Winning the facts, losing the argument

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

I supported a more practical approach to our use of labels in the information war, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch takes the debate club view and obsesses on the accuracy of the verbiage even as we can make the claim of the terrorists illegitimacy without needing to engage their arguments. We are better off dismissing them out of hand.

At issue here is whether it is propagandistic, and playing into the hands of the enemy, to call Osama bin Laden and others like him "jihadists," or whether it is merely descriptive to do so -- in which case avoiding doing so would be playing into the hands of the enemy, for if we cannot name the enemy correctly, we certainly cannot defeat him.

That is the key question at hand in all this, but it is not even being asked, much less answered. Rather, it is simply being assumed across the board that the jihadists have no theological argument to make within Islam, and that thus it is simply dignifying them to call them by that name.

I love the work that Robert Spencer does with Jihad Watch, it is invaluable. But he has a tendency of many in the Malkinite orbit, he tends to prefer winning the intellectual argument to the practical one. That is nice if you are waging a battle decided by a fair and impartial judge empowered to arbit right and wrong based on actual right and wrong. But that just ain't the case. We live in the popularity contest, reality TV era and winning the actual argument often wins you nothing.

I agree that calling our enemies by name is important, but does it matter what name as long as it advances our cause and damages theirs? Calling them Hirabis implies an insult and lowers them in the way we affirm them. Whether or not any Muslims agree once we call them jihadis, we affirm our belief they are holy warriors. Calling them out for acting outside Islam is the proper way to respond and immediately inoculates us for attacking Islam. We don't recognize them as legitimate representatives of Islam, then anyone who supports them also paints a target on themselves and the rest of the Muslims have an out.

I don't harbor any illusions that they will avail themselves of that in great numbers right now. but recent polling shows far less support for terrorist savagery than any time lately. Shouldn't we play into that?

---

Mission: To protect and promote the reputation and dignity of America's Warriors.
Join us!

Comments

Winning the facts, losing the argument

I supported a more practical approach to our use of labels in the information war, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch takes the debate club view and obsesses on the accuracy of the verbiage even as we can make the claim of the terrorists illegitimacy without needing to engage their arguments. We are better off dismissing them out of hand.

At issue here is whether it is propagandistic, and playing into the hands of the enemy, to call Osama bin Laden and others like him "jihadists," or whether it is merely descriptive to do so -- in which case avoiding doing so would be playing into the hands of the enemy, for if we cannot name the enemy correctly, we certainly cannot defeat him.

That is the key question at hand in all this, but it is not even being asked, much less answered. Rather, it is simply being assumed across the board that the jihadists have no theological argument to make within Islam, and that thus it is simply dignifying them to call them by that name.

I love the work that Robert Spencer does with Jihad Watch, it is invaluable. But he has a tendency of many in the Malkinite orbit, he tends to prefer winning the intellectual argument to the practical one. That is nice if you are waging a battle decided by a fair and impartial judge empowered to arbit right and wrong based on actual right and wrong. But that just ain't the case. We live in the popularity contest, reality TV era and winning the actual argument often wins you nothing.

I agree that calling our enemies by name is important, but does it matter what name as long as it advances our cause and damages theirs? Calling them Hirabis implies an insult and lowers them in the way we affirm them. Whether or not any Muslims agree once we call them jihadis, we affirm our belief they are holy warriors. Calling them out for acting outside Islam is the proper way to respond and immediately inoculates us for attacking Islam. We don't recognize them as legitimate representatives of Islam, then anyone who supports them also paints a target on themselves and the rest of the Muslims have an out.

I don't harbor any illusions that they will avail themselves of that in great numbers right now. but recent polling shows far less support for terrorist savagery than any time lately. Shouldn't we play into that?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfadb53ef00e552a0aced8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Winning the facts, losing the argument: