Sultan Knish: Can you speak Islamic?

If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.

—Confucius

Great insisight and excellent analysis from Daniel Greenberg, (also known as Sultan Knish) who is right on the money, as usual:  this is about words and phrases that have clear definitions as commonly understood by all literate people. Those same words and phrases, however, mean something entirely different to Muslims. The Gates of Vienna has more>>

“Religion of Peace”

Words are tricky things. Virtually every tyrant, no matter how bloody, has talked about his plans for conquest in terms of “peace”. For example in 1939, Nazi Germany and the USSR signed a declaration in which they described their conquest of Poland as creating “a sure foundation for a lasting peace in Eastern Europe”. The same year that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he delivered a speech at the Amman Summit in which he insisted that; “the Arabs seek peace and justice throughout the world”. And how can one argue with peace?

The Romans had the Pax Romana, which meant peace under Roman dominion. The “peace” that Hitler, Stalin and Saddam have in mind, was of that same nature. Dictators and tyrannies, national or ideological, frame the world as chaotic and requiring order. Only under their leadership and only their way will the world finally experience peace.

When Lenin stated that; “without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace“, he was laying out the same basic thesis of every tyrant, and of Islam as well. That there can be no “true peace”, without the creation of a society that follows his ideology. For Lenin, everyone had to submit to Communism. For Hitler, to Nazism. For Mohammed, to Islam. Each spoke about peace, but they defined peace only in terms of their own ideology and rule.
When apologists insist that Islam is a religion of peace, they are correct. Insofar as it believes in peace through conquest, and its intended state of peace is to reduce non-Muslims to second class status. But since Islam is global and it recognizes no limit to its borders– its form of “peace” is to engage in constant wars to conquer the territory of non-Muslims and Muslims whose legitimacy they do not recognize in order to achieve “peace”.

Continue reading Sultan Knish: Can you speak Islamic?

Mush From the Wimp: Obama, Orwell and National-Security Psychobabble

» Mush From the Wimp: Obama, Orwell and National-Security Psychobabble – Big Journalism

Posted by Candace de Russy/Breitbart

Update from:

Obambi Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document

Comment on this picture below the fold*

With its unprecedented decision to sanitize the basic document defining U.S. national security strategy – cleanse from it terms that connect Islam to terror, jihad, extremism and the like – President Hussein Obama is once again propagating Orwellian babble.

And there’s little doubt but that the MSM are primed to parrot far and wide, as opposed to critically assess, the president’s now squeaky clean, official vocabulary of defense. Even after the carnage of 9/11, for example, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews could only bring himself vaguely to identify the attacks as “criminal acts of terror” – selecting out the unpalatable fact that all the terrorists were Islamic radicals.

The administration’s latest rhetorical sleight of hand is just the latest evidence of its zeal for obfuscating the true nature of the terrorist threat. Recall the bizarre memo, originating from Obama’s Office of Management and Budget that instructed Defense Department staffers to use the term “Overseas Contingency Operation” in place of “Long War” or “Global War on Terror.”

Continue reading Mush From the Wimp: Obama, Orwell and National-Security Psychobabble

Rashad Hussein: He Didn't Lie, He Just Made "Controversial Remarks"

The experts of language perversion are hard at work to sell this jihadist turd to the unsuspecting public:

Our Islamist Envoy

What exactly has Rashad Hussain ever written about the Qur’an? And if he has written about the Qur’an, why has no one ever heard of those writings until now?

Infiltration: What a tangled web Islamist appointees weave. When his pro-terrorist quotes surfaced, a new White House envoy dismissed them as someone else’s. A recording says otherwise.

Now Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s pick as special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has changed his story. He admits he did indeed call the indictment of a now-convicted terrorist a “travesty of justice.”

Related link:

White House defends Obama envoy to OIC: “This is an individual that has written extensively on why some have used religious devices like the Qur’an to justify this [terrorism] and why that is absolutely wrong”/ Trouble is: he never did. He never will.

Continue reading Rashad Hussein: He Didn't Lie, He Just Made "Controversial Remarks"