| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named." That is true, but the name "War on Terror" is just as problematic as the alternatives proposed by the Democrats. Terror is just a tactic, not an opponent, and it was not invented by Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001. The fact that this is a defensive action against a global jihad is something that neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to acknowledge.
"No more GWOT, House committee decrees," by Rick Maze in Military Times, with thanks to Steve:
The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.
A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”
The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.
Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”
“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”...
“This is a philosophical and political question,” said a Republican aide. “Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home.”
However, U.S. intelligence officials have been telling Congress that most of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian strife and not directly linked to terrorists, although some foreign insurgents with ties to terrorist groups have been helping to fuel the fighting.
“You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT,” said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.
“If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named,” said another Republican aide. That is a reference to the fact that the villain in the Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, is often referred to as “he who must not be named” because of fears of his dark wizardry.
Posted by Robert at April 4, 2007 7:38 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I never liked the term. Its a War with Islam. War on terror was misleading
Posted by: Elric66![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 4, 2007 7:44 AM
Words are so important! God only speaks.
at April 4, 2007 8:12 AM
"There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”...
such as:
""There you go again," said by Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter during their 1980 presidential debate.
The "Giant sucking sound," first said by H. Ross Perot in reference to NAFTA.
"Well, actually, he forgot Poland," said by George W. Bush during a debate as a response to John Kerry's statement that the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq only consisted of the United States, Great Britain, and Australia.
"Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy," said by Lloyd Bentsen in reference to Dan Quayle.
"Only Nixon could go to China," saying that became popular in the wake of Richard Nixon's breakthrough visit to The People's Republic of China.
The "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy," said by Hillary Clinton in reference to her political opponents.
"The Internet is a series of tubes," said by Ted Stevens in reference to the Internet.
"Read my lips: no new taxes," said by George H. W. Bush during the 1988 U.S. presidental election.
"It's the economy, stupid," used by Bill Clinton in his successful 1992 presidential campaign.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman," said by Bill Clinton.
"Americans should be more like The Waltons and less like The Simpsons," said by George H. W. Bush.
"I hear there's rumors on the, uh, Internets, that we're going to have a draft," said by George W. Bush during one of the 2004 election debates.
"I'm the decider," said by George W. Bush.
"I'm not a crook," said by Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal ("I am not a crook" is the phrase that is popularly attributed to Nixon, but in fact, his exact phrase was "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got.")
at April 4, 2007 8:18 AM
Ah yes, the dummycrats and the republicrats are worrying about the correct words to call this war. Spending our tax money on figuring out the correct title for a war so we don't offend our enemy. But hey, we'll still let the enemy come for a free education, at our best institutions. This story is off topic but I think it deserves to be checked out. I don't know if these cats are here getting a free ed. I can only hope they aren't. Check it.
http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18166023&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7576&rfi=6
Posted by: americanmadestrat at April 4, 2007 8:20 AM
Islamo-Western War
or
Islamo-Modern War
or
War of Islamic Aggression
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 4, 2007 8:44 AM
"I, too, have a problem with the "war on terror" phrase. Terror is a tactic. You don't declare war on a tactic. You declare war on the people who threaten you. That would be Muslim radicals. The proper phrase should be the "War on Islamic Fascism," but you just know that no good peace-at-any-price Democrat would ever go along with that. Besides, it's offensive to Muslim terrorists"
amen to NEal Boortz......
at April 4, 2007 8:50 AM
I know! I know!....
Sitzkreig!!!!!!!!!!
or
The Phony War!!!!!!!!
at April 4, 2007 8:55 AM
The Dhimmicrats call it the 'Illegal War' don't they. I think that is what they want it called.
Posted by: CrazyFool at April 4, 2007 8:59 AM
I personally find the term "War on Terrorism" both offensive and inaccurate. It implies that the West is the aggressor (that we are making war against the terrorists, rather than the Islamic terrorists making war on us) and that no particular ideology is our opponent. How about calling the war simply "The Third Jihad"? That's what the enemy calls it, and personally, I find it infinitely more suitable. It's perfect - it acknowledges both that Islam as a whole is the aggressor and we are the defenders (implying a direct connection to the First and Second Jihad) and indicates what the enemy themselves boast of - that they are the aggressors who seek to force the benighted kufaar (us) to submit to the "superior" deen of Islam. All of the current "Wars" should be more accurately described as "theatres" of the larger War - just as they were in World War II. The "Iraq War" is merely one front of the Middle Eastern Theater of the Third Jihad. The Thailand insurgency is just one front of the Pacific Theater, and so on...
Posted by: dudeinwales at April 4, 2007 9:19 AM
"The war that must not be named"
Sounds Lovecraftian to me...like the 'prophet that must not be caricaturized' or the 'religion that must not be criticized'.
-XRDC
Posted by: XRDC at April 4, 2007 9:24 AM
One has to admit that the contortions of the Democrats are somewhat humourous.
A deceptive religion in aid of a disgusting ideology; hail islam
We just so want to just love everybody and all gather round and sing Kimbaya.
When the perfect evil puke meets the perfect victim, the islamist murderer and the leftist mushbrain.
Posted by: dgene at April 4, 2007 9:25 AM
Great.
"War of islamic aggression"
Apt, brief, correct.
We must relearn:
The prime rule of war is one takes one's advantage wherever and whenever possible, and above all with audacity;
To defeat the enemy - whatever it takes - from propaganda to killing;
And we have the advantage because we have their playbook.
Now we must advance our best leaders.
Posted by: dgene at April 4, 2007 9:35 AM
I agree that "War on Terror" is a C- name, but refusing to give the aggregate struggle any kind of name at all is an F. Nothing good is going to come out of Speaker Pelosi.
Posted by: JSobieski at April 4, 2007 9:49 AM
My Bush-lovin'-at-any-cost friends are gonna be mad about this. If Bush says it is a Global War on Terror, you better ding-dang believe it! After all, we're told Islam is a Religion of Peace. How could we be at war with a peaceful religion?
Thus the mess.
Posted by: Charles Bogle at April 4, 2007 9:51 AM
amen to NEal Boortz......
Posted by: exsgtbrown
BOORTZ FOR PREZ!!!!
Thats what I'm talkin about....maybe its time to REALLY opt for a 3rd party. Now Boortz or Savage? That would be a great ticket. These peaceful nations would be runnin for cover!!!!
Posted by: americanmadestrat at April 4, 2007 10:00 AM
As fake and phoney as these days have become, I think they should SENSATIONALIZE this war to the MAX!!! Call it "WWIII; CRUSADES part deux ISLAMO-FASCIST SMACK-DOWN" Film every freaking moment of spectacular battles, and put weekly "HIGHLIGHTS" on "pay-per-view"....all proceeds go toward funding this war!
/think of the royalties on printed gear alone!
Posted by: SoldaBillofGoods at April 4, 2007 10:02 AM
SoldaBillofGoods - Thats Awsome!!! Spoken like a true American. I'm all for it... I can think of a billion products to market. I love capitolism!
Posted by: americanmadestrat at April 4, 2007 10:07 AM
This is "The War Against Jihad".
But, because most people still fail to understand what "jihad" means, it is better to call it:
"The War Against Islamic Fascism"
because people don't like "fascism" (even though few recall who or what they were, they know they were 'bad') and because it names "Islam".
Without naming Islam, in some form, the entire enterprise is delusionally p.c.
Without calling it "fascism" (or some kind of nazism), no one will know the fatal stakes.
"Resurgent Islamic Imperialism's War Against the Free World" is too long.
Even for a "long war".
So let them call it
"The War Against Islamic Fascism"
and be done with the re-re-re-revisionism.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 4, 2007 10:17 AM
Dudeinwales posted:
"How about calling the war simply "The Third Jihad"? That's what the enemy calls it, and personally, I find it infinitely more suitable. It's perfect - it acknowledges both that Islam as a whole is the aggressor and we are the defenders"
It also alludes to the Third Reich - as well it should.
Posted by: freedomschool at April 4, 2007 10:18 AM
Good names above. A few more below.
Islam's war against the rest.
The war for Dhimmi Independence.
The war that started in 622 AD when Muhammad pogromed Jews as soon as he got into power.
The war started by the dating of the Muslim calendar to year 1 AH and continues until the Muslim calendar is no longer used except by historians and Holocaust Musuems.
Muhammad’s Willing Executioners
by Andrew Bostom is a good source.
How about:
The War on Muhammad’s Willing Executioners
which suggests
The War on Muhammad's Christian and Jew Killers
Hanoi Jane Fonda AA gun v. Jill Carroll Captive Photo
This suggests
Islam's war on women.
Islam's war to degrade and humiliate women.
The War of the Medieval Rag.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 4, 2007 10:35 AM
Crusades 2.0
Posted by: Know Your Enemy at April 4, 2007 11:14 AM
If KKK militias started using terrorism in the United States and claimed a Christian religious foundation for their actions, would you call it a War on Christianity?
Probably not.
at April 4, 2007 11:41 AM
"would you call it a War on Christianity?"
....It would probably be called "The Two Week War"....
at April 4, 2007 11:50 AM
If we were fighting this war at every level that our enemies are - not just military, but legal, demographic, cultural, religious, etc, then the most apt description of it would have been the Jihad against Jihad (or the Jihad against Islam, if one prefers).
Since we are not, I suggest calling it 'Untying the Gordian knot', since unlike Alexander the Great, we aren't willing to cut the knot, but insist in exploring every detail of complexity about our enemy that's not Islam related, thereby making it less likely that we can do anything about them.
Given the Democrat goals, they should call it the 'War against Wars'.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 4, 2007 12:47 PM
This is Christ versus The Anti-Christ!
FROM:
http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/gburgess/charge1859.html
(with edits by poster)
When for the person of the great Antagonist of souls (Satan/Muhammad) is substituted the mere idea of all collective evil (Judaism, Christianity, i.e. all religions suck), the nature of that whole conflict (war against Islamofascism) is changed, for which, as Christians, we are enlisted; so far changed, that the human heart cannot but feel it to be less than before an actual struggle, and a struggle for life or death.
We are aroused as by the sound of a trumpet, when the apostles (Spencer, Fitzgerald et. al) call us to resist the devil, to wrestle against spiritual wickedness in high places, and to quench the fiery darts of the Wicked One. We are lulled as by the murmurs of treason, bidding us put off our armour, when we are told that no such foe is there (by dhimmis like Dinesh Desouza, Esposito, Karen Armstrong, etc.).
What hate and scorn towards the Evil One (Muhammad) burn in the hymns, (JW posts) sayings and life of Luther (Spencer, Fitzgerald, etc.)! With what subdued intensity of abhorrence is the name uttered in our liturgical prayers and deprecations (New Duranty Times, MSM, George Bush, Karen Hughes, etc. etc.)! Who can contend thus against an abstraction?
If he (Muhammad, the Fiend), with all his malice and his wiles, is but a figure of speech (politically correct attitude), what shall hinder that our renunciation of him, and our resistance to him, and all this holy war against his kingdom, may also be deemed an imaginary crusade, a figure as meaningless?
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 4, 2007 01:13 PM
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 4, 2007 1:55 PM
You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT,” said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. (from the article)
The point is not the war on terrorism part...it's the GLOBAL part they want to do away with.
By officially recognizing it as such they give GW Bush permission to make it a travelling road show, so to speak.
He gets to take it wherever it rears it's ugly head.
And we here know that is everywhere.
Come to think of it, it was one of his smart moments to call it that.
Look at this as one more instance of witnessing the first Coup of a President the USA has had so far. Lots of small wounds so the blood won't be obvious. Take away the power of the administrative branch a little at a time, with the confidence that most of the populace have never even bothered to read the constitution and won't notice all these small changes until it is too late. Where are the Senators we had in the past who would be in outrage over the misuse of the constitutional powers of the Congress and Judicial Branch?
I feel like I am watching Fox's 24, but a least there they had the guts to actually try to kill him outright.
at April 4, 2007 3:09 PM
Elric66 wrote: "I never liked the term. Its a War with Islam. War on terror was misleading."
Exactly. But who in the government, or the military, or the media has the kahones to speak the truth?
The War on Global Islam will be a long war. But, we must win it. We must prevail against the fascism of Islam which silences free speech, freedom of choice and freedom to worship as we choose.
The Democratic Dhimmis are extinguishing freedom of speech on the floor of The House. They are strangling freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom of choice.
But, what else can you expect from paid Saudi propagandists? Harry, Nancy, Raahm and Company never met a terrorist with a cash donation for their campaign war chests that they could refuse.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at April 4, 2007 4:17 PM
We are defending the World of Wood against Termites. Several types of Termites. They subsist on Wood and Cannibalism. What ever is handy.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at April 4, 2007 8:27 PM
I kinda agree with the Dems. We didn't have a "War on Sneak Attacks" after Pearl Harbor, did we? Bush and his Saudi Masters crack me up.
Posted by: Bingo at April 5, 2007 1:24 AM
Call it the War on our freedom's! How to you say GWOT without hacking on someone? Is it true LGF and other web sites have to been banned for the muslims are getting mad when we troll them out!?
Posted by: MZ at April 5, 2007 2:36 AM
It definitely is WAR on terror but it is something much more than that. It is what they have misinterpreted as a religion the same as the dhimmicrats here they have made it a religion not to believe in anything or have anything to believe in.
It is strange to see Pelosi submitting to their religious beliefs wearing a head scarf, before she has even submitted to us here in UNITED STATES! Where is her allegiance and do they know what that means? Didn't they ever have a kid's club or watch the Three Musketeers? Hey, that word is right by Muslim in the dictionary!
at April 5, 2007 3:03 AM
The Muslim extremists that are being called terrorists today have an agenda. They want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and they want to establish Islamic law. In one way, their goals are no different from the Muslim world as a whole, but the use of terrorism as a means to accomplish it is what we need to speak out against. Most Muslims are not terrorists, but since most Muslims share the same basic goals as the Islamic extremist terrorists, you can hardly tell them apart. It is really going to take the Muslim community worldwide to condemn terrorism in the name of Allah before there will be an end to it in our world.
Posted by: Joe61 at April 5, 2007 4:46 AM
On-Topic Must Read:
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm
“I’ll tell you what it is,” said the Time Traveler. “In philosophy and formal logic, and it has its equivalents in science and business management, Category Error is the term for having stated or defined a problem so poorly that it becomes impossible to solve that problem, through dialectic or any other means.”
Posted by: DJM at April 5, 2007 7:57 AM
Instead they introduce the Koran and it's teaching in College without any challenges and not let creatism be taught! Of coarse who knew we would have to learn all about them to understand what it is that is going on! Since there is no dialogue it is to the understanding oh lets be sympathetic! This again was challenged by the Pope rather, he laid out an invitation to do this. They rejected, and they always will for they cannot tell you what their true interpretation is! There are so many different beliefs in the muslim world. The sunni's and the shias, the arabs, islamist. To my understanding it is bin-laden who breathed life back into the caliphate and the sharia law is once again!
Oh, LGF, Hewitt and others were barred from airlines I guess is the problem-.
War against ignorance! War against the calling of death!
at April 5, 2007 3:14 PM
Correction they were barred from the airline club. GWOIT is what it is!
Posted by: MZ at April 5, 2007 7:04 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)