NEW Name!

[chitchat]

New name for 'war on terror'
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington


The Bush administration is abandoning the phrase "war on terror" to better express the fight against al-Qaeda and other groups as an ideological struggle as much as a military mission.


While the slogan - first used by President George W Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks - may still be heard from time to time, the White House says it will increasingly be couched in other language.

In recent days, senior administration figures have been speaking publicly of "a global struggle against the enemies of freedom", and of the need to use all "tools of statecraft" to defeat them.

The shift in terms comes at a time when the US public is increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq - and sceptical about its links to the fight against terrorism.

One White House official told the BBC the move did not mark a change of approach, but was intended to give a broader perspective to the "evolving nature" of the struggle.

'Economic influence'

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke in the new language on Friday, praising a retiring Navy officer who had served as "our country wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization".


The long-term problem is as much diplomatic, as much economic, in fact more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military
General Richard Myers

The next day, national security advisor Steven Hadley co-wrote a piece for the New York Times in which he set out the current thinking.

"Military action is only one piece of the war on terrorism," Mr Hadley wrote.

"At the same time, however, we must bring all of the tools of statecraft, economic influence and private enterprise to bear in this war.

"Freedom-loving people around the world must reach out through every means - communications, trade, education - to support the courageous Muslims who are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends."

The country's top military officer spoke in a similar vein on Monday.

General Richard Myers told a meeting at the National Press Club: "The long-term problem is as much diplomatic, as much economic, in fact more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.

"And that's where the focus has to be in the future."

Tough talking

Earlier this month, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook criticised the language employed by the US president, saying that instead of isolating terrorists, he had upset Muslims around the world.


Mr Cook - an opponent of the war in Iraq - told the BBC: "I think the problem with George Bush's approach is that he does keep talking about it as a war on terror as if there is a military solution and there isn't."

But while the president has continued to talk of "taking the fight to the enemy", his recent speeches have also emphasized freedom, democracy and the worldwide clash of ideas.

A White House official said: "We are constantly reviewing how we can best protect our citizens from terrorism and we need to adjust our approach to achieve this.

"The 'war' is more than a military response, it is a battle of ideas and a struggle against extremism, and all aspects of the US Government and its allies around the world need to be called upon in fighting it.

"In Afghanistan, the extremist Taleban regime no longer has a base of operations, a clearly identified location that requires a war - there is now a democratically-elected government there.

"It's a different situation again in London where you've got, say, a second generation British Muslim influenced by the preachings of a radical cleric."

Slow evolution

Meanwhile, Lieutenant General James T Conway, a senior US military commander, told a Pentagon briefing there had been "philosophical discussions" with US allies over the use of the phrase.

"We've been told, actually, that "global war on terrorism" translates pretty well into the various languages," he added.

"So I think that continues to make it a part of the discussion."

A Pentagon spokesman said the title of a new manual for combatant commanders suggested a slow evolution in the recasting of the mission away from its military aspect.

The National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, issued in March, directs commanders to focus on eight areas essential to terrorists.

These include areas like funding and ideological support, safe havens, communications and movement.

The phrase "war on terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the efforts by Britain to end a spate of attacks in the British mandate of Palestine in the late 1940s.

Later, it was frequently employed by US President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

But since the 9/11 attacks it has become a slogan for the protracted, US-led struggle to terrorists and the states that aid them, usually expressed as "the global war on terror".


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...as/4719169.stm

Published: 2005/07/27 00:26:04 GMT

© BBC MMV

[chitchat]

It's common now for Blair, Bush and others to be speaking of their war against Islam in more accurate terms such as war of ideas like Blair said in his press briefing yesterday.

But they still lack the courage to be honest and say that is a war against a rival ideology, Islam, as was the case with Communism during the cold war. The reason being that this would gaurantee their failure as Muslims would firmly take their stance on the side of their ideology.

So they have taken the deceptive approach of reforming Islam from within through the using their agents from within the Muslims claiming that they want to take back Islam from the "Extremists" and give it back to the "Moderates". And like Blair has said several times now that this is not a campaign to suppress Islam and his proof is that they allow the Muslims to worship freely.

But this actually proves the point that this IS a campaign to suppress Islam because they only accept the spiritual side of Islam and the rest of it is dismissed as "extremism" by attempts to secualrize Islam by detaching the political side from it.

Islam is complete and provides solutions for all of life's issues along with a system by which these solutions are implemented, the belief is preserved and the ideology of Islam is spread to the world. The Messenger (saw) was not a hermit who just hibernated in the mosque. He (saw) established the Islamic State, was it's Head, implemented the ahkam (laws which are the solutions to life's issues) and carried the message of Islam to the world by Jihad. The Sahaba continued this by appointing Caliphs like Abu Bakr, Umar etc who then were the heads of state, Implementing Islam and carrying its message to mankind until within 100 years, the Muslims had expanded into Africa to the west coast, in Europe to France and Asia to the wall of China.

All of this would be "extremism" for the West because they didn't confine Islam to the ritual worships to the point where Blair said:

"They demand the elimination of Israel...
the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries...(ie removal of their occupation)
...the establishment of ....Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4689363.stm

But these are the demands of Islam and ALL Muslims.

And they would even claim that the presentation of these facts which are known to and acepted by all Muslims is a "perversion of this peaceful religion of Islam". But who is the one who is REALLy trying to pervert Islam?

So how can they claim they don't have a problem with Islam and this is not a campaign to Suppress Islam when they are targetting those who carry Islam as it should be, completely with the aim of establishing it in the realm of life via State, which will implement Islam?

And who are they kidding in beleiving that Muslims will apostasize from Islam to follow their new religion called Moderate Islam?

Great book further proving this is a campaign to suppress Islam can be read here

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/English/...ss%20Islam.pdf


THE ABOOVE IS ABU_JAMAL (HT-FORUM)

[chitchat]

It seems like the kuffar are trying to re-name Islam with the term “Al-Qaeda”. In order to make it easier for them to target specific groups of people within the ummah.

They want to make sure Islam is never ever implemented on a political scale, their so called “war on terror” is in fact war on Islam.

The cowards are always planning and plotting against the believers. Their aim is make certain Ideas, which emanates from the Islamic aqeeda, are not practised by the Muslims.

They are worried about upsetting the Muslims by challenging these ideas and directly linking them to Islam.
But on the other hand challenging these same ideas linking them to “Al-Qaeda” seem to be the way forward for them.

BY UNITY: (HT-FORUM)

[christy]

[quote]Originally posted by chitchat
[b]New name for 'war on terror'
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke in the new language on Friday, praising a retiring Navy officer who had served as "our country wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization".


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rumsfeld used the *evolved* words, just as *knifing and stoning and firebombing* attackes have *evolved* into to *suicide-bombing-attacks* .

Dont all Muslims believe in evolution? Allah supports evolution, doesn't he?

So what's wrong with words and phrases if they have evolved?

[christy]

Originally posted by chitchat

The cowards are always planning and plotting against the believers. Their aim is make certain Ideas, which emanates from the Islamic aqeeda, are not practised by the Muslims.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My worry is this: If Allah is not able to control his followers, who will be able to do it?

I suggest that all GOOD MUSLIMS set a certain month to FAST and PRAY and do it all over the world. Maybe Allah might intervene if enough Muslims agree together and FAST & PRAY!

[/b]