UK to drop term 'War on Terror'

2007-04-16 04:20:43

#1

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6558569.stm

A realisation of the reality and hard facts means that the UK government will be dropping the term 'war on terror'. Better late than never.

Labour MP Hilary Benn: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone. And because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. It is the vast majority of the people in the world against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common. What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others, without dialogue, without debate, through violence. And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength."

President Bush once said: "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." - one of the stupidest most short-sighted impossible pieces of nonsense I have ever heard out of his gutterlike mind.

This announcement by Blair's Labour Party is exactly what I've been saying all along. Bravo UK - only about 4 years too late though.

2007-04-16 04:23:45

#2

mKmalfunction: Infamous meleeKings cult. Est. 2003 B.C.; +82|6990|The Lost Highway

But without an easily identifiable name like the 'War on Terror,' how will people know we're combating terrorists?

/sarcasim

2007-04-16 04:58:27

#3

JahManRed: wank; +646|7078|IRELAND

Seams like the UK government has finally started to turn away from blindly following and repeating anything the Bush Administration feeds them. Blair grows some balls finally.............just as he's about to leave.

2007-04-16 07:55:12

#4

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|7099

They should have renamed it The War Against Terror. Much better acronym.

2007-04-16 07:57:56

#5

krazed: Admiral of the Bathtub; +619|7230|Great Brown North

ghettoperson wrote:
They should have renamed it The War Against Terror. Much better acronym.

+1

about time someone did >.<

Last edited by krazed (2007-04-16 07:58:45)

2007-04-16 07:59:44

#6

Hunter/Jumper: Member; +117|6805

that will make all the difference, I breath easy now

2007-04-16 08:00:18

#7

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7006

More links...

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europ … index.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ … 675746.htm

2007-04-16 08:01:46

#8

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7212

You people and words.

2007-04-16 08:03:26

#9

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7006

usmarine2005 wrote:
You people and words.

Words kill my friend.

2007-04-16 08:03:27

#10

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7208|Argentina

Great, now they only need to invent the time machine.

2007-04-16 08:04:47

#11

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,074|7222|PNW

CameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6558569.stm

A realisation of the reality and hard facts means that the UK government will be dropping the term 'war on terror'. Better late than never.

Labour MP Hilary Benn: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone. And because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.

So, when do you suppose all the other "war on" phrases will be dropped? After visiting a buddy's house that had cable, I was getting all geared up for a "war on bad TV."

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-04-16 08:05:53)

2007-04-16 08:07:28

#12

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7006

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6558569.stm

A realisation of the reality and hard facts means that the UK government will be dropping the term 'war on terror'. Better late than never.

Labour MP Hilary Benn: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone. And because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.
So, when do you suppose all the other "war on" phrases will be dropped?

The connotation of the word 'War' in the phrase 'War on Terror' is universally understood to entail violence (and probably understood to mean 'War on Islam' in the middle east), the connotation of the word 'War' in the phrase 'War on Poverty' is universally understood to entail aggressive charity work. Using the term 'War on Terror' confuses people. They think the 'War in Iraq' is the 'War on Terror' when in reality the war in Iraq is actually increasing terrorism and has little or nothing to do with stopping the spread of terrorism at this stage.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-16 08:09:16)

2007-04-16 08:29:59

#13

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|7121|UK

War on terror sucks hairy balls. Marines die, politicans and fat cat corporations get their profits.

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2007-04-16 08:35:12

#14

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6740|Éire

Glad to see Britain dropping the semantic bull shit Bush likes to rely on. The 'War on Terror' was a handy concept for Bush to use to label 'enemies' that didn't quite fit in with his preferred political position. It was also a scary concept to think of the enemy as Terror itself (a Kaiser Sose style bad guy that lurks in every dark corner!).

Simply bundling every disparate terrorist or revolutionary group in the world into one convenient global 'force' is just oversimplifying in the extreme ...and the idea that the 'War on Terror' would only be won when every terrorist out there is defeated is just testament to the man's warped perception of the world (I mean does anything out there really think such a feat is even possible?).

I prefer Borat's term 'War of Terror'!

2007-04-16 08:58:45

#15

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6673|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:
usmarine2005 wrote:
You people and words.
Words kill my friend.

I don't really understand what you mean here, are you saying that words kill as much as fighting? cause if thats the case then talking to calm a situation is no different to you using a rifle.

2007-04-16 09:05:10

#16

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|7006

M.O.A.B wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
usmarine2005 wrote:
You people and words.
Words kill my friend.
I don't really understand what you mean here, are you saying that words kill as much as fighting? cause if thats the case then talking to calm a situation is no different to you using a rifle.

Words control minds which in turn control weaponry. Think Hitler and the Jews.

2007-04-16 09:09:47

#17

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6740|Éire

Cameronpoe wrote:
Words control minds which in turn control weaponry. Think Hitler and the Jews.

Exactly, do you think America would be at war right now if Bush just stood at his microphone podium in silence? An extension of this would be resolutions: legal wordings providing a platform for violence and aggressive foreign policy ...words can kill.

2007-04-16 10:44:10

#18

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6673|Escea

Oh, Ok just didn't fully understand what you meant

2007-04-16 11:01:08

#19

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7051|132 and Bush

Wars are not fought by "military means alone". Psychological warfare is nothing new. However most of you know how I feel about the absurdity of a term called "War on Terror". War on militant Islam would probably fit though.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-04-16 11:08:42

#20

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7208|Argentina

Kmarion wrote:
Wars are not fought by "military means alone". Psychological warfare is nothing new. However most of you know how I feel about the absurdity of a term called "War on Terror". War on militant Islam would probably fit though.

No, it would not. You should not include the word Islam at all, that would be offensive, even if you use the term militant. We should remember that Islam is a Religion with 1,5 billion adepts, so we can't generalize about all those people.
I think this could be called "The War on Intolerance".

2007-04-16 11:21:24

#21

topal63: . . .; +533|7168

sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Wars are not fought by "military means alone". Psychological warfare is nothing new. However most of you know how I feel about the absurdity of a term called "War on Terror". War on militant Islam would probably fit though.
No, it would not. You should not include the word Islam at all, that would be offensive, even if you use the term militant. We should remember that Islam is a Religion with 1,5 billion adepts, so we can't generalize about all those people.
I think this could be called "The War on Intolerance".

I think it should just be called terrorism, exclude the word "war", exclude singling out any specific group, and call it what it really is: a security issue. Why can't it be referred to as a National Security issue - simply called by the one word that describes what it is: terrorism.

Homegrown - a variation.
IRA - an Irish variant (hopefully more or less over & done).
A loose limited # group of Muslim fanatics - another variation.
Etc.
Future - who knows what other variants might pop up?

Why can't it be framed in that context, like: "What is being done about terrorism as a threat to National Security?" This applies to any country - not just America.

2007-04-16 11:26:18

#22

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7094

Kmarion wrote:
Psychological warfare

2007-04-16 12:11:17

#23

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6795|Twyford, UK

Sheesh, someone finally listens to me. I've been complaining that you can't declare war on a concept for years, now.
At least the BBC have stopped stealing my music files.

I think this means I need to look for bugs again.

2007-04-16 12:16:01

#24

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7094

terror isnt as much as a concept as it is an emotional reaction, i think. you could always fight a concept. Isms are concepts, just about every war in history is fought over them. terror is a reaction to the acts or threat of acts. its fear. i would have been much more happier if it were called "War to counter Iranian hegemony" or "War to maintain an experienced military" but i i dont care in the end. war is war is war is war.

2007-04-16 12:25:48

#25

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7051|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Wars are not fought by "military means alone". Psychological warfare is nothing new. However most of you know how I feel about the absurdity of a term called "War on Terror". War on militant Islam would probably fit though.
No, it would not. You should not include the word Islam at all, that would be offensive, even if you use the term militant. We should remember that Islam is a Religion with 1,5 billion adepts, so we can't generalize about all those people.
I think this could be called "The War on Intolerance".

I call a spade a spade. If someone calls the Crusades a war of militant Christianity I feel the same. I don't think we should cater our terms around the ignorance of others and their inability to decipher the difference between extremes and moderates. Unfortunately the people who took the lives of some 3,000+ told us they did it in the name of Allah. It is personal responsibility that requires us to apply common sense to understand the difference in the two. Political correctness is just a mask.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

BF2S Forums UK to drop term 'War on Terror'

ghettoperson wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Cameronpoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Board footer