My point is simply that we can and should address the problem without deploying labels that contribute to the religious legitimization of the extremists. Otherwise we reinforce the very structures we’re trying to tear down.

The essay you cite complains that some alternative labels are vague and others aren’t understood by the American public. Let us remember that Americans didn’t know what “jihad” and its derivations meant until the politicians and news media started using them during the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. A similar effort to educate people about an alternative like “takfiri” could be just as successful. As for terms like “extremist,” politicians in the U.S. effectively use ambiguous language all the time, yet people still understand what they mean.

There is never one and only one way to say something. Hence I disagree with the implication of your essay that unless we use particular language we can’t have an effective strategy against the ideology of the Bad Guys. We are smart enough to both do that *and* use labels that don’t support their communication strategy.

I suggest you also read my article at:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/07/jihad_and_supremacism.php

Thanks.