a) "VIOLENT EXTREMIST TERRORIST(S)"
This ludicrous terminology suggests that "terrorists" come on some sort of continuum/spectrum from say
most extremist terrorist--violent extremist terrorist--extremist terrorist--terrorist--mild terrorist--milder terrorist--mildest terrorist--peaceful wanna be terrorist
That "experts" and policymakers insult our intelligence with such absurd lexicon on a daily basis as we face a metastasizing, existential threat emboldened by a pathetic strategy (if there actually is one) is disconcerting to put it mildly.
b) "RADICAL ISLAMIST(S)"
This one irks. Like (a), this suggests that "Islamists"* are on some sort of spectrum/continuum from say (sarcasm intended)
most radical Islamists--radical Islamists--less radical Islamists--lesser radical Islamists--least radical Islamists--Islamist--peaceful
Islamist--friendly Islamist--the must-have Islamist in your government et al
No one who, straight faced, uses this terminology has cogently explained their usage of the word "radical" to identify global Islamist organization(s) intent on destruction and conquest through all means (including terrorist acts) but share one common objective/goal: global conquest and the establishment of a Caliphate that fits their draconian world view.
Some might conclude that this may indeed be an attempt to place all Islamists on a some sort of continuum to mitigate the inevitable backlash that is building up, like a volcano, globally against the onslaught of barbaric acts that are meant to supplement ongoing stealth efforts to attain the goal.
Declaring Da'ish/IS, AQ, AQI, Taliban et al as "radical Islamists" --a recently coined phrase-- takes the heat off of the Islamists' mother ship, Ikhwan al Muslimin (Muslim Brothers) and its global tentacles/alliances that would surprise some given the historical Sunni-Shia schism.
In the West, Islamist groups (eg. MSA, CAIR, ISNA, MPAC etc.) modus operandi involves bullying/influencing governmental policy to ensure only their henchmen/henchwomen can influence policy, and who "leverage" our most senior leadership to shut down courses and briefs (including mine at the Joint Forces Staff College) on the ideological threat Islamists' and their supporters pose to Western Civilization. They are well funded and have made deep inroads. These Islamists' and their devout supporters are punching well above their weight.
Groups like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Tunisia's Ennahda and Pakistan's Jamaat-i-Islami who attempt to "win" using clandestine methods and the ballot box (but are booted out once the populace wakes up), and have seemingly peaceful modus operandi, are actually far more dangerous. Hasan Al-Banna's MB has spawned the violent offshoots (Da'ish/IS, AQ et al) which are leveraging violence as their primary means to the end, and are no longer willing to adhere to MB's methodology/restraint/time line. Rather, they view the MB as deviant too. The MB's sleeper cells in the West, however, remain a grave threat and have remarkable influence on policy.
Getting fixated on ludicrous caveating vis-a-vis overt exhibitions of violence, or lack thereof, is a non-starter for any serious and constructive effort to address legitimate national security concerns.
Instead, the populace is increasingly suspected and under surveillance by the invasive State, with unprecedented acts that, in effect, make us both victims, and suspects, as the State intrudes deeply and pervasively into our private lives. Furthermore, the State fails to concoct a real strategy and time line to destroy this ideologically derivative threat that is global in nature (i.e. not limited to the West).
Although I've used this term once in my writing, it frankly has no utility as it suggests some sort of "Islamic" continuum, with us only being concerned with the "Islamic extremists" who undertake violence. But we need not worry ourselves (especially in the West) about the other Islamic/Muslim entities that seek Shariah law and imposition of strict (and draconian) mores on all "citizens" (these entities don't have the vision/view of "citizenship" that we have with concepts such as "free will" and "individual liberty", since their ideology demands people must submit (to the clerics as the custodians of Islam) and have no natural rights).
In essence, by caveating the term "Islamists," governments in the West inadvertently, or advertently, provide invaluable space for Islamists burrowed deep within their societies. These enemies need this essential space/freedom to continue unabated with their long term mission.
d) "ISLAMIC/MUSLIM TERRORIST(S)"
This is better in terms of identifying the "muscle" of the existential threat we face since we --circa 2015-- aren't dealing with Buddhist terrorists or Hindu or Christian or Jewish terrorists threatening mayhem.
Those who object to this terminology ("Islamic or Muslim terrorists") fit various profiles. I won't delve into these here. Suffice it to say, Muslims who take umbrage (I'm not one) and shout/scream/object that these are NOT Muslims are cognizant (or not) that they are mirroring the so-called takfiris, whose sole focus as they spread fitna/dissension across the Muslim majority world, is to declare fellow Muslims "murtadds" (apostates), i.e excommunicate them, in order to execute them.
So the so-called "Moderate Muslims" --a silly and/or disingenuous phrase/term -- who try to distance themselves from heinous acts conducted by Muslim muharribun/terrorists in the name of Islam by saying these aren't Muslims are, in effect, excommunicating these fellow Muslims in the court of public opinion.
Historically, however, in Sunni Islam (especially the Hanafi fiqh), excommunicating wasn't something the ulema/scholars advocated. Declaring behavior repugnant and contrary to Islam was sahih/correct/acceptable with the concomitant (often draconian) punishment(s); but not excommunication, since only Allah would, on the day of judgment (Qiyamat), decide one's fate per Muslim theology. Islam's sacred texts do, however, proscribe death for apostasy. But this entails a Muslim publicly renouncing Islam or uttering blasphemous statements ("blasphemous" witch hunts are becoming the norm in some Muslim majority societies). Such a Muslim is then viewed as "fair game" by mainstream Muslims if he/she refuses to reconsider his/her decision when urged to repent and return to the fold within a stipulated time frame (days).
Furthermore, in formerly secular states of the 20th century (prior to the move to "Shariahize" their legal systems) that became "Islamic Republics" (an oxymoron phrase) like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, for example, there was no legal mechanism that mirrored the Islamic injunctions on dealing with apostasy. Possible fines and/or imprisonment or warning was viewed/regarded as sufficient for apostasy or fornication; stoning, under these secular entities, was considered medieval and a repugnant embarrassment for the state's image.
In addition to the concept of "apostasy," the now almost fashionable/condoned act/trend of committing suicide to kill "infidels" (i.e. non-Muslims) isn't eliciting widespread repugnance in the Muslim world (the clergies silence and conflicting views are a big part of this problem), nor are critical thinking/ijtihad being applied by the so called "moderate Muslims" to realize that Muslims cannot declare fellow Muslim murderers/terrorist as "infidels" per Muslim theology and the historical record/precedence; although they certainly could be prosecuted/punished for repugnant violent acts per existing legal stipulations.
So "Islamic terrorists" isn't a term that should be discarded into the dustbin as it does identify the perpetrators of violence; but this doesn't mean that Islamists in general aren't a problem here. The only difference between an "Islamist" and an "Islamic/Muslim terrorist" is their methodology and modus operandi. Both seek our destruction.
e) "JIHADIS"
Trickier in terms of utility. In past scholarly writing --Ceding the Ideological Battlefield: The Absence of an Effective US Information Warfare Strategy in Comparative Strategy (2009)-- I warned against calling Muslim terrorists/insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan etc as "jihadis" as it only served to legitimize their actions in the eyes of the local populace. Furthermore, their modus operandi is haram (suicide attacks, illegitimate fatwas etc) if carefully dissected according to Islamic laws of warfare and historical precedence.
Yet, even Muslims sometimes call these butchers on their home turf jihadis/takfiris etc. So it is a rather fluid term whose usage is situation dependent. But given the state of affairs in the Muslim world what we have today is "anarchical jihadis/jihad" (Burki).
One can argue that with the demise/abolishment of the Caliphate --albeit under illegitimate Ottoman Turks; technically "illegitimate" per the original stipulations of who could legitimately be Khalifa-- opened up a Pandora's Box from which arose the current nemeses Muslim Brotherhood, Tablighi Jamaat and other such groups with an eventual global focus.
There are, however, independent operators/lone wolves (jundallahs) who have drunk deep at the ideological well and understand the Ikhwan's, AQAM et al's tactical intent and decide to undertake violent acts as "jihad." It would be premature, and dangerous, to minimize this threat while arguing that, in reality, all acts of violence committed by Islamist terrorists are somehow linked to an organization like AQ/AQAP/Da'ish etc. Both need to be addressed/dealt with. As well as their stealth ideological supporters.
The common thread is all have been indoctrinated to hate and conduct acts of violence against the enemy (fellow Muslims and non-Muslims) in certain mosques in the West (and on their home turf) by clerics who have, over time, brain washed their flock to hate and take action. And, the source is a literal reading of the Qur'an which is the hallmark of the Muwahiddun movement of Sunni Islam based on Ash'arite traditionalism. Cherry picking ayats (verses) to suit their Islamist agenda and, ironically, utilizing a very liberal interpretation of certain verses to convince gullible Muslims to undertake acts of suicide martyrdom as though such acts are halal (legitimate).
What perplexes is why --post-9/11-- every single mosque hasn't been under surveillance and/or been carefully scrutinized and shut down if they have Wahhabi/Salafi/Deobandi/"Khomeinist" ideological underpinnings, espouse submission of the "non-believers" (kuffar) and have questionable funding sources. Food for thought: it is estimated that well over 80 % of the mosques in the USA fit this ideological profile.
f) "JIHADI EXTREMIST(S)"
Another useless term that should be removed from lexicon/usage. While one could make the case that so-called "jihadis" can be placed on a spectrum based on their actions, with those ideologically inclined/supportive (fence sitters) to ones actually operationally engaged in "jihadi" action. "Extremist" is a word that shouldn't be utilized as it serves no purpose.
TO SUM UP:
Thirteen years since 9/11 and our leaders are presumably still trying to figure out exactly who the enemy is. Clearly our leadership hasn't read Sun Tzu. Imagine if the UK had continued to dither after Poland was swallowed up by the Nazis in 1939. Imagine if they'd caveated terminology with "Nazi extremists," "moderate Nazis" etc.
This current state of affairs is perturbing since those who seek the destruction of their own societies, and especially Western Civilization, have been quite clear on the ideology that drives them and who they are. It is way past the hour and we still dither as the threat metastasizes and threatens all (the innocent and the guilty).
*My definition/conceptualization of an "Islamist: "a devout Muslim (Sunni or Shia) who believes that the original mission must be reinstated (conquest through all necessary means, and submission of "the other(s)") for the emergence of a new world order characterized by one faith (Islam) and one language (Arabic). Such an adherent demands/seeks the implementation of Shariah laws that advocate stoning for adultery and chopping off of hands for robbery; covets the creation of a global umma (community of believers) and the elimination/subsuming of nations/cultures/identities. Islamists cannot conceptually envision accommodating/submitting to western constitutions with concepts of "individual rights" and "democracy."
Further reading:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11414646/To-defeat-our-foe-we-must-first-define-him.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/04/jordan-king-abdullah-war-isis-pilot
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/17/jordans-king-abdullah-is-in-winner-take-all-war-with-islamic-state/
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/230302-from-obama-to-al-sisi-a-tale-of-two-speeches-at-al-azhar
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/blog/2014/09/03/new-statement-fight-against-isis-uae
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-arabia-shift-closer-change-policy-toward-muslim-brotherhood-994741112
http://www.worldtribune.com/2015/02/15/saudis-rethink-muslim-brotherhood-israel-takes-note/
