Terror Attacks in Britain

[TheNoNamedOne]

U.K. police make 5th terror arrest (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701/ap_on_re_eu/britain_terrorism)

In an interview on British Broadcasting Corp. TV Sunday, Brown, who replaced Tony Blair as Britain's prime minister last week, said Britons face a "long-term and sustained" terrorist threat.

He said that Britain's message to the terrorists must be: "We will not yield, we will not be intimidated, and we will not allow anyone to undermine our British way of life."

No, you will not win if you do not identify the enemy accurately. The enemy or threat is not terror or terrorism. That is a tactic, or the weapon, as are B1 Bombers, M16s or MOUT procedures.

The enemy is Islamic Militants.

[Boost]

U.K. police make 5th terror arrest (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701/ap_on_re_eu/britain_terrorism)

In an interview on British Broadcasting Corp. TV Sunday, Brown, who replaced Tony Blair as Britain's prime minister last week, said Britons face a "long-term and sustained" terrorist threat.

He said that Britain's message to the terrorists must be: "We will not yield, we will not be intimidated, and we will not allow anyone to undermine our British way of life."No, you will not win if you do not identify the enemy accurately. The enemy or threat is not terror or terrorism. That is a tactic, or the weapon, as are B1 Bombers, M16s or MOUT procedures.

The enemy is Islamic Militants.

For as word savvy as you are, I am surprised at this post. Terrorism is a tactic yes, but Prime Minister Brown did not send his message to terrorism, he sent it to terrorist. Terrorist, according to the current dictionary, is a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

The terrorist in this case are Islamic extremist true enough, but a terrorist could be anybody.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Good post, Boost (the edited version is better -- btw, thanks for the change).

Terrorism is a tactic yes, but Prime Minister Brown did not send his message to terrorism, he sent it to terrorist.

Let's be honest and not hide behind political correctness. Where are the majority of our recourses being devoted to in this "War on Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terrorism)"? (again -- addressing the tactic or weapon and not the enemy) -- To countries and populations WHICH are predominantly Islamic. Sure, we devote some funds targeting other profiles, but by and large, the bulk of our targeting is on Islamic militants.

If "Islamic Militants" are the more finely defined enemy, then it is counterproductive to dilute that with vague concepts that depend upon the perspective of the audience.

Terrorist, according to the current dictionary, is a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

State policy does not operate on the definitions that dictionaries provide.

The last time I checked, The State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and a myriad of other departments within the government all had different definitions of what terrorism is. Why? Because it is a slippery term or concept to apply. BECAUSE, as was duely noted by dk in another thread, one person's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter, and if not careful, applying the wrong or inadequate definition of terrorism or terrorist could result in our armed forces or those we support as being terrorists.

The terrorist in this case are Islamic extremist true enough, but a terrorist could be anybody.

EXACTLY! But, not anybody is an Islamic extremist. But, Islamic Extremists are not anybody. They are specific persons that exist and hence identifying them in public speech is what keeps our focus on them as a whole public.

Though, the term "extremist" itself is vague and dependent upon the audience. That is why Islamic Militant is the more apprropriate word. Anyone could be an extremist just for harboring extreme ideas -- but they should not be targeted for detention and interrogation just for harboring extreme ideas. Active Islamic Militants on the other hand is the more precise term and clearly defined for those we oppose.

[Asshat]

The US government killed a man's family at Ruby Ridge because he was a terrorist. Anyone who asks how to saw down a shotgun is a terrorist.

Entire regions and countries have large Muslim populations who do not export terrorism. I have many friends in these countries who do not support terrorism. Yet they are militant. Some of them are really angry at the “religion police Malaysia has. Others are seething over Shari a Law.

I think that using the term Islamic Militant to describe the current enemy is not accurate. It completely takes away from what the war is all about. The press and the President to a good job of stating “The War on Terror” as if it is something “they” did and we are just defending ourselves.

The good guys prance around shouting about "FREEDOM!" while we supply Israel with money and arms so they can lob those arms across some line the bible said was theirs and killing a few babies. Yet in the same instance, we good FREEDOM loving people turn a blind eye to the gross human rights injustice in the house of Al Saud in the name of oil.

The good guys conveniently forget about British colonialism and UN relocation camps. They forget about a Hummer in every driveway.

The West has wronged some people. A few Arabs did not wake up one day and decided to hate someone. So they declared war. That was a long time ago, and most of the world didn’t even take notice. Towers were bombed, US ships attacked, even the WTC was bombed.

Terrorism was the only tactic left to them. The same tactic America used when she fought GB for her independence. The same tactic she used in South and Central America, and as she did in the later days of Vietnam.

So the bad guys use the only dogma in their arsenal- a self-serving bastardized version of Islamic law. The good guys meanwhile keep driving their SUV’s shouting FREEDOM and buying into their own brand of warfare.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I think that using the term Islamic Militant to describe the current enemy is not accurate. It completely takes away from what the war is all about. The press and the President do a good job of stating “The War on Terror” as if it is something “they” did and we are just defending ourselves.

So there is no real tangible enemy? We are just fighting a method? Germany once was not in a war against the U.S. -- they were in a war against trench warfare and carpet bombing. Now I see. Terrorism just exists from our perspective.

Apparantly I am not the only one who sees how inadequate the phrase "War on Terror(ism)" is. Expert on radical Islamic activity, John Burke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#Criticisms_of_the_term), addresses the term:

"There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way." ("Al Qaeda", ch.2, p.22)

[Asshat]

So there is no real tangible enemy? Now I see. Terrorism just exists from our perspective.

I did not state there was no tangible enemy, only that the causes of this war are obfuscicated by the terminology used to describe it.

But yes, terrorism just exists from the perspective. Today is not Independance Day. Today is the celebration of our terrorist victory over the great oppressor, the King of England.

In later times, as the CIA would supply guns-n-ammo- they were called "Freedom Fighters."

I would launch into the causal effects spanning the last 50 years of Middle East dealings, but that is a dead horse, and available in numerous publications.