Monday, December 11, 2006

Banning the term 'War on Terror'

The winds look like they are turning in Britain lately. I was pleased to read that the "Foreign Office has asked ministers to ditch the phrase invented by Bush " WoT , yay ( hattip my new Libyan friend PH ).

Excerpts :

Cabinet ministers have been told by the Foreign Office to drop the phrase 'war on terror' and other terms seen as liable to anger British Muslims and increase tensions more broadly in the Islamic world. The shift marks a turning point in British political thinking about the strategy against extremism and underlines the growing gulf between the British and American approaches to the continuing problem of radical Islamic militancy. It comes amid increasingly evident disagreements between President George Bush and Tony Blair over policy in the Middle East. [...]
'It's about time,' said Garry Hindle, terrorism expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London. 'Military terminology is completely counter-productive, merely contributing to isolating communities. This is a very positive move.' [

I echo that , this step to me means that the UK is finally thinking of its national interest vis-a-vis the US. Being allies does not necessarily entitle being without a personality. So good for you Britain. However, it does not mean that we in the ME should be blinded by this change of strategy because we remember history and the possibility of it repeating itself. But we should be seizing these opportunities for rapprochement and building bridges, so kudos to the Foreign Office.


Anonymous said...

I did not know about that and I live here!
the reality is that the majority of British people do not support Tony Blair and his alliance with the USA, its probably all to do with elections and the lack of the popularity of the labour party.

Anonymous said...

A positive surprise indeed. For a long time the Blair foreign policy was hinging on such rhethoric.

Of course we must stop (or minimize) terrorism but the the "WoT" is a term that actually obfuscates the issues. It is no more meaningful a term than for example declaring "war on poverty".

Anonymous said...

and the "war on drugs" and the "war on aids" etc etc.. any emotive term devoid of any real meaning or significance.. to rally the public stooges into a flag flying frenzy..

anyway.. declaring use of the term, then declaring its rejection is nothing but propaganda spoon fed to the public.. changes nothing in pragmatic policy.. just a shift in the lies..

Anonymous said...

Thats partly true, but it can diffuse racism or at least that racism based on the WoT mentality, which is good for muslims abroad.

Non-Blogging said...

OK, guys, you're unhappy with the term, right?

I've been unhappy myself with what has been done in the name of the term rather than the term itself (although I subscribe to Adam and Mani's thinking that terror here is a politically motivated term and we're talking about a non-conventional war that will never end, just like the war on drugs or poverty).

Despite that, Anglo Libyan, the British people have guaranteed Blair & Co. several victories in elections. To say that the majority don't support him is wishful thinking. That's how democracy works - whatever we wish, often we're in the minority with our wishes and we just have to live with that cruel fact. And, dear anonymous, there's no connection whatsoever between WoT and racism. High time to end blaming racist thinking for the stupidities Bush and Blair have done - it's political wishful thinking gone wrong and in Blair's case, a nasty case of being - I put this deliberately provocatively now - a Quisling light to another power's interests, not racism. If you disagree, prove your point please. (No conspiracy theories are accepted by me as valid.)

Last but not least, all you against the term WoT, how would you then call the developments or action yourselves?

red_enclave: From Behind Closed Doors said...

Shouldn't we banning the word "WAR". The word WAR in itself denotes hostility. What are the causes & who are the perpetrators?

Anonymous said...

I didn't blame racism on the WoT, but a lot of people use the WoT as an excuse to vent their racist mentality or to justify racist actions.
That happened in the US during the iran-embassy problem where their was a rise in racist attacks, in the UK during the Lockerbie incident, in the arab world today against westerners because of Iraq.
That is my opinion not a fact, and as i said before the racism i'm refering to is the "racism based on the WoT mentality" and I'm not generalizing with regards to racism there are many other reasons but the latest increase i think is attributed to the WoT.
Its true the WoT is similar to the other wars in the way it is being used but unlike the other wars you mentioned their isn't a consensus on what terror is, in the UN the US and israel and the UK objected to a common definition of terror that could include them, like they objected to the international crimes tribunal. So we know what drugs are and what poverty is, but who defines terror?

As for the last section i didn't get exactly what your referring to, so could u please elaborate, with regards to conspiracy theories?

As for the name of the development how about :

War of Terror

Isn't shock and awe the military doctrine of this war?

Anonymous said...

H, j'aimerais que tu me dises ce que tu penses de ce reportage que je viens de découvrir, réalité ou fiction ?

How Bn Laden could have been killed by the frenchs in Afghanistan

on peut se poser la question pourquoi

Highlander said...

It's off topic but I will answer because the question is interesting :P Nomad

Donc, ce reportage ma l'air reglo et il est tres possible a mon avis. Au faite bin laden et co. servent mieux en vit comme epouvantails que mort. Comme dirait Sherlock 'mais c'est evident mon cher Watson'. Est - il possible que au moins depuis 2001 nos chers amis d'outre atlantique n'ais pas reussit a approcher un homme en deroute et apparament malade en plus ? non mais on nous prends pour l'idiot du village ?

Anonymous said...

Ma chère HL, I disagree.

It is true, it would be the only motive I could imagine, but I find it more likely that it is not true. If they wanted to use OBL, as a red flag, as a "threat", in some Machiavellian way of thinking, then how come they so rarely mention him? Tell me. I think it is because they are embarrased that they havnt got a clue. Grand old comedian, Donnie Rumsfeld put it nicely:

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."
No it was not David Letterman who said it:)

Anonymous said...

ce que j'ai entendu ici, c'est que la famille de W serait le "grand argentier" de la famille BL, on ne va quand même pas tuer un client si plein aux as

Libyan Warrior( The King Of Al-Andalaus) said...

The Exact Oppisite is occuring in the United States. I much rather have a blank statement such as the war on terror then the war on Islamofacism. Everyone can support a war on terror, who likes terror, bu when you equate Islam with facism, and call a "crusade" on it, and have every christian preacher from John Hagee to Pat Robertson calling Islam a evil religion and meeting with the president every week, well thats bad. With the war on terror, I and I am sure many other people, can sleep better at night knowing that while It is a war on Islam at least they put daisies around the word usage, and they are not coming to put us in the concentration camps( they have started to do so), or lynch us outside our homes( they havent started this yet, or at least whatever lynchings have occured from my knowledge President Bush didnt order them).

We went from the War on Terror, to the War on Islamic Extreamism, to The War on Islamofacism, and Now The War for the West and against Islam, as many politicians, and well know big namers like Rush, Bill O riley, Savage, Levin, and the latest addition to the Klansmen family Glen Beck.

Highlander said...

Welcome back NBA :) and welcome to my blog Mani :)

NBA the term WoT is offensive from the start and creates a mentality of guilt with no chance of proving innocence, and like anonymous said it does allow those with a racist agenda to vent their feelings and find excuses - we have seen that even among commenters on various blogs :P

Mani changes nothing in pragmatic policy.. just a shift in the lies..

yes that is why i said However, it does not mean that we in the ME should be blinded by this change of strategy because we remember history and the possibility of it repeating itself.

Anglo Libyan LOL admit it you don't read the news :P - actually I would have missed it if HP did not send it.

Adam :) I almost never disagree with you.

Redenclave , yes if only we can remove WAR from the dictionary and from real life *sigh*

Anonymous, I 've been waiting for a definition of terror for so long - I once enumerated 2 pages of definitions i found in every possible source from the UN to more obscure organisations. Still no consensus.

Libyan Warrior( The King Of Al-Andalaus) said...

All in all, what I am trying to say is their is a billion things worse then the "war on terror".

Anonymous said...

HL:) we sometimes may disagree on the details, but very rarely on the big pic.

Nomad:) Sure some Saudis such as the BLs have biz with the Ws and even more the Rs, but I am under the impression the O is not so hot in his own family.

LW, the WoT, ( I lovethe sound of that) is pretty evil because it use use as a pretext that in the end hurts a lot of innocent ppl.

Libyan Warrior( The King Of Al-Andalaus) said...

As Far as Building Bridges with the Brits, my question is why build a bridege with a dying, if not dead power, who deep down inside hates you, your religion, your culture, your race, your people, your ethnicity, and everything that you are?

They have killed 100's of Millions of us, and even up to this day, they re still killing us.

We Wont forget what the Brits, and the europeans, have done, and we wont forgive what they have done.

Like I said, we need ties with the rising beasts of the east, and when the time comes, we need to lend them bases on the Meditteranin, so they can get to Europe.

The White Man will learn, and he will taste the same exact, eye for an eye bitterness that we have tasted for these past couple of centuries.

I know one thing when we outnuber them here in the states, I dont think the Black police officers will forget happened to Roodnie, when people of their national orgin run the government, and a nice quite anglo is peacefully driving home, or a a Anglo guy like Sean in NY who is pulling out of a drive way and gets 50 bullets threw his body.

And I dont think the Arab Americans will forget the Dubia Ports Deal, and the systematic annialation of their Countries, and people back home. The Complete and total destruction of their nations, I havent forgoten what happened when anglos bombed Libya, and I was not even born then.

Maybe and hopefully one day a United States president of Arab, Black, or Asian Decent will wage a war on terror in europe and all of our allies will be Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, and we can treat them the exact way they have treated us and with that they can all renounce their culture and homelands, and change their names from Albert to Ali, and From Mike to Malik.

Yup nice old euro Boy can tell us , hey man I aint from france, I am from Lebonan,ect.. wouldnt that be the day.

Oh well one can only dream right. :)

Highlander said...

I understand the temptation for that dream LW, but the feeling of overcoming one' wish for vengence is better in God's eyes. That is why I say we build bridges wiith the good people in the West and build a life and try to become better examples in this way we defeat the evil people..or is that a dream too ?

Non-Blogging said...

Anonymous, thanks for the clarification.

However, I need a daily quota of disagreeing with someone in this blog, so this time it's this sentence ;-):

So we know what drugs are and what poverty is, but who defines terror?

Terror can't be defined neutrally because the whole matter is overtly politicized but but so are drugs and poverty. What is considered an illegal substance depends on the country - coca leaves are legal in the Andes but illegal pretty much elsewhere while alcohol is considered an illegal substance in some Muslim countries while elsewhere it's considered not much different from soft drinks (France) or a harmful but legal drink (Northern Europe). And so on.

The same goes or poverty. An official definition is living with under $ 1 a day which means completely different things in an African village or an industrialized Western city.

Summa summarum, wars - if absolutely necessary anyway - should only be waged against concrete, easily definable enemies, not against absurd entities which can't be beaten or which can't surrender.

Also, it's quite pathetic that the main face of the WoT skipped a good chance to wage real war himself defending freedom and all these niceties in Vietnam and preferred staying home with the help of Daddy's connections. Not a credible guy to lead a war, IMHO.

By the way, it's interesting that if the term WoT would not be used anymore but something more politically correct, would that affect the contents as well? I do doubt. Another example is I guess what's happened after the cartoon clash (my favourite topic I love getting back to regularly). How many different work shops have there been arranged afterwards on interfaith dialogue and all other things which sound nice but what's the contents? I doubt it's mostly Westerners apologizing for the cartoons, not a real dialogue which would mean an equal exchange of opinions by both sides.

Anonymous said...

I complete your sentence : while elsewhere it's considered not much different from soft drinks (France)

soft drinks : wine
any other alcool is considered as harmful as northern countries

Enlightenment said...

Speaking of the “war on terror”, let’s take a few moments and look at some of the details of the horrible event that precipitated it and around which America’s foreign policy has been inextricably wrapped ever since that awful morning.

