NationStates Jolt Archive

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3X6Gha4z-MCq9pU0vC4FWqDCXrwD908CUGO0
The Bush administration has launched a new front in the war on terrorism, this time targeting language.

Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like "Islamo-fascism" is out, too.

The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.

+

...Homeland Security report. It's entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims."

+

Language is critical in the war on terror, says another document, an internal "official use only" memorandum circulating through Washington entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication."
Wow, OSI certainly comes to mind.
There's another line, also quite curious in this regard ...:
"Don't take the bait," it says, urging officials not to react when Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida affiliates speak. "We should offer only minimal, if any, response to their messages.
Reminds me of The Search For the Holy Grail ...
Walk away. Just ignore them.
Thoughts?

about 7 years too late...

i suppose fox news will have to stop using sandn....r in their internal memos as well

Why - are they claiming that calling all muslims "goatfuckers" fuels dislike towards the west ? What a strange notion.. that noone thought of that before !

about 7 years too late...

For example, while Americans may understand "jihad" to mean "holy war," it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good, says the guidance prepared for diplomats and other officials tasked with explaining the war on terror to the public.
Odd, same article.

'tis better to enrage your potential enemy and cause him to present himself by hostility than to have him passively hiding amongst you.

The day I take advice from the Bush administration on how not to provoke terrorism is the day I finally admit that all the booze has fucked my brain.

I can't even imagine the day I take their advice on the proper use of language.

But, well, it's not directed at us, is it?

Not offending moderates IS a very good reason not to use words like "Jihadist."
"Violent extremist" IS a better term than "terrorist."

If the Administration stops talking like Fox News, GOOD. Much as I dislike their style, their intentions overall, and the horrendous consequences of their actions, I wouldn't deny them the right to finally get something right. HOORAY!

'tis better to enrage your potential enemy and cause him to present himself by hostility than to have him passively hiding amongst you.

"Bring it on" ring a bell with you?

'tis better to enrage your potential enemy and cause him to present himself by hostility than to have him passively hiding amongst you.

Depends. What if the guy would have remained a mere potential enemy if you had not enraged him ?
Everybody can become an enemy. Does not mean we have to endeavour to make it so.

And what do they propose they call them?
....

I propose a motion to rename the USA henceforth as the 'Bourgeois Dictatorship of America'...

Hmm.. I wonder how long before the NSG Anti-Muslim Defense League (you know who I'm talking about) post in here ranting about how the Bush Administration is suddenly pussying out on the War Against Ebil Moslemz?

Well, good. Finally they're takng their focus off the country that wasn't terrorist and focusing on language. God forbid they actually focus on the terrorists who attacked us.

First the War on Drugs (TM)
Next the War on Terror (TM)
Now the War on Inappropriate Language.

We can only guess what next will be the focus of Bush's ire:
The War on Not Being Able To Find My Slippers.
The War on Not Being Able to Get a Good Cup of Coffee in This Town.
The War on Why Are There So Many Dreadful TV Shows On Lately?

It's a good idea. Really, it is. However:

about 7 years too late...
^^

Very true. They should have done this at the latest on September 16, 2001, when Bush said "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

Seriously! warning bells should have rung, and language should have been prepared back then. But as with almost everything these last 7 years, the Bush administration underestimated (misunderestimated? :rolleyes:) something - that time, the power of words...

'tis better to enrage your potential enemy and cause him to present himself by hostility than to have him passively hiding amongst you.

Oh, no, you're one of THOSE...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3X6Gha4z-MCq9pU0vC4FWqDCXrwD908CUGO0

Wow, OSI certainly comes to mind.
There's another line, also quite curious in this regard ...:

Reminds me of The Search For the Holy Grail ...

Thoughts?

It's about damned time they stopped legitimizing everything the extremists have been saying. For fuck's sake...we have to be the stupidest, most arrogant people on the planet to assume we can go around using terms like "Islamo-fascist" and not bolster the extremists cause...

Whatever happened to the first amendment.
First they ask.
Then they tell.
Then they outlaw. Everything.

It's about damned time they stopped legitimizing everything the extremists have been saying. For fuck's sake...we have to be the stupidest, most arrogant people on the planet to assume we can go around using terms like "Islamo-fascist" and not bolster the extremists cause...

And it's obvious by the post that you're one of us. :rolleyes:

and people wonder WHY I'm a Libertarian and WHY I am against big government.

Well I hope you people who wanted Big Government are happy!

*walks off*

I propose a motion to rename the USA henceforth as the 'Bourgeois Dictatorship of America'...

That doesn't even match the ACRONYM! You have the A correctly but I don't want my country to be the BDA. That sounds like some rug cleaning union.

Sure, Wilgrove.

Now, I'd be pleased if someone could explain to me how we get from "Government tells government officials to try and avoid using certain words, because it's increasing support for their opponents" to "Government outlaws everything" and "This is why I'm a Libertarian". (various parts of that paraphrased)

Seems to me, from reading it, that it's simply a case where the government is saying "Describing extremists like this increases support for them, so we're going to stop use it in official proclamations". That's nothing new. Government officials have been phrasing stuff differently to stop alienating people or to help ensure people agree with it since the dawn of government. Hell, it's required in the idea of a government itself, otherwise no sensible group of people would permit one.

Compare it with the following fictional news story: "The Government has instructed employees to stop referring to blacks as "niggers", due to fears it decreases their support with this group". Or possibly slightly more accurately weighted -- "The Government has requested that employees do not refer to abortion clinic bombers as "doing God's work", as they feel it might damage their efforts to discourage those who carry out these actions."

Seriously, I don't get what's up with this story to get so worked up about it.

Everybody can become an enemy. Does not mean we have to endeavour to make it so.
QFT.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=555343
Curious.


'tis better to enrage your potential enemy and cause him to present himself by hostility than to have him passively hiding amongst you.A page from "Savage" Weiner?

Whatever happened to the first amendment.
First they ask.
Then they tell.
Then they outlaw. Everything.



Way to blow this way out of proportion.

They are not outlawing a damn thing, nor even telling any private organization to use other language. They are mandating that their *official* terminology be changed, and asking that employees of *government* agencies not use said terms. Christ, it's not like there is going to be anyone knocking your door down because *you*(or any private citizen, for that matter, and even government employees as well) for using "Islamo-fascists" or other idiotic language.

Christ, this is why I hate libertarians and the like. Blow every fucking thing out of proportion.

Seriously, I don't get what's up with this story to get so worked up about it.

Simple. People like to believe that their ideas(No matter how outlandish) are correct. When something vaguely resembles as very circumstantial evidence proving their claim, they tout it as the be all, end all, and blow it very much out of proportion so that this very moderate policy(It's policy, not law, dammit) turns around to "proving" that the government is out to get us.

Christ, it's not like there is going to be anyone knocking your door down because *you*(or any private citizen, for that matter, and even government employees as well) for using "Islamo-fascists" or other idiotic language.Just remember that when you do, you remember to proclaim, clearly, "I am an American".
>.>
<.<

A page from "Savage" Weiner?

More like a variation on the "We Fight Them Over There So We Don't Have To Fight Them Over Here" propaganda.

More like a variation on the "We Fight Them Over There So We Don't Have To Fight Them Over Here" propaganda.Wasn't there a Doonesbury run about this?
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20080411

Odd, same article.

Well whenever the US used that language it lends creditability to the bad guys. Whenever the US used Islamic religious language in its attacks on the bad guys it bolstered their support amongst the locals. Because you are also vilifying not only their religion but their culture. Look at American involvement for that last point.

If you are facing an insurgency you need to deal with the locals and get them on your side. The winning of hearts and minds. But it needs to be co-ordinated properly with local activities (schools hospitals etc) and a greater message about the bad guys.

Every time you need to talk about the bad guys you criminalise them. YOu call them murderers, terrorists, law breakers but you do not refer to anything religious regarding them.

That is what this is about. And it is about seven years too late.

/I refer you to how the IRA started to struggle when Thatcher criminalised them

That is what this is about. And it is about seven years too late. It worked great for the stateside folks. Just ask the rightwing pundits.

/I refer you to how the IRA started to struggle when Thatcher criminalised them
Funny, i'd thought the same thing when i read it.

It worked great for the stateside folks. Just ask the rightwing pundits.

At the cost of how many American British Polish etc casualties?

Funny, i'd thought the same thing when i read it.

I have had to change my opinion on this subject recently and give proper kudos to Major...

/shudder

At the cost of how many American British Polish etc casualties?I'm sure they wouldn't count until Blair was told by Bush to mention them.
Curiously appropriate sig of yours, btw. :(

I'm sure they wouldn't count until Blair was told by Bush to mention them.
Curiously appropriate sig of yours, btw. :(

Yeah...it's rather apt as a sig...esp here :p

First the War on Drugs (TM)
Next the War on Terror (TM)
Now the War on Inappropriate Language.

We can only guess what next will be the focus of Bush's ire:
The War on Not Being Able To Find My Slippers.
The War on Not Being Able to Get a Good Cup of Coffee in This Town.
The War on Why Are There So Many Dreadful TV Shows On Lately?

I'm just waiting for The War on Violence. That oughta be pretty interesting.

I'm just waiting for The War on Violence. That oughta be pretty interesting.

ANOTHER casualty!

and people wonder WHY I'm a Libertarian and WHY I am against big government.

Well I hope you people who wanted Big Government are happy!

*walks off*

What the Hell are you talking about?

Great, government is finally doing something that doesn't incite more terrorism! Now, if they could just stop randomly bombing people, occupying their countries and paying people off for their (temporary) cooperation we might actually get a little safer.

Great, government is finally doing something that doesn't incite more terrorism! Now, if they could just stop randomly bombing people, occupying their countries and paying people off for their (temporary) cooperation we might actually get a little safer.
Speaking of "safer" and "cooperation" ...
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jpCzLG2LzIT0MbuSYGn53S7ETPRQ
Afghan President Hamid Karzai urged US forces Saturday to stop arresting suspected Taliban and their sympathizers, arguing that these arrests and past mistreatment were discouraging Taliban from laying down their arms.

The New York Times said the Afghan president, in an interview, also criticized the allied conduct of the war and demanded that his government be given the lead in policy decisions.

Great, government is finally doing something that doesn't incite more terrorism! Now, if they could just stop randomly bombing people, occupying their countries and paying people off for their (temporary) cooperation we might actually get a little safer.

Except Bush is ignoring the first amendment, again. I think doing nothing is the best option in this case.

Except Bush is ignoring the first amendment, again. I think doing nothing is the best option in this case.

I hate how many people don't have the first clue what the first amendment means. The first amendment protects us from the government. The government isn't protected from having policy to make it more effective.

The government doesn't have the right to free speech. Read a book.

That is what this is about. And it is about seven years too late.



It would be weird if the Bush administration started to experience sensibility in the last months of their time in the White House.


Maybe 9/11 Syndrome has a lifespan of seven years...

It would be weird if the Bush administration started to experience sensibility in the last months of their time in the White House.

Normally, administrations use the lame duck period to go crazy. However, since the Bush administration was already crazy, they obviously had to go sane.

Normally, administrations use the lame duck period to go crazy. However, since the Bush administration was already crazy, they obviously had to go sane.Kinda like Sherlock Holmes' working axiom.

In respect to the last link i provided ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/28/wafghan128.xml
President Hamid Karzai has narrowly escaped assassination in Kabul as Taliban militants attacked Afghanistan's largest annual military parade.
Ayup.

I hate how many people don't have the first clue what the first amendment means. The first amendment protects us from the government. The government isn't protected from having policy to make it more effective.

The government doesn't have the right to free speech. Read a book.

Wups, I misread the OP. I thought Bush was telling the media what not to say.

Oh and I am reading a book right now.

http://www.bestsf.net/images/wollheimcarr1965.jpg

Wups, I misread the OP. I thought Bush was telling the media what not to say.

Oh and I am reading a book right now.

http://www.bestsf.net/images/wollheimcarr1965.jpg

Honest mistake. The read a book part should have said, read the OP.

And that book looks interesting.

Speaking of "safer" and "cooperation" ...
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jpCzLG2LzIT0MbuSYGn53S7ETPRQ

Oh, but if we did what Karzai said we would never be able to prolong the war and keep funnelling money to our buddies in the MIC. After all, we keep pushing the Drug War against opium farmers despite the fact that it is enraging them and making us far less safe, so security really isn't priority #1.

Except Bush is ignoring the first amendment, again. I think doing nothing is the best option in this case.

I don't think he's ignoring the first amendment (in this case...) He's just saying what government officials can and cannot say in their official correspondence.

It would be weird if the Bush administration started to experience sensibility in the last months of their time in the White House.


Maybe 9/11 Syndrome has a lifespan of seven years...

Have you heard Bush's latest speeches regarding the US economy???

Normally, administrations use the lame duck period to go crazy. However, since the Bush administration was already crazy, they obviously had to go sane.

No....more insane. See above.

In respect to the last link i provided ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/28/wafghan128.xml

Ayup.

Sad people died. The Taliban made the point was that it could have been a lot lot worse rather succinctly.



Oh and I am reading a book right now.

mmmm nice! Gotta admit I have a soft spot for that stuff :)

Thoughts?

The purpose of newspeak is creating goodthink and duckspeak by suppressing the ability of expressing crimethink.

The above sentence, for instance, would be impossible to translate in newspeak. In IngSoc goodthink/duckspeak isn't "created", because that would mean to affirm that goodthink is an artifact thought - which, of course, would be opposite to the very idea of newspeak, hence of IngSoc. In newspeak, goodthink merely is the only way of thinking. Similarly, "thoughtcrime (oldspeak for crimethink) does not entail death; thoughtcrime is death" - and, as such, unthinkable and even, for the truly duckspeak, unspeakable.