Britain stops talk of 'war on terror'

Johnno

The Living Force
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1968668,00.html

Foreign Office has asked ministers to ditch the phrase invented by Bush to avoid stirring up tensions within the Islamic world

Jason Burke
Sunday December 10, 2006
The Observer

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.

The shift marks a turning point in British political thinking about the strategy against extremism and underlines the growing gulf between the British and American approaches to the continuing problem of radical Islamic militancy. It comes amid increasingly evident disagreements between President George Bush and Tony Blair over policy in the Middle East.

Article continues
Experts have welcomed the move away from one of the phrases that has most defined the debate on Islamic extremism, but called it 'belated'.

'It's about time,' said Garry Hindle, terrorism expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London. 'Military terminology is completely counter-productive, merely contributing to isolating communities. This is a very positive move.'

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.

'We tend to emphasise upholding shared values as a means to counter terrorists,' he added.

Many senior British politicians and counter-terrorism specialists have always been uneasy with the term 'the war on terror', coined by the White House in the week following the 9/11 attacks, arguing that the term risked inflaming opinions worldwide. Other critics said that it was too 'military' and did not adequately describe the nature of the diverse efforts made to counter the new threat.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, recently stressed the threat from growing radicalisation among young British Muslims. 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.

Though neither Blair nor Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, has used the term 'war on terror' in a formal speech since June, President Bush continues to employ the term liberally. The American leader spoke of how he hoped that Iraq would become 'an ally in the war on terror' during a joint press briefing with Blair in Washington last Friday.

A spokesman for the US State Department yesterday told The Observer that there was no question of dropping the term. 'It's the President's phrase, and that's good enough for us,' she said.

The White House website has a page devoted to explaining the 'war on terrorism', the terminology preferred by the Pentagon, and how it will be won. In April this year Bush compared the 'war on terror' to the Cold War in a keynote speech.

Not all British government figures are abiding by the advice, issued by the Foreign Office's Engaging with the Islamic World Unit. Writing in the Sun recently, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred to 'our police and armed forces in the front line of the war on terror'.

'One of the problems will be getting all parts of government to abide [by the new guidelines],' said Hindle, the RUSI expert. 'Whether the Home Office will want to follow remains to be seen. And politicians all have their own agendas.'
 
Johnno said:
Not all British government figures are abiding by the advice, issued by the Foreign Office's Engaging with the Islamic World Unit. Writing in the Sun recently, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred to 'our police and armed forces in the front line of the war on terror'.

'One of the problems will be getting all parts of government to abide [by the new guidelines],' said Hindle, the RUSI expert. 'Whether the Home Office will want to follow remains to be seen. And politicians all have their own agendas.'
Oh, how true. Gordon Brown is a chip off the Bliar block but much less emotional. I think he's just as dangerous however. Although this is an admirable move by some of the less ponerized individuals on show, a reduction in propoganda terminology is the least of our problems if the general dynamic of deception continues...

G.
 
Every time I hear his name I think of the Blair Witch Project. Which I thought was retarded.
 
It'll be interesting if they can come up with something double-speakish other than "the long war"
 
Johnno said:
Foreign Office has asked ministers to ditch the phrase invented by Bush to avoid stirring up tensions within the Islamic world

(big snip)

Not all British government figures are abiding by the advice, issued by the Foreign Office's Engaging with the Islamic World Unit. Writing in the Sun recently, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred to 'our police and armed forces in the front line of the war on terror'.
I think this is an attempt to provide the media (government bedfellows if ever they were, when it comes to propaganda and manipulation) with some credibility. Afterall, if the media gets caught out lying too many times, it loses its crediblity and so to its most important 'leverage', which is the ability to manipulate and 'influence' public opinion.

The public is at the stage where they're all wandering around looking for this 'war on terror' (where is it?) and finding (surprise, surprise) that its a load of old hooey, invented by the government to keep them all afraid.... so they'd better stop using the term or they'll end up looking silly and manipulation won't work. Very clever.

As far as the Foreign Office still using the term - well - that's acceptable, because they're talking about somewhere else, 'over there' (i.e. not in the UK), so that's ok.... Somewhere where its not immediately obvious that its all a 'set up'.

I'm not sure if people realise how important it is for the media to not lose credibility and get caught out lying too many times. If this happens then their ability to be used as a source of propaganda and manipulation is all 'shot to pieces' along with that of the people (politicians) who are trying to manipulate as well.

I think there is a possiblity that every time the media has the appearance of 'changing tack', on its treatment of subjects its because somewhere, out there, the 'comptrollors' know that ridicule and uproarous laughter couldn't manipulate a gnat, let alone a man.

In short, I think there may be some sort of observable 'science' behind it.
 
It could also be another attempt at Ponerization by the gov.

Lobaczewski writes:

"Conversive thinking: using terms but giving them opposing or twisted
meanings. Examples: peacefulness = appeasement; freedom = license; initiative
= arbitrariness; traditional = backward; rally = mob; efficiency = smallmindedness.
Example: the words "peacefulness" and "appeasement" denote
the same thing: a striving to establish peace, but have entirely different connotations
which indicate the speaker's attitude toward this striving toward
peace."

Don
 
Back
Top Bottom