I call'em homiciders.

Ask the Arabs. The common term for belt bomber is jihadist.

If this offends muslims, then blame the Arabs.

Can't we go back to discussing Snape?

Jihadist is the word to use.

As a rough comparison, when people in the Middle East call us "violent crusaders," do you think that discourages or encourages the Bush administration?

Should the table be round or rectangular?

Honestly, with all the dishonest & cravenly manipulative shorthand terms the administration has seen fit to use, is this really one worth thinking about?

Puny man use nuance...Nuance confuse Conservative Hulk!

Our job is to convince Muslims that violent jihadism is a bad thing...

Boy, this won't fly with Norm and the Boys. Convince Muslims where? How? They aren't exactly reading this blog. I think this should go back to the drawing board.

Just like we should call people who are against abortion Pro-Life instead of Anti-Abortion.

Right?

Kevin, were there other people who used the words "Nazi" and "communism" that we were trying to keep on our side and distinguish from the bad guys?

We can call our homegrown extremists bushists.

We called Nazis "Nazis" and we called communists "communists," and those were both things those groups called themselves.

Kevin Drum

So, if they called themselves "devil haters" or "asshole eliminators," we would use those too?

when people in the Middle East call us "violent crusaders," do you think that discourages or encourages the Bush administration

Bad comparison. We are NOT "violent crusaders" because we are not trying to convert them to Christianity. Conservatives ARE trying to convince them to choose freedom and democracy over jihadism.

The Nazis didn't call themselves Nazis. It's a pejorative term from the 1920s based on the "Sozi" epithet used for the Socialists/Social Democrats used by political opponents of the NSDAP.

Rather than defining Jihad as "a conflict pitting Muslim holy warriors against enemies of the faith," it seems to me more like "striving to do the will of God." When that involves dealing with infidels, it may mean warfare, but it is much bigger and involves the way one lives one's life in the sight of God.

That said, I have no problem calling those who do use it for warfare "jihadists." It's no more inaccurate than calling two vehicles "cars" rather than specifying the make.

So do we call them Zionists, or Violent Zionists?

So Kevin's saying, my emotional frame of the term Jihad is the correct one and the Muslim world's interpretation is mistaken. Good luck with that.

I agree with Matt. They think they are holy warriors. If we call them holy warriors it implies we agree a holy war is taking place. Calling our army the Army of One is completely different though.

Ask the Arabs. The common term for belt bomber is jihadist.

That is the problem. Calling htem jihadists glorifies them. It would be if Osams bin Laden referred to US troops in Iraq as "Freedom Fighters." Not exactly a good way to fight the propaganda war.

Our job is to convince Muslims that violent jihadism is a bad thing,..

If that's the job we are trying to do, it's an extremely tall order.

Unless you mean that our job is to do bad things to them to force them to understand that violent jihadism will bring them nothing but bad things.

How about: "deranged religious psycho whackjobs"?

(of course, that can be applied much more broadly, and casts this conflict in a more honest light)

On their side, the more violent and irrational jihadists are probably deciding that the American Salvation Army is a militarist organization bent on crusading against Islam. The Boy Scouts is a militarist organization,and Campus Crusaders for Christ intend to invade the Middle East.

Only those jihadists shown to commit violence or to be actively preparing to do so should be termed "terrorists."

The American right also uses this loose language towards its domestic enemies. e.g. as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" because they disagree (sensibly) with National Review or the Weekly Standard.

'violent Jihadist' is silly in much the same way 'violent warrior' would be.

No Muslim confuses the violent activities on these Jihadist with peaceful the activities of those who seek converters to the faith.

We called Nazis "Nazis" and we called communists "communists," and those were both things those groups called themselves.

Exactly.
And that's why we call Liberals "liberals."

[Insert puff of cigar smoke here.]

It is great shit!
All you have to do to win an argument today is call the other sides idea "liberal." Soon as you label it that way... GAME OVER!

Good shit!

[Insert puff of cigar smoke here.]

I call them the same thing I have called them for 30 years. I call them terrorists.

Violent Liberals.

Homicide Liberals.

Al: "We are NOT "violent crusaders" because we are not trying to convert them to Christianity."

What you mean "we", white man?

I don't know. I think that when most people use the "J" word they mean a bad thing.

That is, people who use the "J" word do it in place of "idiot", "incompetent", "liar", etc.

I know that when called the "J" word, the person usually has to defend themselves, explain things, shirk in horror.

So next time, be careful when calling someone a "Journalist", you may be deeply offending them.

I don't have a problem with Muslims peacefully trying to convert people to their religion....Kevin Drum 3:05 PM

...Jihad literally means to "struggle", notably to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society. [1] It is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it occupies no official status as such. Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants but there are other ways to perform jihad as well.[2][3] In broader usage and interpretation, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can imply striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam, and fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.[4] In the languages of non-islamic cultures, the term is usually used to refer to Muslim 'Holy War' or any violent strife invoking Allah.....

I think our image in the Arab/Muslim world is bad enough that we dont have to worry about little problems like nomenclature.

Lets start by letting them know that we dont eat babies and use the Koran for tissue paper.

Revolutionary Oil Slaves

Excuse me, I must go answer the door, the Jehova's Witnesses are here.

We are NOT "violent crusaders" because we are not trying to convert them to Christianity.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!

The radical clerics at my my religious indoctrination camp used to make my whole class recite that chant every day in. Then we would pledge allegiance to the Christian flag.

Oh wait sorry, did I say "radical-cleric run indoctrination camp?" I meant to say "franchised suburban Christian elementary school."

So... if I were to call my old radical clerics "violent Crusaders," do you think it would make them see the error of their ways and renounce violence against Muslims?

"Our job..."

Who's the implied we?

Boy, this won't fly with Norm and the Boys. Convince Muslims where? How? They aren't exactly reading this blog.

I beg to differ. This blog is very useful for learning how to infiltrate weak liberal organizations and coerce them to do our bidding.

Americans are most pliable tools.

Call me crazy but I don't think "call them what they call themselves" is even partly a good idea. Hell, they call themselves freedom fighters too, right? Islam, as properly understood, encourages people to jihad, but hopefully we all agree that real Islam doesn't actually encourage people to go out and bomb others as part of that jihad. So it seems to me that calling terrorists "jihadists" just perpetuates a falsehood about what Islam teaches.

Tommaso -
They may call themselves freedom fighters, but I don't think there's any religion that encourages "freedom" by any sane, level-headed definition of the word.

(oh, they'll frame it by saying "freedom from liberalism" or "freedom from sin" or "freedom from satan" - but they don't mean freedom as in "free to choose")

Irritated Militants (Against the Great Irritator)

Not exactly a good way to fight the propaganda war.

Could be but I kinda think actions are way outshadowing words for now... The U.S. military seems to have setteled on the generic terms Hadji and Sand Nigger, Maybe when you're spraying unarmed Hadjis with bullets at check points it's easier if you can use a word that also describes those with the bombs?

Most accurately, but unfortunately unpronounceable, would be something based on Sayyid Qutb. Qutbist? When half or so of the politicians entrusted to making US policy don't even distinguish between Sunni and Shi'a, we can't expect too much in the way of nuance.

How about calling them human beings? That is what they are.

Ask a Lebanese mother whose child has had their arms or legs blown off by a U.S.-made cluster bomb or an Iraqi woman whose child was born hideously deformed from DU, how they refer to George Bush and Dick Cheney. I'll wager they don't think they are human either....

Riverbend, at Baghdad Burning--the 'girl blogger,' said it best:

"Is this whole debacle the fine line between terrorism and protecting ones nation? If it’s a militia, insurgent or military resistance- then it’s terrorism (unless of course the militia, insurgent(s) and/or resistance are being funded exclusively by the CIA). If it’s the Israeli, American or British army, then it’s a pre-emptive strike, or a ‘war on terror’. No matter the loss of hundreds of innocent lives. No matter the children who died last night- they’re only Arabs, after all, right?"

Heartbreaking.

There's a subtle distinction between the jihadists and the examples that Kevin gives of communists and Nazis.

Outside of the core group of communists or Nazis, there weren't many people who viewed the terms positively. In essence, if you thought being a communist or a Nazi was a good thing, then you yourself were a communist or a Nazi.

With the term 'jihad' it's different. Jihad in Islam is by definition holy. We we use that term in a serious way (as opposed to scoffing) it's creating a huge amount of confusion among the world's other 1 billion Muslims. The vast majority of them don't approve of what the jihadists DO, but jihadist still means something holy to them. It's the same as if the Vatican started referring to a mass murderer as a Saint. "Her Holiness St. Mother Theresa ate some babies today.." (yes, I know she's not a saint yet). It's confusing. We should stop it.

Why not call them "Crusaders?" After all, they routinely violate the basic tenets of their religion while claiming to act in that religion's name, kill their own people indiscriminately, commit brutal atrocities in the name of their god... obviously Crusaders.

Go watch Michael Palin's "The Crusades." You'll see what I mean.

Why not call them "Crusaders?" After all, they routinely violate the basic tenets of their religion while claiming to act in that religion's name, kill their own people indiscriminately, commit brutal atrocities in the name of their god... obviously Crusaders.

Go watch Michael Palin's "The Crusades." You'll see what I mean.

Though I usually find myself in agreement with, and sometimes persuaded by, Kevin, this post strikes me as just plain wrong. You have one word that describes a large group of people. One subgroup uses the term to describe their pursuit of activities we don't like. How is not a political mistake, and simply incorrect, to use the word to describe the activities of the subgroup? It's no answer to say that that's what the subgroup calls itself.

Example: Some radical, maybe nationalist or religious, group in Asia starts referring to their movement as "Asian." Lots of others say, hey, we're Asian and what that group is doing doesn't represent us (even though many of us sympathize with their motivations). Nonetheless, the US says that our adversary is "Asians." Obviously, that would be stupid and wrong. How is this different? Substitute some other generic, group descriptor if you think the racial connotation is substantively different from the political or religious connotation of "jihadist."

Our job is to convince Muslims that violent jihadism is a bad thing . . .

That is, to convert them to pacifism. Neither right nor practicable.

Jihad is roughly speaking the Islamic doctrine of just war (see, e.g., one, two). To say that jihad of the sword is always wrong is to say that Muslims have no right to resist oppression or to fight in self-defence. You don't believe that, and you won't get Muslims to either.

More broadly, instructing Muslims in their own religion is unlikely to be a productive undertaking for outsiders. "Our job" is to give them no just cause to fight, and to kill those who do fight regardless.

I think "crusaders" has the right derogatory ring, implying that a) they are blinded by ideology and b) they are actually harming Islam. Remember that in "crusader" can be a derogatory term in English as well, used for those whose ideological fervour overrides common sense and jeopardises the job they were supposed to do.

Note that this applies mostly to English. For example, German journalists prefer the words "Glaubenskrieger" (faith warriors) or "Fanatiker", and "Kreuzritter" (crusader) is a decidedly historical phrase.

What gheby said. Don't miss that one, Kevin.

Scratching Militants (Against the Great Itch)

I assume Matt is suggesting this is a bad thing, but I'd disagree. We called Nazis "Nazis" and we called communists "communists," and those were both things those groups called themselves. We didn't feel like we had to make up some weird, portmanteau name like "Islamofascist" because otherwise we'd be tacitly accepting the worldview of our enemies.

"Jihadist" is not analogous to "Communist" or "Nazi".

Its analogous more to calling Nazis, say, "heroic defenders of the fatherland".

Probably better, politically as well as in terms of clarity and accuracy, to use more specific terms: i.e., for the violent opposition to the present regime in Iraq, "insurgents" or "rebels"; to those specifically involved in terrorist attacks (targetting civilians, etc.), "terrorists", etc.

Everytime we call them "jihadists", we implicitly endorse their framing of the issue as a jihad to defend Islam against the "Crusaders and Zionists".

I'm with KCinDC. Are you equating moderate muslims who aren't anti-jihad with some sort of moderate Nazi who we were trying to keep on our side?

It always annoys me when westerners insist on using foreign terms that they clearly don't understand. The fact that Salafi, Jihadi and Takfiri are all being used synonymously by Kevin is a case in point. Each of these words has a different meaning. Many Salafi, for example, follow Wahhabism, making them fundamentalists, yes, but not violent militants. A Takfiri, on the other hand, is merely one who declares another to be kafir or an unbeliever. A Jihadi is a western neologism. The Arabic term for one who engages in jihad is a mujahid (plural: mujahideen). Jihad is a term that most westerners don't really understand. I know a Lebanese/American who was in the US Marines and whose name is Jihad.

And these kinds of misunderstandings happen all the time. Take Obama and the madrasa, for example. That one was particularly stupid.

Knowing a little bit about the Arabic language would really help out the discussion a bit. All of these so-called experts on the Muslim world who can't even read a newspaper or order a coffee in Arabic make me sick.

So why don't we just agree that until our "experts" have mastered Arabic, Urdu, Farsi or Pashtu we should stick to using English words to talk about these things while writing in English outlets. (A good start would be translating Allah into God in press accounts.)

militant jihadists, violent jihadists, etc, since few understand the high-brow islamic type distinctions about Salafism etc.

I'd like to clarify that European Crusaders did not go to the Middle East in the past to "convert the Muslims."

They went to the Middle East to protect or recapture the Holy Land. And possibly earn a little glory and gold for God while they were at it.