Islamic Terrorists
One other point on the last link...Rudy G points out that in four debates not a single Democrat used the term Islamic Terrorist. I've noticed that Democrats and "Liberals" tend to treat anything Muslim or Islamic like it's some sort of term they shouldn't use because that it is somehow offensive or...I'm not actually sure what. I guess that's the whole problem I have with the Dems is that I don't actually think they know what they think. Basically, the party line is "we don't condone terrorism of any kind."
Although I'm tempted think it's because Dems are foreign policy wusses, or afraid of agreeing with Republicans, or afraid of offending people, I actually think none of those points tell the full story. In fact, I think it mostly stems from being ignorant on the nature of how the Islamicists utilize terrorism and religion to further political goals. I don't think many lay democrats understand the foe we face. To be fair, I'm not sure Republicans quite understand it either, but Republicans tend to look for enemies more than the Dems and on this issue, they happen to be right.
What continually confuses me, however, is how
1 comment:
I think the reason Democrats don't use the word Islamic terrorist is not because it is offensive (even though many might believe that to be the case), but because it isn't useful.
Or to put it another way, the word is offensive to a certain portion of Muslims who we unnecessarily alienate by using such a term, and thus the usefulness of not using the term outweighs any clarity we might get from the term becoming part of our vocabulary. I think someone like Giuliani doesn't care so much about this group of ambivalent Muslims: for him it's a clear issue of of telling it like it is. The domestic rewards for Giuliani using the word Islamic terrorist are huge, since his persona is built around an aggressive approach towards bad people, like terrorists or crimals in NYC.
But I still think it's wrong, since it seems to me there is huge portion of the Middle East that doesn't believe in suicide bombing but nonetheless strongly identifies with Islam, and merely to hear the name of their faith intertwined with terrorism invariably upsets them. And by us using the term Islamic terrorist, we unwittingly cement the idea that the two have a strong organic connection, which it doesn't. It is a false, extremist interpretation of Islam, and I think the idea is that instead of repeating the term Islamic terrorist, and solidifying that meme as it circulates throughout the world, we deprive them of that connection.
Clearly in formulating a strategy for dealing with terrorism one has to confront the fact that Islamic fundamentalists are the primary terrorist threat. But that doesn't mean our rhetoric has to emphasize this fact. African-Americans are responsible for more crime per capita than whites, but no one would advocate public rhetoric from whites that labels the problem a "black crime" problem. You would alienate the black community, who are the people you most need on your side to do something about the crime problem. One can deal with the religious or racial dimension of a problem without making this dimension a staple of your rhetoric. At least I hope so.
Post a Comment