[izme]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...C82143CC51.htm


UK abandons 'war on terror' phrase

Benn called on the US to use "soft power" along with military strength to defeat extremist groups [EPA]

The British government has stopped using the phrase "war on terror", a Cabinet minister announced in a speech delivered in New York.

Hilary Benn, Britain's international development secretary, said on Monday that the expression strengthens terrorists resolve by making them feel part of a larger struggle.


"We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone... this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives," Benn told an audience at New York University's Centre of International Co-operation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWU_pTA1sTo




The phrase "war on terror" was popularised by George Bush, the US president, after the September 11 attacks.

[izme]

Maybe we should have called it the war on islamofacists?

oh wait, that put them in yet another large category..not that it is right?

how about the war on fringe Muslim terrorists?

The war on evil doers? oh wait....

a war on a few fanatical muslims?

[izme]

the war on knuckle dragging - cave dwelling blasphemers?

[WarC]

I tend to think the "war" thing is a stretch.

The war in iraq is a war.

The war in afghanistan is a war.

the war on terror...is (or should be) a campaign of precision attacks, strength and unity of cause, and intelligence gathering.

I think the Israeli's have shown the way to fight these guys without massive invasions. And I think it would be the best way to pursue islamic extremism inbetween these wars...Because I also feel that conflict with Iran and Syria is inevitable as long as the leadership they have exists. Who knows what will happen once public support for intervention in the ME wanes and the next administration comes in.

Unless they pull a Gaddafi and suddenly turn into religious moderates whom accept Israel's existence and pull funding from the Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups. Which I think is...Very very doubtful, to say the least!

[bomb #21]

"In December 2006, the British Foreign Office advised the government to stop using the phrase "War on Terror". A spokesperson for the department said the government wanted to "avoid reinforcing and giving succour to the terrorists' narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive".[27] Also, in December 2006, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, as he prepared to end his tenure, expressed regret over the Bush Administration's use of the phrase "War on Terror", saying the phrase had created unattainable expectations and that "it's not a war on terror. Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and impose their -- in the hands of a small group of clerics -- their dark vision on all the people that they can control."

http://www.answers.com/topic/war-on-terrorism

Where does one find the "Rumsfeld sucks" thread?

[lotuseclat79]

Hi izme,

Check here for previous post.

-- Tom

[pyritechips]

There can not be a war on terror. I have said elsewhere that a war can be waged against an enemy. You must define that enemy. "Terror" is not an enemy; it is a weapon.

"War on Islamic 'Terrorists'" is good enough. "Islamofascists" Is a misnomer, since the radical Moslems are not necessary fascists; fascism is a purely political ideology while the radicals' motivations are based on religion.

[pyritechips]

Where does one find the "Rumsfeld sucks" thread?

You can always start one; I'll post.

[lotuseclat79]

As Paul R. Pillar, author of "Terrorism and U. S. Foreign Policy" said: a war against terroism can never be won, but only kept in check by managing it, or something to that effect as I recall from reading it.

-- Tom

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

There can not be a war on terror. I have said elsewhere that a war can be waged against an enemy. You must define that enemy. "Terror" is not an enemy; it is a weapon.

"War on Islamic 'Terrorists'" is good enough. "Islamofascists" Is a misnomer, since the radical Moslems are not necessary fascists; fascism is a purely political ideology while the radicals' motivations are based on religion.

So I take it you disagree with the phrase "War on Drugs" as well?

As to the thread topic, here it is from the mouths of three ex-terrorists: http://www.shoebat.com/index.php

The way these guys put it, it should be referred to as a War on Sharia.

[LANMaster]

What about the "war on guns".


All this PC grabage happening while Britain rapidly sinks into the abyss which was 1938 France....with a Shar'ia twist.



I'd be willing to bet, barring a serious global effort to wipe out Islamofascism, that the UK will cease to be a Democracy within the next 20 years.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

There can not be a war on terror. I have said elsewhere that a war can be waged against an enemy. You must define that enemy. "Terror" is not an enemy; it is a weapon.

"War on Islamic 'Terrorists'" is good enough. "Islamofascists" Is a misnomer, since the radical Moslems are not necessary fascists; fascism is a purely political ideology while the radicals' motivations are based on religion.

Sorry, but Islam is a political ideology that uses religion to sway more followers. God does not use perverts as prophets.

[RSM123]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

What about the "war on guns".


All this PC grabage happening while Britain rapidly sinks into the abyss which was 1938 France....with a Shar'ia twist.



I'd be willing to bet, barring a serious global effort to wipe out Islamofascism, that the UK will cease to be a Democracy within the next 20 years.

You have more than enough imminent threats to deal with in your own backyard.


http://jihadwatch.org/

Whether or not 'they' could pull off another 9/11 is open to doubt. Though they could easily find 200 unwitting stooges to send to the US, believing they were going to carry out a bombing, but who had unknowingly been infected with a disease like Small Pox, W Nile Virus.

Before they even got sick, they would each have exposed thousands to the same ... and each of those thousands, likewise.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by RSM123

You have more than enough imminent threats to deal with in your own backyard.


http://jihadwatch.org/

Whether or not 'they' could pull off another 9/11 is open to doubt. Though they could easily find 200 unwitting stooges to send to the US, believing they were going to carry out a bombing, but who had unknowingly been infected with a disease like Small Pox, W Nile Virus.

Before they even got sick, they would each have exposed thousands to the same ... and each of those thousands, likewise.

Good post---the only thing I would quibble with is "unknowingly been infected"----I would think that it would be easy to find two hundred members of their death cult to knowingly come here.

[RSM123]

Originally Posted by TooBad

Sorry, but Islam is a political ideology that uses religion to sway more followers. God does not use perverts as prophets.

Not being a muslim, or by any stretch a western liberal I have to take issue with that. Islam is very much a religion, a political codex, indeed a way of life. So is Judaism - since both dictate behaviour in every facet of daily life, at the most fundamental level.

The problem is that these rules are themselves deliberately misinterpreted by the select few, to manipulate the uneducated, impoverished masses.

As a member of the Church of England ie a Protestant, I am to any Catholic, a heretic ... destined to go to hell. Likewise members of the Presbyterian Church refer to The Pope as 'The Anti Christ.'

The Catholic Church did immeasurable damage here in Europe for centuries when it ruled, hand in hand with medieval monarchs. The unquestioning obedience of the lower classes was secured by dictatorial legal writ, and by threats of spiritual eternal damnation.

The office of Pope was bandied around by the leading families and clans, like an old hat. Yet the members of those families carried on behaving in decidedly 'unchristian' ways, sequestering land, dispossessing people, imposing crippling taxation, and killing with impunity. Read up on the Borgias and the Medicis.

What is wrong in the modern day west, is that politically correct spokes'people' want to skate over the wrongs committed by people who called themselves muslims. As in the case of the current demand that we apologise for slavery .... conveniently overlooking the fact that arab slave traders ran such a 'trade' from the E Coast of Africa from the 10th century - some 500 yrs before the western powers started doing so.

Likewise, we constantly hear how the 'root' of the modern day conflict is 'The Crusades' - again glossing over the fact that 'muslims' invaded Spain in the late 7 th c and remained in power until 1492 when they were finally vanquished.

Yet if you state that these events mean Islam is a mechanism for evil, then the same applies to Christianity ( at least in the form which it is interpreted and practiced by many followers in the 'enlightened' west) - particularly poigniant given that The Enlightenment itself was carried out in the face of centuries of threats, punishments, and resistance from Rome.