One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch, with someone who was there when he was attempting to fly a small airplane saying that Hanjour was so clumsy that he was unsure if he had driven a car before. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports after Mohammed Atta supposedly leaves two rental cars at two impossibly far-removed locations. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name ("Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham"), more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that doesn't look like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces most no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Further making themselves look guilty, the Bush administration steadfastly refused for over a year to allow a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed, only agreeing to it on the conditions that they get to dictate its scope, meaning it was based on the false pretense of the "official story" being true with no other alternatives allowed to be considered, handpicked all its members making sure the ones picked had vested interests in the truth remaining buried, and with Bush and Cheney only "testifying" together, only for an hour, behind closed doors, with their attorneys present and with their "testimonies" not being recorded by tape or even written down in notes. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastic far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

Debunking Popular Mechanics lies:
someone else debunking Popular Mechanics crap:
still more debunking Popular Mechanics:
and still more debunking of Popular Mechanics:

Popular Mechanics staff replaced just before laughable “debunking” article written:
another neo-con 9/11 hit piece explodes, is retracted:
Professor Steven Jones debunks the N.I.S.T. “report” as well as the F.E.M.A. one and the 9/11 commission "report":
N.I.S.T. scientist interviewed:
F.B.I. says no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11 which is why his wanted poster says nothing about 9/11:
Fire Engineering magazine says important questions about the Twin Tower “collapses” still need to be addressed:

Twin Towers’ construction certifiers say they should have easily withstood it:
USA Today interview with the last man out of the South Tower, pursued by a fireball:
Janitor who heard explosions and escaped has testimony ignored by 9/11 whitewash commission:
Janitor starts speaking out about it and his apartment is burglarized, laptop stolen:
Firefighters tell of multiple explosions:
Eyewitnesses tell of explosions:
Interview with another firefighter telling of explosions:
Firefighter saw “sparkles” (strobe lights on detonators?) before “collapse”:
Other eyewitnesses talk of seeing/hearing explosions:
Surviving eyewitnesses talk of multiple explosions there:
Cutter charge explosions clearly visible:
The pyroclastic cloud (that dust cloud that a second before was concrete) and how it wouldn’t be possible without explosives:
Detailed description of the demolition of the Twin Towers:
Freefall rate of “collapses” math:
More about their freefall rate “collapses”:
Video footage of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:
Video footage of the controlled demolition of WTC # 7 building:
More of WTC # 7 controlled demolition:
Naudet brothers' video footage of the North Tower crash:
Photos of the Pentagon’s lawn (look at these and see if you can tell me with a straight face that a jumbo jet crashed there):!.htm
More photos of this amazing lawn at the Pentagon:!%20(9-11).htm
Very unconvincing fake “Osama” “confession” tape:
More about the fake “Osama” tape:
Fake “Mohammed Atta” “suicide” letter:
Commercial pilots disagree with “official” 9/11 myth:
More commercial jet pilots say “official” myth is impossible:
Impossibility of cell phone calls from United 93:
More about the impossible cell phone calls:
Experiment proves cell phone calls were NOT possible from anywhere near the altitude the “official” myth has them at:
Fake Barbara Olson phone call:
Where the hell was the Air Force?
More about the Air Force impotence question:
Sept. 10th 2001, Pentagon announces it is “missing” $2.3 trillion (now why do you think they picked THAT day to announce it? So it could be buried the next day by 9/11 news):
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan:
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan mentioned:
More on Unocal Afghan pipeline:
The attack on Afghanistan was planned in the summer of 2001, months before 9/11:
Pentagon deliberately misled 9/11 Commission:
Evidence destruction by authorities and cover-up:
9/11 whitewash Commission and NORAD day:
The incredible fish tales of the 9/11 Commission examined:
Jeb Bush declares state of emergency 4 days before 9/11 for Florida, saying it will help respond to terrorism:
Steel debris removal from Ground Zero, destruction of evidence:
Over two hundred incriminating bits of 9/11 evidence shown in the mainstream media:
Tracking the “hijackers”:
“Hijacker” patsies:
“Hijackers” receiving flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station:
Several accused "hijackers" still alive and well, wondering why they are accused:
Yet the F.B.I. insists that the people it claims were the "hijackers" really were the "hijackers":
No Arabs on Flight 77:
Thirty experts say “official” 9/11 myth impossible:
“Al Qaeda” website tracks back to Maryland:
Al Qaeda videos uploaded from U.S. government website:
Operation: Northwoods, a plan for a false-flag “terror” attack to be blamed on Castro to use it as a pretext for America to invade Cuba, thankfully not approved by Kennedy back in 1962 but was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent to his desk: