The UN had no problem defining "war crimes"

Submitted by DrRJP (United States), Jun 3, 2015 at 11:17

The problem with the word, "terrorism," is that it has a very specific meaning in the context of Islam. It isn't hard to see that given how it says to "Strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers." The problem is in getting politicians to strop looking for euphemisms for Islamic terrorism. The two are as inseparable as bacon & eggs. Islam would not be a major "religion" without its use. While terrorism has been used as a strategy in conflicts for millenia - nowhere else is it codified in both religious texts and legal texts except in Islam and Sharia.

A cogent argument can be made for separating it out from all other acts of terrorism. Indeed, it should, because left-wing politicians are fonbd of using it, like "racist," to ridicule their opponents. The problem likes not with the word, but with the blatant attempts to redefine it away from its Koranic context.

You suggested "jihadi." Thanks to our Terrorism Advisor (and convert to Islam) John Brennan refuted the ideas that "jihad" has anything to do with war. Remember, he called it "A legitimate tenet of Islam," which, in fact, reinbfdorces myt stgatements above, but then he dissimulates it into "inner struggle." You can call a tank, "an armored vehicle," but I would never confuse a tank with a HumVee, which can also be made into an armored vehicle.

Don't confuse "terrorism" with all the many ways it can be implemented. What's the difference between a guy, dressed in all black, carrying a black flag, and yelling, "Alluah Ahkbar," before beheading a 100 Christian civilians or herding them into a church and setting it on fire? You could argue, as apologists for Islamic terrorism do, that "burning unbelievers alive" is not "Islamic," and, in the sense that only a few specific acts of terrorism are ensconced in the Koran, they would, technically, be right.

Whereas, "beheading of the unbeliever" is specifically mandated in the Koran, along with the amputation of hands and feet on opposite sides. These are examples of "striking terror in the hearts of the unbeliever," but Muhammed didn't limit himself to only a few methods of spreading terror.

"Terrorism" is a lot easier to define than "Hate," yet we have laws against "hate" that are every bit as vague as are the different ways that "hate" can be defined.

For thousands of years, there was never any confusion as to what the definition of "Marriage" was, up iuntil just three years ago, when 2% of society (TWO PERCENT!) managed to change its definition to suit themselves, and the hell with the other 98 percent.

Daniel, yhour argument can be applied to an entire 21st Century dictionary of words that have been redefined from what they were in the prior century. Language does not inhibit thought, as Chomsky said, but limits the ability to convey thoughts to others. If you control the meaning of words, then you can control the way people think and talk.

This is the greatest unjustice done to a people's language and a peoiple's culture. It is also the #1 tactic of the Left, the Totalitarian, the people who want to control the thoughts of others so that everyone is thinking in the same way. They have two strategies when it comes to defdining bwords: either make them strictly literal, or hopelessly vague.

The UN falls in the latter category on everything they attempt to define.

When the US fought the Nazis, it was also fighting against a totalitarian ideology.

When the US fought the Italians, it was also fighting against a totalitarian ideology.

When the US fought the Japanese, it was also fighting against a totalitarian ideology.

When the US fought the Vietnamese, it was also fighting against a totalitarian ideology.

When the US fought the Taliban, it was also fighting against a totalitarian ideology. But with a big difference.

Unlike the other ideologies, this one is rooted in religious beliefs that cannot be excized from them without destroying the beliefs because they are commanded by an all powerful god. The Romans were ruthless, cruel, and also engaged in terrorism, But, not in the name of any god among their pantheon (which was co-opted from the Greeks).

The "War on Terror" was a euphemism. We should define what we face in as clear and exact and as literal terms as possible - no matter how politically incorrect they are.

ISIS is not a group of far-right extremists - yet Obama just gave $588,000 to the University of Michigan to study far-right extremism. All of the acts of violence and destruction committed intrhis country come from two, allied groups: the Left and the followers of Sharia. Note that I didn't say, "Islam," or "Muslim," because,even though Muslims kill each other, all Islamic sects are bound by Sharia. That's the common link and the common enemy. The Westerners who join ISIS have no intererst in the religion of Islam. Their interest is in the license given to them by Sharia Law to kill, torture, burn, loot, and all the other aspects that make Islam, the "Religion of Peace."

