Brits Say Goodbye To "War On Terror"

Brits Say Goodbye To "War On Terror"

8
6
SHARE

And by the way, we should too

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.”

Well said.

And while we’re at it, how about spending the hundreds of billions we’re currently using and fight a different “war”, but this one would be against fossil fuels. Because maybe it’s just me but I’d like to see the day when our consumption will stop funding the organizations that seek to destroy us.

  • http://itsthe21stcenturystupid.wordpress.com/ Jim S

    As a general rule anyone who points out that when you’re not fighting a nation like we had to do with Afghanistan and chose to do with Iraq it’s not a war and the main front in the conflict is in the fields of intelligence and law enforcement gets sneered at by a certain segment of our political spectrum and their leaders.

  • Rob

    Careful Jimbo, all the current Democrat front-runners are rowing that same boat and most of the Republicans I know are not interested in being involved in a “War on Terror”.

    Of course if it makes you feel better to play the victim, feel free.

  • http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com Jimmy the Dhimmi

    Someone should tell the hundreds-of-thousands of jihadists, and the millions of their supporters, who themselves claim that they are at war with us.

    Jim,

    Why did we “have to” fight a war in Afghanistan? all 19 of the criminal suspects died in the crash on 9/11. The nation of Afghanistan didn’t attack us, a few individual fanaticists and murders did.

    and Justin,

    Just an observation, I’ve been reading this blog for a few years now and I have to say I have not seen a more remarkable 180 degree turn on political positions regarding the Iraq war, and projecting power to defeat terrorists. You were a McCain-Lieberman guy in 2004. Now you are John “bumper-sticker” Edwards. Did you get your Code-Pink membership card yet? Don’t worry, just as most democrats have learned, you can completely change your positions and most anti-war types will simply forget without requiring any explanation – so long as you agree with them.

  • Jeremy

    It’s about time! The Brits are finally breaking ranks with the moronic American
    hard-liners that like to frame everything in terms of an “epic” battle of “us versus them.” By doing so the “coalition of the willing” have only giving these fanatics encouragement and recognition. The people that blew themselves up on 9/11 were not a representative majority of some sovereign nation but rather a fringe group of killers bent on causing mass causalities to incite a radical response. Thus playing right into their game plan. And low and behold, guess who was all too willing to fall for the bait? Our most wisdomatic king himself, George the First.

    This wasn’t by chance, it was the perfect cover to increase his own fortunes and his oily conspirators profits all with the preconceived idea of selling this as a “just response” to the American people for the attacks of 9/11. Again, most indolent, uneducated Americans were all too willing to buy into this charade of a justification and the rest is history.

  • Alan Stewart Carl

    Doesn’t matter what you call the challenge of radical Islamic terrorism, so long as you’re willing to confront it. What worries me is that certain people who are opposed to the use of “war” seem to also believe there is no real threat.

    As for 9/11, London, Madrid and elsewhere, there is little use in claiming each incident is just some crime committed by fanatics. Clearly these events are related and we put ourself at great risk if we don’t acknowledge the greater context. It may not be a “war” in any traditional sense but it certainly is something larger than a crime wave.

  • Jeremy

    “As for 9/11, London, Madrid and elsewhere, there is little use in claiming each incident is just some crime committed by fanatics. Clearly these events are related and we put ourself at great risk if we don’t acknowledge the greater context. It may not be a “war” in any traditional sense but it certainly is something larger than a crime wave.”

    Alan Stewart, I agree. This is not a threat to be taken lightly. This is a group of people bent on killing innocent people and that threat has to be met with unmoving resolve. However, when the president of the United States start using unrelated attacks (9/11) to start a war that has and had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 then I call BS! It doesn’t help our cause any to invade nations on lies and then try to associate them with the attacks of 9/11 to “justify” your illegal invasion.

    There would be a great deal more support for the so-called “War on Terror” if Bush was going after the people that attacked us instead of creating false impressions and making up conflicts all in the name of “the War on Terror.”

    Basically, if Bush wasn’t the corrupt POS! that he is the world would gladly join us in our fight. Instead we stand largely alone against the rest of the world which sees the ozone sized holes in our logic for going to war in Iraq.