Oddly, we wound up doing self-rationing when prices got to a point where they were overloading our wallets. And when gas got to be $4 and even $5 a gallon, lo and behold, people starting asking about WHY, and where and who of oil and who makes the money. Sadly most Americans either aren’t smart enough to look for the facts or they’re too involved with voting for ‘merican Idles to look up the facts, to see WTH is going on day to day with respect to gas profits vs gas taxation. I think most people would be shocked to know that taxes are 8 times what profits are.
Of course that’s after they get over the shock of who got fired by Trump last week!
In the end, to me anyway, both sides of our political set up in many ways would rather fight each other than take on the real enemy du jour, Islamofascism. That’s in Congress and in our homes. We’re infighting instead of standing back to back first and then solving internal problems second, after the bad guys, are dead guys.
We fund them even more directly than petro dollars. We even have them defining how we fight them. It’s beyond ridiculous.
Absolutely right. The fight is in our schools and the media. The American people for the most part have no idea of Islams history regarding America. We have been fighting Islam since before we were America.
This is not a fight against everyone born into that faith. This is a fight against anyone that holds to that faith with regard to it’s demands on the faithful.
Islam is not compatible with liberty. Let’s get rid of the word ‘radical’ with Islam while we’re at it. Until I die, I will never forget woman and children in the streets cheering the destruction of so many on 9-11. I will never forget.
There are more definitions of “Islamism” than you can wave a stick at, picking the one promoted by The American-Israeli Cooperative enterprise might be a bit self serving, A bit like asking Obama to define Republican politics.
While there is a seed of truth in what you say in that faith is an individual issue; sorry, not going to accept the BS.
The enemy is self identifying by their support of a sick ideology that has no tolerance for others.
Just don’t, Andrew. Just don’t.
Then there’s using phrases like “The American-Israeli Cooperative enterprise.”
Jihadism is still a better term.
1) It doesn’t have significant connotative baggage.
2) The people of whom one is speaking tend to self-identify.
Would that be Buddist Jihadism, or Jainist Jihadism, or Catholic Jihadism?
That’s the problem with pretending Islam is not the problem. Islam has continued to be what it has always been since it’s founding. It’s always been about killing or subduing. It is not optional and it is not tolerant. It’s very pragmatic and they in their minds know with absolute certainty that they will win and destroy all other beliefs. We have already lost to one goal of Islam which is to tax any that are not. It is a clear victory that we in America don’t even fight against effectively.
Again, this does not make everyone born into the faith our enemies. Just the majority that are ‘for it.’
There may be some Jehovah’s Jihadist for Jesus group? I’m just not that concerned about them at this point.
I don’t disagree.
But these two conversations go in completely different directions:
“I think Islamism is a problem because…”
“I think Jihadism is a problem because…”
That is: Even when you explicitly call out “Militant Extremist Islamism”, the counter is -always- “It isn’t -all- of Islam!!!” Eleventy!!!
But if you call out Jihadism, you’re (a) referencing the same group of militant extremists (who will gladly -self-proclaim the grand jihad!), and (b) don’t end up spending the entire rest of the miniscule news segment re(rerere)iterating that “some” doesn’t mean “all”.
You still have the -inference- to Islam. That is: You wouldn’t call them “Catholic Jihadists” – those would clearly be “Catholic Crusaders.”
I tend to agree that “some” is a hell of a lot closer to “all” than I’m comfortable with.
But “Jihadist” would seem to be less inflammatory to any -non- Jihadist. And the comeback for “I object!” is “Why? Why are you sticking up for Jihadists?!?”
Good points. Any chance the media would promote the term Jihadist?
Never.
But every single time they use a different term you get to slam them. Because half of the damn terms used by the media are asinine.
When ‘Islamist’ is the term, this is the line:
Person says …. ‘Islamist’
Reporter says …. ‘insurgent’ (or whatever)
Person says “That’s dumb.”
Reporter says “Well, ‘Islamist!’ is even dumber! They aren’t -all- our enemy! Yet! But they will be if you don’t shut the (*&(*& up!” (I’ve heard this whole exchange (paraphrased, not word-for-word) several times at this point.)
If they do the same carping about Jihadist:
“Well, look Mrs. Newsreader: They -self-proclaim- the Great Jihad against America. I’m not going to disrespect their culture by assuming they don’t mean what they explicitly say.”
That should be “The people to whom I’m referring as Jihadists -self-proclaim-…”
It is incredibly foolish to think AQ and its affiliates are no longer a threat. Even if we don’t think the religious and ethnic cleansing taking place in Northern Africa and the ME requires our intervention, we shouldn’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend it isn’t happening. Nor sbould we ignore the shortened lifespan of any Muslim who speaks out against the Islamists.
AQ is still bigger than the Unabomber’s organization of one, and we didn’t ignore the latter.
You shouldn’t have been so hard on that “official.” He was, after all, “high” at the time…
There is a little hope yet, perhaps. In the UK, one of the worst countries for Islamophilia, there is a fairly strong movement for the compulsory labelling of halal (and kosher) meat. Why does this matter? Simple. Halal certification has to be paid for – to Moslems – and therefore every single packet of halal meat you buy is giving money to Islamic organisations that give a large proportion of that money to terrorists.
It is sad to think that America, through varies good intended means, is probably the biggest financer of Islamic terrorism.
Was the US the biggest funder of Irish terrorism? It sure seems reasonable. Most of the donators would have pretended they weren’t funding terrorism.
Daver,
now your doing it, using the Irish as an example. No, the ‘US’ was not the biggest funder of Irish terror.
But most likely people living in the ‘US’ were, given that we have the largest enclave of Irish outside Ireland, and they were supporting both sides by the way.
Not all the Irish here are Catholic Irish, so there are Orangemen in Boston too.
I think for someone to say the ‘US’ supports this, that or two other things, I want to see the line item in the federal budget. Or to at least have someone hint that we provided top secret support in some way.
Daver, not that it’s relevant to anything, but what tax dollars supported Irish terrorism?
I apologize, I should have made it clear I was thinking of US citizens, not the US government. The US government may have sponsored programs that funneled money to Irish terrorists (I don’t know), but I doubt it was anything compared to the money that it is providing to Islamic terrorists.
The point I wish I had made was that more-or-less well meaning US citizens are probably unknowingly contributing money that goes to Islamic terrorists, the way more-or-less well meaning US citizens had contributed money that went to support Irish terrorism.
The difference being citizens can be informed and choose to stop. Taxpayer can know and be furious about it but still compelled to pay.
Yeah, both major parties and a number of universities and other influential institutions have taken major donations from the middle east–we’re unlikely to see much change in how much federal money goes to terrorism even if we vote out the current set of scoundrels.
I’m not sure that informing citizens would do much good. Some of the people donating aren’t bothered by the money going to terrorist activities. The ones who would be bothered by that but are donating because of religious reasons would be more willing to believe the cover story than any evidence of terrorist ties, no matter how well documented. The situation seems analogous to the donations to Irish terrorism, with the additional blinding factor of religion.
Fine historical perspective. If only there were arequired reading list, at a minimum, for service in the Department of State…
To round out the case, whenever a Palestinian sympathizer makes irredentist demands, remind them of the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey, how nearly a million Ionians were resettled, not kept in squalid camps, lobbing rockets, seeking a return of Constantinople.
Der Schtumpy – One way the US government supported the IRA was by not even attempting to do anything about their fund-raising. Why was NORAID not a proscribed organisation? Plenty of other terrorist front organisations were, and are.
Of course, that problem solved itself on 9/12. All of a sudden, Americans saw ethnic-Irish “freedom fighters” for what they are.
And Daver, of course you’re right. Every time an American puts gasoline in his tank (which he does far too often), he’s funding Islamic terrorism.
So, Fletcher, NOT doing something about “X”, means you support “X”?
I shudder to think then, of the thousands of things the ‘US’ is supporting via omission of openly fighting it, them, him or her. At 57, hoping to live another 30 years at least, I don’t have enough life left to write that list!
.
.
I will agree with our round about support of Islamic terrorism. But until American voters put elected officials in Congress and the WH who will rein in the EPA, so that we can drill, refine, transfer and truck petrochemicals more easily, supporting Islamfascism isn’t likely to change.
I think GWB missed a HUGE opportunity to get the majority of Americans invested in the ‘war on terror’, when he did NOT do any kind of rationing after 9/11. What happened to GWB’s idea of pushing through refineries on leased federal land? Or more drilling on federal lands, to get us off oil from the Middle East?
Oddly, we wound up doing self-rationing when prices got to a point where they were overloading our wallets. And when gas got to be $4 and even $5 a gallon, lo and behold, people starting asking about WHY, and where and who of oil and who makes the money. Sadly most Americans either aren’t smart enough to look for the facts or they’re too involved with voting for ‘merican Idles to look up the facts, to see WTH is going on day to day with respect to gas profits vs gas taxation. I think most people would be shocked to know that taxes are 8 times what profits are.
Of course that’s after they get over the shock of who got fired by Trump last week!
In the end, to me anyway, both sides of our political set up in many ways would rather fight each other than take on the real enemy du jour, Islamofascism. That’s in Congress and in our homes. We’re infighting instead of standing back to back first and then solving internal problems second, after the bad guys, are dead guys.
We fund them even more directly than petro dollars. We even have them defining how we fight them. It’s beyond ridiculous.