This is a very interesting AND disturbing article here over at Family Security Matters written by Steven Emerson. Shocking, some may say. Just take a look at three points of the proposal to tone down "War on Terror" speech by the U.S. Government:
Emerson goes on in the article to point out some of the islamic extremist views held by groups in the U.S. and how they praise all of these new guidelines put into use by the U.S. government, but what bothers me the most here is that our government doesn't see through this veil. Why haven't they asked WHY the islamists object to certain words? Why haven't they delved into what exactly is the reason that the islamists both here and abroad are clamoring for this censorship?
It's my contention that the islamists have hammered this use of of language censoring much the same has as they have sought to trample the free speech embodied in the Danish cartoons. What our government is missing is this:
The followers of Islam simply believe they are destined to rule this world and ANY criticism of islam is forbidden.
This isn't about religious sensitivity at all...this is about ego. The islamists are hell bent on world domination and they cannot allow anything verbally to degrade their cause. At the same time, they must tear down the last bastions of resistance to sharia law - the words like liberty and freedom and democracy must be shattered and removed from their midst.
The time has come, the time is overdue, actually, for the West to coordinate a methodical dissection of islam - to show this ideology for what it is - an ideology, not a religion. Imagine that Hitler decided not to invade Poland but in essence sent his Nazi operatives into that land to undermine the Polish government and to tear down the very nature of the Polish way of life. That my friends is how islam differs from Naziism and how in the end, it is exactly the same.
Among the recommendations not reported previously:Now, look how Steven Emerson responds to these recommendations:
· "The experts we consulted debated the word ‘liberty,' but rejected it because many around the world would discount the term as a buzzword for American hegemony."
· "The fact is that Islam and secular democracy are fully compatible – in fact, they can make each other stronger. Senior officials should emphasize that fact."
· The USG [U.S. government] should draw the conflict lines not between Islam and the West, but between a dangerous, cult-like network of terrorists and everyone who is in support of global security and progress.
So America, after serving for more than two centuries the sanctuary for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, is being asked to minimize liberty against fanatics bent on a global religious state. The memo doesn't offer examples to show where Islam and secular democracy have reinforced each other, or explain how Shariah law, the imposition of religion into state affairs, is "fully compatible" with secular democracy.
Emerson goes on in the article to point out some of the islamic extremist views held by groups in the U.S. and how they praise all of these new guidelines put into use by the U.S. government, but what bothers me the most here is that our government doesn't see through this veil. Why haven't they asked WHY the islamists object to certain words? Why haven't they delved into what exactly is the reason that the islamists both here and abroad are clamoring for this censorship?
It's my contention that the islamists have hammered this use of of language censoring much the same has as they have sought to trample the free speech embodied in the Danish cartoons. What our government is missing is this:
The followers of Islam simply believe they are destined to rule this world and ANY criticism of islam is forbidden.
This isn't about religious sensitivity at all...this is about ego. The islamists are hell bent on world domination and they cannot allow anything verbally to degrade their cause. At the same time, they must tear down the last bastions of resistance to sharia law - the words like liberty and freedom and democracy must be shattered and removed from their midst.
The time has come, the time is overdue, actually, for the West to coordinate a methodical dissection of islam - to show this ideology for what it is - an ideology, not a religion. Imagine that Hitler decided not to invade Poland but in essence sent his Nazi operatives into that land to undermine the Polish government and to tear down the very nature of the Polish way of life. That my friends is how islam differs from Naziism and how in the end, it is exactly the same.
Investigative Project Releases Government Memos Curtailing Speech in War on Terror
Steven Emerson
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 Investigative Project on Terrorism (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.
It is no surprise, however, to see the changes praised by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC):
MPAC has long promoted a nuanced approach towards the lexicon of terrorism emanating from the United States government and media. It is essential that various elements of the government recognize the importance of decoupling Islam with terrorism. Furthermore, using Islamic language to describe terrorists falsely bolsters their religious credibility among the very people we most need – the majority of mainstream Muslims around the world.
The memorandum described by the Associated Press reportedly also draws heavily on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report that examined the way American Muslims reacted to different phrases used by U.S. officials to describe terrorists and recommended ways to improve the message. Through its regular government engagement with government agencies including DHS, MPAC has repeatedly addressed the importance of refraining from ideologically based language that mischaracterizes the Muslim community domestically and abroad.
The fact that the government agencies are implementing such recommendations in their communications is a victory for constructive engagement with the Muslim American community. Implementing the recommendations, as they are described in media reports, would serve as a powerful tool in isolating the terrorists.
No comments:
Post a Comment