Why Words Matter in the War on Terror

[Calanen]

Why Words Matter in The War on Terror
By Erick Stakelbeck

CBN News Terrorism Analyst

August 15, 2008







CBNNews.com (http://www.cbnnews.com/) - Terms like "radical Islamist" and "jihadist" have dominated headlines and speeches since 9/11, with the Bush administration using them frequently to describe America's enemies.
But that language may be about to change.

Click the play button for more analysis from Erik Saar of the National Security Network.

Although Al-Qaeda and other terrorists identify themselves as jihadists -- holy warriors--some feel we make a mistake by calling them what they call themselves.

"It makes sense why they would want to be called it. It makes no sense why we would want to call them that," said Peter Singer, a national security expert with the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Singer co-wrote a recent New York Times op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/opinion/02singer.html) that argues against the use of words like "jihadist" to describe Islamic terrorists.

"This feeds into their idea that this is a religious war, and it's not.," he said. "They want it to be a war of religions, but we have said very clearly that this is not a war on Islam, it's not Christianity vs. Islam in some way. It's about radicals, it's about extremists who are using violence."
U.S. government agencies agree with Singer's view.

The State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counterterrorism Center have all released controversial internal memos recommending that workers avoid mentioning Islam or Muslims when discussing the War on Terror.

According to the memos, terms like "jihadist" and "mujahideen," both of which mean holy warrior, should be dropped. So, they say, should "Islamofascism," "Islamic terrorist" and "radical Islamist" -- all previously favorite terms of the Bush administration. The documents recommend that terms like "violent extremist" or simply, "terrorist," should be used in their place.

The government's reasoning here is twofold. Officials say holy warriors are viewed as men of honor in the Muslim world. Therefore, the thinking goes, referring to Al Qaeda as jihadists or mujahideen only legitimizes their cause.

Second, they say, linking Islam to terrorism alienates average Muslims by suggesting that the War on Terror is really a war against Islam.
But one native Arabic speaker we talked with says the government has it all wrong.

Islam expert Raymond Ibrahim is author of The Al-Qaeda Reader (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038551655X?ie=UTF8&tag=privatepapers-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=038551655X). It translates previously undeciphered statements by the group's leadership into English.

"The fact is, the Muslim world isn't waiting around holding its breath to hear the U.S. Government -- an infidel entity -- define Islamic terms for them," Ibrahim said. "This seems to me unprecedented. When we fought the Japanese and we fought the Nazis, we called them what they called themselves."

"If Osama bin Laden calls himself a mujahid, we should understand what a mujahid is. And we should understand that that is, in English, a holy warrior who's fighting on behalf of Islam," he said.

"You want to know your enemy: how they think, what they call themselves, what those terms mean," he added.

Singer says Western governments and media should avoid using these theological terms because they could offend Muslims.
He suggests using "muharib" or "hirabist" to describe Al Qaeda. These terms mean "barbarians" or "pirates" in Arabic.

"A term like "hirabi" or "muharib" is a term that's inherently negative within the teachings of the Muslim world," Singer said.

But according to Ibrahim, these terms are not widely used or understood in the Muslim world, while the concept of jihad is well-known and historically prevalent.

"According to Islamic law, offensive jihad--offensive, not just to defend yourself, but offensive, to go out and invade--is as codified and is obilgatory," he said.

To understand this enemy, Ibrahim says, you can't separate its ideology from its theology.

"You trace it to Islamic doctrine and law, jihad is simply warfare to subjugate the infidel world to Islamic rule."

The debate over language has also reached Capitol Hill. Last month, the House passed an amendment to an intelligence bill that would deny funding for any government measure to ban words like jihadist.
Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra, who introduced the amendment, says governnment agencies shouldn't be hampered by political correctness when fighting the War on Terror.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/428142.aspx

[Calanen]

Denmark tries to clean up terror talk


Published: Aug. 15, 2008 at 7:40 PM


Order reprints (http://license.icopyright.net/3.5981?icx_id=43681218843651) | Print Story (javascript: storyDo('print');) | Email to a Friend (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/15/Denmark_tries_to_clean_up_terror_talk/UPI-43681218843651/email/) | Post a Comment (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/15/Denmark_tries_to_clean_up_terror_talk/UPI-43681218843651/#comments)

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, Aug. 15 (UPI) -- The Danish Intelligence Agency has introduced new guidelines for discussing terrorism, advising authorities to avoid words like jihad and martyr.


Anja Dalgaard-Nielsen is head of protective security for the agency, which is known by its Danish acronym PET. She said that the goal is to avoid legitimizing terrorism or tying the majority of non-violent Muslims to terrorists, the Copenhagen Post reported.

"Terrorist groups often try to legitimize their actions by associating them with religion, using words such as jihad," she said. "However, a jihad also has peaceful and positive meanings, and it is unfortunate if the authorities repeat it and strengthen the extremists' use of the word."

"Language Use and the Fight Against Terror" also suggests avoiding Islamism, fundamentalism and mujahedin.

Karsten Lauritzen, head of the parliamentary integration committee, said that PET is being naive if it thinks that language changes will conquer terrorism. But he said that officials should be accurate -- that sharia, for example, has a far broader meaning than non-Muslims typically give it.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/15/Denmark_tries_to_clean_up_terror_talk/UPI-43681218843651/

[Calanen]

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. - George Orwell (http://www.enotes.com/famous-quotes/author/george-orwell)

[Atlantic Friend]

When we fought the Japanese and we fought the Nazis, we called them what they called themselves."

Er... not so sure about that, actually, particularly for the Japanese who were vilified at every opportunity as a people in Allied (and particularly American) media and propaganda.

[Calanen]

Er... not so sure about that, actually, particularly for the Japanese who were vilified at every opportunity as a people in Allied (and particularly American) media and propaganda.

You are missing the point entirely.

The NSDAP were the NSDAP, the SS were the SS. The Empire of Japan and the Emperor were exactly that. The Fuhrer was the Fuhrer. Can you imagine saying 'Fuhrer is just 'leader' in German. We should respect all German people and not call Hitler what he calls himself, the Fuhrer, we should call him, a Pirate.

Which is what they are trying to do with the jihadis.

[Bia]

I agree... subterfuge can be a good thing.

[Lau]

You are missing the point entirely.

The NSDAP were the NSDAP, the SS were the SS. The Empire of Japan and the Emperor were exactly that. The Fuhrer was the Fuhrer. Can you imagine saying 'Fuhrer is just 'leader' in German. We should respect all German people and not call Hitler what he calls himself, the Fuhrer, we should call him, a Pirate.

Which is what they are trying to do with the jihadis.

That is simplifying it a bit, but ok. :)

The basic point is not to mix good and bad, so that bad becomes good in the eyes of some people, and vice-versa.

But to avoid using terms like 'Islamism and fundamentalism is not possible, simply because that is exactly what we are fighting against.

[Rienaaja]

This whole non-issue of "jihadist terrorism" is completely overblown to mask the numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel and the United States. It's atrocious, really, what the zionist occupied media keeps churning our way.

[Lau]

This whole non-issue of "jihadist terrorism" is completely overblown to mask the numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel and the United States. It's atrocious, really, what the zionist occupied media keeps churning our way.

The rant about "zionist occupied media" is nothing but an Arab excuse, and we have all heard it a million times.

Pleeease, spare us! :roll:

[Calanen]

This whole non-issue of "jihadist terrorism" is completely overblown to mask the numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel and the United States. It's atrocious, really, what the zionist occupied media keeps churning our way.

I was wondering whether his post was tongue in cheek. Bit hard to tell unless the poster has 'form' like I do.

[Rienaaja]

The rant about "zionist occupied media" is nothing but an Arab excuse, and we have all heard it a million times.

Pleeease, spare us! :roll:

What do you mean, "arab excuse"? As a dane you should well know that Flemming Rose is an Ukrainian jew. He was the guy who printed those cartoons, if you recall.

[Elemental666]

What do you mean, "arab excuse"? As a dane you should well know that Flemming Rose is an Ukrainian jew. He was the guy who printed those cartoons, if you recall.

Undeniable proof indeed. Going insane because someone drew a picture of your imaginary friend is totally acceptable though. Specially if the guy was a Ukrainian Jew.

[Rienaaja]

Well, obviously not. But it is clear that there are certain groups, nations within nations if you will, in the west who seek to antagonize the islamic world.

[Ordie]

George Lackoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" should be required reading for spin doctors.

They should borrow terminology from law enforcement.

[Calanen]

Well, obviously not. But it is clear that there are certain groups, nations within nations if you will, in the west who seek to antagonize the islamic world.

Do you get a discount Walmart card if you join? If so, can I get a get a membership application?

[Rienaaja]

Do you get a discount Walmart card if you join? If so, can I get a get a membership application?

Hmm? I'm sorry, but we do not have Wal-Mart's in Finland.

[Moledet]

Well, obviously not. But it is clear that there are certain groups, nations within nations if you will, in the west who seek to antagonize the islamic world.
Riiighht, but the following cartoons published in Arab media are perfectly fine
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/Hebrew/heb_n/html/img/anti_semitism_0407_0.jpg

http://www.adl.org/NR/rdonlyres/etgg3uiqlazdbyjuqfft7ovv5wmdfjshwtmtkaorpsofnumhtiqmyrazskuathhxmp76vjma7mo6vg/7.jpg
The peace seeking Arab is saying "Annapolis," while the devilish Jew marked by the word "Settlements" is saying "Ana-Iblis", which means: "I am a Satan."

And this type of cartoons are on their papers, children textbooks, TVs (including antisemitic programs) every single day and all over the Arab and Muslim world yet we don't burn any embassy.
http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/default.htm

[Flagg]

What ever happened to the word "criminal"?

Did it just go out of fashion like the words "groovy" and "Ya know what I'm sayin'?" ??

I for one would like to see classics like "crime" and "criminal" dusted off and taken off the shelf.

[Calanen]

What ever happened to the word "criminal"?

Did it just go out of fashion like the words "groovy" and "Ya know what I'm sayin'?" ??

I for one would like to see classics like "crime" and "criminal" dusted off and taken off the shelf.

Criminal doesnt really cut it. While they commit crimes, their motive is not like the Gambino crime family, its religiously based. They call themselves islamic jihadis, so should we. That's what they are - people who seek inspiration from the Koran to kill infidels, and impose sharia law and to destroy infidel governments.

Just calling them criminals ignores their motivations, aspirations, and doctrines.

[California Joe]

Words are weapons, sharper than knives...

We should call them "psychopathic murdering scum".

Understanding their motivations doesn't mean we have to somehow validate their warped view of themselves by referring to them in the same manner. You can understand them and still call them whatever the hell you want. Preferrably something demeaning to their self esteem that makes fun of their small genitalia or lack of personal hygeine.

[wigon]

Criminal doesnt really cut it. While they commit crimes, their motive is not like the Gambino crime family, its religiously based. They call themselves islamic jihadis, so should we. That's what they are - people who seek inspiration from the Koran to kill infidels, and impose sharia law and to destroy infidel governments.

Just calling them criminals ignores their motivations, aspirations, and doctrines.


While I acknowledge what these extremists call themselves and that indeed they do believe they are doing it for religious reasons, I also, when having dialog extremists on religious forums, make it very clear to them that what they advocate doing is FORBIDDEN in their religion and will grant them hellfire in Islam. Even in the most conservative traditional interpretation of Islam, there is nothing allowing the slaughtering of women and children in Islam.

So there is a point to be made by simply calling them terrorists instead of Jihadists. A true Jihadist would be an insurgent in Iraq who is ONLY attacking US/coalition military forces and who takes great care not to harm civilians. They would be within their rights of self-defense under international law and under Islamic law.
However one who purposefully spreads terror by blowing barber shops that shave beards and blowing up schools full of children (and market places crowded with mainly women and children) is the worst and most evil type of hypocrit in Islam. An example of this mentality is found in the profiles of most the 9/11 hijackers. Most of them were out partying heavily before their terrorist attack at bars and strip clubs because they believed that their perceived martyrdom would guarantee them paradise. According to some who met these guys, they were incredibly surprised to learn that some of them has participated in this attack as they had appeared to be completely non-religious. This is typical of the most dangerous types of radical Islamic terrorist who live in complete hypocricy and sinfulness in the belief that blowing themselves up will remove all their sins.

It's like a Christian believing that they can be total sinners with no penalty as long as they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord, God, and Savior...even though their are verses in the New Testament that say different.
However, that's not nearly as bad as what these Al-Qaeda types of extremists believe and act upon.
On the bright side, these types got kicked out of Iraq by most Sunni tribes precisely because of this horrific hypocricy and arrogance.
To make matters worse there is evidence that Iran actually has been staging suicide attacks on Iraqi Shi'a in order to destabilize the Iraqi government and gain more power in the ensuing chaos. This shows the Shi'a side of extremism and hypocricy where they are willing to kill their own Shi'a people in the name of Allah (but really in the name of greed and power). Then they wonder why a large percentage of young Iranians hate their religion and government.


Wigon

[Calanen]

A true Jihadist would be an insurgent in Iraq who is ONLY attacking US/coalition military forces and who takes great care not to harm civilians.

In a strict Koranic sense, not even this is correct for this reason - because there is an islamic government in power that supports the troops being there, so, shouldnt they be supporting islamic brothers etc? Still open for debate. If the Americans were still in government, I might accept that there is some jihadi support for it.

The other traditional jihadic approach that the AQ and others fall down on is this: you *always* have the right to surrender in Islam. They don't seem to give civilian contractors or soldiers that right once they capture them.



They would be within their rights of self-defense under international law and under Islamic law.


Only up to the time that Saddam was toppled. Not after that.




However one who purposefully spreads terror by blowing barber shops that shave beards and blowing up schools full of children (and market places crowded with mainly women and children) is the worst and most evil type of hypocrit in Islam.


Yes this is ridiculous. They call them involutnary martyrs, and say that Saladin killed muslims with the Crusaders. There are great penalties though for people who do not join the jihad, so it may be that they justify this by saying these people have wrongly opted out.




An example of this mentality is found in the profiles of most the 9/11 hijackers. Most of them were out partying heavily before their terrorist attack at bars and strip clubs because they believed that their perceived martyrdom would guarantee them paradise. According to some who met these guys, they were incredibly surprised to learn that some of them has participated in this attack as they had appeared to be completely non-religious. This is typical of the most dangerous types of radical Islamic terrorist who live in complete hypocricy and sinfulness in the belief that blowing themselves up will remove all their sins.


It's hard to know whether this was a cover to distract attention from them. AQs manuals tell people to behave like Westerners when on operations.



It's like a Christian believing that they can be total sinners with no penalty as long as they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord, God, and Savior...even though their are verses in the New Testament that say different.
However, that's not nearly as bad as what these Al-Qaeda types of extremists believe and act upon.


Christians arent very big on terror. The odd abortion clinic once in a blue moon is a grain of sand vs the Sahara considering the avalanche of jihadis and islamic terrorist plots.


On the bright side, these types got kicked out of Iraq by most Sunni tribes precisely because of this horrific hypocricy and arrogance.

Eventually. But what if they had adopted a more moderate approach? Their muslim brothers would have stayed with them.



To make matters worse there is evidence that Iran actually has been staging suicide attacks on Iraqi Shi'a in order to destabilize the Iraqi government and gain more power in the ensuing chaos. This shows the Shi'a side of extremism and hypocricy where they are willing to kill their own Shi'a people in the name of Allah (but really in the name of greed and power). Then they wonder why a large percentage of young Iranians hate their religion and government.

They do, because its a corrupt fascist regime and the bulk of Iranians are reasonably westernised muslims. They would like to live like Balkan muslims, and have access to the nations wealth, instead of it going to corrupt mullah cronies.

[Lau]

What do you mean, "arab excuse"? As a dane you should well know that Flemming Rose is an Ukrainian jew. He was the guy who printed those cartoons, if you recall.

So?..... Oh, I guess you wont be able to answer. But don't worry, I know all of your pathetic answers and excuses.

Have fun blaming the jews mate. :roll:

[HageNuke]

Can't we all just be friends?

[Baboon]

This reminds me of a time when about 20 years ago there was a UN resolution condemning international terrorism and the only country in the opposition was USA. It had something to do with American terror in Nicaragua.

[HageNuke]

It came back to bite them good in the behind.

[wigon]

Hey we were fighting commies so thats different! Better DEAD then RED!!! Don't you guys remember that or are you all from commie countries?
Ah the good ol' days of the Cold War... far more simpler times.
:)

Wigon

[HageNuke]

We have socialist goverment. That has worked pretty good so far. One of the richest nations in the world.

[wigon]

We have socialist goverment. That has worked pretty good so far. One of the richest nations in the world.



And now we have China rapidly moving towards being the number one economic power using their new hybrid Commie/Capitalist system to make alot of people rich. Ironically, they seem to be using their communist government now to oppress worker rights rather then defend them. Very ironic. But it works really well when a country has that type of iron-fisted social control mixed with few regulations on industry and business. That way if workers get all uppity and claim about working insane hours and no health care....BAM! The gov. sents in the riot police and cracks some skulls while arresting the labor leaders.

Yeah, I think Marx got a facelift and at least in the case of China, it's not pretty. Norway's prettier though. lol

Wigon

[HageNuke]

And now we have China rapidly moving towards being the number one economic power using their new hybrid Commie/Capitalist system to make alot of people rich. Ironically, they seem to be using their communist government now to oppress worker rights rather then defend them. Very ironic. But it works really well when a country has that type of iron-fisted social control mixed with few regulations on industry and business. That way if workers get all uppity and claim about working insane hours and no health care....BAM! The gov. sents in the riot police and cracks some skulls while arresting the labor leaders.

Yeah, I think Marx got a facelift and at least in the case of China, it's not pretty. Norway's prettier though. lol

Wigon

Was I just accused of saying that China is an OK example of running a nation? Because that was not in my intentions. I'm just simply telling that a socialist goverment system can give a nation great prosperity.

HageNuke

[Lau]

And now we have China rapidly moving towards being the number one economic power using their new hybrid Commie/Capitalist system to make alot of people rich. Ironically, they seem to be using their communist government now to oppress worker rights rather then defend them. Very ironic. But it works really well when a country has that type of iron-fisted social control mixed with few regulations on industry and business. That way if workers get all uppity and claim about working insane hours and no health care....BAM! The gov. sents in the riot police and cracks some skulls while arresting the labor leaders.

Yeah, I think Marx got a facelift and at least in the case of China, it's not pretty. Norway's prettier though. lol

Wigon

The Norwegian and Chinese systems have absolutely nothing in common.

[California Joe]

This reminds me of a time when about 20 years ago there was a UN resolution condemning international terrorism and the only country in the opposition was USA. It had something to do with American terror in Nicaragua.

Ahhhh good old 20 year old UN resolutions. Stupid f*cking Americans and their evil ways. The world would be a much nicer, fluffy kitten filled place without them. Pity that.

[HageNuke]

Ahhhh good old 20 year old UN resolutions. Stupid f*cking Americans and their evil ways. The world would be a much nicer, fluffy kitten filled place without them. Pity that.

Couldn't agree more...p-)

[HageNuke]

The Norwegian and Chinese systems have absolutely nothing in common.

THANK YOU, Lau!

[Lau]

Ahhhh good old 20 year old UN resolutions. Stupid f*cking Americans and their evil ways. The world would be a much nicer, fluffy kitten filled place without them. Pity that.

Do you by any chance play dodgeball? ;)

[wigon]

Was I just accused of saying that China is an OK example of running a nation? Because that was not in my intentions. I'm just simply telling that a socialist goverment system can give a nation great prosperity.

HageNuke


In America you'd get laughed at saying such things. People would call you a liar, a commie, and a traitor. They think that socialism = the devil.
They would point as evidence to this that Norway is being taken over by Muslims. That's the perception anyways.

Wigon

[HageNuke]

In America you'd get laughed at saying such things. People would call you a liar, a commie, and a traitor. They think that socialism = the devil.
They would point as evidence to this that Norway is being taken over by Muslims. That's the perception anyways.

Wigon

Thats why the US is being look at the wrong way by the rest of the world.

[LongShot]

In America you'd get laughed at saying such things. People would call you a liar, a commie, and a traitor. They think that socialism = the devil.
They would point as evidence to this that Norway is being taken over by Muslims. That's the perception anyways.

Wigon


Thats retarded, the devil isnt a socialist....................

[wigon]

Then what is the devil? The devil in my opinion is in our own minds.. it is what we define as evil. From my observations of my fellow Americans it seems that these days most Americans continue to define socialism as "evil" and the religion of Islam as "evil".

In such they are, for all practical purposes, forces of Satan for many Americans. Politicians with the saavy to undestand this popular perception are able to use it to their advantage.

Some even beleive what they preach. Ideology = religion and God have mercy on those who do not follow the popular ideology.

Longshot, are you Native American? If so, then you and your people have long experience with the power of perception on the American population along with demonization of "the other".

With that said, one can only admire the patriotism of Native Amreicans despite the injustices done upon them. Such patriotism should not be wasted. The voices of wise elders with unique historical perspectives are needed in times of crisis. It is the duty of those of us who are young and dumb to help give those elder voices an audience via modern technology.
An example of this is the work that Johnny Cash did with his concerts on reservations and songs and documentaries on Wounded Knee. Even today for example, very few U.S. colllege history textbooks talk about the 2nd massacre at Wounded Knee and the Native Americans who remain in jail to this day for what was an assault upon their freedom by the U.S. federal government (via U.S. Marshalls and FBI that assaulted Wounded Knee).
Some limited information is found here:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Wounded_Knee,_South_Dakota

However there is a vast amount of writings on this battle that the mainstream American academic historians suppress as it is politically "volalitile" and uncomfortable for most Americans. So before you go off fighting for the white man, even if you are white. Remember the words and language used against Native Americans. It is not very different then the language used against Muslims.
Mark my words.


Wigon

[Calanen]

However there is a vast amount of writings on this battle that the mainstream American academic historians suppress as it is politically "volalitile" and uncomfortable for most Americans. So before you go off fighting for the white man, even if you are white. Remember the words and language used against Native Americans. It is not very different then the language used against Muslims.
Mark my words.


Tu quoque par exemplar...Oh yeah, well WHAT ABOUT YOU!! and the:

1) Indians or Aborigines;
2) The Crusades;
3) The Spanish Inquisition;
4) The Holocaust;
5) Failure to accommodate Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany,

etc etc etc....

It takes us no further and is just deflection. The Islamic world do not want us to debate the failings of the Islamic world, because it is an argument they can never win. So they seek to shift the argument back onto the West, to get them to justify their own history, when it is completely irrelevant. The problem of Islam stands or falls completely on its own merit. The history of the West, the Bible, and the Crusades, is irrelevant and pointless to debate in the context of what people are doing in the name of Islam, right now, and the overwhelming avalanche of terror, protests, riots, and demands for 'rights' within the West, to Islamify Europe, America and all infidel countries.

[Ought Six]

HN:
"I'm just simply telling that a socialist goverment system can give a nation great prosperity."Ahh, no. Even the most corrupt monarchy or theocracy can be a wealthy nation if they have lots of valuable natural resources to sell to the rest of the world, like oil, timber, minerals and seafood; as well as having an abunance of cheap hydropower. It is that and an educated, hard-working population that made Norway rich in spite of its socialist government, not because of it. In fact, Norway is trying to move away from socialism by moving forward with privatization. They have recognized the fact that socialist government control of industry is a bad thing in general, and are seeking to correct it.

Israel is a good example of a nation that has embraced free markets and turned a desert into a near paradise. Singapore has done the same with free markets and no natural resources to speak of. So did Japan, with it constant acute shortage of natural resources. Taiwan, South Korea and others have done the same. Even China has managed to embrace capitalism enough to overcome their institutional corruption and cronyism to the point of good profitability.

Now, of the nations without a great wealth of natural resources, I would ask you to name the prosperous socialist examples. Good luck with that.

[LongShot]

Then what is the devil? The devil in my opinion is in our own minds.. it is what we define as evil. From my observations of my fellow Americans it seems that these days most Americans continue to define socialism as "evil" and the religion of Islam as "evil".

In such they are, for all practical purposes, forces of Satan for many Americans. Politicians with the saavy to undestand this popular perception are able to use it to their advantage.

Some even beleive what they preach. Ideology = religion and God have mercy on those who do not follow the popular ideology.

Longshot, are you Native American? If so, then you and your people have long experience with the power of perception on the American population along with demonization of "the other".

With that said, one can only admire the patriotism of Native Amreicans despite the injustices done upon them. Such patriotism should not be wasted. The voices of wise elders with unique historical perspectives are needed in times of crisis. It is the duty of those of us who are young and dumb to help give those elder voices an audience via modern technology.
An example of this is the work that Johnny Cash did with his concerts on reservations and songs and documentaries on Wounded Knee. Even today for example, very few U.S. colllege history textbooks talk about the 2nd massacre at Wounded Knee and the Native Americans who remain in jail to this day for what was an assault upon their freedom by the U.S. federal government (via U.S. Marshalls and FBI that assaulted Wounded Knee).
Some limited information is found here:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Wounded_Knee,_South_Dakota

However there is a vast amount of writings on this battle that the mainstream American academic historians suppress as it is politically "volalitile" and uncomfortable for most Americans. So before you go off fighting for the white man, even if you are white. Remember the words and language used against Native Americans. It is not very different then the language used against Muslims.
Mark my words.


Wigon


I try not to borrow terms from religion to use as descriptive monikers for something I dont like such as "Socialism=devil" Its much to simplistic, though does help with the mental imagery....

Most people believe what they preach....thats why the preach it.

To answer your question, yes I am a native....though not full blooded. The relocation and persecution of the native population had little to do with public opinion en mass, more pointedly it was a direct result of the views an opinions of those in power. The conflict with the Native American was little more than a land grab, and thanks to politicians like Jackson, a very successful one, especially when he basically spun it like he was doing us a favor.

I wont go as far as to make a comparison between my ancestors and the article of this thread, nor will I say that my ancestors have suffered as much as Muslims, or as much as Christians because my people were persecuted more for what they had than who they were.

The "Patriotism" of Native Americans is a touchy subject with some tribes...especially when you speak of conflicts we fought in for America prior to Vietnam....some tribes were promised their land back in exchange for fighting(a promise not fulfilled), some were simply drafted....others had been orphans and "re-educated" long before they joined the military...knowing nothing of their heritage but the military was glad to use them as a poster to recruit other natives.

Bottom line, at least in my opinion, you cant make the comparison between Muslims and Natives, on the surface it appears similar (depending on what side of the argument you are on) but the situations were quite different. Let us also not forget that for most Americans, the Muslims started this fight by crashing airliners into buildings...Natives just happened to live here.

[HageNuke]

HN:Ahh, no. Even the most corrupt monarchy or theocracy can be a wealthy nation if they have lots of valuable natural resources to sell to the rest of the world, like oil, timber, minerals and seafood; as well as having an abunance of cheap hydropower. It is that and an educated, hard-working population that made Norway rich in spite of its socialist government, not because of it. In fact, Norway is trying to move away from socialism by moving forward with privatization. They have recognized the fact that socialist government control of industry is a bad thing in general, and are seeking to correct it.

'm guessing you from the nation, since you're a self-proclaimed specialist on the subject. My two grandfathers was a part of the generation who used the resources to rebuild the country. Both hard working men who made it their life to create wealth, so that their children could get educated and start families of their own. The socialist goverment was elected by men such as my grandfathers, so that I didn't have to struggle as hard as they did. Sure the norwegian working-man is hard working, all working men are hard working. But the socialists were elected so that laws and unions would benefit the working man. If your from Norway, sure, you think that the entire nation wants to get away from the system and go private. If you're not from Norway, then who has told you that? Last time I cheked the people cried out for more goverment control, so that more money could be made, and more money could be spent on health and infrastructure. The only thing that might change it all is if the opposition wins the election in 09.

Norway did get rich on the hard work and all the resources, BUT we didn't get crowned the best nation to live in because of that.That was because the socialist goverment used a welfare-model that works grat with a population estimated 4-5 million. Ergo the system workes, besides the only people complaining are the ones with more money then the others.


Israel is a good example of a nation that has embraced free markets and turned a desert into a near paradise. Singapore has done the same with free markets and no natural resources to speak of. So did Japan, with it constant acute shortage of natural resources. Taiwan, South Korea and others have done the same. Even China has managed to embrace capitalism enough to overcome their institutional corruption and cronyism to the point of good profitability.

Good for them.


Now, of the nations without a great wealth of natural resources, I would ask you to name the prosperous socialist examples. Good luck with that.

It workes here, don't care if it dosen't work everywere else. Besides if it hadn't been for the socialist goverment, wich is a norwegian one, don't matter if its red or blue, the oil we did get rich of, most of it, wouldn't have been ours to use. It was americans who found the oil, it was the americans who gave us the technology, it was americans who wanted alot of it, but is was the socialist goverment who deneid them any of it. So the "keep it all in the nation, and use it on something else then giving the people large pockets, did turn out better then the alternative.

[wigon]

I try not to borrow terms from religion to use as descriptive monikers for something I dont like such as "Socialism=devil" Its much to simplistic, though does help with the mental imagery....

Most people believe what they preach....thats why the preach it.

To answer your question, yes I am a native....though not full blooded. The relocation and persecution of the native population had little to do with public opinion en mass, more pointedly it was a direct result of the views an opinions of those in power. The conflict with the Native American was little more than a land grab, and thanks to politicians like Jackson, a very successful one, especially when he basically spun it like he was doing us a favor.

I wont go as far as to make a comparison between my ancestors and the article of this thread, nor will I say that my ancestors have suffered as much as Muslims, or as much as Christians because my people were persecuted more for what they had than who they were.

The "Patriotism" of Native Americans is a touchy subject with some tribes...especially when you speak of conflicts we fought in for America prior to Vietnam....some tribes were promised their land back in exchange for fighting(a promise not fulfilled), some were simply drafted....others had been orphans and "re-educated" long before they joined the military...knowing nothing of their heritage but the military was glad to use them as a poster to recruit other natives.

Bottom line, at least in my opinion, you cant make the comparison between Muslims and Natives, on the surface it appears similar (depending on what side of the argument you are on) but the situations were quite different. Let us also not forget that for most Americans, the Muslims started this fight by crashing airliners into buildings...Natives just happened to live here.


True enough. However my point was not to make a direct comparison in all aspects but rather in how Muslims are demonized in the mainstream media stemming from the actions of a small number of radicals. Keep in mind that killings of settlers done by Native Americans were also used as an excuse to drive them from their lands. These killings were exaggerated in the media and by politicians in order to sell fear, get votes, and grab land. Just as we saw with Native Americans, fear is being used now to lump all Muslims together as "the enemy." When you say that the Muslims started it by crashing a plane into the WTC buildings, you either unknowingly or knowingly contribute to this popular generalization and demonization.
Now... just like in past conflicts between Whites and Native Americans, there is some grain of truth within the fear mongoring. Some Native Americans did apparently kill some settlers rather brutally (rightly or wrongly) just as some Muslims do indeed believe as Al-Qaeda does and do indeed want to do harm to America.

I'm not suggesting appeasement or to believe that all Muslims are peace loving hippies. A bit of fear and caution is a healthy thing. However fear should never blind your judgement and close off your mind to the understanding of other cultures and religions.


Wigon

[LongShot]

True enough. However my point was not to make a direct comparison in all aspects but rather in how Muslims are demonized in the mainstream media stemming from the actions of a small number of radicals. Keep in mind that killings of settlers done by Native Americans were also used as an excuse to drive them from their lands. These killings were exaggerated in the media and by politicians in order to sell fear, get votes, and grab land. Just as we saw with Native Americans, fear is being used now to lump all Muslims together as "the enemy." When you say that the Muslims started it by crashing a plane into the WTC buildings, you either unknowingly or knowingly contribute to this popular generalization and demonization.
Now... just like in past conflicts between Whites and Native Americans, there is some grain of truth within the fear mongoring. Some Native Americans did apparently kill some settlers rather brutally (rightly or wrongly) just as some Muslims do indeed believe as Al-Qaeda does and do indeed want to do harm to America.

I'm not suggesting appeasement or to believe that all Muslims are peace loving hippies. A bit of fear and caution is a healthy thing. However fear should never blind your judgement and close off your mind to the understanding of other cultures and religions.


Wigon


It has the advantage of being true. Seeing how the major complaints/arguments/debates on the Jihad V. Mcworld come from the conflicts in A-stan and Iraq.....Please be so kind as to detail a war against Muslim extremists fought by the US prior to said incident.

I hardly think citing a terrorist attack as fear mongering, also the Muslim/Native American comparision cant really fly. Two totally different times and two totally different reasons for conflict. Al-Quaida did not welcome the US with open arms, did not fall victim to explotation after welcoming the US and is not fighting back because we raped and murdered them and then marched their people en mass over a thousand miles in order to take their land...

One other interesting situation one may consider is this; yes, not all Muslims are extremists (and therefore wish the US ill will) however, considering their are over a billion Muslims worldwide and at least ten percent of them (plus or minus depending on the source) are extremists....whats 10% of a billion?

[wigon]

It has the advantage of being true. Seeing how the major complaints/arguments/debates on the Jihad V. Mcworld come from the conflicts in A-stan and Iraq.....Please be so kind as to detail a war against Muslim extremists fought by the US prior to said incident.


What has the advantage of being true? Sorry I don't understand.




I hardly think citing a terrorist attack as fear mongering, also the Muslim/Native American comparision cant really fly. Two totally different times and two totally different reasons for conflict. Al-Quaida did not welcome the US with open arms, did not fall victim to explotation after welcoming the US and is not fighting back because we raped and murdered them and then marched their people en mass over a thousand miles in order to take their land...


I never cited a terrorist attack as fear mongoring. What I was talking about is the perception that most Americans have that most Muslims hate America and are terrorists (or have a high probability of becoming a terrorist). There is a tremendous amount of fear and hatred towards Muslims.



One other interesting situation one may consider is this; yes, not all Muslims are extremists (and therefore wish the US ill will) however, considering their are over a billion Muslims worldwide and at least ten percent of them (plus or minus depending on the source) are extremists....whats 10% of a billion?

Well there are no hard figures and no way of measuring accurately who is and isn't an extremist. The number who actually participate in violence is vastly smaller. Probably less then 1%. However that's enough people to cause a hell of a lot of problems.
I'm not arguing that there is no threat. But as the title of the thread states, words have a powerful impact on people's minds and how they perceive such issues.

Wigon

[LongShot]

What has the advantage of being true? Sorry I don't understand.

That Muslim extremists started the current conflict(s) by crashing planes into buildings.........





I never cited a terrorist attack as fear mongoring. What I was talking about is the perception that most Americans have that most Muslims hate America and are terrorists (or have a high probability of becoming a terrorist). There is a tremendous amount of fear and hatred towards Muslims.

Perception is just that....and the perception of perception lends itself more to bias than it does to reality....were the present "fear mongering" simular to the situation Native Americans went through, the US government would be placing Muslims into camps and/or deporting them wholesale....neither are happening, nor will they. The general American public very may well feel that most muslims are terrorists, but I dont agree with that idea, nor would most educated people. There is a distrustful undertone depending on the geography of the conversation, just as there is with racism as a whole....


The conquest and campaigns against the “Five Civilized Tribes” cant really be compared….apples and oranges as they say.



Well there are no hard figures and no way of measuring accurately who is and isn't an extremist. The number who actually participate in violence is vastly smaller. Probably less then 1%. However that's enough people to cause a hell of a lot of problems.
I'm not arguing that there is no threat. But as the title of the thread states, words have a powerful impact on people's minds and how they perceive such issues.

The problem again is with perception...what classifies a Muslim as an extremist? violent activities? Violent opinions? Violent thoughts? Adherence to Jihad/ issued Fatahs ? Fundamental beliefs and piety?

If one accepts the definition as Muslims that have and/or continue to attack Americans, then perhaps 1% of the Muslim population is correct. Words and titles are relevant in philosophical/ideological conversations on the subject, but in actual conflict they have little effect on the hostility....

[Calanen]

It has the advantage of being true. Seeing how the major complaints/arguments/debates on the Jihad V. Mcworld come from the conflicts in A-stan and Iraq.....Please be so kind as to detail a war against Muslim extremists fought by the US prior to said incident.

I can. Although, I'm not sure that it was against muslim extremists, as against, muslims just following the creed of being Islam. It was one of your first wars, and led to the Marine Fight Song..to the shores of Tripoli.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?ammem/coll=moa&root=/moa/atla/atla0030/&tif=00419.TIF&view=50&frames=1

The United States, a new nation that had no contact or dispute with the Islamic world was being attacked constantly by the Barbary pirates. Jefferson was perplexed, and went to meet with the Ambassador for the Barbary States in 1786, he was the US Ambassador to France. He asked why they were attacking US shipping, when America had never had any interest and/or conflict with the Barbary states. Here is the Ambassadors response:



It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#cite_note-13)


Does this sound familiar too you? All these years ago, the Islamic world was doing the same things, and there was no Israel, there was no Iraq, there was no American economic imperalism. And yet, the same motives, and the same actions from religion were right there. Not poverty. Not Palestine. Not Osama Bin Ladin.

Initially, America paid ransom and tribute to the Barbary states. Millions of dollars. But then they wised up, and sent in the Marines and destroyed them taking the fight to the shores of Tripoli until they were crushed.

So it becomes tiresome to try and explain away a history and a tradition of slaying the unbelievers as found in Islam, as some recent phenomena bound up in US foreign policy. It has been happening for 7 centuries, and will continue to happen.

There is no moderate Islam, only moderate muslims.



One other interesting situation one may consider is this; yes, not all Muslims are extremists (and therefore wish the US ill will) however, considering their are over a billion Muslims worldwide and at least ten percent of them (plus or minus depending on the source) are extremists....whats 10% of a billion?

It's way more than that. And what is an extremist? Is an extremist someone who would like to see America fall and sharia law take its place with a muslim state and that muslims should do what they can to bring this about? That all infidel governments should fall?

Most surveys also downplay the bad findings, and give the spin. Like, only 24% of muslims in France believe in suicide bombings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201463.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Imagine if 24% of christians believed in suicide bombing in a survey, the moonbats would be going into a spin.

And what about the polls taken after the 7/7 attacks in Britain.

http://www.youtube.com/v/bqbuWGfYyTc

[wigon]

That Muslim extremists started the current conflict(s) by crashing planes into buildings.........


No doubt although they like to play the blame game and claim that it was American imperialism in the Middle East, troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and other such factors that were the reason for the attack. I think that's a big crock of Sh*t but they try to play the victim as well ironically.
However, what is more common in the Islamic world is the idea that it wasn't Muslims who did the attack but rather Israeli Mossad agents and/or the CIA. While there is no evidence for this, this belief is incredibly persistent in the Middle East. In the face of such perception, U.S. military actions in the Middle East then take on a vastly more sinister form to them. In such a climate, many are more then willing to support jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Changing such perceptions is critical if we are to actually win the war on terror. Otherwise its just an endless battle until someone uses a nuke.





Perception is just that....and the perception of perception lends itself more to bias than it does to reality....were the present "fear mongering" simular to the situation Native Americans went through, the US government would be placing Muslims into camps and/or deporting them wholesale....neither are happening, nor will they.


Actually large numbers of Muslims were deported after 9/11 often on the smallest infractions of their visa status.
Here's a ton of info on the American Muslim community since 9/11.
http://soundvision.com/info/muslims/internment.asp





The problem again is with perception...what classifies a Muslim as an extremist? violent activities? Violent opinions? Violent thoughts? Adherence to Jihad/ issued Fatahs ? Fundamental beliefs and piety?

If one accepts the definition as Muslims that have and/or continue to attack Americans, then perhaps 1% of the Muslim population is correct. Words and titles are relevant in philosophical/ideological conversations on the subject, but in actual conflict they have little effect on the hostility....


Here I have to completely disagree with you. Perception IS reality for human beings. It is not just something to cast off into the realm of high-fallut'n hippy conversations about philsophy and ideology. Every day you are exposed to perception management in the form of advertisement. Your parents and other family members were perception managers and helped form who you are today most likely. Right now, you are undertaking an excercise in perception management. Every day we make assumptions on things that we do not have scientific data about. Instead we have faith in specialists and experts who tell us what is right and what is wrong. Granted we have brains and we use them to judge such things based on other factors, but often we don't do a good job of that. Thus we very often give in to perception based on what we see in the media or on what political pundits tell us.

When perception is managed brilliantly we see how either very great things can be accomplished or horrific evils. The Nazis are a great example of brilliant perception management. They knew exactly how to harness the humiliation, aspirations, and anger of the German people and were masters at constructing powerful symbolism and ceremonies as well as finding scapegoats in the form of the Jews.

That and countless other massacres and genocides are the result of "perception management". On the good side, however one example is how it can be a vastly useful tool for capitalism and is part of what makes our economy strong. However marketing is only useful for target audiences and thus requires intimate knowledge of that audience. So far the U.S. government has done a rather poor job of understanding the Muslim audience and how to speak to Muslims around the world in their language. As such, we have not made much progress in changing their perceptions of America. That is something that CAN change and MUST change if we are to truly win the War on Terror.

That in a nutshell is why I do the research that I do.
I should add that there are indeed criteria that you can use to define and identify an extremist and its not just one category but many levels of radicalism. If you like I can go into more detail on these.


Wigon

[wigon]

[/font][/color]

I can. Although, I'm not sure that it was against muslim extremists, as against, muslims just following the creed of being Islam. It was one of your first wars, and led to the Marine Fight Song..to the shores of Tripoli.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?ammem/coll=moa&root=/moa/atla/atla0030/&tif=00419.TIF&view=50&frames=1

The United States, a new nation that had no contact or dispute with the Islamic world was being attacked constantly by the Barbary pirates. Jefferson was perplexed, and went to meet with the Ambassador for the Barbary States in 1786, he was the US Ambassador to France. He asked why they were attacking US shipping, when America had never had any interest and/or conflict with the Barbary states. Here is the Ambassadors response:



Does this sound familiar too you? All these years ago, the Islamic world was doing the same things, and there was no Israel, there was no Iraq, there was no American economic imperalism. And yet, the same motives, and the same actions from religion were right there. Not poverty. Not Palestine. Not Osama Bin Ladin.

Initially, America paid ransom and tribute to the Barbary states. Millions of dollars. But then they wised up, and sent in the Marines and destroyed them taking the fight to the shores of Tripoli until they were crushed.

So it becomes tiresome to try and explain away a history and a tradition of slaying the unbelievers as found in Islam, as some recent phenomena bound up in US foreign policy. It has been happening for 7 centuries, and will continue to happen.

There is no moderate Islam, only moderate muslims.



And as we've debated before, I do not agree. Islam is not one monolithic belief that every Muslim understands in the same fashion all through their history. During that period of piracy were all Muslims all over the Middle East doing such criminal activities? You still have idiot Muslims just like those Barbary pirates who operate along the coast of Somalia and who use many of the same arguements. But they are the exception. Pulling out an example here and there of radical Muslims does not represent all of Islamic thought and belief on the issue of kafr.
There are a million Islamic theological arguements that I could use if faced with a criminal like that who tries to justify his actions in the name of Islam.



It's way more than that. And what is an extremist? Is an extremist someone who would like to see America fall and sharia law take its place with a muslim state and that muslims should do what they can to bring this about? That all infidel governments should fall?

Most surveys also downplay the bad findings, and give the spin. Like, only 24% of muslims in France believe in suicide bombings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201463.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Imagine if 24% of christians believed in suicide bombing in a survey, the moonbats would be going into a spin.

And what about the polls taken after the 7/7 attacks in Britain.

http://www.youtube.com/v/bqbuWGfYyTc


Such polls are very tricky and the link you gave from the Washington Post didn't have any particularly surprising results regarding American Muslims.
Conditions in countries like France for example are ripe for extremists to take advantage of much of the anger amongst poor Muslim immigrants.

The You Tube video was pretty good although the fellow sitting in the studio was pulling figures out of his ass like the one about 3/4 of Americans believing in 9/11 conspiracies. However again that's not too surprising hearing him say stuff like that. Those types of conspiracy ideas are taken as absolute truth by many Muslims. Everyone wants their group to be the good guys. Psychologically its very hard to accept that someone representing your group (in this case a religion) did something so incredibly evil. It would be more surprising if we did not see such denials.
I see the same behavior on these forums if I start talking about America's role in the savage proxy wars of the Cold War in Latin America and Africa.
Again, the same thing if I am critical of American global economic policies and how they affect developing nations. Most Americans don't want to hear that crap just like they regard the soldier who released those Abu-Graib pictures as one of the worst traitors in American history. When our team/group/religion does something horrific, it is painful and difficult to accept. The general reaction is a defensive reaction.
This is what we see Muslims doing and for the most part most Americans (and many Westerners like yourself) are engaged in just feeding that fire rather then seeking ways to change the perception of Muslims.

Wigon

[Calanen]

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3246/tolerance5yc3vj3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[LongShot]

No doubt although they like to play the blame game and claim that it was American imperialism in the Middle East, troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and other such factors that were the reason for the attack. I think that's a big crock of Sh*t but they try to play the victim as well ironically.
However, what is more common in the Islamic world is the idea that it wasn't Muslims who did the attack but rather Israeli Mossad agents and/or the CIA. While there is no evidence for this, this belief is incredibly persistent in the Middle East. In the face of such perception, U.S. military actions in the Middle East then take on a vastly more sinister form to them. In such a climate, many are more then willing to support jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Changing such perceptions is critical if we are to actually win the war on terror. Otherwise its just an endless battle until someone uses a nuke.

Theres that perception again....





Actually large numbers of Muslims were deported after 9/11 often on the smallest infractions of their visa status.
Here's a ton of info on the American Muslim community since 9/11.
http://soundvision.com/info/muslims/internment.asp

Better safe than sorry, and given the nature of the conflict that was beginning and the shock of the attack, those numbers are low....I think the US government showed a strong degree of restraint.





Here I have to completely disagree with you. Perception IS reality for human beings. It is not just something to cast off into the realm of high-fallut'n hippy conversations about philsophy and ideology. Every day you are exposed to perception management in the form of advertisement. Your parents and other family members were perception managers and helped form who you are today most likely. Right now, you are undertaking an excercise in perception management. Every day we make assumptions on things that we do not have scientific data about. Instead we have faith in specialists and experts who tell us what is right and what is wrong. Granted we have brains and we use them to judge such things based on other factors, but often we don't do a good job of that. Thus we very often give in to perception based on what we see in the media or on what political pundits tell us.

When perception is managed brilliantly we see how either very great things can be accomplished or horrific evils. The Nazis are a great example of brilliant perception management. They knew exactly how to harness the humiliation, aspirations, and anger of the German people and were masters at constructing powerful symbolism and ceremonies as well as finding scapegoats in the form of the Jews.

That and countless other massacres and genocides are the result of "perception management". On the good side, however one example is how it can be a vastly useful tool for capitalism and is part of what makes our economy strong. However marketing is only useful for target audiences and thus requires intimate knowledge of that audience. So far the U.S. government has done a rather poor job of understanding the Muslim audience and how to speak to Muslims around the world in their language. As such, we have not made much progress in changing their perceptions of America. That is something that CAN change and MUST change if we are to truly win the War on Terror.

That in a nutshell is why I do the research that I do.
I should add that there are indeed criteria that you can use to define and identify an extremist and its not just one category but many levels of radicalism. If you like I can go into more detail on these.


Wigon


Perception is indeed reality....for each person, what happens when people start trading and comparing their perceptions like trading cards? Not all people make assumptions to generalize a perception.... Opperant conditioning can be had just as often as preconceieved notions based on the perception of a situation.

[wigon]

Perception is indeed reality....for each person, what happens when people start trading and comparing their perceptions like trading cards? Not all people make assumptions to generalize a perception.... Opperant conditioning can be had just as often as preconceieved notions based on the perception of a situation.

Hmm..... Can you give examples?

Perception is generally not traded around. Change in perception generally happens when some form of information/media challenges their prior perceptions in a manner that is consistent with their primary schema or world view (in the case of Muslims, usually founded upon their religious beliefs, socioeconomic situation, and historical background).

Wigon

[LongShot]

Hmm..... Can you give examples?

Perception is generally not traded around. Change in perception generally happens when some form of information/media challenges their prior perceptions in a manner that is consistent with their primary schema or world view (in the case of Muslims, usually founded upon their religious beliefs, socioeconomic situation, and historical background).

Wigon

My point is the fact that individuals can be influenced through the perceptions of others, just as easily as they can create their own perception in spite of or counter to their original education on a given subject.

An individual’s perception can, and often is placed up for acceptance (either actively or passively) by an individual simply offering opinions, providing advice or, as a parent, teaching their children and in this manner ideas/views are passed to others.

Perception is reality insofar as the individual is concerned, though one can’t apply this to a group of individuals.

In keeping with the idea of the article, words are carefully chosen (or chosen with disregard) in order to brand and identify and idea, so that its consumption by the general public is done so with the least amount of confusion possible. Words create perception, therefore some are thinking that words that produce a positive perception of terrorists in the minds of Muslims should be dropped. I think it should be taken a step further.

The word “Insurgent” was chosen to define militant forces in Iraq, though if one uses the literal definition of the word, it grants these enemy forces the same status of Americans fighting the British in the 1700’s…not a good choice of a “buzz word” if you ask me… I suppose much of this can be traced to the fact that in order for the media to keep peoples attention, they have to spice it up a little…nothing was wrong with “terrorist” if you ask me, though the general public had been more or less desensitized to the word, hence “Insurgent.”

Some things in reality cant be challenged (laws of gravity, etc) but much is up for grabs…perception is each persons reality, however fleeting, and can be changed at will by the influence of outside forces.

[wigon]

My point is the fact that individuals can be influenced through the perceptions of others, just as easily as they can create their own perception in spite of or counter to their original education on a given subject.

An individual’s perception can, and often is placed up for acceptance (either actively or passively) by an individual simply offering opinions, providing advice or, as a parent, teaching their children and in this manner ideas/views are passed to others.

Perception is reality insofar as the individual is concerned, though one can’t apply this to a group of individuals.


I was agreeing with you all the way until that last part. What you said last is in fact sometimes true. Somtimes the perception of an individual is definitely not applicable to a group. However, sometimes it very much is. That is how ideologies work and how religions work although eventually they get subdivided as those ideas evolve (as culture changes and ideas evolve).






In keeping with the idea of the article, words are carefully chosen (or chosen with disregard) in order to brand and identify and idea, so that its consumption by the general public is done so with the least amount of confusion possible. Words create perception, therefore some are thinking that words that produce a positive perception of terrorists in the minds of Muslims should be dropped. I think it should be taken a step further.

The word “Insurgent” was chosen to define militant forces in Iraq, though if one uses the literal definition of the word, it grants these enemy forces the same status of Americans fighting the British in the 1700’s…not a good choice of a “buzz word” if you ask me… I suppose much of this can be traced to the fact that in order for the media to keep peoples attention, they have to spice it up a little…nothing was wrong with “terrorist” if you ask me, though the general public had been more or less desensitized to the word, hence “Insurgent.”



But are all insurgents the same? I suppose for the general public, in order to drum up support of the war, nice general labels have to be used. But within the realm of military men and women and those civilians on the front lines of counter-terrorism, I think different words need to be used to distinguish the many types of insurgents so as to properly target them with both diplomatic and military means as needed. What I've seen in the U.S. Army (talking to many veterans) is that this line is blurred and you see an oddly different categorizaton of insurgents by civil affairs and psy-ops people compared to most intel and infantrymen who have different priorities and operational SOP's.
Again its all about the perception that you enter the battlefield with and the job that you are trying to do. Are you a hunter/killer or a winner of hearts and minds? Or both (which often becomes very complicated).
Even the U.S. military has not figured out this role and often works against each other.



Some things in reality cant be challenged (laws of gravity, etc) but much is up for grabs…perception is each persons reality, however fleeting, and can be changed at will by the influence of outside forces.

Amen to that...which is why the audience must be carefullly considered before words are uttered. If you understand the belief systems of terrorists then you can understand how to speak to "their perceptions/realities" in a productive manner.
Unfortunately our message to fellow Americans is often misunderstood in the Middle East as a battle cry against Islam.... and many powerful neocon writers and think tanks have been pushing that perception for various agendas (religious, financial, etc...).

THAT is what we must be aware of and that is why the issue of perception is a profoundly important issue to talk about in public in a manner that is understandable to anyone with a high school education.
This of course involves critical thinking... a task in which our public schools fail miserably in teaching. But that is a subject for another thread.

Wigon