"Jihadist" not allowed by Bush

There's actually a good reason for this. To Islamic audiences the term "jihad" has exclusively positive connotations; referring to terrorists as "jihadis" thus actually creates sympathy for them in the Islamic world. It's analogous to calling them "freedom fighters". This isn't about political correctness, it's about tailoring our message to maximize its effectiveness.

It's not that clunky. Most modern white supremacist groups identify themselves as Christian, and feel that they are centrally driven by Christian ideology and values, as they see them.

The "as them see them" part really matters in the paragraph above.

We don't refer to KKK members as Christian terrorists. To many Muslims, the values of groups like Al Qaeda seem as distant from their own as those of the KKK do from most Christians.

Still, one has to admit that the Muslim terrorists primarily identify themselves by their religion, while white supremacist groups primarily do so by race. Hence, calling groups like Al Qaeda "jihadists" or "Islamic terrorists" seems accurate enough, barring the above-mentioned concerns over the over of the concept of "jihad".

I've never been fond of "Islamofascist" though, since I think it conflates these two ideas that aren't really accurate to either Islam OR facism. Facism is primarily a nationalist identity, whereas groups like Al Qaeda are really about a religious hegemony, no nationalism.

Lastly, as to Rod wearing a bra, I'm sure that if he did it would be a plain white, cotton, uber-supportive, non-pushup type that would be duly approved by any conservative bra-monitoring organization.

What Adam said - folks who know about such things have suggested that the term jihadist imputes usdeserved credibility to these folks amongst Muslim audiences.

Why can't we just talk to them instead of calling them names like "terrorist" and all? I mean they are people too. If we understand them better then we can show them that we are not a threat.

>>>
Why can't we just talk to them instead of calling them names like "terrorist" and all? I mean they are people too. If we understand them better then we can show them that we are not a threat.

Posted by: Cindy Splendora | April 28, 2008 6:34 PM
>>>

Well, the difficulty with that line of thought is that the US is a threat to their goals.

Folks such as Al Queda want to establish a pan-Islamic Empire ruled under Sharia Law. Other groups, such as those sponsored by Iran, want to enhance the influence of Groups the US Doesn't Like.

In either case, US goals and their goals are not easily compatible.

President Bush is deciding not to use the term "jihadist" due to political correctness. Regardless, refraining from using the term is actually accurate because the term "jihadist" creates the perception that Muslisms with different agendas and motivations all belong to a single, unified front. This is clearly fallacious. It's like using the term "terrorists," which is just a catch all phrase to describe everyone from the leader of Iran to Muktada al-Sadr to the PEK etc. There really is no global jihadist movement in the sense that there is an actual organization that has power and influence trying to bring western societies under the rule of Sharia.

Most Muslim countries don't even observe the Sharia, so it's not something that we in the West need to worry about. Furthermore, Islamic immigrants are a problem in Europe, but this isn't due to their religion, but to Europe's own lax refugee laws which allows this influx. European nations should take measures to protect their national majorities.

Besides, what is a jihadist? Were the Mujihadeen, an Arab religions movement funded and directed by the CIA in the 1980s, jihadists? When they killed Russians was it part of Islams attempt to control the world?

We like to pretend that Islam is a great threat to us now just so we can kill Iraqis with a clear conscience.

"Why can't we just talk to them?" Cindy? Because they flew jetliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Over three thousand people died. Do you have a television set? Did you see the images of people hurtling to their deaths rather than burn to death? Did any of that register in your world, Cindy? The individuals and groups who sponsored that action are not interested in talking, Cindy. They are interested in seeing you and your children submit to their medieval death cult. If you do not submit, they are interested in seeing you dead or a dhimmi. What, exactly, is there to talk about? The SS staff running Hitler's death camps were human. So were the NKVD goons staffing the GULAG. So?

"It is friggin unreal to be in war with people and not be able to discuss and identify those people in a factual and conceptually and linguistically appropriate manner"

Actually, that's the goal of eliminating absurd phrases like "jihadists" and realizing the correct meaning of "jihad" instead of just taking cues from the conservative pundit class who enabled the war.

If we can't understand the real meaning of "jihad,"--as opposed to the pundit class definition--then we will never really grasp Muslims or Islam.

For example, while Americans may understand "jihad" to mean "holy war," it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good, says the guidance prepared for diplomats and other officials tasked with explaining the war on terror to the public.

I've been thinking this was rather stupid for at least a year or two, ever since I bothered to research that word. 'Jihad' means, as is pointed out, 'the fight against evil'. It doesn't even mean actual physical battle most of the time, most of the time when used by Muslims it means 'defeating the temptation of sin'.

And, no, it's not political correctness. Using the crazy concept of 'political correctness' that the right has invented, we'd stop refering to them as jihadist because they find it offensive. They aren't offended. We're standing here and calling them 'fighters for good', like complete idiots! They love it!

Not that we really care what they think. But we do care about the rest of the Muslim world? Maybe we should use terms that they actually don't go around applying to everyday, upright living. Us using that word is like the KKK being described as 'Christian Saints'. Yes, let's go around talking about fighting 'Christian Saints', I'm sure that will bring all the sane Christians around to our point of view.

I mean, we go to all the trouble of distinguishing 'Islamic jihadists' from normal Muslims, and then we stupidly call them 'jihadists'. "Hey, don't worry, moderate Muslims, we're not after you, we're only after the people who fight against sin as you're commanded to do your whole life." What the hell sort of logic is that?

A competent administration would have started calling the people 'irhab' right at the start, which is the Arabic for, you guessed it, 'terrorist'. And the conflict 'Hirabah', for 'unholy war', a war in violation of the Qu'ran, not a flippin 'jihad'.

Read here for actual useful terms. Letting your enemy define the terms of the war is a good way to lose the hearts and minds of everyone on the other side. They think they're holy warriors, but only fools would call them that back.

Sadly, the war on terror has, indeed, been run by fools. Fools without the slightest information of the culture they're fighting.

Those who don't want to use the terms "jihadists," "Islamo-fascists," etc. are aboslutely right. Using such language is actually doing the terrorists a huge favor, it may make cowboy imperialists in the US feel better but it accomplishes nothing except showing incredible arrogance and stupidity (and apologies to any real cowboys out there). The word "jihad" in Arabic is not a pejorative term (just like "crusade" is not a pejorative term in English). In fact, I even knew two very secular Arab (Greek Orthodox) Christians whose first name was "Jihad" - one from Lebanon and one a Syrian.

One would think that Republicans would know better, wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who famously said "speak softly and carry a big stick"? It is richly symbolic of the age we live in that the Neo-con/GOP/War on Terror gang's mantra seems to have become "Bluster loudly and ignorantly as a substitute to taking effective action." Kind of like invading the wrong country (Iraq) when the "problem" was in Afghanistan, Pakistan and (ideologically and intellectually) in Saudi Arabia. Not that we need more wars at this time.

Or maybe one can describe the Bush Administration's efforts using that old Arab proverb: "she was pregnant with a mountain but gave birth to a mouse" - a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Karen, that was an excellent analogy. Shakespeare would be proud of you, methinks. ;-)

Excising such words from the official lexicon is only worrying to the extent it suggests the administration is not willing to look honestly at nature of the threat.

Choose whatever vocabulary you like, just don't forget that these folks are motivated by religion, follow a war doctrine grounded in islamic theology and history, and do not look to the US government as a source of validation for their actions.

Lynn
Choose whatever vocabulary you like, just don't forget that these folks are motivated by religion, follow a war doctrine grounded in islamic theology and history, and do not look to the US government as a source of validation for their actions.

If we can choose whatever we like, I presume you wouldn't have a problem with the US choosing words in Arabic that actually meant 'terrorist', instead of words that, loosely translated, meant 'fighter for good'? Or 'do-gooder'?

We sit around and make the (Mostly false) observation that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but I think we're the first nation who is stupid enough to actually call the terrorists plaguing us 'freedom fighters' in their own language.

Not that the terrorists care that we're validating them, but there are several hundred million other Muslims who know what that word means. And we'd actually like those people to disapprove of the terrorists, so calling the terrorists 'People involved in the daily struggle against sin and temptation like all good Muslim should be' is not exactly the brightest idea out there.

Ironically, all the 'political correctness' jokes are backwards here. It would be 'PC' to refer to them using the name they want to be called, instead of 'terrorist'. Like we're doing right now.

Of course, doing exactly what the terrorist want us to do has been this nation's conception of the 'war on terror' from the very start.

Sorry, Lynn, I didn't find it in the Spam folder. Please resubmit your comment.

Beliefnet_Tiger
Community Monitor

Oh I give up. Here it is without the link:

DavidTC: To the extent these changes are directed at moderate, or cultural muslims who are current or perspective allies, I think the changes make reasonable good sense and I accept your argument - but there's another potential audience for such changes, and I think it's really, really important that this second audience have the intellectual and linguistic tools to understand what motivates our enemies in the current conflict. . .

Here's an exchange I came across in the comments to the Small Wars Journal on the subject of a project called "TrueSpeak" that pretty well sums up my concerns:

"Dr. Edward O. Grimenstein, asked,

- is there any evidence that the manner of speech the U.S. employs is in any way supporting / confirming our enemy's view of themselves? Essentially what I am asking is this - is there any evidence that our enemies jump for joy pointing to the newspaper saying, "Look, even Bush says we are Jihadists!" Seems to me their validation comes from the mosque not the White House.

So, a new lexicon could be more correct theologically, but in the end would a new lexicon make any difference on the ground?

I asked is what is the purpose of the proposed lexicon? I see two possible answers.

My understanding is that Jim [Giurard's] goal is to separate Islamic terrorism from the religion of Islam and to delegitimize al Qaeda and
associates' claim of religious justification. If so, this is a proper role for the Ummah, not Jim or U.S. policy makers. Hence you question, what evidence is there that we are a validating source for potential Jihadi recruits?

The other purpose, which I believe is the true purpose, is to convince U.S. policymakers and other non-Muslims that there is a clear
separation between Islam and Islamic terrorism. A method to do is Orwellian methods of language control which makes it politically
incorrect for Westerners to use terms like jihad. Such a change would shield Islam from criticism while handicapping our intellectual
understanding of the religious and historical foundations of Islamic terrorism and weaken our ability to protect ourselves from it.

I believe this new lexicon is aimed at us, not young Muslims.

If what Jim says is true Al Jazeera, Arabiya, and Friday sermons throughout the Muslim world would already be using the new lexicon. But they are not. So you have to ask yourself, "why is that?""

For the original, Search TrueSpeak Responds, Small Wars Journal.

There has always been a difference between lexicon and usage. That difference is the primary driving force in lexicon change.

The key here, in my view, is the source of the change. Without having done much formal research to try to corroborate this, my experience points to a key problem in the analyis:

1) Lexicon shift from usage happens over time, and is governed by usage acceptance within the population. From the inside out, so to speak.

2) Propaganda's primary tool is using current lexicon and usage to shape opinion. Propaganda per se may be a contributing factor in lexicon change, but it does little itself to drive or control that change.

I offer one example for comparison: if you were to read the word "coke", first letter lower case, you would likely take that to mean the slang word for cocaine. If, instead, you were to see it as "Coke", you would likely take it to mean the soft drink. Verbally, the meaning is always clear because of context. In usage, "Coke" is an example of lexicon shift, it being appropriately used and taken in context to mean other cola drinks not distributed by the Coca-Cola Bottling Companies. "Tissue" and "Kleenex" is another example, but without the homonymic impact. ;-)