|
Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam'
The president's top counter terrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies. Oh good grief ... During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms." Except that jihad is expressly defined in religious terms ... He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. The definitions of terror and terrorism are important. Brennan's problem is that he doesn't want to define either except in the most nebulous terms, because if he were to be specific, he'd have to come to some rather uncomfortable conclusions and take some unappealing actions ... But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either. Our enemies use the word but we're not supposed to? "Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said. I see he's bought the taqqiya version of 'jihad' hook, line and sinker ... The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims. However, jihad frequently connotes images of military combat or warfare, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists including Usama bin Laden commonly use the word to call for war against the West. Even the Fox News reporter gets what Brennan doesn't ... Brennan defined the enemy as members of bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and "its terrorist affiliates." But Brennan argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause." They're not doing it for money ... "Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam," he said. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all terrorists are Muslims. But the people in the intersection of the two circles in that Venn diagram are indeed our enemy. It would be foolish, in dealing with terrorists who are Muslim, to deny the role of Islam (as they see it) as part of their motivation. That leads to a lack of understanding of one's enemy. Sun Tzu had a comment or two about the need to understand both oneself and the enemy, and it seems that Brennan understands neither. The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds. "In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU. One wonders how many times Mr. Brennan has watched Lawrence of Arabia ... Posted by: tipper 2010-05-27 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=297657 |