Britain wants to drop the “war on terror” phrase “because this isn’t us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.”
I’m gobsmacked, I tell you, gobsmacked. The “war on terror” is a silly, stupid, inadequate phrase, but for almost exactly the opposite of these reasons. One of its defects is that it doesn’t communicate the fact that we are facing one enemy (with various degrees of organization) with with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. As I and many others have pointed out on numerous occasions, terrorism is a tactic, not an opponent, and it was not invented by Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001.
And the British also have a bad idea here because we are facing one enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. Even if one believes that they are twisting and hijacking Islam, they are still at least self-proclaimed Islamic jihadists with the goal of setting up a worldwide caliphate. Even President Bush has spoken about that, on one or two occasions. But evidently now official Britain is retreating so far from reality that we have to pretend that we are facing simply a few gangs of thugs with no coherent ideology or common aims.
And don’t forget: the Democrats want to do this too.
Britain has decided to ban the term ‘War on Terror’ – sparking fears of a major row with the US.The International Development Secretary will say the phrase has strengthened militant groups by giving them a shared identity.
Hilary Benn’s speech is expected to anger the White House when he criticises President Bush’s phrase.
He will stress the term makes terrorist groups feel that they are part of something “bigger”.
Mr Benn will also urge world leaders to open dialogue with potential enemies rather than use military force.
President Bush championed the phrase ‘War on Terror’ shortly after the al Qaeda attacks on New York on September 11, 2001.
The Foreign Office called for it to be dropped in December last year but Washington stuck to its guns.
Mr Benn will say in his speech: “In the UK, we do not use the phrase ‘War on Terror’ because we can’t win by military means alone, and because this isn’t us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives.
“It is the vast majority of the people in the world – of all nationalities and faiths – against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups.
“What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence. And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength.”
They are part of something bigger, Mr. Benn, whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it. They believe that they are the sons and heirs of mujahedin going back 14 centuries. Do you really think they have just gotten this idea because you started calling them “terrorists”? If so, it is an appalling commentary on the state of affairs in the West that you occupy any position of public influence at all.
BBC Internal Memo Admits Anti-Christian Bias
Company executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals
By Gudrun Schultz
LONDON, United Kingdom, October 24, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The British Broadcasting Corporation has admitted to a marked bias against Christianity and a strong inclination to pro-Muslim reporting among the network’s executives and key anchors, in a leaked account of an “impartiality summit.”
The Daily Mail reported Sunday on the secret London meeting of key executives, called by BBC chairman Michael Grade and hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley. The report revealed that many senior executives are deeply frustrated with the corporation’s commitment to “political correctness” and liberal policies at the expense of journalistic integrity and objectivity.
BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals. They acknowledged that ethnic minorities held a disproportionate number of positions and said the BBC deliberately encourages multiculturalism and is more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians, .
Tossing the Bible into a garbage can on a comedy show would be acceptable, they said, but not the Koran, and if possible they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden, giving him the opportunity to explain his views.
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral,” said Andrew Marr, senior political commentator with the corporation. “It’s a publicly funded, urban organization with a abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”
Senior executives raised a chorus of complaints against the corporation for bias against the United States and strongly anti-national reporting. Justin Webb, Washington correspondent, said anti-American sentiment runs so deep in the corporation that the U.S. is treated with scorn and derision and given “no moral weight.”
“There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness,” said one senior executive. “Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture that it is very hard to change it.”
Mary Fitzpatrick, who oversees the corporation’s “diversity” policies, said Muslim women readers for BBC News should be permitted to wear veils while on air, if they choose, after a female newsreader caused a stir by wearing a visible cross on air. Ms. Fitzpatrick also defended the BBC against internal accusations of selective reporting on issues critical of the black community.
Andrew Marr, in an interview with the Mail, said, “The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.”
During the recent international upheaval over Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on Islam, the BBC was accused by media watchers of deliberately inflaming the Muslim community worldwide through biased and inflammatory coverage. Political commentator David Warren, writing for the Ottawa Citizen, said the BBC was “having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world.”
The international uproar led to retaliatory attacks in Israel against Christian churches and clergy, and the murder of a nun in Somalia