Sunday, December 6, 2015

Should We Call it "Terrorism?"

In the wake of the San Bernardino attack yesterday morning, we are once again witnessing the pointless debate in law enforcement circles, as well as the news media, as to whether the mass shooting was an act of “terrorism.”

This morning on Fox News, a so-called “expert” was dissecting the Justice Department’s official definition of terrorism to justify the FBI’s hesitation in classifying what is, let’s face it, another act of war.

That same “expert” claimed that this was another example of “self-radicalization” over the internet and thus was very difficult to classify.

Fighting through the nausea induced by the talking heads’ ignorance, I managed to utter the word, “Hogwash.”

We must refrain as a country from once again entering into a debate on what amounts largely to semantics about whether or not this latest massacre was an act of “terrorism.”

We need to get away from focusing on the term “terrorism.” Some folks still don’t consider the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing by Hezbollah which killed 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers an act of terrorism because, by some widely regarded definitions, attacks on combatants under such circumstances cannot be termed “terrorism.”

The San Bernardino massacre and the 1983 attack on the Marine Barracks, though very different, were both acts of JIHAD.

The Jihadis themselves don’t refer to themselves as “terrorists.” But they most assuredly refer to themselves as “Jihadis.”

I say let them own that title. If one of them goes out on his own and shoots up a ticket counter at LAX, beheads a grandmother with a knife in Moore, Oklahoma, or shoots up a county health facility in California, those are acts of Jihad, just as 9-11 was an act of Jihad.

This was never a war on “terrorism.”

We are at war with the Jihadists. They are waging Jihad against us and that takes many forms:

  • Outright military confict (see Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs)
  • Insurgency (See Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Thailand, Philippines, Pakistan, India, Somalia, Yemen, and others)
  • Terrorism (9-11, Paris, train bombings in Spain, 7/7 bombings in the UK, Mumbai, etc)
  • Individual acts of violent Jihad (DC sniper, LAX shooting, Ft. Hood, Garland, Texas, Moore Oklahoma, Chattanooga, Tennessee, etc.)
  • Financial Jihad (zakat payments to Islamic charities which, by Islamic Shariah law, fund Jihad, Sharia-Compliant Finance)
  • Civilizational Jihad (peaceful methods, such as political influence operations (Muslim Brotherhood fronts such as CAIR, ISNA), mass immigration, lawfare, imposing Islamic customs on the West (insisting we play by their rules)).

All of this is jihad. Jihad is the key. We should not get wrapped up in trying to classify it in our own vernacular. Orient on the enemy's doctrine and learn how he thinks and acts.


This article was written by Christopher Holton, Vice President of Outreach for the Center for Security Policy, originally published on Holton's web site with the title, And the whole “terrorism” debate continues yet again…


  1. ( A ) Jihad by Government and NGO's ..... Any action that advances Islam in any state by the federal government and/or the UN, etc., is as dangerous as jihad by known muslims since that advancement would likely have the same effect as it would have if done by known muslims.

    This is part of what Wikipedia has to say about jihad: "Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition. Many observers—both Muslim[6] and non-Muslim[7]—as well as the Dictionary of Islam,[3]talk of jihad having two meanings: an inner spiritual struggle (the "greater jihad"), and an outer physical struggle against the enemies of Islam (the "lesser jihad")[3][8] which may take a violent or non-violent form.[1][9] Jihad is often translated as "Holy War",[10][11][12] although this term is controversial.[13][14] According to orientalist Bernard Lewis, "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists", and specialists in the hadith "understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[15]Javed Ahmad Ghamidi states that there is consensus among Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers.[16]"

    This advancement of Islam or jihad, whether violent or nonviolent, is an act of war since the outcome of successful "multiple and continuing jihadist actions" (also known as "jihad") on a host nonsharia law nation or culture has the same end result as such nation or culture would have endured if it had lost an all out war with Islamic armed fighting forces.

    Examples of such acts of war that advance Islam include:

    ( 1 ) muslims, refugees or not, moving into a nonsharia culture, state or nation, and ( 2 ) loss of freedom of speech when speaking about a religion or the followers of a religion.

    Can you list at least one additional way that Islam is being advanced in the U.S?

    ( B ) Stopping The Terrorists ..... How should the government keep muslims from killing people?

    ( 1 ) make it illegal to own guns and force all people to use illegal guns, home made guns, bombs, poison, EMPs, knives, etc. if they want to kill other people, or

    ( 2 ) ( A )Identify the evil that is the motivation for muslims to kill nonmuslims and less devout muslims. ( B ) Identify the political and legal battles that can be and must be constitutionally fought and won to eradicate that evil within the U.S. (note: you do not eradicate an ideology by only killing people as Obama pretends to do .... you must eradicate the ideology and the effectiveness of the doctrine behind the ideology or the ideology could reappear in future generations.) Bill Coleman.

  2. Thanks for pointing to an elephant in the room. The other one is the qur'an, the original "jihadi" document which propagandises slaughter, slavery, lying, to name just a few sacraments of the islamic belief system.

    This document must be publically named and shamed for what it is, an explicit call to death for all kaffirs. How this piece is allowed to exist will confuse me until I die. If such a book had been published in today's environment it would be declared illegal and banned outright, but unfortunately it just ain't gonna happen soon, if ever. Anyway, the repercussions would be too horrific to contemplate.

    Thanks for your insights, and I anticipate an informative journey through your site.