Democrats must not use term "war on terror."

[David__77]

"War on terror" is a right-wing slogan designed to keep to citizens of the U.S. in a perpetual state of fright. It provides the political basis of the neo-conservative reign in the Defense Department. It feeds the media's slavish worship of Bush's pronouncements.

There is no "war on terror." There are, however, policies and efforts ostensibly aimed at undermining groups carrying out terrorist activities. This is very different. By this account, there has been a "war on terror" since the foundation of this nation.

It is especially important that the leading Democratic candidates not use the term "war on terror." I watch this closely as it indicates the relative willingness of candidates to decisively break from the establishement politics of warmongering that find expression in both parties.

No progressive-minded individual should use the term "war on terror."

I am what certain neo-conservatives would call a "September 10th American." That is, I respect the Constitution and do not believe that because of the act of a small band of murderers that we must destroy freedom at home and rain bombs and death abroad.

No to the slogan "war on terror!"

[La_Serpiente]

1. I heard when

Dean made his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, he didn't use the word "war" at all. Is that true?

[David__77]

4. I wish I could remember where...

but I readin an article pointing out that Dean has very rarely used that term and that this was reflective of his thinking. It would not surprise me if Dean did what you say.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

2. I agree..

"National Security" is just fine. These War on xxx things have a nasty tendency to fail.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. How shall they present the case that they are the ones to prosecute it?

the bulk of the voting class does believe that there is a war on terror, and each Democratic candidate, if they are to resonate with that sector, must convince those voters that they can do a better job of fighting and winning the war on terror than bush.

They must be seen to be "tough on terror," and like George Wallace in 1958, vow that no Republican will "out-terror" them.

[David__77]

6. Another term is called for.

I disagree with the Wallace "out-n********" reference though. That's wrong. It's like Gray Davis here in CA, who claimed no one would get to his right on criminal justice issues. Well, guess what? He was true to his word, and in many respects was a right-wing reactionary that makes his successor look liberal by comparison, with criminal justice issues anyway.

Wallace could have won without his reactionary garbage just as Davis could have and just as Bush can be defeated. We need to talk about what will make the world and this nation really safe. We need to say that Bush's actions have made us LESS safe. The war on Iraq was not a war on terror--it has made this coutry more vulnerable to attack. Someone needs to say these things in way that connects with people. We can't passively accept the lying mantra of our enemies--Bush & Co.

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. Yes, all the candidates agree that changing the names of things is key

Names are important. Iraq, for example.

"Operation Kill the Iraqis and Steal Their Oil For Rich Old Farts" doesn't sound so good, even to rich old farts.

"Operation Iraqi Freedom," now that sounds a lot better.

I am confident that the Democratic candidates will be able to come up with an even more attractive name.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Trademark infringement.

"War on Terror", like the "War on Drugs" is a copyright phrase of the RNC.

[sweetheart]

7. The mindset of "war" IS terrorism

The eurphemism is like having a boxing match with a single boxer who beats himself to a pulp.

In making fun of the stupidity, i prefer "war of terror" which is more precise given that the "war" has murdered 10,000 civilians minimum more than any terrorist action.

In semantic thinking however, war, being itself terror, should never be discussed in public. Rather, security services should do their jobs and ensure security by being impeccable.

Mass murder is a crime. As long as "they" are persecuted for it, and "bush" applauded for it, the hipocrasy speaks for itself. Impeach, try, imprison. Bush's cell should be the same size as saddam's, and as his pappys... they should all be on the same cell block and eat and sleep together given how they are such mates.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

12. Yup. Howzabout "War For More Terror"? Too much truth? Naa, just right!

This is important. Vocabulary is everything in framing an issue.

Search up the work of David Lakoff. He's a linguist who emphasizes this and met with Dean briefly.

Like Chomsky, a sharp guy who points out that the words we use to think about things can mean life or death.

[sweetheart]

13. for campaigning... hmmm

War of terror, i still think is more appropriate than "war for more terror" as of course using terror will blowback (a great book by chalmer johnson).... but what we are really discussing is spin-o-rama ways of putting forward that conflict in a light that both tells the truth as well as deflates the illusion of fear and impending doom...

sorta like "we have nothing to fear but fear itself"

"We shall not flinch in fear to terror"
"Fear will not rule the american people." (terror word unused)

I prefer the opposite myself, "the embrace of peace"
"there is no terror but fear itself" -modified FDR

Terrorists are insurgents, destructive warriors gone off reservation, like rambo in first blood.
"The only thing we have to fear are those who say we should be afraid." - perhaps too honest
"The way to win the war on terror is to give no ground; to not let those who want us to live in fear succeed; to embrace them, like jesus embraced those who did not understand his love."

To do this we need to ... blah blah... speach on defeating terrorism.

It is a police matter and bush is point blank wrong (as usual in SOTU).... behind the scenes, let the samurais and the ninjas do their job and keep your big trap shut... wage no wars and embrace all peoples.

[LibDemAlways]

9. Agreed..Nor should they use the term

"Homeland." I'll vote for the first Dem who publically repudiates this Nazi-like term in favor of "domestic."

The Dept. of Homeland Security, presided over by Pillsbury Doughboy turned cryptkeeper Ridge and his goons, fighting a bogus "war on terror" is the stuff of nightmares.

[fleetus]

10. Totally Agree, "Homeland" is a neocon-coction.

It was obnoxious to create a "Department of Homeland Security" when we already have a "Department of Defense" and a "National Guard." Rather than create the DoHS, it would better reflect reality if they renamed the DoD and NG.

But nothing coming out of this administration seems to be named correctly. With the Clear Sky's Act, No Child Left Behind, Healthy Forest Act, Operation Iraqi Freedom, (insert big fat ETC here), I feel like it's National Bass Ackwards Day where no means yes and yes means no.

:wtf:

[newyawker99]

30. Hi fleetus!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Hippo_Tron]

20. How about the department of "Defense"...

Since what we know as the Department of Defense is really the Department of War.

[fleetus]

21. Bingo (n/t)

[gate of the sun]

11. the War on Propaganda

would be nice but of course no one would believe it...everyone is so *ucking brainwashed by the spin media.....you should hear my mother I can tell when they are hyping up the terror spin because she gets scared and talks about all sorts of crazy stuff. Unfortunatly for me and herself she doesn't know better . Fox news is akin to the scriptures.

Hey back to the subject I agree it shouldn't be used......the words creates an image in people's mind that you don't want activated....September 10th American...not bad

[Cleita]

14. Substitute the cold war and you have the same message from

a different century.

[MacCovern]

15. small band of murderers????

First off, I have to say I agree that parts of the "war"
are abysmal like the Patriot Acts. It is also chilling to think
of American citizens locked up indefinitely without legal counsel.

On the other hand, the small group of murderers you mentioned killed
around 4,000 people in just a couple of hours. Thankfully, Al Qaeda
is probably not ready to throw another punch like that any time soon, but
they are trying to rebuild and they are thinking of even more horrific attacks within the USA. If they are able to anytime soon who knows.

To me, even the term "War on Terror" is politically correct. It is simply a: WAR ON ISLAMIC JIHADISTS

[sweetheart]

17. What kind of terror

Would YOU feel were you at a wedding party of your daughter, and as you left the celibration, aircraft from high above dropped bombs on you and killed everyone in your family and guests except you?

Who is the terrorist?

It is a war on nobody, it is a war of evil against civilians, and as usual in ALL WARS, the greatest toll is paid by civilians and women... it is a war of misogyny... hatred of all things feminine.

It is not politically correct... except in a band of nazi criminals... yet had you said hitler's mein kampf was politically correct at a nuremburg rally sixty some years ago, you would have been accepted as a good nazi.... you are being politically correct to say so... a good nazi.

It is evil. It is an evil war to put americans in danger. It is a gross mistake in judgement that will lead to 10's of thousands more dead.... the fools... the fools... know not what they do... but they are fools indeed.

The american government has killed with impunity 1000's more than the 4000 that you mention... the myopia must be transcended or you appear nothing but a media-insulated american nazi sympathizer.

I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but really, since when did jesus count american deaths as more important than 1000's of other people... it is disgusting and the very antithesis of christianity.

I mean you no ill...

peace and awakened wisdom ... please.

-s

[MacCovern]

18. All deaths are sad

Listen sweetheart, (I always wanted to say that in a smirky way)

In looking at your reply to my post, I find it hard to connect the dots on many of your points. First of all: I never said American deaths are more important than the deaths of people from other nations. It is sad that anyone has to die in connection with any war. It is also sad that a minority group of muslims see fit to attack innocent civilians ALL OVER THE WORLD. When that same group of muslims attacked the United States there was an answer.

Do you think it's an accident that of the armed conflicts in the world today that 95% of them involve the muslim religion?????

I remember in the late 1970's listening to talk radio. (Yes, I was listening to talk radio back then). There was a supposed expert on terrorism that warned that within the next 25 years there would be a large scale terror attack by islamists within the United States. At the time I thought it was ridiculous, but it came true just as predicted.

You say it's a "war on nobody". I beg to differ, because it is a very clearly defined war on radical islam. It's a war on an enemy that I have no doubt would completely destroy the western world if they were able.

[sweetheart]

19. A war on radical islam?

Islam is a peaceful religion. They are not islamic any more than an abortion clinic bomber/murderer claims the soverignty of christ.

It is a war on a people, a race, secular islamic peoples, the people of the middle east, the decendents of those who fought against the crusaders long ago, the turks, the persians, those whom the west has waged war on for centuries. They have just reason to be suspicious. We, as a western anglo-saxon culture have stolen from and usurped justice from these peoples now for centuries... most recently, if we need use totally current examples, by supporting an absolute dictatorship in pakistan, and an ugly repression in saudi arabia called the haus of saud.

It is the USA that started the civil war in lebannon, the civil war in iran that has lead to theocracy, the arming and empowering of the iraq saddam regime to murder 1000's of people. WE DID IT. It was not the islamic people making a mess in that regioun it was us. THe terrorists are at langley and the school of the americias and at teh white house.

I agree that there are agents abroad, a network of agents who are bent on destroying all goodwill towards western civilization. This network of agents, like all guerilla insurgency armies, has no qualm about what its targets are, the higher profile the better. Symbolic targets are best, destory the will of the people to fight on and all that stuff... hell, our own fucking army teaches that crap... they are merely turning our terrorism against us. I had a link, that i've lost, but perhaps a reader here has one to a .mil website showing terrorist insurgentcy tactics taught in the american military... it is a frikking textbook for those who've attacked the US in this recent war on evil.

Previous imperial nations who've fought wars on terror have discovered that they always lose. The will to fight a war has to do with the dogged spirit to fight, and like viet nam, and the american revolutonary war, the defender in such a war, ALWAYS WINS... as it is a war of wills, a war of .. (the word escapes me!!) shoot.

The best way to take down these people is to fight them in secret. I certianly do not advocate not defending civilians and civilization, absolutely not, just not with big words.. ONLY actions... plain clothes, global diplomatic cooperation, international courts, and all that good stuff.

It is not islam. It is guerilla warfare.

Hell, i heard nixon resign on armed forces radio berlin in 1973, and it left me feeling that evil men would never again take over the government of the USA... and i am equally fooled as you by wiser talk radio than i.

It is not a religion.

[fla nocount]

16. How bout War on "Terra"

in reference to whats happening to our mother the earth? If one of the candidates were to start this meme they would get my vote....all but one of them anyway.

[NewJeffCT]

22. What do you propose as an alternative?

What should we use instead of "War on Terror"?

Most Americans do think of it as a war.

[lostnfound]

23. PO'ed Ex-Republican had it right: (normal) National Security

They think of it as war because they have been brainwashed.

The real questions, and real solutions, have to do with questions like:
*why did our national security agencies not do their job?
*what threatens our national security and what can we do about it?

Did we declare a war on home-grown terror after OK city?
No, we looked to the causes, the methods used, the individuals responsible, the possibility of like-minded attacks.

[David__77]

27. "Fight" or "struggle," not war.

And rather than use "on terror," I would use "to protect our nation," or "for our security." I would be very emphatic, especially emphasizing that the Bush doctrine is bad for national security.

[GringoTex]

24. Timing

Sounds great. AFTER the election, I'm all for our new Democratic president leading an "Effort Against Terrorism." AFTER the election.

[fleetus]

25. Because...?

Because you do not want the Democrats to look "weak on foreign policy?"

If this is what you are thinking, it is a possible repercussion that I hadn't thought of before. I do think that most Americans agree that terrorism should be fought in one way or another. It is possible that if democrats "downgrade" the term from the already strong "war" on terrorism, it could give the message that we want to give terrorists more leeway.

Whether or not this is what you meant, it did make me think about this issue in a slightly new light.

[lostnfound]

29. Using Bush's terminology subliminally helps Bush's re-election

because it is designed to instill fear and fearful people rally around their president.

Better to use words that emphasize the roots of terrorism.

We need to "dig up the roots of terrorism".
We need to stop aiding terrorism.

[David__77]

28. While I understand your concern...

I think it's crucial to alter the ideological landscape now, or else it will be to the detriment of our efforts later this year. Obliterating this ideological prop of Bush is key. I don't argue that the nominee should absolutely never say the term if necessary, but it should be vigorously avoided.

[Woodstock]

26. Yes, I always put that in quotes while mocking Bush - it's so Bush

"War on terror" - it sounds like something a child would say. Or Bush.