|
2. The War of Euphemisms (W.O.E., again)
2. The War of Euphemisms (W.O.E., again)
Can you imagine the euphemism masters defining Nazi supremacists as "German nationalists" or defining white supremacists as "racial purity defenders"? In dealing with Islamic supremacism, it is worse than that. Such appeasers refuse to even acknowledge that the ideology of Islamic supremacism exists at all.
They start disavowing that Islamic supremacism exists by seeking to re-label Islamic supremacism as something more palatable to public, so that their argument to appease and ignore supremacism doesn't sound quite so absurd. Instead of a war of ideas that would defend the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, the appeasers pursue a war of euphemisms, to confuse the public and obfuscate on the threat of Islamic supremacism. Instead of challenging the supremacists, such appeasers have chosen to attack those who would defend human rights instead, with the inane argument that defending inalienable human rights is not "culturally sensitive" to supremacists.
To be more "culturally sensitive," such appeasers prefer to use such terms as "extremists," "fundamentalists," etc. They attempt to argue that Islamic supremacist activities are actually "anti-Islamic" activities, and that we are really challenged by "takfiri" or "hirabah," not "jihadists." They would rather talk about individuals and specific groups, and when such groups have unquestionably shown to be supremacist, then they try to argue that such Islamic supremacist groups are "regional" as opposed to "transnational." The last thing they want to do is "generalize" about a larger problem that would point to an ideological struggle, when they can suggest that all the Islamic supremacist issues in the world are nothing but an endless series of disconnected, "isolated incidents."
If the appeasers are challenged on this, they seek to prove that they are the only "experts" on such issues, and that anyone without a Ph.D. in Islamic studies working for a Saudi-funded program can't possible grasp the endless "nuances" involved in fighting "extremism - fundamentalism - whatever euphemism they choose today." They don't think it is arrogant in the least to argue that they are sole possessors of knowledge or insight on such issues. The last thing that they want is to dignify mass public concerns about such issues, when clearly they believe public is too ignorant to grasp the obvious lessons from history on this. These imams of euphemisms believe that they have the sole right to declare fatwas on what is and is not a threat to America and human rights.
In 2008, we saw the movement within U.S. government leadership and the foreign policy cliques towards a policy of a "War on Extremism" (W.O.E.), where no matter what happened, those responsible were always "extremists." In April 2008, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates embraced this idea declaring that "the enemy is extremism." The group in the National Counter Terrorism Center who circulated a memo in March 2008 that stated when addressing Islamic supremacist activity, government employees should never use such terms as "jihad," "mujahedeen," "caliphate," or any term linked to Islam was (predictably) the "Extremist Messaging Branch." None of them were embarrassed that 6 months prior to this, Osama Bin Laden himself came out as being against "extremists" -- showing how utterly meaningless the term "extremism" was and remains today. Such a War on Extremism (W.O.E.) is part of a larger War of Euphemisms (W.O.E. again) that has continued into 2009 to try to suppress public debate on Islamic supremacism and silence anyone who seeks to honestly identify the threat of Islamic supremacism.
So now in 2009, we have gone beyond the national embarrassment of our leaders and government deliberately ignoring supremacist threats by simply calling them "extremists."
We have now reached the pathetic state in the War of Euphemisms that our government leaders are listening to those arguing that there is a "good Taliban" and a "bad Taliban," and incredibly, listening to calls by those who ask American government leaders to accept negotiations with "reconcilable" or "moderate" Islamic supremacists
|