New State Department lexicon forbids use of the words "jihad" or "jihadist"

Kissy, Kissy

Well, it didn't take long for the U. S. State Department to follow the European model of dhimmitude by officially banning an accurate description of the Islamic attempts to take over the world. It is particularly distressing that a government agency of the United States would muzzle it's employees from uttering certain forbidden words. Go Condi, you've now joined the ranks of the other side.

FROM JIHADWATCH.ORG:

April 22, 2008
New State Department lexicon forbids use of the words "jihad" or "jihadist"
A reliable source has informed me that Condoleeza Rice has approved a new lexicon for State Department usage, absolutely forbidding the use of the terms "jihad" and "jihadist" by any State Department official.
The argument, of course, is the old Streusand/Guirard claim that by using the word jihad, we're validating the jihadist claim to be waging jihad. Of course, it's ridiculous to think that the U.S. State Department carries any validating authority within the Islamic world to determine what is Islam and what isn't. This would be the first time that unbelievers have set the meaning of Islamic theology for Muslims.
Also, the claim is that by using the word "jihad," we are insulting the peaceful Muslims who are waging the daily jihad of the struggle against sin, the struggle against the dirty dishes, etc. And that's great, if that's what any Muslim actually believes is the sum and substance of jihad, but it is an understanding of jihad that is at odds with the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Will Muslims be insulted by a reference to other Muslims using the traditional primary meaning of jihad? Answer: probably. But that doesn't negate the traditional status of that meaning, or the influence of that traditional view in the Islamic world.
I will publish more information on this when possible.

Quiet D.C. coup spells big trouble in War on Terror

"Sadly, Washington now seems all too ready to yield on matters of principle. Or, as former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the German magazine Der Spiegel this week, American foreign policy "is in free fall. The president is acting against his own judgment and instincts under the influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.""
FROM JEWISHWORLDEVIEW.COM:
Quiet D.C. coup spells big trouble in War on Terror — not only for America, but Israel, too
By Michael Freund

In recent weeks, US foreign policy has undergone a sharp turnaround, as Washington increasingly has abandoned its principled stances of the past seven years on just about every major foreign policy issue, and has begun to mimic the previous administration.
Will the real George W. please stand up?

After seven years of fearlessly confronting evil, both rhetorically and militarily, the Bush administration in Washington seems to have faded away, replaced instead by a meek shadow of its former self.

Firm resolve has given way to disappointing frailty, as the shape and direction of US foreign policy increasingly resembles something taken straight out of Bill Clinton's playbook.

Across the board, on nearly every major issue of the day, from Iran to Syria to North Korea, the Bush administration is in retreat, abandoning the principled stands of yesteryear and replacing them with the unscrupulous and inexplicable policies now being pursued by the Department of State.
READ IT ALL: