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.' [more]
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.
14 comments:
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.
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".
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..
Thats partly true, but it can diffuse racism or at least that racism based on the WoT mentality, which is good for muslims abroad.
Shouldn't we banning the word "WAR". The word WAR in itself denotes hostility. What are the causes & who are the perpetrators?
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?
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
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 ?
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:)
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
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.
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.
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 ?
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
Post a Comment