The Language of Terror
only way to get a person to understand you is to speak in a language that person
seems like an obvious – sort of a no-brainer – kind of statement. Yet how
often do we see a boorish American demanding
v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y in
punctuated loud English that a non-English speaking person supply information or
whatever? Even perfectly normal, rational people can fall prey to this parochial
way of dealing with those who can’t speak English.
than supplying a bit of on-the-spot humor, people who do this cause no real
harm. We run into problems, however, when we attempt to communicate in this
manner with people who are out to harm us. The problem is exacerbated when we
speak to these people in a language that we think they understand, using subtle
nuances of diplomacy that carry definite meaning for us, but that communicate an
entirely different meaning to our listeners.
our relatively short history as a nation, and especially during our several
decades-long role as a world leader, America
has assiduously maintained a high-road stance that is well illustrated by the
role of the righteous gunfighter in the old west who always waits for the other
guy to draw first.
recently have we rethought this approach. The Bush administration concluded that
if we know with surety that an attack is coming, why should we await the actual
attack? Is it not better, they argued, to take preemptive action as soon as we
are certain of the forthcoming chain of events? As soon as we know
we will be attacked? This approach, of course, raises an important new question:
When should you preempt?
strategic policy now reflects this reality. As one would expect, such a policy
opens the door for internal opposition groups to question specific preemptive
rationales. When Japan
intelligence has always mattered, but when preemption is a viable option,
intelligence becomes even more critical. We simply cannot afford to be wrong
about a preemptive strike against a potential enemy. When you add terrorism to
the mix, the consequences of being wrong become unthinkable.
stakes are incredibly high.
a situation where credible intelligence has convinced us that a major biological
terrorist attack will happen within twenty-four hours. Somewhere within our
borders, a group of Islamists will unleash a major Anthrax attack. We have
captured an individual whom we are convinced knows sufficient details, so that
if we learn what he knows, we can prevent the attack, saving possibly tens of
thousands of lives.
we have to know now – every minute of delay increases the likelihood of their
do we get the information?
contend that if we don’t speak their language, we are very unlikely to find
out what we need to know. And I don’t mean Arabic.
Islamist fanatics almost universally belong to the Wahhabi persuasion of Islam.
Even without interpretation, the Qur’an
is the bloodiest of books upon which the world’s major religions are based.
The Wahhabis take the Qur’an
literally, emphasizing its bloodiest aspects (see Wahhabi
Islam – the Real Enemy of the West,
as a martyr in Jihad is a significant plus for any Muslim, but for a Wahhabi, it
is an absolute guarantee of special benefits in
Wahhabi simply doesn’t see things this way. In effect he speaks and
understands an entirely different language. The world seen through Wahhabi eyes
is entirely different from the world you and I see. For the Wahhabi, death is
just a transition. The true Wahhabi believer doesn’t fear death, but welcomes
the transition to the next stage of existence. Because existence in the
here-and-now is always a difficult struggle, getting to the next stage is
important, especially if you can get there with significant benefits.
the Wahhabi, therefore, threatening death is not a threat, but a happy promise
with short-term, immediate benefits (the end of the present, difficult
struggle), and long-term ecstasy (the 78 virgins and everything else the Qur’an
promises). Thus, a death threat to a Wahhabi encourages silence.
what will encourage a Wahhabi terrorist to talk?
the language: Death is a short transition to something better. Change the
message so that death becomes a very long, painful transition to something
worse, to something far worse.
know enough about pain, and about human anatomy to cause excruciating pain for
as long as we need it. It’s not a pleasant thought, but we certainly know how
to do this. That takes care of the transition. The next step is to address the
believe that anything “pig” is unclean. You can’t get to paradise wearing
“pig,” in any form. The Wahhabi Allah has some pretty strict rules that even
he cannot break. A Wahhabi warrior arriving at the gates of paradise clothed in
“pig” simply doesn’t gain entrance. Furthermore, if he arrives in parts,
depending on their earthly locations, it may take several millennia before they
can be reassembled, if ever, even if they are “pig” free. If they are
contaminated, however, the Wahhabi warrior has no chance, ever, of entering
paradise. Furthermore, the degree of contamination will determine the degree of
eternal punishment he will be forced to endure.
a simple-minded bozo absolutely convinced of this reality, we can speak plainly
and clearly: Talk now, or your transition to Hell will be unimaginably long and
painful. Talk, and we will dispatch you quickly to your rendezvous with the 78.
can underscore the message by demonstrating our resolve on another prisoner.
“language” approach has little chance of success with a well-trained
American soldier, but it will rapidly open doors with the Wahhabi terrorist.
Islamists take a hostage and threaten death, instead of doing nothing or
releasing prisoners as demanded, immediately behead the prisoners and spike
their pigskin wrapped heads around
Wahhabi terrorist leaders function by skillfully applying the “Wahhabi
language” to their followers. When we explain to them in their own
“language” that they cannot succeed at any stage of their existence, that
further participation absolutely guarantees their eternal exclusion from
paradise, plus especially horrendous punishment from Allah for making a defiled
transition, we get their attention.
Nazis tried executing ten for one when resistance fighters caused the death of a
German. They didn’t understand the language of the resistors, and only
strengthened their resolve with this tactic.
how we currently deal with Wahhabi terrorists strengthens their resolve, while
convincing them of our inherent weakness. If we choose, (and if we are willing
to live with the consequent impact to our own innocence) we can put an end to
much of world terror – simply by speaking to terrorists in a language they