George Orwell (Animal Farm, 1884,etc) had it right, too, in writing that political speech is largely the defence of the indefensible. The weasel-word propagators of today are just like the appeasers of the thirities and we knowwhere that led. He wrote:....Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, 'I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so'. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

Truth is the ally of freedom. If the West would accept that there is a radical group that is goal-driven by hatred, it could better fight such hatred by policies of diplomacy and education.

Isn't it ironic that by refusing to call radicals jihadists and acknowledge their hatred that we actually create racism and intolerance? We cloak the Muslim world in shadow instead of directing the spotlight on the minority that does not represent true Islam.

Well said, Steve. While I usually find myself in agreement with the NYT, this inflated sensitivity is all too common in modern journalism. The evil men who attacked Mumbai and killed innocent people were Islamic terrorists. There is no justification to call them anything else. Their hatred is based on their own skewed perception of reality, a perception forged by Islam. Ask almost any Muslim about his/her faith and it is more than likely that you will hear of Islam being a peaceful religion. Unfortunately, the followers of Islam in the modern era have proved otherwise and until the peaceful followers of Islam take back their religion as Aijaz Zaka Syed suggests, Islam should be viewed as a violent, divisive force and one of the greatest threats to the safety of the entire world.

This, from Wikipedia, makes Steve sound like a pretty scary guy himself:

Emerson has been accused of exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists and of creating fictitious or unverifiable sources. Examples of allegations that have been ridiculed by the mainstream media include an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India and the accusation that Yugoslavians were behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.[3] In its criticism of his coverage of the Pan Am 103 bombing, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting also accused Emerson of plagiarism:

Emerson's book, The Fall of Pan Am 103, was chastised by the Columbia Journalism Review, which noted in July 1990 that passages "bear a striking resemblance, in both substance and style" to reports in the Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y. Reporters from the Syracuse newspaper told this writer that they cornered Emerson at an Investigative Reporters and Editors conference and forced an apology.[4]

The New York Times also criticized Emerson's accusation that Iran was behind the bombing.

But instead of weaving these revelations into the day-to-day story of the investigation, they drop them almost casually at the end, without much substantiation.[5]

Emerson also accused Muslims of being behind the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The false accusations led to "a backlash against the American Muslim community during the first few days after the explosion."

Emmerson just wants to set the table for big a culture war with Islam which is the inevitable outcome of always referring to extremists by their perverse religious beliefs.

If he gets that, can we have him admit that the West doesn't get to go scott free in the blame game by a long shot?

I think I agree that "they're winning", but not because of what's (not) being printed in the NYT, or what the pc lexicon chooses to describe.

Jihadists are winning because of the freedoms we've curtailed (patriot act, et al.) and the ethical and moral high ground we've given (guantanamo, et al.) in response to terrorism.

If we adhere to the principles in our constitution, and the civics that have made this country the greatest in history, we win. All of us, including the Muslim world.

And isn't that what Muslim extremists are at war with? If we do those things, if we simply be who we are, will it matter what we call them?

I agree with the premise that Emerson makes. Since when do we have to find balanced reporting when heinous crimes are perpetuated in the name of a religious group? This PC b##!s##@ from the media and the politicans is the reason that ignorant jihadists who have no knowledge of their own culture and religion wreak havoc time and again. If we really want to follow the truth ( isn't this what most journalsits say they want?), then follow the money: why are we silent to the funding by Saudi Arabia of all things extremist in the Islamic world!
I think the root of all terrorism points to Saudi Arabia and we as a nation do not ever want to acknowledge that. ( the bs about they are a great ally!!!) The madrassas in Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan are not funded by the locals( they do not have the neccessary money) but the entire terror campaign is run by money from the wahhabi sect. Look back to 30 years when the muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan practised a less virulent form of Islam. Indoctrination by the wahhabis who are funding extremists in countries outside Saudi Arabia is the root of all this terror I do not see the main stream media including NYT running a investigative report on the role of Saudi funding of terror.

This is funny- a story based on a terror attack in India that left over 180 dead that says "The real truth is that there is war against the West and the Jews by Islamic jihadists" !! Considering that 700 Indians have been killed in terror attacks in the last three years, are Indians all Jews or are they "the West"? Is this story to get people (in 'the West') to buy his books or is this to incite violence?
I am disappointed with The Daily Beast subscribing to such views at a time when it might benefit to be a little more sensitive, thoughtful and intelligent.

I love the 'java-scroll' by the way! awesome.

mr emerson is not enlightened - his is a typical American, xenophobic perspective. unfortunately, both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama (s.a.), have over zealously announced that they will "bomb" and "kill" bin laden, Pakistan, etc ..

-sigh-

this is INSANE talk. and unfortunately, typically American. ultimately, even the think tank types have to realise: it only takes a few hundred nukes to make the earth uninhabitable to any human.

now, exactly wot does the "USA" and "RUSSIA" _ plan to DO with over 4000 warheads???

helloooo ....

Steve Emerson isn't Ralph Waldo. We all were able to think that the Mumbai terrorists probably belonged to an Islamic faction without Steve's help. So this essay is just another assault on a straw man. Congratulations to all the journalists in the world who were able not to use Steven's favorite phrase and thereby increased the clout of their work. A funny thing about the English language is that it works best at the level of suggestion. And yes there are basic commonalities between the Mumbais and other major religio-pathological groups which Steve is so eager not to identify as complicit here.

Such spurious attacks cloud the real failings of "the grey lady" and outside journalists who have used her as a model for developing their own STUCK. You hear them, regardless of philosophy or political affiliation, speak of "tens or hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi dead, when a much better ballpark number is a million kids during the sanctions and another million Iraqis during W's war-- since nobody has ever effectively discredited Columbia School of Nursing, Lancet, Johns Hopkins, ORBIT figures. Or consider the failure of The Times to give the Winter Soldiers testimony its due-- along with the Times' huge role in taking us to war in the first place.

Oh lord.
Another white guy whining and moaning about why we dont call these things Islamism. Perhaps, Dear ignorant sir, it is because it insults peaceful Muslims. Did you ever think of that? Because translated literally for most Arab speakers Islamism = Peaceism. Which is rediculous.
Furthermore, when white men blow things up, when Christians blow things up or when an Israeli Jew kills a 8 year old we dont call it Jewism or Christianism or WhiteManKillsAnotherWifeism. We call it it terrorism.
Ascribing a religion to it is silly.

Out of all terrorist attacts in Europe in the last year just 1% where by Arabs. The rest where from waring factions within ethnocentric Europe.
Yet why are you not demanding to know the religion of those terrorists?
Oh thats right...because it's not nearly as scary if it comes from your lineage.

Stopping terrorism (Islamic or otherwise) will have little to do with if someone is a Muslim or not.
Furthermore it's not just a 'Muslim' problem. I know it's really easy to shrug off the past 65 years of our oppression and occupation in the area. From the Shah of Iran to the Massacre of Algiers, Sabra and Shatilia to the Suez Canal.
It's easy to shrug off that America is directly responsible for millions of deaths in the region. And it feels good to do that.
I love my country (America) and I believe Isreal has ever right to exist.
But before I'm going to go comdemning an Iraqi insurgent for blowing up an Americans transport unit---I'm gonna look and see if America first blew up his home and called it collateral damage.
Or sure it's totally unpatriotic and unAmerican to look at the other side of the conflict. But I have spent time in the Middle East. And they show parts of the conflict we'd be horrified to see here.
One in particular that stands out is when American soldiers had blasted thruogh a small town and destroyed a bunch of homes. Many children died in that blast. About 10-15. Al Araabeya news showed how those soldiers removed those lifeless bodies. By throwing them into the bed of their truck while their parents watched.
Now imagnie your daughters lifeless body being thrown without care (as if into a mass grave) by some Army sent to liberate you. Imagine your response. Would it have to do with religion or would it have to do with rage?

Dehumanizing the people over there into one easy column of "Crazy Muslims" will do nothing to help our problems over there. It will do absoultly nothing to help solve the situation.
A sect of Islam helps identify many Muslims.
But then ask yourself this: if it was all about attacking freedom and happy people and had nothing to do with actual wrongs inflicted by America and allied countries...then why dont they attack Sweden? Or Canada? Or Mexico? Or Brazil?

Or how about this: Put down your freedom fries, read a history book, and then write a half decent article.
Thanks.

I am going to have to side with the Islamic man in the article above.......we shouldn't be trying to take care of a problem that doesn't really concern us. To compare, the "islamic terrorist" with the "neo-natzi" or "KKK" is somewhat accurate since they are both considered "extreme" groups. However, take a look at what the neo-natzi and KKK groups are doing in America, or on a global scale................nothing,. Why is that? Because people in America don't put up with shit!!!! Apparently, a lot of peace loving, islamic people do. I wish that they would get sick of these "exremists" and turn them into what the KKK and neo-natzi groups are here.............A JOKE!!!!

Actually, when it comes to the perpetration of violent acts, whether by individuals or groups, the most overwhelming and consistent identifier by far is not religion but gender.

We have a very serious problem in this world with males and violence and we ignore it. Yet we constantly seek other associations that are almost non-existent when compared to gender.

So let's be very honest and politically incorrect. If gender were a religion, a country, or an ethnic group, it would be universally identified as being the foremost factor associated with violent acts of all categories,whether they be domestic violence, terrorism or war.

And since Mr. Emerson is urging "honesty" in our analysis of violence, perhaps it's time to address the gender/violence relationship taboo in the discussion and reporting of violent acts.

In the future, all reports on acts of violence should identify whether or not the the perpetrator(s) is male or female. Perhaps then we will have Mr. Emerson and others begin to analyze this phenomenon- the relationship between men and violence- and. by inference of forthright accusation, question the legitimacy of the male gender.

And why do the Jihadists hate the west and Israel?
Why not address that point? Why is it anti-semetic to suggest that Israel shouldn't have forced 5 million Palestinians out of their own land? The problem is not going to go away EVER for Israel or the west, until the fundamental IMMORAL occupation of Israel is addressed and rectified. America shouldn't be having anything to do with this mess, it's Israel's mess, let them face their own evil against Palestinians.

Israel has to either allow Palestinians to live in their original homeland, OR kill all of them. America is founded on the 'kill all of them' solution of destroying the Native Americans. Israel needs to decide, be nicer, or be more evil, but stop making America pay the bill for chrissakes!!!

I think they should be called what they are - Islamic Terrorists. I tend to think that all of the great religions of the world have a dark side. I think the people who are within the more enlightened realm of thier respective religions should step up to the plate more often to condemn those of their brethren who somehow think violence and war does any good for anybody. I pray such people exist and are doing that. I encourage others to do that as well.

I agree generally that political correctness is often too high a concern and "Islamic terrorist," "radical muslim," etc. are all acceptable terms. However "Jihad," an arabic word meaning "effort," is a legitimate part of the islamic faith: it has to do with the idea that one should struggle on behalf of one's religion. Calling terrorists "jihadists" implies that radical, fundamentalist Islam is part of the mainstream religion.

Take a look at almost any front page for the last 70 years or so and you will see a story about muslims blowing something up somewhere. I, for one, am tired of it. The problem is that the "good" muslims don't condemn the bad ones. Until that happens, there will be no solutions.

The problem is religion. Not just religious extremists but religion in general. The reason they won't use the word "Islamic extremists" or Islamic fundamentalists" in the MSM is because we have a little fundamentalist problem of our own right here in the states and the corporate run media won't offend the pious, no way, no how. They buy too many products and we can't call into question their medieval world view or they just might stop buying and we can't have that.

Mr. Emerson,

You seem like a reasonably smart man but for some reason, on this issue, you are clueless.

Everyone is already painfully cognizant of your point. The reason the media refrain from incendiary speech is not because the "truth" is unknown to them, but to not incite foolish, retaliatory violence. It's a matter of wise restraint. Something you would clearly benefit from...

After reading this piece I went over to the NY Times website to read the op-ed referred to. Either Mr. Emerson suffers from a serious lack of reading comprehension skills or he is willfully misrepresenting the Times piece.

Emerson charges that "the op-ed managed to blame both Hindus and Muslim extremists-without blaming either party in particular for the murderous attacks." In fact, the op-ed mentions earlier incidents of violence by Hindus but quite clearly identifies the perpetrators of the latest attacks "In 1993, Hindu mobs burned people alive in the streets - for the crime of being Muslim in Mumbai. Now these young Muslim men murdered people in front of their families - for the crime of visiting Mumbai." The piece even dares to use the supposedly verboten term 'jihad'.

Mr. Emerson does have a point, buried in his rant, about the need for moderate Muslims to be more active in denouncing and working against Islamic terrorists. But it does not say much for the strength of his arguments that he must base them around such blatant misrepresentations as he uses in this article.

The primary step in reducing Islamic terrorist murderist activities (please note I say reduce, because you will never stop them completely) is to publicly decry the obvious, well documented, fact that Saudi Arabia is directly responsible for a huge majority of the funding for these murderers. Cut their funding and I'm pretty sure you'll reduce their body count.

Excellent point! Islamist terrorists are waging a religious war and it's time to call it what it is. If we can't agree on what to call these people, we can't possibly know how to address the problems they cause. I also think we need to recognize that they are mentally ill. When they are apprehended, they should be evaluated for competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility. If they aren't competent to stand trial and criminally responsible, they should be taken into custody until they are. Problem solved.

I have read the op-ed to which Mr. Emerson referred and did not detect any "contrived evenhandedness." What I detected was a serious attempt, by a man who actually grew up in Bombay/Mumbai and probably knows far more about it Emerson ever will, to explain what has occurred in the city he knows so well.

Thus, Emerson starts from a false premise, and continues in that vein, devolving to a shallow diatribe against "political correctness" without ever attrempting to understand the arguments made by Suka Mehta. As an earlier comment states, Emerson is inded assaulting a straw man.

"Actually, when it comes to the perpetration of violent acts, whether by individuals or groups, the most overwhelming and consistent identifier by far is not religion but" .... murdering bastards that murder people without conscience!

Since when is it important to categorize killers (except by police and intelligence/ detection forces) , whether they be maffia, insurgents, drug dealers, gang members or death squads? The fact is, that once something like 9/11 happens, it's a shock by virtue of the number of casualites involved and as we we've all discovered after such tragic events, citizens expect government to quickly point fingers and take action. Revenge is a factor and in order for the public to feel closure, the target isn't as important as the time it takes to hit one.

Bush and friends took advantage of this simple fact and fabricated a believable target that was not a threat and not tied to the extremist mulims that killed so many of our own and people in other countries for years. Organized mass homicide or genocide in the name of religion isn't new (i.e. Irish, Isreali / Palistinian, Bosnian, the Crusades) and categorizing the group(s) responsible only attempts to specify an enemy in general and then specifically. It doesn't work that that way because the 'enemy' wears no uniform and is multinational in origin.

The people who do business with organized homicidal bastards are also a big part of the problem but strangely not part of the solution. As mentioned, Arabs fund Arabs, but so do Afgan poppy fields and banks and corrupt border guards; corrupt Intel groups (ISI in Pakistan) allow terrorists safe haven; Iran trains and dispatches terrorists; many countries instill the jihad mentality that kills in the name of god.

So, who really cares what their called? Intelligence organizations and strike forces must adapt and be more effective at killing the killers. Targeted radiation targets the tumor, not everything surrounding it. Cancer kills and one of the cancers of society is violence perpetrated on those from within or without.

The media is not part of the problem as are those that use it for their own ends to justify and excuse actions taken, at times with hubris, to placate an outraged population. Emerson's article should have reflected outrage against those individuals equally, where specificity is obvious and outcomes related to actions taken in the name of national security.

With regards to insulting "peaceful" muslims, who cares!! Show me what so-called "peaceful" muslims are doing about there fanatical killer brethren then we can worry about their wounded feelings.

The fact remains that Islam is a religion of malevolence and hatred toward women especially and toward Western culture which is worsening worldwide. Every nation where there is significant muslim immigration has problems due to their unwillingness to assimilate into the culture which they have chosen to live. They don't mind Western economic opportunity but then work to destroy everything in the culture they feel violates fundamentalist Islamic law. Their methods are murderous and indiscriminate and the world needs to be reminded that they are the ones responsible for the mayhem and lost of innocent lives they cause.

To ignore that muslims are the perpetrators is doublespeak which lets them off the hook. They need to be seen and named as the one's responsible for their own actions. This is nothing more than just recognizing the truth of the situation. Perhaps a reminder of all the terrorist acts they have committed in Israel, Europe, Asia, and America which has gone on for decades would wake up peoples' offended sensibilities to the reality of how dangerous fundamentalist Islam really is.

It's not anyone else's fault that their own history of violence and hatred belies their protestations of how "peaceful" they are. If they find the West to be so offensive, perhaps they all should return to the Third World sewers they came from for a big reality check.

To negate muslim involvement and by failing to name Islamist terrorism as just that would be like referring to Nazi fanatics as socially inept victims who were misguided, maligned, misunderstood, and picked upon. They were basically left alone to commit their terrorism upon the world which soon resulted in a worldwide conflagration.

History does repeat itself and people need to realize that we are in a religious war with our survival at stake. We are fighting what is a worldwide war against modern culture with fanatics who want the world to return to a 10th Century fundamentalist theocracy at any and all costs.