The publications and news networks that deem it too risky to publish certain news stories, editorials or cartoons, because it might trigger a violent response by Muslims let those that do take all the risks, so says author Mark Steyn. This is why he holds that the media must suffer some of the blame for what happened to the magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Paraphrasing Steyn, he says to some degree they’ve (media) allow terrorism to put a muzzle on free speech and that’s a glaring assault on our values.
LeMonde, the New York Times and major news sources have occasionally sidestepped certain stories regarding Muslims presumably to avoid becoming the objects of their revenge. Have you noticed that some news networks will never use the words [Muslim] and [Terrorist] together even though the killers were shouting “Allah U-Akbar” as they chopped off heads, gunned down people in a mall or blew up a crowded bus?
This is weak kneed political correctness at its worst and we saw that again at the Ft. Hood massacre when it was called ”work place violence.” We owe it to ourselves to have a little courage and be more truthful.
“[T]he kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario happens it really isn’t a liberal civilization any more.” Comment from Hot Air.
Again, we need to be honest about what is happening in the world, because we’re talking about protecting free speech and freedom of the press. This is about having the moral courage to stand up when those rights are threatened. And we better do it whether or not we agree with what is being said!
The people that were offended by the Danish cartoon depicting Mohamed or a Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, have a right to protest if they wish. However, peaceful protesting and killing someone over a cartoon are miles apart. There is no level of justification for killing someone over something they said, that’s just insane.
Despite countless atrocities done by modern day Muslims there’s still nothing to be gained by vilifying all of Islam. As difficult as it may be at times, we owe to ourselves to keep our sense of accountability precisely focused where it belongs, even if our enemy doesn’t.
We don’t have to be naïve and assume that all non-violent Muslims see the world exactly as we do or appreciate the liberal values we have. But, if that’s the way it and they don’t like it, then that’s ok too. Its more important for the greater good to practice tolerance and respect for the opinions of others, even if they are Stone Age opinions.
The Economist wrote the following about Charlie Hebdo, “The magazine had the right to publish everything it did, and French law is right to allow it to. There can be no “but” in that sentence. Even when a picture or opinion is imprudent or tasteless, unless it directly incites violence it should not be banned. Charlie Hebdo lampoons all religions, not just Islam—but it would have the right to single out that faith if it wanted to, just as Islamists in Europe are entitled to denounce Western decadence if they so choose.”
As Americans, we more than most, can appreciate the value of free speech and a free press. So, at the very least, this bloody attack on Charlie Hebdo ought to remind us how fragile those things are and how easily they could be lost. Presumably, this is why we’re all here – to take a stand against Islamic extremism in the strongest possible terms, so thanks for that and thanks for reading… Je suis Charlie…NOUS SOMMES TOUS CHARLIE!
As long as political correctness is more important than a human life, the terrorists win.
And they’re certainly winning in the white house when our prez is totally unable to say either “terrorist” “jihadist” “radical islam”
Excellent post Jack, I enjoyed reading it.
I don’t seek to vilify Islam, but the truth about it should be known. Near the bottom of the Soul Searching thread Steve posted a video of a interview of Bill Maher. It was the first time I have been able to listen to Maher for more than five minutes.
In it Maher states (I am paraphrasing) that if you insult Islam, all bets are off in that that all of Islam, from the most mild moderate to the most rabid fundamentalist, is not going to tolerate such insult and that violence will ensue.
This is true.
I am afraid that there is no place in Western civilization for Islam, it is absolutely antithetical to free speech and western values. Either the west bends over backwards to accommodate the violence and viciousness of Islam when it feels it is being insulted, or Islam reforms.
There is an Islamic reformation movement, but I don’t see it as having any significant influence.
Franky, I have had a belly full of Islam.
Frankly, I have had a belly full of Islam. Me too, as have most people. They are becoming persona non-grata among the civilized world thanks to Wahhabi fundamentalists and other wack-a-doodles like em. The world is too small now for these fanatics to keep up their hostilities without suffering kickback from the majority population. I hope, and really think, they are going into extinction quicker than they could know.
We must all live by the creed “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Hooo boy. I can just see Chris now, gearing up to do battle. Can anyone else?
Mark Steyn in a 2006 article updated in 2013 regarding the then impending execution of Abdul Rahman for embracing Christianity:
The message is clear. You can continue to do what you are determined to do but the consequences will be swift and definitive.
Or, as Reagan would later describe in such a contest of wills: We win; they lose.
When you know you stand on the side of right there can be no compromising or pussy footing from a position of hope. Liberty, freedom of speech, the right of every human to exist and to pursue happiness are principles worth a solid and unbending fight. We who believe in these principles must stand united and steadfast against tyrannical voices and intimidations.
These sub-humans have spread to stage four of cancer. The free world has become too soft and pc. People are so wrapped up in sensitivity that they are allowing this crap to grow and take over.
“And they’re certainly winning in the white house when our prez is totally unable to say either “terrorist” “jihadist” “radical islam”
Obama says the word “terrorist” frequently. It took me five seconds on Google to find this speech at the UN:
“ur intelligence agencies estimate that more than 15,000 foreign fighters from more than 80 nations have traveled to Syria in recent years. Many have joined terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda’s affiliate, the Nusrah Front, and ISIL, which now threatens people across Syria and Iraq. And I want to acknowledge and thank Prime Minister Abadi of Iraq for being here today.
In the Middle East and elsewhere, these terrorists exacerbate conflicts; they pose an immediate threat to people in these regions; and as we’ve already seen in several cases, they may try to return to their home countries to carry out deadly attacks.”
You are right that Obama avoids saying “jihadist” and “radical Islam.” But what you might not know is that this is a continuation of a Bush administration policy that began in May of 2008:
“U.S. officials are being advised in internal government documents to avoid referring publicly to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups as Islamic or Muslim, and not to use terms like jihad or mujahedin, which “unintentionally legitimize” terrorism.
“There’s a growing consensus (in the administration) that we need to move away from that language,” said a former senior administration official who was involved until recently in policy debates on the issue.
Instead, in two documents circulated last month by the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the multiagency center charged with strategic coordination of the U.S. war on terrorism, officials are urged to use terms like violent extremists, totalitarian and death cult to characterize al-Qaida and other terror groups.
“Avoid labeling everything ‘Muslim.’ It reinforces the ‘U.S. vs. Islam’ framework that al-Qaida promotes,” reads “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication,” produced last month by the center.
“You have a large percentage of the world’s population that subscribes to this religion,” noted the former official. “Unintentionally alienating them is not a judicious move.”
Urging officials not to use the word Islam in conjunction with terrorism, the guide notes that, “Although the al-Qaida network exploits religious sentiments and tries to use religion to justify its actions, we should treat it as an illegitimate political organization, both terrorist and criminal.”
Instead of calling terror groups Muslim or Islamic, the guide suggests using words like totalitarian, terrorist or violent extremist — “widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.”
By employing the language the extremists use about themselves, the guide warns, officials can inadvertently help legitimize them in the eyes of Muslims.
“Never use the terms ‘jihadist’ or ‘mujahedin’ … to describe the terrorists,” instructs the guide. “A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means ‘striving in the path of God’ and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies Jihadis and their movement a global Jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions.”
The guide also bans the use of the word caliphate — the pan-national Islamic state — to describe al-Qaida’s goal. The term “has positive connotations for Muslims,” says the guide, adding, “The best description of what (al-Qaida) really want to create is a ‘global totalitarian state.'”
“There are some terms which al-Qaida wants us to use because they are helpful to them,” Daniel Sutherland, who runs the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, told United Press International in an interview.
“This is in no way an exercise in political correctness … we are not watering down what we say.”
The logic behind this decision seems sound. Why give the terrorists what they want? Why use their own language? It’s not about being PC, it’s about refusing to give in to the terrorists’ ultimate desire, which is a war between Islam and the West.
When it comes to being a wind bag, there is no one who can match Chris for endless blather. Does Chris really think J. Soden will bother to read all that drivel? I doubt he will bother to read one single line. I certainly didn’t read it. All I did was see how far it was required to scroll past it. YOW!
The yucks never stop when it comes to Chris.
Hey, Jack! Looks like I’m Chris’ next target!
Welcome to the club.
#9 Pie Guevara : #8 WOW! and YOW
Yep Pie you nailed it, a waste of a “wall of words!”
and J.Soden just roll your eyes and chuckle. because “If the person talking doesn’t appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear.”
J Soden: “Hey, Jack! Looks like I’m Chris’ next target!”
Can you please explain why you felt “targeted” by my response to you? I did not insult you, I did not call you names. I pointed out that you said one thing that was incorrect (Obama does frequently use the word “terrorist”) and then acknowledged you were correct about some of your other claims. I then explained the reasoning behind avoiding the words “jihadist” and “radical Islam,” which is a policy that goes back to the Bush administration.
How is this outside the realm of civil discussion? Is it now considered over the line to even disagree with the conservative commenters here, no matter how civilly, while conservative commenters here are allowed to call comments left by liberals “drivel” even though they admit to not reading them? What kind of moderation policy is that?
Harold: “Yep Pie you nailed it, a waste of a “wall of words!””
If you are going to refer to my comments then I must politely ask that you address my statements. The majority of my comment was made up of quotes demonstrating the reasons why the Bush administration decided to stop using the words “jihadist” and “radical Islam.” I did not expect anyone to read all of it, which is why I bolded certain portions I thought were most relevant.
“If the person talking doesn’t appear to be listening…”
I’m listening just fine. I addressed J Soden’s arguments specifically and civilly. It is you, Soden, and Pie who responded in an uncivil manner and ignored the content of my response. You’re the ones who aren’t listening.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwww Chris #14,
as Jack said “welcome to the club”
Regarding Chris’s comments at #8. Who here is insisting that the President not distinguish between Muslim terrorists and organizations and Mulsim’s generally?
NOBODY, that’s who. A sudden change in Obama’s speech when he addressed the UN in 2014 did not go unnoticed:
Oh really? My impression is that he tries to be all things to all people and talks tough but carries a brightly colored feather…wouldn’t he rather just avoid talking about it?
What if the recommendation turns out to be wrong? do we imagine that Hitler would be deterred by the allies posturing with friendlier rhetoric?
Let us not pretend that silencing ourselves will make a gnats worth of difference in recruitment efforts by the cohorts of radical tyrannical Islam. They do not win recruitment’s from soundbites without already having won by indoctrination into their evil belief system.
Once again well meaning experts choose to make us the problem. This is the beginning of self-censure.
Does this mean I think our leaders should carelessly make remarks? Of course not. But please, let’s not allow ourselves to be cowed and put in our place by an entity that seeks to dominate, control, and subject all others under the fist of their political/religious beliefs.
Re #12 Harold: HA! 😀 But methinks in this case that “small piece of fluff” is more likely a metric ton of cotton.
From Front Page Magazine (Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out) —
Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future
In the wake of the horrifying Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, leftists and Islamic supremacists are, once again, moving swiftly to portray Muslims as victims and any attempts to examine the real motives and goals of the Jihadist killers in Paris as unjustified and “Islamophobic.”
Two Faced Political Religion —
After gunmen in Paris killed 12 people, Saudi Arabia’s top body of Muslim clerics quickly condemned the attack and said it could have no acceptable justification. It was a signal from some of the Islamic world’s strictest voices that cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad in the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were not a reason to kill the artists.
Only days later, Saudi Arabia sent an opposing message: On Friday, a young Saudi was whipped 50 times in a public square in the city of Jiddah, the first of what will be 20 such weekly rounds of lashes. That, along with 10 years in prison, is his sentence from the kingdom’s religious-based courts for insulting Islam, based on posts on his blog criticizing prominent clerics close to the monarchy.
The above is from:
Violence fuels debate among Muslims over interpreting faith
Another group has entered the arena of stopping the use of, and thereby questioning “why the use of violence” by extremist within the Islamic religion, a known group of cyber attackers called “Anonymous” have now declared war on Jihadist Terrorist;
So the adage of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” comes into to play, much like the West and Russia in WWII
Re #20: Thanks Harold.
Tina: “Regarding Chris’s comments at #8. Who here is insisting that the President not distinguish between Muslim terrorists and organizations and Mulsim’s generally?
NOBODY, that’s who.”
…Right, and I never said or implied that anyone here was saying that, so I’m not sure what your point is.
“What if the recommendation turns out to be wrong? do we imagine that Hitler would be deterred by the allies posturing with friendlier rhetoric?”
Did you read the recommendations? They have nothing to do with using “friendlier rhetoric.” You keep insisting that the language change is about political correctness and ignoring the actual reasons.
The Bush administration decided not to use words like “Islamic radicals” and “jihadists” because that is what the terrorists WANT to be called. They want to be seen as holy warriors who are defending Islam. The Bush administration decided that using their own language would only validate their delusions and help them spread this message to others.
Can you explain to me how this rationale has anything to do with being “friendly?” Because it seems like you are once again ignoring someone’s stated arguments in favor of constructing a strawman.
“Let us not pretend that silencing ourselves will make a gnats worth of difference in recruitment efforts…Once again well meaning experts choose to make us the problem.”
Again, the language change doesn’t do any of that. No one is being “silenced.” You are free to use terms like “Islamic radicals” and “jihad” as much as you want. I have used those terms myself! But I think the government had good arguments against using that terminology in official matters. Now, you might disagree with that reasoning. But if so, you should explain why you disagree with that reasoning, instead of making up strawman reasons and replying to those.
Chris: “The Bush administration decided that using their own language would only validate their delusions and help them spread this message to others.”
Obama made a major change to the Bush language:
So it wasn’t Bush; it was Obama and the National Counter-Terrorism Centre. (The French “centre” was in the article so I used that name at Wikipedia; there is also a National Counter Terrorism Center which may be the actual agency in question)
And the move was applauded by CAIR: “We welcome this change in language as another step toward respectful and effective outreach to Muslims at home and abroad,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
So apparently back then it had little to do with not using the language Jihadist want us to use but of being very careful not to offend. Very PC and an attempt to handcuff free speech.
The Bush administration also didn’t fashion a phrase like workplace violence to avoid describing what was clearly a terrorists act perpetrated by a Muslim repeatedly yelling, “Allahu Akbar.” The terms Overseas Contingency Operations and ‘man-caused’ disasters were also not used in the Bush years.
A 2005 article in SF Gate with the title, “Bush warns of ‘radical Islamic empire’ / He says 10 terrorist attacks have been foiled since 9/11,” by Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief suggests Bush was willing to use the terms when it was appropriate to do so.
Bush warned in 2006:
Bush didn’t play word games…he clearly named our enemy and he never blamed America, as Obama and his administration have done and did in particular by pushing that pathetic video excuse as the cause for the terror attack at Benghazi.
Your attempt to sound reasonable after making so many accusations against us at Post scripts and your inadequate attempt to make these two administrations seem similar in their war rhetoric is, frankly, sickening.
“You are free to use terms like “Islamic radicals” and “jihad” as much as you want. I have used those terms myself!”
Give me a break! You have accused those of us who use those terms of smearing “all of Islam” over the course of two presidencies. YES, the idea is to silence people; to make them the enemy.
The rule saying that Islam and the Prophet cannot be criticized is cleverly designed for the same purpose. If you don’t know that you are just a tool.
