Results 1 to 20 of 61

Thread: Islam, Catholisism, religion, and conflict

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    9

    Default

    As an example (the current administration being no better than the previous one in regards to the matter), the following internalized propaganda-speak just makes one shake one's head in disbelief:

    Don't call them jihadists any more. And don't call al-Qaeda a movement. The Bush administration has launched a new front in the war on terrorism, this time targeting language. Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like "Islamo-fascism" is out, too. The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.
    Excluding the cited author's own framing bias, the first rationale makes little sense. The target audience doesn't look to the US government, which has zero religious authority, to define jihadists and the mujahideen as something else. The second rationale is pure politically correct pablum.

    "Regarding 'jihad,' even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world," the report says.
    "Even if it is accurate?" The deceptive halo is one that does not apply to the target audience. Again, the US government is in zero position to determine if the jihadists have religious authority. Completely left out of this is that it is not the lexicon that the US government chooses to use that 'damages relations with Muslims around the world' but rather interventionist neo-Wilsonian foreign policy.

    "Don't compromise our credibility" by using words and phrases that may ascribe benign motives to terrorists.
    This statement is such an epic fail on so many levels.

    Reference URL: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...535863,00.html

  2. #2
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Early Muslim Extremist In America

    Glenn Beck interview of David Barton on Jefferson and Islam, Barbary Wars.




    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlT1IXSv830

Similar Threads

  1. Chaplains as Liaisons with Religious Leaders: Lessons From Iraq and Afghanistan
    By Jedburgh in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 01-15-2015, 04:27 AM
  2. We need less Chemo and Surgery and more "Voom."
    By Bob's World in forum Catch-All, GWOT
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 12-10-2012, 04:13 AM
  3. Paper: Rethinking Role of Religious Conflict in Doctrine
    By milnews.ca in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 03:01 AM
  4. Civilian Casualties, Religion, and COIN Operations
    By rborum in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-29-2009, 06:17 PM
  5. Islam, The Solution...!?
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 08:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •