Confirmed: Words “Jihadist”, “Islamofascism” and “Islamic Terrorist” banned by State Department

1:55 pm on April 24, 2008 by Infidelesto

Robert Spencer was the first to report this on Tuesday, but I didn’t want to put a post up about it until I heard more reports. Now that the AP has picked it up, it seems like it’s true after all.

In a pathetic display of multicultural equivalency, the State department has caved to Muslim pressure to remove any words associating terrorism with Islam.

The words banned that are banned:

  • Jihadist
  • Islamic Terrorist
  • Islamofascist, Islamofascism
  • Islamist
  • Holy Warrior

WASHINGTON (AP) — Don’t call them jihadists any more.

And don’t call al-Qaida a movement.

The Bush administration has launched a new front in the war on terrorism, this time targeting language.

Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as “jihadists” or “mujahedeen,” according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like “Islamo-fascism” is out, too.

Other specifics include

  • “Never use the terms ‘jihadist’ or ‘mujahedeen’ in conversation to describe the terrorists. … Calling our enemies ‘jihadis’ and their movement a global ‘jihad’ unintentionally legitimizes their actions.”
  • “Use the terms ‘violent extremist’ or ‘terrorist.’ Both are widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.”
  • On the other hand, avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology: “We are communicating with, not confronting, our audiences. Don’t insult or confuse them with pejorative terms such as ‘Islamo-fascism,’ which are considered offensive by many Muslims.”

Looks we’re falling in-line with the EU on how to strategically “not-legitimize” the terrorists by calling them what they are:

The memo mirrors advice distributed to British and European Union diplomats last year to better explain the war on terrorism to Muslim communities there.

It also draws heavily on the Homeland Security report that examined the way American Muslims reacted to different phrases used by U.S. officials to describe terrorists and recommended ways to improve the message.

Because of religious connotations, that report, released in January and obtained by AP this week, counseled “caution in using terms such as, ‘jihadist,’ ‘Islamic terrorist,’ ‘Islamist,’ and ‘holy warrior’ as grandiose descriptions.”

There Are 6 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by Appeasement on 24 April 2008:

    This is just totally ridiculous. While we’re indoctrinating our own to the goodness, the beauty of “inner struggle” along with Barney rather than the truth, they’re indoctrinating their own to kick our ass. How long before we go the way of Europe or are we already there?

  2. Comment by David on 25 April 2008:

    This is sheer appeasement and Orwellian manipulation of language. “Jihad” since the time of Mohammed has had the specific meaning of “Holy war against non-Moslems to spread Islam.” That also how it is used today. “Islamic terrorist” accurately describes Islamic terrorists who have an Islamic agenda. “Islamofascist” and “Islamofascism” are accurate, although “Islamo-Nazism” is more accurate, because modern Islamism is heavily influenced by Nazism. “Islamist” is accurate and distinguishes between “Moslem” and “Islamist.” “Holy warrior” is colorful and accurate.

    If we cannot even honestly name what we are fighting against, how can we fight against it?

  3. Comment by right4us on 25 April 2008:

    I am a staunch supporter of going after “terrorists” to be politically correct, nowadays - it would appear. That said, strangely, I see some logic in their decision - whether they meant that is another matter. Considering that Muslims (whatever number you would ascribe) are reported to be brought up in the mindset of these terms “jihad, Islamic, holy warrior, mujahedeen as proud banners, even aspiring. (which must be confronted if any change is expected, as we know - I can’t speak for the st. dept) And when you take those terms away and just call them violent extremists, or terrorists - you strip them of that publicized badge of honor - and equate/reduce them to a more singular pool of violent rogues and murderers. Adding the fascist and nazism into/onto Islamic - would offend some (though obviously much more ie Muslim hypersensitivity - just do a cartoon they don’t like if unclear on that) in that same way christian-nazi would offend christians not involved in an extremist wing.

    I am not looking at this from an appeaser perspective - as that would be the last thing I would be - Jimmy Carter and all his ilk can kiss my —.

    I certainly don’t want the reality squashed as to who, what and why - so that dialog is clear that this is a huge problem with Islam. Just saying if you take away glory, reduce the verbage nonsense - ie. many Islamic apologists will try to divert the focus to the “insults” and victimization they default too, to squelch the debate via bigotry, ect.. (and we all know the left will rush to their defence).

    So, a game plan to de-glorify, and de-flate argument points - has sound logic. But, back to what I mentioned before - is this really their intent? Or are they really caving in to P.C. madness? Only time, and their intensity in confronting it will tell.

  4. Pingback by Video: Bush says “Jihadists” at press conference | Infidels Are Cool on 29 April 2008:

    [...] guess he didn’t get the memo from the State [...]

  5. Comment by jen tha rednek on 30 April 2008:

    Well if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s usually a freakin duck!

  6. Comment by Maria on 25 June 2008:

    We can not let the Islamofascists dictate us, our way of life, our beliefs, not even our language in identifying clearly the most dangeroues force on the world, the conquering fascists in the name of the Quran…

Existing members can login here