I just stumbled across this excellent article here by Daniel Pipes, up over at Family Security Matters and it explains a helluva lot of what has been going on the past year regarding our government's use of teminology in the War on Terror. I've posted below the article in its entirety.
Read it and weep.
Read it and weep.
The Voice of America – Silenced on Radical Islam
Daniel Pipes
For the past year, there's been a concerted push within the U.S. government to ban frank talk about the nature of the Islamist enemy. It began with the Department of Homeland Security, then moved to the National CounterTerrorism
Center and the department of State
and Defense. Already in May 2008, I heard an excellent analysis of the enemy by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Thomas Mahnken in which he bizarrely never once mentioned Islam or jihad.
I've been wondering how this change in vocabulary actually occurs: is it a spontaneous mood shift, a group decision, or a directive from on high?
The answer just arrived, in the shape of a leaked memo dated March 2nd from Jennifer Janin, head of the Urdu service at the Voice of America. The directive can be found in its entirety at "Urdu Language Style & Guidelines #3." Addressed to the Urdu radio, television, and web teams, as well as to the director and program manager of VOA's South Asia Division, her diktat insists on no connection being drawn from Islam to politics. In gist:
Islamic terrorists: DO NOT USE. Instead use simply: terrorist.
Islamic Fundamentalism/ Muslim Fundamentalists: AVOID.
Islamist: NOT NECESSARY.
Muslim Extremists: NOT NECESSARY. Extremist serves well.
Urdu is a dialect of Hindustani written in Arabic script found mainly in Pakistan and India and spoken almost exclusively by Muslims; it is mother tongue to about 70 million people. One can understand why euphemisms appeal in so far as VOA competes for market share with other news outlets and wishes not to insult or alienate Muslims. But VOA is not a commercial station with a bottom line and shareholders.
Founded in 1942 as part of the Office of War Information, it is funded by the American taxpayer and speaks on behalf of the U.S. government. It must not pander to increase its ratings at the expense of its integrity. Urdu-speakers need to know the real American discourse on Islam, not Janin's bowdlerized version.
In her defense, Janin might argue that she is merely picking up on Barack Obama's emphasis on "respect" for Muslims, but there is no public indication that "respect" means pretending that Islam is not a central public issue facing Americans. Indeed, on occasion, Obama has been very clear that it is. A pungent example came one year ago in Philadelphia, on March 18, 2008 when, in the course of a major speech, Obama repudiated as "profoundly distorted" the "view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."
"Perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam"? It does not get much stronger than that. One wonders how might Janin's new regimen translate this – probably as the "perverse and hateful ideologies of radical extremism," which is both inaccurate and unworthy of a credible news service.
3 comments:
You have to wonder if Obama meant a single thing he said during the campaign. His supporters shrug their shoulders and smile, 'Of course he had to SAY that to get elected.' Dishonesty doesn't bother them, it was just a means to an end.
Nothing is as it seemed. What happens when people realize the extent of the lies, one wonders what will happen.
He is pro-Islam that is why. He has already told his Muslim friends and relatives that first he will get rid of Israel, then he will impose sharia law on the US. He doesn't intend to ever give up the reigns of power. He will attempt to become the President for Life and unless we can stop him, he will be.
O bend over for islam.
Post a Comment