In yesterday’s post, I mentioned that the UK typically uses a euphemism for jihadist Muslims in the news, referring to them more blandly as “Asian men.” This was true in the sex trade article I’d linked, for example.
DeckardCanine was surprised: “That’s a euphemism? To me it’s just a way to offend even more people.”
I replied: First, it is part of a generally pan-Western media tendency to downplay jihadist violence. Almost all terrorism is by the jihadist subset of Muslims, which news sources in the US and elsewhere tend to de-emphasize.
Indeed, they work to facilitate jihadists and provide them more opportunities for their activities ranging from propaganda to murder. The US (and the Left) make a big deal about funding Christian schools — but are actually funding jihadist madrassas in the US.
Famous incidents include calling the Fort Hood jihadist shooting “workplace violence” and not mentioning his faith in that connection, as well as federal grants to schools contingent upon their enforcing Arabic language and culture and religion training as mandatory for all students, a notion which is spreading now beyond grants.
Perhaps the media’s “don’t talk about it” portrayal of jihadism is merely cowardice. Offending Asians does not get you killed, as a general thing.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle