"War on terror" no more.
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
Fisticuffs wrote: struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. And is amusingly about the closest english word to Jihad :) Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
now, because it's not simply a "war" they can feel justified in doing all those police, grassroots hearts-and-minds and other things that they've mocked everyone else for suggesting for the past four years...
The new strategy, for the first time, formally directs military commanders to go after a list of eight pressure points at which terrorist groups could be vulnerable: ideological support, weapons, funds, communications and movement, safe havens, foot soldiers, access to targets, and leadership. Each U.S. geographic command is to follow a systematic approach, first collecting intelligence on any of the two dozen target groups that are operating in its area of responsibility and then developing a plan to attack all eight nodes for each of those groups. Going after high-value targets like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi, his emir in Iraq, is still a big part of the strategy but only a part. Three less direct approaches will now receive much greater emphasis: helping partner nations confront terrorism, going after supporters of terrorist organizations, and helping the State Department-led campaign to reduce the ideological appeal of terrorism. The latter category includes such things as military-provided humanitarian aid. U.S. aid to tsunami victims, for example, dramatically swung Asian public opinion from a negative to a positive view of America. Despite fears that the U.S. military is waging a duplicitous propaganda war, many military officials say that "information operations" are an inevitable dimension of warfare and must play a role, along with the State Department's public-diplomacy efforts. One particular area of emphasis: educating soldiers in religious and cultural sensitivities. Caslen showed a reporter two photographs as examples of what not to do--one of marines bivouacked inside Fallujah's Khulafah Rashid mosque after driving out insurgents, another of a soldier's rosary dangling from a tank barrel.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050801/1terror.htm[^] start your stopwatches. see how long it takes for the IT'S A WAR, WAR, WAR!! types to fully embrace what they've been deriding all along. Cleek | Image Toolkits |
-
now, because it's not simply a "war" they can feel justified in doing all those police, grassroots hearts-and-minds and other things that they've mocked everyone else for suggesting for the past four years...
The new strategy, for the first time, formally directs military commanders to go after a list of eight pressure points at which terrorist groups could be vulnerable: ideological support, weapons, funds, communications and movement, safe havens, foot soldiers, access to targets, and leadership. Each U.S. geographic command is to follow a systematic approach, first collecting intelligence on any of the two dozen target groups that are operating in its area of responsibility and then developing a plan to attack all eight nodes for each of those groups. Going after high-value targets like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi, his emir in Iraq, is still a big part of the strategy but only a part. Three less direct approaches will now receive much greater emphasis: helping partner nations confront terrorism, going after supporters of terrorist organizations, and helping the State Department-led campaign to reduce the ideological appeal of terrorism. The latter category includes such things as military-provided humanitarian aid. U.S. aid to tsunami victims, for example, dramatically swung Asian public opinion from a negative to a positive view of America. Despite fears that the U.S. military is waging a duplicitous propaganda war, many military officials say that "information operations" are an inevitable dimension of warfare and must play a role, along with the State Department's public-diplomacy efforts. One particular area of emphasis: educating soldiers in religious and cultural sensitivities. Caslen showed a reporter two photographs as examples of what not to do--one of marines bivouacked inside Fallujah's Khulafah Rashid mosque after driving out insurgents, another of a soldier's rosary dangling from a tank barrel.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050801/1terror.htm[^] start your stopwatches. see how long it takes for the IT'S A WAR, WAR, WAR!! types to fully embrace what they've been deriding all along. Cleek | Image Toolkits |
Propaganga, assasination and economic disruption have been part of warfare for centuries. The less emotive language is welcome though. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
Fisticuffs wrote: The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. Yep, 9/11 came and we had to fight back. We needed to find and kill the evil doers. We needed to go to war! And so the "War on Terror" was born. Now, time has passed, our rage has settled down, our fears have subsided, so why go on with this "war" stuff that makes us look like we're involved in another Vietnam? Let's change the terminology to something more like... like what it has always been: a struggle of good over evil. :rolleyes: Fisticuffs wrote: Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. What's frightens you about her? Alvaro
Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. -- GWB, 1999.
-
now, because it's not simply a "war" they can feel justified in doing all those police, grassroots hearts-and-minds and other things that they've mocked everyone else for suggesting for the past four years...
The new strategy, for the first time, formally directs military commanders to go after a list of eight pressure points at which terrorist groups could be vulnerable: ideological support, weapons, funds, communications and movement, safe havens, foot soldiers, access to targets, and leadership. Each U.S. geographic command is to follow a systematic approach, first collecting intelligence on any of the two dozen target groups that are operating in its area of responsibility and then developing a plan to attack all eight nodes for each of those groups. Going after high-value targets like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi, his emir in Iraq, is still a big part of the strategy but only a part. Three less direct approaches will now receive much greater emphasis: helping partner nations confront terrorism, going after supporters of terrorist organizations, and helping the State Department-led campaign to reduce the ideological appeal of terrorism. The latter category includes such things as military-provided humanitarian aid. U.S. aid to tsunami victims, for example, dramatically swung Asian public opinion from a negative to a positive view of America. Despite fears that the U.S. military is waging a duplicitous propaganda war, many military officials say that "information operations" are an inevitable dimension of warfare and must play a role, along with the State Department's public-diplomacy efforts. One particular area of emphasis: educating soldiers in religious and cultural sensitivities. Caslen showed a reporter two photographs as examples of what not to do--one of marines bivouacked inside Fallujah's Khulafah Rashid mosque after driving out insurgents, another of a soldier's rosary dangling from a tank barrel.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050801/1terror.htm[^] start your stopwatches. see how long it takes for the IT'S A WAR, WAR, WAR!! types to fully embrace what they've been deriding all along. Cleek | Image Toolkits |
Chris Losinger wrote: now, because it's not simply a "war" they can feel justified in doing all those police, grassroots hearts-and-minds and other things that they've mocked everyone else for suggesting for the past four years... Weren't you one of the people who complained about the term "War on Terror", for that matter how do you feel about the term of "War on Drugs". As for the need to provide humanitarian support and try to win hearts and minds.... I would have sworn that the US sent military units to try to help after the tsunami.... and what about that whole Bosnia\Serbian thing I seem to recall we were trying to stop the murder of Muslims there, and there isn't even any oil under those folks. I think the idea that somehow all that we have done is fight and kill people is ridiculous. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Fisticuffs wrote: The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. Yep, 9/11 came and we had to fight back. We needed to find and kill the evil doers. We needed to go to war! And so the "War on Terror" was born. Now, time has passed, our rage has settled down, our fears have subsided, so why go on with this "war" stuff that makes us look like we're involved in another Vietnam? Let's change the terminology to something more like... like what it has always been: a struggle of good over evil. :rolleyes: Fisticuffs wrote: Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. What's frightens you about her? Alvaro
Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. -- GWB, 1999.
Alvaro Mendez wrote: What's frightens you about her? That I will lose the excessive violence and sex in my video games that I now lovingly treasure and take for granted ? :-D "One of the Georges," said Psmith, "I forget which, once said that a certain number of hours' sleep a day--I cannot recall for the moment how many--made a man something, which for the time being has slipped my memory."
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
I didn't believe in "war against terror" when it was a plain excuse for imperialism. Why should I believe in "global struggle against extremism" now? The extremism will loose just because it is plainly stupid and it's proposals are lunatic, not because this American government is smart or even not extremist; they are stupid and radical, too. Also, the war against extremism is very different from country to country. The muslins in Chechnia are not in the same political context as the muslins in India. You simply can't fight the two extremists the same way. In Russia there will be brutal repression and totalitarism which will not end the terrorism and extremism. In India it is possible to have a democratic dialog which may ease the tensions, like what happened with the sikh terrrorism in the 80's and 90's and ended with a sikh prime-minister now.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: now, because it's not simply a "war" they can feel justified in doing all those police, grassroots hearts-and-minds and other things that they've mocked everyone else for suggesting for the past four years... Weren't you one of the people who complained about the term "War on Terror", for that matter how do you feel about the term of "War on Drugs". As for the need to provide humanitarian support and try to win hearts and minds.... I would have sworn that the US sent military units to try to help after the tsunami.... and what about that whole Bosnia\Serbian thing I seem to recall we were trying to stop the murder of Muslims there, and there isn't even any oil under those folks. I think the idea that somehow all that we have done is fight and kill people is ridiculous. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Weren't you one of the people who complained about the term "War on Terror", not sure if i ever complained or not. but i do think it's a silly term. the new one is better. Doug Goulden wrote: for that matter how do you feel about the term of "War on Drugs" it's silly, too. such use dilutes the word "war", IMO. Doug Goulden wrote: I would have sworn that the US sent military units to try to help after the tsunami.... and what about that whole Bosnia\Serbian thing I seem to recall we were trying to stop the murder of Muslims there, and there isn't even any oil under those folks of course. but now it sounds like it's official policy to link those kinds of things with the rest of tWoT. to me, that's a much better solution to the problem; it's not a strictly military problem, and it's not a strictly diplomatic one either - there are a lot of different things we need to do, and this wraps them all up under the same banner. so, i reluctantly tip my hat to BushCo for finally getting around to a more mature and reasoned approach. wish it didn't take them four years. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: What's frightens you about her? That I will lose the excessive violence and sex in my video games that I now lovingly treasure and take for granted ? :-D "One of the Georges," said Psmith, "I forget which, once said that a certain number of hours' sleep a day--I cannot recall for the moment how many--made a man something, which for the time being has slipped my memory."
Ramanan Sivan wrote: That I will lose the excessive violence and sex in my video games that I now lovingly treasure and take for granted ? :) Yeah, luckily all that came out of that was that the game's rating was changed from Mature to Adult. Whatever. :zzz: Alvaro
Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. -- GWB, 1999.
-
now, because it's not simply a "war" they can feel justified in doing all those police, grassroots hearts-and-minds and other things that they've mocked everyone else for suggesting for the past four years...
The new strategy, for the first time, formally directs military commanders to go after a list of eight pressure points at which terrorist groups could be vulnerable: ideological support, weapons, funds, communications and movement, safe havens, foot soldiers, access to targets, and leadership. Each U.S. geographic command is to follow a systematic approach, first collecting intelligence on any of the two dozen target groups that are operating in its area of responsibility and then developing a plan to attack all eight nodes for each of those groups. Going after high-value targets like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi, his emir in Iraq, is still a big part of the strategy but only a part. Three less direct approaches will now receive much greater emphasis: helping partner nations confront terrorism, going after supporters of terrorist organizations, and helping the State Department-led campaign to reduce the ideological appeal of terrorism. The latter category includes such things as military-provided humanitarian aid. U.S. aid to tsunami victims, for example, dramatically swung Asian public opinion from a negative to a positive view of America. Despite fears that the U.S. military is waging a duplicitous propaganda war, many military officials say that "information operations" are an inevitable dimension of warfare and must play a role, along with the State Department's public-diplomacy efforts. One particular area of emphasis: educating soldiers in religious and cultural sensitivities. Caslen showed a reporter two photographs as examples of what not to do--one of marines bivouacked inside Fallujah's Khulafah Rashid mosque after driving out insurgents, another of a soldier's rosary dangling from a tank barrel.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050801/1terror.htm[^] start your stopwatches. see how long it takes for the IT'S A WAR, WAR, WAR!! types to fully embrace what they've been deriding all along. Cleek | Image Toolkits |
Chris Losinger wrote: grassroots hearts-and-minds and other things that they've mocked everyone else for suggesting for the past four years... Typical liberalism - regardless of the strategy taken, you will wait for whatever turns out to be effective, and then take credit for it.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: grassroots hearts-and-minds and other things that they've mocked everyone else for suggesting for the past four years... Typical liberalism - regardless of the strategy taken, you will wait for whatever turns out to be effective, and then take credit for it.
i wonder, did you actually take the time to go back and read what i've written on this over the past four years, or are you just shooting your mouth off under the cloak of anonymity ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
Fisticuffs wrote: It's now a "global struggle against extremism." Go further down this road, and you end up "talking about different ways to express ones opinion"
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Doug Goulden wrote: Weren't you one of the people who complained about the term "War on Terror", not sure if i ever complained or not. but i do think it's a silly term. the new one is better. Doug Goulden wrote: for that matter how do you feel about the term of "War on Drugs" it's silly, too. such use dilutes the word "war", IMO. Doug Goulden wrote: I would have sworn that the US sent military units to try to help after the tsunami.... and what about that whole Bosnia\Serbian thing I seem to recall we were trying to stop the murder of Muslims there, and there isn't even any oil under those folks of course. but now it sounds like it's official policy to link those kinds of things with the rest of tWoT. to me, that's a much better solution to the problem; it's not a strictly military problem, and it's not a strictly diplomatic one either - there are a lot of different things we need to do, and this wraps them all up under the same banner. so, i reluctantly tip my hat to BushCo for finally getting around to a more mature and reasoned approach. wish it didn't take them four years. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: but now it sounds like it's official policy to link those kinds of things with the rest of tWoT. to me, that's a much better solution to the problem I think its pretty damn sad we have to point out to members of the Muslim community that we have taken their side on more than 1 occasion. Have we been 100% correct of course not, but in general we aren't the evil SOB's we are being called. Chris Losinger wrote: wish it didn't take them four years. I think under the circumstances (especially regarding Afghanistan) calling it a "War on Terror" wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but again its sad that now we probably have to hire some Madison Avenue weenie to tell the world what nice people we are.:rolleyes: But I do agree with your point overall, this is much more than a military action. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
now, because it's not simply a "war" they can feel justified in doing all those police, grassroots hearts-and-minds and other things that they've mocked everyone else for suggesting for the past four years...
The new strategy, for the first time, formally directs military commanders to go after a list of eight pressure points at which terrorist groups could be vulnerable: ideological support, weapons, funds, communications and movement, safe havens, foot soldiers, access to targets, and leadership. Each U.S. geographic command is to follow a systematic approach, first collecting intelligence on any of the two dozen target groups that are operating in its area of responsibility and then developing a plan to attack all eight nodes for each of those groups. Going after high-value targets like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi, his emir in Iraq, is still a big part of the strategy but only a part. Three less direct approaches will now receive much greater emphasis: helping partner nations confront terrorism, going after supporters of terrorist organizations, and helping the State Department-led campaign to reduce the ideological appeal of terrorism. The latter category includes such things as military-provided humanitarian aid. U.S. aid to tsunami victims, for example, dramatically swung Asian public opinion from a negative to a positive view of America. Despite fears that the U.S. military is waging a duplicitous propaganda war, many military officials say that "information operations" are an inevitable dimension of warfare and must play a role, along with the State Department's public-diplomacy efforts. One particular area of emphasis: educating soldiers in religious and cultural sensitivities. Caslen showed a reporter two photographs as examples of what not to do--one of marines bivouacked inside Fallujah's Khulafah Rashid mosque after driving out insurgents, another of a soldier's rosary dangling from a tank barrel.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050801/1terror.htm[^] start your stopwatches. see how long it takes for the IT'S A WAR, WAR, WAR!! types to fully embrace what they've been deriding all along. Cleek | Image Toolkits |
Chris Losinger wrote: start your stopwatches. see how long it takes for the IT'S A WAR, WAR, WAR!! types to fully embrace what they've been deriding all along. I hope yours is powered by the energizer bunny, this pisses me off as much as the lack of border protection. and on another subject, while I firmly believe it is idiocy to not prosecute this as a war, the war on drugs was ill concieved as was: prohibition, making / keeping prostituition illegal, anti-gamblling laws. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
Didn't you know we've always been at war with Europa Eurasia pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "So keep that smile on your face. Have a drink to help you sleep at night. They got what they desired. We're passive in their brave new world." New Model Army
-
i wonder, did you actually take the time to go back and read what i've written on this over the past four years, or are you just shooting your mouth off under the cloak of anonymity ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Opps, sorry, I posted from the liberry. Chris Losinger wrote: i wonder, did you actually take the time to go back and read what i've written on this over the past four years Nah, just thought I would state the obvious... "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
I didn't believe in "war against terror" when it was a plain excuse for imperialism. Why should I believe in "global struggle against extremism" now? The extremism will loose just because it is plainly stupid and it's proposals are lunatic, not because this American government is smart or even not extremist; they are stupid and radical, too. Also, the war against extremism is very different from country to country. The muslins in Chechnia are not in the same political context as the muslins in India. You simply can't fight the two extremists the same way. In Russia there will be brutal repression and totalitarism which will not end the terrorism and extremism. In India it is possible to have a democratic dialog which may ease the tensions, like what happened with the sikh terrrorism in the 80's and 90's and ended with a sikh prime-minister now.
Diego Moita wrote: Also, the war against extremism is very different from country to country. The muslins in Chechnia are not in the same political context as the muslins in India. No, they are still 'useful' http://www.exile.ru/2002-October-31/feature_story.html[^]
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
Fisticuffs wrote: (which have been few and far between) I totally disagree with that. Since 9/11 how many attacks have we had on our soil? John
-
Fisticuffs wrote: (which have been few and far between) I totally disagree with that. Since 9/11 how many attacks have we had on our soil? John