It’s not surprising to me that a member of Tony Blair’s cabinet is no longer wanting to use the phrase, “war on terror”. When Bush first used this term after 9/11/01, it seemed at first to be the most plausible title to use considering what Americans and the world had just witnessed in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania. We thought we knew who our enemy was in an instant (hey, we were in shock) and we knew that we had felt terrorized. Made sense to most of us until we realized one day and said out loud, “Hey wait a minute? How can we have a war on an ambiguous feeling or action? That would be like having a ‘war on love’ or a ‘war on embarrassment’ or a ‘war on drugs’! It’s not real clear who the enemy is and having a ‘war’ on it just doesn’t make sense!”. Well, after five years of using this term, Hilary Benn of Blair’s cabinet is now realizing the same thing.
From the Associated Press via AOL News:
LONDON (April 17) – A member of Tony Blair ’s Cabinet on Monday brought out into the open a quiet shift away from the U.S. view on combatting extremist groups, acknowledging that British officials have stopped using the expression “war on terror ” favored by President Bush .
>
International Development Secretary Hilary Benn, a rising star of the governing Labour Party, said the phrase strengthens terrorists by making them feel part of a bigger struggle.
>
“In the U.K., 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 organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives,” Benn told a meeting in New York organized by the Center on International Cooperation think tank.
>
He said the real struggle pits the “vast majority” of the world’s people “against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.”
He’s right and so wasn’t John Kerry back in 2004 when he was running for the presidency. He said terrorism can not be combated by killing Iraqi women, men, and children. He said the best way to catch the terrorists is to treat them and their actions like a ‘nuisance’ by setting up stings like the police and FBI do when they want to catch a prostitute, her ‘John’, drug dealers and buyers. You put the ‘carrot’ out there and the bad guys will come…guaranteed!
Of course, Bush would never dream of catching the terrorists in this fashion. Why? Because I believe we’re not actually fighting a ‘war on terror’ and we haven’t been right from the start! He and his minions that surround him wanted to get back into Iraq prior to 9/11/01 and wanted to get in there to capture the oil and then continue on to other countries while using Iraq as their central front for their own evil agenda. That’s exactly what is happening too. Bush wants us to believe that we are fighting a ‘war on terror’, but really, it’s just a slogan to give the illusion that we are in great peril and need to continue the fight against an enemy that we have no idea what they look like!
Garry Hindle, a terrorism expert at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, said the terrorist threat facing Britain – starkly revealed by the July 7, 2005, transit attacks that killed 52 London commuters – made officials realize the limitations of an abstract phrase like “war on terror.”
>
“In the U.K. we can’t consider the domestic problem with terrorism to be a war where you must be on one side or another,” he said. “It requires a much deeper sensitivity than that.”
Just like we observed yesterday at Virginia Tech…if someone or a group wants to terrorize and murder large groups of people or just one, they’ll find a way to do it and will use any means possible. It’s almost impossible to have a ‘war on massacres’ or a ‘war on terror’, because the enemy always changes, but what can happen is we can have an observant populace to report threats to our police etc., we can have our police & investigative teams set up stings to fool the enemy, and we can stop using violence to combat violence, because all that does is cause more hatred which is the original fuel for both.
Hey, I’m not saying I have all the answers, but I’m happy to see that some of the Brits are now realizing the phrase ‘war on terror’ is way too abstract to be used if the ultimate goal is safety and peace. Will George W. Bush eventually stop using this phrase? *screaming laughter* Doubt it. He has not learned yet how to be a good leader. He would never use rational and proven techniques to catch those who wish to harm us, because he’s a barbarian.
Here’s a great quote/response:
How much blame do you place on Reaganomics for the changes in the workplace that you argue lead to rage attacks?
Put it this way: rage murders in the workplace never existed anywhere in history until Reagan came to power. Reagan made it respectable to be a mean, stupid bastard in this country. He is the patron saint of white suckers. He unleashed America’s Heart of Vileness — its penchant for hating people who didn’t get rich, and worshipping people who despise them, and this is the essence of Reaganomics.
http://www.alternet.org/story/24796/
You’re right. Enough of “the war on terror.” It’s wrong. Always has been. It should have been “the war on liberal pigs” all along. After all, it is the liberalism that is America’s true enemy. I say, “shoot ‘em where you see ‘um.” Has a nice ring to it, don’t cha’ think?
