Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam'

Published May 27, 2010
FOXNews.com

The president's top counterterrorism adviser (Editorial Note: This guy isn't smart enough to pour piss out of a boot) on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" (Editorial Note: Works for me, but if they prefer, assholists, I'm good with that too) should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims. (Editorial Note: But it does for enough of them) However, jihad frequently connotes images of military combat or warfare, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists including Usama bin Laden commonly use the word to call for war against the West. ( Editorial Note: Like I just said)

Brennan defined the enemy as members of bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and "its terrorist affiliates."

But Brennan (Editorial Note: An Obama Suck Up) argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."

"Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam," he said.

The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.

"In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds ( Editorial Note: Brennan to Sharia Law students-What he really was saying- "Please don't bomb my house while I'm sleeping"), Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU. (Editorial Note: I did not know our tax dollars were spent to fund Sharia Law study)



Special editorial comment provided by-who else? Steve.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A Selected Comment from a Fox reader:

samelrom

I keep hearing that Mr. Brennan is a highly qualified Intel operative with a vast knowledge of Islam, etc. Nothing of the things he does or says-as one of many Obama's "hanging-chads", has any resemblance to a veteran Intel officer. Worse even, like Obama's other numerous tsars and demagogues, Brennan has embraced his role of an automatic repeater instead of a doer. He has become a figurine on the president's desk, which is moved and activated whenever needed. He certainly doesn't know much about Islam. What's incredible, is the naive arguments, the twisted logic behind them, and the basic disinformation, the Mr. Brannan comes up with, fiercely defending indefensible policies. If the issues were the lack of knowledge it's bad enough, th appeasement, misreading the signs and lack of courage were and are the reasons why we are, where we are today. I'm just a graduate of Middle East studies, and I can safely say that everything he states and argues are purely not true, and this attitude will come back and bite him, not to mention the damage he's inflicting to the war against terrorism (I hope I wont be arrested for using it). Does he, or his boss truly believe that just by changing the use of certain words, or inventing childish, laughable interpretations of what Islam stands for, which even Muslims can't believe their ears, then Jihadists, Islamic terrorists, and extreme Muslims will just disappear? He obviously thinks so. Yet history portrays a totally different picture.
Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 11:41 PM