John Brennan
No sooner did I feature White House advisor John Brennan as one of the "feckless four" when it comes to protecting our nation, now he makes these statements yesterday.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/counterterror-adviser-defends-jihad-legitimate-tenet-islam/
"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 counter terrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either."
I realize that there is another aspect to the term jihad, which refers to an inner struggle to better oneself. There is also another aspect which refers to violent struggle. Brennan might want to travel out to Colorado where the blind sheikh Omar Rahman is preaching violent jihad to himself in that maximum security prison. While he was free, Rahman used the term jihad to clearly talk about war against his enemies, real or imagined. I could list countless others who speak of jihad in its most violent terms, but to my obviously well-informed readers, it would be a repetition of what they already know....
...but of which Brennan has no clue.
How can we defeat an enemy when we refuse to use its own words and define it correctly?
Where does Obama find these characters? This is the same guy who goes around calling Jerusalem "al Quds" (its Arabic name). That makes about as much sense as calling Paris "Parigi" (its Italian name).
But then, nothing makes sense in this administration.
4 comments:
Arabs have been living in al Quds for centuries, although I must thank you for bringing to my attention that there is a distinctive Arabic name for the city. Its a little late to say that it should NOT be uttered -- although Jerusalem is perfectly good too, and more common usage in the USA, for perfectly innocuous reasons.
Brennan is quite correct not to allow a band of self-aggrandizing thugs who want to rule to world to hijack the terminology of Islam, by appropriating "jihad" exclusively to their own operations. You keep trying to give away over a billion of the world's people to al Qaeda. That's not helpful.
He is right in the sense that War on Terror is not the right title either. Terror is what they use, not who or what they are.
After December 7, 1941, we did not declare war on sneak attacks. We declared war on the Japanese Empire, who carried out the sneak attack.
We should call it the War on Extreme Islam or the War on Muslim Fanatics, if you prefer. That would be more precise but I don't think John Brennan would accept that either. Obama and Brennan and the rest of the administration are turning themselves into pretzels to avoid using the M word no matter how ridiculous they appear.
(Read War and Decision by Douglas Feith to find out how and why they chose to use War on Terror at the time)
Siarlys,
How many centuries ago was it that Jerusalem was the Jewish capital?
Over 3,000 years if I am not mistaken.
3000 years is a long time Gary. Other names can come into use during so many centuries. What was the name of Manhattan even 500 years ago? So your problem is????
(I think it may be more like 3200 years. It was also someone else's capital for some centuries before King David captured it.)
Let's be specific about what we are engaged in. We are fighting a war with al Qaeda, and various proxies, including the Taliban (formerly a project of our gallant Pakistani allies, with the covert approval of the CIA).
Post a Comment