CNN Notices Jihad Watch

I wasn't planning to post today. It's past time for me to make some serious blog rounds, now that I'm no longer in pause mode. But this can't go without mention. Excerpt:

"Words matter": Homeland Security rolls out newspeak campaign, cautions against use of terms like "jihadists," "Islamic terrorists," "Islamists" and "holy warriors"

Again, we see the argument that using those terms somehow "legitimizes" or "aggrandizes" the jihadist movement. But honestly, is the public deflection of the Islamic aspect of Islamic jihad going to hinder jihadists from making the connection, or will it hinder ordinary citizens seeking information? Obviously, it will be the latter. And when the public is discouraged from understanding the jihadist enemy's ideology, whom does that ultimately help?

[...]

"There are two legitimate sides to wars?" Baloney. The Nazis didn't have a legitimate cause in World War II. Recognizing a threat is not an endorsement of its existence.

Read the entire article.

Also see "The Great War against Nothing in Particular" at Jihad Watch. Excerpt:

Andy McCarthy wonders, since "war" and "terror" are no good, if it's okay if we call this present conflict the "On" -- "or would that offend all the moderate prepositions?"

Uh oh! The word "moderate" was used! Shouldn't that offensive-to-Moslems word be redacted or changed to "mainstream"? Pffffft!