It looks like we have an updated version of the terrorism section of our Newspeak, er, political correctness lexicon.
Check these two separate stories out:
Some do’s and don’t’s from the National Counterterrorism Center:
- Don’t use the term “jihadist,” which has broader religious meanings beyond war, or “mujahedeen,” which refers to holy warriors.
- Do say “violent extremist” or “terrorist.”
- Don’t use the term “al-Qaidamovement,” because this makes al-Qaida seem like a legitimate political movement.
- Don’t use “Islamo-fascism” and other terms that could cause religious offense.
- Do use the term “totalitarian.”
- Don’t label groups simply as “Muslim.”
- Do use descriptive terms to define how a group fits into society. For example: South Asian youth and Arab opinion leaders.
- Don’t use “caliphate” when explaining al-Qaida’s goals, as this has positive implications.
- Don’t use “salafi,” “Wahhabist,” “sufi,” “ummah” and other words from Islamic theology unless you are able to discuss their varied meanings. Particularly avoid using “ummah” to mean the Muslim world, as it is a theological term.
So now we’re being told what we can and can’t call the enemy. Did you happen to notice where this directive originated?
The National Counterterrorism Center.
This is why we aren’t winning the War on Terror. We’re afraid to unequivocally define who the enemy is.
It’s Islamofascism. Oh wait, according to the NCC Islamofascism is offensive.
Guess what? I don’t care if I offend the enemy!
That’s the whole problem: the government wants us to be concerned and aware of the sensitivity of our enemy.
This story is bad enough, seeing as how this is coming from the NCC, but it’s not the only story about trying to censor certain language used to describe the enemy.
Michael Savage posted something he received from a journalist friend regarding Orwellian Journalism about a month ago and it really goes with the story above.
Here are a couple of excerpts:
On Oct. 6 at its National Convention in Seattle, the Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution urging members and fellow journalists to take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism and to reaffirm their commitment to:
- Use language that is informative and not inflammatory
- Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences
- Seek truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the events in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C.
What are the “complexities” of the 9/11 attacks? It’s really quite simple: 19 Islamofascists hijacked planes, flew them into targets, and killed thousands of innocent people.
I guess they want us to understand the Islamofascists’ desire to attack innocent people, both Muslims and non-Muslims.
I don’t get it. I just don’t get it, but nobody cares. Nobody cares that they’re are people in the American so-called media trying to veil and sweet-sell the enemy’s message.
Nobody cares that our very own National Counterterrorism Center is seemingly afraid to offend our enemies.
How would this have gone over during World War II? Would FDR and Churchill got together and said, “You know what? We better not call Hitler’s Germany fascist. Fascist just sounds too harsh and unpleasant. It might offend the Nazis. Even though it’s an accurate description, we don’t want to offend anyone.”
If that had been the case, we’d be speaking German right now. Actually, we might not even exist.
But hey, that’s history, and after all, the lessons of history don’t apply to the present or future. Just ask our public education system.
Subscribe in a reader