Now We’re Not Allowed Use The Word, Terrorist

A terrorist by any other name still kills.

I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.” – P. D. James

When we stop defining the world around us truthfully, and begin to create substitutions, and use redirections to avoid potential offense, we are blunting the edges of reality. We can only soften those edges so much before reality no longer resembles itself. At that point, we have put ourselves in danger, because we cannot properly protect ourselves if we cannot accurately define potential threats. It’s as if a drunk man were to fight a sober man. The perceptions of the drunk man have been so distorted by alcohol that he will be vulnerable, and easily defeated by the sober man, whose perceptions are accurate. This is what’s happening with radical Islam, and terrorism.

According to Oliver Lane of Breitbart:

The director of the taxpayer-funded BBC Arabic service [Tarik Kafala] has issued a diktat to his staff saying the two men who murdered the staff of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo should not be referred to as ‘terrorists‘…”

Kafala said the following to The Independent:

Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can’t. It is very difficult to. We know what political violence is, we know what murder, bombings and shootings are and we describe them. That’s much more revealing, we believe, than using a word like terrorist which people will see as value-laden.

Let me be clear: terrorism is not a difficult word to define. To say otherwise is dishonest. According to Dictionary.com, terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.”

Though the flat definition is simple, terrorism cannot be committed in a vacuum. That fact makes it difficult for the BBC Arabic service to define terrorism. They’re afraid to associate the word with radical Islam. Terrorism must have a structure upon which it is built; it must be driven by an ideology, or a purpose. Terrorism is inextricably linked to the philosophy, or idea from which it is generated. Simply put, no one straps plastique to their chest, and blows up a cafe for no reason.

The BBC Arabic service, like many other publications–and even our own administration–is afraid to acknowledge radical Islamic terror as a reality because it would then mean that there is a deep problem with Islam. If they admit that the acts of terror committed across the globe are overwhelmingly committed by those of the Muslim faith, they fear they will be indicting the entirety of the Muslim community. So now they refuse to use the word “terrorist,” because it is most commonly associated with radical Islamists. To say “terrorist” is to say “Muslim terrorist,” and that is unacceptable.

Kafala says that “we know what political violence is, we know what murder, bombings and shootings are and we describe them,” but “terrorism” is too “value-laden.” In english, Kafala is saying that we can describe murder, and political violence because it’s not charged, but we cannot use “terrorism” to describe terrorism because it may ascribe certain values to the murderers. What values? Islamic values. And once again, that’s not allowed, because terrorists are not related to any religion (as we have heard ad nauseum from countless government officials), despite the great majority of the world’s terrorists claiming Islam as their faith.

Let’s be straight here: there are peaceful Muslims, and there are radical Muslims. These radical Muslims commit the overwhelming majority of violent terroristic acts around the world. The rest of the Muslim population does not. The peaceful Muslims have a more moderate interpretation of the verses in the Koran which demand the slaying of all non-Muslims, and that’s cool. But the terrorists do not. They follow the Koran to the letter. They commit terror to honor Allah. As such, they are radical…Islamic…terrorists. To beat around the bush is asinine, and puts lives in danger.

To refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself is at the root of this problem is simply incorrect. That doesn’t mean that every Muslim is evil, but it doesmean that Islam is giving these people motivation to murder, unlike every other religion. And don’t even come at me with “but the Christians did…” or “the Jews did…” because we both know that radical Islam is the world leader in terror by a WIDE MARGIN! “Christian terrorism” is so minute that it is disingenuous, and laughably moronic to make such comparisons.

Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard summed it up perfectly when on CNN, she responded to John Kerry’s refusal to use the words “radical Islam”:

It’s really unfortunate and disturbing to me to see Secretary John Kerry doubling down on that refusal to use those words. And the words matter, it’s not just empty words. Words matter because words are expression of understanding and feeling and intention. And if you refuse to understand this simple concept of who exactly is our enemy, who is posing a threat to the American people and why then we can’t even begin to talk about how do you defeat them. That’s a whole separate conversation that can only happen once that identification takes place.”