Don't confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU

[scattergood]

Don't confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 2:52am BST 30/03/2007



The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements.

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Banned terms are said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist".

The word "jihad" is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life.

One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term "Islamic terrorism" to be replaced by "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam".

An EU official said that the secret guidebook, or, "common lexicon", is aimed at preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe.

"The common lexicon includes guidance on a number of frequently used terms where lack of care by EU and member states' spokespeople may give rise to misunderstandings," he said.

"Careful usage of certain terms is not about empty political correctness but stems from astute awareness of the EU's interests in the fight against terrorism.

"Terrorists exploit and augment suspicions."

Details on the contents of the lexicon remain secret, but British officials stressed that it is there as a helpful aid "providing context" for civil servants making speeches or giving press conferences.

"We are fully signed up to this, but it is not binding," said one.

However, Conservative MEP Syed Kamall hit out at the lexicon. "It is this kind of political correctness and secrecy that creates resentment among both the mainstream in Europe and in Islam," he said.

Meanwhile, UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten claimed that the EU was in denial over the true roots of terrorism.

"This type of newspeak shows that the EU refuses to face reality," he said. "The major world terrorist threat is one posed by ideology and that ideology is inspired by fundamentalist jihadi Islam."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...0/wislam30.xml

If Europe refuses to even name the problem then there is no way for them to combat it.

[farmall]

Of course, as they are driven to use awkward phrases like "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam" they open themselves up for well-deserved ridicule.

As they try to civilize the debate (by not debating and caving in at every opportunity) it is an opportunity to attack them.

The purpose of attacking them is not to convince them to be less Dhimmified, but to convince the undecided and energize the dedicated. We are in a propaganda war, so let's fight it with gusto.

Nice methods don't work against bad people, but bad people don't deserve to be debated with conventional etiquette.
Our people who disagree that Islam is a threat are worse enemies than the honest Muslim who wants to destroy us, because they are cultural traitors. This point should be hammered home at every chance, both subtly (so it may see print in the popular press) and harshly (on the web where it will not be censored. They are selling out their nations, their families, and the accomplishments of European civilization.

[Mediocrates]

OTOH calling out all Muslims as 'terrorists' is hardly productive either. I can see their point. But perhaps the whole idea we should trip over PC language is misplaced.

[farmall]

"OTOH calling out all Muslims as 'terrorists' is hardly productive either."

"Terrorists" is imprecise and doesn't convey much. it may as well mean "sort of bad", and needs to go away.

"I can see their point. But perhaps the whole idea we should trip over PC language is misplaced."

Not "tripping", but understanding that words matter greatly in the war for public opinion and political influence. PC language is, uniformly, an attempt to substitute terms that mean little or nothing for terms with meaning. The goal is not merely to avoid giving offense, but not to avoid expressing an opinion.

Words that are emotive matter because in the propaganda war we are not appealing to "intellectuals". They are not the mass of the(any) people. Not ours, not the enemy, nowhere. We must deal with people as they are.

The reason Islam is effective is that Jihadists understand propaganda. They don't understand the sort that works on US, bu they play to their home crowd quite well.

OTOH, our side does not "get" propaganda at all. Odd for a culture with such effective commercial advertising, but maybe the advertising numbs to how effective it really is.
Many of our people think that propaganda means "untrue", and that using it is beneath them.

That is elitist and arrogant.
In a cultural confrontation, even non-confrontational language can carry a message. Why should we cede the field of discussion itself to the enemy? Because it OFFENDS some of them, or they pretend offense to get leverage in our victim-worshipping culture.

I study the effective things we do, and I study the effective things our opponents do.

Here's a concession, from Hitler of all people, that US and UK war propaganda was effective in WW1 worked well:

"By contrast, the war propaganda of the English and Americans was psychologically sound. By representing the Germans to their own people as barbarians and Huns, they prepared the individual soldier for the terrors of war, and thus helped to preserve him from disappointments. After this, the most terrible weapon that was used against him seemed only to confirm what his propagandists had told him; it likewise reinforced his faith in the truth of his government's assertions, while on the other hand it increased his rage and hatred against the vile enemy.

Adolf of course did not note that Germans WERE barbaric, and didn't get less barbaric by WW II. It helps when ones propaganda has the truth to help it along.

We had smart opponents too:

The Viet Cong were careful to use names to embed concepts in conversation. "Yankee Air Pirate" is the stellar example. While we find it amusing, we forget it is a translation.

[Illuminatus]

Foremost, respected and highly influential Islamic scholars such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi fully justify the mass-homicide of innocents in order to advance or protect Islam.

The interposition of Islam and Islamo-terrorism is done with the Muslim world's consent and approval. It is deliberate especially in light of the current 300 year old decline of Islam, its culture and its economy. 1.6 Billion prople living in tyranical 3rd or 4th world poverty have very few tools at their disposal.

When the weight of moral authority is non-existant, when it has very little economic influence and not much in the way of military might -- Islam sends in the teenager and woman with bomb-belts, drives a bomb laden car into a crowded market place or slits the throats of aging stewardesses to hijack passenger jets in order to slam them into office buildings.

The 20 million Muslims who help influence these "guidelines" and who legally live in Europe -- are mostly economic refugees who escaped the cultural & educational oppression of the country of thier birth.

Most of the Muslim world couldn't care less, but no one bothered to ask the 20 million if its ok to "confuse" terrorism with Islam. Especially since they're the ones who stand to lose the most.

What the West should not do is confuse 20 million law abiding Muslims with 1.6 billion who look forward with prayers, glee, hope and much anticipation to the violent destruction of Western Civilization.

^_^

[farmall]

"What the West should not do is confuse 20 million law abiding fifth columnist Muslims with 1.6 billion who look forward with prayers, glee, hope and much anticipation to the violent destruction of Western Civilization."

Fixed it for you.

If the "20 million" supported Western Civliization they would renounce Islam and not have the slightest interest in such superstition. There is no reason for someone to believe in Islam and want anything the West has to offer, except the opportunity to attack the West from within. They should be forced to choose.

[CanDo]

Foremost, respected and highly influential Islamic scholars such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi fully justify the mass-homicide of innocents in order to advance or protect Islam.

The morally corrupt leaders of the Muslim world have successfully used Islam to imprison the minds and souls of the hapless Muslim hordes. It amazes me that an entire population of Muslim males really believes that appreciating the beauty of a woman is a mortal sin. Or...... being able to have a casual conversation between men and women, is a mortal sin. The Muslim leaders have even convinced most Muslim women that their beauty is to be hidden.

The Muslim masses must really be backward and illogical to really think that their leaders, who scam them into poverty, violence, misery, and in not having normal lives and normal relationships between men and women, also can provide to Muslim males an eternity of love-making to 99 virgins, for which the Muslim male can only collect AFTER he dies.

Perhaps some Israelis can solve Israel's problems, with Muslims, by upping the offer to Muslims to 1000 Muslim virgins, for which the Muslims can only collect after they starve themselves to death? It might work!

The interposition of Islam and Islamo-terrorism is done with the Muslim world's consent and approval. It is deliberate especially in light of the current 300 year old decline of Islam, its culture and its economy. 1.6 Billion prople living in tyranical 3rd or 4th world poverty have very few tools at their disposal.

Sadly, as long as the status quo remains the same in the backward, radical Muslim world, there will never be peace for the Jews of Israel. And...... every inch of land given up by Israel, is land lost to the radical Muslims probably forever.