I am usually a bit leery about changes in nomenclature, as they almost always have a purpose to change the meaning of things. I missed this article a year ago about re-dubbing ISIL (ISIS, IS) as "Daesh" — a word that serves as an actual acronym for the group, as well as having some potentially amusing / pejorative meanings as well.
I've tended to use ISIL, if only because I have an antiquarian's love for the term "Levant," and coming up with yet another name for this group of barbarians feels a bit much. On the other hand, as the article notes, words can help frame matters as well, and actually considering them a "state" in the modern sense is arguably misleading as well.
Something to consider.
Words matter in ‘ISIS’ war, so use ‘Daesh’ – The Boston Globe
Bad guys….. That's all. Actions speak louder. There will be a roar soon, sadly.
I kind of like this, but doubt that it will catch on, because understanding it requires knowledge of Arabic, which too few people in the West have. (I don't, for example, and didn't get what "Daesh" meant until I read the article. And the play on words flew right over my head.)
+keith olszewski The problem is, everyone considers someone else the "bad guys" / evil ones / disbelievers / offenders of all that is held holy.
Of course, I know who the real "bad guys" are … and wouldn't the world be better if they only listened to me?
I knew that the State Department had been using Daesh for a while now. Hope it actually catches on, even if people don't understand why it's important.
I'm going to post this separately, but I recommend reading this article, which is more recent and a lot more linguistically savvy than last year's Boston Globe: https://www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie/
France living and death prophet Mohammed whole planet earth
France living death to Islam around the world the face of the planet earth
+Soja Rock I don't quite get what you're saying, but it doesn't sound helpful.