DHS rejects "religiously-charged terminology"

[SillyAmerican]

Per a policy of the Department of Homeland Security, government officials need to be sensitive about the words they are using:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From which it seems we are being asked to continue to conclude that our insensitivity is the reason for ISIS atrocities. Once again, there is money being spent here to guide people away from the use of such incendiary terms as "sharia" or "jihad". Do you feel that the homeland is made more secure by such activities? Is this the best use of the dollars going to DHS?

[SillyAmerican]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

Why not just get the avatar already?

Well, I'm a registered independent: on social issues I fall a bit more to the left, on fiscal and national security issues I fall a bit more to the right. So by your wise all-knowing decree, what avatar do I need to get? 'Cuz as I've mentioned elsewhere, I cast my vote based on issues, not on mindless party affiliation or other such nonsense. Sorry if that offends the sensibilities of others on this forum.

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism. Rather, what is being argued here is that, in our zeal to fight the terrorists who operate under the banner of "radical Islam", failing to treat a religion of over 1 billion followers with nuance will only reinforce the appeal of groups like ISIS to those young Muslims who might be considering joining such a group but still have reservations about it.  In other words, if we don't act with caution and sensitivity, we would just be proving the extremists correct, that we really are at a war with all of Islam.

Also, just for the record, both "sharia" and "jihad" have much broader (and more legitimate) uses within Islam than the way in which the violent fanatics use them - which is the usage that Americans are familiar with.

Excellent points. I'm just a bit concerned that our being unwilling/unable to draw a clear distinction between "radical Islam" and Islam in general is actually serving to feed the ISIS narrative and undercut the very moderates which we should be supporting. In our zeal to be sensitive of Muslim feelings, are we in effect shooting ourselves in the foot?

[SillyAmerican]

I don't think anyone actually argues that "our insensitivity" is why groups like ISIS exist and engage in terrorism.

Yes but without strawmen there would be no threads started by the far right.

Why not just get the avatar already?

You do recognize the irony in your post, right Tom?

Haha, I suppose there would be a ton if my username weren't 100% sarcastic.

Also, Silly American: I wasn't talking to you, so I have no idea what you're talking about, my friend.

Ah yes, sorry, my mistake. (I must have been blurry eyed at the time...). 

[SillyAmerican]

Rudy Giuliani made the following comment on the June 29th edition of Hannity:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to be a fairly reasonable position to have...

[SillyAmerican]

Rudy Giuliani made the following comment on the June 29th edition of Hannity:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to be a fairly reasonable position to have...

Except this would be like if you referred to the mafia as "crooked Italian."

Yes. But I think that's Giuliani's point: for those objecting to the use of the term "mafia", it is effectively equivalent to "crooked Italian", and if you are a decent, law-abiding Italian, drawing a distinction between those like you and those like them is not a bad thing. On the contrary: it's an important distinction to make, as otherwise you run the risk of all Italians being painted as being crooked, which clearly is not the case, just as not all Muslims are murdering terrorists. Why we spend our precious resources trying to make sure that terms like "jihad" and "sharia" are kept out of public view and avoiding the use of terms like "radical Islam" is beyond me.

[SillyAmerican]

Most radicalized people in the Western world are not radicalized by any one event or particular thing. It is the culmination of many, many different experiences snowballing gradually until it becomes too big to stop. Hearing terms like "violent Muslims" and "sharia law" used negatively once isn't going to radicalize anyone. Hearing it hundreds of times on its own likely isn't going to radicalize anyone. However, when you stack casual and consistent usage of those terms with all of the other relatively isolated or innocent experiences - each of which on their own would not radicalize anyone - then the consequences from that aggregate can be massive.

Think about it the same way you would think about skin damage from the sun. Going out in the sun once isn't likely going to give you skin cancer. Doing it 100 times even probably won't lead to that. But start going out in the sun every day, hit the tanning beds, smoke two packs of cigarettes every day and be sure to never drink any water. No one incident likely caused it; when you go to the doctor and they find skin cancer, they're likely going to tell you that it was a combination of all of it, and that any individual instance on its own - while bad nonetheless - likely wasn't the culprit.

I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand: the goal is to minimize the number of negative impressions made that lead vulnerable people down this path. It's not about "being PC". If you don't believe me, then go to somebody's house tomorrow and start screaming whatever "politically-incorrect" terms you'd like over and over outside. Then go back and do it the next day. And the day after that. Keep doing it. Start adding more things into your routine, and continue to escalate it. Sooner or later, something bad is going to happen to you. It wasn't any one occasion that caused it. It's the aggregate result of you being a sh**thead that caused them to snap.

Yeah, that sums up the position of the Obama administration. As a result of this thinking, we require statements made by our military people and the leadership of our allies to be scrutinized/sanitized. But I think people are getting tired of this. We seem to enjoy blaming ourselves for the problem of radical Islam, but here's a newsflash: we aren't responsible for having planes flown into our buildings, we aren't responsible for having people blow themselves up in our airports, we aren't responsible for having people shoot up our sporting events or concerts or bars. We need to understand that these people have decided that they are at war with us, and it makes absolutely no difference what we call the struggle that's been imposed on us.