Britain drops 'War on Terror' term

  • Thread starter Thread starter Muezzin
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 51
  • Views Views 7K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Muezzin

Muezzin

Bat-Mod
Messages
10,763
Reaction score
2,056
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
It is a ludicrous term, sort of like the War on Drugs. However, I'm not sure what the better term would be.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
shible said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
use the words
"War on Darkness or Evil "
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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?
 
'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.
 
Muezzin said:
'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.
Click to expand...
:sl:

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

They contained illuminating information...
 
Zman said:
:sl:

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

They contained illuminating information...
Click to expand...
Then please create a new thread with that information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top