Well Intended but Largely Mistaken Attacks (Parts 4, 5, and 6)

Well Intended but Largely Mistaken Attacks on NCTC and DHS "War of Words" Advisories

Parts 4, 5 and 6 of 6.

Part 1.

Parts 2 and 3.

Part # 4: Proofs of The al Qaeda Apostasy

And as proof positive that the terrorists do truly deserve such harsh condemnations, here is a partial "Bill of Particulars" of their many transgressions and willful violations of Qur'anic prohibitions of which the AQ radicals are enormously guilty -- as is further explained in Is it Holy "Jihad" of Unholy "Irhabi Murderdom"???

• Wanton killing of innocents and noncombatants, including many peaceful Muslims

• Decapitating the live and desecrating the dead bodies of perceived enemies

• Committing and enticing others to commit suicide for reasons of intimidation

• Fomenting hatred among communities, nations, religions and civilizations

• Ruthless warring against nations in which Islam is freely practiced

• Issuing and inspiring unauthorized and un-Islamic fatwas (religious edicts)

• Using some mosques as weapons depots and battle stations, while destroying others

• Forcing extremist and absolutist versions (and perversions) of Islam on Muslims, when the Qur'an clearly says that there shall be "no compulsion in religion"

• Distorting the word "infidels" to include all Christians, all Jews and many Muslims, as well - when the Qur'an calls them all "Children of the Book" (the Old Testament) and "Sons of Abraham," and calls Jesus one of Islam's five main Prophets

• Deliberate misreading, ignoring and perverting of passages of the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Islamic Jurisprudence (the Fiqh)

• Ruthless recruiting of very young and easy-to-brainwash children into lives of hatred, revenge and suicide mass murder, long before they have reached the age of reaso

• Heartless use and abuse of mentally handicapped women, some of them carrying infant children for disguise, in acts of suicide bombing of fellow Muslims

Both the number and the gravity of these acts of disobedience and disrespect for the "peaceful, compassionate, merciful, beneficent and just" Allah who is so described by the Qur'an clearly identify the hyena-like perpetrators not as the Godly "mujahideen" and the "shahideen" (the holy warriors and the martyrs) they claim to be but as the "mufsiduun" and the "munafiquun" (the evildoers and hypocrites) they really are.

Still More Proofs : Antonyms of The "99 Names Of Allah"

In addition to the dozen proofs of the Terrorists' anti-Quran evildoing displayed above, there is another Qur'anic frame of reference which defines just how satanic these self-styled "holy guys" and supposed "martyrs" actually are.

This can be understood by simply rediscovering and using to advantage one of the most basic and most widely agreed upon tenets of Islam -- namely, the blessed "99 Names of Allah" which appear throughout the Qur'an and which amount to Allah's own self-description.

For a sampling of these self-descriptive (of Allah by Allah Himself in the Qur'an) words and phrases and of the ANTONYMS which, by contrast, identify the satanic nature and the sinful works of the AQ-style terrorists, please check the following URL and the 12-word excerpt there from The "99 Names of Allah" vs The al Qaeda Apostasy":

Allah, The Compassionate versus al Qaeda, The Heartless

Allah, The Peace versus al Qaeda, Warmongers

Allah, The Merciful versus al Qaeda, The Merciless

Allah, The Munificent versus al Qaeda, The Selfish

Allah, The Just versus al Qaeda, The Unjust

Allah, The Restrainer versus al Qaeda, Transgressors

Allah, The Forgiver versus al Qaeda, The Unforgiving

Allah, The Loving versus al Qaeda, The Haters

Allah, The Giver of Life versus al Qaeda, The Assassins

Allah, The Acceptor of Repentance vs al Qaeda, Unrepentant

Allah, The Exalted versus al Qaeda, The Arrogant

Allah, The Light versus al Qaeda, The Darkness

Although this "99 Names of Allah" frame of reference is one of the few things which all Islamic Schools of Thought seem to embrace in its entirety, many national and parochial "Shari'as" seem to disagree. They do so by willfully acting in opposition to and in disrespect of many of these blessed words which most Muslims believe are Allah's own (and, therefore, Islam's own) self description.

If this is the case, what is needed now is for truly Allah-loving Muslims to inspire a like-minded group of Islamic scholars, jurists and clerics to complete this scholarly search for the remainder of these antonyms -- which will forever define the Salafi-Wahhabi-AQ-style terrorists as acting not in the "Will of Allah" but in the will of His antithesis -- Shaitan.

Part # 5: Rejecting Mantras of "Jihadi Martyrdom" and "Death to America"

Looking to the future, if we do indeed decide to reject the existing language of so-called "Jihadi Martyrdom" (and of the "Death to America" result it implies) and to do so in ways which belatedly begin to strip the Terrorists' beastly hides off in Islamic religious terms -- we would do well to recall not only Senator Moynihan's post-Orwellian words but also the pre-Orwellian words of the great Chinese philosopher Confucius.

When asked 2400 years ago what would do first and foremost if he were placed in charge of China, he replied in terms which are just as relevant today as they were then:

"It would certainly be to correct language. If language is not correct then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone. If this remains undone, then morals and acts deteriorate. If morals and acts deteriorate, justice will go astray. If justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence, there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything."

In addition to these words of wisdom from Confucius to Moynihan, a few other assertions from the past as to the vital importance of words -- either to inform or to disinform and to brainwash -- can be found in the following quotes:

Thucydides: Commenting -- also some 2400 years ago -- on rampant language distortion by all sides during the Peleponnesian Wars: "The ordinary acceptation of words in their relation to things were changed as men thought fit."

Benjamin Disraeli: Referring to the governance of both Great Britain and the worldwide British Empire, the great British parliamentarian said: "Few ideas are correct ones, and none can ascertain which they are. It is with words we govern men."

Prof. Robert Tucker: According to political historian and renowned biographer Robert Tucker, Soviet dictator Josep Stalin (real name Josep Dzhugashvili) believed that "Of all monopolies enjoyed by the state, none would be so crucial as its monopoly on the definition of words. The ultimate weapon of political control would be the dictionary."

TrueSpeak Comment: Let Stalin choose the words by which you think and Stalin will tell you what to think -- or not to think. And let bin Ladenism choose for us the self-canonizing language of "Jihadi martyrdom," and he will have us forever polishing his "holy guy" halo and conceding that we are, indeed, the "Great Satan" who Osama so falsely says that we are.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: The great Austrian philosopher and linguist in his famous work Philosophical Investigations recalled a situation earlier in his life in Austria with regard to the enormous and lasting power of habit-of-language: "A picture held us captive, and we could not get outside of it. For it lay in our language, and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably." [The holy-war "Jihadi" picture holds us captive, but we must get outside of it.]

V. I. Lenin: Although he was a dialectical materialist, a militant atheist, Vladimir Lenin (real name V.I. Ulyanov) recognized the great appeal of religion and of spiritual values to most human beings. At opportune times, he cynically engaged in the pseudo-religious game -- as bin Laden et al do today -- which is revealed in the following quote: "We will find our greatest success to the extent that we can inculcate Marxism [please substitute "bin Ladenism" here] as a kind of religion. Religious men and women are easy to convert, and will easily accept our thinking if we wrap it up in a kind of religious terminology."

Mikhail Gorbachev: As quoted above, historian Robert Tucker cited Josef Stalin's belief that, "Of all monopolies enjoyed by the State, none should be so crucial as its monopoly on the definition of words. The ultimate weapon of political control would be the dictionary." The worrisome relevance of Professor Tucker's observation can be found in the fact that in the mid-1980s the Soviet Empire's last dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, cynically published — under the Oxford English Dictionary label, no less! -- a new dictionary which (among many other distortions) contains the following patently false definitions:

1. Socialism -- "a social and economic system which is replacing capitalism."

2. Capitalism -- "the system replacing feudalism and preceding communism."

3. Communism -- "the revolutionary replacement of capitalism."

4. Imperialism -- "the highest and last stage of capitalism."

5. Fascism -- "the bourgeois movement and regime, typical of the era of imperialism."

Hopefully, our proposed "New Lexicon" will correct much of this same sort of word-warping and Orwellian manipulation in the War on Terrorism. But this will not happen by osmosis. Hard work and tough decisions will have to be made in behalf of truth-in-language, or the "war for hearts, minds and souls" might well be lost.

At this juncture, the New York Post, the rest of the media, the academic community, the Government and all of us have a vital choice to make: Do we heed the advice of Confucius, Orwell, Moynihan and all these others and begin calling these khawarij (outside the religion) radicals who they really are?

Or do we continue to parrot -- and even to insist that all others must parrot, as well -- the self-canonizing and highly disinformational language and labeling that our deadliest of enemies have so cynically concocted for themselves?

Part # 6: Where The NCTC and DHS Advisories Might Be Wrong

Finally, just because the NCTC and DHS are essentially correct in the matters of "Jihad" and "mujahideen," this does not mean that they are also correct in rejecting the "Islamo-fascist" and "War on Terrorism" and "Islamist Radicals" labels -- as they now do in favor of targeting the terrorists as mere "radical extremists" and "violent extremists," etc. (See immediately below the 2005 memo to the NSC staff on the "Terrorism" versus "Extremism" choice of labels.)

First, as to the "War on Terrorism" label, please refer to the three earlier essays of mine that are in full support of this fundamentally correct and unnecessarily controversial name:

1. Pleading To The NSC About the "War on Terrorism" Label

2. "War on Terrorism" (AQ-style Terrorism) Is the Correct Label

3. Name That War If You Absolutely Must

Second, the words "Islamist" and "Islamism" -- implying political rather than spiritual Islam -- are already widely used and well understood by much of the Muslim Community itself to correctly differentiate the "Irhabi Murderdom" (Terroristic Genocide) types and their mandate-for-murder ideology from those many civilized and peaceful Muslims to whom the honorable terms "Islam" and "Islamic" correctly apply.

Third, since the word "fascist" has come to be the codeword for brutal and unpardonable EVIL, al Qaeda and its murderous ilk are clearly "fascist" and jackboot Left-illiberal to the marrow of their pseudo-religious bones -- and should not be exempted from being labeled as such, as long as this invective does not apply routinely and automatically to their professed, and avowedly "peaceful, compassionate and just" versions of Islam.

For a major essay on my part which asserts that AQ-style Terrorism is both "fascist" and "Leninist" --- each of which was itself a pseudo-religious Heaven-on-Earth scam -- please refer to my October 6, 2006 essay, "Defining Evil: Is Al Qaeda 'Fascist' or 'Leninist' -- or Both?"

The term "Islamic fascist" would go too far and would do just that. But in the spirit of "a little thing means a lot," the carefully nuanced "Islamo-fascist" label (Islam-like or Islam-derived) but not the True Face of Islam per se ) does not do this -- just as the horrific and arguably satanic Spanish Inquisition might be condemned as "Catholico-fascist" or as "Christo-fascist" without meaning that it was the True Face of the Roman Catholic Church or of Christianity more broadly speakiing.

(Shame back then on the Catholic Church for allowing the Inquisition to get so far out of hand as to constitute a Heresy to Jesus Christ and the God of Abraham. And shame now on Islam for allowing the so-called "Jihadi" Deviancy to get so far out of bounds as to constitute an Apostasy toward the Prophet Mohammad and the God of Abraham, as well.)

The "Fascist" Label as an Incentive for Riddance

Ironically, the truly nasty implications of the "fascist" label may well serve as an incentive for the leaders and the Umma of a truly "peaceful, compassionate, merciful and just" Islam to rid itself of the metastasizing cancer of such evildoers, corrupters and Servants of Satan.

In effect, this immense religion of 1.4 billion souls (or, more properly, particular versions of that religion) should be seen and labeled as "fascist" and inherently EVIL only to the extent that they embrace, acquiesce in or truly refuse to condemn the sinful transgressions of what is quite arguably "The al Qaeda Apostasy" -- a satanic status which, in authentic Islam, would tend to inflict upon the willful fomenters and practitioners severe punishment in this life and Eternal Hellfire, Insha Allah, in the next.

The question now is whether what remains of "Authentic Islam" -- which many believe to be the overwhelming majority of Muslims -- will rise to the challenge, join forces in defeating our common enemies, draw an eternally bright line between itself and its in-house deviants and avoid being perverted by the Terrorists into nothing but a perpetual fascist-Left killing machine of all Christians, all Jews and especially of all peaceful and civilized Muslims who dare to disagree.

Conclusion

A quarter century ago, when the original Cold War problem of "semantic infiltration" became a serious danger, the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy had hearings on the subject, listened to the warnings from Senator Moynihan and UnderSecDef Fred Ikle and contracted with me through the US Information Agency (USIA) to do a major paper on the subject.

It then recommended not once but three times -- in 1984, 1985 and 1986 -- to both the Congress and the Reagan White House that a National Security Council (NSC) Task Force be established to determine the scope of the problem and to recommend solutions.

Today, in what has become Cold War II -- and when yet another worldwide ideological struggle within which many military wars, some small and some large, are being endlessly fought -- this same proposed quest for a truly comprehensive solution from a properly constituted NSC Task Force might be very much in order.

Jim Guirard -- TrueSpeak.org, 703-768-0957, Justcauses@aol.com

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Perilously close to producing Godwin's Law problems

What does "jackboot Left-illiberal" mean?

And does Usama Bun Laden know that he's "fascist-left"? How exactly does this differ from "fascist-right"?

On the other hand, is there a "fascist-centre" as well?

Very good essay, those terms above should be taught to every leader, and every soldier should learn the term "takfiris" or whatever is marketable in the region they will fight.

I chose "takfiri" because that's the name that caught on with the Anbar Awakening. Whatever name catches on with the Muslim enemies of our enemies, I say we go with.

And let me say I fell prey to all the mistakes in thinking you describe above. A five minute class would have saved us a lot of trouble. Just take an hour away from the endless classes on ROE we got in 05/06, which resulted (surprise) in a reluctance to pull the trigger, and defeatism.

This tells us who were fighting, why we are not at war with Islam, and lets us avoid an avoidable mistake that costs (and confuses) us.