“Divisive” Rhetoric is a GOOD Thing When Talking Jihad
The mainstream media and dishonest intellectuals say that using “divisive” rhetoric to promote any discussion about Islamic Jihadists is a bad thing. The term “divisive” is used in a negative sense by those who seek to further only “politically correct” discussions. I posit that using “divisive” language is a good way to further the debate on how to divide good Muslims from bad. The fact is that there are bad Muslims. They are called Jihadists.
The most significant security issue facing non-Islamic countries today is how to separate antiquated (medieval?) Jihad terrorists from modern law abiding Muslims. How to detect, isolate and fight the savage Jihadists, a subset of Muslims? The first step in fighting Jihad is to permit an intelligent, free and open dialogue about Jihadists. Americans call this open dialogue “free speech”.
Enter counter-Jihadist Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and their ads that equate Jihadists with savages. Before we proceed any further, here is the actual ad:
The terms “Islam” or “Muslim” appear nowhere in the ad, do they? The ad simply equates Jihad with savagery. Does any honest educated person dispute that Jihadists are savages?
In referring to this ad the mainstream media leaps to the illogical conclusion that the ad equates all Muslims as savages. Saying the ad calls all Muslims savages is an intellectually dishonest leap in logic endemic to the mainstream media; an attempt to supress the counter-Jihad movement. To be clear, legitimate counter-jihadists will tell you time and time again, “Not all Muslims are Jihadists!”
Now, let us have an open discussion about the danger that is Jihad. Feel free to use “divisive” language if that furthers the counter-Jihad!