British Foreign Office abandons “war on terror” terminology
posted at 2:12 pm on December 10, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
They’re tired of the euphemisms and are prepared to call this what it is: a war on violent Islamists.
No, kidding. They’ve gone squishy. Turns out the jihadis are having too easy a time recruiting young Muslims by convincing them that fighting “terror” means fighting “Islam.”
They’ve got a knack for sniffing out that tiny minority, I guess.
Cabinet ministers have been told by the Foreign Office to drop the phrase ‘war on terror’ and other terms seen as liable to anger British Muslims and increase tensions more broadly in the Islamic world…
A Foreign Office spokesman said the government wanted to ‘avoid reinforcing and giving succour to the terrorists’ narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive’. The same message has been sent to British diplomats and official spokespeople around the world…
Whitehall officials believe that militants use a sense of war and crisis and a ‘clash of civilisations’ to recruit supporters, and thus the use of terms such as ‘war’, ‘war on terror’ or ‘battle’ can be counter-productive.
The new strategy? Emphasizing “shared values.” Can’t wait.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
As has been posted many times before, what doesn’t anger those people? Screw them. If the Brits think the phrase “war on terror” is the cause of all those radical mosques, they are dooned as a nation. Let’s face it: the islamo-facists are everywhere and there is no such thing as a moderate muslim. The only thing saving us is that we have more people in this country so the ratio is lower.
EF on December 10, 2006 at 2:24 PM
It had to happen. This is all the result of our terrorphobic society. Once the West overcomes its not-being-murdered-normative predjudices, it will finally learn to live in peace with the rest of the world.
Ignorance is strength. Repeat it often.
Coyote D. on December 10, 2006 at 2:25 PM
Really,EF I’ve always followed the idea that if you’re going to get in trouble no matter what you do you may as well do things to benefit yourself. Call them what they are and then tell them tough crunchies when they complain about it.
I weep for the good people in England.
bbz123 on December 10, 2006 at 2:26 PM
We need a replacement. If you cannot say war on terror, you cannot also say terrorist.
Ouabam on December 10, 2006 at 2:27 PM
What are they going to call it instead? And why do they think that using another ephemism is going to stop or slow Jihadi recruiting?
georgej on December 10, 2006 at 2:29 PM
It’s already difficult enough to de-code Eurospeak.
forest on December 10, 2006 at 2:31 PM
How ’bout we call it the …..
“Difference of Opinion with Peace-Loving Muslims”?
That’ll make ‘em like us, and then they’ll leave us alone.
Retards.
fogw on December 10, 2006 at 2:58 PM
Eurolalia
Ropera on December 10, 2006 at 2:59 PM
while they’re building nukes, making chummy with socialist nations, and preparing to buy up long range missile systems … we’re cracking down on our vocabulary.
No wonder the west is losing.
One Angry Christian on December 10, 2006 at 3:04 PM
This can be and if used properly will be a good thing. The redefinition brings with it more clarity. “The War on Terror” has become blase even to me. And does not properly describe the current threats to America. The War on Terror does not properly describe political Islam, or the tools Islamists use to influence their policy and spread it throughout the Middle East. Rick Santorums farewell speech did made great strides in this area. Lets stop whining and start winning the real politik issues at hand.
Theworldisnotenough on December 10, 2006 at 3:09 PM
interesting post. I don’t really agree with you though I see your point. Politically speaking the “pro defense” movement isn’t going to convert anyone. Those who are code pinkers are going to STAY code pinkers, and frankly I think we’ve come to a point where people are where they’re going to stay.
There is no more progressive fruitful debate on the subject of whether we should defend ourselves anymore. There are three stances, and in general there’s only one stance that will change into the other two categories.
There are those who see the war and want to win it using whatever means necessary. Those people will not deviate. There are those who see a “misunderstood” religious movement that has been “opressed” and is “fighting back” against the “fascist west”. Regardless of how they try to paint it that’s where they fall, and they are FOR our enemies and against our national defense.
And the final group is those who simply don’t care. There is a full orchard of these people waiting to be given right information so that they can move into whatever camp they so choose.
The only problem is getting them the information that’s accurate as … the press seems to be against that sort of thing.
In short, I disagree with you because changing a few words will do nothing to change minds. The minds in general are already made up, and those that are not … don’t care.
One Angry Christian on December 10, 2006 at 3:25 PM
I’d suggest everyone to invest heavily in petroleum jelly products, such as “Vaseline.” The Brits will need plenty for their new “Dhimmi” state of Londonstan.
byteshredder on December 10, 2006 at 5:00 PM
How about, The War Against Terrorists who Bastardize Mohammad’s Peaceful Religion? Would that get a positive response?
DannoJyd on December 10, 2006 at 5:21 PM
Thanks for the chuckle, AP.
It looks like the bad words are primarily “war” and “battle”, since the Foreign Office’s Engaging with the Islamic World Unit (and Funding) still refers to “terrorism”, et al. despite their edict.
But what bothers me is that they don’t even replace the “bad” terms with other terms, giving the sense that they are stifling any expression of the violent conflict. Then again, I guess we could call it “Engaging the Islamic World” in honor of the Foreign Office’s Unit?
Kevin on December 10, 2006 at 5:27 PM
Also at the Guardian, there’s a commentary by Nick Cohen called “The Foreign Office ought to be serving Britain, not radical Islam” about the Foreign Office (FO) catering to the extremists over moderate Muslims:
Kevin on December 10, 2006 at 5:58 PM
How completely nauseating. Actually, the story summary really outlines what I believe is the push to change terminology:
Did you catch it? “Invented by Bush…” That cowboy! That detestable American rogue! Then there was this eye-rolling missive further down in the text:
Nevermind we’re fighting a war, “military terminology is…counter-productive”. As soon as another bus blows up I suppose they can elevate their terror threat level from tan to beige to avoid offending the precious muslims that the rest of Britain might be concerned about radicals in their midst. Then the disaffected religiously challenged muslim youths can go about plotting anarchy while the government walks about on egg shells with nervous smiles.
Sounds like fun but you can keep it. In my book it’s a war on terror and we’re fighting radical muslims.
thedecider on December 10, 2006 at 6:00 PM
That reminds me of the four level French terror alert system.
Run
Hide
Surrender
Collaborate
It’s funny ’cause it’s true. But anyway, tell me again why we are supposed to care about the fate of Eurabia?
Wolfman on December 10, 2006 at 8:12 PM
It is high time for someone, somewhere to declare “War on Blind Ignorance” (here and abroad.) The longer it takes people to open their eyes to the extent of the threat that these Jihadis pose to peace, prosperity, our way of life, and our very lives, the more difficult will be the effort to confront and defeat this threat.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2006 at 9:33 PM
Alternate title UK for this struggle:
The Global War Against You-Know-Who.
(By now, who wouldn’t know who was meant?)
Although it should have been called:
The War Against Islamic Imperialism
or:
The War on Militant Jihad
-if they don’t want to fight something as nebulous as “Terror” (and not even “terrorists”)then getting more specific would only give them a cerebral embolism …assuming there is anything solid enough in their noggins to coagulate.
(I hear the British government is drawing up plans to harness the spinning body of Winston Churchill in his grave to eventually power all of central London.)
profitsbeard on December 10, 2006 at 10:37 PM
Well actually I don’t think the “War on Terror” is an accurate term since terror is a strategy (like bombing) and it doesn’t accurately describe who the enemy is. I wish to anything the PC stuff would stop and we could really saying what war we are fighting: the War Against Radical Islam
pentapenguin on December 10, 2006 at 11:52 PM
“the War Against Radical Islam” – how many lives has that war taken? Seriously, how many American lives has this war ‘taken’?
Is it really a ‘war’?
eminuu on December 11, 2006 at 12:10 AM
Yes it is a war. It’s not a conventional army against army war, but a war of ideologies that still end up with civilian deaths. When people form ideological bands to strike death and fear into another society, you are at war – like it or not.
thedecider on December 11, 2006 at 12:25 AM
Comment pages: