White House: 'War on terrorism' is over

1.44

Member of The Month SEPTEMBER 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
4,359
Likes
23
White House: 'War on terrorism' is over

It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in March that the administration was not using the term "war on terror" but no specific directive had come from the White House itself. Mr. Obama himself used the term "war on terror" on Jan. 23, his fourth day as president, but has not used it since.

Mr. Brennan's speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the "upstream" factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred.

The president's adviser talked about increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions, but provided few details about how the White House will do that.

He was specific about ways in which Mr. Obama believes words influence the way America prosecutes the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting "jihadists" is wrongheaded because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" which "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve."

"Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said.

As for the "war on terrorism," Mr. Brennan said the administration is not going to say that "because 'terrorism' is but a tactic — a means to an end, which in al Qaedas case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate."

"You can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself," Mr. Brennan said.

He also said that to call the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups — which he said remains "a dynamic and evolving threat" — should not be called "a global war."

While Mr. Brennan acknowledged that al Qaeda and its affiliates are active in countries throughout the Middle East and Africa, he also said that "portraying this as a 'global' war risks reinforcing the very image that al Qaeda seeks to project of itself — that it is a highly organized, global entity capable of replacing sovereign nations with a global caliphate."

The president's adviser said that in discussing counter terror operations, Mr. Obama "has encouraged us to be even more aggressive, even more proactive, and even more innovative" than they have been proposing.

But Mr. Brennan lamented "inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness" surrounding the national security debate and said Mr. Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological."

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over - Washington Times
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,707
So there will be talks with good taliban in the near future and US/NATO will be making the exit from Afghanistan with tail nicely tucked in between the legs.
 

I-G

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
2,736
Likes
55
So there will be talks with good taliban in the near future and US/NATO will be making the exit from Afghanistan with tail nicely tucked in between the legs.
US and Nato wants to exit from Afghanistan as its costing them by money and lifes . The only thing is this that they started this mess during cold war and will left all the countries to suffer specially India,Russia,China and Iran.
 

1.44

Member of The Month SEPTEMBER 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
4,359
Likes
23
So there will be talks with good taliban in the near future and US/NATO will be making the exit from Afghanistan with tail nicely tucked in between the legs.
And the score is-

Well equipped military force:0
Rebel militant force:2
 

Jeypore

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
148
Likes
3
US and Nato wants to exit from Afghanistan as its costing them by money and lifes . The only thing is this that they started this mess during cold war and will left all the countries to suffer specially India,Russia,China and Iran.
US is not leaving, this terms are eliminated because of the new Obama Global policy to Muslims. Remember the speech in Egypt. US cannot leave now, especially with India's interest in the region as well as there own. But the facts remains Al queda and these talibans has to be eliminated.

Remember the fight is for the idelogy, and US has learned really well that the same idelogy can permeiate into Pakistan (nuclear state) fairly easy if not kept in check. So I do not see US leaving this region for long time.

Regard!!!
 

Tamil

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
446
Likes
11
So there will be talks with good taliban in the near future and US/NATO will be making the exit from Afghanistan with tail nicely tucked in between the legs.
If they return they surly lose the war...

US is not leaving, this terms are eliminated because of the new Obama Global policy to Muslims. Remember the speech in Egypt. US cannot leave now, especially with India's interest in the region as well as there own. But the facts remains Al queda and these talibans has to be eliminated.

Remember the fight is for the idelogy, and US has learned really well that the same idelogy can permeiate into Pakistan (nuclear state) fairly easy if not kept in check. So I do not see US leaving this region for long time.

Regard!!!
i think pakistan is the only country getting benefits from this war from US as AID.
 

I-G

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
2,736
Likes
55
US is not leaving, this terms are eliminated because of the new Obama Global policy to Muslims. Remember the speech in Egypt.
Obama global policy is not for Muslims but to get out of the mess created by ex president Bush as its damaging america economically . Obama just gave speech and nothing much have changed on ground , everything is the same .

Turkey,Egypt and Saudi arabia all have suffered because of the Iraq war and Obama is trying to just reaffirm its relationship with those countries .

US cannot leave now, especially with India's interest in the region as well as there own.
If America really cares about India then first it should giving aid to Pakistan and selling them advance weapons , now American weapons are visible in Kashmir.

But the facts remains Al queda and these talibans has to be eliminated.
American adm was in touch with Taliban and even Al qaida till 9 11 and even Mullah omer was ready to handover Osama just for 6000 to 8000 al Qaida members (who were ally against Soviets) America gone inside Afghanistan and destryed that nation and now fighting with Afghans in which majority of them dont even have taliban mentality . now the fight is not about Taliban or Al Qaida but about the Pashtuns nationalism .



Remember the fight is for the idelogy, and US has learned really well that the same idelogy can permeiate into Pakistan (nuclear state) fairly easy if not kept in check. So I do not see US leaving this region for long time.
So who really flamed this fire and gone to teach Soviets the lesson .. Soviets entered Afghanistan to curb the Islamists which were backed ,armed,funded and trained by Americans and its allies only . Why havnt America thought about that ideology when soviets were fighting ?

The regional powers should solve this issue and America really cant make any difference , you know what is the problem here .. America only because all the neighbouring countries Russia,China,India and Iran are uncomfortable with the presence of America and Nato .
 

Jeypore

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
148
Likes
3
I-G

Obama global policy is not for Muslims but to get out of the mess created by ex president Bush as its damaging america economically . Obama just gave speech and nothing much have changed on ground , everything is the same .

Let me repeat Mr. I-G, Obama foreign policy regarding Muslisms is to bridge the gap that was created by Bush administration, and that's all. The fight against Islamic fundamentalist is still on. The speech in Cairo, was to show that America will look at all Muslims concerns neutrally.

Turkey,Egypt and Saudi arabia all have suffered because of the Iraq war and Obama is trying to just reaffirm its relationship with those countries .
Wrong again, You are going to have to prove to me how these countries have suffered base on Iraq War? Infact they benefited because of that move.

If America really cares about India then first it should giving aid to Pakistan and selling them advance weapons , now American weapons are visible in Kashmir.
What nonsence are you talking about, the Pakistan Aid is for the cost that is incured to fight Talibans. It is nothing to do with America, when Pakistan allocated those funds somewhere else. Today India has been offered more advance weapons from America then Pakistan. And Pakistanie future interms of American weapons are looking blicker by the day because of the fund mismanagement. Currently all the Aid bill to Pakistan are Non-military, if you did not know.


American adm was in touch with Taliban and even Al qaida till 9 11 and even Mullah omer was ready to handover Osama just for 6000 to 8000 al Qaida members (who were ally against Soviets) America gone inside Afghanistan and destryed that nation and now fighting with Afghans in which majority of them dont even have taliban mentality . now the fight is not about Taliban or Al Qaida but about the Pashtuns nationalism .
Mullah Omer ready to hand over Osama!!!! What??? You need to study this little harder to understand the situation. First of all the trainned fighter by the American where call mujahideen's, once the soviets left, so did the Americans. It was Pakistan that use this knowledge to turn them into talibans and Kahmir freedom fighters.

The orginal fight is for Al Qaida, but the talibans have safe guarded them, so the fight become for Al Qaida and talibans. Do you know the different Nationality in Afganistan? Let me give a hint it not only Pashtuns!!!!


So who really flamed this fire and gone to teach Soviets the lesson .. Soviets entered Afghanistan to curb the Islamists which were backed ,armed,funded and trained by Americans and its allies only . Why havnt America thought about that ideology when soviets were fighting ?
Read above!!! Blaming America where it is not due is useless here.

The regional powers should solve this issue and America really cant make any difference , you know what is the problem here .. America only because all the neighbouring countries Russia,China,India and Iran are uncomfortable with the presence of America and Nato
You are also way off here. These countries you have mentioned cannot do Sh*t without America presence in the region. And History shows that. India and Iran support Northern Alliance, yet the Talibans took over the Afganistan. Why did India do nothing to regain Afganistan? The only reason India is in Afganistan today because of America. And they are here to stay, so stop all this bull where regional powers can solve the problem because they can't.
 

I-G

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
2,736
Likes
55
Let me repeat Mr. I-G, Obama foreign policy regarding Muslisms is to bridge the gap that was created by Bush administration, and that's all. The fight against Islamic fundamentalist is still on. The speech in Cairo, was to show that America will look at all Muslims concerns neutrally.
Speech in Cairo was having many objectives including the elections in Lebanon and Iran ,getting support from Saudi arabia and UAE to keep up the dollar as the main currency and all these things occurred before G8 summit .

Wrong again, You are going to have to prove to me how these countries have suffered base on Iraq War? Infact they benefited because of that move.
Turkey is having problems because of kurds and since the beginning Turkey opposed this war . Egypt and Saudi Arabia are facing the raise of extremists within thier countries and because of this war ,Shias are in control and Saudi arabia is having border with Iraq .

What nonsence are you talking about, the Pakistan Aid is for the cost that is incured to fight Talibans. It is nothing to do with America, when Pakistan allocated those funds somewhere else. Today India has been offered more advance weapons from America then Pakistan. And Pakistanie future interms of American weapons are looking blicker by the day because of the fund mismanagement. Currently all the Aid bill to Pakistan are Non-military, if you did not know.
America is just trying to use India against China and to get business for its weapons industries and tahts why its offering advance weapons . All the reports clearly shows that Pakistan have diverted most of the funds against India not taliban and even the same can be repeated again .


Mullah Omer ready to hand over Osama!!!! What??? You need to study this little harder to understand the situation. First of all the trainned fighter by the American where call mujahideen's, once the soviets left, so did the Americans. It was Pakistan that use this knowledge to turn them into talibans and Kahmir freedom fighters.
Pushing all the blame on Pakistan and saying that Americans left its quite easier , recently one article came out that America was in touch with Al Qaida and taliban till 9 11 and was assisting then in central asia China according to FBI employee

US, Osama had close ties till 9/11
US, Osama had close ties till 9/11? - US - World - NEWS - The Times of India


U really need to do more research in this matter , Mullah Omer was ready to handover Osama in 1998 and even in 2001

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
Sunday 14 October 2001 22.19 BST
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over | World news | guardian.co.uk

Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover in 1998
Monday 5 November 2001 02.26 GMT
Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover | World news | The Guardian


The orginal fight is for Al Qaida, but the talibans have safe guarded them, so the fight become for Al Qaida and talibans. Do you know the different Nationality in Afganistan? Let me give a hint it not only Pashtuns!!!!
Taliban are Pashtuns and now America and Nato are fighting a different war and thats Afghan nationalism . I m aware of all the nationalities of Afghanistan . The main fight is done under the command of pasthuns .


Read above!!! Blaming America where it is not due is useless here.
Its not blaming , when Soviets were trying to curb , these people were called Mujahideens and when Americas then these people are terrorists . Militancy increased in all the neighbouring countries after the withdrawal of the Soviets. India ,China and Russia are still fighting it and have lost many lifes in this .


You are also way off here. These countries you have mentioned cannot do Sh*t without America presence in the region. And History shows that. India and Iran support Northern Alliance, yet the Talibans took over the Afganistan. Why did India do nothing to regain Afganistan? The only reason India is in Afganistan today because of America. And they are here to stay, so stop all this bull where regional powers can solve the problem because they can't.
You are way wrong in this matter .. militancy in Kashmir have been curb by Indian Forces , the same Chinese did in thier part and even the Russians in thier part . American intervention in this region have increased extremism starting from 80's.

Russia,India and Iran did supported Northern Alliance but it was way less because taliban came into power because Afghans were fed up with the war lords and soon controlled 90% of Afghanistan , warlords often surrendering to them without a fight. Laters it was the pakistani establishment which started to use taliban for thier purpose .

the problem in Afghanistan can be solved without the interferance of outside powers and mainly the neighbouring countries should put the effort . Russia wants a government in afghanistan which listen to it , China wants the same , Pakistan wants the same ,Iran wants the same ,India wants the same and America and nato wants the same . All these regional and global powers are involved in Afghanistan and thats why its a mess .
 

Jeypore

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
148
Likes
3
US, Osama had close ties till 9/11
US, Osama had close ties till 9/11? - US - World - NEWS - The Times of India


U really need to do more research in this matter , Mullah Omer was ready to handover Osama in 1998 and even in 2001

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
Sunday 14 October 2001 22.19 BST
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over | World news | guardian.co.uk

Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover in 1998
Monday 5 November 2001 02.26 GMT
Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover | World news | The Guardian
You are still confused about the Al queda and Talibans. Let me clerify for you Mr. I-G. The ruling Talibans in Afganistan where only interested in Afganistan, while Al queda wanted Jihad to all the western cultures and countries that supported them. One is local and the other was international domination, thru Jihad.

After clearfing this, Talibans particularly did not favor Al queda because Osama media personality,
One possible reason for the Taliban's willingness to surrender Bin Laden at the time was that they were not keen to have him in the first place.
but they protected him and gave them a small corner of the country to stay, let me repeat Al queda did not control Afganistan.

Regarding your articles, one that interest me the most is this:

Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover in 1998
Monday 5 November 2001 02.26 GMT
Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover | World news | The Guardian


the orther ones are crap and cannot hold water, so I will not retort.

Now regarding this article let me clearfy some of the senarios you are reading:

Mullah Mohammed Omar agreed three years ago to hand over Osama bin Laden, but changed his mind after US cruise missile attacks,
Now this conversation happen in 1998, before 9/11 very important. When they (al queda) bombed the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, killing hundreds of people. Shortly afterwards, the US under Bill Clinton started to look for Osama. If you remember Bill Clinton order Tomahock missile on location of Osama in Afganistan. Osama escaped to Pakistan (peshaware), where Mulla Omar was protecting Osama. But the mind was clearly changed because of the missile attack. Case in Point from your article:

The claim, by Prince Turki al-Faisal, is likely to raise questions about whether more efforts could have been made to negotiate Bin Laden's extradition before launching the latest bombing campaign

So,

Pushing all the blame on Pakistan and saying that Americans left its quite easier , recently one article came out that America was in touch with Al Qaida and taliban till 9 11 and was assisting then in central asia China according to FBI employee


Your statement above is contradictory to what is really on the ground here. This US conspiracy about Taliban and Al qaida is just means of justify the Devil America senario. Do not live in this mental state, put the blame where it is due!!!


Since I am busy today, I will retort to other rants later!!!

Thanks.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
A bit too soon. I would have loved to see a B-52 drop those 2000 pounders on he head of the clown before calling it a day. :blum3:
 

I-G

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
2,736
Likes
55
You are still confused about the Al queda and Talibans. Let me clerify for you Mr. I-G. The ruling Talibans in Afganistan where only interested in Afganistan, while Al queda wanted Jihad to all the western cultures and countries that supported them. One is local and the other was international domination, thru Jihad.
I m not confused about anything ... Soviets were trying to curb the raise of Extremists in Afghanistan and tahts why they entered Afghanistan , and these outfits were already getting arms even before the Soviets entered . So why that time America supported these outfits . have u read the detailed article about Al Qaida on BBC . how they came into exist and from where they got the arms .

After clearfing this, Talibans particularly did not favor Al queda because Osama media personality,
So you now accepts that Taliban were ready to handover Osama but President Bush rejected it and started bombing Afghanistan . in short yes or no .


but they protected him and gave them a small corner of the country to stay, let me repeat Al queda did not control Afganistan.
Dont u know why they give him refuge , Just because of the fight against the Soviets .


Now this conversation happen in 1998, before 9/11 very important. When they (al queda) bombed the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, killing hundreds of people. Shortly afterwards, the US under Bill Clinton started to look for Osama. If you remember Bill Clinton order Tomahock missile on location of Osama in Afganistan. Osama escaped to Pakistan (peshaware), where Mulla Omar was protecting Osama. But the mind was clearly changed because of the missile attack. Case in Point from your article:

yes i remember the missile attacks carried out by Americans on Sudan and Afghanistan after the embassy bombings . According to some it was attracting attention away from the Lewinsky scandal by Mr Clinton . Both the attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan were not having realible intelligence information , Sudan attack was carried out on a pharmaceutical factory and was showing a linked between Iraqi nerve gas experts, Sudanese Government and Al qaida which was fake , and the afghanistan missile attacks were even not in co ordination ,the arrest of one embassy bombers of kenyan origin in Karachi weeks before that US strike on that camp , did harm that operation.
So why US embassies were bombed in Africa ? Do u think it was about jihad or about USA involvement in Somalia . America invaded Somalia in 1992 and left in 1994 but kept on bombing the whole time .

US War Crimes in Somalia
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsess...f1Jp6BLx19p!275188706!82156550?a=o&d=98686446

The US/UNOSOM invasion of Somalia in 1992–93
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27e/index-bhca.html

Mullah Omer gave refuge to Osama because for his involvement against the soviets , why u think he moved to Pakistan ? why not Tora bora ?

Your statement above is contradictory to what is really on the ground here. This US conspiracy about Taliban and Al qaida is just means of justify the Devil America senario. Do not live in this mental state, put the blame where it is due!!!
My statements are not contradictory . all are clearly showing the relationships between all . Taliban over throwed , Soviet backed government of Najibullah in 1996 . and it was the final blow to the soviets which is not easy without the involvement of major powers .
 

xebex

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
536
Likes
68
A bit too soon. I would have loved to see a B-52 drop those 2000 pounders on he head of the clown before calling it a day. :blum3:
well they been doing that for the last 8yrs and still nobody know where the hell is big boss hiding. what Obama is doing right now is pulling all the troops out off Iraq and redeploying them into Afghanistan. so dont worry, the "war on terror" is not over....it just got renamed.thatz all.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
^^ I meant a different clown.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top