Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Fighting Islamist terrorists and media, not Muslims

One of the major problems the Bush Administration has had covering this war is that the press does not have any idea who the enemy is and how dangerous they are to their very livelihood. I have been reading an excellent article by Jeffrey Imm over at CounterTerrorismBlog. It describes the problem, takes it point by point, and suggests some resolutions to the problem. It is very well written. I guess that is why he is writing over there.

He starts with a definion of the problem:

******************************
In the war with global Jihad, words and definitions matter, and in fighting anti-freedom ideologies, the free press and media should be America's greatest ally. Yet the confused and inconsistent reporting on Islamism and Islamist terrorism is another key fault line in America's struggles with global Jihad.

Without a precise definition of the enemy by American political leadership, major segments of the American free (bought and paid for) press have made their own foreign policy decisions as to who is and is not an enemy, made their own decisions on what terms like "Islamism" and "Jihad" mean (if they use such terms at all), and provided mostly "isolated incident"-style reporting on such subjects, with the exception of the largely anti-war colored reporting on Iraq.
******************************

Because of this neglect to define the enemy, the media was allowed to define our enemy themselves. (Even if they knew how.) In their ignorance of this war, they defined our enemy as the President George W. Bush.

******************************
So instead of much of the American free press being used to largely address and confront enemy anti-freedom ideologies and their adherents, such media has been manipulated by editorial managers, publishers, and Islamist groups to focus their investigative reporting on the American government's reaction to Islamist terrorism. As much of American government actions are based on a reaction without a defined enemy, there has been plenty of source material for press critiques and for press managers to gain political points against an unpopular administration.
******************************

This is why, when we wondered why the media was not covering our successes, they could see nothing worth reporting. It did not go against the president. As is reported about some speeches given by the leaders of the Washington Post and the Associated Press, they are too blind to see what is right in front of them. Their own fate is being challenged, and they are walking right into the trap.

******************************
But as made clear last week in speeches by leaders of the Washington Post and the Associated Press, the larger issue of "Islamism" itself, its role as the root of "Islamist terrorism" (as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report), and coherent news reporting on the continuing global links between political Islamism and such Islamist terrorism is not even an objective of much of the American free press. The reactive political sniping agenda by much of the American press' reporting not only misses the larger issue, but also fails to understand that anti-freedom ideologies like Islamism are a threat to a free press itself.
******************************

The sad thing about this, one of many, is that they don't even care about one of their own,

******************************
Therefore, even when the threat of Islamism to a free press is unquestionable -- such as imprisoned Afghan journalist Sayed Pervez Kambakhsh on death row for "blasphemy" per Islamists in the Afghanistan government -- Islamism is not a concern to such media leaders as Washington Post's Philip Bennett or AP's Tom Curley. These American free press/media leaders' apparent obliviousness to Islamism is symptomatic of the larger problem with much of the American free press when facing Jihad -- as shown in such media shaping of terms, providing a platform for Jihadists, confusing the public on the identity of the enemy, providing opportunities for enemy infiltration, and allowing news reporting tainted by gullibility about Islamism.
******************************

Next is the beginning of several sub-topics. They all have points unto themselves which also twine the vine with which we must all come to terms.

******************************
Islamism and Jihad - Not Acceptable Terms for American Media?.

On March 3, Philip Bennett, the Washington Post's managing editor, gave a speech at the University of California Irvine (UCI) on Journalism and Islam, where it was reported that he believes the media is responsible for confusion about Islam, which is due to the lack of Muslims in American newsrooms (in his opinion). The Daily Pilot, a local newspaper, also reported that Washington Post's Philip Bennett stated that the term "Islamist" is something that the Washington Post editors still have not decided whether to add it to their style book. In Mr. Bennett's speech, he didn't even consider to qualify the need to have greater numbers of anti-Islamist Muslims represented in American newsrooms, because he and his Washington Post editors have not even decided whether to recognize political Islamism as a term they can use, let alone an anti-freedom ideology to be confronted.
******************************

So let's see if I have this correct. It has been almost 7 years since we saw our fellow Americans jumping off the Twin Towers to avoid burning alive, the two Towers falling to the ground--yet to start the rebuilding, people walking around in a daze searching for their loved ones, and the press can't decide if 'Islamist terrorists' are the enemy? I'm not talking about your normal, everyday Muslim. I'm referring to people who openly declare 'death to America'. No wonder the world does not know who to believe, with our president saying one thing and the press saying the opposite.

******************************
Apparently, the Washington Post editors have not yet read the 2004-released 9/11 Commission Report where "Islamist Terrorism" is defined as a component of "Islamism". In 2008, nearly four years later, the Washington Post is still considering whether the very term "Islamist" is acceptable. Even Al Jazeera uses the term "Islamism", but over six years after the 9/11 attacks, the Washington Post is still thinking about it. Rather than being embarrassed by such mental paralysis in news reporting, the Washington Post's managing editor is proud of this failure and discusses this failure in speeches to universities. Moreover, when real investigative groups such as The Investigative Project challenge Islamist individuals and groups, the Washington Post's response is exemplified by its reporting on Esam Omeish, reporting the accusations of known Stalinists accusing IPT reports on Omeish as those of "right-wing anti-Muslim bigots".
******************************

Ah, yes. When you run out of ways to disguise your intentions, fall back on the racial 'I'm a victim' tactic. Too bad that doesn't fly in face of those of us who know we are not racists. And another thing. Whoever finds out who you are, doesn't necessarily mean they are wicked right-wing wackos. There are many Democrats who live in who lost family and friends on that September day in 2001 who would like a piece of you just as well.

These next two paragraphs will also give you an insight to the media which we all have suspected, but this confirms.

******************************
Such deliberate unwillingness among American media to address the ideology of Islamism and its links to Islamist terrorism or Jihad is not limited to the Washington Post. As early as October 2001, the Society of Professional Journalists provided guidelines to the American free press that jihad was to be defined as "to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself".

This desire by "mainstream media" managers to "filter" and "shape" the news by deliberate ignorance of ideologies, language, and connections between events continues to be an ongoing threat to our free press - one that has largely necessitated the explosion of Internet blogs to simply provide a vehicle to report the news.
******************************

And they wonder why they are losing all credibility?

Next I will tell you the other sub-topics. I will not include the text, because I want you to go over there. I want you to put this site on your sidebar, and I want you to go there frequestly. This is one site that we should all be paying more attention to for information. It is more than we will ever get from the press.

******************************
American Free Press - Why Provide a Platform for Jihadists and Islamists?

American Free Press - Who is the enemy?

American Free Press Infiltration?

American Free Press Gullibility?

Sources and Related Documents
.

CounterTerrorism Blog - Jihad, Islamism, and the Challenge of Anti-Freedom Ideologies.
******************************

This is a very in-depth coverage of why we are losing the war here at home. That is my personal assessment. I have been saying this so very often to anyone who would listen. Our own press is going to get us killed...if we allow them.

If you have any suggestions or would like to offer some solutions to a complicated problem, please feel free to join the conversation. What is the complexity? There is a difference between the 'silent majority, Muslim style' and the true enemy. The silent majority is silent out of fear. We have to change this. How? Over at Little Green Footballs, I found this article which may explain a lot that I've been saying in the past:

******************************
The Immigrant Muslim Syndicate (CAIR, MAS, Etc.)

There’s another good post today at Singular Voice, the Muslim blog whose owner posted a brave denunciation of the ugly Palestinian celebrations following the Jerusalem terror attack: “We’ve Never Heard of You”.
Since beginning this blog, a number of people have emailed me to inquire about my identity and background. Specifically, they want to know “where did I come from”? “How come they’ve never heard of me before”? “They love my commentary” or “why don’t I work with this or that organization”? So many comments also read something like this, “brother, your writings are a breath of fresh air, why aren’t you teaching or doing lectures” or “where can I hear you speak on the topics you write about?” This post is an attempt to provide a satisfactory answer to the question of why only now is my work reaching the public, despite whatever misgivings I may have regarding its frankness.

The question ought more appropriately be addressed to the so-called “leaders”, those well known personalities on the scene today who throw interference and at times positively impede the work of independent writers and activists like myself (and that of many others). And this for no other reason than we refuse to “follow the immigrant script”. The brass truth, whether one is prepared to deal with it or not, is that every aspect of Muslim discourse in this country (perhaps with the exception of Imam W.D. Mohammed) is COMPLETELY dominated and controlled by what I call the immigrant Muslim syndicate (read CAIR, MAS etc.). Anyone who has ever attempted to do independent Islamic work, especially in the African American community, has at one time or another come up against it. This syndicate decides who becomes “famous” and who does not. Whose CD lectures are allowed to be sold in Islamic book shops and whose are not. Who is going to be on the “A-1 speakers circuit” (yes, that is exactly what they call it) and who is not. In essence, who is worthy of being heard and who is not.

This syndicate operates like a well-oiled political machine which rewards its “friends” and punishes its enemies. So to be a Blackamerican Muslim “leader” on the lecture/fundraiser/convention circuit means that you have been carefully vetted and screened, and can be relied upon to tow the immigrant line, or at least not criticize it. Blackamerican Muslims must begin to realize that the interests of some immigrant Muslim groups are not necessarily their interests. One recent example of these conflicting interests concerned the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. Due to certain positions he holds on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, Blackamerican Muslims were expected to march in lock-step with their immigrant brethren who, in general, are not for him, and completely disregard any positive impact this candidacy might have on Black America.

The hand-picked Black Muslim leaders will never buck the immigrant machine because their livelihoods depend on it. Does it hurt me to have to say this? Of course it does, but you asked me. These brothers were carefully selected, not by their predominantly Black Muslim constituencies (those that ever had one), but rather, the vast immigrant power structure which tightly regulates their access to Muslim audiences and closely monitors what they say, especially when they’re blindly shilling for Palestine.
Yesterday I asked Abdur-Rahman M to send me the IP address of the person who was dishonestly posting antisemitic comments at his site using my name, and he emailed it to me today, for which I’m grateful. [Continue reading.]
******************************

These are the words of a Muslim, not me. This is what I have been saying. People who are Muslim who speak out, do so at great risk to their families and themselves. We have to find a way to combat this, and the media certainly is not on our side. I'm so grateful this was NOT the situation during WWII...

Source: CounterTerrorismBlog - Jihad, Islamism, and the American Free Press, By Jeffrey Imm.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

Posts I've trackbacked to: Adam's Blog: The Left v. The Miliary, The Amboy Times: Now Read This, Woman Honor Thyself: WomeN Truly don’t Honor Themselves, Diary of the Mad Pigeon: Open Topic: CENTCOM Commander Resigns, Wolf Pangloss: McCain’s Character.

Posts that have trackbacked to this post:
1. Tilting at Windmill Farms: A Land of Contradictions.
2. Stageleft:. Life on the left side: Heh - Bush Said “Orwellian”.
3. Right Truth: Muslim Ironies.
4. Planck's Constant: MSM and their View of Israel.
5. Right Voices: Reid: "As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about earmarks. Digg! Digg!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be respectful of others, so they may be respectful to you. Have a blessed day.