Under Obama, 'war on terror' catchphrase fading

Now it will become the "covert war on terror". We will hear more stories of terrorists making bombs that blow up before they are ready, and more importantly, the new covert war will be about what you don't see in the news.

"According to the White House, Obama is intent on repairing America’s image in the eyes of the Islamic world and addressing issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest in Pakistan and India, Arab-Israeli peace talks and tensions with Iran."

And the wolves who rule in places like Syria, Iran and Yemen understand that though he campaigned at home as a 'progressive' candidate - all about 'social justice' - he is weak.

Good move on his part. I don't think people outside the US really know about the "War on..." phrase that much, like the War on Poverty or the War on Hunger. Usually it's meant to show a commitment to something on a scale that's equal to your commitment to winning a war, not that you're actually waging war. But given foreigner's stereotypes about the US sometimes it's good to work around them rather than expect them to know the difference.

he is weak.

Would you prefer the Incredible Hulk? FYI, even IH could not change those rather insignificant (to us) and almost totally groundless accusations of yours. And they won't change anything over here, so don't worry your pretty little head about them. Obama has better things to ponder, and our own business to mind.

President Barack Obama has talked broadly of the “enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism.” Another time it was an “ongoing struggle.”

OMG! My fellow Americans! We have been had! Do you know what the English translation of Jihad is? "Struggle"! (Just though I would add some fuel to the fire of the right wing conspiracy nuts.)

"He has pledged to "go after" extremists and "win this fight."

Sounnds like Bush.

jihad Noun Islamic holy war against unbelievers

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jihad

Thanks for playing.

Obama reversing 'war on terror' catchphrase with 'Change,we can believe in'. They can't be the same, there must be new Obama catchphrase.

Change the good, to better, is to win the possible.

sailwind: Oh my!! You used the 'freedictionary.com'! We are all in awe. How about a REAL dictionary? This is Webster's:

"1: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty ; also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline 2: a crusade for a principle or belief"

Notice there is more than just your paraphrased version of war. What's more, they are still English dictionary entries of a foreign word, and not translations from Arabic to English, in which case likeitis is more or less right on, since the literal translation of the word 'jihad' is 'effort'. You'll notice, if you actually bother to pay attention, likeitis says it is a TRANSLATION, not the English dictionary definition (of which you only know one, evidently).

So, I guess it's YOU we should thank for trying to step up and play.

As to Obama, good on him for putting to sleep half or more of bush's inane buzz words/phrases. We know what an embarrassment he made of the English language as a whole, so it's good that Obama is indirectly restoring some pride to the language while he does so with the White House and the US. Once again, changing things for the better.

I dunno Smith

"We are in a struggle agaisn't those that want to kill us and relish in our death and dream of our destruction as a Nation and a people"

Just Sounds kinda harsh dont'cha think.

sailwind: Sorry, bud... I'm not sure where you are getting that line from. Simply from the looks of it it could come from either radical Islamists or those on the radical Right (save of course that Islam is not a 'Nation'). I do agree it is harsh, though.

However, likeitis made a wicked point in terms of how the word translates, and didn't intend to perhaps but made an even stronger point by your knee-jerk reaction of giving the 'definition' of the term in English. He said it would make right wing conspiracy nuts go a little crazy, and it did. My little note to you was just setting you straight as to his post.

Obama realizes the importance of being careful with language, unlike the bush regime and the few remaining and very bitter bush loyalists on this site.

“One of the contrasts between the two administrations is the care with which Obama uses language. He thinks about the subtle implications,” said Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric. The Bush administration “didn’t set out deliberately to do things that were offensive but they liked to do things that showed how strong they were, and to use language almost in an aggressive sense.”

Thank goodness for someone with a real head on his shoulders.

Obama realizes the importance of being careful with language, unlike the bush regime and the few remaining and very bitter bush loyalists on this site.

Hey Smith,

Ran across something fascinating.

Did you know George Bush also tried to change the slogan? Do you know the Media had a fit then?

My how things have really changed now. Contrast this story with the link.

http://www.slate.com/id/2123412/

You sure aren't going to see a rip like this on President Obama that is for sure.

sailwind: Thanks for the interesting read. I was unaware that he was trying to change this slogan, along with trying to eliminate the embarrassing 'Bring 'em on!' and 'mission accomplished' moronic and overzealous remarks that turned out to be completely incorrect. Anyway, it is a pretty radical assessment of bush's mishandling of things, but it's not very far off the mark, either.

