… your first reaction to the latest London terrorist attack is to worry that it might help right-wingers. And your second reaction is to suggest that the perp may not have been an Islamic terrorist.
Posts Tagged ‘jihad’
Posted by Richard on March 23, 2017
Posted by Richard on June 13, 2016
With Orlando’s hospitals and morgue filled with the victims of jihad, an Obama/Bernie supporting SJW declared that “the real victims … are Muslims,” the Planned Parenthood Black Community organization blamed the violence on “toxic masculinity” and “imperialist homophobia,” and ACLU lawyers blamed the “Christian right.” I could cite a dozen more examples along those lines, and that’s without even touching on the thousands blaming the NRA and guns for the slaughter.
Last night, best-selling thriller author Brad Thor tweeted the following, and he couldn’t be more correct:
We begin to defeat Islamic jihad when every American reads this article and admits that it is 100% correct: https://t.co/6ehQQwf0Xx
— Brad Thor (@BradThor) June 13, 2016
The article is by Sam Harris and appeared at the Huffington Post about three weeks ago. It’s a bit long, but a compelling and quick read. Here’s a taste:
The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.
There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for “racism” and “Islamophobia.”
But don’t stop there. Read the whole thing.
Posted by Richard on March 26, 2016
Non-Muslim opponents of Islamofascism (myself included) have often lamented the fact that so few moderate Muslims speak out against the radical jihadis. It’s important to remember, however, that doing so can be dangerous. And not just in places like Pakistan or Arab countries. Extending happy Easter wishes to Christians and speaking out against the Brussels bombings proved fatal for a Muslim shopkeeper in Britain:
A popular shopkeeper who wished Christians a happy Easter on Facebook was stabbed to death in what police in Scotland say was a “religiously prejudiced” attack carried out by a fellow Muslim, it was reported Saturday.
Asad Shah, a Pakistani-born resident of Glasgow, was stabbed thirty times and his head stomped, a family friend told the Daily Mail:
Mohammad Faisal, a family friend, said a bearded Muslim wearing a long religious robe entered Mr Shah’s shop and spoke to him in his native language before stabbing him in the head with a kitchen knife.
Mr Shah’s brother, who was working next door, rushed out to find the killer laughing while sitting on the Glasgow newsagent’s bleeding chest.
‘The brother dragged Mr Shah away but the guy continued attacking with the blade,’ said Mr Faisal. ‘They struggled up to the bus stop where Asad collapsed.
‘It was just a clear-cut revenge attack. For posting messages about peace, messages about greeting fellow Christians and Jews.
Posted by Richard on March 23, 2016
In the wake of the terrible terrorist bombings in Brussels, elements of the mainstream media and left (but I repeat myself) are doubling down on their commitment to the postmodernist belief that there are no objective facts, only their socially-constructed subjective narrative. Case in point (emphasis in original):
The knowledge that the attacks were bombings didn’t stop Atlantic Washington editor Steve Clemons, who phoned into MSNBC and was inside the country, from criticizing Belgium for their “ease of getting guns here.”
See there? If, according to your subjective narrative, guns are evil and cause violence, mayhem, and murder, then you can blame guns for jihadist bombings.
Never mind that Belgium has extremely tough gun control laws (which, surprisingly, jihadists and criminals don’t always comply with).
And if, according to your subjective narrative, the real problem facing the West isn’t supremacist radical Islam’s desire to impose its 7th-century religio-political system globally, the real problem is Islamophobia, then you’ll fret not about the possibility of more terrorist attacks, but about how less enlightened people react to such things (emphasis in original):
Appearing on a special extended edition of NBC’s Today on Tuesday, Daily Beast world news editor Christopher Dickey fretted that “rampant Islamophobia” in Europe would intensify following the terrorist attacks in Belgium.
Talking to co-hosts Savannah Guthrie and Matt Lauer early in the 11 a.m. ET hour, Dickey warned: “It’s a huge political issue because there already was rampant Islamophobia in this part of the world. And now, you have a situation where people who were not inclined to look suspiciously at Arabs and Muslims, now they’re terrified.”
