DEMOS

On the subject of the Guardian and feeble minded authorities inadvertently legitimising terrorism, I just read this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/25/terror.language) about the Bush administration finally waking up to the fact that using words like jihad and mujahideen when you absolutely don't understand what they mean might be a bit counterproductive.  Better late that never I suppose; only seven or so years of legitimising terrorist propaganda.  I know of no such document in Britain and indeed I doubt very much that the media will take any notice but its something at least...

It has a name, "semantic infiltration".  This is the process Whereby we come to adopt the language of our adversaries in describing political reality.  People have been saying it for years.  In 2001, James Guirard laid out very clearly in the Washington Post that his host newspaper should, "begin avoiding al Qaeda's patently false labels "holy war" and "jihad" and begin substituting for them the truthful and religiously appropriate terms", such as, "Hirabah - This antonym for jihad and the term for treasonous and forbidden "war against society"."  The word jihad comes from the root word jihada meaning to strive for self-betterment ethically and morally.

This is all exhibitive of the systemic overemphasis on hard-power in the "war" (irony intended) on terrorism, as is the example you cite in your article Jamie.  Authorities are only now even beginning to wake up to the subtle, incredibly intricate work that has to be done to actually subvert terrorist ideas and by extension ideals.  Of course soft-power is rather undermined when you're going around bombing people but thats another matter.