How our language has changed

Submitted by Gabriel Grosso (Italy), Feb 13, 2006 at 10:16

I am against bombing Moslem States. I was against attacking Iraq and I am against attacking Iran. However, this is somewhat off-topic.

I see the point Daniel Pipes is trying to make. The 1946 report is very blunt and it says things no official report would say today. I might be against bombing Moslem States, but I am afraid of terrorism in the West. This report is helpful in fighting terrorism in the West.

Today's carefully worded documents don't allow us to identify the issues properly. If you want to fight against terrorism, you must call things with their name. For example, referring to the "frustration of Muslims" would be seen as racist nowadays. If we want to defend the West from terrorism, we must be able to say things as they are without fear of being seen as racists or Islamophobes. Back in 1946, such fear did not exist.

As for the conclusion, I agree. "9/11 and attendant aggressions should not have seen as the shock they were". I agree with this statement. The Middle East was a troublesome area before 9/11. The problem is that you cannot tackle a problem if you are not allowed to define it in clear terms. That 76 page document from the US War Department seems taken from a different age. It is really. It is taken from a pre-PC age when people could say what they thought.

In Europe, and I believe in America as well, using the expression "inferiority complex" could get you into big trouble. I don't agree with everything the 1946 document says, I don't always agree with what it says about Moslems. But one thing is for sure: they were closer to the truth than today's carefully worded analysis.

---

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".