Britain drops 'War on Terror' term

[Muezzin]

Mon Apr 16 2007

The War on Terror tag is being dropped by the UK Government and Development Secretary Hilary Benn is urging the US to do the same.

Mr Benn said the term, coined by the White House after the 9/11 attacks, made small terrorist groups feel too important.

He will warn that the US rhetoric has given terrorists a "shared identity" and strengthens small disaffected groups with widely differing aims by making them feel part of something "bigger".

He will confirm that British ministers and civil servants have decided to stop using the term.

Speaking in New York, Mr Benn will also urge leaders such as President Bush to find common ground with potential enemies rather than relying on hard military power.

"In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'War on Terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives," Mr Benn will tell a meeting organised by the Centre for International Co-operation.

"It is the vast majority of the people in the world - of all nationalities and faiths - against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.

"What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence. And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength," he will add.

Mr Benn will say that "hard power" alone cannot win the battle against terrorism in an "interconnected world", and a multilateral approach is needed.

"It can certainly win the battle - but without soft power, we cannot win the war that will deliver better governance, sustainable peace and lasting prosperity.

"The fight for the kind of world that most people want can, in the end, only be won in a different battle - a battle of values and ideas."

Source

[KAding]

I agree, a good change. 'War on terror' is indeed a quite empty and ludicrous term. It firstly implies we are fighting only terrorists, which is of course not true. They should switch to 'struggle against the international jihadist movement' or something like that ;). Of course, the problem with that is that it sounds so anti-Islamic. Oh well, can't have it all I suppose.

[Muezzin]

Even if the Government stop calling it that, the general population will still understand it as the War on Terror - it'll take some time for that meme to die out, I think.

Still, it's a start. I can also use this story in my Criminology project about labelling. Wooh.

[Keltoi]

It is a ludicrous term, sort of like the War on Drugs. However, I'm not sure what the better term would be.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[chacha_jalebi]

they can also call it war for oil:D

[Keltoi]

they can also call it war for oil:D

But of course that would be even more ludicrous...

[Muezzin]

Indeed.

Plus, oil doesn't have much to do with the first post, so I'd really appreciate it if nobody else carries on in that line of discussion. Ta.

[Keltoi]

The only event in American history that I can think of that even slightly mirrors the circumstances of the "War on Terror" was the 1st and 2nd Barbary Wars. Not because the enemies were Muslims, but because of their lack of allegiance to a particular nation state. I suppose the U.S. could have coined it a "War on Piracy"...but that was too unspecific, as there were other pirates in the world. So it became "War on Barbary Piracy"..or a Barbary War.

[shible]

we can call each term with the title "War on " whichever we think is against us....

so that it is very easy and catchy for a guy who reads it.

and when interpreted they keep eyes and ears to the phrase to make it a full paragraph.

[Keltoi]

we can call each term with the title "War on " whichever we think is against us....

so that it is very easy and catchy for a guy who reads it.

and when interpreted they keep eyes and ears to the phrase to make it a full paragraph.

It is a slogan, absolutely. Many times though it is simply used as a descriptive slogan, not necessarily because we need an "enemy". The "War on" slogan is useful for politics, especially now since politicians have to rely on 3 second sound bites.

[shible]

Indeed i agree

But there are some people out there who take advantage of these words and use them to eradicate all their enemies.

when these words are used in war not all soldiers really knew what actually is going on out there but they fight ferociously and finally when everything ends they realize what have they gained is nothing

[Muezzin]

Still, 'War on Terror' sounds pretty nifty :p

[Keltoi]

Still, 'War on Terror' sounds pretty nifty :p

Yes, but then we have to fight ogres, ghosts, zombies, banshees, and bad dreams. That is a tall order.

[shible]

use the words
"War on Darkness or Evil "

[IbnAbdulHakim]

lol i was actually expecting this article to start speaking about seriously cracking down on practising muslims at some point.

ALhamdulillah thats not the case :)

[Woodrow]

The problem comes because there are sensationalist in the world. A term can have very little meaning, and no intent except to be a buzz phrase for easy memory. But, let somebody find a way to write a thesis about the innermost possible connotations of it and soon it takes on the meaning of the press and everybody forgets it was simply speech gibberish to sound good.

I can recall the when they used the phrase "War on Poverty" There actually were poverty stricken families here in the US that were convinced the Gov't was going to round up poor people and put them in jail.

People just need to remember one fact about any Politician talking. The only thing you can be certain of when a politician speaks is he has his mouth open.

But, this does point out a problem, the political practice of using buzz phrases will often back fire and carry on a negative connotation world wide. Buzz phrases tend to be generalities and generalities become bigotry.

In today's world our leaders need to be sensitive to the fact that their words are going to be heard by people that speak a different language and the connotations of any phrase needs to be considered.

A little touch of Humor. But, an example of this problem. Some of you may remember the car the Chevrolet Nova. The first model was specifically designed to attract the market in Mexico and South America. It was a flop. It did not sell in Mexico. Finaly it was traced down what the people did not like and what turned people away from even looking at the car. It was the name Chevrolet Nova. Nobody had thought that No Va in Mexican Spanish means "Doesn't Go" So the people where having the connotation that the ads about "Chevrolet Nova" were implying that a Chevrolet doesn't run.

Connotations of Speeches do need to be much more scrutinized, this is now world politics and no politician is exempt from having his smallest words heard world wide.

[Cognescenti]

I like the Chevy Nova story..one of my favorites..but isn't it "off topic"? (j/k) :)

How about "The semi-global war on the Kalipahte Kooks and tin pot dictators"?

Pros: Alliteration is good

Cons: Leaves out the DPRK and Hugo Chavez,

or "The hundred years war"

Pros: possibly prescient

Cons: Way to depressing, already taken

or "WW III"

Pros: Concise, dramatic

Cons: not plausible...at least not yet..plus how could there be a World War without a chance for the French to surrender?

[Muezzin]

'Tis a very brave man who tries to drive one of my threads off-topic :p

But seriously, those opinion and news pieces belong in a thread of their own.

[Zman]

'Tis a very brave man who tries to drive one of my threads off-topic :p

But seriously, those opinion and news pieces belong in a thread of their own.

:sl:

So why didn't you Just transfer them into a new thread, instead of deleting them?

They contained illuminating information...

[Muezzin]

:sl:

So why didn't you Just transfer them into a new thread, instead of deleting them?

They contained illuminating information...

Then please create a new thread with that information.

[Keltoi]

Just for giggles, I will actually comment on the topic.

I've noticed a few politicians in the U.S. have started to refer to this conflict as a "War on Extremism". I believe John McCain used the phrase. Not sure what the difference is really.

[Nablus]

It is not enough

what is happening in Iraq is terror from Britain and USA!!

[Keltoi]

It is not enough

what is happening in Iraq is terror from Britain and USA!!

What is happening in Iraq is terror from all sides.

[August]

They should drop "war on terror" terrorism is a tactic, not a movement.

[Keltoi]

They should drop "war on terror" terrorism is a tactic, not a movement.

I agree with you in principle, but the thing is, Islamic terrorism(yeah, I said it), is a movement. However, we can't call it that can we? So "War on Terror", while a dumb and unspecific phrase, is probably the only phrase PC politics has left us with.

[wilberhum]

I agree with you in principle, but the thing is, Islamic terrorism(yeah, I said it), is a movement. However, we can't call it that can we? So "War on Terror", while a dumb and unspecific phrase, is probably the only phrase PC politics has left us with.

A Rose by any other name is still .........

[Muezzin]

A Rose by any other name is still .........

Actually, it's 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'.

I think.

Anyway, 'War on Terror' is a nice jingoistic slogan, but it doesn't stop terrorists becoming empowered by it, for it further separates them from the common criminal and places them on a socio-political pedestal - no one saw fit to declare a war on paedophilia, for instance.

(note to silly people: I am not advocating terrorism, I am just criticising labels)

[Talha777]

They should just come out and be honest. It's the "War on Islam". It'll do us a favour so the confused Muslim masses finally know who their enemy is.

[Muezzin]

If it's a war on Islam, I shall take extra care in case SAS agents burst through my window while I go to pray Isha.

[wilberhum]

They should just come out and be honest. It's the "War on Islam". It'll do us a favour so the confused Muslim masses finally know who their enemy is.

It is a war on Islam to the same extent that Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world. :skeleton:
Well I guess that you are right. :?

[Muezzin]

Let's not get sidetracked, please. Everyone knows the prospect makes me as grumpy as Rumpelstiltskin having to show his ID.

[KAding]

They should just come out and be honest. It's the "War on Islam". It'll do us a favour so the confused Muslim masses finally know who their enemy is.

I disagree. "War on a certain interpretation of Islam" would be correct though. Despite there being only one Islam, it is clear there are enough interpretations to cause confusion even between Muslims. Thats why virtually all governments in Muslim countries, from Morocco to Indonesia and all in between essentially are fighting the same people as the US. The US is directly or indirectly allied to so many Muslims, who do a lot of the fighting in this war as well, that calling it a 'war on Islam' would not make sense.

Unless you are willing to declare all these Muslims who resist these same groups as the US to be Munafiq of course. But I'm not sure if there are many people in the Muslim world who would have the authority to actually do that.

[August]

Exactly, this isn't a war on Islam. The "Islamic" terrorists that we are fighting are attackin Muslims too. In fact, I'd guess that other Muslims make up the majority of their victims.

[Pygoscelis]

It is about bloody time a politician realized that terrorism isn't something you can go to war against. Terrorism is like cancer. It needs to be treated surgically and with precision, with diplomacy, police, and propaganda as much as with military. What Bush and Blair did was attack an infected area with a chainsaw - doing far more harm than good.

[islamirama]

they can also call it war for oil :D

or....

They should just come out and be honest. It's the "War on Islam". It'll do us a favour so the confused Muslim masses finally know who their enemy is.

Most Muslims believe it to be as well as many non-Muslims now, only terrorists seem to be found anywhere in the world are Muslims and only "cowboys" wanting to kill these "terrorists" are the two horns of the devil.

Still, 'War on Terror' sounds pretty nifty :p

i'm sure it does to a non-muslim or westerner.

If it's a war on Islam, I shall take extra care in case SAS agents burst through my window while I go to pray Isha.

You're muslim? sorry i didn't notice... are you a convert by any chance?

[Woodrow]

What Bush and Blair did was attack an infected area with a chainsaw - doing far more harm than good.

One of the better statements posted on this thread. That is what happened. You know if you put a tiny spark out gently, it goes out without even being noticed and causes very little damage, but if you jump in and try to stomp it out with heavy equipment you can soon have a raging brush fire that can spread into a forest fire.

[Muezzin]

i'm sure it does to a non-muslim or westerner.

I was being tongue-in-cheek. Hence: :p

The 'War on Terror' is just another jingoistic label that actually empowers those it seeks to debase by placing them in a position of importance. It's also quite vague, but I guess in politics, they have to call this fighting something, otherwise it doesn't have meaning. That's why I'm not too fond of politics.

You're muslim? sorry i didn't notice... are you a convert by any chance?

Are you always this passive aggressive?

I was born Muslim by the way. Not that there's anything wrong with converting/reverting to Islam.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

cover up names have always been common throughout the times.


:-/

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Britain drops 'War on Terror' term

It's a positive start at least.

[islamirama]

I was being tongue-in-cheek. Hence: :p

The 'War on Terror' is just another jingoistic label that actually empowers those it seeks to debase by placing them in a position of importance. It's also quite vague, but I guess in politics, they have to call this fighting something, otherwise it doesn't have meaning. That's why I'm not too fond of politics.

It is a war on Islam regardless of what others say or call it. Everyone knows and everyone believes it. If they want to call it something then call it what the whole Muslim world is calling it, war on ISLAM.

oh and this change of name tactic wont' work, "give me liberty or give me death" - thomas Jefferson .....

Are you always this passive aggressive?

only when it comes to defending against attacks on Muslims from kuffars and moderate "muslims".

I was born Muslim by the way. Not that there's anything wrong with converting/reverting to Islam.

nope, nothing wrong unless you carry over that cultural patriotic baggage to keep throwing in other Muslim's face, making them wonder where your loyalty lies.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

only when it comes to defending against attacks on Muslims from kuffars and moderate "muslims".

I love how you judged muezzin without even knowing him. Brought a tear to my eye.

nope, nothing wrong unless you carry over that cultural patriotic baggage to keep throwing in other Muslim's face, making them wonder where your loyalty lies.

His loyalty lies with Islam, like mine and yours.

To all members: Stay on topic and quit with personal attacks/name calling.

[islamirama]

:sl:

I love how you judged muezzin without even knowing him. Brought a tear to my eye.



His loyalty lies with Islam, like mine and yours.

To all members: Stay on topic and quit with personal attacks/name calling.

:w:

those two statements were general statements and not directed at him. If you look again, they were answers to his questions and not attacks on him. While we're at it, perhaps you can point out whom i have called names?

[Keltoi]

Maybe we should change the title to "War on Muezzin"...doesn't sound as catchy though.

[Muezzin]

Maybe we should change the title to "War on Muezzin"...doesn't sound as catchy though.

Now I know how it feels to be George Lucas.

And back to the topic.

[August]

It is a war on Islam regardless of what others say or call it. Everyone knows and everyone believes it. If they want to call it something then call it what the whole Muslim world is calling it, war on ISLAM.

War on Islam? I find it very questionable how you can hold that view, given that the terrorists are killing Muslims, too. If you choose to identify with the radical organizations that use Islam to justify killing innocent people, then we are and should absolutely be at war with you. If you follow Islam as a religion of peace, then we have no problem.

[wilberhum]

It is a war on Islam regardless of what others say or call it. Everyone knows and everyone believes it. If they want to call it something then call it what the whole Muslim world is calling it, war on ISLAM.

If we are at war with Islam, why are you not in a POW Camp? :skeleton:

[Bittersteel]

yes there has been aggression against Muslim practices and Muslims ever since the 9/11 attacks and you can't blame some nations for being afraid of us.Its not totally a war just aggression I believe.Maybe banning Islamic symbols like the hijab and restricting certain freedoms for Muslims(setting up Islamic organisations) or forcing Muslim countries to adopt secular and liberal laws may look like war against Muslims.the last one I have a real problem with.

[Akil]

'struggle against the international jihadist movement'

That would be tantamount to declaring war on Islam. That would be a bad way to go, however I don’t care one way or the other about the “War on terrorism” terminology.

It is a war on Islam regardless of what others say or call it.

Then the 6 million US Muslims and the 1 billion Muslims abroad who are not being chased down by the US military or the FBI must be confused as hell

[Zman]

If we are at war with Islam, why are you not in a POW Camp? :skeleton:

The government is cunning and subtle. To declare war on 1.5 billion Muslims, would be strategically idiotic.

Militarily, economically and politically, if that were to ever happen, it could spell the collapse and destruction of the United States (financially, that is).

If you can't fund the wars, you'll lose. If you do fund endless/multiple wars (war without end/the "Long War"), it would invite economic collapse and maybe, mass dissent.

We can't even handle a 2 theater war with insurgents.

[islamirama]

The government is cunning and subtle. To declare war on 1.5 billion Muslims, would be strategically idiotic.

Militarily, economically and politically, if that were to ever happen, it could spell the collapse and destruction of the United States (financially, that is).

If you can't fund the wars, you'll lose. If you do fund endless/multiple wars (war without end/the "Long War"), it would invite economic collapse and maybe, mass dissent.

We can't even handle a 2 theater war with insurgents.

Exactly. Look wat what happend to denmark cuz of their anti-islamic cartoons. It was a total boycott in Muslim world. They were loosing 10million a day with all the businesses they had there. They had to let go of thousands of their employees. And then the artists were hiding for their lives in their own countries. A full war against Muslims would mean end of any country that tries that tactic. It would be war from outside and inside. They are not that stupid to try it, so they use "terrorist" blanket to individually attack Muslim nations but that too will go on for so long, a war with iran is just inviteing WWIII.

[wilberhum]

The government is cunning and subtle. To declare war on 1.5 billion Muslims, would be strategically idiotic.

Militarily, economically and politically, if that were to ever happen, it could spell the collapse and destruction of the United States (financially, that is).

If you can't fund the wars, you'll lose. If you do fund endless/multiple wars (war without end/the "Long War"), it would invite economic collapse and maybe, mass dissent.

We can't even handle a 2 theater war with insurgents.

Boy, you really need a life. :skeleton:

Be carefull, the boogie man is out there.

[Muezzin]

You know, I think this thread has gone about as far as it can go, because it is now becoming sidetracked. Inevitable I suppose, because there is only so much that can be said about the original news story.

Thread closed.