[lit-ideas] New EU lexicon on terror
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:12:20 -0700
Having read several books on the European predicament, I read every new
article I come across. Perhaps the EU is developing a backbone. Perhaps it
is now dealing more firmly with the Islamist problem. Not in Diana West's
opinion. [Lawrence]
Speak no evil: The new EU lexicon on terrorism
By Diana West
Apr 24, 2006
How wunderbar, merveilleux and perfectly ripping that the European Union is
creating a new "lexicon" to discuss Islam and terrorism so as never to
conflate the two. The Telegraph tells us that EU officials -- having
double-checked that George Orwell and his satirical pen are dead and gone --
are putting together a "non-emotive lexicon for discussing radicalization."
Islamic "radicalization," that is. When it comes to dealing with Europe's
Muslim populations, the old "Sticks and stones ..." proverb is out,
particularly the "words can never hurt me" part. These days, the update
goes: "Say words that hurt me and I'll blow up a train." As an EU official
explained non-emotively, "The basic idea is to avoid the use of improper
words that could cause frustration among Muslims and increase the risk of
radicalization."
As they say over there: What rot. Only hothouse EU officials could believe
that words such as "Islamic terrorism" cause radicalization. Fanatical
bloodlust (not to mention 72-virgin-lust) inspires acts labeled "Islamic
terrorism," not the other way around. But not in EU-land. "These words
(Islamic terrorism) cannot sit side by side," Omar Faruk, a Muslim barrister
and "adviser" to the British government, told Reuters. The phrase "just
creates a culture where terrorism actually is identified with Islam," he
continued. "That causes me a lot of stress."
And the EU certainly wouldn't want that. Stress leads to frustration, and
frustration leads to radicalization, and radicalization leads to -- and
here's where the new lexicon comes in -- to "terrorists who abusively invoke
Islam." Take Flight 93: The Sept. 11 hijackers might have invoked Allah 24
times in its final minutes (also causing what Mr. Faruk might recognize as
"stress"), but the new lexicon would probably tell us that wasn't "Islamic
terrorism," it was an Attack of the Terrorists Abusively Invoking Islam, not
to mention Allah. Not only did the hijackers hijack a passenger jet, they
hijacked their religion.
This, of course, remains President Bush's general position. "I believe that
the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their
behavior," President Bush said yet again this month. Problem is -- to stick
with the idiotic metaphor -- the "hijackers" have been piloting the plane
for centuries, and the "passengers" have yet to take the controls. They go
along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination
because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other
signal Islamic texts.
The grand Western strategy? Not to notice. The Guardian recently reported on
a Tehran "recruitment fair" for Islamic suicide bombers. The sponsoring
group asked several hundred volunteers to complete forms specifying whether
they wanted to murder Israelis, Americans, Brits or, specifically, British
author Salman Rushdie. As a spokesman said, "Britain and other European
countries have a lot of disaffected Muslims who are ready. We understand the
suspicion with which ... Western countries regard their Muslim populations.
We don't condemn them for this because we believe every Muslim has the
potential to turn into a bomb against the West."
The phrase "Muslim bomb potential" will surely give Mr. Faruk palpitations,
but the Free World remains in denial. "Western diplomats played down the
significance of the group's threat," the Guardian reported, "saying it was
primarily a campaign to gather signatures of protest against Israel rather
than recruit bombers."
Is this some kind of a joke? Much of the news these days ends in such harsh
quasi-punch lines. Fatah terrorists demand an apology of Palestinian
Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for his "offense" -- condemning this
week's Palestinian suicide bombing. Nuke-seeking Iran has an appointment
with the U.N. Disarmament Conference -- as co-chairman. And then there was
the story about the two Al Qaeda fathers discussing their suicide-bomber
sons -- namely, how kids today blow up so fast.
Hang on a sec. That last one was a real joke, as told by John Vine, a senior
Scottish policeman, at a gala dinner for the Perth Bar Association. It
actually roused that small corner of the Western world to genuine outrage --
and not because everyone already had heard it. It was an "amazing gaffe,"
said the journalistic consensus. A "deeply offensive comment," commented a
politician. Mr. Vine apologized ("profusely"), and the Muslim Council of
Britain (MCB) "welcomed the apology" (naturally).
I have to wonder on behalf of whom the MCB accepted the apology -- the
Suicide-Bomber Dads of Al Qaeda support group? But never mind. Just wait
until the non-emotive lexicon is in place.
That'll quiet everything.
Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.
Copyright C 2006 Newspaper Enterprise Assn.
Other related posts:
