Britain Drops 'War on Terror' Label

[DrSpike]

Re: Re: Re: Britain Drops 'War on Terror' Label

Originally posted by Dauphin


Shouldn't mean anything as the compensation was given to victims of crime and not victims of terrorism or war.

Yes - that's right.

This change has been unofficially in place for some time now, and nice to see it formalised.

[lord of the mark]

"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."


so fighting fantasists, narcissisists, murderers, and criminals is necessarily not war?

anyway, AFAIK the cold war was never officially declared, yet MI6 in pursuit of it managed to go far beyond "police work". A rose by any other name can still perform covert actions.

[Qilue]

Involuntary euthanasia.

[TheStinger]

The term war has been dropped as it removes the perception that it is being waged on a community or that it gives the "other side" a legitiamcy that it doesn't deserve.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by TheStinger
or that it gives the "other side" a legitiamcy that it doesn't deserve.

How so?

[Imran Siddiqui]

'Cause they aren't really soldiers, they are a sorry bunch of loser criminals who aren't much different than a gang. To even afford them the honor of calling them 'soldiers' gives them a little bit of legitimacy.

[DinoDoc]

To even afford them the honor of calling them 'soldiers' gives them a little bit of legitimacy.

You haven't answered the question. Simply restated what TheStinger said.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Its quite obvious isn't it?

Soldiers are generally considered to have some legal protections. Criminals aren't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Its quite obvious isn't it?

How a word confers legitimacy? No, it isn't obvious at all.

Soldiers are generally considered to have some legal protections. Criminals aren't.

Criminals have no legal protections?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not internationally. Its all local law.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Its quite obvious isn't it?

Soldiers are generally considered to have some legal protections. Criminals aren't.

Not everyone who participates in a state vs state war is a soldier under international law, IIUC. OTOH, in an insurgency, some folks may be soldiers, while others arent. It has to do with operating in an orderly force, with uniforms, etc, IIUC, not the motivations or even necessarily the political status of the sides in question.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hence avoiding the term "soldier" to describe these people.

[DinoDoc]

Which has nothing to do with the term war confering some sort of legitimacy as Stinger and you alluded to.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hence avoiding the term "soldier" to describe these people.

Where in the phrase "war on terror" does the word soldier occur?

Anyway, the US Dept of Def doesnt call the overall situation the WOT anymore anyway. Its GSAVE, the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, IIUC. Which UK will still participate in.

I think the campaign in Afghanistan is still called the WOT though. What is UK going to call it, "the anticriminal campaign against Al Qaeeda, the Taliban, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar depending on what side of the bed he gets out of that day" ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Where in the phrase "war on terror" does the word soldier occur?

Well it seems to imply soldiers and battlefields doesn't it? Regardless of it being used for drugs and whatnot, when you say war, people think armies.