A Defending Crusader…

The best defense is to be good and offensive…or something like that.

Archive for the ‘Truespeak’ Category

The Whitewash continues

Posted by Godefroi on June 4, 2008

I wrote several months ago about the inclnation – growing in popularity – to change the description of Islam-inspired Terrorism Anti-Islamic Behavior to something other than jihad, and correspondingly, those acting in this “Un-Islamic” way as something other than jihadi’s, mujahideen, etc. Not that anyone saw it, but if one did, one might recall the term hirabah.

I’ve now seen several posts at JW on this subject – that is, what to call these extremists militants uh, bad guys, beginning with this one from only 4 days ago (“Words matter”: Homeland Security rolls out newspeak campaign, cautions against use of terms like “jihadists,” “Islamic terrorists,” “Islamists” and “holy warriors”), culminating in this one today “Spencer: War On Terror Ends?”. In a nutshell, our enlightened leaders in Washington have decided, definitively now, that our use of these terms is actually giving legitimacy to the miscreants-we-can-not-name perpetrating acts-we-can-not-name.

What is this all about? First, Muslims are offended by “War on Terror” because they see it as a “War on ISLAM“. We’re only spending our precious security resources in surveilling Muslims (allegedly). The prisoners in Guantanamo…they’re all Muslims. It’s obvious, right? Second, as I mentioned above, we’re giving the world the impression – by our use of the same religion-couched terms that the terrorists use – that we agree that they’re justified, that they really ARE fighting for Allah and will be rewarded according to their heroic deeds. You see, Jihad is a GOOD thing in Islam…it just doesn’t mean what they (and we) are saying it means.

Let’s think about this (a novel concept, I know). If, in the last 7 years, more than 11,000 attacks on innocents had been committed by the International Fundy Church of Bob (with the bulk of those attacks being justified, in their minds, by their religious beliefs), isn’t it merely PRUDENCE that would suggest that the Bobbians be scrutinized more closely than the rest of the general public? And, what sense would it make (for US) to decide that TRUE Bobbians don’t act this way (the holy texts notwithstanding), and then to call the dastardly ones “Anti-Bobbians”, or perhaps Stevians? Their acts of defending and expanding the faith aren’t Bobardic, they’re just criminal – again, irrespective of a LONG history of similar behavior that at one time was just fine with all the Bobbian scholars, theologians, theorists, and practitioners…and still is in many parts of the world. If the American government, or British, or French, or Canadian, uses their terminology (these Bobarians), does that REALLY make these criminals more legitimate than they were before we started taking notice? Knowing, of course, that Bobbians have no use for the opinions of Cawfers (that’s non-believers to you uninitiated). If we start calling them Stevians, does that de-legitimize them to those who currently esteem these Bobardic martyrs? Good Grief, are we REALLY so self-important?

Look…they’re criminals, indisputably (at least by most Western laws). But not acknowledging the ideology that drives them is not helping in the fight against them. No one complains when we refer to Marxist or Maoist “rebels”. And if we refer to them that way, are we then saying that ALL Marxists or Maoists (or whatever) are violent thugs? Obviously not.

Someone who is overly sensitive of oblique criticism is usually insecure and/or trying to hide some vulnerability or shortcoming. Caving in to their demands for coddling their feelings does them no favors (it assists in keeping them away from facing, and dealing with, criticisms and consequently from improving and growing), and it minimizes LEGITIMATE security concerns among the rest of the populace.

As I said last time: Call a spade a spade, call a pirate a pirate, call a jihadist (one struggling for Allah, violently or otherwise) a jihadist. If you can’t name your enemy, you can’t know your enemy…and if you don’t know your enemy, you’re lost.

UPDATE:  Raymond Ibrahim over at American Thinker weighs in on this very topic.

Would a Jihadi by Any Other Name Smell as Foul?

[A] NYT article suggests that,

“If we want to say what we mean, what terms better describe [al] Qaeda members and other violent extremists? ‘Muharib’ or the more colloquial ‘hirabi’ or ‘hirabist’ would be good places to start. ‘Hirabah,’ the base word, is a term for barbarism or piracy. Unlike ‘jihad,’ which grants honor, ‘hirabah’ brings condemnation; it involves unlawful violence and disorder.”

Now, as a native Arabic speaker, I regret to say that usage of these terms — that is, Americans trying to be at once politically-correct and descriptive, in, of all languages, Arabic — is, alas, somewhat comedic.  I further suspect that Arabs, especially al-Qaeda types, would find it hilarious and consistent with their interpretations of wishy-washy Americans, who go to great lengths to learn a language only to censor themselves and compromise their precision in that same language, all so they can appear the “nice guy.” 

Which leads to a final point: Arabs and Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government — that is, infidels — to define Islam for them, much less to confer Islamic legitimacy or condemnation on al-Qaeda through the use of subtle word-games.  Calling this or that a “hirabi” or “jihadi” is not about to make any great impression on them, since only an authoritative Islamic entity (e.g., Cairo’s al-Azhar university) is qualified to determine such matters. Thus the US government would do well to worry less about which words will better humor the Arab/Muslim world, and worry more about providing its citizenry with accurate and meaningful terminology. 

Precisely!

Posted in Deception, Dhimmitude, Islam, PC-BS, Truespeak | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Blogburst: Pentagon not the only Department giving the last word to Muslims covering up terror threats

Posted by Godefroi on January 16, 2008

The military’s top expert on jihad ideology was fired last week at the behest of a Muslim aide to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England . The aide is a friend to the grand-daddy of all modern Islamic terror groups, the Muslim Brotherhood. His influence is penetration of the top levels of the Pentagon by our terror war enemies.

What happened in the Park Service’s Flight 93 memorial investigation is very similar. Our last three blogbursts exposed how two Muslim academics fed the Park Service blatantly dishonest excuses for the giant Mecca oriented crescent in the Murdoch-designed memorial.

Kevin Jaques from Indiana University said that the similarity to an Islamic mihrab should be ignored (a mihrab is the Mecca direction indicator around which every mosque is built) because there has never been a mihrab anywhere near this big before.

Nasser Rabbat said that because the Flight 93 crescent does not point quite exactly at Mecca (it is 1.8° off), it cannot be regarded as a mihrab:

“Mihrab orientation is either correct or not. It cannot be off by some degrees.” [From the Park Service’s White Paper.]

Liar. Many classic mihrabs are oriented 10, 20 or 30 degrees from Mecca . The most elaborate mihrab in the world, the mihrab at the great mosque in Cordoba Spain , is oriented more than 45° off Mecca :

 Cordoba mihrab

Cordoba mihrab points south. Mecca is east-southeast of Spain .

More Rabbat deceptions

Nasser Rabbat’s other lies to the Park Service are just as blatant. One of Rabbat’s “talking points,” as he calls them, questions whether the crescent is really an Islamic symbol at all:

The Crescent is a debatable Islamic universal symbol. Many groups do not use it. I know in fact of no militant group that uses it. Islamic modern states have opted to use it, sometimes with the star, which is a modern symbol with no Islamic connotation.

Appearing on the vast majority of Islamic flags is “no Islamic connotation”?

The specific question Rabbat was supposedly addressing is the use of a crescent for the shape of a mihrab, and here the Islamic usage is undeniable. Lots of mihrabs are pointed arch shaped, but the archetypical mihrab–the Prophet’s Mihrab at the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina –is crescent shaped both in its vertical dimension and its depth dimension:

Prophet's Mihrab

Rabbat is a professor of Islamic architecture. Mosque design falls within his field of expertise. He knows the traditional crescent shaped mihrab better than anybody and just lies about it, the same way he lies about mihrab orientation having to be exact.

And that bit about not knowing of any militant groups that use the crescent? That would make Rabbat a very rare Syrian, if he has never seen the Hezbollah flag:

When the terror groups have the crescent embrace the globe, they mean that Islam will one day rule the world and subjugate all the infidels.

Here are some more:

Palestinian Liberation Front

Perhaps a better question is whether there are Islamic terror groups that do not identify with the crescent.

At both the Park Service and the Pentagon, Muslim consultants who are engaged in blatant cover up of terror threats are being given the last word by top level administration officials.

Let’s get those Congressional Investigations going.

To join our blogbursts, email Cao ( caoilfhionn 1 at gmail dot com) with your blog’s url.

Posted in History, house church, News, Persecution, Truespeak, Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

Taqqiya revisited

Posted by Godefroi on September 20, 2007

As I mentioned here, the term hiraba is coming to favor over the term jihad to describe the actions committed by Muslim terrorists, and that fact is not only unfortunate, it’s harmful.

From my previous post:

When researched, it turns out that this theory was produced by clerics of the Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood, as a plan to prevent jihad and Jihadism from being depicted by the West and the international community as an illegal and therefore sanctioned activity. It was then forwarded to American- and Western-based interest groups to be spread within the Untied States, particularly within the defense and security apparatus. Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy

From a post at Jihad Watch today, I see that this assertion has further support from LTC Joseph C. Myers, Senior Army Advisor at Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama. A quote from a memo from Col. Myers below:

This assessment makes the point that the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered a threat organization and the affiliated US domestic Muslim NGOs and associations identified in the strategy document should likewise be considered part of the Muslim Brotherhood network, that these are “front” functional organizations operating as links and nodes of the overall network.

Exceptionally important in the analysis is the role of the “Truespeak” organization and Jim Guirard who has been arguing in DoD circles and academic institutions that the term jihad should be suspended from the GWOT lexicon to be replaced by hiraba. This analysis demonstrates that “Truespeak” contributors are part of the Muslim Brotherhood threat network, with the implication that this entire communication and lexicon effort is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign.

Hiraba was generally used to describe “highway robbery” or piracy (some kind of taking by force), obviously offenses in Islam. The Quranic use of it is in the usually-overlooked verse 5:33…”The only reward of those who make war [hiraba – GdB] upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land [fasad fil ardh] will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom”. It’s a real stretch to compare robbery with the intentional property destruction and murder that accompanies the common terrorist attack…especially when the perpetrators themselves (even the Arabic-speaking ones) call their actions Jihad for Allah.

It’s interesting to note here that the punishment prescribed is for those who wage war against Muslims…not the other way around.

So what’s the point?  Simply this…call a spade a spade, call a pirate a pirate, call a jihadist (one struggling for Allah, violently or otherwise) a jihadist.  If you can’t name your enemy, you can’t know your enemy…and if you don’t know your enemy, you’re lost.

Posted in Deception, Jihad, Politics, Truespeak | 1 Comment »