But, because the followers of the "Religion of Peace" become the prisoners of the "Religion of Peace" and cannot complain about the "Religion of Peace" without getting tortured or killed. So they invented "Taqiyya" (if you're a Sunni) and "misyar" (if you're a Shiite). INSTITUTIONALIZED LYING by any other name.

In the Western world, they say, the only thoings that are certain are death and taxes. They also say the same in the Eastern world of Islam - except they added an additional certainty for non-Muslims: "Death, jizza (dhimmi taxes), and belief in Allah (forced conversion)."

Daniel, Hezbollah is a terrorist group. It was established specifically for that purpose by Iran. Hezbollah means "Party of God," but I've never seen a single Hezbollah member engage in proselytizing for Islam. Which differentiates itself from Hamas, which prides itself on being a terrorist group, was initially established by the Muslim Brotherhood to offset the secularism of the PLO by practicing Sharia, keeping peoplev in line with it, and forcing conversions to Islam on nonbelievers.

To placate Iran, the taqiyya-talking Islamist in the White House took Hezbollah off the terrorist list, but they didn't turn to doing missionary work afterwards. They remain a terrorist group who commit acts of terrorrism. But, since terrorism is not a day job, they do engage in political activities.

But, liked all Islamic terrorism, they make no distinction between civilian and military like you do. Neither does Hamas. To them, slitting the throat of a 3-month old infant in her crib, a 14-year old teenager at a disco, or an 18-year old IDF soldier standing guard, these are distinctions without a difference.

Terrorists dress as civilians (a war crime for which none have been punished). Are they fighting for a country? Even though they are an arm of Iran, being called, "the Party of God," would negate that direct connection. We were allegedly fighting Iraqis in Iraq - yet most of the deaths there were caused by Iranian-made IED's. The missiles that Hezbollah launched at Israel's civilian centers were all made in Iran.

Prior to 9/11, Hezbollah (and, by extension, Iran) was responsible for more American deaths than was Al Qaeda or the PLO, even if you discount the Marines murdered in their beds - and not on the battlefield - in 1983 Beirut. Even though Libya's former leader, Qaddafi, was responsible for blowing up Pan Am 103, it was Iran who provided both the incentive (lots of money and weapons) and explosive experts to build the bomb and conceal it inside a Toshiba radio, which was placed inside a hard-sided Samsonite suitcase that had been designated as an unaccompanied bag. It was done "in revenge" for America's accidental downing of an Iranian jetliner that a rookie radar operator mistook for an enemy plane.

One thing that Hezbollah is noted for, and could win a Nobel Prize if they had a category for it, was building bombs. They built the car bombs that took outr the American and Freench embassies, in addition to the huge US barracks in Beirut. They leveled an entire building just to kill Lebanon's President Hariri without any regard to the 21 others also killed and huindreds wounded on Feb. 14, 2005. Syria also played a role, but Syria is also a proxy and patron of Iran.

Iran's 2nd major export, behind oil and gas, is terrorism. What is so hard to define acts of terror? You can easily operationally define it as a destructive and homicidal act intented to create fear in people. "FEAR" is the key word here because it is a "fear" that always leads to predictable consequences for those who experience it. Besides being a totally bogus and invented word, "Islamophobia" is also an oxymoron and a nonsequitur. Yet, that has not stopped anyone from using it as a euphemism for "identifying and combatting Islamic acts of hate and forced submission to Sharia."

I agree that we do need to stop using an omnibus term that describes a strategy of psychological warfare to identifying all of the attributes of our nation's enemies, to our very way of life, who are bent on destroying both the citizens and the nation who support the citizen's individual rights and freedoms.

Our Leader refuses to do this and many of his fellow politicians and patrons do also. We are being guided by opur mortal enemy on how to fight our mortal enemy. Thatr's more than just having the fox guard the hen house. That's the fox inviting his entire pack over for chicken dinner!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".