Meanwhile, our postmodernist, socialist, anti-colonial President schmoozed with totalitarian racist murderers, “welcomed” Castro’s criticisms of the U.S., and praised Cuba’s “human rights advances” in health care and education. But he did devote 51 seconds to the Brussels bombings, mouthing the usual platitudes about “thoughts and prayers,” “solidarity,” etc. And he stuck to “the Obama doctrine” on Islamofascist terrorism:
Obama explained why he attended the game as planned: “It’s always a challenge when you have a terrorist attack anywhere in the world, particularly in this age of 24/7 news coverage, you wanna be respectful and understand the gravity of the situation but the whole premise of terrorism is to try to disrupt people’s ordinary lives.”
Heaven forbid that anything should disrupt President Barack Hussein Obama’s “ordinary” life.
One of the illuminating passages in Jeffrey Goldberg’s compilation of the wit and wisdom of Barack Obama addresses the subject of terrorism. When it comes to terrorism, this is “the Obama doctrine.” Cool out and learn to live with it. His attitude is complacent. His take on ISIS to Valerie Jarrett represents it: “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off.”
Today, we got more of the Obama doctrine (emphasis added):
Speaking to reporters in Argentina Wednesday, President Obama downplayed the gravity of Tuesday’s terror attacks in Brussels by saying ISIS does not pose “an existential threat” to national security.
Earlier in the press conference, Obama showed displeasure when an Associated Press reporter asked whether the Brussels attacks “changed anything.”“I’ve got a lot of things on my plate,” he responded before assuring reporters his top priority is “to eliminate the scourge of this barbaric terrorism that’s been taking place around the world.”
Posted by Richard on January 8, 2016
Another instance of sudden jihad syndrome: A Philadelphia police officer, Jessie Hartnett, is lucky to be alive after being shot at 13 times as he sat in his patrol car at an intersection. The assailant, Edward Archer, is in custody and has confessed. Archer said he did it in the name of Islam and has pledged loyalty to ISIS. Archer’s brother told a local reporter that Archer had made the hajj.
Brother: Suspect had made pilgrimage to Mecca, was upset over police treatment of African-American men. @FOX29philly 10p
— Sabina Kuriakose (@SabinaKuriakose) January 9, 2016
Philadelphia’s mayor, however, wanted to make something clear:
After police confirmed that the suspect who attempted to “execute” a Philadelphia police officer on Thursday night claimed to have done so in the name of Islam, Mayor Jim Kenney told reporters on Friday that the attack is not connected to Islam in any way.
“In no way, shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teachings of Islam have anything to do with what you’ve seen on that screen,” Kenney said. “That is abhorrent. It’s just terrible, and it does not represent the religion in any way, shape or form or any of its teachings.”
“This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers,” he added. “[It] has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”
Mayor Kenney claimed instead that it has something to do with “too many guns on the street.” Turns out the gun was a police officer’s, stolen from his home two years earlier. Not from a gun show or the internet. Oops.
Archer fired 13 shots at Officer Hartnett at point-blank range and only hit him three times. I guess Hartnett is lucky that Archer spent a lot more time reading the Koran than practicing his marksmanship.
Posted by Richard on July 17, 2015
The gunman who attacked a recruiting station and a Naval and Marine Corps facility in Chattanooga, TN, killing four Marines before being killed himself, was identified as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazee. He was a naturalized American citizen, born in Kuwait, who came to the US as a child with his parents. The Washington Post described them as “a conservative Muslim family,” and his father was at one time investigated by the FBI for ties to a terrorist organization.
But never mind that. The President described Abdulazee as a “lone gunman” and the FBI is investigating it as “domestic terrorism.” That’s the phrase they use when there’s believed to be no connection to an international terrorist organization like al Qaeda or ISIS. It’s apparently the policy of the Obama administration to never utter the words “Islamic terrorism,” “jihad,” or anything like that.
Well, I will. Abdulazee’s “lone jihad” was a textbook example of exactly the kind of attack that ISIS has been urging its followers in the West to carry out. He may have acted alone, but he was acting under direction of, in support of, and in furtherance of the mission of ISIS and the Islamofascist movement to destroy Western Civilization and impose political Islam across the globe.
But the head-in-the-sand attitude of our leadership isn’t what made me really angry about this incident. What made me really angry was seeing this Fox News image of the recruiting center entrance:
Notice the “gun-free zone” sign on the door amidst all the bullet holes. “I don’t understand,” say what Rush calls the new castrati, “why didn’t the sign work?” The sign worked fine; what it really says is “everyone inside is unarmed and helpless.” Heck, Abdulazee shot up the recruiting center from his car outside, so he didn’t even violate the “gun-free zone” rule.
After that, Abdulazee drove seven miles to the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center, where he killed four unarmed Marines. During that drive, he was being pursued by police, and they apparently are the ones who shot him. The Marines and sailors at the facility couldn’t have, because they too were unarmed.
Throughout the United States, all the military personnel who’ve been trained at great expense to expertly handle various weapons and fight valiantly in defense of themselves, their buddies, and their country, are disarmed and defenseless. Despite the fact that we’ve had several jihad attacks (not “workplace violence”) at military installations, and despite the fact that ISIS is explicitly urging its followers to perpetrate more such attacks.
Damn it, stop this gun control in the military nonsense! Arm our armed forces!
If you agree, tweet #ArmOurArmedForces.
Posted by Richard on March 15, 2014
In a Slate article this morning, Jeff Wise presented evidence suggesting that Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 may have been hijacked and flown to somewhere near the border of Kyrgyzstan and the Chinese province of Xingiang. He noted that:
A violent separatist Uyghur separatist [sic] movement is active in that area. Two weeks ago, eight knife-wielding Uyghur separatists attacked passengers at a train station in Xinjiang, killing 29 people. According to its manifest, 153 of the 227 passengers aboard MH370 are Chinese.
He failed to provide any information about the Uyghurs (a.k.a. Uighurs) beyond their separatism, so I’ll fill in the blank for you. At least some of them are radical Islamists.
Posted by Richard on April 19, 2013
Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Probably, some of the residents of Watertown, Cambridge, and surrounding communities attended recent pro-gun-control rallies in the Boston area and cheered the call for even more gun control in their state and nationally.
So I have to wonder how those people felt in the past 18 or so hours. They were warned that a dangerous armed terrorist might be roaming their neighborhood. They were ordered to remain inside with their doors locked until law enforcement found and apprehended the suspect.
As we know now, it ended well. But I wonder how many of those affected residents, hunkered down in fear in their own homes for many hours, desperately wished they had a pistol by their side — just in case.
Posted by Richard on April 19, 2013
Now that we know what I was relatively certain of a couple of days ago (99.9% confidence level) — that the Boston Marathon bombings were the work of Islamic jihadists — I wonder if we can expect apologies from:
- Dina Temple-Raston, who claimed on NPR that her “reliable sources” (who I suspect existed only in her head) assured her that the bombings were the work of right-wing extremist Americans.
- ABC News, which this morning repeatedly identified Tamerlan Tsarnaev (the suspect killed overnight in a shootout) as a Russian, quoted his father “in Russia,” and speculated about whether he had recently “gone home to Russia.” (I wonder what Muslim ethnic Chechens think of being described as “Russian.”)
- Salon.com’s David Sirota, who “hope[d] the bomber is a white American.”
- MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who claimed that the NRA “was helping bombers get away with their crimes.”
- MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, who complained that we put more effort into responding to terrorist attacks than to disarming peaceful, non-violent Americans in the name of “common-sense gun control.”
- CNN, which claimed that pressure-cooker bombs are a “signature” of right-wingers. I can’t think of a single instance of a right-wing pressure-cooker bombing, but such devices have frequently been used by radical Islamic jihadists in various countries, a fact that CNN staff can’t possibly be ignorant of — unless they’re too incompetent to hold jobs as journalists.
- Harvard’s Jessica Stern on MSNBC, who acknowledged that an al Qaeda magazine published instructions for creating pressure-cooker bombs, but still argued that right-wingers must be responsible for the bombings.
