Doc's Talk: Perilous Euphemisms

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Perilous Euphemisms

Susanne M. Reyto
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, June 19, 2009
http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35276

“Overseas contingency operation.” “Man caused disaster.” “Anti-Islamic activity.”

These are the currently required terms by our government, for “Global War on Terror,” “Terrorism,” and “Islamic terrorism.” I am not only baffled by these new phrases but have great difficulty remembering them, since the words don’t convey the facts. The directive for using the “proper” terminology in official announcements was not a casual request but part of an official memo from no less than Janet Napolitano, our Secretary of Homeland Security. This deliberate obscurantism is frightening.

Many of her contradictory pronouncements invite comparisons to the manipulations of language in George Orwell’s 1984. According to her recent comments on CNN, “Illegal immigration is not a crime.” Of course, anything “illegal” is a crime by definition.

Secretary Napolitano now also avoids using the term “terrorism, dropping the terms “terror” and “vulnerability” from her prepared remarks delivered to the House Homeland Security Committee. On another occasion when the Secretary was asked why she does not talk about terror specifically, she said terrorism fits into what she calls “action directives” issued by her office. These appear to be internal memos, apparently preventing the public from being properly informed. (The new lexicon could also include current interpretation for serial killers and serial rapists as man-caused afflictions.)

An official memo from the National Counterterrorism Communication Center directs the replacement of terrorists with vague words like “extremists or totalitarians.” Officials are to “refrain from using so-called harsh words or Arabic words with Islamic consequence.” Instead they are to use generic terms without specific emphasis. “Jihad” is used by the radicals themselves; why can’t we use it? Going one step further, the government has drafted official guidelines in the publication. “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims, a guide for U.S. Government Officials.” In their infinite wisdom, the government asked Muslims – many of whom may well adhere to the political ideology of submission under Islam and Shari’a Law – to assist with the publication.

Language is critical. It shapes our thinking and determines our action. The enemy’s perilous intensions cannot be blurred. If we do not name them, we cannot confront them. If we do not properly describe them we cannot defeat them. These new expressions mislead the public and confuse our law enforcement officers. The government’s revised phrases minimize the reality they are intended to convey. Under the “Global War on Terror,” terrorists can be held indefinitely. B ut, if we refuse to actually call it “war” and call our enemies “detainees,” they will be treated as regular criminals benefiting from our legal system. To make matters worse, under the new “global justice” initiative, President Obama through the Justice Department has ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held in U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan. It seems that “sensitivity” to our enemy takes precedence over our security.

President Obama stated in his Cairo speech June 4, 2009, “Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.” The president also characterized the terrorist attacks as a “cycle of suspicion and discord,” rather than hatred and genocide. “Small” is also a relative concept. Even if the percentage of radicals is small – 10 percent of 1.5 billion Muslims – the impact of 150 million hard core Islamists is significant. Minimizing jihad against the West and particularly in America is a grave mistake.

A vast majority of imams preach Islam’s goal: world domination. While we must not call all Muslims terrorists, violence is inherent in Islam, and the radicals cite the Qur’an as the foundation for their actions. Prominent imams preach that there will be no peace until everybody converts and Islam rules. Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris declared in a sermon on PA TV on May 13, 2005, “We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again.” What part of this do we and our government not understand? Evidently all of it, since the administration is requesting Congress change U.S. law to permit aid to Hamas in the event that it becomes part of a unified Palestinian government, although Hamas has a past, present and likely future as a terrorist organization.

Murderous intentions are hardly confined to “Palestine.” Kuwaiti professor, Abdullah Al-Nafisi on Al Jazeera TV declared on February 2 of this year, “Four pounds of anthrax…carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the US, are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour…9/11 will be a small change in comparison.”

In fact, such hatred is not uncommon among Muslims within our own borders. Dr. Salla Sultan, an Egyptian cleric living in the United States stated on Al-Nas TV on December 28, 2008, “America, which gave Israel everything it needed in these [Gaza] battles, will suffer economic stagnation, ruin, destruction and crime, which will surpass what is happening in Gaza.” He then vowed, “the U.S. will suffer more deaths than all those killed in this third Gaza holocaust. This will happen soon.” These words were spoken in America by a man who is trying to become a citizen. Does this not horrify the public and our leaders? Is this the so-called religion of peace that we are trying to appease?

Peace, according to Webster’s Dictionary, means a state of calm and quiet or freedom from disturbing thoughts or emotions. For Muslims this means cessation of resistance to Islam. Qur’an 8:38-40 says, “O believer. Fight them until there is no more oppression and until the whole Deen (Way of Life) is for Allah alone.” According to this interpretation, Peace exists when Islam rules politically and religiously and its principles are the laws of the land. But, this Shari’a (Islamic) law is not compatible with our Constitution.

Words matter. The distorted use of language is a great danger within America, and well beyond. Author Joe Queenan has joked that, following Obama’s move:

[T]he Taliban announced that it will no longer refer to its favorite method of murder as “beheadings,” but will replace it with “cephalic attrition.” “Flayings” a barbarously exotic style of execution will now be described as “unsolicited epidermal reconfigurations.” Similarly, cutting off captives’s arms will now be referred to as “appendage furloughing.”

Jokes notwithstanding, the actions remain just as brutal, whether practiced by jihadists abroad or terrorists at home. Linguistic mixed signals are naïve and reckless in international relations where strength of character and decisiveness are essential. We must retain our moral integrity, our precious language, and not compromise our freedom and liberty. Ronald Reagan in 1984 stated, “We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.”
Susanne M. Reyto is a speaker and award winning author of Pursuit of Freedom: A True Story of the Enduring Power of Hope and Dreams. Her horrific personal experiences of surviving Communism in Hungary energize her mission. Her website is www.pursuitoffreedom.com. She may be reached at Susanne@pursuitoffreedom.com

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk