DHS report before Orlando massacre: Don’t offend Muslims while combating extremism

DHS report before Orlando massacre: Don’t offend Muslims while combating extremism, by Douglas Ernst.

A report by the Homeland Security Advisory Council released days before the Islamic terror attack in Orlando, Florida, stressed the importance of combating extremism by avoiding terms that might offend Muslims.

How are our bureaucrats going to come to grips with the threat if they have banned the words “jihad”, “sharia,” and “takfir” (where one Muslim accuses another of apostasy)? Can the think them? Can they form the concept in their minds? How enstupended are they required to be?

Robert Spencer comments:

The Obama administration is deeply committed to the proposition that it would be wrong and harmful to identify the jihad threat for what it is. In reality, its politically correct willful ignorance is hamstringing proper analysis of the problem, and endangering Americans.

Speaking of the importance of names: Obama slams Trump over Muslim ban, ‘radical Islam’, by CNN Wire.

President Barack Obama on Tuesday unleashed a blistering verbal assault on Donald Trump and his proposal for a ban on Muslims entering the country …

Obama also angrily pushed back against criticism for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” calling it “loose talk.”

“What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?” Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. “Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

This is a very old problem. The main political tactic of the PC crew is name-calling, so you would think they would realize that words have great power. Anyway, here is Confucius rebuking Obama:

Zilu said, “If the ruler of Wei were to entrust you with governance of his state, what would be your first priority?”

The Master said, “Most certainly, it would be to rectify names.”

Zilu said, “Is that so? How strange of you! How would this set things right?”

The Master said, “What a boor you are, Yóu! A junzi keeps silent about things he doesn’t understand. If names are not right then speech does not accord with things; if speech is not in accord with things, then affairs cannot be successful; when affairs are not successful, proprieties and music do not flourish; when proprieties and music do not flourish, then sanctions and punishments miss their mark; when sanctions and punishments miss their mark, the people have no place to set their hands and feet. Therefore, when a junzi gives things names, they may be properly spoken of, and what is said may be properly enacted. With regard to speech, the junzi permits no carelessness.” — Analects of Confucius 13:3

hat-tip Stephen Neil