Ask the Muslims' Permission Before You Cry "Terrorist"

In an article posted on CNN's website, the American government and the American people in general are being chided and corrected by practitioners of this virulent cult on what to call the jihadis. Its interesting they would have the audacity to correct American terminology regarding the evil sadists, but can't be bothered to do much of anything at all regarding the suicide bombers, honor killings, denigrating practices toward women, ridiculous expectations of Muslim nurses in the UK who refuse to wash their forearms because it is supposedly a sacrilege, and let us not forget the violence surrounding Muhammed the teddy bear. There are a thousand more you have probably heard, and need to take note of. Our own government, and the CIA, are bowing down to the altar of Political Correctness.

May the unholy terrorist jihadi Islamic pigs not lop off their heads during their obsequious groveling.

Case in point, from CNN's article:

Government officials should depict terrorists "as the dangerous cult leaders they are" and avoid words that aggrandize them, like "jihadists," "Islamic terrorists," "Islamists" and "holy warriors," the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday.

This is not leaving many options open for description. Because it is really all it is... a description. If the accuracy bothers so many Muslims, perhaps they should consider converting to a less perverted "faith".

"Words matter," the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term "moderate Muslims," a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.

"Mainstream," "ordinary" and "traditional" better reflect the broader Muslim American community, it says.

I suppose there is just no pleasing some people. It is all semantics, and not worthy of consideration. And I'm afraid "traditional" would be the jihadis, the suicide bombers, the rabid anti-Semites, the honor killings. Anyone who researched the murderous history of their pedophile prophet and the history of Islam itself, would not dare say otherwise.

The paper, titled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims," was designated "For Official Use Only" and distributed internally in January.

"Islamic law and terms come with a particular context, which may not always be apparent," the paper says. "It is one thing for a Muslim leader to use a particular term; an American official may simply not have the religious authority to be taken seriously, even when using terms appropriately."

Does anyone else sense the nauseating arrogance in such a statement? We must now consult the Muslims on what to call a murdering terrorist, because our terminology may offend the "mainstream" Muslims and turn their allegiance to the terrorists? Does anyone else see any problem with allegiances that shift so easily? That mindset makes them all our enemy, if their souls can be bought so cheaply. What a jewel of a religion, to breed such filth.

The paper is silent on one term frequently used by some people at the highest level of U.S. government but scorned by others: "War on Terror." Sutherland said there is not a consensus on the term.
Some argue that "war" is too grandiose and adds legitimacy to the other side, because there are two legitimate sides to wars.

"We really face a legitimate threat and we need to guard against complacency," Sutherland said, explaining the rationale supporting the use of the term.

I suppose anyone who would think the term "war" too grandiose has not been paying attention. Not to the last forty years of American encounters with jihadis home and abroad, which consist of not less than twelve Islamic terrorist attacks on Americans in just the 9-year span of 1979-1988, and certainly not with the rest of the world's fight against Islamic tyranny since the religion's inception. There has never been anything peaceful about Islam.

This "war" while hardly traditional and lacking clearly delineated enemy armies, is nonetheless a struggle between the ideologies of freedom and oppression. A struggle that demands heroism, selflessness, and the re-shaping of the mindset of the world to win. If that doesn't count as a war, I certainly would like to know what does.