Unfortunately, Â the turd who wrote this was too coward to sign a name to it. But will that stop the enlightened progressives around KRudd to follow the failed policies of Â UK’s Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears and David Miliband?
Flashback: UK: Government renames Islamic terrorism as ‘anti-Islamic activity … and Mark Steyn: Excessive deference to Islam.
Update: Jihad? Lets just throw money at it!
‘The main threat to Australia’s security comes from a global jihadist movement, including al-Qaeda and those inspired by a similar world view,”
Mr KRudd will not reveal the identity of the 10 countries……Sydney Moonbat Herald
British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has come to epitomize this newspeak,Â declaring in January 2008 that terrorism would henceforth be known as “anti-Islamic activity,” since “there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize” â€” jihadists’ claims to the contrary. The Home Office soon confirmed that phrases like “Islamic extremism” had been jettisoned due to fears that they inflame Muslims. Previously the Foreign Office hadasked ministers to stop alluding to the “war on terror” for the same reason. Yet if terrorism is “anti-Islamic activity,” would not the “war on terror” be pro-Islamic? Â More>>
The Age/ thanks to Dhumme Dhimmi
Kevin Rudd has failed to learn the old wartime truism â€” ‘‘loose lips sink ships’’.
In war, what we say matters almost as much as how we fight.
By spouting off about the threat of ‘‘jihadist’’ terrorism while launching aÂ counter-terrorism white paper today,Â Rudd is actually damaging efforts to combat the threat.
Why is language so important? Start with that once favoured phrase, ‘‘war on terror’’. As Britain Foreign Secretary David Miliband put it 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.’’
Rudd talked today about the divisive narrative espoused by al-Qaeda. That story al-Qaeda weaves with its never ending barrage of leader’s statements and online videos and is one of the movements most potent weapons, portraying Muslims as victims of Western aggression.
So to disrupt that narrative, we should assiduously avoid playing to the pretence that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are ‘‘holy warriors’’. Terms like ‘‘jihadist terrorism’’ should never pass the lips of Western leaders.
This is not to doubt that terrorism is a persistent threat as the white paper declares. It is. Extremists are flourishing in lawless regions, shown by just a fewÂ headlines from recent months:
YEMEN: Officials Admit Losing Battle Against Al-Qaeda
PAKISTAN: 2009 Worst Year of Terrorist Violence: Report
SOMALIA: Pirate Attacks Nearly Double in 2009
But to give terrorists even the veneer of respectability and label them jihadists â€” remember, many so-called ‘‘mujahideen’’ were considered Western allies in the Afghan war against the Soviets â€” sets back the public understanding of this problem. The wider Muslim religion is immediately tarred with the same brush. But as Miliband argued, ‘‘terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology.’’
After all the focus on terrorism of the past decade, after all the reports written on the ways and means to isolate extremists from the wider Muslim community, Rudd should not be making this rudimentary mistake.