Security minister hates war on terror

#1
Telegraph.co.uk
Sir Alan west says he hates the phrase 'war on terror'.
About time. I always thought it was crap. :D
How are our friends across the pond going to receive this?
I hope for the sake of the special relationship that this new change of tack and terminology has their approval.
Any suggestions on new terms that could replace it?
Perhaps: 'The intelligence-led low-intensity global campaign against narrow-minded religious zealots'?
 
#3
Code:
Sir Alan west says he hates the phrase 'war on terror'.
About time. I always thought it was crap. Very Happy
Arh, but from the 'War on Terror''s architects point of view it was a superb term. They got to decide when it started, how it should be fought and when, if ever, it should end.
As a brand it was brilliant and swept the world. But like all crazes, like for instance the Spice Girl's 'Girrrl Power' its a craze that is now fading fast.
 
#4
So what is it now? "The war; ahem sorry; the collective of events to counter those people who may or may not share the etnicity, religious beliefs and morals of the greater majority of the population of all ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs' who bring their grievances to our attention by perpetrating activity and actions that, if you are unreasonable, could be said to imitating those elsewhere who commit terrorist acts"

FFS don't mention the F, the M, the I or the W words!
 
#5
western said:
So what is it now? "The war; ahem sorry; the collective of events to counter those people who may or may not share the etnicity, religious beliefs and morals of the greater majority of the population of all ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs' who bring their grievances to our attention by perpetrating activity and actions that, if you are unreasonable, could be said to imitating those elsewhere who commit terrorist acts"

FFS don't mention the F, the M, the I or the W words!
Perhaps the 'International Conflagration of Incomphrehensible Distress' might be a good title. But whilst that more or less sums it up I think, one would have to lose half a yard of syllables so that it might fit in a Sun headline.
 
#6
Does that mean they will pay someone else £200,000 to change the paperwork and documents with the new name on. :?

How about calling it
'The inconvenience that make a MP have to cancel his golf trip and turn up for work'.
 

Bits

War Hero
#7
The problem with the use of the word 'War' is that it lends credibility to BOTH sides. The implication of 'war' is that it is a legitimate armed conflict, where the 'combatants' on both sides could be justifiably termed 'soldiers'. It serves to legitimise acts of 'war' committed by both sides, and it does nothing to discourage people from taking the side to which they feel most closely represents their views and concerns, or to which they feel a kindred compulsion to support. The use of the term 'war' is downright wrong, and I have been saying this continuously from the outset e.g. here.

Let us never make the mistake of giving in to emotion and calling this something it is not. It is terrorism, it is criminal activity, it is completely wrong, and it is in no way a legitimate act.

We are not at war on terror. We are in a long-term process of detecting, preventing, punishing and deterring terrorist criminal activity.
 
#8
Always thought The War Against Terror to be most appropriate. Especially given the big players on both sides.....
 
#9
And while we discuss what it is, they will not give a toss and kick our asses while our eye is off the ball.
 
#10
western said:
And while we discuss what it is, they will not give a toss and kick our asses while our eye is off the ball.
Thats a bit sinical Western for all you know the terrorists might be holding a board meeting to discuss the name right now, then form an action group to work out the name. In three or four months time they might then start addressing the issues just like our experts in the government do.

God wasnt Life of Brian too real at times.
 
#11
Machristo said:
Always thought The War Against Terror to be most appropriate. Especially given the big players on both sides.....
FFS - You beat me to T.W.A.T! :twisted:

That sounded so much less gay in my head...
 
#12
Is it a war? Yes.

Is it against terror? Er...yes.

War against terror then, despite the fact that it obviously upsets those who don't like broad brushes.
 
#13
The_IRON said:
western said:
And while we discuss what it is, they will not give a toss and kick our asses while our eye is off the ball.
Thats a bit sinical Western for all you know the terrorists might be holding a board meeting to discuss the name right now, then form an action group to work out the name. In three or four months time they might then start addressing the issues just like our experts in the government do.

God wasnt Life of Brian too real at times.
I stand corrected. Glad you spotted the LOB inference.
 
#14
"War" implies some for of symmetry and that we, the coallition of the willing, are configured, equipped and prepared to wage war against an indentified target.

I wouls suggest that we are presently none of the above, and the target is certainly one that will only get stronger the greater the amont of kinetic force that iss applied to it.

The Luftwaffe bombed us consitently for over 2 years. Why should we expect our adversaries to jack it in, when it had the opposite effect on us?

Certainly the shareholders of certain "defense" contractors will be feeling a lot better. I don't think the man on the Basra omnibus thinks that we are helping him to win a war.
 
#15
Bits said:
The problem with the use of the word 'War' is that it lends credibility to BOTH sides. The implication of 'war' is that it is a legitimate armed conflict, where the 'combatants' on both sides could be justifiably termed 'soldiers'. It serves to legitimise acts of 'war' committed by both sides, and it does nothing to discourage people from taking the side to which they feel most closely represents their views and concerns, or to which they feel a kindred compulsion to support. The use of the term 'war' is downright wrong, and I have been saying this continuously from the outset e.g. here.

Let us never make the mistake of giving in to emotion and calling this something it is not. It is terrorism, it is criminal activity, it is completely wrong, and it is in no way a legitimate act.

We are not at war on terror. We are in a long-term process of detecting, preventing, punishing and deterring terrorist criminal activity.


As "New Labour" have turned " The troubles " in NI into "New Appeasement" and at the end of the month there is officially "Peace", what about,

" The New Troubles"
or

"The Troubles, Mark II"
 
#16
the return of the jihadi's
the crusaders strike back
Crusade 2 this time its personal
troubles redux
etc etc :twisted:
 
#17
subbsonic said:
"War" implies some for of symmetry and that we, the coallition of the willing, are configured, equipped and prepared to wage war against an indentified target.

I wouls suggest that we are presently none of the above, and the target is certainly one that will only get stronger the greater the amont of kinetic force that iss applied to it.

The Luftwaffe bombed us consitently for over 2 years. Why should we expect our adversaries to jack it in, when it had the opposite effect on us?

Certainly the shareholders of certain "defense" contractors will be feeling a lot better. I don't think the man on the Basra omnibus thinks that we are helping him to win a war.
He'll soon realise it when we leave and the sky falls in.
 
#18
deadc0de said:
Telegraph.co.uk
Sir Alan west says he hates the phrase 'war on terror'.
About time. I always thought it was crap. :D
How are our friends across the pond going to receive this?
I hope for the sake of the special relationship that this new change of tack and terminology has their approval.
Any suggestions on new terms that could replace it?
Perhaps: 'The intelligence-led low-intensity global campaign against narrow-minded religious zealots'?

I think if you were to ask some of the troops serving in the dust at the minute, do they feel they are at war? Fighting up to 50 to 200 Taliban perhaps in one engagement, the use of artillary, mortors, aircraft. What else would you class it as?
Changing the name suits Labour, to deny its happening at the intensity that it is. Ask the troops who come home and cant understand why no one has a scoobey (apart from us serving) what they have went through.
 
#20
It is a meaningless phrase coined by a President who needs simple concepts to understand. Fighting terror is never simple for a democracy.

Who do you declare war on? The terrorists. Their families. The people they hide and shelter behind. The country they live in or the country they come from. (Israel and other countries accuse the UK of allowing terrorists to live here - what if they declared war on us). How do you identify their army and attack it

Murderers, muggers and thieves attack people all the time - they don't declare war on their victims.

If it is a war you give them legitimacy - which they don't deserve. Terrorists are criminals, they don't fight wars. We don't fight wars in response to terrorism, democracies uphold the rule of law using military force if needed.

As regards Iraq and Aghanisatan, no matter how bloody and violent it get we are there in a peace-making/keeping role. If we were there to fight a war the UN would no doubt condemn our actions.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top