lily
04-25-2008, 03:29 AM
I wonder who's going to teach Bush the new words? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24297050/)
Jihadist’ booted from U.S. government lexicon
updated 6:16 p.m. ET, Thurs., April. 24, 2008
WASHINGTON - Don't call them jihadists any more.
And don't call al-Qaida a movement.
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.
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. Similarly, "mujahedeen," which means those
engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context.
U.S. officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral
and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or
spokesmen for ordinary Muslims," says a Homeland Security report. It's
entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from
American Muslims."
"Regarding 'jihad,' even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not
be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with
religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims
around the world," the report says.
'Official use only'
Language is critical in the war on terrorism, 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."
The memo, originally prepared in March by the Extremist Messaging Branch at
the National Counter Terrorism Center, was approved for diplomatic use this
week by the State Department, which plans to distribute a version to all
U.S. embassies, officials said.
"It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo says in bold italic
lettering, listing 14 points about how to better present the war on
terrorism.
"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. When we respond loudly, we raise their prestige
in the Muslim world."
"Don't compromise our credibility" by using words and phrases that may
ascribe benign motives to terrorists.
Some other specifics:
a.. "Never use the terms 'jihadist' or 'mujahedeen' in conversation to
describe the terrorists. ... Calling our enemies 'jihadis' and their
movement a global 'jihad' unintentionally legitimizes their actions."
b.. "Use the terms 'violent extremist' or 'terrorist.' Both are widely
understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously
deny them any level of legitimacy."
c.. On the other hand, avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology: "We
are communicating with, not confronting, our audiences. Don't insult or
confuse them with pejorative terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' which are
considered offensive by many Muslims."
The memo says the advice is not binding and does not apply to official
policy papers but should be used as a guide for conversations with Muslims
and media.
Caution against 'grandiose descriptions'
At least at the top level, it appears to have made an impact. Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice, who once frequently referred to "jihad" in her
public remarks, does not appear to have used the word, except when talking
about the name of a specific terrorist group, since last September.
The memo mirrors advice distributed to British and European Union diplomats
last year to better explain the war on terrorism to Muslim communities
there.
It also draws heavily on the Homeland Security report that examined the way
American Muslims reacted to different phrases used by U.S. officials to
describe terrorists and recommended ways to improve the message.
Because of religious connotations, that report, released in January and
obtained by AP this week, counseled "caution in using terms such as,
'jihadist,' 'Islamic terrorist,' 'Islamist,' and 'holy warrior' as grandiose
descriptions."
"We should not concede the terrorists' claim that they are legitimate
adherents of Islam," the report said, adding that bin Laden and his
adherents fear "irrelevance" more than anything else.
"We must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders the
legitimacy they crave, but do not possess, by characterizing them as
religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the
eyes of some," it said.
Jihadist’ booted from U.S. government lexicon
updated 6:16 p.m. ET, Thurs., April. 24, 2008
WASHINGTON - Don't call them jihadists any more.
And don't call al-Qaida a movement.
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.
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. Similarly, "mujahedeen," which means those
engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context.
U.S. officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral
and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or
spokesmen for ordinary Muslims," says a Homeland Security report. It's
entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from
American Muslims."
"Regarding 'jihad,' even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not
be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with
religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims
around the world," the report says.
'Official use only'
Language is critical in the war on terrorism, 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."
The memo, originally prepared in March by the Extremist Messaging Branch at
the National Counter Terrorism Center, was approved for diplomatic use this
week by the State Department, which plans to distribute a version to all
U.S. embassies, officials said.
"It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo says in bold italic
lettering, listing 14 points about how to better present the war on
terrorism.
"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. When we respond loudly, we raise their prestige
in the Muslim world."
"Don't compromise our credibility" by using words and phrases that may
ascribe benign motives to terrorists.
Some other specifics:
a.. "Never use the terms 'jihadist' or 'mujahedeen' in conversation to
describe the terrorists. ... Calling our enemies 'jihadis' and their
movement a global 'jihad' unintentionally legitimizes their actions."
b.. "Use the terms 'violent extremist' or 'terrorist.' Both are widely
understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously
deny them any level of legitimacy."
c.. On the other hand, avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology: "We
are communicating with, not confronting, our audiences. Don't insult or
confuse them with pejorative terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' which are
considered offensive by many Muslims."
The memo says the advice is not binding and does not apply to official
policy papers but should be used as a guide for conversations with Muslims
and media.
Caution against 'grandiose descriptions'
At least at the top level, it appears to have made an impact. Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice, who once frequently referred to "jihad" in her
public remarks, does not appear to have used the word, except when talking
about the name of a specific terrorist group, since last September.
The memo mirrors advice distributed to British and European Union diplomats
last year to better explain the war on terrorism to Muslim communities
there.
It also draws heavily on the Homeland Security report that examined the way
American Muslims reacted to different phrases used by U.S. officials to
describe terrorists and recommended ways to improve the message.
Because of religious connotations, that report, released in January and
obtained by AP this week, counseled "caution in using terms such as,
'jihadist,' 'Islamic terrorist,' 'Islamist,' and 'holy warrior' as grandiose
descriptions."
"We should not concede the terrorists' claim that they are legitimate
adherents of Islam," the report said, adding that bin Laden and his
adherents fear "irrelevance" more than anything else.
"We must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders the
legitimacy they crave, but do not possess, by characterizing them as
religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the
eyes of some," it said.