web analytics
August 27, 2014 / 1 Elul, 5774
At a Glance
Blogs
Sponsored Post
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat (L) visits the JewishPress.com booth at The Event. And the Winners of the JewishPress.com Raffle Are…

Congratulations to all the winners of the JewishPress.com raffle at The Event



Home » Blogs » CIFWatch »

Is the Word ‘Terrorism’ Anti-Muslim?

The mantra that terrorism is only used in reference to Muslims has no basis in fact.
Terrorism

Our recent posts about the Guardian’s appalling use, on at least two separate occasions, of the term “political prisoner” to characterize violent Palestinian terrorists who murdered, or attempted to murder, innocent civilians weren’t exercises in rhetorical nitpicking.  Rather, our efforts to secure the definition of the term – which reasonable people intuitively understand as “those who are imprisoned for their political beliefs” – represents an attempt to fight back against the manipulation of language, in service of an extreme ideological agenda, by the Guardian and their fellow travelers.

Similarly, Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald’s ongoing war against the term terrorism, which most who are not influenced by the far-left understand broadly to refer to  “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (or some variation of this), should be understood as a broader battle against common sense and moral sobriety.

Here is a passage from his latest post in the Guardian’s “Comment is Free”, section on April 22, entitled “Why is Boston ‘terrorism’ but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tuscon, and Columbine?”:

The word “terrorism” is, at this point, one of the most potent in our political lexicon: it single-handedly ends debates, ratchets up fear levels, and justifies almost anything the government wants to do in its name. It’s hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US “shock and awe” attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse – its operational meaning – is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies.

Here’s another quote by Greenwald, in a post at Salon.com in 2011:

Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. 

Similarly here’s what Greenwald wrote in a post at Salon.com from 2010:

The term [terrorism] now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity.  It has really come to mean:  ”a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards the United States, Israel and their allies.

If we’re really going to vest virtually unlimited power in the Government to do anything it wants to people they call “Terrorists”, we ought at least to have a common understanding of what the term means.  But there is none.  It’s just become a malleable, all-justifying term to allow the U.S. Government carte blanche to do whatever it wants to Muslims it does not like or who do not like it (i.e., The Terrorists).  It’s really more of a hypnotic mantra than an actual word:  its mere utterance causes the nation blindly to cheer on whatever is done against the Muslims who are so labeled.

Greenwald is attempting to essentially proscribe the word “terrorism” as politically loaded, subjective, prejudiced – arguing that the urge we have to condemn such willful and intentional attacks against innocent civilians, by using such clear moral language, is necessarily compromised by a deep-seated racial animus.

First, it needs to be pointed out that Greenwald’s specific claim about the term’s “operational” use is easily refuted by the simple fact that the media, civil rights groups and federal authorities also refer to political violence which is not committed by Muslims, or Islamist groups, as “terrorism.”  Examples of groups the FBI labels terrorists, for instance, include violent anti-government right-wing groups,environmental and animal rights extremistsSovereign citizens movements, anarchist groupswhite supremacists - and even fringe extremists such as the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski.

Greenwald’s mantra that terrorism is only used in reference to Muslims has no basis in fact.

Moreover, in addition to Greenwald’s specious implicit claim that use of the term “terrorism” is racially loaded, there is another factor involved – one which those on the Guardian-style left often try desperately to avoid acknowledging in their reports and commentaries:  That while, of course, the overwhelming majority of Muslims aren’t extremists or terrorists, empirical evidence regarding the disproportionate percentage of terrorist acts committed by those influenced by radical interpretations of Islam is undeniable.

According to the National Counter-Terrorism Center, over the past several years the overwhelming majority of terrorist-related fatalities world-wide were the result of attacks by Islamist (Sunni) extremists. According to the NCTC, in 2011 for example, 8,886 of the total 12,533 total deaths resulting from terrorism were committed by Sunni-Muslim extremists.

Not only are such facts concerning Islamist terrorism uncontroversial to most people, but, interestingly, even a large majority (60%) of American Muslims polled by Pew Global in 2011 stated that they were either “Very” or “Somewhat” concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S.  Would Greenwald suggest that even American Muslims are influenced by “Islamophobia”?

Ultimately, what Greenwald is, in effect, doing is attempting to stifle debate about the very real threat to our values posed by Islamist extremism – attempting to convince the overwhelming majority of non-ideological Americans to doubt what they know instinctively (and empirically) to be the truth.

As students of Soviet history, and communist movements more broadly, can attest to, propagandist attempts to radically change politics by perverting ordinary language has a long and decidedly reactionary pedigree – one which genuine progressives need to furiously and passionately resist.

Visit CifWatch.

About the Author: Adam Levick serves as Managing Editor of CiF Watch, an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), and is a member of the Online Antisemitism Working Group for the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism. Adam made Aliyah from Philadelphia in 2009 and lives with his wife in Modi'in.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

4 Responses to “Is the Word ‘Terrorism’ Anti-Muslim?”

  1. Myriam Obadia says:

    Now, unless all Muslims were terrorists and all terrorists were terrorists (which is far from being the case), there is no way one can say that the word "terrorist" is a slur against Muslims. The media are pushing the PC code into the domain of the absurd with such a claim.

  2. Bridget Baker says:

    Agreed.

  3. Another Holocaust is on the horizon. A nuclear extremist muslim regime would like nothing better than the complete destruction of Israel and if you listen to Morsi all Jews should perish. RABBI DR. BERNHARD ROSENBERG

  4. Prompted by conversion rumour, crowds attack church in central Egypt.
    Sectarian tensions in Beni Suef erupt after reports that a Muslim woman had.
    converted to Christianity and left the country with a Christian man.
    Ahram Online , Friday 26 Apr 2013.
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/70183/Egypt/Politics-/Prompted-by-conversion-rumour,-crowds-attack-churc.aspx RABBI DR. BERNHARD ROSENBERG

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
IDF soldiers examine fragments from a rocket that landed near Kibbutz El Rom, fired from Syria on July 14, 2014.
IDF Soldier Wounded by Syrian Mortar Fire on Golan Heights
Latest Blogs Stories
Islamic Law

Israel is fighting the war that none of the Western world has the ability or courage to fight.

netanyahu-phone.jpg

Finish the job! Sayyem et a missima!סיים את המסימה!

Doug Goldstein

Life after 50? You better believe it! Tips on how to prepare and enjoy life after retirement.

Ariel Sharon on a visit to Gush Katif in 2001, before he decided to destroy it.

While I am no fan of the two-state solution, I think I have a solution for the Gaza strip. Let me make it perfectly clear that in no way do I believe a Palestinian people, nation or Arab State ever existed in the history of the world and certainly was not occupied by Israel. If […]

Hamas targeted the Erez Crossing when it knew that Gazans and Israeli Arabs would be there, out in the open…

Does it really take Jewish innovation to come up with this idea?

If you don’t know who’s behind The terror in your mind The answer’s not hard to find, Blame the Jews

If feminism is mentioned at all, it is usually to condemn it as an anti Torah ideal.

“…people making jokes about turning this into a shelter rave, taking #bombshelterselfies…”

Marriage is not just about emotional fidelity but about financial fidelity as well.

So you want to blame Israel? First answer these 5 simple questions, and see if you even have a leg to stand on…

Hamas’s online Jihadi supporters and groupies are desperately trying to differentiate between their support for Hamas and supporting ISIS.

We all got degrees. We got married. We had families. We worked. We and were Koveih Itim

But the real culprit is William Schabas, who by comparison makes Richard Goldstone look like a saint

“The Jewish board of deputies, who are complicit, will feel the wrath of the People of SA with the age old biblical teaching of an eye for an eye.”

Discussion on recent changes to Social Security benefits and how it will effect you.

More Articles from Adam Levick
Harriet Sherwood

The bill (by Senator Robert Menendez, along with 58 co-sponsors) has been accurately described by multiple media sources.

documentary 4 corners

One Israeli media outlet steadfastly refuses to set the record straight.

You don’t even need to believe that antisemitism is at play to be contemptuous of the extraordinary myopia displayed in the Guardian report.

To learn more about the story we contacted Anne Herzberg, NGO Monitor’s legal advisor.

This [particular] Volunteer Soldiers’ Basic Training was extra special.

Pretending that the facts of the Holocaust are a matter of serious historical dispute is a classic rhetorical evasion.

The Palestinian Authority is condemning Jews who tour the holy site by suggesting that their visits represent a broader Israeli scheme to “Judaise” it.

Such framing of events in the Middle East represents more than mere hostility to Israel.

    Latest Poll

    Do you think the FAA ban on US flights to Israel is political?






    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/cifwatch/is-the-word-terrorism-anti-muslim/2013/04/24/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: