BF2S Forums UK to drop term 'War on Terror'

Kmarion wrote:

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.

I'm not being PC.  I'm being fair to the 1,5 billion Muslim people who aren't extremists.

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

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.

I'm not being PC.  I'm being fair to the 1,5 billion Muslim people who aren't extremists.

Nor are they Militant.

No.

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Nor are they Militant.

No.

1.5 billion seems like an awful lot of people to let their so called "peaceful religion" to be ravaged by sooooooooo few radicals. I also can't imagine that soooooooooo few radicals can manipulate the entire world such as it has. Any chance that a lot of those 1.5 billion endorse the actions of their radicals. For me, I consider them, standing by, and watching it happen, makes them part of the problem.

No it doesn't.  The few that cause problem are willing to die for their poorly interpreted and what can only be described as fucked up beliefs.  That means they can and will undertake act of terror that are beyond comprehension.....often helped by inept national security officials of course.  And thus the attention they receive will always gloss over any condemnation from the rest of the Muslim population.  the 9/11 revenge mantra resonates amongst the US, those fucking sand digging cock sucking camel jockeys are going to pay...right?

You can imagine, you're just not willing too.  You want to dissimulate and collectively label 1.5 billion people are purveyors of death and destruction.  You want blood and you want Muslim blood...of which thousands of gallons has already been spilt 10,000 miles East of your neo con arse.  So why do you want more?  You've got what you wanted.

Last edited by m3thod (2007-04-16 14:10:53)

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Nor are they Militant.

No.

1.5 billion seems like an awful lot of people to let their so called "peaceful religion" to be ravaged by sooooooooo few radicals. I also can't imagine that soooooooooo few radicals can manipulate the entire world such as it has. Any chance that a lot of those 1.5 billion endorse the actions of their radicals. For me, I consider them, standing by, and watching it happen, makes them part of the problem.

That could have been said by Stalin, Hitler...

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

No.

1.5 billion seems like an awful lot of people to let their so called "peaceful religion" to be ravaged by sooooooooo few radicals. I also can't imagine that soooooooooo few radicals can manipulate the entire world such as it has. Any chance that a lot of those 1.5 billion endorse the actions of their radicals. For me, I consider them, standing by, and watching it happen, makes them part of the problem.

That could have been said by Stalin, Hitler...

In the same way that you blame 1.5 billion Muslims for not stopping the actions of a few, you could blame 300 million Americans for not stopping that sick fucker from going on a shooting spree. Both things are absolutely out of the control of the vast majority of the group. Americans have a global image as being gun obsessed, yet Americans claim it is only a small handfull that are going around killing people, the rest of the Americans are decent people. By your logic, to have gained that reputation Americans are gun obsessed and do all go around shooting people. That's false and so is your generalisation of all Muslims being at fault for not stopping a tiny minority of nutters.

one number?

PureFodder wrote:

In the same way that you blame 1.5 billion Muslims for not stopping the actions of a few, you could blame 300 million Americans for not stopping that sick fucker from going on a shooting spree.

I'm afraid cold logic is generally lost on lowing. He would never understand something like that. Great parallel. +1

rabee2789b wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

one number?

number one?

much better

It's about time they got their wording right.
On another note:
lowing, once again your logic is beyond me. Where were you when Bush declared War on Iraq? Where were you, in that case, in the shootings that keep taking place in the USA? The KKK meetings that still take place? Do you realize how much of a hypocrite you make yourself? The USA, contrary to your apparent belief, is nowhere near perfect.

-konfusion

m3thod wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

No.

1.5 billion seems like an awful lot of people to let their so called "peaceful religion" to be ravaged by sooooooooo few radicals. I also can't imagine that soooooooooo few radicals can manipulate the entire world such as it has. Any chance that a lot of those 1.5 billion endorse the actions of their radicals. For me, I consider them, standing by, and watching it happen, makes them part of the problem.

No it doesn't.  The few that cause problem are willing to die for their poorly interpreted and what can only be described as fucked up beliefs.  That means they can and will undertake act of terror that are beyond comprehension.....often helped by inept national security officials of course.  And thus the attention they receive will always gloss over any condemnation from the rest of the Muslim population.  the 9/11 revenge mantra resonates amongst the US, those fucking sand digging cock sucking camel jockeys are going to pay...right?

You can imagine, you're just not willing too.  You want to dissimulate and collectively label 1.5 billion people are purveyors of death and destruction.  You want blood and you want Muslim blood...of which thousands of gallons has already been spilt 10,000 miles East of your neo con arse.  So why do you want more?  You've got what you wanted.

actually you got me all wrong, I don't give a shit about Islam or seeking Islamic blood. It just so happens the people that are against the western way of life in today's modern world just so happens to be Muslim.

As soon as the Irish start committing terrorist attacks against the US I will pretty much hate what they have done as well and want those responsible to pay for their crimes. I will also hate any Irishmen that rejoices in the street celebrating the action of their countrymen. I will hate, any Irishmen that stands by and LETS their country do this shit without lifting a finger to stop it.

I would probably hate the Irish, if the US helped them gain their independence from England, and then they turned on us.

The only problem I have with Islam is, IT IS ISLAM that is doing this now. Their religion does not preach tolerance toward ANYONE. Yet you defend it.

If it were purple fuckin' dinosaurs, I will have a problem with them as well. Hope that clears it up

PureFodder wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

1.5 billion seems like an awful lot of people to let their so called "peaceful religion" to be ravaged by sooooooooo few radicals. I also can't imagine that soooooooooo few radicals can manipulate the entire world such as it has. Any chance that a lot of those 1.5 billion endorse the actions of their radicals. For me, I consider them, standing by, and watching it happen, makes them part of the problem.

That could have been said by Stalin, Hitler...

In the same way that you blame 1.5 billion Muslims for not stopping the actions of a few, you could blame 300 million Americans for not stopping that sick fucker from going on a shooting spree. Both things are absolutely out of the control of the vast majority of the group. Americans have a global image as being gun obsessed, yet Americans claim it is only a small handfull that are going around killing people, the rest of the Americans are decent people. By your logic, to have gained that reputation Americans are gun obsessed and do all go around shooting people. That's false and so is your generalisation of all Muslims being at fault for not stopping a tiny minority of nutters.

actually the shooting spree is stopped, the fucker is dead. Also, it didn't take long for some of the 300 million people t oshow up and police its own people ( cops). Bad analogy. Not to mention, this shooting spree does not affect anything out side that campus.

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Nor are they Militant.

No.

1.5 billion seems like an awful lot of people to let their so called "peaceful religion" to be ravaged by sooooooooo few radicals. I also can't imagine that soooooooooo few radicals can manipulate the entire world such as it has. Any chance that a lot of those 1.5 billion endorse the actions of their radicals. For me, I consider them, standing by, and watching it happen, makes them part of the problem.

Christians have Radicals and Extremists causing havoc around the world. The numbers remain relatively small. Just as Radical Islam was before 9/11.  I can't remember the exact wording but in one of Osama's video's he said that the 9/11 attacks would be a catalyst to inflame Islam. And the coalition played right into his hands by bombing and invading Predominately Muslim countries. No matter what the original intentions, the war in Iraqi and Afghanistan have increased terrorism and drove thousands of young impressionable Muslims into the hands of extremists.
If our TV screens were full of pictures and videos night after night of an overwhelmingly powerful force of Arabs bombing and killing christian women & children for what? 4 years now. You can bet their would be young Christians flocking to try and intervene. Can you imagine the reaction of Randy Weaver Types? All ready armed to the teeth with an ingrained hatred for anyone different.............do you think people like him would have a problem attacking people they perceive as being responsible for the communal punishment of hundreds of thousands of Christians? All I ask Lowing is that you try and look at things if say roles were reversed, do you think our reaction would be much different?

The US & UK have to realise that violence breads violence. Throwing more troops or getting tougher will only inflame the situation. I thought the UK would have learned that fact in Northern Ireland and possibly advised Bush accordingly. Maybe they did, I doubt they would have listened if they did.

usmarine2005 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

You people and words.

Words kill my friend.

Weak minded people who let words control them kill, I would agree with that.

Let me put it this way, at the end of the year what would you appreciate more from your boss, a nice thank you or more money?

You're right with your 'weak minded' comment. Of course I'd take the money. The analogy still holds however as per your comment about the 'weak minded'.