Thanks to Mullah
Reality defiance and learning resistance @ the dying AGE: Â Â Islam expert in chief Daniel Flitton regurgitates the vomit from the failed Labour criminals that caused Britains “man made disaster”….
Just when you thought ‘the science was settled…’
TERRORISTS use many weapons – bombs, gas and guns – but among the most potent are simple words. So why is Kevin Rudd playing into Osama bin Laden’s hands and spouting off about the threat ”jihadists” pose to Australia?
Accurately describing the terrorist threat is critically important. Yes, security measures and intelligence co-ordination matter more, but leaders must be careful with language. And buried in the counter-terrorism white paper Rudd released yesterday is this telling footnote.
”The term ‘jihadist’ is an imperfect descriptor,” it reads, with ”multiple meanings” that ”has been appropriated by many terrorist groups to describe their activities”.
Here’s the problem. Bin Laden and his murderous ilk are not ”holy warriors” – one of those multiple meanings – despite their pretence to be fighting a jihad. Al-Qaeda twists the Islamic faith to inspire and motivate followers. Part of the crucial effort to undermine al-Qaeda’s message of hatred is to strip it of religious justification.
Perhaps Flitton could offer up some of his Islam-knowledge and educate the jihadists on how exactly they misunderstand “kill the unbelievers and make the world Islamic…?” Besides, does anyone believe that eliminating AQ & OBL would stop the global jihad?
As the white paper explains, al-Qaeda wants people to believe the West is repressing Muslims, that governments in Muslim majority countries are illegitimate and the solution is ridding Western influence and enforcing ”truly Islamic” systems of governance.
But when Western leaders bestow terrorists with a religious title, it boosts their standing among radicals. To compound the error, playing up the jihadist claims casts an unfair stigma on Muslims.
The IRA called themselves ”freedom fighters”. Did the British government ever do the same? Hardly. So call Bin Laden and his cohorts what they are – terrorists.
A mental flatliner, AGE editor. Â I suppose Flitton also calls Hamas & Hezbollah “freedom fighters”. Â The global jihad is no IRA or ETA, and its not fought for regional independence or autonomy, as we can see here or here, but to make Islam the dominant ideology that rules the world.
Remember another hoary old phrase, the ”war on terror.” The Brits correctly surmised it did more harm than good, as Foreign Secretary David Miliband explained last year:
”The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common. We should expose their claim to a compelling and overarching explanation and narrative as the lie that it is … terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology.”
No wonder David Miliband got the title of “EUrabia’s Dumbest Jew” for that, Â along with Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears Â who are equally enlightened progressives of the alternative reality brigades. According to Ibrahim Hooper, chairman of CAIR, Islam is an ideology. In Islam terror is not only an institution, but the essence of the Koran & hadith, Mr. Flitton…..
Rudd or his office apparently insisted the word jihadist pepper the white paper. That the term appeared in a official statement on terrorism at all was a mistake. Careful work over the past decade has helped agencies better understand the problem, marginalise extremists inside the Muslim community and tackle the threat. The government should know better.
The government knows little more than you do, mister editor. Because they’re all too intellectually lazy to read the Koran.
Yesterday Andrew Bolt took a stab at this turkey, here:Â Look over there! A unicorn with a bomb!
When all but one ofÂ the 18 terrorist organisations proscribed by Australia are Islamist, and most announce their religious mission in their title, how canÂ The Age editor be so sure that this identification with Islam is false? Wishing something does not make it true.