Posted on 04/15/2007 6:38:15 PM PDT by blam
Benn questions 'War on Terror' slogan
By Martin Beckford
Last Updated: 1:16am BST 16/04/2007
Hilary Benn, the Development Secretary, will today risk angering George W Bush by claiming that the US President's phrase "War on Terror" strengthens extremist groups.
Mr Benn is to tell an audience in New York that the term, coined by the White House after the 9/11 attacks, makes small, disaffected groups feel that they are part of something bigger.
He will also confirm that British ministers and civil servants no longer refer to the "War on Terror".
The comments could improve his standing among Labour backbenchers and boost his chances of winning the forthcoming deputy leadership contest. Mr Benn is due to address a meeting organised by the Centre for International Co-operation.
He will say: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'War on Terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.
"It is the vast majority of the people in the world against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world.
"By letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength."
This from a country whose soldiers now surrender faster than the French.
Or perhaps “The Great Counter-Jihad,” or “The Anti-Jihad Campaign,” or even “Crusade Against Islamo-Terrorism.”
The numerous, somewhat disparate, more-or-less independently operating terrorist groups are indeed part of something greater, radical, militant Islam. And we mislead ourselves in pretending otherwise.
However, “War on Terror” also is inaccurate and misleading, as others have observed. The enemy is as noted above. Terrorism is the preferred tactic at present. Labelling the conflict a war on terror serves to shield the identity of the adversary. Surely we don’t intend to make war on a method, a tactic, minimizing the deadly adversary to the level of a euphemism.
I think the Europeans should call it the Three Monkees War.
How about we just declare war on Iran and get it over with.
Synatx be damned. WE GOTTA WIN NO MATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT.
I don’t like it either. Terror is a tactic. It should be called “War on Islamofascism”. Probably the President agrees, but of course that is too non-PC.
“Okay, let’s call it, The Crusades II, then.”
How about “war on with alleged militants.”
Remember the hearts and minds aspect. It seems less important but in the long term it strikes the hardest blows.
Instead of “War on Terror” Bush should have called it “Terrorisms war on us”.
That makes it clearer. They attacked us, and we need to make sure the world remembers that.
how about not?
so you wouldn’t mind if we pulled our troops out of two theatres that you guys really need us in?
Unless you are confident of finding better allies, who have sent more personnel than any other nation besides the US to combat. Who continue to suffer the 2nd highest casualty ratio’s (nearly 200 dead, and several thousand wounded). An ally whose warships, planes, helicopters, troops, tanks, guns and balls have been fighting toe-to-toe with the enemy for over five years, and yet you turn your Midas complex on and mock them? And with such a pithy one-liner as well. The least you could do is come up with something more origninal and cutting!!!!!!!!!
Would you rather you fought the ‘War on Terror’(doesn’t actually make sense you know, if anything there should be an ‘ism’ at the end. Unless you want to eliminate terror, in which case you are going to have to do away with fear itself) alone? Well, probably yes judging by the comment you made! But then if, as you want, the UK pulls out who is going to be made the butt of all the jokes from ya’ll? I suppose you might have to turn on yourselves hey??!!!!
The socialists in both of our countries will see to it that we will both be hit, and hard, in the near future.
good sir,you just achieved Rushbo status in that simple exposing post. You exaggerated the absurd by being ditto mega absure for effect. Hats off to ya and all you revere
listen pal. you WILL stop harrasing me. you have just prejudiced my anonymity here, even though I can only assure poeple I don’t work for the Beeb, or any other media group. there is a word called freelance.
“Hey Mr BBC, DO YOU WANT THE U.S. & GB AND ISRAEL TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR?”
What kind of question is that? Do I want us to win? Well yes, obviously, why would I not?
I was prepared to let the last bunch of insults pass, but this is too far. AT NO POINT HAVE I SAID I WORK FOR ANY MEDIA GROUP, SO WHY IS IT YOU JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION? READ THIS:
I DO NOT WORK FOR ANY MEDIA ORGANISATION.
ad infinitum...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.