Losing The Terror War

by Hal Lindsey
The war on terror is not going well.  For every battlefield victory, a fresh batch of radical jihadists enter the fray.  President Obama must feel like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
To effectively fight terrorism, we need to agree on what it is.  Under “Terrorism Defined for Kids,” Merriam-Webster.com puts up this bit of malarkey.  Terrorism is “the use of violence as a means of achieving a goal.”
Can you imagine such a silly definition being taught to our children?  To achieve the goal of subduing a violent felon, police must often resort to violence.  According to Webster’s, that’s “terrorism.”  When the allied powers of World War II fought Hitler, by Webster’s kid’s definition of the word, the allies won by means of “terrorism.”  In fact, every piece of meat you eat is the result of “the use of violence as a means of achieving a goal.”  You vegetarians are no better.  When a farmer violently rips the corn from the stalk?  Terrorism!
That’s the kind of ridiculous thinking that permeates our educational system, and has led to chaos in both Europe and the United States.  The problem is political correctness — that old nemesis of logic and clear thinking.  How can you have strength and resolve in the face of a terrorist enemy when you see strength and resolve themselves as forms of terrorism?
Others are afraid to even use the term.  Bruce Hoffman, Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, said, “Terrorism is a pejorative term.  It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.”
So he’s saying that the word is a mere pejorative (something that is disparaging and derogatory), and cannot be applied in a fair way.  The Reuters news agency seems to agree.  Their handbook tells reporters to use the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” only when quoting someone else.  It adds, “‘Terror,’ or ‘terror attack’ or ‘terror cell,’ should also be avoided to describe specific events or groups.”
I haven’t seen the Associated Press guidelines, but judging by the way they word their articles, it must be similar.
Yet, people really do know what terrorism means.  Vladimir Lenin, a proponent of terror for political ends, reduced the concept to a basic idea.  “The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.”
When Barrack Obama came into office over seven years ago, America entered a new, more severe era of political correctness.  He chose John Brennan to be his Senior Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.  Later, the President made Brennan Director of the CIA.  When Brennan took the oath of office at the CIA, he did so with his hand on the Constitution, not the Bible.  What was so abhorrent to him about the Bible that he refused to follow long held tradition and merely place his hand on it during his installation?
At the CIA, Brennan has forbidden the use of the term “jihadist.”  He tells people to say “extremist” instead.  In a 2009 speech, he became the first Obama Administration official to say publicly that they were dropping the terms “jihadist” and “war on terror.”
In the same speech, he said, “While in college in the mid 1970s, I spent a summer traveling through Indonesia, where, like President Obama, I came to see the beauty and diversity of Islam.”  He appreciates “the beauty and diversity of Islam,” but would not deign to lay his hand on a Bible while being sworn into office.
He also said in the speech, “The President rejects an absolutist approach or the imposition of a rigid ideology on our problems.  Like the world itself, his views are nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological.”
Without absolutes and a firm ideology, American leadership has been adrift.  The Administration’s approach to terrorism has been “nuanced” to the point of non-existence.
In his inaugural address, President Obama said, “Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”  In the above mentioned speech, Brennan said, “The President does not describe this as a ‘global war.’”
So, it’s a “war,” but not a “global war.”  Yet this war is taking place in countries around the world.  Isn’t that global?  This kind of convoluted thinking, and politically correct labeling, accelerated the world’s decent into chaos over the last 7 years. And it’s getting worse.
1 Corinthians 14:8 describes our predicament to a tee.  “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”
Back to Top