Posted on 09/28/2001 1:54:36 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
America is in danger of losing this war.
But not because of any lack of military might or intelligence capability, nor even because of any unwillingness to sustain grievous human and financial losses.
No, America is in danger of losing this war because of political correctness.
Answer me this: If we can't identify who the enemy is – and, in fact, refuse to do so – haven't we lost already?
The news media, the filter through which Americans receive their information, is reluctant to define the enemy. Indeed, within the last week, it has become politically incorrect to describe the Islamic terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center and Pentagon, murdering thousands of innocent Americans, as "Islamic terrorists."
As the Washington Times reported, "an organization of religion news reporters yesterday suggested that reporters avoid the term 'Islamic terrorist' or similar labels as Muslims and their beliefs receive greater scrutiny. The Religion Newswriters Association said it was 'troubled' by the frequent use of the term in the days after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington." At its annual meeting last week, the group adopted a resolution also rejecting "similar phrases that associate an entire religion with the action of a few."
OK, but at least we can still call them terrorists, right?
Wrong.
Stephen Jukes, Reuters' global head of news, decreed that the giant wire service's 2,500 journalists should not use the T-word unless in a direct quote.
"We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist," he wrote in an internal memo. "To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."
Attempting to explain his values-neutral approach, Jukes added: "We're trying to treat everyone on a level playing field, however tragic it's been and however awful and cataclysmic for the American people and people around the world."
So former Reagan staffer and columnist Paul Craig Roberts was right when he observed recently that "Americans might be so politically correct and racially sensitive as to be unable to deal with the problem at all."
And yet, as America's experience in Vietnam proved, widespread public support is critical for a successful campaign, especially a long, difficult and costly campaign, as the forthcoming war promises to be. Hard to garner support if the press doesn't tell us who the enemy is.
But the news media don't prosecute the war – the government does. So, how are our leaders doing in defining the enemy?
"Islam is a religion of peace," we are told, and these terrorists – oops, I guess I should say, these folks – are just some bad apples that belong to a widely dispersed "terror network" of a few hundred or even a few thousand members – who have "hijacked" Islam in order to philosophically justify their murderous hatred of the West.
But as Mideast expert Daniel Pipes wrote this week, "The president dismissed al-Qaida's version of Islam as a repudiated 'fringe form of Islamic extremism.' Hardly. Muslims on the streets of many places – Pakistan and Gaza in particular – are fervently rallying to the defense of al-Qaida's vision of Islam. Likewise, the president's calling the terrorists 'traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam' implies that other Muslims see them as apostates, which is simply wrong. Al-Qaida enjoys wide popularity – the very best the U.S. government can hope for is a measure of Muslim neutrality and apathy."
Although without question there are millions of peaceful, tolerant and decent Muslims, what we're talking about here is a particular brand of Islam -- a rapidly expanding one at that -- often called "Islamism." Like communism and Nazism, it is a brutal, coercive utopian movement bent on nothing less than total world domination. It's what President Bush described, in his excellent Sept. 20 speech to the nation, as heir "of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century ... they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism." Yes, the president, to his credit, characterized the enemy correctly, albeit briefly and incompletely. But he gave no sense of the size of the enemy.
Take a deep breath. Of the world's approximately 1.2 billion Muslims, an estimated 10 to 15 percent are of the militant "Islamist" strain. Do the math – that's well over 100 million human beings who, to a greater or lesser degree, are caught up with what amounts to the world's most dangerous cult.
Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House, told this writer that right now perhaps eight to 10 governments are "scared of being toppled" if they stand up to the Islamic "jihad" against the West. Citing Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Jordan, Indonesia and other potential "coalition" members, Marshall said such states "are afraid their country could be destabilized if they support the West too much, which shows that opposition to American action is not simply from a few hundred people."
By the way, if you want to truly understand what America is up against, who the enemy really is – in-depth – you should read the upcoming issue of WND's "Whistleblower" magazine. This extra-large issue, titled "JIHAD: The radical Islamic threat to America," will be devoted from cover to cover to a groundbreaking exploration of America's most mysterious, and deadly, enemy.
Now that we've talked a bit about what we're up against, let's think about political correctness, that bizarre self-censorship that currently makes us afraid even to name the enemy, let alone fight it.
Political correctness, at its core, is intimidation. Terrorism, of course, is the ultimate in intimidation.
The militant Islamic movement – as opposed to peaceful Muslims – wants to intimidate the United States, to intimidate us out of the Middle East so it can destroy Israel, take over the so-called "moderate" states, especially Saudi Arabia, ushering in a unified and radicalized Islamic state throughout the Mideast, and control the world's oil. Oil is a powerful weapon.
Then, they can destroy America in their own good time – remember, it is central to their politicized, utopian, religious beliefs that they convert the entire world to Islam – by force, if necessary.
But how can America withstand such intimidation when we have already given in to seemingly far less threatening intimidators in recent times?
We have given in to the militant homosexual movement – not the live-and-let-live homosexual who wants to be left alone to live his or her life – but the radical strain of homosexual activism that wants to force a repugnant agenda down our throats – to teach kindergartners about perverted sex, make AIDS exempt from normal infectious-disease protocols and outlaw traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality as a "hate crime."
The militant women's movement – not your normal women's activists seeking equal pay for equal work, but the extremist wing – intimidated America into allowing women in combat, unlimited abortion-on-demand, no-fault divorce, and driving millions of mothers into the workforce who really would rather have stayed home and raised their children.
The militant civil-rights movement – not Martin Luther King who championed a color-blind society, with which most Americans heartily agree – but the radical, virulent strain, the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world, brought us forced bussing, reverse discrimination, endless hypocrisy and increased, not decreased, racial hatreds.
And Americans have been so intimidated by their own government that, just a few months ago, President George W. Bush had to stump across the nation, begging outrageously overtaxed Americans to accept a tax cut, so fearful and brainwashed are so many of us of losing some perceived government benefit.
If America is to have any chance of prevailing in this war – which is not only a military conflict, but a cultural and spiritual one as well – we in the Free World have to come to grips with Islam. But to do so, we first have to come to grips with ourselves. We must become virtuous. We must become courageous. We must become self-disciplined, mature and uncompromisingly honest. And we must throw political correctness onto "the unmarked grave" of history. If we do, we can address with a clear head and a pure heart the spiritual warfare in which, ready or not, we are now engaged.
For the truth is, there is no clean distinction between "good Islam" on one side and "bad Islam" on the other. There is, rather, a continuum. Take the estimated four to seven million Muslims in the U.S.A. At one end, and clearly this constitutes the majority, you have the peaceful Muslim family living down the street that obeys our laws, pays their taxes and are proud to be Americans. But since Sept. 11, we have learned that, while we were asleep in this country -- with our borders wide open, giving high-technology to our enemies -- an unknown number of terrorists also have set up shop in America, along with their supporters, sympathizers, apologists and funders.
In between these two types of Muslims – the loyal American and the enemy – you have many degrees of dissatisfaction and outright anger at the United States of America, of sympathy for Palestinian suicide bombers, of secret and sometimes open agreement with the Sept. 11 attacks and, in some cases, of actual cooperation with America's enemies. There is a great deal more to this adversary than meets the eye.
America's job is to utterly destroy – that means kill – the terrorist network, root and branch, and likewise to destroy the governments of the terrorists' patron states. If we do this just right, with the right spirit and timing, we may just succeed in shocking those millions of future Osama bin Ladens who today are following the siren song of militant Islam, and forcing them toward the more moderate end of the spectrum.
To accomplish such a Herculean task will take nothing less than God's intervention. And to receive such help from above, we must look to Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength.
That IS the intent in the design and the 'delivery' of PC. . .and it's introduction into our language is no accident. With PC, you cannot identify the idealogical enemy. Can we say 'L I B E R AL'? (Any out there reading this article; what do you think?)
Do feel sad however and concerned for the good Muslims in this country and political correctness aside, would not be rude to anyone. OTOH, feel offended as well, by just how much is being demanded by so many Muslims in light of September 11.
Not that they should NOT try to explain to America who they are in an effort to dis-engage ignorance; but some are more demanding. . .more vocal in their complaints about OUR 'insensitivity'; by our prayers, the presence of our Flag, our expression of fear or distrust, even if only in the eyes of those they behold.
A ratcheting up of PC, seems to be the required response. . .
Political Correctness embraces the irrational. . .(as expressed in the insanity of ". . .the terrorist and victims should be placed on an equal playing field). We must fight our way back to reasonable ground.
The Media might be cowed into a quiet rhetoric; or being Liberal themselves, demand it of others; but we do not have to be.
Maybe in time, they will follow the 'mainstream'; and not the other way around.
It is time to recognize that words mean things; time to reassert that 'sensitivity' does not have to mean 'SURRENDER', which is what political correctness is really about.
David Kupelian is right about "PC Terrorism". Political correctness is a 'soft' terrorism,(my words). . .by creating fear for anyone expressing the the truth.
I would have thought there were more than this. I wonder if this includes not only Muslims of Middle Eastern descent, but also the American black Muslim movement. Weren't most of the the Black Panthers of the 60's and 70's Muslim? I know the New Black Panthers are. The leader of the New Black Panthers has appeared on O'Reilly. He doesn't want any whites, including Bill Clinton, to operate businesses or live in Harlem.
FINALLY SOMEONE IS TELLING IT LIKE IT IS!
Political correctness was first coined as a phrase by Mao Tse Tund.
It was introduced to the United States most effectively by Donna Shalala when she was President of the Univ. of Wisconsin circa 1982.
Excellent point! I don't think that ANYONE, even someone highly imaginative, could describe the people of Afghanistan as "free". From my perspective, there aren't many differences between those who practice Islamism and the Nazis of WWII.
Hubby and I were watching Imus this morning, and he mentioned this and the fact that CNN was following suit. He was railing about what idiots they were! And he mentioned that hardly anyone ever watches CNN anyway!
Also, do they give a rat's ass about what Hindus, Jews and Christians think in their countries, or even other countries? I think not.
After nearly forty years of constantly denouncing just about every element of our own culture as being racist, sexist, far right wing, christian (also right wing), and using those descriptions to press forward their agenda, the PC crowd has defined the USA in particular and the West in general as "the enemy".
Despite the obvious facts on the ground in the middle east it is still virtually impossible to state in public that the "Palestinians" are an intentionally created cult of terrorists and bigots. "We" find it far easier to put the blame on those European Jews who resettled (according to previous promises and immediate history) between Jordan and Egypt - largely because they are more "like us".
Theology aside, they learned from many of the same dead white guys who gave us our core beliefs - the same ones being attacked under the PC mantle.
Sadly, and encouraged by the very icons of political correctness (except in their personal lives), some of our recent actions have highlighted that definition with bombs and with propaganda such as Americans have rarely experienced.
I fear than a large number of otherwise middle of the road (wherever that may be) Americans have accepted enough of this self-damnation so as to be passive toward our enemies as well as to encroaching government controls.
What can we expect from a generation or two generations raised on self doubt, hatred of those who "oppress" others because of gender, ethnicity (no, "race" has become accepted again), or their "orientation"?
Americans seem to enjoy feelings of guilt - guilt for not being invaded in WW2, tormenting innocent agrarian reformers in Vietnam, eating well, or owning two cars...
Do we believe so strongly in that guilt that we might not have the will to defend such a place?
Have enough Americans been convinced that we no longer deserve our special role?
Do great nations or empires fall from within or from without?
Maybe after more coffee........
There are parallels. The Nazis wanted racial purity for the world. The Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist wants religious purity. And both were/are willing to use the threat and surety of death to enforce their dream of purification of the world.
That's gotta be a mistake.
Excellent article though.
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.