- MSNBC’s Adam Lankford, who speculated that the bombings might be about abortion or taxes.
- Countless other MSM “journalists” and “analysts” alleging, speculating, hinting, or hoping that the Boston Marathon bombings were the work of American right-wingers.
I suspect I’ll be waiting a long time for those apologies. I’m certainly not holding my breath.
(Sources for the specific examples cited above can be found in the last four days’ postings at NewsBusters.org. I can’t be bothered providing individual links; if you haven’t seen these or similarly outrageous stories, you just haven’t been paying attention.)
Posted by Richard on April 19, 2013
I’m sure I’m not the only person who watched the end of tonight’s standoff in Watertown, MA — as a parade of law enforcement, fire department, and ambulance vehicles exited the neighborhood through a crowd of cheering and applauding citizens — with a huge grin on my face and tears in my eyes.
The most memorable moment to me, and the quote of the day, IMHO, came as an armored SWAT vehicle (Boston PD, I believe) drove through the cheering crowd. Someone inside got on the PA system and responded to the cheers with, “Thank you. It’s been a pleasure.”
Posted by Richard on June 16, 2012
Steven Miller of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies posted some interesting information from a 2011 study the foundation commissioned to collect and analyze what Saudi clerics are saying online. It’s at best a mixed bag.
To a large extent, the campaign to undercut al Qaeda in Saudi religious discourse appears to have worked, according to the FDD study. Calls for violence accounted for just a small portion of the total content of the social media data — only 5 percent.
You knew there was a “but” coming, didn’t you?
But apparent success of the Saudi campaign, as suggested by the data above, obfuscates a key point: the clerics do not condemn jihad per se, just al Qaeda’s jihad.
The Grand Mufti, highest Saudi religious authority, teaches that individuals should wage jihad against the infidels only when told to do so by the royal family. Other clerics still teach that “jihad means fighting the infidels” (not some self-improvement quest, as the propagandists at CAIR and their sympathizers claim) “until they become Muslim or agree to live under Muslim protection,” and that waging jihad or supporting those who do so is the duty of Muslims.
The bottom line:
The data from the FDD study suggests that the Saudi government’s efforts to restrict or reduce the amount of militant online content have been somewhat effective. This indicates that when the Saudis are sufficiently motivated, they can temper the radicalism that has long percolated in the kingdom. But the data also shows that the Saudi campaign has not been able to eliminate radicalism, even, and perhaps most significantly, at the highest levels of the Saudi religious establishment.
For some reason, I’m not surprised.
Posted by Richard on January 21, 2011
I mentioned Mosab Hassan Yousef in a post last March about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the delusional thinking of Tavis Smiley and members of the Obama administration regarding Islamists. Yousef is the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, one of the founders of the terrorist organization Hamas. He didn't follow in his father's footsteps.
For ten years, Yousef worked as an undercover agent for Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency, providing vital information about Hamas operations that saved countless lives. He's a convert to Christianity and the author of Son of Hamas, which has received astonishingly good reviews on Amazon. From Colorado Jewish GOP:
Yousef claims that his doubts about Islam and Hamas began forming when he realized Hamas’ brutality, and that he hated how Hamas used the lives of suffering civilians and children to achieve their goals.
Yousef was held by Shin Bet agents in 1996. He claims that while in prison, he became appalled as he compared the Shin Bet’s methods with how the Hamas tortured suspected collaborators. He decided to accept a Shin Bet approach to become an informant. Since his release from prison in 1997, Yousef was considered the Shin Bet’s most reliable source in the Hamas leadership, earning himself the nickname the “Green Prince” – using the color of the Islamist group’s flag, and “prince” because of his pedigree as the son of one of the movement’s founders. The intelligence he supplied Israel led to the exposure of a number of Hamas cells as well as the prevention of dozens of suicide bombings and assassination attempts on Israeli figures. He has claimed that he did not inform for money but rather that his motivations were ideological and religious, and that he only wanted to save lives.
Yousef has stated that he supplied intelligence only on the condition that the “targets” would not be killed, but arrested. This led to the detention of several key Palestinian leaders, including Ibrahim Hamid, a Hamas commander in the West Bank, and Marwan Barghouti. Also, Yousef claims to have thwarted a 2001 plot to assassinate Shimon Peres, then foreign minister and now President of Israel. “Many people owe him their lives and don’t even know it”, says his former Shin Bet officer.
When I wrote about Yousef (now known as Joseph) last March, the Obama administration, for some insane, inexplicable reason, was trying to deport him. Fortunately, at the end of June, they dropped their effort, and an immigration judge granted him asylum. Had he been deported, it would almost certainly have been a death sentence.
In early February, Yousef will be making two appearances in the Denver area:
Faith Bible Chapel
6210 Ward Road
Arvada, CO 80004
Hebrew Educational Alliance
3600 South Ivanhoe Street
Denver, CO 80237
*Sponsored by Americans Against Terrorism, Faith Bible Chapel, and Stand With US and endorsed by a coalition of over 20 groups, synagogues and churches. For more information on sponsorship, please call 303-437-3144
For more information, or to donate towards the purchase of radio and print advertising with the above message, click here.
(Perks are available for large donors)
If you're in the Denver area and at all concerned about Islamist jihad, it behooves you to attend one of these events. If you can't attend, you may want to check out Son of Hamas, which Claudia Rosett said "reads with the page-turning ease of a great thriller." (I confess I haven't read it. I have a sizable stack of unread books in my house, and promised myself I wouldn't buy more until I significantly reduced the size of that stack.)
Oh, and if you can spare a few bucks to help promote these events, please click the "here" link above to donate. I have.
Posted by Richard on June 3, 2010
Five of the six ships in the "humanitarian flotilla" that tried to break the Israeli sea blockade of Gaza were boarded peacefully by IDF soldiers. The blockade is necessary and justified under international law in order to prevent massive shipments of rockets and other munitions to Hamas for attacks on Israel. The ships were escorted to an Israeli port, where the passengers were allowed to disembark.
Their cargo, after inspection, will be forwarded into Gaza by land. Along with the hundred or so tractor-trailers that pass through Israeli checkpoints into Gaza every day — there is no "humanitarian crisis" or shortage of food, water, and other merchandise in Gaza; the store shelves are full.
So what was different about the sixth ship, the Mavi Marmara, where all the violence occurred? This was the ship of a Turkish Islamofascist terrorist organization called IHH. It was full of self-described mujahideen eager to become shahid (martyrs) in the cause of annihilating the Jews. A number of them are reportedly al Qaeda members. They were armed, organized, and positioned for a battle before the Israelis boarded. The Israeli soldiers were set upon with knives, iron pipes, and concussion grenades the moment they set foot on deck.
Most of the mainstream media — and shamefully, the U.S. and other Western governments — were too busy shedding tears for the poor "peace activists" and quickly rushing to condemn Israel to wait even a few hours for the true story to begin to come out. Most are still failing to report what really happened — that the Israelis were the victims, not the aggressors, and that this was a deliberate propaganda stunt. The jihadists know that they can always count on our media to abet them in such efforts.
For more about these "peace activists," go here and here. And here, too. For tons of info, links, and videos, see Backspin's liveblogging parts one and two. And this HonestReporting alert. You can read about and watch video of Netanyahu's excellent response to this travesty here.
Posted by Richard on May 20, 2010
In Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's thin resume, Frank Gaffney found evidence of something troubling (emphasis added):
It turns out that, at the very moment Ms. Kagan was pushing aggressively to remove military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus during her tenure as its dean, she was very supportive of having what amounted to Saudi recruiters ensconced there for the purpose of enlisting some of the nation’s finest young lawyers to work for the industry known as Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF).
The first insight this record suggests is that Ms. Kagan’s true motivation in barring the armed forces was, indeed, an animus towards the military, rather than concern about its supposed mistreatment of homosexuals. After all, the theo-political-military-legal code that authoritative Islam calls “Shariah” and that is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia is infinitely more homophobic than the Pentagon’s efforts to enforce the U.S. statute that prohibits avowed gays and lesbians from serving in uniform. The former requires the murder of homosexuals; the latter simply kept them out of the ranks.
Ms. Kagan’s troubling tolerance of Shariah would, of course, have vastly more far-reaching implications should she reach the Supreme Court. …
The promoters of Sharia-Compliant Finance and their dupes in the media explain it with some hand-wavy blather about not charging interest and not investing in "impure" things like alcohol and pork. But it's much more than that, and it's a 20th-century invention.
Sharia-Compliant Finance was created by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1940s as another tool to promote its goal of imposing radical Islam throughout the world. To be Sharia-compliant, you have to pay the zakat — a "charitable" donation that, more often than not, ends up in the hands of organizations promoting jihad or trying to rid the world of Jews. The Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood front group convicted in 2008 of conspiring to fund terrorist organizations, was an example.
To be Sharia-compliant, you also have to get the approval of a "Sharia authority":
Unfortunately, every one of such individuals embraces not only the supremacy of authoritative Islam’s Shariah. Without exception, they aspire to its ultimate objective: a global theocracy in which a ruler (the “Caliph”) governs in accordance with Shariah.
Thus, the coterie of Shariah authorities now employed by most of the Western world’s financial institutions – including many in the United States – unfailingly champion a seditious program that has at its core the overthrow of the alternative legal systems like the U.S. Constitution and the government it empowers.
One of the most prominent of these authorities is Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi who sits on numerous SCF advisory boards and those of Persian Gulf sovereign wealth funds. He also has his own television program on Al Jazeera, which he uses week after week to inveigh about and call for violence against infidels, the United States, Israel, apostates and, yes, homosexuals. Interestingly, Qaradawi has called zakat, the Muslim charitable donation required by SCF, a form of “financial jihad.”
According to Gaffney, Kagan's promotion of a Sharia-compliance project at Harvard helped the proponents of financial jihad gain significant power and influence in the finance industry and in government regulatory agencies.
Government involvement in promoting Sharia is the subject of a pending federal lawsuit. The Supreme Court may one day be asked to rule on whether such government promotion of Islamic law violates the Establishment Clause. Care to speculate on how a Justice Kagan, who helped make Harvard University "a major beachhead of Shariah in America," would vote in that case?
Posted by Richard on May 14, 2010
If you think I was too harsh in Naming the enemy, you need to watch Eric Holder, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, respond to a simple, direct, and non-confrontational question by Rep. Lamar Smith. It's an amazing two minutes of video, at once infuriating and hilarious.
This pathological unwillingness to identify the root cause of the problem, to name our enemies, and to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat we face is going to get a lot more people killed. Depending on blind luck and inept bomb-making to keep us safe is a losing strategy. Pretending that the real terrorist threat comes from anti-government right-wing extremists, tea partiers, and opponents of Obamacare is … well, I don't know if it's contemptibly cynical or just self-delusional.
Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn explore this issue in depth in the May 17 issue of The Weekly Standard, noting that "success in the war on terror is not apprehending terrorists after their attacks fail. Success is preventing them from attempting the attack in the first place." I strongly suggest reading the whole thing, but here's an excerpt (emphasis added):
So, three attacks in six months, by attackers with connections to the global jihadist network—connections that administration officials have gone out of their way to diminish.
The most striking thing about all three attacks is not what we heard, but what we haven’t heard. There has been very little talk about the global war that the Obama administration sometimes acknowledges we are fighting and virtually nothing about what motivates our enemy: radical Islam.
This is no accident. Janet Napolitano never used the word “terrorism” in her first appearance before Congress as secretary-designate of Homeland Security on January 15, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had dropped the phrase “Global War on Terror” in favor of “Overseas Contingency Operations.” And just last month, we learned that the White House’s forthcoming National Security Strategy would not use religious words such as “jihad” and “Islamic extremism.”
When asked why she did not utter the word “terrorism” in the course of her testimony, Napolitano explained that she used “man-caused disaster” instead to avoid “the politics of fear.”
The Department of Homeland Security was created after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history to prevent further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. And the head of that department is worried that using the word “terrorism” is playing the politics of fear.