Posted on 10/17/2007 4:45:42 AM PDT by Mount Athos
In a new TV commercial, Mitt Romney utters one of television’s new forbidden words. “It’s this century’s nightmare: jihadism. Violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism,” he says. “Their goal is to unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate. To do that, they must collapse freedom-loving nations like us.”
The forbidden word? Jihadism. Romney says in the commercial that in response to this threat he’ll beef up America’s intelligence services, monitor Al-Qaeda’s calls into the U.S. (a clear reference to a controversial Patriot Act provision), strengthen the armed forces, and stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. None of these recommendations, however, are likely to arouse as much controversy as his use of that word. Romney has now grasped the third rail of the public discourse by using a word related to jihad in a clear reference to terrorism, and throwing in “Islamic fundamentalism” on top of that.For we all know and must always avow, you see, that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that jihad is a spiritual struggle, a fight within the soul of the believer to conform his life to the will of God. It has nothing whatsoever to do with attacks like 9/11.
American Muslim advocacy groups have made it their business to call any American on the carpet who suggests that global jihad terrorism has anything to do with Islam, and the Left has played along willingly. On the "Hannity and Colmes" show Thursday night, the house liberal, Alan Colmes, took issue with the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which begins October 22 on over one hundred campuses all over the country. Colmes said that many people found the term Islamo-Fascism “offensive,” and referred to the “inherent racism” of the phrase. Neither Islam nor Fascism is a race, but Colmes’s point was clear: he was objecting to the “equation of Islam with terrorism.” He and those who think like him are likely to look with no less a jaundiced eye on Romney’s “radical Islamic fundamentalism.”
This denial prevails in Europe also. European Union guidelines direct governments not to use the word “Islamic” in conjunction with “terrorism,” and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown likewise directed his cabinet ministers to avoid using the word “Muslim” and “terrorism” together. Such initiatives proceed from the unexamined but nonetheless iron dogma that the terrorists are hijacking Islam, but the most uncomfortable fact they ignore is that Islam and terrorism weren’t equated by black-hearted non-Muslim “Islamophobes,” but by Muslims.
The only reason why anyone is ever tempted to speak about “Islamic terrorism” or “radical Islamic fundamentalism” or “jihadism” in the first place is that Osama bin Laden and other Muslims who share his ideology explain and justify their actions by making copious reference to the Qur’an and the example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. They even gain recruits among peaceful Muslims by presenting themselves as the exponents of “pure Islam.”
Pretending that this is not happening is not going to make it go away. The only way the Islamic jihadists’ use of Islamic texts to incite violence can be ended is not by ignoring it, but by confronting it. The jihadists will continue to present themselves as the representatives of “pure Islam” until peaceful Muslims begin to oppose them in sufficient numbers -- and this will never happen as long as no one is even allowed to point out that there is a problem they, and we, need to deal with in the first place.
Mitt Romney deserves applause. All the presidential candidates should all be discussing the jihad -- the ideology of those who would destroy us. They should be doing so openly and freely, and what can and must be done about it -- so frequently that the use of the word “jihad” by one of them shouldn’t even be news at all. The fact that six years after 9/11 it is shocking when a presidential candidate uses the word “jihad” is a measure of how all-pervasive fantasy-based analysis has become.
His rivals should follow Romney’s lead in this and begin to face reality.
“In a new TV commercial, Mitt Romney utters one of television’s new forbidden words. “It’s this century’s nightmare: jihadism. Violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism,” he says. “Their goal is to unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate. To do that, they must collapse freedom-loving nations like us.””
Can you imagine liberals watching this commercial? They must’ve had a collective coronary.
Of course, they’ve already forgotten about 911 or think Bush did it, so there you go.
Good for Mitt - I am starting to take to this man.
A person who waffles for political gain can not be trusted with important decisions.
Well now...
Mitt just went up 10 solid points in my mental logbook.
I am going to be fascinated to see how this story works out.
If Romney utters the word, and liberals recoil in terror, that is good advertising for the GOP.
>>>I applaud Mitt, and ask where is his plan? <<<
He’s been discussing it since he was a governor. Here is but part:
September 15, 2005
Governor Mitt Romney raised the prospect of wiretapping mosques and conducting surveillance of foreign students in Massachusetts, as he issued a broad call yesterday for the federal government to devote far more money and attention to domestic intelligence gathering.
In remarks that caused alarm among civil libertarians and advocates for immigrants rights, Romney said in a speech to the Heritage Foundation that the United States needs to radically rethink how it guards itself against terrorism.
‘’How many individuals are coming to our state and going to those institutions who have come from terrorist-sponsored states?” he said, referring to foreign students who attend universities in Massachusetts. ‘’Do we know where they are? Are we tracking them?”
‘’How about people who are in settings — mosques, for instance — that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror,” Romney continued. ‘’Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what’s going on?”
(continues)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/09/15/wiretap_mosques_romney_suggests/
I think the best response to this is, "When you convince the terrorists that they are not Islamic crusaders, and they stop self-describing themselves as such, I'll stop using the term."
So do I. Good blend of strength, intelligence, business saavy, and political know-how.
In fact I like him precisely because he has seen clear to reject some of his lib positions of the past (as have I).
You know, sometimes true converts to conservatism make the best person for the job, because they understand and feel guilty for their previous wrong-headed thoughts. (I still feel guilty for being such a wrong-headed teen)
Of course the detractors will DEMAND that everyone be like Ronald Reagan who NEVER changed his positions.
Oops. Wait a minute. Reagan once signed into law the most liberal pro-abortion law in California.
Reagan signed the AMNESTY bill.
And Reagan signed on to tax hikes in 1986, which almost send the country into recession.
And Reagan was once a DEMOCRAT!!
I am confused.
Since when is that word forbidden?
What a load of BS. More Mitt spin.
Ron Paul is a RINO, as he is really a Libertarian.
Anyone who would not vote for Romney (or Fred or even McCain or even Godforbid Giuliani) over Hillary in 2008 is a RINO, as those voters are really fundamentalist conservatives who would place their purist interpretation of the Constitution over the survival of their country in a war to the death with the real axis of evil.
Now that revival communism and islamic fascism are becoming allies, they are the axis of evil, not our "Johnny come lately" Republican candidates.
Anyone who would desert the Republican party now is a RINO.
Typical liberal condescention. It only shows that liberals have less respect for people than conservatives, even our enemies. When they say they are following the words and deeds of their false prophet, and give theological arguments that back it up, I believe them. When they call for Jihad to create a world Caliphate, I believe that is their goal. When people chant "Death to America", I believe they mean it, and I take them seriously. Liberals think they are merely misguided children who need to be enlightened.
Reagan was also a Democrat back in the 30s and 40s.
Forbidden to move on NUT CASES so WHAT?
Romney will say whatever it takes to gain an edge over the competiton. What concerns me, if he gains the presidency, is: what will he do?
He right.
Me, I think ole Romney was pandering (or crafty) when he got people in Massachusetts to vote for someone whose instincts and background are actually pretty conservative.
Now I think he is being crafty again (or pandering) but what he is saying now is closer to the heart of his belief system.
Reminds me of Guy White on The Half Hour News Hour.
After what the media and the conservatives did to President George W. Bush, I’m surprised anybody halfway decent would run for President again.
And compared to Hillary, Ole Romney is more than half way decent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.