View Full Version : 'War on terrorism' is over !
SteamWake
08-06-09, 12:55 PM
Celebrate everyone ! :woot:
Oh wait its just words :oops:
It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."
President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/06/white-house-war-terrorism-over/?feat=home_headlines
FIREWALL
08-06-09, 01:06 PM
How many US citizens lives is considered a "reasonable" loss, due to terriorists, using OB's great plan ?
Is there a plan ? :doh:
AVGWarhawk
08-06-09, 01:33 PM
Great, I guess it is just a 'police action' now! :shifty:
"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."
Yeah, I would agree with this.
Fr8monkey
08-06-09, 02:10 PM
On May 1, 2003 I thought Bush said, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over." and "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished#cite_note-main551946.shtml-8)
Damned Obama's fault.
SteamWake
08-06-09, 02:24 PM
On May 1, 2003 I thought Bush said, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over." and "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished#cite_note-main551946.shtml-8)
Damned Obama's fault.
Trying to find the relevance here...
Platapus
08-06-09, 02:24 PM
Good
The phrase "war on terror" was meaningless and has no end
Terrorism is a tactic. Now if we were in a War against a specific terrorist group that would make more sense.
Personally, if Congress is not going to issue an official declaration of war, the term war should not be used. It just confuses things.
Task Force
08-06-09, 02:25 PM
Il believe it when I see it...
On May 1, 2003 I thought Bush said...
And what does any of that have to do with Obama?
Aramike
08-06-09, 03:41 PM
Good
The phrase "war on terror" was meaningless and has no end
Terrorism is a tactic. Now if we were in a War against a specific terrorist group that would make more sense.
Personally, if Congress is not going to issue an official declaration of war, the term war should not be used. It just confuses things.Well, I understand the meaning of "War on Terror", so that makes it NOT meaningless, but I do agree that the War on Terror has no end. In any case, I couldn't really care less what they call it, as long as they do their job of protecting American citizens and the US's interests.
In any case, the administration saying that we are, instead, at war with Al Qaeda is freakin' stupidity at its finest. Good job legitimizing them, Obama.On May 1, 2003 I thought Bush said, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over." and "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
Damned Obama's fault.Is it possible for you lefties to understand ANY topic outside of the framework of Bush?
And your point is so incredibly irrelevent, I'm wondering if your suffereing from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Fr8monkey
08-06-09, 04:44 PM
And what does any of that have to do with Obama?
That is what a few select people do here is blame Obama for everything since the election... I just wanted to be first.
Tribesman
08-06-09, 05:00 PM
So the war on terror is over.
Thank god as it was getting bad trying to sell a terrorist supporting regime as anti-terrorist.
I am so glad that they do be taking Jihad off the list as numbskulls understand the word Jihad as much as they understand the word Fatwah
But there is always one
Well, I understand the meaning of "War on Terror",
Go on explain it for us lesser mortals.
FIREWALL
08-06-09, 05:13 PM
There must be some kinda PC name to call terrorists.
And I'm sure OB and that pack of numbskulls of his will find it. :DL
Tribesman
08-06-09, 05:24 PM
There must be some kinda PC name to call terrorists.
You really walked into that one.
Define a terrorist
Kptlt Thomsen
08-06-09, 07:35 PM
You really walked into that one.
Define a terrorist
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Kpt. Lehmann
08-07-09, 12:14 AM
Good
The phrase "war on terror" was meaningless and has no end
Terrorism is a tactic. Now if we were in a War against a specific terrorist group that would make more sense.
Personally, if Congress is not going to issue an official declaration of war, the term war should not be used. It just confuses things.
Does war need an 'official declaration' to infact be a war?
antikristuseke
08-07-09, 01:28 AM
Mmmmmm, pointless semantics.
I woult have spent my time more productively wanking than reading this political spin and semantics ****.
Does war need an 'official declaration' to infact be a war?
That ought to be the case.
SteamWake
08-07-09, 08:45 AM
Mmmmmm, pointless semantics.
I woult have spent my time more productively wanking than reading this political spin and semantics ****.
Exactly, Sometimes I wish the politico's would spend more time wanking. :03:
Onkel Neal
08-07-09, 10:48 AM
That is what a few select people do here is blame Obama for everything since the election... I just wanted to be first.
Isn't that what happened with Bush? ;) Seriously, from the minute Bush took office he was castigated by the left for crimes real and imagined.
No surprise, the right are doing the exact same thing with Obama.
Great, I guess it is just a 'police action' now! :shifty:
That's what it should have been all along.
drEaPer
08-07-09, 12:05 PM
The only thing man learns from history: Man cannot learn from history.
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
Those who ignore the human being in their enemies, are enemies of humanity.
Those who fight for peace, but not for the peace of their enemies, are enemies of peace.
Democracy is limping guys.
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,252794,00.jpg
CastleBravo
08-07-09, 12:06 PM
That's what it should have been all along.
Ask yourself...what would this man and his family say? Or the 2999 others? Police action?
http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/fallingman-lg.jpg
AVGWarhawk
08-07-09, 12:50 PM
That's what it should have been all along.
Same thing they said about the Korean War...it was a war and not a police action.
Aramike
08-07-09, 01:11 PM
Ask yourself...what would this man and his family say? Or the 2999 others? Police action?
I don't think they would care about the term used. Rather, the actions taken are what matters.
Platapus
08-07-09, 01:18 PM
Does war need an 'official declaration' to infact be a war?
The term "war" has three common contexts.
1. Legal - As in a State of War which is governed by several international treaties and agreements. Our Constitution states that only congress can declare war. While in a State of War, certain treaties come into effect and others are no longer valid.
2. Emotional - War can be used to express national intention. War on poverty, War on drugs, War on illiteracy. In this context the term war means that "no $hit we are really serious about this". This context has no legal basis.
3. Practical. If you are in the military, stationed overseas and foreigners are shooting at you, Its a frickin war. Try explaining to Korean veterans, or Vietnam veterans that they were not in a war. For that matter our AF and IZ veterans. People end up just as dead in OOTW as they do in a war.
In minor small ways I have been "not at war" and have had foreigners shootin at me... at that point the differences between legal and extralegal terminology is very slight.
My point is that the first and third use of the term war can be confusing. In the first there are treaty implications and in the third they may be other treaty implications. Sometimes there are conflict between them.
I would like the term war to only be used in the legal context.
CastleBravo
08-07-09, 01:22 PM
Like hate crimes? Stupid feel good BS. It is a war wether you like it or not. If you aren't willing to get down in the trenches and get as low as the enemy, you are destined to feel the enemy's wrath.
Ask yourself...what would this man and his family say? Or the 2999 others? Police action?
I speak for no one but myself as someone who lost three friends and neighbors that day. I say they were MURDERED.
The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese empire was a act of war.
The attack of 9/11 by a group of religious zealots was a crime.
Oh, and maybe you should ask that man's family what they think of you using a photo of his last moments just to try and win a arguement. I'm sure they appreciated it.
FIREWALL
08-07-09, 02:01 PM
War on Terrorists. ? OK Why not.
We already have War on Crime. War on Drugs. War on Porn.
As long as we react they will always have fuel for their fire. Sneak in and just sniper them all without knowing who is doing it and they wont know how to be angry at.
Aramike
08-07-09, 03:04 PM
Oh, and maybe you should ask that man's family what they think of you using a photo of his last moments just to try and win a arguement. I'm sure they appreciated it. While I neither agree or disagree with the rest of your post, Kapt Z, kudos for this. It's similar to what I was thinking, but couldn't find the words to say. It is a pretty tacky way to attempt a point, especially one so trivial as semantics.
The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese empire was a act of war.
The attack of 9/11 by a group of religious zealots was a crime.
So in your opinion what makes one an act of war and the other a crime?
Not a political declaration as the Empire of Japan certainly did not declare war before they attacked.
Both targeted civilian and military installations.
Both deliberately executed innocent civilians.
What's the difference?
CastleBravo
08-07-09, 03:25 PM
While I neither agree or disagree with the rest of your post, Kapt Z, kudos for this. It's similar to what I was thinking, but couldn't find the words to say. It is a pretty tacky way to attempt a point, especially one so trivial as semantics.
And its pretty tacky to dismiss all those who died because of political expediency which you are showing here. Guess what, this happened and to ignore it or criticize those who post pictures of it demean those killed and their families.
It happened, innocent people died because it was a law enforcement action and this is one picture. It is easy to forget or pass it off because you haven't seen it recently. As DiNero said..........This is this.
Onkel Neal
08-07-09, 03:28 PM
The only thing man learns from history: Man cannot learn from history.
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
Those who ignore the human being in their enemies, are enemies of humanity.
Those who fight for peace, but not for the peace of their enemies, are enemies of peace.
Democracy is limping guys.
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,252794,00.jpg
You know, that picture is missing a caricature of Roosevelt with Zeros bombing Pearl Harbor in the back ground. :damn:
Aramike
08-07-09, 04:10 PM
And its pretty tacky to dismiss all those who died because of political expediency which you are showing here.Excuse me? How am I showing "political expediency"? I'm making the obvious point that the terms we use are irrelevent. Rather, the behaviors are what matters.
Ever hear the phrase, "a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."?
I don't really give a damn if we call it a war, a police action, or whatever - as long as we are taking the steps necessary to prevent such a tragedy.
But nothing is tackier than someone (you) posting a tragic photo of an individual's final moment simply because you want YOUR term of choice used. That photo has absolutely NO bearing upon the intellectual argument of which term is correct.
Frankly, you were attempting the cheap tactic of soliciting a knee-jerk reaction to justify your point. It was transparent and it has failed.Guess what, this happened and to ignore it or criticize those who post pictures of it demean those killed and their families. Are you out of your mind? Who's ignoring what happened on 9/11? The only thing "demeaning" to such families is your insistance upon using them as fodder to feed your argument on semantics.
Is it impossible for you to frame your discussions within the realm of reality?It happened, innocent people died because it was a law enforcement action and this is one picture. It is easy to forget or pass it off because you haven't seen it recently. As DiNero said..........This is this. Umm, flat out wrong. 9/11 was in no way a result of it falling under the purview of law enforcement. It happened because the scope of responsibilities within law enforcement were poorly-defined.
You're attempting to make an argument through the silly notion that "law enforcement" is an end upon itself, and therefore cannot make the adjustments necessary to combat something that was once beyond its purview.
I have no problem with counter-terrorism being called a War on Terror or being called a police-action of some kind. So long as the bombs keep falling in the right place and the US stays safe, "a rose by any other name..."
CastleBravo
08-07-09, 04:20 PM
You are correct. It is a police action.
So in your opinion what makes one an act of war and the other a crime?
Not a political declaration as the Empire of Japan certainly did not declare war before they attacked.
Both targeted civilian and military installations.
Both deliberately executed innocent civilians.
What's the difference?
One was carried out by members of a nation's military with knowledge and assumed assent of that nation's gov't.
The other was carried out by a number of individuals of a nonstate fanatical group.
It's just that simple. Semantics it's true, but how we respond makes all the difference.
If 9/11 had been committed by the IRA what would we have done? Invade Ireland? If the London bombings had been the work of the Branch Davidians would we have stood by as Britain attacked Texas?
SteamWake
08-07-09, 07:39 PM
Not a political declaration as the Empire of Japan certainly did not declare war before they attacked.
Well technically they did. Its just the inept politicians dident get the message.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.