CNN DOBBS ON HOT SEAT AFTER CALL FOR WAR ON ' ISLAMISTS'

CNN star Lou Dobbs hit maximum controversy after calling for a 'War Against Islamists.'

Dobbs made the comments Wednesday evening during the opening segment of his MONEYLINE program, which airs worldwide on CNN.

Dobbs: "The government and media for the past nine months have called this a war against terror. So have we here. But terror is not the enemy. It is what the enemy wants to achieve. So on this broadcast, we are making a change... in the interests of clarity and honesty. The enemies in this war are radical Islamists who argue all non-believers in their faith must be killed. They are called Islamists. That's why we are abandoning the phrase, "War Against Terror". Let us be clear. This is not a war against Muslims or Islam. It is a war against Islamists and all who support them. If ever there were a time for clarity, it is now. We hope our new policy is a step in that direction."

The comments immediately ignited angry phone calls to CNN, according to insiders.

The Dobbs comments -- which were not labeled commentary -- remained intact during reruns of MONEYLINE, after producers could not reach CNN News Group Chairman Walter Isaacson for guidance.

"I watched him last night and couldn't imagine what he was thinking or why he was doing it. It was pretty brave, but I don't quite get the point."

It seems clear to me, but since you say it's not clear I wonder if I'm missing something.

Jonah Goldberg made the point last week that calling this a 'war on terror' is sort of like calling World War One a 'war against artillery".

People need to get focused, and recognize what the bloggers call Islamic Fascism.

What's hard to understand?

Jihad has one meaning: military and violent conquest of the infidels.

No, that's not right. Of course, you get different meanings for "jihad" depending on who you ask...but that makes the point.

Most informed individuals understand "jihad" to mean "struggle".

I agree with the other poster and Dobbs. "Islamists" are exactly what we are up against. "Jihad" is ambiguous.

While "Islamist" may not be adequately pc, it's spot on.

No, that's not right. Of course, you get different meanings for "jihad" depending on who you ask...but that makes the point.

Most informed individuals understand "jihad" to mean "struggle".

I agree with the other poster and Dobbs. "Islamists" are exactly what we are up against. "Jihad" is ambiguous.

While "Islamist" may not be adequately pc, it's spot on.

First of all, FR is nothing if not the bastion of cliches, and people imitating "clever" phrases which show a a lack of imagination and a tin ear. "Spot on" seems to be the current FR phrase for people who dont mind beating words into the ground.

Second, the War Against Islamists, while accurate, sounds dumb. It is like saying The War Against Nazis, or The War Against Communists. Only a tin ear could let it pass without flinching. It sounds juvenile because it personalizes and diminishes the nature of the war. Plus, "Islamists" is not a word which has any rhetorical punch; it is abstract, and a tedious word for English speakers to pronounce.

The War on Jihad is the perfect name for this war. No sentient Westerner thinks that "Jihad" is ambiguous ... do you? We know exactly what Arafat means when he shakes his fist and shouts "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad" We know what OBL meant when he was alive and referred to "Jihad."

Who cares what the meaning of the word might be from the perspective of an Islamic scholar? We know what we understand it to mean, and the blaspheming, barbarian Moslems know what they mean by it, which is exactly what we understand it to mean. The War on Jihad takes their word and shoves it up their posteriors. The War Against Islamists sounds like an Ivy League lecture given by Noam Chomsky or Edward Said.

Plus, and here is the beauty part: The War on Jihad sounds good, it sounds right, it sounds manly. The War Against Islamists sounds effeminate, indirect.

The War on Jihad defines the lines of opposition on our terms. But, since you and Dobbs didnt think it up, of course it is objectionable.

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.