web analytics

DITCHING THE WAR ON TERROR…

By ATWadmin On December 11th, 2006

Islam-Britain.jpgDid you read in The Guardian that British 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 apparently 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.

I’m in TOTAL AGREEMENT. Let’s drop the war on terror label, that was always a nuanced nonsense.

It’s the WAR ON MILITANT ISLAM that we are fighting. and which Islam has been happily fighting against us. I wonder will THAT term be acceptable to Blair and co? Of course not, we are fighting a war…. but we deny who we fight against, and so we make it much more likely we will lose. Our leaders appear to be already dhimmified – preparing ways to surrender to the Imams. We are being beaten by a primitive ideology, a fascism of Islam, and it is our leaders lack of backbone that is allowing this. Perhaps the very threat of another 7/7 is sufficient for the white flag to be hoisted over Downing Street?

19 Responses to “DITCHING THE WAR ON TERROR…”

  1. War on Militant Islam? Islam is militant as can be discerned by anyone who has bothered to read what’s in their manual for world enslavement aka the koran. There is no such thing as ‘militant’ islam; the term ‘islam’ says all that needs to be said.

  2. Allan,

    I think Islam is militant by definition and therefore I agree with you. That is not to say that all who are Muslim are militant, just a significant %!

  3. If you are going to ditch the war, then it only seems sensible to ditch the associated rhetoric.

    Maybe they can start calling it Western defence.

  4. Western Surrender to Islam?

  5. >>>We are being beaten by a primitive ideology<<<

    speak for your self.

    >>>Of course not, we are fighting a war…. but we deny who we fight against, and so we make it much more likely we will lose.<<<

    when reading these articles, i often wonder what ‘chancellor vance’ would do given the oppurtunity.

    care to enlighten us?

  6. Yes.

    He would point out WHO we are at war with. He would seek out and destroy every remnant of Islamic extremism in the UK. He would insist on the banning of all forms of Islamic garb. He would demand that any Mosques associated with terror are razed. He would remind the British people that we can’t WIN a war if we deny we are at War. He would ensure that all illegal Islamists are booted out of the UK. He would make it clear to all concerned that the UK will never bow the new to those 7th Century fanatics.

  7. ok so maybe enlighten was the wrong word. frighten wouldve been more apt.

  8. The holocaust-deniers in Iran have begun their "conference" to decide if the holocaust occurred and if so, how many jews were murdered. Given the cast-list of racists and jew-haters, the "conculsion" is a no-brainer.

    See
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6167695.stm

  9. I like the phrase "war on terror", it should be what any war is about.

    That was what was important about WWII. It was a war against terror as opposed to a war against Germany.

  10. >>>I like the phrase "war on terror", it should be what any war is about.

    That was what was important about WWII. It was a war against terror as opposed to a war against Germany.<<<

    tell that to the survivors of stalins penal batallions.

  11. daytripper

    "tell that to the survivors of stalins penal batallions. "

    I don’t understand your point or how/if it challanges mine.

  12. its pretty hard to fight a war and not cause some sort of terror. no matter what you think of missions like dresden, they are undeniably terror raids. petty theives were sent to their deaths in stalins penal batallions, by throwing them on ‘recon by force’ missions. ie "you walk up that hill, and ill count the machine guns"

    we were fighting to halt ideological and "neo-imperial" domination. not terror.

  13. Daytripper

    I still don’t understand your point.

    WWII was a war on terror, that is why it is important. The fact that violence is required doesn’t detract from that,

    I don’t know what I think of Dresden as I don’t have complete information. I am certainly not in a position to say that it was justified, That still doesn’t mean that WWII wasn’t a war on terror.

    "we were fighting to halt ideological and "neo-imperial" domination. not terror."

    "ideological and "neo-imperial" domination" is terror.

  14. I like the list of attendees at the Iranian conference as reported on the link posted by Peter, and what a fine group of people they are too! I wonder how many round the Islington dinner party circuit voice similar opinions denying the mass murder of Jews and eliding that to a visceral hatred of Israel.

  15. >>>WWII was a war on terror, that is why it is important. The fact that violence is required doesn’t detract from that<<<

    what about the terror you cause, while on a crusade to halt terror?

    pray no-one finds out? (as usual)

    >>>"ideological and "neo-imperial" domination" is terror.<<<

    excellent, when can we expect to see bush and blair at the hague?

  16. Daytripper

    "what about the terror you cause, while on a crusade to halt terror?"

    What about it?

    Are you a pacifist? How would you have dealt with Hitler?

    "excellent, when can we expect to see bush and blair at the hague? "

    perhaps when they indulge in "ideological and "neo-imperial" domination" as opposed to trying to rid Iraq of the evil Saddam.

  17. >>>"what about the terror you cause, while on a crusade to halt terror?"

    What about it?<<<

    do acts of terror still occur in the world?

    >>>Are you a pacifist?<<<

    nope. but i knew you wouldnt be able to resist the temptation of travelling down this route. moral absolutists should be pacifists.

    >>>How would you have dealt with Hitler?<<<

    with a frozen kebab.

  18. Daytripper are you drunk?

    "do acts of terror still occur in the world"

    yes – and your point is?

    ">>>Are you a pacifist?<<<

    nope. but i knew you wouldnt be able to resist the temptation of travelling down this route. moral absolutists should be pacifists."

    What temptation and what route? I asked you a question that I wanted to know the asnwer to.

    "moral absolutists should be pacifists."

    why. It was totally moral to fight Hitler and I think a case could be made for it meing immoral not to.

    ">>>How would you have dealt with Hitler?<<<

    with a frozen kebab."

    A civil question but I will remember the answer.

  19. >>>Daytripper are you drunk?<<<

    nope.

    >>>yes – and your point is?<<<

    i wasnt aware we lost WW2.

    >>>why. It was totally moral to fight Hitler and I think a case could be made for it meing immoral not to. <<<

    couldnt agree more with you. thats why im not a moral absolutist.

    >>>">>>How would you have dealt with Hitler?<<<

    with a frozen kebab."

    A civil question but I will remember the answer. <<<

    dont let me stop you. was only injecting a bit of ascerbic humour into the mix.