Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Loosely Interpreted Arabic Terms Can Promote Enemy Ideology
DoD ^ | 6/22/06

Posted on 06/22/2006 3:26:54 PM PDT by bnelson44

American Forces Press Service


Loosely Interpreted Arabic Terms Can Promote Enemy Ideology

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

BAGHDAD, June 22, 2006 – The pen is mightier than the sword, and sometimes in the war of words we unwittingly give the advantage to the enemy.

In dealing with Islamic extremists, the West may be giving them the advantage due to cultural ignorance, maintain Dr. Douglas E. Streusand and Army Lt. Col. Harry D. Tunnell IV. The men work at the National Defense University at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington, D.C.

The two believe the right words can help fight the global war on terror. "American leaders misuse language to such a degree that they unintentionally wind up promoting the ideology of the groups the United States is fighting," the men wrote in an article titled "Choosing Words Carefully: Language to Help Fight Islamic Terrorism."

A case in point is the term "jihadist." Many leaders use the term jihadist or jihadi as a synonym for Islamic extremist. Jihad has been commonly adapted in English as meaning "holy war." But to Muslims it means much more. In their article, Steusand and Tunnell said in Arabic - the language of the Koran - jihad "literally means striving and generally occurs as part of the expression 'jihad fi sabil illah,' striving in the path of God."

This is a good thing for all Muslims. "Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad thus indicates that we recognize their doctrines and actions as being in the path of God and, for Muslims, legitimate," they wrote. By countering jihadis, the West and moderate Muslims are enemies of true Islam.

The men asked Muslim scholars what the correct term for Islamic extremists would be and they came up with "hirabah." This word specifically refers to those engaged in sinful warfare, warfare contrary to Islamic law. "We should describe the Islamic totalitarian movement as the global hirabah, not the global jihad," they wrote.

Another word constantly misused in the West is mujahdeen. Again, in American dictionaries this word refers to a holy warrior - again a good thing. So calling an al Qaeda terrorist a mujahid legitimizes him.

The correct term for these killers is "mufsidun," Streusand and Tunnell say. This refers to an evil or corrupt person. "There is no moral ambiguity and the specific denotation of corruption carries enormous weight in most of the Islamic world," they wrote.

People can apply other words instead. "Fitna/fattan: fitna literally means temptation or trial, but has come to refer to discord and strife among Muslims; a fattan is a tempter or subversive," they wrote. "Applying these terms to our enemies and their works condemns their current activities as divisive and harmful."

The men also want officials to stop using the term "caliphate" as the goal of al Qaeda and associated groups. The Caliphate came to refer to the successors of the Prophet Mohammed as the political leaders of the Muslim community. "Sunni Muslims traditionally regard the era of the first four caliphs (A.D. 632-661) as an era of just rule," the men wrote. "Accepting our enemies' description of their goal as the restoration of a historical caliphate again validates an aspect of their ideology."

The men point out that an al Qaeda caliphate would not mean the establishment of just rule, but rather a global totalitarian state where women would be treated as chattel, music banned and any kind of difference severely punished. "Anyone who needs a preview of how such a state would act merely has to review the conduct of the Taliban in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001," they wrote.

The correct term for the al Qaeda goal is global totalitarian state - something no one in the world wants.

Finally, the men urge Westerners to translate Allah into God. Using Allah to refer to God would be like using Jehovah to refer to a Hebrew God. In fact, Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the God of Abraham. Using different names exaggerates the divisions among the religions, the authors say.

The men have launched an education effort. "Our work is an attempt to educate the interagency community about the challenges of communication with Islamic audiences," they wrote in answer to written questions. "Our particular effort is in its infancy, but is showing some level of success."

Scholars at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College use the essay in class, and the Marines are using an earlier version of the essay as part of their lessons-learned Web site. The final version of the essay is on the National Defense University's Center for Strategic Communications Web site.

Related Sites:

Choosing Words Carefully: Language to Help Fight Islamic Terrorism

National Defense University


News Archive News Archive


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanisan; allahisjihad; hirabah; iran; iraq; islam; jihad; jihadisallah; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 06/22/2006 3:26:58 PM PDT by bnelson44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

This is good stuff. As one who carefully chooses words for a living, I can appreciate their message.


2 posted on 06/22/2006 3:31:38 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

The problem with this is that we get the terms from the terrorists themselves. They call their war a "jihad," they call themselves "mujahdeen."


3 posted on 06/22/2006 3:31:57 PM PDT by Cyclopean Squid (Oesterreich ist frei!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
Finally, the men urge Westerners to translate Allah into God. Using Allah to refer to God would be like using Jehovah to refer to a Hebrew God. In fact, Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the God of Abraham. Using different names exaggerates the divisions among the religions, the authors say.

The authors may say that, but what they say is wrong.

The 'god' of Islam is not the same God worshipped by Christians or Jews.

Allah is the moon god, chosen by the false prophet from a pantheon of 'gods.'

4 posted on 06/22/2006 3:37:15 PM PDT by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyclopean Squid
The problem with this is that we get the terms from the terrorists themselves. They call their war a "jihad," they call themselves "mujahdeen."

I have mixed feelings about this whole concept; on the one hand, they can call themselves whatever they want, we don't have to agree to it and call them something else that they can't 'misinterpret'.
On the other hand, I systematically resist having an opponent define the terms of the debate, or the choice of words used.
This is a dilemma for me and I'll have to give it some thought.

5 posted on 06/22/2006 3:38:22 PM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

** "Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad thus indicates that we recognize their doctrines and actions as being in the path of God and, for Muslims, legitimate," **

Uh, the Muslims don't care whether we think their religion is "legitimate" or not.


6 posted on 06/22/2006 3:40:01 PM PDT by Sometimes A River (Miami Heat 2006 World Champions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyclopean Squid

And we should be calling them Mohammedans.


7 posted on 06/22/2006 3:42:29 PM PDT by Sometimes A River (Miami Heat 2006 World Champions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cyclopean Squid

This is a good lesson and should be part of a full course for those on the right-side of center. Repeating the words of the enemy in making a denial or making a point simply reinforces what the enemy is trying to do. How many times have Republican Senators been tricked into saying "... tax cuts for the rich ..."? I'd like to shake the hand of the wit who first described the RAT policy for Iraq as "cut and run." Even the mighty Juan Williams on NPR said " ... cut and run ... " a few times while trying to deny the accusation.


8 posted on 06/22/2006 3:43:43 PM PDT by sefarkas (Why vote Democrat Lite?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cyclopean Squid

Another problem is the mainstream media who seek to legitimize the enemy as a means to de-ligitimize the current President and his administration and the war against these vermin terrorists.


9 posted on 06/22/2006 3:47:54 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
The correct term for the al Qaeda goal is global totalitarian state - something no one in the world wants.

The article wasn't too bad until it got to here and started lying. If "no one in the world" wanted the Caliphate, then we wouldn't be having this problem in the first place.

Finally, the men urge Westerners to translate Allah into God.

Because if you say something long enough and convince everyone else to adopt your error that makes it true?

Using Allah to refer to God would be like using Jehovah to refer to a Hebrew God.

Using Allah to refer to God would be like using the word margarine to refer to butter.

In fact, Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the God of Abraham

I've never met a Christian who would deny that Jehovah was a name for his God (maybe there are some; I've just never met or heard of them). So if Muslims really do worship the same God, why don't we all just switch to calling Him Jehovah? No? The Muslims don't think Jehovah is His Name? Then maybe the premise that they're all the same God is invalid.

The fact is that the Christians have a God who has an "only begotten Son", and the Muslims have a god that "begets not nor is begotten". If I have a friend named Dave who has a son, and you claim that you know Dave but he is childless, then it is pretty clear that we're not talking about the same guy or one of us really doesn't know Dave very well at all. Simple logic says that the assertion that all the religions worship the same god cannot possibly be true.

The idea that we should adopt Islamic terms might be politically expedient, but there is a price to pay. When we use the term jihad or islamic or whatever only in a positive context, it validates the concept. If we remove any negative connotations to the words, it gives them a purity they do not deserve. The bigger issue that people don't seem to grasp is that this is not a simple localized conflict; Islam is a religious and political ideology that must either be destroyed or be supreme. Coexistence means conflict, and the lack of conflict means that Islam will dominate. If you want to peacefully co-exist with Islam, then you must submit to it.

10 posted on 06/22/2006 3:57:23 PM PDT by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

bookmark..good article.


11 posted on 06/22/2006 4:00:17 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

This is total B.S.


12 posted on 06/22/2006 4:08:06 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyclopean Squid

Just as Man Boy Love Association choses words, and must not be allowed to get away with it.

It is a child, not a choice.

Killing noncombatants is an atrocity, not a battle.


13 posted on 06/22/2006 4:08:46 PM PDT by donmeaker (Burn the UN flag publicly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: backhoe; Salem

Get a load of the DoD's recommendations for Islamic PCism.


14 posted on 06/22/2006 4:10:27 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

It's very simple, actually. The DoD wants us to differentiate between "good" Islam and "bad" Islam by using terms that will make the terrorists feel ashamed and "outside" of "true" Islam.


15 posted on 06/22/2006 4:15:07 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

Actually, that is what I thought. I'm surprised by those who like the story.


16 posted on 06/22/2006 4:16:20 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

I doubt this is what the DoD wants. Just an opinion being expressed


17 posted on 06/22/2006 4:16:59 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
"I doubt this is what the DoD wants. Just an opinion being expressed"

I hope you're right, because the article's recommendations certainly aren't.

18 posted on 06/22/2006 4:20:53 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

It makes sense to me. Why should we refer to them by the terms they prefer? "Hirabah" rather than "jihad" and "mufsidun" rather than "mujahedeen" won't harm us at all, and might eventually draw some Muslims away from the mufsidun. :)


19 posted on 06/22/2006 4:29:43 PM PDT by Doug Loss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss

The English equivalents are unprintable.


20 posted on 06/22/2006 4:34:59 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss

You mean other than the fact that they don't refer to themselves by those terms and those terms belay a series of lies designed to undermind our country's willingness to fight the proper foe? But other than that, sure, go ahead, by all means use them.


21 posted on 06/22/2006 4:37:32 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss

You mean other than the fact that they don't refer to themselves by those terms and those terms belay a series of lies designed to undermind our country's willingness to fight the proper foe? But other than that, sure, go ahead, by all means use them.


22 posted on 06/22/2006 4:37:35 PM PDT by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Technogeeb
Allah is Arabic for God; Arab Christians use Allah in their religious language. Islam shares with Christianity and Judaism basic outlines of classical monotheism: God is One, God is without passion, is omnipresent, omniscient, etc. One might extend it further in that all three religions believe in a very specific sort of revelation revealed in written Scripture manifested through the ministry of inspired men.

Thus far Christianity, Judaism, and Islam agree on their conception of God. Is this enough for all three to refer to 'God' and mean the same thing? I think that it would be safe to say that all three share a similar conception that crystalizes in the word 'God,' in a way that is radically different from, say, a Hindu or Buddhist's conception of deity (or lack of such a conception). If a Hindu speaks of 'God' I can be sure he has nothing close to classical monotheism in mind. But if a Muslim or Jew speaks to me of 'God' I can be pretty sure that we share many basic conceptions.

Yet there are still massive differences between our conceptions. I believe, and the Christian faith orthodoxly recieved, says of God that yes He is One, but He is God in Trinity, and that the Second Person of the Trinity has become man. For a Jew or Muslim this is extremely problematic to say the least. But can we still share the term 'God' and imagine ourselves having some common ground in using it?

That goes not only for Muslims, but for Jews and non-Trinitarian Christians: if I speak of God to them are we talking about the same thing? I think the answer is yes and no. It cannot be an unqualified yes, for the non-Christian (yet still monotheist) conception of God is non-Trinitarian, and Trinitarianism is at the very core of the Christian faith and understanding of God. It cannot be sacrificed whatever Episcopelian bishops say. Yet I do not think that I must speak of 'god' when I am refering to Jewish, Islamic, or otherwise non-Trinitarian monotheists: there is enough common ground for us to all speak of God even though we do not mean the exact same thing, when in fact we have very serious and important divergences.

23 posted on 06/22/2006 4:39:22 PM PDT by Cleburne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
The 'god' of Islam is not the same God worshipped by Christians or Jews.

Allah is the moon god, chosen by the false prophet from a pantheon of 'gods.'

Yep. That's why a møøselimb coworker of mine strenuously and vocally objected to my "God Bless America" sign that I put in my cubicle ON 9/11!!!

24 posted on 06/22/2006 4:41:54 PM PDT by null and void ("Propaganda by blackout" - longtermmemmory, 6/21/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Let's just call them "Raghead scumbags" and leave it at that.


25 posted on 06/22/2006 4:41:56 PM PDT by Chuckster (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

By the way; I've been wondering. When did "Moslem" become "Muslim" and why?


26 posted on 06/22/2006 4:46:35 PM PDT by Chuckster (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
Uhhh, just a small point:

REAL Prophets climb mountains to be closer to God.

They don't crawl into a hole to listen to the hissings of a Serpent.

It's no accident that møølimbs pray with their faces to the dirt, and their arses pointed at Heaven.

27 posted on 06/22/2006 4:50:25 PM PDT by null and void ("Propaganda by blackout" - longtermmemmory, 6/21/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Good article.


28 posted on 06/22/2006 5:12:58 PM PDT by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Technogeeb

Insightful post: your #10.


29 posted on 06/22/2006 5:15:16 PM PDT by T Ruth (Islam shall be defeated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cyclopean Squid; Coop; neverdem; nuconvert
The problem with this is that we get the terms from the terrorists themselves. They call their war a "jihad," they call themselves "mujahdeen."

If they called themselves "Oh wonderful One's - Oh God's Gifts to Mankind" would you call them that? These guys are on the money -- we need to do the defining. Not them.

30 posted on 06/22/2006 5:23:28 PM PDT by GOPJ (Once you see the MSM manipulate opinion, all their efforts seem manipulative-Reformedliberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
Allah is Arabic for God

This gets repeated a lot but it isn't true. The Arabic word for god is ilah, not allah. Allah is a proper name, like Jehovah or Zeus, refering to a specific individual rather than a general concept of deity.

Arab Christians use Allah in their religious language

Yes they do; they didn't before Islam gained dominance of the middle eastern regions, though (900 AD or so). Political and cultural domination of a region inevitably results in such contamination of the native population.

Thus far Christianity, Judaism, and Islam agree on their conception of God

I don't agree. Just having a few similar traits (omnipresent, omniscient, etc) doesn't mean the concept is the same, especially when there are numerous traits that are incompatible.

But can we still share the term 'God' and imagine ourselves having some common ground in using it?

Certainly; at least if you don't care what particular deity you happen to be worshipping. If we're only concerned about some vague concept of God and we really know in our rational minds that God doesn't really exist or that our concept of God isn't really accurate and it's all made up anyway, then sure; it's fine. But if God is real; if God actually exists as a person, then I think he would get as annoyed by having people worship an imposter as you or I would if someone stole our wallet and went around pretending to be either of us.

That goes not only for Muslims, but for Jews and non-Trinitarian Christians: if I speak of God to them are we talking about the same thing?

I think your answer of "yes and no" applies here fairly well. It is possible (such as Christians might assert that the Jews believe) to have an incomplete view of God, just as it is possible (as the Jews might assert or Christians might assert over other denominations) to have an erroneous view of God. But in the case of Jews and Christians it is fairly clear that at least the same entity is being discussed. In the case of Islam we're dealing with a different entity altogether.

The problem is that you simply can't ignore the real facts just because a proponent of the religion asserts that you should. The problem is that Islam claims to be an Abrahamic faith, but that Ibrahim actually worshiped this other god named Allah all the time and that the Jews and Christians got it all wrong. Islam makes certain claims that can't possibly be true. Ignoring the religious claims and looking at secular history, we know the Kaaba was a temple for a pantheon of gods (among whom was Allah) and that before Mohammed came along there was no philosophical nor historical connection to the Jewish or Christian faith.

In short, we know Islam is based on lies. Perhaps Judaism and Christianity are also false religions as some atheists might claim, but in their case at least they are internally self-consistent. There is no obvious historical evidence that proves Christianity to be false, but the same cannot be said for Islam. If as a greek I were to destroy the temples of all the other deities of the greek pantheon and assert that Zeus almighty is the only true god, that doesn't mean that Zeus then becomes the same entity as Jehovah or Allah or Dave, and it certainly doesn't mean that I should translate "Dave" as "God" just to placate someone who might think Dave is so great that he should be worshipped as the creator deity.

31 posted on 06/22/2006 5:23:41 PM PDT by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FARS

ping


32 posted on 06/22/2006 5:25:07 PM PDT by GOPJ (Once you see the MSM manipulate opinion, all their efforts seem manipulative-Reformedliberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrZin

ping


33 posted on 06/22/2006 5:25:46 PM PDT by GOPJ (Once you see the MSM manipulate opinion, all their efforts seem manipulative-Reformedliberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
How about we just call them all murderous a$$holes and be clear about it?

Works for me

34 posted on 06/22/2006 5:26:28 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Let's just call them "dead"--and ASAP


35 posted on 06/22/2006 5:31:48 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

If you want to start calling them Musfidun and their campaigns of destruction hirabah, go right ahead. Let me know how many people understand you. When asked what you mean, say mujahdeen and jihad. Then people will get you.

This article says that we should change the terms we use not for our own benefit, but rather because of connotations in other cultures. If we're talking about using these different terms in propaganda in Muslim countries themselves, fine. But reforming our language here at home is not going to sell.


36 posted on 06/22/2006 5:40:18 PM PDT by Cyclopean Squid (Oesterreich ist frei!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
Get a load of the DoD's recommendations for Islamic PCism.

No it is not. I have been in international sales for 30 years and know that the correct word gets your point across. It would be like you calling yourself a New Yorker and me doing the same. Truth is, to my neighbors I refer to you as a damn yankee, and if I wanted to irritate you, I would call you that to your face.

In politics and war, never let the other guy get in his comfort zone.

37 posted on 06/22/2006 5:42:45 PM PDT by HoustonCurmudgeon (FReepers - We put the gin back in bloggin’.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cyclopean Squid
The problem with this is that we get the terms from the terrorists themselves. They call their war a "jihad," they call themselves "mujahdeen."

These a-holes can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't change the facts that the words described in this article to denote criminalty and degeneracy are more correct and appropriate.

Unfortunately, I think it's too late now. It's a pity the PR guys on our side didn't think of this stuff back five years ago.

38 posted on 06/22/2006 5:55:11 PM PDT by steve-b (Hoover Dam is every bit as "natural" as a beaver dam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

I think you're missing the point. They refer to us as "crusaders," you know. We don't use or accept that term; they use it to persuade other Muslims to a false understanding of us. Why should we use the terms for them that they use, which terms have positive connotations to the Muslim world? Instead, we should use terms for them that have extremely negative connotations to the Muslims. At worst, using these alternate terms will have no effect. At best, they will draw some Muslims away from the terrorists. I don't understand your objection with this at all. Even if you believe all Muslims are our enemies and must be defeated, why not attempt to sow some discord in their ranks?


39 posted on 06/22/2006 5:58:03 PM PDT by Doug Loss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

Okay. That's informative. Anyone with the inclination can call them what these guys suggest.
I'll just call them terrorists and what they practice, terrorism.


40 posted on 06/22/2006 5:58:39 PM PDT by nuconvert ([there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

I still like "Islamikazi" as an alternative to "Jihadi".


41 posted on 06/22/2006 5:59:32 PM PDT by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

I suggest the best term for Islamic extremists is "Swine" or maybe "Pig Lover". No chance of being misunderstood by Muslims with that terminology.


42 posted on 06/22/2006 5:59:51 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Yes, that's a good way of articulating how I feel. See my post 36.


43 posted on 06/22/2006 6:02:43 PM PDT by Cyclopean Squid (Oesterreich ist frei!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44; Technogeeb; SJackson; yonif; Simcha7; American in Israel; Slings and Arrows; ...
It is important to understand the U.S. Government is in the grip of political correctness. This document is further proof of that. Until the majority Christian culture (our Judeo/Christian heritage) prevails again in impacting the world view of our cultural, political, and military institutions, this nonsense of futilely trying to placate the implacable Muslims will continue.

That Allah is not God has been commented on extensively. The very characteristics of the living God revealed in the Bible are at complete variance with the god revealed in the Koran.

Friend and associate "Steve Omega" commented in depth on the inevitable screwed-up thinking generated by the cult aspects and rote learning of Islam and the Koran—and foundational to the conflict we see in the world today.

See Technogeeb's comments at 10 and 31 on this thread. Insightful commentary.





AMERICA AT WAR
At Salem the Soldier's Homepage ~
Honored member of FReeper Leapfrog's "Enemy of Islam" list.
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...  by backhoe
Translated Pre-War IRAQ Documents  by jveritas
Mohammed, The Mad Poet Quoted....  by PsyOp
One FReeper On The Line  by SNOWFLAKE
The Clash of Ideologies - A Review

American Flag

44 posted on 06/22/2006 6:06:32 PM PDT by Salem (FREE REPUBLIC - Fighting to win within the Arena of the War of Ideas! So get in the fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoustonCurmudgeon

I understand what you are saying, but these people don't behave rationally. Or like international businessmen. Americans trying to shame them using the "correct word," will only enrage them more and cause more sectarian fighting. IMO, of course.

Damned Yankee from NY, Sage ;)


45 posted on 06/22/2006 6:34:10 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
I understand what you are saying, but I do not take it that we are trying to do anything to the terrorist. It's the general population we are trying to influence with our words.

BTW I lived three years in Whitestone, Queens, NY, NY. Y'all aren't so bad ....

46 posted on 06/22/2006 6:55:25 PM PDT by HoustonCurmudgeon (FReepers - We put the gin back in bloggin’.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Cyclopean Squid

The problem with this is that we get the terms from the terrorists themselves. They call their war a "jihad," they call themselves "mujahdeen."

That they do. And the goobers in the gooberment say "We are from the government and we are here to help you."

Come to think of it, isn't the sentence above a very old joke?

The article's authors have raised very inmortant specific word choice points. Wouldn't it be a good thing if we FReepers began using those terms?


47 posted on 06/22/2006 7:12:19 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HoustonCurmudgeon
"BTW I lived three years in Whitestone, Queens, NY, NY. Y'all aren't so bad .."

lol! Neither are "you guys." By the way, I do subscribe to the idea that a Southerner should never trust anyone who doesn't know the lyrics to Dixie and who doesn't stand when it's played. No Northerner should trust someone like that either.

Because it came from the DoD, I was thinking more along the lines of recommendations for the military. I certainly could be wrong.

48 posted on 06/22/2006 8:29:37 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: null and void

"the expression 'jihad fi sabil illah,' striving in the path of God."

Isn't that the same as saying you're on a "crusade"???


49 posted on 06/22/2006 8:36:38 PM PDT by Romanov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sometimes A River; All

"Mohammedans" is the name and connotation used for centuries by the British to describe those who follow Islam as a religion, similar in a way to Chrisitians denoting followers of Christ. American English changed many words. As have the immigrants from around the world who have now created a virtual new language even in Great britain.


50 posted on 06/22/2006 8:58:51 PM PDT by FARS (OK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson