Britain is abandoning the “War on Terror” terminology according to the UK Daily Mail. Sensible enough as far is goes, “terror” is after all only a tactic. We don’t make war on tactics.
The words “war on terror” will no longer be used by the British government to describe attacks on the public, the country’s chief prosecutor said Dec. 27.
Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless “death cult.”
The Director of Public Prosecutions said: ‘We resist the language of warfare, and I think the government has moved on this. It no longer uses this sort of language.”
London is not a battlefield, he said.
“The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers,” Macdonald said. “They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way.”
But rather than substitute the sensible alternative – “a war on violent extremists” for example ought to satisfy even those ears tuned to the most exquisitely sensitive frequencies – the UK government is bending over backwards not to offend those who have made a cottage industry out of taking offense:
The term “Islamic terrorist” will also no longer be used. Officials believe it is unhelpful because it appears to directly link the religion to terrorist atrocities.
Well. By that light, I suppose it wasn’t fair for the RAF to have shot down “German bombers” during the Battle of Britain.
Shame to see the Royal Lion become a gelding…
“London is not a battlefield”
I’m sure there are a good number of victims of the July 7th attacks that would disagree…
Jim C
I would prefer to call it, “The War on Barbarous Bastards.”
The vigorous defense of good and decent civilization is not a flaw.
No more “Islamic Terrorists” ?
How about Rag-headed Mother F’ers?
(Sorry, I watched the WTC come down on 9/11, right out my window. I also watched a lot of celebrating in Jersey City, Patterson and Brooklyn on local TV).
What has happened to good common sense?
I’ll let someone else speak on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7iBoq_yC4k&feature=related
Miss Birdlegs … If one doesn’t call it a war, then it never happened. At least, that’s what the leftists think.
Marianne Matthews
Pixelkiller,
No reason to apologize in my opinion. I watched the second plane hit from a truck stop TV lounge in Pinion Colorado. I then listened to one of those ba$tards say we got what we deserved while sitting at the Flying J truck stop in Albuquerque, NM. I can still feel the rage inside.
We should NEVER apologize for doing what we’ve done since.
Jim C
Arghh, that should have been watched it hit live on TV from a TV lounge in a Pinion, CO truck stop.
Jim C
damn those Aircraft of Unidentifiable Origin that Drop Stuff.
Watched both towers collapse from my chemistry class. The only reaction I remember is my own, along the lines of “that f***er bin Laden.”
No one else knew who the hell I was talking about.
From other things I’ve read, the aim is to remove the legitimacy of the terrorists. They claim they are ‘soldiers’ fighting a ‘jihad,’ and gives them some sort of twisted glorification, which in turn gathers support from the muslim fringe. Take away the ‘war,’ turn it into a ‘death cult,’ not so attractive to be a part of, so the theory goes.
Not that I think it will make a jot of difference…
The Brits didn’t call the IRA terrorists, “Catholic terrorists” did they?
While a few of each religion obviously were/are terrorists, indeed not all Muslims nor are all Catholics terrorists. Nor should they be labeled as such I think, implied or not.
Great Britain has bigger problems than mere semantics when it comes to their Muslim communities. Their non-assimilating Islamic immigrants have established their own country within.
One just needs to read their take on the recent assassination of former Pakistani PM Bhutto and you’ll get a hint of the trouble yet to come:
http://windsofknowledge.muslimpad.com/2007/12/27/death-of-bhutto-a-day-of-joy/
One has to wonder how long our friends across the Atlantic will remain effective in their own land. Indeed, most of Europe is just now waking up to their own “immigration problem”.
After reading the article PeterGunn linked to…
I have to agree totally.
Filterman said:
The Brits didn’t call the IRA terrorists, “Catholic terrorists” did they? While a few of each religion obviously were/are terrorists, indeed not all Muslims nor are all Catholics terrorists. Nor should they be labeled as such I think, implied or not.
I believe your analogy is imperfect. Consider that the IRA terrorists did not invoke Catholicism as the inspiration for their acts. When speaking of Islamic terrorists, the tie between the terrorists and their religion is one that the terrorists themselves have insisted upon creating, not us.
Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless “death cult.”
Well, it’s true the Islamofascists can’t aim worth a fig. They rely more on the “spray and pray” method of firing a weapon.
Huh? What? Oh, you mean they are AIMLESS in their jihad and whom they intend to kill? Never mind! Heh!
Methinks Sir Macdonald needs to check Willy and The Boys. Looks like he lost them somewhere! Perhaps we could change his handle to Sir Wanker Macdonald?
wank·er /ˈwæŋkər
–noun Chiefly British and Australian Slang: Vulgar.
1. a contemptible person; jerk.
2. a male masturbator.
So I take it simply referring to them as ‘people of rag” isn’t going to go over quite as I’d hoped?
Darn. Here I’d been told merely changing the name ended the problems. Guess that didn’t work.
As for Merry Olde, I say we allow anybody willing to relocate here a free visa and instant pass to someplace similar to home. You know, dank, dreary, rains a lot, and with bad food. I’m thinking Seattle. It’s about time the place had an injection of people who know what decent beer is and don’t give a whit about overpriced coffee. We’d solve at least three problems in one fell swoop.
Time to write my Congressman!
– Max
fliterman, the Brits were going after the Irish long before the Reformation, at a time when we were all of the same Roman Religion. Tribal grumpiness, I reckon.
Oh, when it comes to names, I can be a right smartass. Yer not a Muslim, but a Mohammedan. Yer not a “Catholic”, but a Roman. Yer not a Baptist, but a Thumper (of bibles). Yer not an Episcopalian, but a Whiskypalian. Yer not a Hindu, but a Cow-Servant.
Are y’all starting to catch the drift of my argument, here?
Oh, as a lapsed Methodist, I imagine I might be described as a cake-hound.
I’ve forgotten where I read it,but I’ll swear that I saw, somewhere on the Web, a purported statement by some Persian Mullah to the effect that,
“There is no fun in Islam!
What would you expect in a society where the #1 boys name is “Jack” (used to be a nickname- sometimes most often disparagingly for John) and closing at #2- I give you:
“Mohammed”….
I’d say they don’t know “Union Jack”. Nuyk, a serious nyuk.
b2
Cow-Servant…
Now, THAT is funny.