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.
All Middle Eastern Muslims believe that we are the great SATAN. How many times have you heard them call us that?
"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."
Mr. Journalist, you ignorant slut: WE ALL KNOW you are not with us. You are with the terrorists. To be frank, you may even be lower than the murderous moles who were/are willing to die for their cause. You are cowardly and seditious.
Political correctness is intimidation, and that is the facially challenged (ugly) truth.
I think I will email this article to everyone I know. Your service is appreciated, JH2.
It's been nice knowin' y'all.
Well, this is as far as I had to read.
I am sick to my stomach. I want to see Baghdad, Tehran, and a half-dozen cities in Afghanistan to be nuked. TODAY!!
What in the hell will it take? A bio-chemical attach, that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans?
Just what in the SAM BLAZES is going on??
Kill them all, and let Allah sort it out. At the very least it will ensure about 50 years of peace.
I thought you were going to say "I'm flagging some experts who are not very politically correct". Hahahahaha!
Seriously, you (and the author of this article) are so correct, Mr. Cannon. We MUST put a halt to this "PC" nonsense which ultimately threatens, if left unchecked, to expose us as sitting ducks (although politically correct ducks) for the cowardly acts of the TERRORISTS!
Thanks for the flag. Terrific article.
CNN Will not call Terrorists, "Terrorists"
As Miss Marple so correctly pointed out on that thread.......
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. "
Now that the lines have been drawn there is only to set the parameters of combat and take the ground that has always been coveted, the high ground. In this war our high ground has been personal freedom and liberty; we will need to retreat ever so slightly. Theirs has been theological aloofness; it will need to be humbled.
The symbol of our liberty, manifested in the statue that stands in New York harbor, may have been, for all we know, a target—one that would have struck us dumbfound, surely as the destruction of the White House, public building or any of our peaceful surroundings.
We need now, to respond in kind, not only as in a Doolittle type raid of vindication, but also in a demonstration of resolve as to our intentions. We need to strike at a symbol that occupies an area of their high ground—Mohamed’s grave.
In this grave there lies the said remains of the being that has hijacked liberty, freedom, Americanism, and Muslim faith. He is the antithesis of all of that, which is common between Muslim and Judean-Christian teachings. His name, memory and teachings need to be obliterated for all time.
Or grand children need never learn of his name. So to, those who would conjure up his name for the sake of personal justification and vengeance need to be removed from the scene. Any and all organizations, which are said to owe allegiance to this anti-Christ, must be expunged for all time. We must carry the weight of it on our souls in order that no future generation will. We must pay the price in order that our liberties will not.
I posted an article on identification of the enemy on 14 September on FR. In it, a number of different people are clearly identified along with their "politically correct" ideas that are now unfortunately accepted as ideals by the masses. Read on.
In the aftermath of these most recent terrorist strikes, it is becoming increasingly important to identify the enemy. This is what President Bush was referring to when he indicated that we were facing a "different kind of enemy." The enemy is no longer a readily identifiable nation or set of leaders within a nation, but has spread like yeast in dough throughout the world. The enemy includes not only obvious groups of individuals, but various wrong ideas that are being exalted as ideals by "friend" and foe alike. Here's my cut at the enemies we face with regard to terrorism.
Enemies who are people:
1) Those that would engage in violence against our country and people, i.e. terrorists.
2) Those that would aid and abet those who would engage in violence against our country and people, i.e. foreign governments, wealthy idealists, family and friends of terrorists.
3) Those that would export weapons and other technologies that can be used to generate violence or support those who propagate violence against our country or people, i.e. businessmen.
4) Those that would make it easier through regulation or lack of enforcement to export weapons and other technologies that can be used to generate violence or support those who propagate violence against our country or people, i.e. business, government, security, and law enforcement agencies.
5) Those that would seek or promote diplomatic agreements for the sake of diplomacy without achieving true security for our people, i.e. various leaders or organizations both internal and external to our country including those in government, business, religion, media, etc.
6) Those that would seek or promote a judicial solution for the sake of political correctness without reasonable expectation of obtaining true justice or future security for our people, i.e. various leaders or organizations both internal and external to our country including those in government, business, religion, media, etc.
7) Those that would seek or promote peace at any cost, i.e. various leaders or organizations both internal and external to our country including those in government, business, religion, media, etc.
8) Those leaders who are not willing to accept the possibility for civilian or military casualties to exact justice on our enemies, i.e. various leaders or organizations both internal and external to our country including those in government, business, religion, media, etc.
9) Those leaders who are not willing to temporarily sacrifice some personal freedoms, rights, conveniences, or sacrifice individual people for the increased security of all, i.e. various leaders or organizations both internal and external to our country including those in government, business, religion, media, etc.
Ideological Enemies:
1) Radical Islam or any other faith or cause that promotes holy war or jihad against the US.
2) There is a judicial solution for every crime.
3) Tolerance is more important than truth.
4) All nations or people groups will play fair if given a chance.
5) All nations or people groups are capable of governing themselves.
6) The US must never occupy a country even though the indigenous people have demonstrated that they cannot govern those within their borders.
7) Innocent people must never be killed by the US military.
8) Nothing more than a measured response can be initiated against our enemies.
9) Preemptive strikes on our enemies are not appropriate.
10) The people have the right to know everything that we are doing militarily at any time. 11) The government cannot sacrifice any individuals or any individual rights for the security of the nation. (This is the scary one and hopefully only temporary)
The freedom we now enjoy hangs in the balance if we are not able to respond appropriately to these enemies. This grand experiment as an open society is going to be severely tested by these events and our response to them. God bless all of our leaders with the wisdom and discernment necessary to deal with the current crisis through thoughtful decisions. The ramifications of their decisions will be felt throughout the remainder of history.
Good thought, but at the same time, why ask a question you already know the answer to? There was certainly no deference made to "the white race" - nor should there have been. Same should apply across the board.
Amen brother!
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.