Words Have Meaning, Part 2

**Shek** · 06-09-2007, 08:19 AM

The use of language, or rather, the sloppy use of language, is supporting the efforts of the irhabi.

The guilty party this time, conservative columnist Diana West, whose language supports UBL and defines a self-fufilling prophecy in advancing the clash of civilizations argument, either consciously or subconsciously.

If we are to win this fight against radical Salafists, then we must both define the enemy properly, both in scope and language.

Quote:

Unwarranted Attack on Petraeus Aide (SWJ Blog)

Unwarranted Attack on Petraeus Aide

Jim Guirard

Diana West's holier-than-thou attack on Dr. David Kilcullen of Gen. David Petraeus' senior staff in Baghdad must be a delight to al Qaeda and Hizballah propagandists and anti-American brainwashers worldwide.

In a June 1, 2007 Washington Times essay entitled “Pay attention to jihad,” she slams the Australian-born anti-Terrorism strategist for an assertion several months ago that so-called "jihad" (holy war in the name of Allah, etc.) has assumed the stature of heroic "adventure" in the minds, hearts and souls of many young Muslims.

She distorts Kilcullen's words into the preposterous speculation that he approves of this development and asks whether if he had grown up in Hitler's Germany he “might have become a Nazi” -- when, in fact, the man and his fellow counterinsurgency (COIN) experts are attempting to discover an effective antidote for a highly seductive “Jihadi martyrdom” factor which is providing al Qaeda-style Terrorism with an endless supply of enthusiastic young suicide mass murderers.

Recall, please, the Cold War situation in which Communism's so-called "wars of national liberation" became the heroic cause celebre of young "progressives" and "patriotic fronts" -- and how outraged their Western apologists, sympathizers and "useful idiots" became when Ronald Reagan dared to call their Soviet sponsors "The Evil Empire."

And recall, also, that during the Reagan years almost everyone was referring routinely to Soviet “adventurism” in Central America, Africa and worldwide. This was simply because we opted not to call their rampant imperialism and colonialism by those truthful words -- just as Ms.West is now mindlessly opting to call al Qaeda killers “holy” rather than satanic.

But when David Kilcullen attempts to strip the so-called "Jihadists" of their holy and godly standing in the Muslim World, she objects loudly and insists that we stick with the "holy guys" imagery which this much-debated term so falsely implies. (By this perverse standard, she may well have wasted her time insisting that we condemn the Soviets as damnable "liberationists.")

Addiction to the “Jihad” Label

This addiction to the "Jihad" label is so powerful as to exclude from her own lexicon virtually all of the Arabic and Islamic labels which would serve to draw a bright-line distinction -- a "disaggregation" Dr. Kilcullen calls it -- between these suicide mass murdering terrorists (genocidal irhabis in Arabic) and those "moderate Muslims" who most experts say constitute the great majority, albeit a frustratingly passive majority, of the Muslim World.

Perhaps she has not noticed that a very similar distinction is made by the now famous PBS-funded -- and PBS-suppressed -- film produced by former Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney makes between quietly worshipful Muslims and the bloodthirsty "Islamists." Clearly, this film affirms that the latter, while professing to act “in the way of Allah,” are actually the deadly enemies of the "peaceful, compassionate, merciful and just" Allah who is worshiped by the moderates.

Strangely enough, Ms West strongly supports the Gaffney film and its "good guy" versus "bad guy" distinctions while at the same time lambasting Kilcullen for his efforts in this same strategic direction, though by slightly different and more specifically religious tactics -- in words which challenge Osama bin Laden's patently false claims of holiness and godliness. But all the while, Ms West is inadvertently polishing al Qaeda's halo, instead. For example,

UBL calls what he and his killers are doing "Jihad." Diana West enthusiastically agrees and even seems to insist that no other word will do.
UBL wants his genocidal evildoers to be called "Jihadis." Again, she agrees. (She used to berate President Bush for calling them "evildoers" (mufsiduun in Arabic) rather than holy war "Jihadists.")

UBL calls their suicide bombing "Martyrdom Operations." And so does Diana West -- but never has she uttered the "irhabi murderdom" condemnation which reveals the true nature of such atrocities.
UBL promises his "young lions of Islam” a clear path to Paradise -- with 72 virgins in the receiving line. The lady has never denied or ridiculed that false postulation but, instead, ridicules Kilcullen for worrying that this vivid image of an Allah-approved sex-orgy Paradise must sound like one hell of an "adventure" to thousands of young Muslim men.

UBL justifies all of these holy, heroic and Paradise-bound activities as a proper reward for killing all of us "infidels." Here again, Ms. West fails to point out (as she most certainly knows) that the Quran itself quite clearly states that Christianity and Judaism are not infidel religions -- but are brotherly Abrahamic religions, instead.

So, while Dr. Kilcullen is searching prudently for labels in both English and Arabic which will not inadvertently enhance al Qaeda's legitimacy but will make it an apostate enemy of Quranic Islam, Diana West strenuously objects. Remarkably, she insists that bin Laden's carefully concocted lexicon of self-justification and self-canonization is fine and dandy -- and that those who refuse to parrot these pro-UBL labels are somehow "indifferent" toward the terrorists.

Believes That Islam Is The Enemy

The problem here is that Ms. West has apparently decided that Islam itself is the enemy and that the "Irhabi Murderdom" terrorists are, in fact, a true and faithful embodiment of that religion. She seems to believe that to call these ruthless killers munafiquun (hypocrites) mufsiduun (evildoers) and murtaduun (apostates) and khawarij (outside the religion deviants) and to condemn them for waging Hirabah (Unholy War) is to draw an improper distinction between them and Quranic Islam.

This is, of course, exactly the picture which the Irhabi masterminds (bin Laden, al Zawahiri, al Sadr, Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Mullah Omar and their satanic ilk) want her to paint -- namely, a persecuted but unified Islam representing an all-approving Allah, which is under ruthless attack by an "occupying" and "humiliating" and “arrogant” America representing an all-evil "Great Satan."

While General Petraeus, Dr. Kilcullen and their COIN colleagues are prudently attempting to convey the message that it is the AQ-style, hyena-like Terrorists who are the real enemies of "moderate" Islam, both Generals Nancy Pelosi and Diana West are busy chopping these good men to bits -- one from the "Progressive" (i.e., communoid) Left and the other from the Well-Intended but Thoroughly Confused (WITC) Right.

As for David Kilcullen, he should simply continue his search for the truthful words and frames of reference which will finally begin to demonize the terrorists in their language, their culture and their religion – hopefully, in ways which are as least as effective as the deceitful ways in which they have long been demonizing us.

In due course, it will become quite obvious that it is not Dr. Kilcullen but Diana West herself whose remarks convey a deep “non-comprehension” and an “indifference” to the satanic nature of so-called “jihad” – and to the bloody consequences of calling it “holy” and its ungodly perpetrators “martyrs.”

Jim Guirard – TrueSpeak Institute 703-768-0957 Justcauses@aol.com (and TrueSpeak.org). A Washington DC-area attorney, writer, lecturer and anti-Terrorism strategist, Jim Guirard was longtime Chief of Staff to former US Senators Allen Ellender and Russell Long. His TrueSpeak Institute is devoted to truth-in-language and truth-in-history in public discourse.

Swift Sword · 06-10-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shek

If we are to win this fight against radical Salafists, then we must both define the enemy properly, both in scope and language.

Sir,

[GOOD NATURED POKE IN THE RIBS MODE ON]

It took how long for us to figure this out?

I think ol' Sun Tzu told us something about this.

[GOOD NATURED POKE IN THE RIBS MODE OFF]

Have a good afternoon,

William

**Shek** · 06-10-2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift Sword

Sir,

[GOOD NATURED POKE IN THE RIBS MODE ON]

It took how long for us to figure this out?

I think ol' Sun Tzu told us something about this.

[GOOD NATURED POKE IN THE RIBS MODE OFF]

Have a good afternoon,

William

W,

I'm afraid we haven't figured it out, or at least Diana West hasn't. Even when we get the concept correct, we don't use the language correct (and I've been guilty for the longest time of this

). Why call the irhabi jihadi, when the latter invokes righteousness, while the former focuses the discussion on the munafiquun instead?

BTW, I forgot to link to the original WAB post on the use of language in this conflict with the pan-Islamists, Words Have Meaning.

Swift Sword · 06-10-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shek

W,
Even when we get the concept correct, we don't use the language correct (and I've been guilty for the longest time of this

).

Sir,

And even when we have the language correct, we have to successfully deliver it to the intended audience and that is another problem in its own right

.

Willliam

S-2 · 07-08-2007, 14:52 PM

I'm undergoing my own transition and only now am I beginning to notice our unwitting assistance to these irhabist muharibuun and their takfiri munnafiquun leaders. May Allah (PBUH) reserve a special place in Jahannam for these khawarij.

I, too, will no longer address these animals in any words but those of their own language and religious tenets which define and condemn them for what they are.

**Shek** · 05-17-2008, 15:17 PM

Investigative Project Releases Gov't Memos Curtailing Speech in War on Terror :: Articles by IPT :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Quote:

Investigative Project Releases Gov't Memos Curtailing Speech in War on Terror
by Steven Emerson
IPT News
May 2, 2008

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is refusing to identify the "influential Muslim Americans" and "leading U.S.-based scholars and commentators on Islam" who met with Secretary Michael Chertoff in helping shape a softer approach to government lexicon about terrorists and their ideological motivations.

"Our policy is we don't comment on the Secretary's private schedule," spokeswoman Amy Kudwa told the IPT. Nor would she identify any of the participants' organizational affiliation.

DHS and the State Department's Counterterrorism Communications Center each issued reports urging government employees to avoid words like "jihad," "mujahedeen" or any reference to Islam or Muslims, especially in relation to Al Qaeda. The Investigative Project on Terrorism is making the documents available for the first time here and here.

As we reported last week, the memos say a change in language from the U.S. government is needed to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims and avoid glamorizing terrorists motivated by religious ideology. "Moderate" is also frowned upon in the memos, though, with "mainstream" or "traditional" suggested as replacements.

More of the article is available at the link, as well as links to the specific policy memos on the use of language.

S-2 · 05-17-2008, 16:38 PM

Read the first memo and have no objection to the content nor objectives. I only wish that they'd been members of SWJ or WAB fifteen months ago when we first discovered our complicity in legitimizing these fcuks.

This is terribly slow official recognition of the issue. While better late than never, it nonetheless hints at the snail's pace at which we seem to move.

**Parihaka** · 05-17-2008, 20:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

Read the first memo and have no objection to the content nor objectives. I only wish that they'd been members of SWJ or WAB fifteen months ago when we first discovered our complicity in legitimizing these fcuks.

This is terribly slow official recognition of the issue. While better late than never, it nonetheless hints at the snail's pace at which we seem to move.

True, but then these guys are at the farthest remove from what is going on and therefore the last to get it. The glass is in fact half full

S-2 · 05-18-2008, 02:09 AM

"...these guys are at the farthest remove from what is going on..."

...and the most dangerous to the cause.

"...and therefore the last to get it."

Let's hope that they do. We see it here. When I do, I now link it as an expression of support and it's unforgivable of American officials to be unaware of the implications. So too the so-called myths about the war and our performance. Any senior U.S. military, state, homeland security, or defense official not conversant in the government's position on a range of Iraq/Afghanistan talking points isn't worthy of his job. That should include both sides of the myths.

This was the third underlying assumption upon which the study was premised-

"(3) Our words should be strategic; we must be conscious of history, culture, and context. In an era where a statement can cross continents in a manner of seconds, it is essential that officials consider how terms translate: and how they will resonate with a variety of audiences."

S-2 · 05-20-2008, 01:27 AM

I was over on def.pk today. There's quite a change overcoming much of that pyrotechnic audience. The use of keywords as indicated such as Takfir or Khawarij were commonplace in describing the activities of the taliban in Pakistan.

There was anger and real resentment at misrepresentation of ideals. Suddenly, I saw that these words were very real to these posters and mattered beyond academic correctness.

Triple C · 05-20-2008, 02:47 AM

It is insightful posts like those that stayed me in the WAB. What we have now are thugs and criminals passing as Muslims, murderers appropriating one of the world's great religions and twisting it to suite their own ends. They are not legitimate representatives of Islam, or even Muslims. They are no more Muslims than Pope Borgia a Christian.

Many Muslims I know, know this.

astralis · 05-22-2008, 15:06 PM

the problem is when this attitude is over-played:

"these murderers are un-islamic, therefore they are no responsibility of ours."

the anger towards these guys have to stay- moderate muslims need to own the responsibility, understand and reform the society that came up with these deviants.

snc128 · 05-22-2008, 17:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

the problem is when this attitude is over-played:

"these murderers are un-islamic, therefore they are no responsibility of ours."

the anger towards these guys have to stay- moderate muslims need to own the responsibility, understand and reform the society that came up with these deviants.

these murderers are un-islamic, therefore they are no responsibility as a whole of muslims.
there are numerous reasons why they were converted into these killing machines but it is obvious that muslim way of life is not a reason for the situation in question.
really, there are numerous reasosns... perhaps anger, bigoty and ignorancy among muslim majority communities are just a few of them. the vital question is what cause them remain ignorant!

between, challenge is a part of human nature... I, myself, liken most of the today's terrorists' struggle to the Crusaders of approximately 1000 yeas ago.

**Parihaka** · 05-22-2008, 17:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snc128

these murderers are un-islamic, therefore they are no responsibility as a whole of muslims.

Correction: they are the responsibility of EVERYONE who doesn't support them. To claim Muslims are a special group who bear no responsibility to deal with these muharibuun is as false as the claim that Islam bears the only responsibility. It is after all mostly Muslims who are being killed.

snc128 · 05-22-2008, 17:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Correction: they are the responsibility of EVERYONE who doesn't support them. To claim Muslims are a special group who bear no responsibility to deal with these muharibuun is as false as the claim that Islam bears the only responsibility. It is after all mostly Muslims who are being killed.

I understand you but you misunderstood me. my english

I second your each sentence above. anyway, that was what I meant to say.

07-08-2007, 14:52 PM	#5 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,057 Country:	Re-Education I'm undergoing my own transition and only now am I beginning to notice our unwitting assistance to these irhabist muharibuun and their takfiri munnafiquun leaders. May Allah (PBUH) reserve a special place in Jahannam for these khawarij. I, too, will no longer address these animals in any words but those of their own language and religious tenets which define and condemn them for what they are. __________________ "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

05-17-2008, 16:38 PM	#7 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,057 Country:	Memo Read the first memo and have no objection to the content nor objectives. I only wish that they'd been members of SWJ or WAB fifteen months ago when we first discovered our complicity in legitimizing these fcuks. This is terribly slow official recognition of the issue. While better late than never, it nonetheless hints at the snail's pace at which we seem to move.

05-18-2008, 02:09 AM	#9 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,057 Country:	Parihaka Reply "...these guys are at the farthest remove from what is going on..." ...and the most dangerous to the cause. "...and therefore the last to get it." Let's hope that they do. We see it here. When I do, I now link it as an expression of support and it's unforgivable of American officials to be unaware of the implications. So too the so-called myths about the war and our performance. Any senior U.S. military, state, homeland security, or defense official not conversant in the government's position on a range of Iraq/Afghanistan talking points isn't worthy of his job. That should include both sides of the myths. This was the third underlying assumption upon which the study was premised- "(3) Our words should be strategic; we must be conscious of history, culture, and context. In an era where a statement can cross continents in a manner of seconds, it is essential that officials consider how terms translate: and how they will resonate with a variety of audiences."

05-20-2008, 01:27 AM	#10 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,057 Country:	Words DO Have Meaning I was over on def.pk today. There's quite a change overcoming much of that pyrotechnic audience. The use of keywords as indicated such as Takfir or Khawarij were commonplace in describing the activities of the taliban in Pakistan. There was anger and real resentment at misrepresentation of ideals. Suddenly, I saw that these words were very real to these posters and mattered beyond academic correctness.

05-20-2008, 02:47 AM	#11 (permalink)
Triple C Contributor Join Date: 04-10-06 Posts: 610	It is insightful posts like those that stayed me in the WAB. What we have now are thugs and criminals passing as Muslims, murderers appropriating one of the world's great religions and twisting it to suite their own ends. They are not legitimate representatives of Islam, or even Muslims. They are no more Muslims than Pope Borgia a Christian. Many Muslims I know, know this. __________________ What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline. -Augustine of Hippo

05-22-2008, 15:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
astralis Lei Feng Protege *Foreign Service* Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,885 Country:	the problem is when this attitude is over-played: "these murderers are un-islamic, therefore they are no responsibility of ours." the anger towards these guys have to stay- moderate muslims need to own the responsibility, understand and reform the society that came up with these deviants. __________________ Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. -Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Music is UnIslamic	Ray	Political Discussions	33	04-07-2008 16:50 PM
Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou	Officer of Engineers	The Field Mess	34	05-10-2007 15:44 PM
Sure, Barack, you didn’t vote for war in Iraq. That was the easy part	Shek	2008 US Presidential Election	11	02-24-2007 08:54 AM
Your Thoughts on David Icke?	joey2	World Affairs Board Pub	12	12-29-2006 07:55 AM
The Happy Part of America	Leader	Current Affairs	56	06-26-2004 11:51 AM