Thanks for proving you’re a vile Pig, Lee. You’re good for our cause here in the Liberal Left Blogosphere! Keep talking!
The death of our nation started with Reagan. Awwwwwwwwwww, how does it feel Lee knowing that it was a republican who started the vileness that we see today in our country?
From Newsmax.com
04/17/07
Sen. Hillary Clinton is said to be among the hardest working and most respected senators, so say the media spinmeisters.
But so far, Sen. Clinton has won the endorsement of just one senatorial colleague in her bid to run for president, according to The Hill newspaper.
The lone Clinton supporter is, not surprisingly, Sen. Charles Schumer, her fellow Democrat from New York.
Hillary has also won the endorsement Playboy founder Hugh Hefner.
*******************************************
Yaaaaa Ha! ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha! Chucky boy and the titty meister! LOL! Maybe if the Hildebeast will agree to pose nude for Playboy she’ll get another supporter; her hubby, Billy “Blowjob” himself! LOL!
You’d be a hooker in Moscow if it hadn’t been for Reagan! No wonder your pissed! What a great opportunity that would have been for you! For shame, for shame, now all your relagated to is spewing hatred around the world via the internet and your own yankee commune.
Newsmax
04/17/07
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards has drawn criticism for shelling out $400 for a haircut – twice.
Edwards’ campaign finance reports disclose that his campaign spent $400 at Torrenueva Hair Designs in Beverly Hills, owned by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva, on Feb. 20. Two weeks later, the campaign spent another $400 there, reports the Los Angeles Times – which noted: “Two $400 stylings may cost John Edwards’ campaign in shear mockery.â€
“In this day and age, particularly when you’re a candidate positioning yourself as a spokesman for the middle class, the common person, it doesn’t make any sense,†pundit Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the University of Southern California’s School of Policy, Planning and Development, told the L.A. Times.
*******************************************
YES! Once again the dems show their hypocrisy and contempt for the middle class. How perfect. And you libs worship these clowns. Unbelievable.
Lee, will you give Bush a blow job so Americans can impeach him? Please? Over 68% of the country hates your president and there is nothing you can do or say that will change our minds.
How much does George W. Bush pay for a haircut? How come Laura Bush spent $8000 for a dress? How much money does it cost the American people when Georgie hops on his big plane to spread his lies, deceits, distortions, manipulations, lies, deceits, and outright lies?
How much money does George Bush give to the poor charities?
How much money does George Bush spend on his suits? (I bet at least $2000!)
Huh Lee? See how petty and stupid you’re being?
Lee, how come you didn’t light a candle for the victims of Virginia Tech? Glad they’re dead? You support a man who loves raping, torturing, and killing people so it’s not surprising that you won’t do this!
Reagan spit on the American dream. He was a hateful son of a bitch.
I’ve always said St. Ronnie Raygun is the patron saint of Bu$hcon. The fall of the middle-class working man started with him.
Pee-In-Houston troll won’t have his hate spewing gravy job once Peak Oil gets into its stride. He’ll be living in a cardboard box under a bridge like all trolls.
Reagan spit on liberals. He knew liberals were the true enemy of America. And as evidenced by history, liberals recoiled in paralyzing fear of Reagan like a vampire recoils from the crusifix. Yes, these are undeniable facts. Reagan stood up to communists and liberals and their hives of plunder and lies was revealed to the world for what they are.
Reagan was a terrorist. Negroponte is a terrorist.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5457
Part of the problem is that our collective memory is geared to the short-term, newest, fastest, brightest bling-thing to come along.
Political terrorism has been perpetrated by both Empirical Powers and bands of thugs throughout history. The best we can do is recognise it for what it is and withdraw our support for those who commit crimes against humanity. That goes for the current regime in Washington DC, and for the Taliban, equally for nutty religio-death worshippers from any camp.
[...] Will George W. Bush stop using the phrase, ‘war on terror’ ? [...]