From the Washington Times:
Before the Boston Marathon bombings, the Obama administration argued for years that there is a big difference between terrorists and the tenets of Islam.
A senior White House aide in 2009 publicly urged Washington to cease using the term “jihadist” — asserting that terrorists are simply extremists. Two years later, the White House ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive.
Now, some analysts are asking whether the 2009 edict and others that followed have dampened law enforcement’s appetite to thoroughly investigate terrorism suspects for fear of offending higher-ups or the American Muslim lobby.
It’s not just suspected. The most recent fedgov-sponsored anti-terrorism course I took spent the first few hours going over the SPLC’s laundry list of evil white terrorist organizations that to any sane person, aren’t more than a footnote.
In October 2011, 57 Islamic groups wrote a letter to John O. Brennan, now CIA director, but then President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser.
Citing news reports, the groups complained of “biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam” inside the federal government’s instructional halls.
“While recent news reports have highlighted the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials, we have learned that this problem extends far beyond the FBI and has infected other government agencies, including the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Army,” the letter read.
Muslims objected to several training guides, such as a 2009 report produced at the Army Command and General Staff at the Fort Leavenworth School of Advanced Military Studies.
“Moderate Muslims are not exercising moderation; they are simply applying other means to accomplish the same goal of establishing global Islamic dominance,” it quoted the report as saying.
At least two of the 57 groups were listed by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators and as being connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in the prosecution of a Texas charity for funding Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The groups are the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America.
The organizations’ letter demanded that biased trainers be disciplined, that all instructors undergo retraining and that materials deemed offensive by Muslim activists be purged.
Want to know why we can’t effectively fight jihadi terrorists? Why we keep having Fort Hoods and Bostons?
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
– Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu’s reflections on the Obama administration would probably be something like: “If you deny yourself knowledge of the enemy and even deny the enemy’s existence because you don’t want to offend the enemy, you have already been defeated.”
John Guandolo, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, has spent years studying the global Muslim Brotherhood movement and its links to American Islamic groups. The FBI relies on some of them to guide its training. The political left has branded Mr. Guandolo an “Islamophobe.”
“There is no strategy in the FBI,” he told The Times. “At FBI headquarters, it is a daily fire drill. The threats come in, and they run around to deal with them and run them down. But because none of it can have anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement in the U.S. or Islam, they never address the root cause and common investigative realities.”
Mr. Emerson, who maintains back-channel ties to law enforcement, said any slide presentation on Islamic extremism now has to be submitted to a special Justice Department panel.
He said one slide that was required to be omitted showed the famous photo of captured Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The photo of a disheveled and unshaven Mohammed was deemed “offensive to Islam,” Mr. Emerson said.
There is a strategy in the FBI. It’s a strategy of concession and defeat.
… the president does not “see this challenge as a fight against ‘jihadists.’ Describing terrorists in this way — using a legitimate term, jihad, meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal — risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”
Some analysts disagree with that interpretation, saying the Koran clearly states that jihad is a “holy war.”
Jihad is war.
Denying it and pretending that it’s simply “internal jihad” denies reality. The struggle in Islam is further submission to the will of Allah – Islam means submission. Salaam and the peace of Allah is all about submission to Allah’s will. People with an internal “my struggle” tend to be types who are worth keeping an eye on anyway.
Beyond that point, it doesn’t actually matter what the US says. Contrary to American popular belief, the world does not actually revolve around us. The right knows we’re big and important and we have an important role to play, but we’re ultimately not everything; the left mocks our actual importance, but then thinks every evil in the world is caused by our interference and instead blames America for everything as though we are the cause of all evil in the world – a far more powerful egocentric belief.
Jihadis who are willing to kill themselves to strike a blow against the West in a desire to further the plans for the caliphate do not care what you or I think of them. The US saying “Islamic jihadi terrorists are Islamic jihadi terrorists” doesn’t change much.
They don’t need our opinion to make themselves legitimate. They are, by their own actions, legitimating themselves. They strike terror against the west and they prove they are jihadis. The US understanding and saying “they’re jihadis” does not magically make them jihadis. That they are blowing themselves up for jihad makes them jihadis. This is a question of acknowledging reality. They aren’t seeking our approval to make them jihadis.
For your nation to protect itself does demand that it acknowledge what it is fighting.
“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”
– Osama bin Laden
Frankly, when we’re acting befuddled because we can’t understand jihad, it doesn’t make us the strong horse. When our government, filled with mush-brained liberals at best; and jihad-allies leftists as well, tells you with their rose-colored glasses and romantic worldview (or straight up leftist redistributive propaganda) that these are a peaceful, peaceable, highly spiritual wise people with a history that goes back thousands of years, wise exotic mystics who travel the deserts and kept alive the knowledge that racist bigoted white European Christians threw away, and then were attacked by ruthless murderous Christian fundamentalist Crusaders who sought to kill them for some reason… it sets up a ridiculous worldview.
The leftist worldview doesn’t allow for acknowledging who the enemy is.
“They say our enemy is violent extremism,” Mr. Lieberman said. “It’s not. It’s not animal rights extremists or white supremacy extremists. It’s Islamic extremism.”
Lieberman’s one redeeming virtue is that he somewhat understands this. At the same time, it’s not extremism.
This is extremism:
Rubio also has part of the problem recognized, but this is still a problem:
Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, told Fox News this week that the administration will not recognize the terrorists for what they are — radicalized Islamists.
These are radical muslims:
Notably, those muslim snowboarders aren’t jihadis. Or at least, probably not (Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a Golden Gloves boxer, after all).
“My problem with this administration is they refuse to acknowledge the existence of this kind of terrorism,” Mr. Rubio said.
He noted that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic complex in Benghazi, Libya, the White House refused to call it terrorism and blamed it on everyday demonstrators.
To really explain that further, the White House’s so-called “demonstrators” brought mortars. The White House story is that they brought fire support to yell about a video that no one had ever seen.
You don’t bring indirect fire area-effect weapons to a protest.
This is a Second Amendment protest – a protest about guns and the right of the people too keep and bear arms in order to throw off oppression – up to and including possibly overthrowing a corrupt government:
And they didn’t bring any artillery. They also aren’t jihadis.
Update: It also looks like the Tsarnaevs’ bombs required some additional training and expertise to make, as though they might not be a “lone wolf” operation as the administration claims, as though there might actually be some kind of global movement that’s doing this bombing extremist stuff (for no discernable reason)… like there’s maybe a group of people who believe in the same thing (extremism and radicalness, sayeth the administration) and are out to spread terrorism for the sake of terrorism. Whoa. (How you can have two people working together and still call them a “lone” wolf ignores what the word “lone” means, but I digress.)