This measure makes no sense as an attempt by the British government to improve its relationship with Muslim communities. The term "war on terror" is itself a symptom of our elected officials' failure to name the enemy -- who and what we are fighting, and by extension, why. It would be encouraging if the decision to drop "war on terror" came in order to rebrand it as something accurate and useful -- say, the "war against jihad" -- but clearly, what will follow the retirement of this term will be more euphemisms for what was a euphemism in the first place.
"Britain starts to drop US term 'war on terror'," from AFP:
LONDON - Britain’s Foreign Office is urging government officials to stop using the US term “war on terror” amid concerns it angers British Muslims and undermines government aims, a weekly newspaper said on Sunday.
The government wants to “avoid reinforcing and giving succour to the terrorists’ narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive,” a Foreign Office spokesman told The Observer.
The Foreign Office has sent the same message to cabinet ministers as well as diplomats and other government representatives around the world, according to the report.
“We tend to emphasize upholding shared values as a means to counter terrorists,” the spokesman was quoted as saying.
Many British officials and experts, the weekly said, suspect that Islamist extremists find it easier to recruit followers when western governments speak of a war on terror, by suggesting it is actually a war against Islam.
Gary Hindle, terrorism expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London, hailed the decision to drop the term, though it was not clear whether it was being widely carried out.
“It’s about time,” Hindle told The Observer. “Military terminology is completely counter-productive, merely contributing to isolating communities. This is a very positive move.”
What will they call it then? War on Islamofascism?
Great idea! let's absolutely Drop the Name
" War on Terror " we should be more realistic and accurate.
Let's call it what it is ....
" The War on the WEST "
germaninamerica you took the words out of my mouth. Like all of have said before the war on terror is a joke. terrorism is a tactic. Lets call a spade a spade. Islam has declared war on us are we going to name our enemy or are they gonna come up with something even more PC. Maybe it will be a war on misunderstanding. Or war on radical few who have misinterpreted the religion of peace.
" . . . undermines government aims . . . "
Just what the hell are the "government aims?" The British and French seem to have more in common than we think. No wonder the British National Party is gaining momentum.
"The War on That which cannor be named", perhaps.
And the comabatants for "That which cannot be named", consist of "Freedom fighters of no appearnce, from no particular ethnic or cultural background".
" . . . it angers British Muslims . . . ."
Their anger will never be appeased until the UK is an Islamic country. So why don't these British idiots understand that?
So why don't we all understand that trying to appease Islamic anger is fruitless.
Instead of trying to appease their anger, let it flare up . . .
. . . and give them what they're asking for.
The Brits will call it a "War on Misguided Individuals Who Hve Perverted a Paceful Religion." Perhaps war is too strong a word -"The Joust Between Individuals Who Have Perverted the Most Peaceful Religion the World Has Ever Known and The Stupid Anglos."
Forget what future historians will call these particular times. I truly fear that the history will be written by Moslims.
"The tempest in a teapot"
"The spot of bother"
"War on jihad" would be a better term. This would also help lay to rest all the nonsense Muslims talk about it really meaning 'inner struggle.'One of the Forest Gate youths wrongfully arrested on suspicion of plotting terrorist acts this year, said at a press conference, that for him the term 'jihad' meant 'helping people.' Weasel tongued little swine.
Oh good grief! Really what will they not concede to not offend muslims?
They need to realize if you're a non-muslim you just offended them and deeply too!
When will some government stand up and tell them
NO! Get over it....or leave!
War on Terror
War on Drugs
War on Poverty
War on.................
Why do politicians want slogans ? Is it that politics is now Adworld ?
Why did they need all this hype ? The issue should have been discreetly ruthless including assassinations in the Middle East...........the fact is we have had to use armies because the CIA is so useless at anything but desk-based analysis in Arlington and MI6 was scaled back in the mIddle East after 1957
For those of you who enjoy a troll...
Troll on this thread-
Turkey: Authorities "Harass" Orthodox Patriarchate Staff
A sample of his wisdom:
JUST goes to prove that Andalusian Spain, Ottoman Turkey, Muslim Jerusalem, Mughal India and other Islamic civilizations were PERFECTLY capable of integrating religious minorities. Now compare that with the manufactured events of 9/11 and mass anti-muslim hysteria being generated in the Zionist media, where innocent Muslims are being targetted for no greater crime than being Muslim. Unlike the Jews though, Muslims fight back...hard...enjoy!
Oh what's the point in not offending?
The Brits seem to be dying to become dhimmi's and the rest of the west is close behind!
Personally I think we should go out of our way to make their lives as miserable as they have made ours!
This gets worse day by day....never ending idiocy.
"The government wants to 'avoid reinforcing and giving succour to the terrorists’ narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive,' a Foreign Office spokesman told The Observer."
-- from the article above
Yes, of course. Do not "reinforce and give succour to the terrorists' narrative." The terrorists' "narrative." Yes, it's MLA Time, in the chanceries and corridors of power of the West, and we have a clash of "competing narratives." Put down your Palmsteron and Clausewitz, boys, pick up your Jonathan Culler and your Foucault and your...oh god, does it matter?
You see, as someone on this side of the ocean has said, "Islam is whatever Muslims say it is." If we just tip-toe around what Muslims have been saying it is for 1350 years, and demonstrating what they think it is, for 1350 years, then the good Muslims, the Muslims who are so very good that they hate so very much all of the tenets of Islam concerning non-Muslims, and would in a minute, if they could, do away with that Believer/Infidel divide that is so central to Islam), why then eventually -- oh, give it a few hundred years, maybe a hundred if we're very lucky -- we lambs can sit down with their lions, now also lamb-like (though some of those little lambs do have a bleat that, if you listen closely, sounds very much like a roar)-- and all shall be well, all manner of things shall be well.
So don't mention what is in the Qur'an and the Hadith. Stop picking on nice Mr. Muhammad by telling Infidels some of the things -- the many things - he said and did that do not correspond to the figure we must join in revering. For not to revere is to criticize, as Muslims see it; to criticize is to scorn; to scorn is to hate; to hate is to deserve hatred and therefore to merit being murdered. Take the links of that little non-isnad chain and wrap those around your neck, Western civilization, then -- as the British govenment advises -- jump from a height to the lower depths of self-abasement and squalor.
Yes, keep that "narrative" clean by hiding facts, changing phrases, doing whatever you can not to offend those Good Muslims we are all counting on. What is a Good Muslim again? A Good Muslim consists of all those Muslims who, though they are perfectly aware of what is written in the Qur'an and Hadith, perfectly aware of what Muhammad said and did, perfectly aware of the goal of Jihad, Jihad as a central duty of Islam, to push back and swallow up Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam, nonetheless remain Muslims, and work to prevent critical scrutiny or understanding -- but of course not "understanding" -- of Islam.
And some, such as those behind the suppression of this phrase (an idiotic phrase by the way, but it is not being suppressed because of its idiocy, but because of the offense it might give to Muslims and the ideas it might give to Infidels), think that "if only" the "narrative" is changed then Islam can be, as one commentator on this side of the ocean likes to say, "whatever Muslims say it is." No doubt we are expected to believe that these Good Muslims who know what the contents of Islamic texts contain are remaining Muslims only "in order to fight the system from within." Yes, that's it. They're working "within the system" to change it, rather than leaving Islam, like silly Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, of the very best people born, through no fault of their own, into Islam.
"Narratives."
"Competing narratives."
The MLA and MESA Nostra and the American Political Science Assocation and the Foreign Service and the governments of the major Infidel lands together, fighting Islam the only way they apparently know how.
Forgive them, Lord. They know not what they do. No, they know. Don't forgive them.
Meeting Minutes:
Purpose of today's meeting: To come to an understanding of why many Muslims feel humiliated by our society, the ways in which they are abused when they leave their neighbourhoods and why a minority of them feel justified in becoming Freedom Fighters for Islam.
In attendance: Six members of the "Let's Figure Out How to Make Muslims Happy" Focus Group
Guests: 17 members of the British Muslim Society
Motion:
Having determined that referring to a small minority of confused Muslims as "terrorists" humiliates Muslims and makes their youth so angry they are compelled to become freedom fighters in order to defend the honour of Allah, and
Given that we must make all citizens feel welcome and included, but especially our Muslim citizens, and
Considering that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, that Islam means peace, and that jihad refers to an inner struggle against sin,
We move to meet again at this time next week to continue our important work.
Recommendations:
1. That a prayer room be designated for Muslims who attend our meetings. Specifications to follow.
2. That our caterer be fired for humiliating our Muslim guests by deliberately including a piece of pork in his food, and
3. That we hire a caterer who specializes in halal food for all subsequent meetings. Recommendations to follow.
4. That a sub-committee be formed to consider the Israel problem and facilitate the transfer of Israel to its rightful owners.
5. That the phrase, "The War on Terror" be banned in all public and private utterances. Suggestions for public re-education program to follow.
6. That all Britains are united in the "War on Islamaphobia", which must be undertaken for the safety of all. Press releases, educational aids, etc., to be provided by the newly-renamed Muslim British Society.
Next meeting: Tuesday, December 13 (Inshallah)
Given the self-defeating, harmless and benigne nature of the "war on terror", terrorist muslims must be happy at their percieved "fear". Yes, terror in the hearts of the enemy, is working just fine.....
They could call it the war on "individuals".
Posted by: americaningermany at December 10, 2006 04:36 AM
OUCH! That should hit dubya where it hurts, then again, if duby and wahabbi Bandar smoked cigars while WTC was smouldering on 9/12, nothing could hurt dubya, other than a call from Riyadh.
But, a GOOD ONE, AIG!!!
Hmmm...methinks they are insulted and defensive because they ARE terrorists, and they KNOW it.
Posted by: americaningermany at December 10, 2006 04:47 AM
Hear, Hear!! Truer words were never spoken.
"I don't get it though. If muslims are really peaceful, like they say they are, then WHY would the term "war on terror" piss them off?"
Americaningermany - you nailed it. You'd think the moderates would be good with that phrase.
Wait 'til they notice that Mohammed's name has the word "ham" in the middle.
That'll shake 'em!
For the rest, I simply cannot believe that any agency involving the use of investigation, evidence, analysis and data collection is having any truck with the notions of narratives, competing or otherwise. I thought it was their job to track down incidents of an incendiary, murderous or otherwise dangerous nature and prosecute the perpetrators, alleged 'til proven of course.
For diplomats and professors to consider these ideas at dinner parties and in academia is one thing, to let it impinge on tactical arrangements - is another.
War on Terror was like calling the war on the Nazis, the War on Unprovoked Aerial Bombardment, or WUAB. But after Germans in England objected to this term as being derisive of Nazi Germany, the British Home Office suggested a new term for the war:
The Hostilites with a Few Misguided Germans of Otherwise Good Repute. Or HWAFMGOOGR
Nonetheless, Goebbels objected to this new term as germanphobic and the British Home Office, understanding of how many Germans were in Britian at the time, decided that angering Goebbels or British Germans was counterproductive to the war effort. Thus, a memo was circulated to all branches of the Interior Ministry and the Foreign Office to declare the war with Germany simply a
Senseless Struggle That Demeans Us All
Once this message was received by the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street, he declared the war over. Said the Prime Minister, "Why should we enage in a Senseless Struggle That Demeans US All?"
He then waved the memo from the Home Office in his hand, above his head, and proudly announced hostilities over. "Peace in our Time", he said.
Should be called "the War on those who believe in a literal intrepretation of the Koran" This of course excludes Moderate Muslims and our government(s) who believe in a Fairy Tale called the "Religion of Peace."
I actually detest our politicians, mediagicians, and liberal countrymen more than I do the pious muslims. At least I know where the muslims stand: they want to either convert us, tax us, or kill us. But what is our dhimmis' goal? I think they want to hand them our heads on silver platter.
Renaming and repackaging works in Western consumer societies given the ADHD prone attention span of we the sheeple.
But it's not going to work against Muslims. Muslims will remember and nurse any perceived slight or injury to help focus their efforts. They're still talking about the Crusades like they happened last year for God's sake.
Prancing around and speaking in derivative language only strengthens the resolve of those who would support or fight in a 'war on terror'.
Call it what it is. If people don't feel safe in nations which call it 'war on jihad' then they should return to the Camp of Islam and paint a nice red target on themselves.
The depths of our misunderstanding are unfathomable. We're plain stupid.
americaningermany is right. I was gonna write the same thing but he/she beat me to it.
gee, if the War on Terror is a War On Islam, then it stands to reason that Terror = Islam.
"The War on Terror" is a war on Islam. It's just that politicians have no guts to admit it.
The War on Terror is to be replaced by the War on Reality. Cometh Ingsoc. Cometh Newspeak.
Double plus ungood.
Robert said
wallyUK said
So then we have: "The war against helping people". That surely cannot offend, no?
Well then, how about "Picking flowers on a spring afternoon"? As long as it involves brutally halting Islamic violence cold in its tracks, I don't care what we call it.
In contrast to Hugh's sardonic admonition:
"So don't mention what is in the Qur'an and the Hadith."
This overlooked gem from the article:
"The government-backed British Muslim Forum meanwhile is teaching Muslims that dying while fighting for Britain’s armed forces is an act of martyrdom rather than one of a traitor, which extremists insist it is, it was reported.
In holding talks nationwide, The Sunday Times said, the group argues that a Muslim soldier in the British forces will be a martyr and a hero for Britain even if he dies fighting in Muslim countries like Afghanistan."
Sure. Oblivious itself to what the Qur'an and hadith do say, the British government hopes to convince Corporal Baluch that he will become a martyr to Britain, a member of Dar al Harb, if he dies killing other members of the Ummah.
Amazing.
"the war on internal struggle?"
Will never catch on
How about
"the war on a stupid backward sadistic perverted totalitarian death cult"
Catchy hey?
Seattle
Seattle Airport kow-tows to Radical Religious Leader and removes Christmas trees
"War on Terror" is a ridiculous term. A better name would be "The Anti Infidel Crusade" because the peaceful ones want to wipe everyone out who doesn't worship Mr. Perfect and the god his demented mind created.
As for offending Britain's Muslims who the hell cares-despite all the stories we see they still are a minority. The British people need to take back THEIR rights in their own country. If what they say offends then let those who are offended pack up and return to the beloved ummah. Britain did just fine without them for centuries without them defiling the place.
As far as Her Majesty's government goes, they should simply substitute the 'War on Terror' with 'Jihad against British Infidels', which is what they've really been doing.
Other than that, I'd borrow most strategies from the Mohammedans (other than the grizzly ones, such as amputations, beheadings, substituting those with firing squads) and then call it what I design it to be: the Jihad against Islam.
The term "War on Terror", as I understand it, is to be abandoned and replaced with:
Movement Against Disunity or MAD
To achieve this the government is to engage this strategy:
Before And Subsequent To Any Ruinous Diversive Situations: or ................I'll leave the acronym to the readers....
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.
We are better off with the murdering criminals sticking their heads out of their holes, than keeping them undercover and submerged awaiting a better opportunity to emerge.
That Muslims have the propensity to engage in violence to prove that Islam is indeed a religion of violence and not peace, is all we need as proof and the British Government by taking this tack has proven just that, and proven that they know the truth, but lack the cajones to act on the obvious.
I'm waiting to see if our own government (Dhimmicrat and/or Repugnican) take a similar position.. if so then most definitely treason in the form of moral cowardice is afoot.
Living in the Seattle Area I am well aware that SeaTac airport kowtowed to a radical religious leader and took down all Christmas Trees which are not religious but are pagan in origin..(What does a pine tree strung with lights and decorations have to do with the birth of Jesus? Answer: Nothing, but it is a pagan northern European custom.. the Yule tree.
Anyway, this radical religious leader is a Rabbi. He subsequently claimed that he wanted a public Menorah LIghting not to take down the Trees, but he threatened legal action if they didn't take down the trees.
All in all another example of the insanity of religion, and what it does to the already fragile mind of man. Because while the Menorah is a religious symbol...the Yuletide tree is not, despite people calling it Christmas Tree (ain't got nothing to do with Christ Mass, the nativity or Jesus).
Let's rename it to "peace process".
“But, as regards the reward and blessing, there is one deed which is very great in comparison to all the acts of worship and all the good deeds-and that is Jihad !”
http://www.islamworld.net/jihad.html
Jihad is the essence of Islam, its highest form of worship, better than “all the good deeds.” And sure, we can declare war on Jihad, but Jihad is not the enemy. It is a thing, a tool used by the enemy.
“Let the Infidels do everything they can to first learn themselves, and then to show Muslims that they understand (so that Muslims will then have to begin to recognize) that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Islamic societies, both within Dar al-Islam and in Dar al-Harb, are directly related to, and arise out of, Islam itself.”
By Hugh at http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012991.php
Jihad also rises from Islam. Islam itself is the enemy and it is more than deserving of a war against it. Defeat Islam and Jihad goes away, so too, those political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Islamic societies. This is the “War against Islam.” Saying it is not changes nothing.
Ladies and gentlemen, Let's get ready to rumble!
In the black corner, with a 1400 year record of death and destruction, Mohammedeans!
And in white corner, hoping to save their respective civilizations from oblivion, Infidels!
Gentlemen, touch gloves and come out fighting.
I'm waiting to see if our own government (Dhimmicrat and/or Repugnican) take a similar position.. if so then most definitely treason in the form of moral cowardice is afoot.
Posted by: Nariz
Look at Nariz here.. slowly getting some sense in 'im! Maybe our little JW corner is increasing "perceptivity" - hopefully worldwide.
'All in all another example of the insanity of religion, and what it does to the already fragile mind of man. Because while the Menorah is a religious symbol...the Yuletide tree is not, despite people calling it Christmas Tree (ain't got nothing to do with Christ Mass, the nativity or Jesus).'
But the fir tree was one of the symbols of Mithras, and some people claim that Christianity has it's roots in Mithraism. (See http://www.lochanpress.com/?gclid=CJbs8qSQiYkCFTQgMAodeRlMjQ)
Others think that the early church deliberately invented ceremonies to compete with existing pagan ones, including Christmas. (see http://wilstar.com/xmas/xmassymb.htm)
Either way, the Xmas tree is now an accepted symbol of Christmas, or Christ's Mass, and is (I hope) extremely offensive to all Mohammedans.
"In the black corner, with a 1400 year record of death and destruction, Mohammedeans!
And in white corner, hoping to save their respective civilizations from oblivion, Infidels!
Gentlemen, touch gloves and come out fighting."
Unfortunately we are not fighting gentlemen. The Marquis of Queensbury rules (and Geneva Convention) will only get us killed. At some point, if we are to survive, we will have to take the gloves off and deliver unmitigated hell to our enemies.
This is fight to the death and we of the West have a hell of lot more to fight for than they do.
After we've dealt with the barbarian we can wash off the blood and go back to dealing with gentlemen.
Maybe this is spoof - I hope so.
I have read this again - this is the really insane bit:
'Britain’s Foreign Office is urging government officials to stop using the US term “war on terror” amid concerns it angers British Muslims'
Think about it.
"war on terror" was always just too broad a term. Who are we at war with? Which terror group? The BLA, IRA, Weather Underground, SLA.... and on and on. I'll go with "war on jihad"
I watched the news conference a few days ago with President Bush and Tony Blair at the white house. While it was a positive event showing resolve I was amazed as to how scrubbed clean their references to our struggle truly was. They talked about "extremism" and "terrorists" and "sectarians" and "extreme ideology"` One would think that they were highly coached not to slip up and say something which resembled a true description of who our enemy is. The more I listened to the presentation and the q&a the more disgusted I became. I was disgusted at our leaders. At their political correctness. At their lack of candor. At their hypocrisy.
The American people will rally around worthwhile causes provided they understand. They will sacirfice for a national cause. They will fight to exterminate oppression. But....they will not support what they don understand! And this war they don't get because the enemy has never been truly identified.The enemy is Islamic Fundamentalism which finds its motivation and marching orders from the Koran and Hadith. Plain and simple. Everytime leaders refer to this struggle they must use those two little words. Words are powerful and shape concepts. Euphimisms obfuscate and confuse.
Without "Islamic Fundementalism" and "Islam" the events around the world become a series of disjointed events. Iraq has nothing to do with Afghanistan or Iran or the Mufti of Australia or Theo Van Gaugh or Ayan Hirsi Ali or the Jillands Posten or the car burnings in France, 911 or 311 etc...etc. And without integrated understanding our enemy Islamic Fundementalism marches as the west sleeps.
One of the few leaders whom I've heard articulate tough, precise and candid language in this matter is Rudy Giuliani. It is my hope that he rises to the presidency next. America needs the type of iconic figure who had the gumption to hand Prince Alweed the $10 mil back after Sept. 11. If he is successfull in obtaining the Republican nomination, I'll guarantee one thing.....he'll not get the support of any of the American muslim community!!!
One man's opinion,
Il Toscano
atheling - I like "spot of bother." Typical British understatement.
"Pathway to Peace"
The will be the new slogan...
Let's just drop the Great from Great Britain if Great Britain is not even allowed to say what it wants to say.