Al Jazeera's English Bureau: You Can't Say "Extremism," "Terrorism," "Jihad" or (of course) "Islamism"

What if they threw an aggressive hegemonic theocracy and the left, as usual, didn't show up to fight it?

Shortly after news broke of a deadly January 27 attack by Islamic terrorists on a hotel in Libya�s capital, Al Jazeera English executive Carlos van Meek shot out an email to his employees. "All: We manage our words carefully around here," the network�s head of output wrote to staff at the Doha-based news channel�s New York and Washington, D.C. newsrooms. "So I'd like to bring to your attention some key words that have a tendency of tripping us up.: In an email obtained by National Review Online, van Meek warned the network�s journalists against the use of terms including "terrorist," "militant," "Islamist" and "jihad." "One person�s terrorist is another person�s freedom fighter," the Al Jazeera executive wrote.

Grotesque. I wonder, if some right-wing privateer jihadist fighters decided to just blow up him and his family with a rocket, if he have such difficulty distinguishing between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter."

I'm beginning to hope these Murder Enthusiasts will be visited with just such an opportunity.

The word "extremist" was labeled off-limits. "Avoid characterizing people," van Meek said. "Often their actions do the work for the viewer." "Do not use," van Meek's said of the term 'Islamist." He described it as "a simplistic label."



Dullards and savages and ignoramuses always imagine themselves to be so complex, don't they?

This isn't the first Al Jazeera email chain linked to NRO. Just after the Charlie Hebdo Freedom Fighter Incident, someone slipped NRO emails from Al Jazeera staffers arguing that the Charlie Hebdo murders were more complicated than believed by many Westerners.

Below was a list of "suggestions" for how anchors and correspondents at the Qatar-based news outlet should cover Wednesday�s slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo office (the full e-mails can be found below). Khadr urged his employees to ask if this was "really an attack on 'free speech,'" discuss whether "I Am Charlie" is an "alienating slogan," caution viewers against "making this a free speech aka 'European Values' under attack binary [sic]," and portray the attack as "a clash of extremist fringes."



Noe the left has joined the Muslim jihadist-sympathizers in that effort, to portray the Charlie Hebdo "battle" as a "clash" between "two equally invalid extremist fringes," one which shoots people, and one which provokes people into shooting them by drawing doodles. The left has pushed this idea since they got over the initial shock of 9/11 -- that the War of Terrorism on the West is actually a war between terrorists and violent right-wing Christians, having nothing at all to do with the peaceful, rational, nonsectarian lefties in the middle, like Barack Obama, currently MIA from the War on Terror.

These nasty little moral retards refuse to comprehend that any jihadist would give us a quick slash of the knife to wound us in order to get by us to cut off their heads.

Sure, we right-wingers, being largely male and mostly straight, religious, and sexually modest, are natural enemies of violent radical Islam, but we're not the actual Targets of violent radical Islam.

The targets they're most interested in are almost all on the left.

And yet, when we attempt to protect these venal little monsters, what do they do? They accuse us of being violent warmongers.

For protecting them!

