“Radicalization” Is Actually “Islamization”

Euphemisms Have Been Used By Bush And Obama To Mislead Americans By Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.), Right Side News

Terms Of Deceit

Since 9/11, two U.S. presidents, Bush and Obama, have been attempting to deceive the American people about who is truly the enemy and what is the war is actually about through the use of euphemisms like “global war on terror,” “manmade disaster,” “overseas contingency operations,” “moderate Muslim,” “Islamophobia,” “radicalization”,” “violent extremism,” and even “radical Islam.” However, there is another president who disagrees with them and who knows Islam better than either Bush or Obama. He is Turkish President Recep Erdogan who, commenting on the “moderate Islam” characterization, said: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” As anyone with a double digit IQ immediately realizes, the U.S. Government is employing these (ridiculous) euphemisms in a clumsy attempt to deny and disguise the fact that Islam is the enemy. Declaring war on the tactic of “terrorism” was Bush’s desperate effort to deny that Islam had been attacking the U.S. since 1979, but the 9/11 World Trade Center/Pentagon carnage made Islam’s war against the U.S. impossible to ignore or deny any longer. Consequently, Bush seized the fig leaf of “terrorism” as the cover nom de guerre for Islam. Obama then took the silly “war on terrorism” euphemism to the absurd with “manmade disaster,” “overseas contingency operations,” and “violent extremism” euphemisms. Under Bush, “moderate Muslim” was employed to divert anger away from the practitioners of Islam and separate them in the public’s mind from the 9/11 hijacking jihadists, particularly those Muslim practitioners in the U.S. And the terminology “radical Islam” was likewise used to make it appear that the “true Islam” was, in Bush’s word, “peace,” instead of being what it actually is, a Theo-political-cult doctrine mandating violent imperialist conquest to install Islamic Sharia law in order to make Islam the dominant religion and impose the Islamic social and political systems. In other words, the purpose of imposing Sharia law is to “Islamize” the conquered society. However, for Obama even the euphemistic “radical Islam” was too close to identifying Islam with the terror war being waged against the U.S.; therefore, he totally expunged “Islam” and terms like “jihad,” “caliphate,” and “mujahedeen” from the official government vocabulary to be used in describing the war. In place of “radical Islam,” Obama substituted the innocuous euphemism “violent extremism,” which has no practical meaning in analyzing and understanding the genesis of the Islamic warfare against the American people. By 2015, the denial of reality that seemed very silly in 2001 became ludicrous as Obama proclaimed that the Islamic State was not Islamic, even though the self-appointed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is reputed to hold a Ph.D. in Islamic religious studies from a major Islamic university. (Since all of Obama’s college transcripts are sealed from public access, it is unclear how Obama acquired his Islamic authority to repudiate the theology of a Ph.D. in the Islamic religion.) Today Obama and his Democrat Party and national security minions purport that “moderate Muslims” are “radicalized” to “violent extremism” because of the purely fictive reason of “global warming” as well as the eternal politico-economic secular reasons like poverty, lack of jobs, poor education, and bad governance. For the Obama regime, those ever-abiding reasons are the “root causes” and according to Obama’s State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, these “root causes” must be eliminated as the only way “violent extremism” can be prevented in the long term since “we cannot kill our way out of this war.” In fact, if these enduring socio-economic problems were the causes of “violent extremism,” poverty stricken societies like those of Haiti, Zimbabwe, Congo, Swaziland, and Burundi would be raging with “violent extremism.” But they are not. Instead bloody “violent extremism” is endemic to Muslim areas where jihad is being conducted. Refuting these Bush-Obama euphemisms is made even more difficult because a Muslim Brotherhood American front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought based in Northern Virginia, invented the term “Islamophobia” in order to silence critics of Islamic supremacism. “Islamophobia” is meant to create a modern-day Orwellian thought crime with the objective of abolishing the First Amendment right to publicly tell the truth about Islam in the U.S. Even verbatim quoting of the jihad-evoking scripture of the Quran and Sunna is denounced as “Islamophobic!” The suffix – “phobia” – was attached as a politically manipulative device to paint any truthful discussion of Islam as irrational bigotry that should be feared and shunned. But the point is, irrespective whether or not Islam as a religion is a sham, the U.S. Government characterization of the Islamic jihad attacking American as “un-Islamic” is definitely a sham. And it is a deadly sham that prevents formulation of an effective strategy to counter the religious-emotional appeal of Islam to the growing number of mujahedeen jihadist recruits. This gratuitous and perilous sham is unnecessarily putting American lives more and more at risk as the jihad grows and attacks are increasingly carried out in the U.S. homeland.

Muhammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, All-American Muslim

Once again, as with other “all-American Muslims” like Nidal Hassan, Faisal Shahzad, and the Tsarnaev Brothers, Muhammad Youssuf Abdulazeez was a “moderate Muslim” until unexpectedly, one day he wasn’t. Abdulazeez’s obviously jihad-motivated murder of five U.S. servicemen in Chattanooga is attributable to the U.S. Government sham that denies Islam is the existential enemy of Western Civilization and U.S. constitutional government. As an integral part of the Obama regime’s denial sham, it is an article of faith that any Muslim who is not publicly screaming “Allahu Akbar” and committing Islamic savagery is a “moderate Muslim.” So, the Obama regime pretends that “violent extremists” have nothing to do with the Islamic population of “moderate Muslims” in the U.S. Consequently, the Obama regime has imported almost 300,000 new Muslim immigrants between 2010 and 2013. The rate of Muslim immigration has continued at roughly 100,000 immigrants per year since 2013 bringing the U.S. Muslim population to 6.2 million in 2015. Of course, since Islam has nothing to do with “violent extremism” according to Obama, the immigrants are not subjected to scrutiny as to their jihadist sympathies. Following the murder of the five military personnel at the Chattanooga Marine-Navy facility, the FBI investigation into Abdulazeez’s “radicalization” descended into the “theater of the absurd” when, six days after the attack, the FBI declared it was too early to determine if Abdulazeez had been “radicalized!” At issue for the FBI was whether or not Abdulazeez had been “radicalized” to jihad (duh?), and if he had, was the mechanism of “radicalization” al-Qaeda’s old Internet videos of Anwar al-Awlaki or was it the Islamic State’s newer cyber social media like Twitter? Or another course of investigation was that Islamic jihad “radicalization” was not pertinent, as the FBI had ruled in the case of Nidal Hassan, and instead Abdulazeez’s homicidal behavior was driven by depression and alcohol abuse as was being deceivingly disseminated by family spokespeople after the massacre? Without a doubt, any connections to al-Qaeda or the Islamic State are important to identify for counter-jihad policy planning and operational countermeasures development, but the larger point that the Obama regime stubbornly refuses to admit is this – a Muslim may be a non-violent “moderate Muslim” one day, but be converted to a violent Muslim jihadist the next. In matters of religious faith, the predictability of the individual intensity of religious devotion, fervor, and activism at any given time is an unknown. Discerning the violent Islamic jihadist from the non-violent “moderate Muslim” is a problem that hinges on being able to accurately assess personal religious motivation and emotional commitment to Islamic belief and allegiance. Consequently, the threat posed by “moderate Muslims” can never be completely known or dismissed because personal religious motivation and emotional commitment to Islamic belief may not be readily apparent or subject to analysis. The point is that merely being a Muslim and being exposed to the jihadist message inherent in all aspects of Islamic life makes any Muslim a potentially fertile receptor of the Islamic jihad call-to-action. The Islamic “radicalization” mechanisms actually are found in the Quran, Sunna, and Sharia, and jihadist-action motivation may be triggered by internalizing these Islamic scriptures and/or through personal circumstances independent of overseas jihadist organizations. Examples of one source of Islamic scriptural “radicalization” mechanisms routinely communicated to Muslims are found in Islamic Sharia law: O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. The scriptural basis for jihad . . . is such Qur’anic verses as: (1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Qur’an 2:216); (2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Qur’an 4:89); (3) “Fight the idolaters [non-Muslims] utterly” (Qur’an 9:36) Quite literally, reading Islamic scriptures and/or hearing the persuasive preaching of a fundamentalist imam in a mosque at Friday prayers could be enough to move an emotionally unstable individual to engage in jihadist violence. That a jihadist may be an addict or emotionally unstable is beside the point and is deceptively used by the Obama regime to obfuscate the fact that jihadist-motivated Muslims can and do populate the entire human psychological spectrum – from the stable and adjusted to the unstable and deranged – rendering the Obama unstable jihadist obfuscation irrelevant. Another Obama deception is that he explains his proscription on identifying Islam as the source of terrorism by maintaining that this non-identification is intended not to alienate or provoke the Muslim community into hostility and “extremist violence,” that is, into jihad. The Obama regime cloaks this sham under the pretense of “Outreach” to the Muslim communities in the U.S. However, Obama’s phony explanation begs the questions: If Muslims are loyal Americans and their religion doesn’t promote terrorism, why fear provoking “extremist violence” for just pointing out to Islamic community leaders that terrorists are increasingly drawn from their constituents? In other words, why be afraid of indicating truthful fact about Muslims if Islamic leaders are patriotic U.S. citizens? Since Obama’s explanation avoids satisfactorily answering those questions, the logical conclusion is that Obama’s justification is not true and valid. Conclusion  While determining the “radicalization” mechanism is interesting from an investigative after-action report standpoint, it is an academic exercise. After all, “radicalization” in fact means carrying out the Islam’s jihad dictum to impose Islam’s Sharia law and with it the Islamic religion and Islamist social and political systems – therefore, “radicalization” is in a word, “Islamization.” Jihad for the objective of “Islamization” is the central organizing principle of Islam. It is the lifeblood of its imperialist belief system. So remember, when the “radicalization” euphemism is being deceptively bandied about by the Obama regime, be aware that what is actually occurring is that “Islamization” that is being obscured by a euphemism to deceive Americans. The important point that must never be overlooked is that today’s “moderate Muslim” can be tomorrow’s “headline jihadist.” The U.S. Government’s sham of denying the existential enemy status of Islam has been employed now for at least 14 years since 9/11. During that time Islamic jihadism has increased exponentially overseas and in the U.S., which raises the question: How well has this denial policy worked out for the U.S.? Obviously not well. Obama himself recently declared: “When what you’re doing doesn’t work for . . . years, it’s time to try something new.” The “something new” that Obama should try is the truth.  ]]>