The excellent Tim Blair notes a Telegraph article reporting that
European governments should shun the phrase “Islamic terrorism” in favour of “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam”, say guidelines from EU officials.
I have no doubt many hours were spent workshopping that one.
As of now I will be replacing the phrase “democratic leaders” with “leaders who abusively invoke democracy”
Wouldn’t it just be easier to say ‘enemy forces’ and skip the ideological description?
mark adams – V good!
Dale, I agree.
Although given the crowd who comments here, I expect we’ll soon be hearing from people who want to keep “Islamic terrorism” but drop “terrorism.”
“terrorists who abusively invoke Islam”
As usual in the EU, satire writes itself.
You’ll find an interesting Council document on the the EU’s counter-terrorism strategy here. (PDF)
The most sidesplitting excerpt:
“The vast majority of Europeans, irrespective of belief, do not accept extremist ideologies. Even amongst the small number that do, only a few turn to terrorism.” [my italics]
Irrespective of belief?
Muslim = Catholic = Atheist = Protestant
Why not “Islamist terrorism” ?
In the comments section of Tim’s article, there is another EU guideline which is equally shocking but didnt seem to have made the front page.
Apparently henceforth, a spade is now to be referred to as a “metallic soil redistribution device”
God Bless the EU
Here on the farm, we call those ‘manure spreaders’.
a spade is now to be referred to as a “metallic soil redistribution device”
Please note that the correct term is:
Kyoto-Compliant, zero-emission, individual labor enhancing metallic soil redistribution device.
Excuse me, Some Eurocrat, but they are to be referred to as “woman empowering Kyoto-Compliant, zero-emission, individual labor enhancing metallic soil redistribution device, friendly to the differently gendered and the precious ecosystem
– Dale Amon
But… but… that’s so… confrontational! How about: “Those who dissent from the Eurocentric view of the world”?
Shouldn’t that be “terrorists who accurately invoke Islam”?
Exactly, Dale (and, despite himself, Ken Hagler),
Using “terrorist” in that context is at least as much a product of ideological interpretation as “Islamic” or “Islamist”. Give governments (or other violent groups) license to react on the basis of ascribed motivation rather than the action, and you are in deep, deep, trouble.
Give governments (or other violent groups) license to react on the basis of ascribed motivation rather than the action, and you are in deep, deep, trouble.
You must appreciate the subtleties here. These noble warriors for Islam cannot be terrorists, for it is we who are terrorised. Therefore it is our fault for being scared by their actions.
If only we could accept it is all down to our irrational feelings and fears, the EUrocrats would be happier and could rule us so much better!
How about a deal? We’ll drop the “Islamic” when they drop “Crusader” and Zionist.
It makes me want to abusively invoke alcohol.
Nick, howsabout we drop the “Islamic” when they do?