Conflict Terminology: A Note For Editors, Journalists, and Readers An Interactive Article By Hassan El-Najjar Al-Jazeerah, September 15, 2004 The following is just a tentative list of conflict terminology based on definitions from dictionaries, history, and observation. Any feedback to add more terms is welcome.. The reason I am writing this article is the need for a minimum level of agreement on the conflict terms used in the media around the world. The bias in reporting and analysis made most of the conflict terminology used in different ways to achieve goals of writers, away from objectivity and professionalism. This is an attempt to bring back some respect and decency to the profession of journalism and the media in general. The conflict encompassing the world today is between the US-UK-Israel as one camp and groups opposing them all over the Arab and Muslim Worlds, as another camp. The corporate media in the first camp call the US-UK-Israeli (UUI) actions as the "War on Terror." However, most media around the world, including alternative media in the UUI camp, call it "invasion." The corporate media of the UUI alliance describe Iraqis, Afghanis, and Palestinians opposing the invading armies as "terrorists," "insurgents," or "rebels." However, most media around the world, including alternative media in the UUI camp, call them resistance or guerrilla fighters. The difference in the usage of these conflict terms is important because they are used to justify the actions of each camp. That is why it may not be easy to persuade journalists from both camps to use a common list of conflict terminology. Anyway, it doesn't hurt to try. I'll attempt to give an objective definition for each term, then I'll comment on the usage of the term particularly in the "embeded" UUI camp. 1. Politics is the process of who gets what resources, when, and how. Political activities aim ultimately to controlling wealth in any society. How the budget is going to be decided and who benefits most is the end outcome of the competition. In the US, the media obscures the term to refer to differences on other issues. 2. War is using force to achieve political means. It is fought by regular military forces from different countries. There is no war in Iraq or Afghanistan because there are no Iraqi or Afghani regular armed forces. There is resistance to foreign occupation in both countries. The term, "occupation" was mentioned in the UN Security Council resolution, in reference to presence of US forces in Iraq. 3. Civil War is using force to achieve political means. It is fought by regular or irregular military forces from the same country. As long as there are foreign forces in Iran and Afghanistan, there is no civil war. There are US-backed Iraqis fighting Iraqis resisting the US occupation. 4. Rebellion is fighting one's own legitimate government in order to achieve political goals. It involves an open, armed, and organized resistance. As a result, it's inaccurate to describe Muqtada Al-Sadr, for example, as a rebel, until at least the government can be legitimate and truly sovereign. 5. Uprising is an unarmed rebellion that is confronted by applying government force against the civilian population. This term accurately applies to the peaceful activities of the Palestinian people and groups in opposing the Israeli occupation, such as protests, demonstrations, sit-ins, and hunger strikes. But it does not apply to the armed struggle. 6. Insurgency is an armed uprising against one's own government but it is less organized than a rebellion. What's happening in Iraq is not an insurgency because the fighting is between Iraqis and foreign forces or between Iraqis and other Iraqis who are recruited by foreign forces. A more accurate term is resistance to the foreign occupation of the country. 7. Guerrilla is one who engages in irregular warfare in connection with a regular war. In the first stages of the fighting, during 2003, Iraqi armed activities were accurately described by even the US military commanders as a guerrilla warfare. However, it has taken a more coherent and coordinated shape, particularly in 2004. Thus, a more accurate term is resistance, if the fighting is aimed at the opposing military forces. 8. Militants are persons aggressively involved in fighting. This term should not apply to political leaders or activists, as many journalists do. 9. Resistance is the act of using arms to oppose the invading armed forces. This is the term used throughout the 20th century to describe opposing foreign occupation forces, particularly German occupation forces in Europe. It should apply to groups fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. 10. Terrorism is terrorizing or being terrorized, a mode of governing, or of opposing government by intimidation. The term should be used to describe individuals, groups, and governments, which are involved in terrorizing the civilian populations. Corporate media journalists use the term routinely to describe individuals and groups but never use to describe the governments which target the civilian population by killing them, destroying their homes and fields, or by subjecting them to collective punishment. For a balanced approach, both terms of terrorism and state terrorism should be used. 11. Illegal Settlement Activity refers to the construction of population centers for the invading group on confiscated lands inside the invaded or occupied territories. This activity is illegal because it violates the international law that prohibits changing the demographic status of the occupied territories. That is why the Israeli activities in the occupied territories should be accurately referred to as illegal settlement activity. If the term settlement is used alone, it misleads readers to think positively of the activity. Ronald D Kennedy of California suggested that Israeli illegal settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories be called squatters. If his suggestion is followed, then illegal settlements may also be called squatterments. Hilmi Salem of Canada objected to the term "squatter" because it means one who or that which squates, i.e. to settle on a piece of land without title or payment; especially one who settles on land without permission or right. This does not apply to the Palestinian territories which are owned by the Palestinian people. He suggested the use of colony and colonist instead. But the problem with the term "colony" is that it refers to a whole country, like Egypt or India, which were British colonies. So far, the most accurate term to describe the Israeli occupation activities in confiscating and annexing Palestinian lands is "illegal Israeli settlement activities." 12. Sunna and Shi'a are the two major Islamic sects or schools of thought. The apostrophe before the letter a in Shi'a represent a glottal Arabic sound. 13. Sunnis and Shi'is are followers of the Sunna and Shi'a schools. Journalists in the Western media in general use the term Shiite in reference to Shi'i. This is a derogatory term, particularly in English, that should not be used. More important is that it is inaccurate and does not comply with the Arabic way of adjectivizing, as in the case with Sunni. A final word: This is an attempt to bring some order to the chaotic state of conflict terminology. I welcome any serious feedback. I hope that this list can be increased, reviewed, and improved, which may hopefully decrease some of the confusion accompanying the conflict insanity of our time. Peace. Al Jazeerah info ------------------------------------------------ Any of you got any new terms to add?

End of an era. May Allah forgive him and ease the suffering of those he left behind.

^^^ He’ll have to ask for a massive signing on fee. Chelsea are planning to sue him for half of £15 million they paid for him when they got him last season.

^^^ She is. The real sheherazade told stories to save her life; I have no idea why our one here does! Still, I guess if our necks were at stake we would all be great storytellers. As for your story, don’t listen to Bee! Do not listen to Bee. Write them a juicy letter criticising the interviewing style and advising them on the correct way of conducting interviews instead. Advice them on the Hijaab issue too. After all, it’s Ramadan and you might as well show a bit of charity, even if they didn’t (not that you would want their charity).

Reading this poem gave me a serious headache, far too long (even though the subtle “beat†of the rhyme kept me going for a bit). As is usual with long Somali pieces I understood some of it but missed the meaning of most (seem to have got the general point though). Sorry Raula and Shayma, I would have loved to comment on your funny (are they?) attempts at poetry but I didn’t read them. I’m poet-ed out for one day.

^^^ I think she's talking about rape or murder saaxib. Not the union of someone's sister with a convicted rapist or murderer. This is what happens when topics are hijacked, Zu gets confused. Heh.

^^^ Well, psychic lady, do you picture us together in 20 years time?

Originally posted by Mutakallim: NGONGE: You have expressed a colossal amount of sentiments in one post. How do you manage to do that? With Salaams PK Sometimes, a straw man argument is the best tool when extracting satisfactory replies.

Baashi, I’m sure you’ll agree that merely residing in a country does not equal integration. There are many Muslims who have integrated into these western societies (there are many who have been fully assimilated - See Ayan Hirsi). However, there is a large number of Muslims who live, pay taxes, work and study in these western societies but refuse to integrate and are forever pining for “homeâ€. For instance, let us look at our own Somali communities in the West (or anywhere else for that matter), we seem to live in an isolated bubble. Many expect all the benefits; equal rights and advantages of living in such a society yet refuse to mingle amongst their fellow “citizensâ€. Integration to them seems to mean living in these lands and abiding by their laws. Whenever questions are raised, queries made or clarifications requested, they withdrew back into their shells and start citing the fairy tales of racism, bigotry and prejudice! There is a conflict between Islam and the western way of life. However, it seems that most Muslims are either “moderators†who call for total submission or “traditionalists†who insist on fitting the square pegs of their old habitats into the round holes of their current ones. The moderators welcome and encourage integration, sometimes, they come across as too eager for anyone’s liking. At other times, their message seems to be one of full assimilation with the added implication that they approve of some minor dilutions of our faith if that would help in speeding the “integration†process! The traditionalists are no better; they’re the louder and more respected of the two groups. Their message is clear: do not change anything, let the world fit around us! The additional problem here is that culture and religion seem to overlap and many don’t know where one begins and the other ends! The traditionalists are conservative and strong willed. They don’t discuss anything because, as I’ve often seen, it’s either wrong to do so or it’s HARAM. They dismiss any that question this predicament as either stray or “brainwashedâ€. They (rightly) speak of the problems and Islamic rules regarding infidels and kuffars. Nonetheless, they hardly ever adjust their words to fit-in with the environment they live in. Surely a Mullah in Saudi Arabia talking about the dangers of associating with infidels is not equal to one in Paris doing the same! The Saudi Mullah realises that he’s talking to a Muslim audience in a predominantly Muslim country. The Paris Mullah on the other hand, is talking to a Muslim audience in a country where his listeners are a minority. However, in many cases, he would not adjust his words or accompany them with qualifications and conditions. Instead, he’ll repeat the same stance of the Saudi Mullah! Such sermons for example, though they seem irrelevant to the topic, contribute to the convolution of this “integration†issue. How do you integrate with infidels? Another example of the reluctance of Muslims to “integrate†can be seen in the case of the Dutch film director that has been killed recently. He was anti-Islam, he insulted Muslims, the Koran and our beloved prophet (SAW). A Muslim killed him. Most Muslims either, whooped and hollered at his demise, or, kept quiet about the whole thing thus giving the impression of tacit approval. This was no Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi! This was a non-believer who criticised a religion. He did what non-believers often do. The “Muslim†reply was harsh, savage and probably not Islamic. I say probably, in case I’m wrong. Though I’d be surprised if his murder was confirmed to be legal in an Islamic sense. A further example to quote is the cases of the schoolgirls in the UK. These girls go to schools that permit Islamic “dressâ€. The school’s interpretation of the Islamic Hijab has been reached after consultation with Islamic bodies and authorities in the UK. You, I, and most readers on this website will probably disagree with it (since this Hijaab is none other than the Pakistani shalwar khamees), however; this is what some Muslims have informed the schools of what an acceptable Islamic Hijab to be like. The girls decided to ignore the school’s rules and wear a “jilbaab†instead. The schools naturally and in the interests of discipline and uniformity, refused them entry into school grounds. The girls boycotted the schools, aided and abetted by their parents and encouraged by the UK Muslim Association! Some parts of the press are using this case as an example of Muslims refusing to integrate! I believe such cases and unnecessary conflicts will eventually lead to the introduction of laws that force us all to be assimilated into these societies. For when we kill any non-believer who criticises our religion instead of engaging with him and inviting him to embrace our faith, we display clear signs of refusing to integrate. Or, when we fight schools who have already shown willingness to accommodate and accept our religious obligations, instead of debating with them and showing them the diversity and intricacies of our religion and original cultures, we, again, display signs of refusing to integrate and fuel our host’s xenophobic inclinations. Maybe at this point, and after what seems like a long waffle, I need to finally explain my understanding of the meaning of integration. Integration to me means living peacefully side by side with your neighbours and taking advantage of all the opportunities available to you without alienating others as a result of opinions and attitudes borne out of doubt, suspicion and hearsay. It is having the ability to fully practise and spread your faith without forcing others into accepting your religious views. It is the ability to accept fair criticism and denounce unfair disparagement by clarifying and explaining your faith and viewpoints without having to resort to accusations and unfair criticisms of your own. More importantly, integration, as I see it, means accepting these lands as your home and working towards changing attitudes and outlooks through your good deeds, Islamic mannerisms and superior message. These arguments of course, only apply to Muslims who live in the West and intend or have made these Western countries their permanent abodes. For such Muslims integration is a must, or else, they’ll soon face the dreaded prospect of total assimilation.

^^^ Don't panic, dear. There is space for everyone on my magic bus. VROOM VROOM

^^^ You coward :mad: PS I voted for off-topic.

Originally posted by nafta: It would figure that you guys would probably come with replies like 'are u sure he is 100%guilty?' Don't try and excuse him. Furthermore, if a research showed that 1 in 3 men would rape someone and perhaps even murder, if they would not get find out, i would most probably say the son of a **** is guilty...110% laakinse yaaba adinka na'iga sugayay sympathy and to try and understand what rape involves. And you're right, the woman/girl needs to get over it rather than losing her life for some ego-maniac prick that decided he fancied some **** and would it get it roughly. I would say she should get on with her life for the next ten years...wait him up when he's out of jail...then drive him to a secluded area....cut off his testicles...burn it in front of him while sprinkling dog piss on it...then release him in the wild...that should settle her mind :mad: Ciao With such anger and rage about an invented story, you girls know how to set yourself up for an endless windup. That research which showed that One in Three men would kill or rape if given the chance and was not likely to be found out, has all the hallmarks of the OG Moti School of statistics and research.

Dream job? I wouldn’t mind becoming a goat herder. Goats are great company. They’re very intelligent. They’re better company than people. I could lead them to green pastures and watch them eat. I could spend all day, everyday looking after my goats.

Originally posted by Mutakallim: P.S. If the title of this forum does irreparable damage to your emotions, then you do not have to post in this section. Perhaps you might want to try to post something in the Islamic, Debate forums. This way you can "contribute" something to this site and save your precious ego. I’ve said this before and I don’t mind repeating it once more, you’re seriously pissing against the wind here, saaxib (pardon my language). Your whole campaign against the trivia on this section is akin to a Mullah attempting to preach in a public bar! This was the general forum and the topics on it were GENERAL topics; some were good, some were aimless, some were weird, some were funny and many were without any substance whatsoever. Still, everything was covered and most members (if I might hazard a guess) knew what to expect on this section (still do I suppose). Your criticism of it at first seemed to be concerned with quality and a desire to see a better forum! Sounded fine at the time, yet now it seems all you had a problem with was a mere WORD! Erm, ahem, A....... Sorry, give me a minute to compose myself! Your objection is now only to the application of the word GENERAL to a forum that has a high percentage of trivial posts? Let me ask you a loaded question (it’s rhetorical really but I’m in a mischievous mood) and say, do you know how trivial that fixation of yours sounds? It does not bother me if this forum is called general, universal, off-topic, on-topic or even Iska hadal (as some brothers suggested). For this is the only section that seems to remind me of that Paint Advert with the slogan “ Does exactly what it says on the tinâ€. However, I’m more concerned with the other parts of this site and, frankly, I’m surprised that you and the admin who you managed to entice into this pointless rearranging of furniture, are not. Have you, or the admin, looked at the politics section lately? I realise you can’t request to change the name of that section (what would you call it!), however, if quality is what concerns you then surely the sort of claptrap that is posted on that section would take precedence over the trivia on a section that does not pretend to be anything but trivial. As for your suggestion that people try to “contribute†to the other sections, well, that in itself is a bit nonsensical. If they’re as trivial as you seem to think they are, then you’re only asking them to spread their trivia into the other sections and join you in this game of rearranging the furniture, again (quite a conga band your building up here, saaxib). I repeat, the General (off-topic) forum is irrelevant and should not be a priority when assessing the quality of this site. The Islamic, Politics and Debate forums ARE and need the members’ and managements’ full attention (especially seeing the recent outbursts of idiocy on all those three sections).

Moral poverty, perhaps? Lack of faith, maybe? Can’t be lack of money surely, he owns a 42†second hand TV! Do you know how much these things cost nowadays?

Heh. Was expecting such rubbish to come up sooner or later. I only managed to read the first paragraph and I’m amazed at the author’s assumption that any sane person would take any of this rubbish seriously. The story of this raped girl might turn out to be true, but, to be brutally honest, after reading this article, I can’t say I’m that bothered. When will you children engage your brains and try to post something with a bit of insight, information or even analysis (long shot I agree but a man can dream). Your tribalism and hateful tendencies are contagious and I’m worried that I might sooner or later fall victim to that nothingness that you’re so proud off. *** Sudden surge of blood *** My grandfather, his grandfather and those way before them don’t mean a single thing to me and if this is their legacy and your tribe’s legacies then I spit on the lot of you. I seriously have no RESPECT for any tribes or those that are proud of such a redundant concept. May you never climb out of this filthy ditch (whatever side you claim to be on). *** Still not calm ***

This looks like a very good debate. It will be even better if people would engage their alleged “foes†on the points they’ve made rather than insulting them with malicious comments regarding their faith or accusing them of being Western puppets. The “foe†I speak off has penned a very good and clear (surprisingly so) post and those that disagree with it or find any faults in it, should roll up their cyber sleeves and enter the fray without referring to “older†discussions or making disparaging comments about the author - J11 seems to have done so even though the timing of his response could have been easily mistaken for one of those mindless replies. On the points of “integration†and “assimilationâ€, the consulting of any decent thesaurus will confirm that these words are, indeed, synonyms. One wouldn’t like to assume and it might turn out that seasoned linguists do actually find these two words to be different and would regard them as anything but synonyms. However, for the purposes of our discussion, and since this is a debate about the integration/assimilation of Muslims in the West, the pedantry of linguists is only going to lead us into the blind alleyways of semantics and, therefore, we‘ll have to give it a rest for now. Something tells me that this was not the aim of the brother that attempted to clarify the difference between the two words. I suspect (and he’s free to correct me) that he used that line of reasoning to better explain his understanding of the West’s call for Muslim integration (this is the point people should have debated with him instead of chasing the red herring of assimilation/integration). It is no big secret that many Muslims are apprehensive about the motives behind this drive for integration. After all, the most vociferous of those that call for Muslim integration (and sometimes assimilation) into the mainstream western society, seem to be those on the furthest tip of the so called right-wing. In addition, many Evangelists, Anglicans and Zionists are also very vocal in their demands for Muslims to be integrated into society. These calls and the fear of losing one’s faith (though it seems to mostly be a fear of losing one’s culture) lead many Muslims to reject such calls and intensify their doggedness. Still, why are such calls made? Is it really just a straightforward attack on Islam and a wish on the West’s part to bury all traces of anything Islamic in its midst? Let us assume that this is the case, how then could Muslims deal with such an onslaught? Surely the ruling majority will always find a way to force Muslims into integrating (or rather assimilating - see French ban on Hijab). Remember; the idea that the West’s main aim is to fully assimilate Muslims is only an assumption and there is no evidence to prove it. The fact that there are conflicts between the Muslim and Western ways of life is not. Apologies for my simple approach but I see no alternative but to welcome and embrace integration (as long as it does not impinge on our Islamic beliefs), for if we don’t integrate, rules and laws will be made to force us to fully assimilate. Westerners, Muslims in Western countries and Muslims in Islamic countries have been making a deafening racket about Islam, the need for reform, the position of Muslims in the West and even their loyalties! This idea of integration is but one piece of that perplexing conundrum, to examine it in isolation is unlikely to yield us any tangible results.

Originally posted by ORGILAQE: If you are going to make things up at least try to make up something closer to the truth that was the funniest LIE i ever read.They call themwselves Journalists by insulting an entire tribe.Say what you might but i never saw any website that raised the issue of SAMSAM Duale that actually tried to paint the entire tribes of Somaliland by Name as being those that have a culture of raping little girls.On the contrary the praised the Human rights groups in Hargeisa and the people of Hargesia for doing their best to oppose this.They made sure to differentiate between the few individuals that were responsible for the hineous acts and the majority of the people of Somaliland who are descent God fearing Muslims who themselves are against this kind of Shameful acts.The Puntland administration made the same point in it's press conferences and so did all the pro Puntland websites.To be honest I am glad to see the true difference between Puntland and Somaliland finally coming out! Do you proofread your words, saaxib? :confused: You should. The last line in that post of yours seems to have been a bit too heavy for that little house of cards that preceded it. BANG! WALLOP! WHOOSH! All the good and reasonable points you made at the start are rendered pointless and strongly smell of nothing but fake lip service all of a sudden.

^^ Read his words, sister, read his words. Rahima dear, the Somaliland adminstration has been abusing a young Somali girl who's uncle happens to be a minister of theirs imagine what they would do to the ordinary folks of PUNTLAND. This incident has opened our eyes.. Are your eyes open?

^^^^^ Loving your work, man.

Originally posted by besbaaso: find someone ur own generation.....or age group...no woman wants to change her husband's diaper....ten yrs from now... cause he is sooooo old...... :eek: I read the meaning of the above and all I can see between the lines are these two words: How did you find out about my age, you fiery little minx? In twenty year’s time or so, if I happen to be a live and am ready to marry again, I expect to still be as fully functional as I am now. Still, I’ll take that comment of yours as a hint and add your name to my healthy list (can’t add your friend with the difficult name I’m afraid, too masculine a name for my liking).

*** Notes down sheherazade's subtle request ***

^^ Ah! I was just about to ask you which do you prefer, rape or death, saaxib.

Heh. Terrorism in Somalia? Just reading that sentence gives me the giggles. Well, I suppose terrorism is in fashion these days, every country in the world uses it as an excuse to smother any form of opposition. If Bush, Putin, Mubarak and others can use it, why not Cabdullahi Yusuf? He’s the President of Somalia, dammit.

Ali is a poor man. He’s the poorest person he ever met. All his family is poor. All his friends are poor. His neighbours are poor and their neighbours are also poor; in fact, the whole neighbourhood is poor. Ali’s car is second hand. His old and decaying house is second hand. His 42†TV is second hand. His Sony DVD player is second hand. His playstation is second hand. Ali is a Somali who lives in the UK. He’s a British citizen, which makes his adopted country second hand too. Ali is unhappy about his poverty. He wishes if he could ever forget about it. He also wishes to be rich. But, since he’s not rich but rather poor and everyone around him is poor, he wishes to forget about his poverty. When Ali leaves his second hand house and drives his second hand car, he often passes by rich houses and sees brand new cars! This reminds him of his poverty, therefore, Ali hates to leave his house. When Ali stays in and watches his second hand 42†TV, he sees the news about rich presidents, rich warlords, rich countries, even rich climates and weather! On the odd occasions that he sees images of poor people, he always finds them to be farfetched stories of starving babies and hungry old people; none of which portray the correct image of a poor man who owns a second hand car, house and 42†TV. Ali is depressed. He’s had enough of his second hand life. He dreams of being rich. Ali’s dreams are noble and worthy. Upon becoming rich, he plans to spend his newfound wealth on helping all the poor people of the world; he plans to wipeout everything that’s second hand. He plans to surround himself with rich friends, rich neighbours who also have rich neighbours; in fact, he plans to live in a rich neighbourhood. Last week, Ali’s second hand phone, rang! It was a call from Somalia. His uncle, who lives a wretched life, owns three wretched goats, is father to fifteen wretched kids and is married to four wretched women, called him to ask for his financial help! Ali promised to try his best and told his uncle to expect a positive reply soon. Ali’s real reply was not going to be favourable at all. Ali is a poor man who lives a second hand life and knows the pain of everything that is second hand. Ali loves his uncle, his uncle’s three wretched goats, fifteen wretched kids and four wretched wives! Ali can not bring himself to inflict pain and misery on that wretched family by sending them his second hand money! Ali now expects a second hand call from his other uncle telling him about his first uncle’s wretched life, goats, children and wives, and asking him to send them some of his second hand money! Happy Eid, people.