Again, Obama is being a lot more careful with language in general than bush did, and that's on top of having a much better grasp of it and higher level of intelligence overall. Bush started the term 'war on terror' and abused it so much that there's no way in hell he could ever hope to change it to something more accurate. Same with the 'bring em on' crap -- he said it in public for the sake of politics; you can't exactly turn around a little while later when you're being rightly ridiculed and say, "the term no longer exists in my lexicon... stop using it against me!"

Again, you're not going to see such a rip like this on Obama because he hasn't done anything to deserve it (at least not yet!). If/when he does, then you might, and then it would probably be justified. Until then, I'm happy that old and inaccurate statements like this are changing and/or disappearing. The 'war on terror' is a joke of a label that will go down in the history books with the joke of a president who started the wars.

SuperLib: I actually meant to cite the one line I did copy word for word. The other stuff is either common knowledge to me or paraphrased (in the subsequent line to the one I copied and pasted, the only thing I copied in there was the name because I was unsure of the spelling). But you're right, I should have opened the line with 'According to Wikipedia', since actually 'citing' Wikipedia is odd given that it's put together by the common knowledge/research of thousands and thousands of individuals. My bad. I did actually try to hit the stop button (so I could edit) on my browser when I hit submit, but too late, so I figured what the hell. Here are the lines I took:

"Some movements in Islam, such as the Al-Fatiha Foundation, accept and consider homosexuality as natural, either regarding Qur'anic verses as obsolete in the context of modern society, or pointing out that the Qu'ran speaks out against homosexual lust, and is silent on homosexual love."

The rest, I swear up and down, I knew already. I had already written Turkey and Indonesia as two of the countries along with Malaysia to counter Wuzza's ridiculous assertions that only French and British former colonies or whatever are Islamic nations that don't kill homosexuals, since they are the first and easiest that come to mind. I've studied literature of the ME and Western Asia, including epic war poems like the Bhagavad Gita (sp.?), and some Islamic lit in classes that tied war and religion into nature, etc. Was interesting, though admittedly a lot was boring.

As for the rest of the post, and the opinion, it's mine, and the fact that I failed to cite Wikipedia aside, I still was entirely correct in its usage, and wuzzademcrat was quite incorrect in his posts.

"a sex change operation is okay if a man is a homosexual and feels effeminate."

vs.

"sex-change operations if a man is homosexual, and feels effeminate."

This news is fresh air.

"War on Terror" was a stupid idea. It's like "War on Fire" by throwing more fire at the fire.

Can't wage war against an idea.

Iran appears unimpressed. Hillary Clinton was right, what we are witnessing, we have witnessed before, Jimmy Carter part II.

I just hope that under President Obama, we don't lose the war on terror.

I just hope that under President Obama, we don't lose the war on terror.

the war on terror has been ongoing for several centuries, just because your previous idol gave it a fancy name and used it as handles on his saddle doesn't mean you can shoulder it's responsibility on your new bugbear

SuperLib: "a sex change operation is okay if a man is a homosexual and feels effeminate." vs. "sex-change operations if a man is homosexual, and feels effeminate."'

Sorry, bud, but as I said before a lot of that stuff is more common sense than you would think. I mean 'you' in the general sense. For people like wuzzademcrat, though, and perhaps YOU in the SuperLib sense even, it might not be so common knowledge if you really want to make gross generalizations about Islam being all the same. Besides, you selectively edited what you wrote. I had to look up what the actual site says because I didn't copy it, as I said, but I noticed it's quite longer, much more specific (I didn't know the sect name) than mine:

"Within the Shi'a school of thought in Islam, thinkers such as Ayatollah Khomeini have argued the legality of sex-change operations if a man is homosexual, and feels effeminate.[3]" whereas I said:

"Hell, there are even schools of Islam that believe a sex change operation is okay if a man is a homosexual and feels effeminate."

Again, if this is not common knowledge to you ('Shi'a school of thought in Islam' aside), then you've learned something on here today. Good for you!

Obama will do what Liberals love to do, take something that is wrong (in this case terrorism) and muddle the issue until it isn't really all that bad. To me, the phrase 'war on terror' refers to the fight against Islamic terrorists. The terrorists themselves relate their terrorist acts to the word 'jihad'. The biggest problem that Muslims have is that they do not have enough voices brave enough to speak out against the hi-jacking of their religion and related words like 'jihad'. Those that are the target of what the terrorists themselves call 'jihad' are not to blame for associating terrorists acts with the religion that inspired them. The lack of moderation among Muslims, and the relative silence and the often very vocal public support for terrorist acts in the name of jihad on the part of large numbers of Muslims is very damaging to the cause of peace loving Muslims. Obama's attempt to muddle the issue for PR purposes is idiotic and will only undermine his own efforts in fighting Islamic extermists in Afghanistan and in preventing future acts of terror in the US itself.

And "war of terror" is right out.

Wolfpack: "Those that are the target of what the terrorists themselves call 'jihad' are not to blame for associating terrorists acts with the religion that inspired them."

Yes they are to blame, as you are wrong. Those people are either not educated enough about the situation to differentiate the people who commit terrorist acts from the religion and/or people they share, or else they are just plain ignorant and angry and want someone to blame. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, was he not? Do you see people blaming all Americans for his act? or blaming whatever his religion was? No... people are aware that it was the act of a crazed man, and that there are other crazed men like him; only a moron deduces that because he was a man that all men are likewise crazed. And only a fool would try to justify their way of thinking.

I agree that the acts of terrorism are very damaging to the peace loving Muslims out there, but again that is largely in part due to ignorance. Of course it would be great if more Muslims stood up and condemned violence and terrorism, but I've seen cases of them being ridiculed when they DO stand up (check out Helter_Skelter, TooFarGone, and others on the Mumbai attack threads demand Muslims stand up against the act, then condemn the Muslims who do stand up as 'only spouting empty words'). Sadly, in many nations that are run by schools of Islam that ARE radical and support capital punishment on this and that, Muslims have to be very careful of what they say, and if standing up against violence means standing up against their leaders, well, it can be problematic to say the least. But that's not limited to Muslim nations, either, and certainly not something war fixes easily, if at all.

"Obama's attempt to muddle the issue for PR purposes is idiotic and will only undermine his own efforts in fighting Islamic extermists in Afghanistan and in preventing future acts of terror in the US itself."

Not if he still pursues actual terrorists and works with governments (instead of against in many cases) to prevent incidents from occurring and to catch those who have carried them out in the past. Just because the widespread name of 'fighting terror' has changed does not mean that suddenly Obama is opening the doors up to terrorists. Quite the opposite, I'd say, particularly since he is working through dialogue to improve stability in the ME, and already is having some successes with countries saying they are more open to talks with the US now. It's not at all perfect yet... not at all... but it's far better than a man who openly declares war on 'terror' and then uses terror itself to fight (ie. bush).

pacifist in this unholy alliance with fanatical islam refuse to reckon with the fact that they support a violent movement with no regard for human life or the most basic human freedoms. the only explanation for this partnership is that these people are afraid and think by kowtowing to them they will somehow be spared from the violence.

irans response to obamalamadingdong olive branch is a perfect example of how Islamist think. Any sign of conciliation is a sign of weakness and only emboldens them. It will be apparent to those who think otherwise soon enough.

No one links Islam and terrorism more than the terrorist themselves. If you have a problem with the association, smith, then perhaps you should be taking it up with them. My guess is that they're doing more to soil the reputation of Islam than Wolfpack ever could.

I've stated many, many times that Islam is not the driving force behind terrorism. But a form of perverted Islam is included in the process that creates a terrorist, especially one engaged in global jihad. You can't separate the two and expect to find the answer. I don't agree with the extent that some link the two together (ie Islam itself is the cause), but then again I don't agree with your own knee-jerk positions that an air strike created 1,000 new terrorists today, either. Let's not pretend that you don't throw around your own loose associations as well.

And in today's world "jihad" is associated with Islamic terrorism, not "struggle." It's just the way it is, and you can thank the terrorists for it.

I anyway, "War on terror" was just a "Catchphrase" of Bush's propaganda. He actually didn't fight the "War on terror". It was "the war for money".

Wolfpack said:

Obama will do what Liberals love to do, take something that is wrong (in this case terrorism) and muddle the issue until it isn't really all that bad.>

Great Joke!

Bush did more to muddle the issue than any other leader possible could. Homeland Security is involved in arresting people for drugs, child pornography and many other issues that are obviously NOT the leading national security concerns.

Bush fought an entire war under the premise of "War on terror" that was never useful in irradiating terrorism but rather, in fact, led to the sheer number of al-Qa'eda terrorists increasing.

Then we have SuperLib defending Wolfpack and oh, I love this, according to SuperLib we are not to speak of Bush anymore. Otherwise we are unable to let go of the past or we are labeled as being afflicted with "Bush Derangement Syndrome" ("BDS"). Nice trap, but it doesn't work. Obama not resorting to catch phrases is a sign of intelligence.

These idiots who want to claim Obama is weak on terror have let their memories escape their fragile minds. Bush never caught the leader of the 9.11.2001 massacre. Obama immediately ordered more troops to Afghanistan where the al-Qa'eda headquarters and bulk of the ideologues are located. Just because I was in the Air Force and not a grunt however I can still see that military strategy dictates that one goes where the actual enemy is.

Obama's methods of creating a more peaceful environment with the Muslims will go a long way towards making recruitment of new terrorist soldiers increasingly more difficult.

bad george bush for liberating iraqis from saddam hussein and the afghan people from the taliban and preventing any further terrorist attacks on the United States. bad bad evil george bush.

Since when are the Afgan people liberated?

Mission UNaccomplished!

Mission Diverted.

Ossama bin Ladin, THE LEADER, never caught.

Since when are the Afgan people liberated?

Mission UNaccomplished!

Mission Diverted.

Ossama bin Ladin, THE LEADER, never caught.

Looks like goodDonkey didn't read the Slate article, either.

I shore hates to spoil the warm happy hopey changey mood and all but I must say I am troubled by this -

"...Under executive orders issued by Obama on Jan. 22, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as “renditions,” or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

"Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program is poised to play an expanded role because it is the main remaining mechanism - aside from Predator missile strikes - for taking suspected terrorists off the street." http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.rendition01feb01,0,3635832.story?track=rss

No one links Islam and terrorism more than the terrorist themselves. If you have a problem with the association, smith, then perhaps you should be taking it up with them.

I do not think we have any power to influence those terrorists, Super. But I do think we have power to influence people like you. It does not matter how terrorists fight the war of words. What matters is how you respond to it. If you let them change the lexicon, if you let them alter the definitions used by the many, you give them a victory. Please stop giving in to terrorists.

The terrorists do not represent Islam to us unless you let them.

And in today's world "jihad" is associated with Islamic terrorism, not "struggle." It's just the way it is, and you can thank the terrorists for it.

The word "jihad" is so associated in our language, yes. But the word is not from our language. And it would not be the first time our language high jacked a word. In this case, the word has been high jacked for us by terrorists. I urge everyone to get with the program and to stop dealing with terrorists.

Likeitis: "The terrorists do not represent Islam to us unless you let them."

EXACTLY the point I was trying to make (admittedly, you get it across much more briefly and better sounding), and what SuperLib seems to have ignored, as have others on here.

"The word "jihad" is so associated in our language, yes. But the word is not from our language. And it would not be the first time our language high jacked a word."

Again, just what I was saying in my posts -- that that is how the English dictionary defines the term in English, etc., and how people have chosen to see it through the terrorists actions (ie. their own choice on how to define it), and NOT how it translates.

SuperLib: "Let's not pretend that you don't throw around your own loose associations as well."

While I can fully admit that I go off on some out-in-left-field tangents sometimes, for the most part it should be pretty clear that they are off the wall responses to even worse comments, strictly as a means to show how flawed the logic of some posters on here is. For example, if someone says that ALL Islam is to blame for the acts of terrorists, I'll counter it with the idea that by saying it's akin to blaming all Americans for the acts of Timothy McVeigh. I don't think you can do so at all, and use inflated and sarcastic examples to show just how much simple things can be twisted out of proportion (as they do).

Anyway, nice to read some of your final posts on other threads (ex. Election). You're always one of the more slightly down to earth posters. Cheers.

Wolfpack at 12:40 AM JST - 2nd February

Obama will do what Liberals love to do,

Win wars.......Now what was FDR and Truman? Dare I say it, Liberals who knew how a war was managed and won.

The only other big war we have in since then have been,

Vietnam "15 year loss"

other than that we have not been in any major struggles until this one. We were fighting a so called war against an invisible bogeyman who we could not catch. I am glad to see the present administration changing our war plans and giving notice.

EXACTLY the point I was trying to make

I read those after you posted. Your meaning was not lost on me at all, even if you did digress. I give you full marks for saying it first. Also, much appreciation for your posts in my defense earlier in the thread. Cheers to you as well!

For example, if someone says that ALL Islam is to blame for the acts of terrorists, I'll counter it with the idea that by saying it's akin to blaming all Americans for the acts of Timothy McVeigh.

Its a good point to ponder. It brings some balance to the equation. All I would add is that to make it fair, there have to be a whole bunch more Timothy McVeighs. Lets us say there are a thousand out there. Then we understand how the simple minds would blame all of America, despite a population of 300,000,000. Its still wrong and dumb, as you say, but its easier to see how the simple minds grab that, as they have no concept of 300,000,000, let alone 1,400,000,000.

