The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.So what do we call it, genius? Radical extremism? That's more vauge than Islamism or Jihadists. The wrongers of Islam? What name would fit the politically correct (and dangerous) view of the Obama administration on the issue of radicalized Muslim terrorists?
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."
[...]
"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.
The fact is that Islamism is an ideology with religion at its core. It has political (imperalism) and social (Sharia) aspects to it as well, but when people quote the Koran in videos of exploding trucks or terroristic threats, one may think religion has to do with it. Or are we to assume every dark skinned person is a devout Muslim and its just part of their culture? Kind of like how the Left assumes every white conservative is a Baptist bigot driven by "hate" and "greed".
Honestly, I want to know how the Obama White House wants us to identify this religiously-driven ideology?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment