This Blog was born out of anger with the incoherence of our political, academic and media elites. Technology has made communications the most important front in war at a time when the West has lost the skill of using precise language. The Founding Fathers, who labored over the exact meaning of each word and explored all possible interpretations of a phrase, must be turning in their graves.
2500 years ago the Chinese warrior Sun Tzu wrote that a military operation involves deception. More recently the German General Carl von Clausewitz expressed similar ideas. In the seventh century Muhammad taught that “war is deceit” and in the twentieth century Corporal Adolf Hitler recognized that deceit is more economical than combat.
Sun Tzu, von Clausewitz, Muhammad and Hitler understood that, regardless of how victory is achieved, the vanquished can be assimilated, enslaved or slain at will. Both also understood that, even as the troops are marching, it is best to talk about peace and tranquility, because there will always be amongst the enemy those gullible or fearful enough to believe the babble and agitate for appeasement.
Language confusion abates the enemy’s war of deception. Today’s lesson focuses on just one word – terrorism. We were reminded of our dislike of this word by a post yesterday in Little Green Footballs with the title CAIR’s Anti-terrorism Campaign: Empty Page.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) provides the following definitions.
Terror – 1a: a state of intense fright or apprehension.
Terrorize – 1: to fill with terror or anxiety: scare, 2: to coerce by threat or violence.
Terrorism – 1: the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion, 2: an atmosphere of threat or violence.
Terrorist – 1: an advocate or practitioner of terror as a means of coercion.
We have noticed that even clear thinking conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Charles Johnson use the word terrorist as implying some general evil. When pressed that the West also uses “terror tactics” they seem to interpret the word as meaning “one who kills innocent women and children intentionally to achieve political ends.” Unfortunately, these interpretations are not accurate. If you doubt this just read the Webster definitions again. The definition is not dependent on cause, victims, or method. It is simply means “causing intense fright.”
The truth is that every General of an army, be it US Marines or Jihadi Warriors, strives to scare the enemy. It is a basic principle. You win by terrorizing the enemy more than the enemy terrorizes you. That is why in 2003 Lt General William “Jerry” Boykin became our hero when he told Florida Baptists about watching a Muslim warlord on TV boasting that Allah will make him victorious over the infidels. Boykin was not scared “I knew my God was stronger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol.” The General added “Our religion came from Judaism and therefore Islamists will hate us forever.”
General Boykin is not going to be terrorized. We are glad that people like Gen Boykin are out there ready to terrorize the enemy at night so we may sleep secure in our homes. Read General Boykin’s story here.
In post WWII Germany youth gangs tried to terrorize Germans into resisting the Allies. They killed officials who cooperated with the occupation army and even attacked US troops. When caught, General Patton had them tied to a tree and executed by a seven member firing squad. Patton so terrorized the “werewolves” that the insurgency collapsed in two years.
Ok, you say, calling the Jihadis “terrorists” is the wrong, but what is the right name? “Enemies” is always a good choice. When we call them terrorists and they call us terrorists, things get confusing. The world wonders, who are the real terrorists? When we call them enemies and in turn they call us enemies – that sounds right. We are and they are. Jihad Warriors (Jihadis) is another good choice. Saudi Arabia is even better.
