Renaming the enemy

Posted: July 14, 2007 in America, Source: Marylou's America

By Marylou Barry

“It seems to me that the enemy is given lots of cover when we force the matter of linguistic correctness upon the masses.” – Kevin McCullough,

According to a July 3 article in the Daily Express, new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown not only has instructed his staff to drop the phrase “war on terror” but also has banned the use of the word “Muslim” in connection with the “terrorism crisis” he acknowledges is occurring.

Brown’s directive came on July 2, just five days after he took office on June 27 – and less time than that after the aborted London nightclub bombing on June 29 and the successful Glasgow airport bombing on June 30.

In perspective, what does this mean? Are the perpetrators of these “incidents” trying to tell the prime minister something? Does Brown actually believe that a change in diction will dissuade them from killing people and blowing things up? Could it be that bestowing citizenship on large, hostile populations whose religion condones murder maybe wasn’t such a hot idea? What is this new administration thinking?

“Astoundingly, it has decided to deny the religious element of this jihad altogether, to redefine Islamic terrorism as mere criminality and to ban all terms that call this horror by its proper name,” British author and columnist Melanie Phillips writes. “Gordon Brown has talked about the need to ‘win hearts and minds’ in the community we cannot now name.”

“The terrorists recruit and motivate by making use of Islamic concepts,” says Jihad Watch director columnist Robert Spencer. “If we cannot talk about this, how will we ever formulate a strategy to deal with it effectively?”

How lawmakers are supposed to discuss Islamic terror without being able to call it by name is anybody’s guess, although they probably will borrow media-invented misnomers like “immigrants” or “disadvantaged Asian youth.” Yes, thanks, BBC. Ten Downing Street owes you one.

“Asian”? If I have to hear that one more time, I think I am going to scream.

Muslims are not “Asian” any more than they are of any other geographic origin. For one thing, Asia is not even a separate continent. Forget what your teachers told you and look at a map – Asia and Europe are only opposite ends of the same huge landmass. How is that a descriptor of geographic origin?

For another thing, jihadis are globalists – yes, globalists. And as long as you are willing to switch your allegiance from the God of the Bible to Allah – and you don’t have a problem with blowing up children, possibly including your own – they will take you, no questions asked.

Cryptic catchwords of this sort not only veil the truth but also vilify actual Asians, who may never even have heard of Islam. Even if this pathetic euphemism were accurate, the problem with Islamic terrorists is not where their ancestors came from, but that their religion tells them to murder people and they do. Why do the British media – and now government – find this fact so inconvenient?

It goes without saying, of course, that most people born into Islam are not terrorists. Many of them feel threatened by those who are, so they understandably keep silent to protect themselves and their families. A few brave souls speak out anyway. I think that they are heroes.

However, the evidence clearly show that almost all terrorists in the world today are Muslim. This is the single, defining, common thread that binds them together; it is the reason for their cause. For us in the West to ignore it in the name of “sensitivity” is suicidal. If the British government chooses to deny the obvious for fear of appearing “inflammatory,” it does so to the peril of its own people.

Strange, I don’t recall any such concern about the feelings of IRA members back in the last century when they were shooting people down in the streets. To the best of my recollection, the British government never referred to them as “immigrants” or “disadvantaged Western youth” to avoid giving offense. It called them thugs and murderers, which is what they were, and it didn’t give a rat’s behind if they were offended or not. For that matter I don’t recall Winston Churchill ever referring to Nazis as “militants” or “gunmen,” or encouraging them to move to London and set up lobbying associations.

But in Britain, as in most of the world, it’s getting too late to pull up the drawbridges. The barbarians are not just inside the gates but are stretched out in the living room, energized from their long, post-Dark Ages nap. They tell their host which words it may use in speaking about them, which words it may not use, and, judging from the events of last month, what will occur if the host does not comply.

And Prime Minister Brown, having encountered a threat he will not acknowledge and cannot contain, meekly hands out copies of the new lexicon. And everyone begins speaking in code.


Comments are closed.