White House bans use of terms "Islam" and "Jihad" in National Security Strategy document
Posted by: Jim W
on Apr 07, 2010
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.
The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."
Oh, but it gets better.
Obama did not invent Muslim outreach. President George W. Bush gave the White House its first Quran, hosted its first Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan, and loudly stated support for Muslim democracies like Turkey.
But the Bush administration struggled with its rhetoric. Muslims criticized him for describing the war against terror as a "crusade" and labeling the invasion of Afghanistan "Operation Infinite Justice" -- words that were seen as religious. He regularly identified America's enemy as "Islamic extremists" and "radical jihadists."
Karen Hughes, a Bush confidant who served as his top diplomat to the Muslim world in his second term, urged the White House to stop.
"I did recommend that, in my judgment, it's unfortunate because of the way it's heard. We ought to avoid the language of religion," Hughes said. "Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have."
The vast majority (if not all) of the present day terrorism taking place on this planet is caused by Islamic fundamentalists, Islamic extremists, and those calling for Jihad. This cannot be denied. Many times, when we hear details of the final moments of a muslim terrorist attack, witnesses say this parasite was saying "Allah Akbar". On 9-11, there were recordings of savages saying that very phrase. And as we all know, that means "God is great". So, um, humor me here. What SHOULD we call terrorism that is overwhelmingly caused by, um, Muslim Extremist Parasitic Savages that call for a jihad and use religious terms right to the last seconds of their existance? If this isn't about religion, then what is it about?
We don't create these Muslim Extremist Parasitic Savages. Muhammad's message created this. The example put forth by Muhammad is why we are dealing with this today. This is just further proof that this President is not quite ready for prime time.
This goes down as one of the dumbest things he's done since taking office. We don't want to offend Muslims, even though they are predominantly the ones committing global terrorism, so let's soften the language. That'll change em. He has no clue what he's up against.

written by Hans , April 07, 2010
BO, did not use any religious terms in his Easter speech either..
written by Odin , April 07, 2010
Changing the language is probably a wise attempt to separate the Islamic terrorists from the majority of Muslims who seem to have more peaceful interpretations of their holy book, kinda like most Christians probably have more peaceful interpretations of their holy book than Christian rightwing militias do. The extremists/terrorists/militias may claim to be (and may be) religiously motivated, but that doesn't mean their religious views necessarily represent the mainstream beliefs of their religion. It's probably wise to rhetorically emphasize the separation.
written by Sequel , April 07, 2010
And if terrorists screamed "Praise Jesus!" as they set off the bomb or crashed the plane into the building:
What would we call them?
Just wondering if anybody thinks we would obfuscate and dissemble and dance around who and what they were?
written by Kermit , April 07, 2010
I'm still waiting for France and the Pope to apologize for the Albigensian Crusade.
Cathars of the world unite!
written by Odin , April 07, 2010
What would we call them?
Deluded. I doubt Christians would appreciate us calling them Christians and there'd undoubtedly be more than a few Christians who'd speak up to disassociate Christianity and what it stands for from terrorism.
Kinda like what the Obama administration is attempting to do, disassociate Islam from terrorism. The change should help undermine the terrorists' propaganda that we're waging waging a holy war against Islam.
written by Sequel , April 07, 2010
So Odin thinks that if these hypothetical terrorists stated that they killed for Jesus, that the Administration and the press would pretend it had nothing to do with Christianity.
I have a more likely scenario:
Right wing christian extremists is what they would be called, and the likes of Odin would be blaming us for inflaming them.
Hell Odin wants to lay the blame for made up, fake tea party violence and hate speech at our feet. I can imagine the lather he'd work himself into if there were real terrorism by Christians.
Look at the crackpot that shot the abortionist a while back: the press had no problem referring to the guy's religion. Obama was outraged, and made a statement immediately condemning the heinous act. It took him 3 days to notice that an officer had gunned down more than a dozen fellow soldiers while shouting Allah-u-Akbar.
written by Ed Salden , April 07, 2010
How's it going, Sequel?
"...if there were real terrorism by Christians."
Does blowing up abortion clinics or killing practitioners count?
written by Kermit , April 07, 2010
A Christian doesn't blow up abortion clinics or kill baby killers.
Obama calls himself a Christian too, but I've seen little evidence.
written by Ed Salden , April 07, 2010
On December 25, 1984 an abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."
written by Sequel , April 07, 2010
Oh, it happens all right Ed.
Over the last quarter century you can count them on your fingers.
Fairly rare, but it happens.
The condemnation by fellow Christians is loud and emphatic. The condemnation of Christianity is also loud and emphatic.
Unlike the religion hate and death where we ignore the very loudly stated motivation of murder for Allah and pretend it's something else so followers of Allah won't get their feelings hurt.
It was all happy horseshit when Bush uttered his Islam means peace pablum and it's just more ignoring reality when Obama calls defending against the jihad "countering violent extremism".
written by Sequel , April 07, 2010
the terrorists' propaganda that we're waging waging a holy war against Islam.
There's a holy war being waged all right.
I's generally referred to by those who wage it as "jihad".
But apparently we're not supposed to notice that.
written by Kermit , April 07, 2010
Well Islam does mean "peace". Peace through submission. Dead people are some of the most peaceful people on Earth. They seldom cause trouble.
written by Odin , April 07, 2010
I's generally referred to by those who wage it as "jihad".
Misses the point. As long as they remain alive and uncaptured, we can't control what they say, but we can control what we say and there's no good reason we should help them recruit by using their terms.
written by TomC , April 07, 2010
a friendly word, like the left would do, or create a new word to signify these vial Islamic Extremists. How about Quranistas, which would be someone who follows the literal teachings of the Quran.
If we call it something that has friendlier connotations or create a word that is open to definition, the evil part of problem disappears
written by Sequel , April 07, 2010
we can't control what they say
But we can pretend they didn't say it!
We can pretend they meant something else entirely!
We can pretend they are really ""Social justice"" advocates!
Cause really all can be explained through Marx.
written by Badda , April 07, 2010
Close to Hugs for Bombs:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/clinton-threatens-to-drop-da-bomb-on-iraq,787/
...but better.
written by Odin , April 07, 2010
They seem to think so. Do you think agreeing with groups like that helps them recruit or hurts them?
Why do you want to agree with Muslim terrorists if it helps them recruit? Karen Hughes doesn't want to, Obama doesn't want to. Why do you want to help the terrorists? Isn't it bad enough that you've let them terrorize you?
written by Sequel , April 08, 2010
Do you really think that some guy recruited to crash a hijacked plane or strap on a bomb belt will be swayed one way or the other by the Obama administration pretending Islamic terrorists are not Muslims?
Odin, I understand that almost anything Obama does you will support, you've got that Mathews-like thrill up the leg.
And almost anything we back, you will oppose and attempt to mock. That's fine, whatever.
But this is just stupid.
If we don't pretend Islam is not a problem when dudes murder on an industrial scale while shouting Allah-u-Akbar then the terroists have won?

White House bans use of terms "Islam" and "Jihad" in National Security Strategy document