State Department Forbids Use Of Words, ‘Jihad’ And ‘Jihadist’

Oh brother.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reports:

A reliable source has informed me that Condoleeza Rice has approved a new lexicon for State Department usage, absolutely forbidding the use of the terms “jihad” and “jihadist” by any State Department official.

The argument, of course, is the old Streusand/Guirard claim that by using the word jihad, we’re validating the jihadist claim to be waging jihad. Of course, it’s ridiculous to think that the U.S. State Department carries any validating authority within the Islamic world to determine what is Islam and what isn’t. This would be the first time that unbelievers have set the meaning of Islamic theology for Muslims.

Also, the claim is that by using the word “jihad,” we are insulting the peaceful Muslims who are waging the daily jihad of the struggle against sin…

Again with the argument that by using a word that implicates some of the more violent Muslims, we are insulting them all.

Just yesterday I was congratulating John McCain for refusing to cow under pressure from the ISNA to stop using the word ‘Islamic’ when describing Islamic terrorists:

Mr. Fareed, who is ISNA’s secretary-general, said such usages are wrong.

“I think this is just criminality, fair and square. We should just call them criminals. You want to call them terrorist criminals, fine,” he said. “But adding the word ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islamic’ certainly doesn’t help our cause as Americans. It’s counterproductive. It paints an entire community of believers, 1.2 billion in total, in a very negative way. And certainly that’s not something that we want to do.”

Michael Ledeen countered with the obvious, clear thinking rebuttal to this type of PC tripe:

“It doesn’t group the enemy under the Islamic brush stroke because there are plenty of terrorists and extremists who are not Islamic. So it’s just a way of specifying who they are.”

Of ISNA’s criticism, Mr. Ledeen said, “They’re just silly. What a silly thing to say. I talk of Marxist extremists and nationalist extremists. They just don’t want people to say there are Islamic terrorists, which there are. Too bad.”

Sadly, bureaucrats at the State Department aren’t capable of such clear thinking.

It’s true that the word, Jihad has more than one meaning, violent Jihad being just one, but the primary one. Muslihoon who wrote a series of posts about the meaning of the word ‘Jihad’, back in February put it this way:

… there are technically a number of types of jihad. However, in general and across Muslim peoples, jihad by force (“jihad bi-s-sayf”, “jihad by the sword”) is the type that is assumed by default.

By not allowing officials to use the word, ‘jihad’, the State Department is like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. Everybody knows what it means, but they’re going to deny it and hope it goes away.

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

UPDATE:

The inimitable Nick has a different take on this:

While I am generally appalled at political correctness or anything resembling it, this could be viewed in a different light. I can see how the term “Jihadist” could be viewed by a terrorist in a positive and emboldening light. Also, against political correctness doctrine she didn’t mandate an alternative term to replace teh forbidden words as is customary in enlightened circles, leaving the budding state department snob to use their own imagination to replace it.

UPDATE (May 1st):

Robert Spencer addresses this issue in a Jihad Watch video:

Andrew McCarthy On Islam

He appeared on Hannity and Colmes to promote his book, Willful Blindness, which I need to read because it deals with some important questions that most people are too shy to ask, like this one from Hannity: “What percentage of people (practitioners of Islam) buy into the radical views?”

Notice how indignant Colmes gets at McCartnety’s answer to Hannity’s question. Notice the strawman that pops up (”So everyone who’s a practicing Muslim wants to kill us?)”. And note the extreme condescension in Colmes’s voice as he patiently informs McCartney that there are millions and millions of Muslims living in the United States, (as if that’s some kind of revelation).

Colmes can’t match the faux outrage theatrics of fellow libtard, Keith Olbermann, but he manages to be just as annoying in my book.

Hat tip: Hyscience

RELATED:

Mosquewatch has come up with 7 questions to ask of Muslims who profess to oppose terrorism. An answer of yes to any of these questions puts the lie to their claims of moderation.

Via: Infidels Are Cool

Happy Anniversary Harry Reid!

Today is the one year anniversary of Harry Reid’s infamous pronouncement that the Iraq war was lost. He uttered his disgraceful words before the troop surge was even completely in place, making it look more like wishful thinking than an honest assessment. The U.S. military reported that the 28,000 troops required for the surge were not in Iraq and ready to start surge operations until June 15, 2007.

From Politico Playbook:

One year ago today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters: “[T]his war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything.” The traditional one-year anniversary gift is paper (books, etc.), but the modern gift is clocks. Senators always find both useful.

Tomorrow will be the one year anniverary of Al Jazeera’s coverage of Reid’s defeatist words to the Arab world:

The US war in Iraq is lost and a further build-up of US troops in the country will not recover the situation, the senior Democrat in the US senate has said.

“This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,” Harry Reid, the senate Democratic majority leader, told reporters.

Reid, who held talks with George Bush on Wednesday, said he told the president that he thought the war could not be won through military force.

Only political, economic and diplomatic means could bring success, he said.

By early ‘08, evidence that the surge was successful was made clear by the media’s complete loss of interest in covering the war.

-

Well wishers who would like to acknowledge Reid’s moment of shame, may do so in the comments.

-

And by “well wishes” I mean this.

-

Here is the video, (if your stomach can take it):

-

-

UPDATE:

-

Irony of ironies. Today is also Patriot’s Day. Jules Crittenden reminds us what true Patriots look like.*

-

*Yes, I’m questioning Harry Reid’s patriotism. I most certainly am.

-

It is also the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. Dave in Texas commemorates at AOSHQ.

—

Newt Gingrich On Islamic Terrorism

This is sobering stuff. He says he’s “deeply worried”.

I saw it at Atlas Shrugs. 

Patriotism Deemed “Too Political” For MN School

This is just sad. A group of decorated veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not welcome at Forest Lake Area High School in Minnesota. Their planned visit was abruptly canceled when some parents, and “others” complained, and threatened to stage protests.

“The event was structured to be an academic classroom discussion around military service. We thought we’d provide an opportunity for kids to learn about service in the context of our history classes,” Massey said. “As the day progressed, it became clear that this was becoming a political event … which would be inappropriate in a public setting.

“We decided to cancel,” Massey said. Organizers of the National Heroes Tour then scrambled to relocate the event to the American Legion building in Forest Lake. The visit, which U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, had been scheduled to attend, is sponsored by Vets for Freedom, a national organization run by Pete Hegseth, a 1999 graduate of Forest Lake Area High School who served with the 101st Airborne in Iraq in 2005-06.

“I think it’s extremely unfortunate that a school would bow to the political pressure of outside groups and not bring in a veterans organization,” Hegseth said. “Are we saying that patriotism and duty and honor have no place in our public schools?” So far, the tour has visited one school, albeit a private school.

Who are the “others” involved with the planned protest, you ask?

At “Democratic Underground Forums,” there was an announcement of a press conference by various unidentified groups opposing the Vets for Freedom appearance. The announcement exhorted “Veterans for Peace” to oppose the appearance and listed contact info for Massey; school board president Bill Bresin, and the Forest Lake Area Schools district office. The post expressed “outrage” that Vets for Freedom was going to meet with students to “indoctrinate them on the joys of war.”

Michelle Malkin has covered the far left’s war against military recruiters extensively. But this isn’t even about recruitment. It’s simply about encouraging support for our troops.

“We have not endorsed a presidential candidate. We’re not in the business of doing that.” According to the Veterans for Freedom website, the national tour “is about supporting our troops, honoring their commitment and rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was the “rallying the country” part that had some people up in arms:

When asked whether the part about “rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan” could indeed be construed as political, Hegseth said that the group agreed not to advocate about the “progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

We can’t have people running around “rallying the country” willy nilly…causing patriotic feelings to flow, and what-not. This is 2008, not 1942. The idea is to be cynical and negative…blow out of proportion every death and setback in the war, even declare defeat. But under no circumstances should we allow the soldiers to tell their own stories, especially to impressionable kids, if it reflects well on the United States and the war effort.

We can’t have that.

Hat tip: Hot Air Headlines

Here’s the schedule for the Vets for Freedom National Heroes Tour. They’ll be in Kansas City on March 27, and St. Louis on the 28th. They’ll be visiting various southern states in the last days of March and first week of April, and ending their tour at stops in Washington DC, and NYC.

Also covering this story:

Michelle Malkin

Hot Air

Blackfive

Kathryn Jean Lopez

Gateway Pundit

Urban Grounds

Uncommon Misconceptions Hi Geoff *Wink!*

UPDATE:

Powerline has pictures from the American Legion, where The Vets for Freedom relocated for their event.

With only 12 hours to get the word out, IT WAS STANDING ROOM ONLY.

About two-dozen Forest Lake High School students skipped school to attend, holding signs that said “Support the Vets” and “We love our troops.” The outpouring of support from the community in Forest Lake was incredible, and we hope for an even larger crowd at tonight’s event.

Yay!

MORE:

Dan Riehl has discovered a heaping helping of hypocrisy in Forest Lake Area High School principal, Steve Massey. Ugh. Not surprised.

Do stories like this make you want to do something TODAY to help support our troops?

Here’s one way:

It’s called Six Packs for Soldiers. Visit the site for directions.

Hat tips to Patty Ann, the Sniper, and Doubleplusundead.

UPDATE: (3/26):

Hot Air has a report from the Minnesota front this morning.

Anti-War Bias In Media Helps U.S. Enemies

I realize most conservatives already know this, but now there’s a study by two Harvard University economists that confirms it. And the worst part is, the anti-war reporting helps by inspiring more attacks on U.S. troops:

“It shows that the various insurgent groups do respond to incentives and shows that a successful counter insurgency strategy should take that reality into account,” Jonathan Monten, a co-author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, told US News and World Report.

Insurgent attacks increased between 7 and 10 percent immediately after a spike in “antiresolve” statements in the media, according to the findings.

Related:

MAF has a report on the attacks on military recruitment centers all across America.

Michelle Malkin has covered the left’s war on military recruiters extensively, and is covering The Winter Soldiers II hearings that kick off today.

Al Qaeda Promises “Maximum Pain” On Fifth Anniversary Of War

The fifth anniversary of the Iraq war is March 20.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq commander, Abu-Turab Al-Jaza’iri was interviewed at an AQ hideout by the Qatari daily Al-’Arab last month, where he admitted al Qaeda’s situation in Iraq is “difficult”, but future attacks were planned. Excerpts are posted at MEMRI:

Asked about Al-Qaeda’s position in Iraq, with reference to the U.S. announcement that it had been paralyzed, Al-Jaza’iri replied: “…[The Islamic Republic of Iraq] is alive, striking, bombing, and planning to attack various military targets belonging to the Crusaders and to betrayers of Islam, i.e. the Shi’ites and Kurds who have joined the occupier…

“It is true that we have lost several cities and have been forced to withdraw from others, after a large number of [Sunni] tribal leaders betrayed Islam and when their tribe members joined forces against us. However, we are still fighting, and the ‘paralysis’ mentioned by the Crusaders is true only for some of the regions. [Besides,] it is common knowledge that any war always involves advance and retreat, so that [even] in those regions I wouldn’t call our position ‘paralysis,’ but rather ‘the [changing] conditions of the war.’”

Al-Jaza’iri added: “…I do not want to paint a false picture: Our position is very difficult, but we are fighting, and will continue to do so…”

The “changing conditions” of the war have not been entirely favorable to al Qaeda in Iraq.

Asked about possible reasons for the decrease in Al-Qaeda’s popularity, Al-Jaza’iri said that indiscriminately murdering civilians had been a mistake that had “harmed the organization’s reputation.”

Yeah, the indiscriminate killing of civilians would tend to have that effect.

He stated: “In the Al-Anbar [district], for example, Sunni Iraqis voluntarily enlisted for jihad activity not because [they believed in] it, but because they hated the Americans and [wished] to take revenge on them and on the betrayers of Islam. Some were motivated by financial considerations, and got carried away with murdering and executing futile attacks, which killed a lot of unfortunate individuals.

“Neither can I ignore the U.S. and Iraqi intelligence apparatuses, or the media, which caters [to the Americans] and which has accused us of carrying out attacks in which we had no part - such as the attack at the Al-Habbaniyah mosque west of Al-Faluja, or the [attacks] in Al-Faluja and Al-Ramadi, where lethal chlorine gas was used. The killing of the Crusaders and of the tribal leaders who collaborated with the betrayers of Islam should have been carried out more intelligently.”

Huh! The Sunnis are telling a different story.

The Next Few Months Will Prove Decisive

On the change in Al-Qaeda’s strategy and the continuation of attacks, Al-Jaza’iri said: “It is clear that the strategy [of capturing cities and turning them into Al-Qaeda bases] has failed, so today we are fighting a guerilla war, or, as some call it, ’street fighting.’ The efficacy of this [strategy] has been proven in various contexts. We have been instructed to focus our attacks on targets that are strategically and morally important to our enemies , on the eve of the U.S. election campaign.”

He continued: “…It is the type of attacks and the way they are planned that will be changed. Accordingly, we will be focusing on operations that cause the maximum pain and bewilderment to the enemy. This [shift] will open a new page in the fighting, which you will notice on the fifth anniversary of the occupation of Iraq…”

Gateway Pundit reports:

Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of the U.S. Northern Command also told reporters today that Al-Qaeda is planning a spectacular attack on the United States.

In Other GWOT News:

Some Red Meat from the Jawa Report:

A follower of Omar Bakri Mohammed, the exiled British cleric, claims that the U.S. & Britain will be overthrown by Muslims from within or conquered by Muslims from without. The links in his sidebar clear show that “Duaat” is a Bakri follower, including links to several “Ahlus Sunnah wal jama’ah” organizations and a direct link to Barki’s own webpage.

You’ll most likely remember Bakri’s followers through their U.S. branch at The Islamic Thinkers Society…

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit

How Unpopular Is The U.S. And Should We Care?

We are constantly being reminded by the media that the United States is hated throughout the world.

Both of Democratic front-runners, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, have made raising the image of the United States in the world, a top priority, in their administrations, (if elected).

Michael Gerson from the Washington Post:

“The world was with us after 9/11,” explains Hillary Clinton. “We have so squandered that goodwill and we’ve got to rebuild it.” Barack Obama has said that the “single most important issue” of the current election is picking a leader who can “repair all the damage that’s been done to America’s reputation overseas.”

But just how much are we actually hated… by who, and should we even care? The Democrats would have us believe that we’re universally despised. Not surprisingly, we’re unpopular in the Middle East and Asia, according to The Pew Global Attitude Project:

The U.S. image remains abysmal in most Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia, and continues to decline among the publics of many of America’s oldest allies. Favorable views of the U.S. are in single digits in Turkey (9%) and have declined to 15% in Pakistan.

But there’s good news, too:

First, the U.S. image remains positive in Africa. In several African countries, such as Ethiopia and Kenya, it is overwhelmingly positive. In addition, majorities in two of America’s most important Asian trading partners – India and Japan – continue to express favorable opinions of the United States. And the U.S. image has improved dramatically in South Korea since 2003 (from 46% to 58% favorable).

While opinion of the U.S. has slipped in Latin America over the past five years, majorities in such countries as Mexico, Peru and even Venezuela still say they have a positive opinion of their large neighbor to the north. Similarly, “new Europe” likes America better than “old Europe,” although the U.S. image is not nearly as strong in Eastern Europe as it was five years ago.

So no, we’re not universally despised. Check out the graph at The Pew Global Attitude Project if you need a visual.

Gerson, again:

The second premise of this Democratic argument is that American popularity in these regions could be increased, easily and permanently, by overturning Bush policies.

It is worth noting that American relations with European governments have rebounded strongly in the past few years with the election of Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy in France. And the next president, Republican or Democrat, is likely to close Guantanamo and sign legislation to restrict American carbon emissions, mollifying two justified European criticisms.

I call b.s. on that last bit…Guantanamo, and carbon emissions are two Bush policies I would prefer to see left alone, but Gerson’s on a roll:

Yet the tensions between American and European worldviews ultimately have little to do with specific policies. Europe is an increasingly pacifist continent — which is an improvement upon its bloody history but a source of inevitable tension with a superpower that must occasionally enforce world order. European governments generally view international institutions as a way to constrain American power. Any future American president will continue to view those institutions as a way to amplify our influence in keeping the peace.

And the broader Middle East is an even more difficult case. A close look at the Pew poll shows that appeasing public opinion in this region would require not merely leaving Iraq but also leaving Afghanistan, abandoning the war on terror and ending our support for Israel.

Which begs the question…how far would a Democratic President go, to mollify Islamic countries? I shudder to think.

The third premise of the Democratic argument is that global popularity translates directly into global influence. Here the historical evidence is thin.

Gerson cites the example of Ronald Reagan who was detested, and protested against in Europe for deploying Pershing missiles. Yet Reagan helped end the Cold War, and lift the nuclear threat from Europe with his unpopular policies

More recently:

The January 2007 decision to surge American troops in Iraq was clearly at odds with world opinion. But retreating from Iraq in failure would have earned global contempt for American weakness instead of global popularity. And the turnaround in Iraq has restored at least some of our standing and leverage in the Middle East.

Very true. This is why we shouldn’t throw up our hands in despair every time we hear someone in the world doesn’t like us. Very often we’re right, they’re wrong.

Conclusion:

The real lesson in the years since Sept. 11 is different from what the Democratic candidates imagine: It is easy to be loved when you are a victim. It is harder to be popular when you act decisively to protect yourself and others.

A successful president should strive for America to be liked — and expect, on occasion, for America to be resented in a good cause.

But hey, if you’d rather be a victim, (but loooved)…vote Democrat.

The Hypocrisy Of Barack Obama

The dubious anecdote about ill equipped troops that Barack Obama shared at the Democratic primary debate, Thursday night, has caused a stir in the right wing blogosphere. The story is being ably covered by blogs like Ace of Spades, Gateway Pundit, Flopping Aces, and The Jawa Report who see this story as a possible chink in Obama’s political armor. If he’s knowingly lying, or carelessly passing off faulty information about the troops, then he should be made to answer for it.

But let’s not forget what is undeniably another outrage in all this, whether Obama’s story turns out to be mostly true, or not.

I’m talking about the absolutely breathtaking hypocrisy of the man.

After complaining about the platoon getting split up, he argued that the soldiers were left without the necessary troops and weapons:

“And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees,” Obama said. “They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

First of all, if there were now fewer troops, why would it then follow (”as a consequence”) that they would not have enough ammunition? I never got that. And how the hell were they even capturing all those “tallyban” weapons, if they were not properly equipped? Kung Fu? …But that’s neither here nor there.

The main thing is….what @#$%&! nerve this guy has trying to blame the President for this supposed lack of equipment when he himself voted not to fund the troops:

ABC News, May 24, 2007:

After a nearly four-month standoff between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the White House, the House and Senate passed a war funding bill Thursday evening that does not contain timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

In the Senate, the bill passed overwhelmingly, 80-14, though three of four Democrats running for president — Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. – were in the minority voting against funds for the wars.

You see, staying on good terms with a big sugar daddy was more important than funding the troops.

ABC News September 17, 2007:

Seventy-two hours after MoveOn.org threw down the gauntlet, telling ABC News that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., needed to speak out “sooner and more vocally” in opposition to voting for an Iraq funding measure that does not include a timetable for withdrawal, both Democratic presidential contenders have done exactly that.

“If there is a funding bill that does not have a timetable for when we begin withdrawal, and the completion — a plan for how that withdrawal will proceed – I will not support it,” said Obama on Sunday during a wide-ranging foreign policy discussion at Des Moines’ First Christian Church.

Nov. 16, 2003:

…then-state senator Obama told a cheering crowd that it was wrong to vote to fund the war.”Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said ‘No,’” Obama said to applause as he referred to a bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say ‘No’ to George Bush,” Obama said. “If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.”

Sure, the troops eventually got their funding… without Obama’s help, but the delays may have caused problems for the troops. For instance, back in March 2007:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that if Congress fails to pass a measure funding the war efforts by April 15, it will slow down training of troops scheduled for future deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Gates says it would also delay repair of equipment.

Let a Republican play that game: Delay funding of something vital, and finally vote against it. Then complain when the project falls short of perfection.

Yeah, that would go over real well.

News On The GWOT Front

News coverage of the Global War On Terror has been greatly reduced in recent weeks, due to the increased coverage of primary season politics, and the fact that Iraq has calmed down, so the MSM no longer has large body counts to scream about. But there’s still plenty of stuff happening, especially in Pakistan.

Gateway Pundit:

Islamic Militants Seizing forts from Pakistani Troops.

LGF:

Islamic Festival Starts off with Mass Murder At Mosque.

The Long War Journal:

Senior al Qaeda In Iraq Leader Killed In Miqdadiyah

The National Terror Alert Response Center

The Capture Of al Qaeda’s Most Notorious Cyber Jihadist and

The Forest Fire Jihad

The Jawa Report:

Michael Savage vs. CAIR

Ace Of Spades HQ:

Former Congressman & Delegate To The UN Indicted For Terrorist Fundraising.

Muslihoon:

The Insidious Nature Of Islamism

MORE:

Weasel Zippers:

The UK has renamed Terrorism, “Anti-Islamic Activity”.

Investors Business Daily:

New Terror Threat

World Net Daily:

CAIR backs off support of Goose Creek Pipe bomb suspects.

The Washington Times:

Terror’s Financiers.

Hot Air:

New Jihad Watch: The Candidates Speak On Jihad.

Ace Of Spades HQ (Dave In Texas):

Squeezing Out al Qaeda  In Iraq