Thursday, September 20, 2012

No, It's Not "Islamic Terrorism", Just Terrorism

From a discussion on The Political Impact of Muslim-Americans with Nadia Hussain, political blogger and delegate, Democratic National Convention, Charlotte, NC on September 5, 2012 which is posted at the official US State Department site:

...Question:  Can you say anything about the language the GOP uses?  Romney used it in describing terrorism.  He did call it Islamic terrorism.  Is that an issue for Muslim Americans?

Ms. Hussain:
  Rhetoric is always an issue.  Think about, and you all work in media.  We are inundated by messaging advertising in media.  Media is everywhere.  It’s social media, it’s TV media, it’s print media.  It’s everywhere.

So when rhetoric is repeated over and over again, directed in one direction, it really impacts social situations. I really believe so. 

So when terms like Islamic terrorists or just Michelle Bachman saying these comments about members of, high level members of the Democratic party and elected officials.  When people start using these negative terms, or perhaps even misleading terms, the effects of that really, really ripple outward.  It affects the community.  I really hope that changes.  That is very damaging to the way Muslim Americans are perceived and treated in this country. 

Anskar Graw from the German Newspaper Die Welt.

Regarding your last answer, what would you have recommended if the Republican party would have asked you how to describe this kind of terrorism?  Because I think only to say we have to fight against terrorism or there has been a terrorist somewhere would be a little bit too less specific.  What would you have recommended how to describe this kind of terrorism? 

Ms. Hussain: 
Just call it terrorism.  That’s what it is.  It’s terrorism.  That’s really all I have to say about that.  Call it terrorism, or talk about a region.  Maybe name a country.  But attaching a religion to it every single time you mention that word, it just makes people think that’s what the religion is.  And so I say, just say terrorism.  I don’t see why you have to add a religion to it.

Just to follow up, but don’t you think for example our readers, our listeners wouldn’t have asked about the background of this kind of terrorism?  So at some point you have to explain what kind of terrorism is it.  Just to say there was a terrorist, there was a terrorist attack, I think it’s not enough.

Ms. Hussain: 
For example, the attack that happened in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, that was considered a domestic terrorism act.  Domestic terrorism.  And they did say oh, he was a White Supremacist, but I never heard someone say oh, he’s a Christian terrorist.  Or he’s a white terrorist.  Were readers not concerned?  Did they think why didn’t they say white terrorist?  Why are they not more specific about what kind of terrorist he is?  I’m just saying that in terms of -- That makes you really think about what it means, the message.  I think that’s more about messaging than about detail.

I wonder how'd she be treated Islamically with this profile photograph:



Anonymous said...

Don't be fooled by the taking down of significant al qada leaders. They are being taken out as a sacrifical lamb or wolves in this case to divert attention from his true intentions. We have become an inadvertent force in the assistance of a mandated caliphate sworn to destroy Israel and the U.S. I know those are hard words but its not my business to put lipstick on a pig. As this process works out on the surface it will appear that he is defending America and also attacking Isreals enemys...the best of both worlds. He is playing the American public like a fiddle, this guy is good. He ropes his dopes with hope. You know the Abrahamic Prophets state that he is a fake, an imposter, a deceiver, a double crosser and that he will lie to Isreal, betray them, they also say that when you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, that would be the temple of "In God we Trust" (White House), he will be filled with great wrath and will turn against Isreal with incredible persecution and their will be great tribulation such as was not since the beginning of the world nor ever shall be.

Anonymous said...

I hope I didn't offend agnostics or atheists with the mention of Prophets, Why? Because this prophesy is going to bite you in the butt like a PIT BULL. REGARDELSS OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE!!! Your yarn spinning days have come to an end, a dead end, and beleive me God is not going to beg you to join the flock, at this stage in view of all this evidence if your not their yet he would rather throw you into a pit of vipers. Oh, and thats scripture, too, you can read it in revelation. When I refer to the flock, I mean Abrahams flock, its not my intention to attempt to proselytize anyone. Yes I am a Christian, but a Judeo Christian, I beleive in Israel and will lay my life down for her. I have no tolerance for snakes posed as sheep amoungst the flock.

Alan said...

I happen to agree with Ms Hussein.

It is only those (the dat-Moshe crowd) who HIJACKED mamlakhti-Zionism who have heartburn about lots of religions coexisting in a Hebrew Republic. It was the rebbe-inical mafia that had Eliezer Ben-Yehuda thrown into a Turkish prison. How many "Torah Jews" would ask for a year in a Turkish prison before compromising their ideals.... an how many would, instead, find an excuse to move to Lakewood NJ?

Orde Wingate wasn't dat-Moshe; the Druzim are not dat-Moshe; the Cherkassim aren't dat-Moshe and in fact, very few people reading this blog can come ANYWHERE NEAR their loyalty to rubber-meeting-the-road Zionism.