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.

Iranian "Goodwill" Snatched Victory from the Jaws of Defeat

I noticed the Nancy Pelosi Iranian hubbub, where illustrious Speaker of the House Pelosi credits Iran and their "goodwill" for the success American and Iraqi security forces fought, bled, and died for.

Yes, that is the same Iran Miss Pelosi's split personalities have previously condemned for their blatant desire to nuke Israel, for punishing a gang-raped woman and other backward practices rooted in Islam, for executing homosexuals that supposedly "don't exist", for happily funnelling money into terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Palestinian jewels of "peace", and last but not least, for providing weapons, supplies, and manpower to the Iraqi battlefields. Against the Americans, of course. Perhaps we should vote to change this woman's name to Sybil?

Its obviously ludicrious, and seems to have angered at least the few people in this country that have bothered to pay attention to more than their own tiny sphere of existence. Yet, I do find it curious that anyone has any reserves of shock left for the depths of slime the Democrats are so willing to sink to, most especially in regards to the military. Every Democrat save perhaps one or two (who's voices are so muffled by the far-left liberals that I can't even think of their names right off the top of my head) "supports" the American soldier the way an ancient pagan might have "supported" a sacrificial virgin on the way to the temple of their chosen god.

Truss them up and prepare them for bloody, back-stabbing sacrifice, and "support" them all the way to the altar. Anything to appease Islam, and anything to appease the mindless, droning mantra of the liberal sheep bleeting their malignant anti-Americanism. If the liberals admit they were wrong, and admit that the American military are not a passel of weak-minded victims manipulated by Bush's insidious Nazi-like nationalism or vague promises of monetary reward, or the only apparent way out of their poor, menial existence... if they admit these men and women only need the pedestal-perched pencil-pushers on Capitol Hill to sit back and shut up while they clean house... then they lose the only tether to their power that the liberals have ever held.

The victim mentality.

Thank you, Pelosi. You and your braying cohorts continually prove you believe the military by turns as ineffectual, or as cutthroat, as you, yourselves, actually are. A term commonly referred to as "projecting".

I can tell you nothing out of the sanctimonious and libelous mouth of a liberal surprises me any longer. Not after Durbin, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, and so many other high-profile societal warts have blatantly, before God and CNN (no, they are not synonymous), sliced the military reputation in this country to shreds. Their treasonous antics fail to rustle up more than a vaguely slumbering disgust I hold unilaterally for those of the liberal ilk. It is a pity we don't hang thieves, Communists, and traitors in this country any longer.

The Democrat party might actually have a viable chance at survival if we did.