ISIS & Iran – in a Race to Islam’s Armageddon?

Family Security Matters

Graeme Wood recently rattled a lot of people on the Left of the U.S. ideological spectrum by writing something in The Atlantic that many of those not wearing PC blinders already knew. Wood, shockingly, reported that ISIS really is Islamic, just as its name proclaims and its leaders insist, directly contradicting President Obama’s own notorious assessment. Per Wood, “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.”

Islamists get their motivation from mainstream Islamic texts, albeit from a highly literalist reading.  Wood quoted Princeton professor of Islam and specialist in its extremist ideologies, Bernard Haykel, who went a step further: “What’s striking about them is not just the literalism, but also the seriousness with which they read these texts… There is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness that Muslims don’t normally have.”

Continue reading

Terrorists With Union Cards?

The American Spectator

The response of our State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley, to the murder of two U.S. Airmen and the wounding of two others in Germany was firmly noncommittal. Crowley was unwilling to call the incident terrorism.

After all, he said, you wouldn’t call the shooter who killed federal judge John Roll, and five other people, and who seriously wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson a terrorist, would you?

According to many witnesses, the assailant in Germany yelled “Allahu Akhbar” (Arabic for “God is Great”) as he gunned down the young American servicemen, who were in uniform. The killer is a Kosovar Muslim, news reports confirm, but Crowley didn’t want to jump to any conclusions.

Continue reading

Terror reviews avoid word ‘Islamist’

By Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Two new documents laying out the Obama administration’s defense and homeland security strategy over the next four years describe the nation’s terrorist enemies in a number of ways but fail to mention the words Islam, Islamic or Islamist.

The 108-page Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, made public last week by the Department of Homeland Security, uses the term “terrorist” a total of 66 times, “al Qaeda” five times and “violent extremism” or “extremist” 14 times. It calls on the U.S. government to “actively engage communities across the United States” to “stop the spread of violent extremism.”

Yet in describing terrorist threats against the United States and the ideology that motivates terrorists, the review – like its sister document from the Pentagon, the Quadrennial Defense Review – does not use the words “Islam,” “Islamic” or “Islamist” a single time.

Although the homeland security official in charge of developing the review insists it was a not a deliberate decision, the document is likely to reignite a debate over terminology in the U.S.-led war against al Qaeda that has been simmering through two administrations.

“There was not an active choice” to avoid using terms derivative of Islam, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy David Heyman told reporters on a conference call. President Obama had “made it clear as we are looking at counterterrorism that our principal focus is al Qaeda and global violent extremism, and that is the terminology and language that has been articulated” by Mr. Obama and his advisers, Mr. Heyman added. He declined to use the I-word.

The sensitivity to terminology is not new. In April 2008, during the George W. Bush administration, an official guide produced by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the multiagency center charged with strategic coordination of the U.S. war on terrorism, urged officials not to use the words “Muslim” or “Islamic” in conjunction with the word “terrorism.”

Such usage “reinforces the ‘U.S. vs. Islam’ framework that al-Qaeda promotes,” read the NCTC’s “Words That Work and Words That Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication.”

Instead, the guide urges policymakers to use terms such as “violent extremists,” “totalitarian,” and “death cult” to characterize al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The Obama administration has adopted “violent extremism” as its catchall phrase for terrorism.

It is advice that officials at the Defense Department also appear to have taken to heart. The 128-page Quadrennial Defense Review – which like the homeland-security review is a congressionally mandated effort to ensure budgeting and other planning efforts are properly aligned against threats to the nation – also eschews words associated with Islam, employing instead the constructions “radicalism,” “extremism” or “violent extremism.”

Source: