Obama Protecting Islamic Jihad Ideology Using Deceptive Euphemisms

Terror Is A Euphemism For Islamic Jihad To Avoid Confronting The True Cause Of The Conflict By Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.), Right Side News

Islam According To Obama And The Obama Regime

President Barack Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, and as such he defines the enemy and sets the parameters for the conduct of the war. Here are Obama’s strategic concepts, as he has stated them, that guide his conduct of the war:
We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” “They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam. We must never accept the premise that they put forward because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They are terrorists.”
Secretary of State John Kerry has succinctly summarized Obama’s operational definition of actions carried out by the enemy:
“It [Islamic jihad] has nothing to do with Islam; it has everything to do with criminality, with terror, with abuse, with psychopathism – I mean, you name it.”
While former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put into concise words Obama’s concept of the enemy:
“Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Why The U.S. Is Losing

We are in a war against the worldwide Islamic jihadist movement composed of many different clandestine cells, groups, gangs, and militias that employ terrorism, psychological warfare, insurgency, and conventional force operations from the Philippine Islands, to Bangkok, to Mumbai, to Peshawar, to Damascus, to Mogadishu, to Tripoli, to Paris, to London, to New York, to San Bernardino. In such a war, if the jihadists have the initiative, which they clearly do now, then you are losing. In view of Obama’s reality-free strategic concepts above, one needn’t be Field Marshal Erwin Rommel to understand why the jihadists are winning. In fact, any first year ROTC cadet could tell Obama that an enemy which cannot be identified and/or defined truthfully and accurately cannot be defeated. The irony is that James Comey, Obama’s FBI Director, has honestly and correctly identified the enemy and the fact that we are at war when he said:
“. . . ISIL’s [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] message is one about leaning to a particular faith, which is Islam, and so it is a message that is aimed at and resonates with those who are either raised Muslim or converted to be Muslim, and so the term ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ is accurate in the sense as an umbrella term.”
These people want to kill our people and we are at war with these people.” Nevertheless, the FBI remains constrained because almost three years ago two Muslim Brotherhood front groups, Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), made the politically correct demand that all FBI training materials for law enforcement and intelligence agents be purged of any mention of Islam or jihad! In complying with this outrageous Muslim demand, the Obama regime’s sympathetic and supportive policy toward Islam was forcefully enunciated by Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon:
“I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”
As a result of this same Muslim Brotherhood January 2013 letter, Obama’s recently retired sycophant Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, castrated the U.S. military’s preparation to fight Islam by censoring all military training materials that were intended to instruct U.S. forces about Islamic jihad and the Muslim war doctrine, strategy, and tactics. A former CIA case officer and strategic policy and intelligence expert, Claire M. Lopez, has analyzed General Dempsey’s pronouncements and actions in regard to the study of Islam by U.S. military officers in preparation to fight Islamic jihadists:
“The final bastion of America’s defense against Islamic jihad and sharia, the Pentagon, fell to the enemy in April 2012, with the issuance of a letter from General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, re-issuing his earlier order that all Department of Defense (DoD) course content be scrubbed to ensure no lingering remnant of disrespect to Islam. [What Dempsey prohibited was doing such “disrespectful” things as quoting the Quran and Sharia verbatim demonstrating the horror of jihad.] “All U.S. military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau and Joint Staff are under Dempsey’s Muslim Brotherhood-dictated orders to ensure that henceforth, no U.S. military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive (or just too informative). To all intents and purposes, DoD Secretary Leon E. Panetta likewise has acquiesced to a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of U.S. military education.”
  So, after Obama had hindered both U.S. law enforcement and the U.S. military in our war with Islamic jihad, his Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, has also attempted to discourage U.S. civilian citizens from alerting the government to possible jihadist terrorism through discouraging “see something, say something” by giving “Islamophobia” the force of law when she said, “My greatest fear is rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.” Lynch then put the fear of prosecution for “speech considered anti-Islamic.”
Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric . . . when we see that we will take action. I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”
Of course, Attorney General Lynch’s chilling legal threat immediately raised the questions — what exactly are the parameters of “edges towards violence” and “lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric,” and who decides when they are violated? The Obama regime is clearly telling Americans that “if you see something, don’t dare cast yourself as an Islamophobe because there could be dire consequences for you.” It must be noted that Lynch’s threat to essentially incorporate the Islamic Sharia law’s prohibition against “defaming” Islam into U.S. jurisprudence is just another move by the Obama regime to exempt Islam from critical examination. An earlier step in this same direction to put Islam beyond questioning analysis was initiated by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State when in 2011 she gave U.S. backing to the Organization of Islamic States’ U.N. resolution 16/18, “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.” In fact, Clinton’s State Department teamed with Pakistan to co-sponsor this OIC free speech-killing resolution, which has been analyzed by a U.S. law professor as follows:
The OIC . . . describes itself as the world’s largest international body after the United Nations. For more than a decade, “the collective voice of the Muslim world” has spread the belief that any insult directed against the Muslim faith or its prophet demands absolute suppression. Quashing “defamation of Islam” is enshrined as a chief objective in the organization’s charter. With countless internal resolutions, relentless lobbying of the international community and block voting on resolutions advocating a prohibition on defamation of religion at the U.N., the OIC continuously pushes to silence criticism of Islam. Translated into practice inside Islamic nations and increasingly elsewhere, this toxic vision breeds contempt for freedom of religion and expression, justifies the killing of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and casts a pall of self-censorship over academia and the arts.
The danger to the U.S. and to the world is that U.N. 16/18 advances the OIC’s primary goal: criminalization of questioning, analysis, and criticism of Islam. It is undeniable that Obama has instituted government restrictions to handicap U.S. law enforcement, military, and civilian awareness of Islamic jihad in keeping with Obama’s basic strategic premise that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, in spite of overwhelming evidence otherwise that Islam is at war with the U.S. !

What Are “Terror,” “Radicalization,” and “Extremism” In Reality?

Terror is a tactic or state of mind, but it is not an ideology that “radicalizes,” nor is it a separate ideological belief called “extremism.” Former President George Bush did the nation a huge disservice when he declared, “Islam is peace,” and christened our war to defend ourselves “the Global War on Terror” instead of “the Global War on Islamic Jihad.” Pretending that Islamic jihad is “terror” has misled the American people and discouraged them from learning about and understanding the real existential Islamic threat facing the country. Bush followed his inane strategy because he was well-meaning, that is, he didn’t want to “offend” Muslims, and because he was stupid for not educating himself about the murderous religious imperialism of Islam. Obama has taken Bush’s simpleton strategy of denying the existence of Islamic jihad and put it into the service of his nefarious anti-American ideology by knowingly continuing to delude and further mislead the U.S. public. Since Islamic jihad is not “terror,” what really is the “terror” that Bush and Obama have falsely proclaimed to be the enemy? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, terror is a tactic of warfare that consists of:
“violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal”
And according the same dictionary, terror is also a state of mind that is:
“a very strong feeling of fear”
Clearly what “terror” is not is “a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty,” which is the definition of Islamic jihad. But the murder and mayhem being committed against the U.S. and Western Civilization is a “holy” jihad war waged on behalf of Islam that employs the violent tactic of terror, which in turn produces the terrorized state of mind of a very strong feeling of fear. Bush and Obama have laid out the foolish proposition that the U.S. is at war with either a tactic of warfare and/or a state of mind caused by warfare. Leaders serious about protecting their people would not pretend that the nation is at war with a tactic or state of mind. Equally foolish and dishonest is Obama’s ascribing the murderous conduct of Islamic jihadists to “radicalization,” as if radicalization was unconnected to Islam. According to Obama, radicalization is instead a “cause” disassociated with any ideology because “radicalization” almost magically and inexplicably motivates Muslims to commit unspeakable violence just for the sake of violence itself and for no other purpose. A recent example of the fallacious misattribution of indisputable jihadist violence occurred when Obama deceitfully told the American people that the cause of the San Bernardino massacre was “radicalization.”
“It is clear that the two of them [San Bernardino jihadists Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik] had gone down the dark path of radicalization. So this was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people.”
Yet another attempt to deceive the U.S. public and disconnect jihadist violence from Islam is found in Obama’s deceitful use of “extremism” to disguise jihad:
Part of our job, together, is to work to reject such extremism that infects too many of our young people. Part of that effort must be a continued rejection by Muslims of those who distort Islam to preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror.”
Once again, as with “terror” and “radicalization,” a mere descriptive word, “extremism,” is employed by Obama to try to dupe the American people in order to separate the violence being perpetrated on Americans from any Islamic association.

Conclusion

It is moronic that Obama wants Americans to believe is that “terror,” “radicalization,” and “extremism” are metaphysical motivations in and of themselves that cause Muslims to commit violence, but have no affiliation with Islam. Following the genocidal massacres that occurred during World War Two, George Orwell observed:
“ . . . the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts. Political chaos is connected with the decay of language, leading to the construction of prevailing orthodoxies that conceal and prevent thought.”
Concealment and prevention of thought is exactly what Obama is striving for through the use of the terms “terror,” “radicalization,” and “extremism” in order to disguise the perpetrators’ motivation of murderous Islamic jihad.]]>

Leave your vote

0 points
Upvote Downvote

Total votes: 0

Upvotes: 0

Upvotes percentage: 0.000000%

Downvotes: 0

Downvotes percentage: 0.000000%

Comments

comments