Why aren't you guys so "reasoned and balanced" when the US is in your sights?

Superlib

From Gooddonkey

These idiots who want to claim Obama is weak on terror have let their memories escape their fragile minds.

From likeitis

Its still wrong and dumb, as you say, but its easier to see how the simple minds grab that, as they have no concept of 300,000,000, let alone 1,400,000,000.

I guess if we don't agree with their view we are idiots and simpleminded.

My how 'tolerant' of the left toward those of us who dare post a dissenting view.

sailwind: I didn't see his comment as any more over the line than that of many on here, on BOTH sides. That you TOOK IT to be over the line says that something hit home. Perhaps in that respect, even the perception of being intentionally hurtful needs to be address, and Gooddonkey need tone it down, but again, that's only based on how you took it.

As to your comments on people either agreeing with you or being simple-minded and/or idiots, none of us have said that at all. In fact, that's the kind of logic that we relate to simple-minded people who say, "You are with us or against us"; you see, saying that all of Islam is evil because of the acts of a few makes someone either a moron or just simple-minded, since they can't see the world is far more complicated. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone disagrees with what is said.

In your comment above you took a rather simple-minded approach to two people's posts and stated that they said if you disagree with them they call you simple-minded; in other words you dug your own hole and are now lying in it. You have had some very well thought out and good arguments in the past. In this case, yours is not at all either; it's a knee jerk reaction to posts that have a good deal of truth to them.

As to the rest of Gooddonkey's post, he is right about the 'bush Derangement Syndrome' lunacy; anyone who uses that as their rebuttal in an argument/debate ought to be ashamed of themselves for being unable to lend credence or validity to their own side of said debate. By their own rationale they suffer at least half a dozen 'syndromes', first and foremost Obama Derangement and Islam-Derangement syndromes. See how stupid a "defense" it is?

Moderator: You're on the wrong thread. This is about the use of the expression "war on terror."

More than 12 000 documented cases of Islamist terror recorded since 9/11. Smithinjapan and likeitis go all the way back to lone nutjob Timothy McVeigh and start talking about how "It brings some balance to the equation."

Obama will do what Liberals love to do, take something that is wrong (in this case terrorism) and muddle the issue until it isn't really all that bad.

I suppose then that Conservatives must love taking an issue that is naturally quite gray and work some ideological magic until they can proclaim that it is, after all, white--or black.

In this case, I would say that the Conservatives were the guys who were bitten by error. Anyone who actually thinks the "'war on terror' refers to the fight against Islamic terrorists", should be very happy with how Obama has reformulated this. He has substituted a specific enemy for a verbal inanity. His fight is against specific people with extreme views, not against a vague concept.

Come to think of it, he's kind of taken a gray muddle and has tried to sort it out. Maybe he's a conservative?

wuzzademcrat: "More than 12 000 documented cases of Islamist terror recorded since 9/11."

Here we go again with off topic remarks. To mirror your own questions last night: "What's your point? Do you ever have one?"

That's actually rhetorical. So, what, you're not going to bring into the conversation on Obama's policies your notion that all of Islam will kill you if you're a homosexual, too? Nah, guess you got burned a bit too badly last night.

sailwind: "I guess if we don't agree with their view we are idiots and simpleminded."

As I said in a post that got deleted (since it was in reply to one of yours which was off-topic), none of us thinks that people who disagree with us is simple-minded or stupid. ALL of us know that there are simple-minded and stupid people among those who do (on EITHER side of the debate). What's simple-minded, my friend, is comments like yours where you assume that people are all one thing or the opposite; that there's no in between or gray areas to arguments. So in a way you actually put yourself into the simple-minded category with your black-and-white mentality. There are plenty of people who disagree with me and bring up perfectly valid reasons as to why to back up relatively well-put comments; saying simply, "Oh, well... if we don't agree with you we are therefore stupid", or, "If you don't agree with Israel you are with Hamas," or, "if you're not with us you're against us", "if you don't agree with the president you are not a patriot and side with terrorists, unless the president is Obama in which case if you side with him you are not a patriot and support terrorism," etc. as a means of rebuttal is the REAL idiocy on sites like these. Hang in there, though.

smithinjapan: What's simple-minded, my friend, is comments like yours where you assume that people are all one thing or the opposite

smith in a previous post: "You could of course show me a single US goverment official who's an officer and not a coward, but I ask only you don't make up facts."

Just wanted to toss that out there. Please continue with your arguments about gray areas, concepts that exclusively deal with "ALL," and well-put comments. We have so much to learn from you about tolerance.

Smithinjapan and likeitis go all the way back to lone nutjob Timothy McVeigh and start talking about how "It brings some balance to the equation."

Even when I change it to something that ties in with what you are saying, it is amazing how you do not appreciate it.

SuperLib: "You could of course show me a single US goverment official who's an officer and not a coward, but I ask only you don't make up facts."

Hehehe... where and when did I make that post? You save it on your desktop for a rainy day? In all honesty, I don't remember saying it, but it sounds like something I MIGHT have said in response to a chickenhawk saying how great and right the Iraq war is/was, way back when. Can you tell me when it was that I made this post that you bring into the topic of Obama toning down rhetoric towards other nations? Or is it that you guys can only grasp at straws in diverting the topic when you have no points to counter with?

So far it's wuzzademcrat trying to tie Obama's toned down rhetoric to persecution of homosexuality in Islam, and now you bringing in posts from god-knows-when in a desperate attempt to undermine a post of mine that was fairly objective. What's more, you even pasted in the start of this sentence, which says, "You could of course..." which indicates to me that the person was responding to another poster, and if indeed it was me, as I've said, I do INDEED throw out extreme arguments to counter those of others and show them just how ridiculous the logic is (I believe I said that to you last night or this morning).

As I also said before, my friend, you've been way off your game the past couple of days.

SuperLib: Hey, just did a quick search based on your quotation of mine and I thought I might qualify it with a couple things:

1) It was indeed me who said it. 2) You left out a WHOLE lot of context as to why. 3) It was I said, an extreme response to point out the ridiculousness of what I was replying to: in this case, a person saying that all the people in Pakistan hit by a missile fired by a US drone were not innocents because, "... they got wrappings on they heads.. FIRE!"

But I guess you forgot to mention the racist, irreverent, and completely ignorant remarks I was replying to. Typical of you, though -- you forgot to acknowledge the same comments that day, too (not surprising, and not surprising said person's initial comments were long ago deleted as off-topic and/or offensive).

Come on, bud... you can do WAY better than that. I may as well cut and paste a simple line of yours somewhere saying, "...is great" and say you were talking about Palestinian rockets, since there is no context to clarify what you are talking about, if it's sarcastic, or whatever else could qualify it to be anything but an excuse to validate your (SuperLib's) losing arguments.

"Yeah, they're militants. They all have wrapped heads. Fire!!!!

Al Quaida is composed of an extreme minority of all Muslims, declared, amongst themselves, a holy struggle against the United States. They are losing the military side of the struggle, the part we often call "war". But you are handing them the psychological part of the struggle, which is why I insist that you use a word other than "war", which, to the simple mind, implies a military struggle only.

If you want to beat them totally, you and others are just going to have to learn to deal with and accept Islam for what it is, and not what al Quaida wants you to think is.

But I have said this before, I have problems with aspects of Islam and Muslim culture too, and I think al Quaida is partly born from that. Islam and Muslim culture need some cleaning up, but hey, so do we.

Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel, seeking to harness anger over the Gaza offensive with a new message posted on the Internet on Wednesday.

The White House dismissed the call to jihad, saying it reflects bin Laden's isolation and shows he is trying to remain relevant at a time when his ideology and mission are being challenged.

There is "only one strong way to bring the return of Al-Aqsa and Palestine, and that is ****jihad ****in the path of God," Bin Laden said, referring to the revered Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. "The duty is to urge people to jihad and to enlist the youth into jihad brigades."

Likeitis....We are in a war with these folks, sorry if that word doesn't meet your demands for 'Political Correctness'.

Likeitis....We are in a war with these folks, sorry if that word doesn't meet your demands for 'Political Correctness'.

Bitter again Sail? Feel free to assume bin Laden meant "holy war". Fine by me. Just don't let him define jihad for you once and for all. There are better sources than bin Laden. Don't let him bend your ear too much. He is a terrorist and only worth crushing both physically and psychologically. Its the latter where you are failing most, and since our previous president decided to take the scenic route into Iraq, the chief method left to us.

The Bush administration claimed the fighting in Iraq was fighting the "War on Terror." Just how does that fit with the "call to jihad?" Most people could answer this without using the terms "Bush Derangement Syndrome", political correctness or media bias.

Obama is pro-torture. It's official.

The words are fading but the war is not. Beware!