By David Paulin
Has the FBI jumped off the Obama administration's political correctness bandwagon? Well, the FBI's Portland office apparently has.
Under the Obama administration, certain words that help us describe our enemies are verboten. For instance, the State Department and Department of Homeland Security are banned from using "jihad" and "mujahideen" with reference to Islamic terrorism. It's all part of an effort to avoid offending the Muslim world.
Yet in a press release about the aborted Portland terror attack, the FBI repeatedly uses the "J" word (jihad) to describe what inspired Somali-born Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. Citizen who was arrested in the plot. Mohamud, 19, allegedly wanted to blow up an explosives-packed van near a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square. Mohamud was on the receiving end of a sting operation, so nobody was ever in any danger.
What set him off?
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to use the term "radical Islam" to describe the ideology of Muslims who want to kill Westerners and destroy the West. Yet in its press release, the FBI is clear about what motivated Mohamud. It uses the verboten "J" word four times to describe what motivated Mohamud to set out to murder American moms, dads, and their children enjoying Portland's Christmas festivities.
"Cognitive dissonance" describes what's happening here -- the peculiar state of holding two conflicting concepts in one's mind at the same time. Obviously, the FBI couldn't avoid the politically incorrect "J" word when Mohamud himself used it to describe what was motivating him. Or as the FBI says: "Mohamud allegedly told undercover FBI operatives he had been thinking of committing violent jihad since the age of 15."
Not only that, the FBI noted that Mohamud had "written articles that were published in Jihad Recollections, an online magazine that advocated violent jihad."
What must Eric Holder think of all this? (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)
In case you missed it, here is a YouTube video of Holder explaining why he refuses to use the term “radical Islam":
Originally published at The American Thinker.