The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

That said, they are not "victims" at all, except insofar as they are victims of what they bring on themselves.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

But Brennan argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."

That depends entirely on how we define "victim" and the point of relativity.

Well I'm sure if we allow them to define victims, you'll quickly discover that they are, in fact, all victims.

I would suggest that your average suicide bomber is a victim, while his handler is not. Per our other discussion on the relative levels of extremism, I would point out that the guy who blows himself up for someone else's cause without access to other information is indeed a victim most of the time. This doesn't excuse the action; this doesn't deny culpability. It simply means that the expendable and exploited are victims of the power machine using them as weapons (in most cases).

it is a legitimate tenet of islam, which is one of the reasons islam is so prone to violence. it is a key principle that is misinterpreted and misused quite frequently, with violent results.

violence:jihad as socialism:"promote the general welfare"

Interesting, I guess I never viewed the Constitution as a socialist document.