|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News just silly little boys I presume??|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
New Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,159067,00.html
The people behind the terrorism are not a specific group with a traditional heirarchy but groups who do share certain goals in common. Those goals include destabilization, anti west philosophy and eventually taking of power, i.e. Taliban. Arista |
||
|
|
Suspended: 20 days. Stillkit |
We have always lived with terrorism. It is not a new phenomanum. It just hasn't been exploited by the politicians to the extent it is today. Perhaps a return to sensibilities is in order.
|
|||
|
Member |
Are you smoe kind of idiot? Have we ever experienced a 9/11 before. In the case of the United Kingdom, maybe they are hoping for "Peace in our time"? |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
What do you mean by "exploited by the politicians"? Is that what you call 9/11? |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I guess I get a little confused about why Britain's Leaders believe they "must" tone down the rhetoric.
Is the "purpose" of this change, simple appeasement of those Islamic extremist leaders (e.g., Osama Bin Laden and others) who have declared "Jihad" on Western cultures? - I think it is! - Moreover, history has taught us time and time again -- appeasement does not bring us protection. I wonder how Britain's leader will address the word "Jihad?" ------------------------ " Noun 1. jihad - a holy war waged by Muslims against infidels international jihad, jehad war, warfare - the waging of armed conflict against an enemy; "thousands of people were killed in the war" 2. jihad - a holy struggle or striving by a Muslim for a moral or spiritual or political goal jehad nisus, pains, striving, strain - an effortful attempt to attain a goal +++++++++++++++++++++ We need to remember, it is the Islamic Extremists that have declared and waged a "War of Terror" (e.g., Jihad) against us! Therefore, I have no problem with the use of the "War on Terror" Rhetoric -- because that is what it is! I'm opposed to appeasement! From A Proud Vietnam Veteran |
|||
|
New Member |
It's best to research your subject before opening your mouth; the British are no strangers to murdering scum; perhaps you've heard of the IRA? Bombs going off in the UK is nothing new, just a different band of murderers.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
The rationale that "they declared war on us" -- when referring to a band of stateless, armed, homicidal nuts -- therefore we must declare war on them doesn't make a lot of sense. War--as opposed to limited punitive actions against another state or a non-state entity like AQ--has a distinct legal meaning. War constitutes a fundamental change in relationships between nation-states involved; which is one of the reasons that the term "War on Terror" is problematic in an international order founded in concepts Westphalian sovereignty. Granted the distinction has been badly blurred since WWII and the advent of an executive whose aide carries the "football" capable of instigating massive world-wide destruction. But in a post cold-war world it is useful to remember the difference between war and lesser punitive actions. In the U.S. War is declared by the Congress as the voice of the people because the Constitution gives them the power to do so. The corollary to the power to declare war is the power to ratify treaties--which, by the way, are preeminent legal relationships between U.S. and other nations (when Alberto Gonzalez described the Geneva Conventions as quaint relics that had little standing today he displayes eith gross ignorance or contempt of the Constitution and American credibility). On the other hand, the Constitution recognizes that the President has a responsibility to defend the nation and its interests and may not have time to request Congress declare war. Article II gives him power as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" to do things needed to defend us against attack. This is also reinforced in Article IV. But that is us; what about the UK? Well, words count. When we talk of waging war on Islamo- fascism or Islamic extremism, I assure you that many Muslims don't hear the -facism or -extremism, they just hear the Islam part -- and we in the west play into the hands of extremists. Like it or not, this "war" has mostly been a police and intelligence effort (I am differentiating between the "war on terror" and combat and SSTR operations in Iraq). We are fighting organized terrorists in our streets and cyberspace and banking systems, and in the mountains of Afghanistan and elsewhere. But mostly we are fighting them using tools of law enforcement. So are the British. They are using words that make sense. We should start doing the same. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Yes the Brits will no longer call it "war on terror". For now on they will call it:
"Tiffs with not so nice people". |
|||
|
Where are the Carriers? |
Unseemly, what?
"Thank you, for your support." - Bartles & Jaymes |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Did he say they haven't had any attacks or experience in that type of thing or was he making a historical reference to a gullible, misguided prime minister? |
|||
|
Member |
Lets just forget the fact that alot of these terrorist groups are state funded by authoratarative regimes. Iran and former Government of Afghanistan namely the Taliban. Pfft |
|||
|
New Member |
"Islamic Terrorist's" are exactly what they are. I'm not going to call them anything but what they are.
|
|||
|
|
Suspended: 20 days. Stillkit |
Don't confuse the attack with the exploitation. What do you call the attack on the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995? Was there a GWOT declared after that attack? |
|||
|
Member |
On the one hand, they're right about the terrorists not being soldiers, etc., but dropping the term "Islamic Terrorists" when dealing with Islamic Terrorists seems a bit odd. This help distinguish them from the Irish Terrorists, the Aum Terrorists; you know, the other groups. Of course, I like to keep my enemies correctly labeled.
I propose it be called instead the "Toss up with Terrorism." Or maybe the "Dreadful Row with Terrorism." The "Bit of a Spat with Terrorism?" Where's Benny Hill when we need him? |
|||
|
|
Suspended: 20 days. Stillkit |
Will you also call some "Christian Terrorists?" Will you also call some "Hindu Terrorists?" |
|||
|
|
Member |
It would be kinda silly to call it a GWOT considering the terrorist was a citizen and the attack was in the U.S. I suppose it could have been called the DomWOT or USAWOT. Whatever one calls it, it was a terrorist attack none the less. |
|||
|
|
Member |
SURE! If a widespread number of Christian leadership calls for the beheading of non-believers, suicide bombings, kidnappings and killings and their followers carry out said activities, then YES, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Islamic etc. etc. Terrorists would be an appropriate name. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
No it was a cowardly attack on civillains by someone who at one time swore to defend the Constitution of the United States. He was caught, tried & executed. End of story. |
|||
|
|
Suspended: 20 days. Stillkit |
911 was a cowardly attack on civilians by extreemists from Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia in retaliation? |
|||
|
|
Member |
A question I ask constantly. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News just silly little boys I presume??
