Iranians For Obama

Well, is anyone surprised?

“I think people want him to win,” Shi’ite cleric Mehdi Karroubi, the reformist former parliament speaker defeated by Ahmadinejad in Iran’s 2005 presidential contest, told TIME.

It’s not only the policy expectations that account for Obama’s popularity: his Third World ethnic background and the Muslim faith of his father’s Kenyan family — even his middle name, Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and a revered figure in the Shi’ite Islam practiced in Iran — offer points of affinity that some analysts believe could give Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the political cover to make a gesture of reconciliation to the country long decried in Tehran as “the Great Satan.”

They are divided on Hillary:

… largely basing their views on the record in the Middle East of her husband, who Iranians expect would effectively be her senior foreign policy adviser. Mohammed Atrianfar, an adviser to former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, argues that Bill Clinton has a “peace-seeking image” among Iranians. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, now a Hillary adviser, publicly accepted American responsibility for involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran and subsequent support for the repressive regime of the Shah. Iranian diplomats complain, however, that Clinton also imposed economic sanctions on Iran.

Yeah, I wonder if they’ve heard Hillary’s “I’ll obliterate them” comment, yet.

McCain makes them nervous:

…many consider McCain a hawk and fear his experiences as an American POW in the Vietnam War may hardwire him for hostility towards revolutionary governments. All Iranians seem aware of McCain’s “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” Beach Boys imitation, and many take it as an indication of his inclinations.

The choice for Iranian officials is clear:

But it’s Obama’s declared willingness to engage in “aggressive personal diplomacy” with the Iranian leadership that has generated the most interest among senior officials in Tehran, since this would mark a sea-change in Washington’s approach. “Obama is a man of engagement, a man of negotiations,” one Iranian official told TIME. Amir Mohebbian, an analyst close to Iranian conservative politicians, argues that “the mentality of Iranian decision makers is ready for that.” He adds: “I think that the coming of Obama — maybe, maybe — helps to solve this problem, but it needs bravery, from both sides.”

I’m sure they’re chomping at the bit.

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


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


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