2006 April 15 Saturday
EU Mandarins: Terrorists Who Abusively Invoke Islam

I'm not making up this one. Reality is more absurd than fiction. The European Union's fools in charge want to play word games to avoid admitting that Islam contains beliefs that aren't compatible with Western culture. How about "Individuals with excessively violent impulses who abusively invoke Islam"?

Officials are currently drafting a "non-emotive lexicon for discussing radicalisation" that will be submitted to EU leaders at a summit in June.

“Certainly ‘Islamic terrorism’ is something we will not use … we talk about ‘terrorists who abusively invoke Islam’,” said an official speaking off the record.

Okay readers, get into the spirit of our decayed age. Can you outdo the Mandarins and come up with an even more ridiculous replacement for "Islamic terrorism"?

How about "People with hostility problems who misunderstand Islam"?

Update: Jim Hoagland reports that Bush Administration policymakers are referring to the Global War On Extremism (GWOE) instead of the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT).

Although greatly reduced since Rice replaced Colin Powell at Foggy Bottom, wrangling between the departments of State and Defense continues -- this time over operational details of the National Security Policy Directive that is being pulled together for what some policymakers are starting to call the global war on extremism (GWOE).

Here is where American and European policymakers could work together. "Terrorist" is such a loaded term - as the BBC well knows. Why not replace it with "Extremist"? Then we'd have "Extremists Who Abusively Invoke Islam" or EWAII.

A conservative Republican might be bothered by the use of the term "Extremist" in such a derogatory context. After all, Barry Goldwater once said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." But the Bushies are a far cry from Goldwater Republicans. They've engineered the fastest rise in federal spending since FDR. It seems only fitting that they are engaged in a global war on extremism.

Update II: The EU is developing a whole politically correct dictionary for referring to Muslims and terrorists.

The European Union is drawing up a lexicon of politically correct language to use when describing terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam.

The idea was first aired in the EU's counter-terrorism strategy, which was adopted by interior ministers in December. As part of its efforts to combat radicalization and terrorist recruitment, the paper said the Union's 25 member states have to do more to "correct unfair or inaccurate perceptions of Islam and Muslims." It also called on EU officials to draft a "non-emotive lexicon for discussing the issues in order to avoid linking Islam to terrorism."

Diplomats in Brussels are currently working on the handbook, which is expected to be adopted by ministers in June.

The handbook will not cause Muslims to become liberals.

The EU Mandarins do not want to refer to a oppressive, tribal, sexist, intolerant religion using negative terms.

The guidelines, which will be non-binding and aimed at public officials rather than journalists, are likely to advise against using the term "Islamic terrorism." Roscam Abbing said his EU commissioner, who is the rough equivalent of the U.S. homeland security chief, prefers to talk about "those who have an abusive interpretation of Islam," rather than Islamists or Muslim fundamentalists. "The idea is not to use the terms Islam and Muslim in connection to something negative," added the spokesman.

The idea is to be dishonest. War is peace.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 April 15 05:08 PM  Civilizations Decay


Comments
John S Bolton said at April 16, 2006 1:57 AM:

Nelson Rockefeller seems a rather poor, but appropriate, inspiration for the globalizers. Bush and Rice like to say we don't have to fight them here. At the same time, they are lumping all good and bad extremists together. A good moslem is not moderate, but extreme in his advocacy of wars of religion. Moderation in defense of the borders from aggressors is extremism of traitorous character.

Matt said at April 16, 2006 5:03 AM:

Maybe they can declare war on my extreme book reading habit, or my extreme practice of eating three meals a day. Really, how can our masters expect us to die on the battlefield to fight an enemy we are not even allowed to name?

Rick Darby said at April 16, 2006 8:17 AM:

Neo-Caliphatists.

Activists in submission to Allah.

The non-gradualist school of Islam.

Extreme moderates.

The Virgin Suicides.

The Contemporary Martyrdom wing.

Big Bill said at April 16, 2006 10:17 AM:

Yeah, you hear all that ethnic special pleading all over the place: "Tony Soprano is not an 'Italian Mobster', he is a criminal individual who just happens to be Italian." "Bugsy Siegel is not a 'Jewish Mobster', he is a criminal individual who happens to be Jewish." Et cetera.

It works ... that is until it comes to white gentile males. WGMales are never considered as individuals, but are always acting out "white racism". Every nutcase like the white guy who dragged the black guy behind a truck stands for the deeper principle that "white America" (read "white gentile America") is racist. For white gentiles, at least, guilt seems to be the most effective tool for insuring compliance ... for now.

You have to feel some pity for the poor b@stards, though. They have deliberately engineered a multi-cultural hell-hole and now they are taxed to the limit to manage it. Its like the white liberal girl teacher who is thrown into an inner city school. She spends all her time saying "play nice, children" and failing to notice that some are armed with box cutters and are gang-raping a girl on the playground. The liberal imagination is just so limited.

Come the revolution, however, things are going to change.

Bill said at April 16, 2006 10:57 AM:

So, how long till US Civil War II? If the Dems win in 2006 and begin impeachment proceedings, I think we could see secession within 10-20 years, if not much sooner.

Bob Badour said at April 16, 2006 12:07 PM:

If the goal is to placate 'moderate' muslims, I suggest we will need two terms. The term in English or any western language would have to be the local equivalent of "dirty Zionist conspirators". In any middle-eastern/muslim language, one would have to use the arabic alphabet to spell the local version of "mujahideen".

Now, if one wanted to euphemize "Islamist terrorists" to satisfy my atheist ear, I would suggest: "martyrs in waiting", and I would be happy if we obliged them by loading them onto the "express short bus to hell" as frequently as possible.

Given that the Qur'an basically considers me beneath human, I don't give a flying fuck if we offend these murderous fiends.

Jorge D.C. said at April 16, 2006 6:00 PM:

War is peace.

You're right Pundit. We are transitioning into the Orwellian nightmare. The mass repurposing of language to obfuscate - instead of inform - is a death blow to a free society.

It was a dark day when our media elites went along with the War On Terror terminology instead of a War On Al Qaeda. But, hey, the US Congress hasn't declared war since 1941. What do we expect?

It seems that the modern multicultural society is particularly incapable of the truth. If in Dec 1941 we had a strong Japanese-American lobby in Washington DC and an organized Jap-Am segment of the electorate, then perhaps instead of declaring War on Japan we would've declared War on Imperialism after Pearl Harbor.

The slippery slope is deadly real. Cultural marxism now suffuses every mainstream political discourse and most every other kind of discourse as well. From the point of view of a marxist the greatest obstacle is the truth. When you look around and see, hear, read nothing euphemisms - that means they are winning.

By the way it's nice to see your comments system working again. Possible that the spam was a political attack? Auster's VFR website has had the same problems.

Ivan Kirigin said at April 16, 2006 6:10 PM:

Double plus good newspeak :-P

Bob Badour said at April 17, 2006 8:25 AM:
Possible that the spam was a political attack?

Don't attribute to malice what one can attribute to greed. From the occasional spam posts I actually saw, I would say the spammers were just trying to improve their google page ranks to sell things. It would be great if the search engines found a way to severely punish any company using blog spam.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©