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

Posted by: Jim W

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. 

Trackback(0)
Comments (22)add comment
Hans
Is This An Offical WH Fatwa?
written by Hans , April 07, 2010

BO, did not use any religious terms in his Easter speech either..


0
Karen Hughes aint exactly a lefty
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.


Sequel
...
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?



0
...
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!



0
...
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.



Sequel
...
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.



Ed Salden
...
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?





0
...
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.



Ed Salden
...
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."


0
...
written by Kermit , April 07, 2010

I can call myself a pork chop. That doesn't make it so.


Sequel
...
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".



Sequel
...
written by Sequel , April 07, 2010

Oh yeah... Wassup Ed.


Jim W
...
written by Jim W , April 07, 2010

Ed, you had to go back to 1984 to get an example? Take a look at the ticker on the front page of this kickass blog. It moves EVERY DAY. Let's dispell with the bullshit here - we're all adults adn we know the score. There IS no comparison. Terrorism is currently owned by the fucking Muslim Extremist Parasitic Savages. They ARE muslims. There is no getting around that. As much as it pains liberals to say it, these are MUSLIM extremists, using ISLAM as the basis for their terrorism. When you yell "god is great" as you kill innocents, there can be no confusing what the motivation is. Instead of us as a country bending over so as to not offend, how about we start demanding some of these "scared moderate" muslims to start disassociating themselves from this shit. THey want their religion to be unscathed? Then start acting like it. You cannot change the terminology surrounding Islamic terrorism and suddenly garner the support of millions of Muslims that were on the fence.

And anyone that honestly thinks WE Create a terrorist, you're as obtuse as this President.



Sequel
...
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.



0
...
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.


0
...
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.



TomC
Why not adopt ...
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



Jim W
...
written by Jim W , April 07, 2010

Tom has a point. Since our govt has manufactured this "terminology" problem, they can fix it with sappy buzzwords. I mean, that's the only thing creating problems for us, right?

Of course, next thing we know some jackass in teh administration will offer up a "hugs for bombs" exchange program. There's an easy joke in this one, as I'm sure I'm that far off on this one.



Sequel
...
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.



Badda
...
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.



0
Do you think the Hutarees are Christians?
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?



Sequel
...
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?




Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy