This is thought control. It's all about words, not realities or actions.
Specifically, the phrase ‘Islami radicalism’ has been erased from American governmental discourse. And if the words no longer exist, then the realities don’t exist either. At least not according to the post-modern logic of the American state.
Apparently it was George W. Bush who got it all wrong. He made the illogical and 'Islamophobic' conclusion that Islam and terrorism are indeed intertwined. Actually not quite that. He rightly concluded that ‘militant Islam’ and terrorism are intertwined. More specifically, a Bush-era document described the war against terrorists as
“the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism … the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”
After all, didn’t he too also think pure and good Islam was a pretty decent thing?
Then the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) got in on the act. And when it does so, which is quite often, it usually gets what it wants from the US Government.
Clearly such a disconnecting of Islam and terrorism pleased CAIR very much. It said that it would
‘welcome this change in language as another step toward respectful and effective outreach to Muslims at home and abroad’.
Well I never! Muslims being jubilant over the effective denial of any Islam-terrorism connection? You wouldn’t expect anything else. Now Muslims can carry out their jihadist acts without anyone seeing the deep connections between Islam and violence. Or at least they won’t be able to use the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’ or ‘Islamist terrorism’ if they work for the US Government. Who knows, perhaps Islamic terrorism will magically disappear if such a thing is never spoken of, or even thought about, in those words.
CAIR thinks that phrases like ‘Islamic terrorism’ are ‘loaded’. That is, it is wrong and quite simply 'Islamophobic' to use phrases like ‘Islamist terrorism’. Let’s not mess about here. It is wrong and Islamophobic to even think that there is even a slight hint of a connection between Islam and terrorism or to violence generally.
Yet Islamic terrorism and violence exists. It exists on a massive and everyday scale. So what does CAIR, and therefore Barack Obama, want to do about this very inconvenient and logical connection between Islam and violence? They want to change the words we use to describe Islamic terrorism by keeping the ‘terrorism’ part and erasing the ‘Islamist’. Surely that will change reality too, not just the words we use and the thoughts we think. Or so CAIR and the US Government think.
Specifically, they want to keep the ‘Words that Work’ and get rid of the ‘Words that don’t’. That is how the US National Counter-Terrorism Centre put it. “'Islamist terrorism’” does ‘not work’. "'Death-cult terrorism”’ or ‘”evil terrorism”’, yes, ‘does work’. Why is that? Well, it can in no way stop Islamist terrorism. It may make the lives of American Muslims a whole lot easier. The ‘moderate’ Muslims will not feel the need to defend their religion any more. The terrorists will find it a whole lot easier to do what they do if Government infidels are not allowed to look towards Islam, and the teachers and teachings of Islam, to help them fight Islamist terrorism.
Not even al-Qaeda can now be called ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim’. It would have come as a surprise to Osama bin Laden that he was not a Muslim and that he did not control an Islamic terrorist network. Indeed this is a surprise to me, as it will be to the millions of non-Muslims who do see a strong connection between Islam and violence.
More specifically, CAIR and the US Government are claiming that these naughty and Islamophobic phrases ‘unintentionally legitimise’ terrorist groups. That is, by seeing these organisations as Islamic, or as aspects of Islam (even small aspects), is to make them seem more acceptable and, well, Islamic than they really are.
But what if there is a connection between Islam, or only parts thereof, and violence? What if Osama bin Laden was a Muslim. Full stop? What if he was even a good Muslim who was actually truer to his religion than many other Muslims, including CAIR and the ‘moderates’. (That’s if CAIR and the Muslim moderates are genuinely against Islamic terrorism or terrorism in the name of Islam.)
All this is no surprise if one bears in mind Obama’s speech at Cairo University in Egypt in June 2009. In that speech he told Egyptian Muslims that 'the US does not fear or hate the Muslim world'. And to prove this he promised to bend over backwards - as far as is humanly possible. He promised to rewrite the English language and thus retune the infidels’ thoughts about Islam and terrorism. Could any Muslim ask for more?
Let’s take the ‘Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication’ in more detail.
This is a chicken-or-egg scenario. The aforesaid document says that when we use the naughty words which connect Islam with terrorism this will result in ‘a large percentage of the world’s population’ becoming the victims of policy and hurtful words. This in turn will result in our ‘unintentionally alienating them’. That ‘is not a judicious move’.
What if it is actually the other way around? That is:
i) National legislation and government actions alienate Muslims because it is Muslims, and their religion, who and which are largely responsible for most contemporary acts of terrorism.
Barack has got this the wrong way around. He thinks that
ii) National legislations and government actions, up until now, have alienated Muslims and have thus contributed to the rise of terrorism and Muslim violence generally.
Why would the US Government have focused upon - and thus alienated - Muslims if it had not made the obvious connections between Islam/Muslims and terrorism? Of course there is a Leftist and an Islamist alternative to this. That the US Government focused upon, and thus alienated, Muslims quite simply because of its ‘Islamophobia’ and/or its ‘racism’.
Barack, instead of seeing Al Qaeda as being made up of clowns or buffoons, sees it as being made of ‘criminals’ instead. How does that work? Is it being suggested that al-Qaeda is making money from their operations and propaganda? If not, what other kinds of criminality is being hinted at here? One cannot say ‘the exportation of heroin’ because the funds gained from this are invested into the jihad against the West. Thus we are back to where we started – Islamic jihad and Islamic violence generally.
What about just calling al Qaeda ‘terrorists’. Full stop? But terrorists must terrorise for reasons, principles or beliefs. No one is just a terrorist simpliciter. Thus, as with the 'criminals' earlier, we are back to the starting point again. Al Qaeda members aren’t terrorists simply because they are terrorists. They are terrorists in the name of Allah and Islam. Even if we, and indeed Muslims, think that terror in the name of Allah and Islam is wrong or a misinterpretation of that religion, it is still the case that Al Qaeda does not think it is theologically or Islamically wrong in doing what it does.
As it is, millions of people do believe that there is such a thing as Islamic violence and that al Qaeda is not really distorting Islam at all. No word games from Barack Obama and others will change this.