And you can take all that straw an smoke it for all I care. While it might have been smart policy to avoid an overuse of those terms officially it was unnecessary to ban those terms and replace them with outrageous phrases lime “workplace violence.”
Re #23 Tina: A tool and a fool.
Tina, you quoted this from New American Media:
“In 2008, the US National Counter-Terrorism Centre produced a document, called “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication,” which encouraged government agencies and officials to avoid characterizing Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups as “Islamic” or “Muslim,” as that could “unintentionally legitimize” their tactics.”
You then said this:
“So it wasn’t Bush; it was Obama and the National Counter-Terrorism Centre.”
Surely you know that Obama was not president in 2008? He was not inaugurated until 2009.
You then said that the new policy “had little to do with not using the language Jihadist want us to use but of being very careful not to offend. Very PC and an attempt to handcuff free speech.” But this contradicts your own quote, which says that officials were to told to “avoid characterizing Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups as ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim,’ as that could ‘unintentionally legitimize’ their tactics.” So your own quote proves that the changes were begun during the Bush administration, and that they were enacted to avoid using the terrorists’ own language.
Your link misspelled the word “Center” which is what must have led you to wonder whether they were referring to the American one (even though it said “US National Counter-Terrorism Centre”). The U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center is a US government agency.
The Bush administration’s decision to adopt the Center’s recommendations was reported on at the time. Here is an article from April of 2008:
With less than a year left in office, the Bush administration is rewriting its “war on terror” lexicon.
Documents obtained by the Associated Press news agency show officials in federal agencies have been asked not to use the terms jihadists and mujahideen, describe al-Qaida as a movement, or refer to Islamo-fascism.
Staff of the state department, homeland security department and national counterterrorism centre, as well as diplomats and other officials, have been told that various words in common use may actually boost support for extremists among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or causing offence to moderates.
The new guidance explains that while Americans may understand jihad to mean holy war, it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good. Similarly, mujahideen, which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context.
US officials may be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims”.
A homeland security report, Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims, said: “Regarding jihad, even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorises terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world.”
Language is critical in fighting terror, says another document, an internal “official use only” memorandum circulating through Washington titled Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication.
The memo, originally prepared in March by the extremist messaging branch at the national counterterrorism centre, was approved for diplomatic use this week by the state department, which officials said would be distributing a version to all US embassies.
Obama may have made further changes, but it should now be clear that the effort to de-link terror with Islam and avoid terms like “jihadist” and “Islamic” when discussing terror began under Bush.
“The Bush administration also didn’t fashion a phrase like workplace violence to avoid describing what was clearly a terrorists act perpetrated by a Muslim repeatedly yelling, “Allahu Akbar.””
I agree with you that this was not the proper designation. However, this label was only given to a terrorist attack one time. Obama has acknowledged numerous other acts of terror with the “terrorism” label. I don’t quite understand the logic that led to the administration choosing not to label this one terrorism, but it is not part of a broader pattern, since in almost every other instance he is clear to call it “terrorism.”
“he clearly named our enemy and he never blamed America, as Obama and his administration have done and did in particular by pushing that pathetic video excuse as the cause for the terror attack at Benghazi.”
Why are you still saying this? You know for a fact that the attackers at Benghazi claimed to have been motivated by the anti-Islam video. Recognizing that fact is not “blaming America.” Obama made it clear in his UN speech after Benghazi that the video was not a valid excuse for violence and defended America’s free speech laws that allowed the video to be made. (The filmmaker was then arrested because he violated his parole by using computers in the making and distribution of the video.)
“Give me a break! You have accused those of us who use those terms of smearing “all of Islam” over the course of two presidencies.”
I have never made that accusation against people simply for using the phrases “jihad” or “Islamic terror.” If you think that is what caused me to point out instances of bigotry then you haven’t read my comments very carefully.
Tina: “your inadequate attempt to make these two administrations seem similar in their war rhetoric is, frankly, sickening.”
I am sorry that seeing facts which you wish weren’t true sickens you. But it is a fact that the Bush administration led the charge in avoiding words like “jihadist” and “Islamofascism.” These three articles were all written prior to the election of Barack Obama and all describe the Bush admin’s decision to adopt more precise language.
The discussion on Red State is especially interesting as two conservatives who boast of being “anti-PC” explain why this language change was necessary and tactical. I hope you will read at least that one.
That sickening feeling is a good thing. It means that you are being made uncomfortable by seeing facts that contradict your narrative. Chase that feeling and see where it leads you; you may discover that your discomfort is caused by refusing to let go of beliefs which are demonstrably untrue.
Chris, you gave me some good advice now let me give you some. Move on. You tend to beat a subject to death and why anyone wants to reply to you is surprising and speaks to their enormous patience. Try to limit your response to making your point and if someone makes a counter point then feel free to just leave it alone. You don’t always have to beat somebody up for disagreeing with you. Then it become a kind of he said – she said thing and you are not going anywhere with it. You had your say, they had theirs, so try letting it go at least after a couple of replies!
You have this urge to have the last word and prove you’re right every single time and it gets you nowhere except disliked by the people you are offending. Try backing off, take the high road for a change. Look at things from both sides before issuing a terse rebuke. See if the opposition didn’t have something going for them.
CHRIS: “…all describe the Bush admin’s decision to adopt more precise language.”
Good choice of words, Chris.
You could hardly say that about a man that embraces “workplace violence” to describe the Fort Hood massacre. His choice to watch football this week end rather that representing America in France is another example of a signal sent.
As for “facts” you have demonstrated time and again that “facts” presented by Jack, me or our followers are yours to ignore, dismiss, and malign and the sources “discredited.”
And once again the teacher feels the need to make his parting shot personal with typical arrogant style.
Tina, it’s hard not to be arrogant to someone who continues to make the same false claims and then when proven wrong, shows nothing but contempt for the person who demonstrated they were false. You could admit that your charges against Obama were wrong, and that it was the Bush administration that began moving away from the use of terms like “jihad.” You could admit that they did this for legitimate strategic reasons, rather than political correctness. But that would require you to sacrifice a potential rhetorical weapon against the Obama administration, which you are never willing to do. You are still using the “video excuse” narrative to bash Obama even though you know for a fact that the terrorists said they were motivated by the video. Aren’t there enough legitimate critiques of the man for you to not have to resort to false claims? I am willing to give Bush credit for times he did the right thing but you are never willing to do the same for our current president…this blog has a war-like mentality where the tactics are always justified when used against the enemy, which is the only explanation for Pie’s continued presence here and the lack of condemnation for his constant harassment of liberal posters.
Chris I did admit it started in the Bush adminstration. What I didn’t do is give you what you consider “proper obeisance,” which I think is unnecessary in light of the names you call me and your propensity to think that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is automatically wrong and their sources “discredited.”
“You could admit that your charges against Obama were wrong”
From my perspective you could admit to all of the horrendous mistakes that Obama and others in his administration have made, not to mention their incredible list of failures, but you don’t. Sorry Chris, you don’t have the sterling credentials you think you have in the honesty and forthrightness department.
I repeat, it is not your job as a guest to preach or teach me or anyone else on this blog.
Re “I repeat, it is not your job as a guest to preach or teach me or anyone else on this blog.”
Like hell it isn’t. It is his chosen mission in life. Get it?
Re: “…this blog has a war-like mentality where the tactics are always justified when used against the enemy, which is the only explanation for Pie’s continued presence here and the lack of condemnation for his constant harassment of liberal posters.”
This from the phony, whining, hypocritical, foul ***hole who constantly harasses Post Scripts and other commenters by calling them liars, bigots, and racists!
Hey Chris, if you feel so set up, go away.
Tina: “Chris I did admit it started in the Bush adminstration.”
You did? I don’t see where, but I’ll take your word for it. I consider the matter dropped then.