The latest issue of Dabiq, the ISIS propaganda magazine, mocks Westerners for being too P.C. (...)
And so, the magazine declares,
if it were the Muslims, instead of the Crusaders, who had fought the Japanese and Vietnamese or invaded the lands of the Native Americans, there would have been no regrets in killing and enslaving those therein. And since those mujahidin would have done so bound by the Law, they would have been thorough and without some "politically correct" need to apologize years later.I'm not sure when the phrase "politically correct" entered the ISIS lexicon, but this isn't the only time the concept has come up in the English-language edition of the magazine. Another article in the same issue scoffs at pundits who profess not to know why ISIS hates them, declaring that such "analysts and journalists" say this only "to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be 'politically incorrect.'"
By the way: If you wanted more details about how the Islamic State claims it would have fought the Japanese, the Vietnamese, and the Native Americans, the magazine is glad to oblige. The Japanese "would have been forcefully converted to Islam from their pagan ways—and if they stubbornly declined, perhaps another nuke would change their mind." The Vietnamese would "be offered Islam or beds of napalm." If ISIS had battled the Native Americans, the conquerers "would have taken their surviving women and children as slaves, raising the children as model Muslims and impregnating their women to produce a new generation of mujahidin." Also, Jews "would face a slaughter that would make the Holocaust sound like a bedtime story," and the African slave trade "would have continued, supporting a strong economy," because God thinks it's fine "to sell captured pagan humans."
Já agora, nesta altura do campeonato ainda há alguém que se autodefina como "politicamente correto"?