Britain drops 'War on Terror' term

[aamirsaab]

only when it comes to defending against attacks on Muslims from kuffars and moderate "muslims".

I love how you judged muezzin without even knowing him. Brought a tear to my eye.

nope, nothing wrong unless you carry over that cultural patriotic baggage to keep throwing in other Muslim's face, making them wonder where your loyalty lies.

His loyalty lies with Islam, like mine and yours.

To all members: Stay on topic and quit with personal attacks/name calling.

 

[islamirama]

I love how you judged muezzin without even knowing him. Brought a tear to my eye.



His loyalty lies with Islam, like mine and yours.

To all members: Stay on topic and quit with personal attacks/name calling.

those two statements were general statements and not directed at him. If you look again, they were answers to his questions and not attacks on him. While we're at it, perhaps you can point out whom i have called names?

 

[Keltoi]

Maybe we should change the title to "War on Muezzin"...doesn't sound as catchy though.

 

[Muezzin]

Maybe we should change the title to "War on Muezzin"...doesn't sound as catchy though.

Now I know how it feels to be George Lucas.

And back to the topic.

 

[August]

It is a war on Islam regardless of what others say or call it. Everyone knows and everyone believes it. If they want to call it something then call it what the whole Muslim world is calling it, war on ISLAM.

War on Islam? I find it very questionable how you can hold that view, given that the terrorists are killing Muslims, too. If you choose to identify with the radical organizations that use Islam to justify killing innocent people, then we are and should absolutely be at war with you. If you follow Islam as a religion of peace, then we have no problem.

 

[wilberhum]

It is a war on Islam regardless of what others say or call it. Everyone knows and everyone believes it. If they want to call it something then call it what the whole Muslim world is calling it, war on ISLAM.

If we are at war with Islam, why are you not in a POW Camp? :skeleton:

 

[Bittersteel]

yes there has been aggression against Muslim practices and Muslims ever since the 9/11 attacks and you can't blame some nations for being afraid of us.Its not totally a war just aggression I believe.Maybe banning Islamic symbols like the hijab and restricting certain freedoms for Muslims(setting up Islamic organisations) or forcing Muslim countries to adopt secular and liberal laws may look like war against Muslims.the last one I have a real problem with.

 

[Akil]

'struggle against the international jihadist movement'

That would be tantamount to declaring war on Islam. That would be a bad way to go, however I don’t care one way or the other about the “War on terrorism” terminology.

It is a war on Islam regardless of what others say or call it.

Then the 6 million US Muslims and the 1 billion Muslims abroad who are not being chased down by the US military or the FBI must be confused as hell

 

[Zman]

If we are at war with Islam, why are you not in a POW Camp? :skeleton:

The government is cunning and subtle. To declare war on 1.5 billion Muslims, would be strategically idiotic.

Militarily, economically and politically, if that were to ever happen, it could spell the collapse and destruction of the United States (financially, that is).

If you can't fund the wars, you'll lose. If you do fund endless/multiple wars (war without end/the "Long War"), it would invite economic collapse and maybe, mass dissent.

We can't even handle a 2 theater war with insurgents.

 

[islamirama]

The government is cunning and subtle. To declare war on 1.5 billion Muslims, would be strategically idiotic.

Militarily, economically and politically, if that were to ever happen, it could spell the collapse and destruction of the United States (financially, that is).

If you can't fund the wars, you'll lose. If you do fund endless/multiple wars (war without end/the "Long War"), it would invite economic collapse and maybe, mass dissent.

We can't even handle a 2 theater war with insurgents.

Exactly. Look wat what happend to denmark cuz of their anti-islamic cartoons. It was a total boycott in Muslim world. They were loosing 10million a day with all the businesses they had there. They had to let go of thousands of their employees. And then the artists were hiding for their lives in their own countries. A full war against Muslims would mean end of any country that tries that tactic. It would be war from outside and inside. They are not that stupid to try it, so they use "terrorist" blanket to individually attack Muslim nations but that too will go on for so long, a war with iran is just inviteing WWIII.

 

[wilberhum]

The government is cunning and subtle. To declare war on 1.5 billion Muslims, would be strategically idiotic.

Militarily, economically and politically, if that were to ever happen, it could spell the collapse and destruction of the United States (financially, that is).

If you can't fund the wars, you'll lose. If you do fund endless/multiple wars (war without end/the "Long War"), it would invite economic collapse and maybe, mass dissent.

We can't even handle a 2 theater war with insurgents.

Boy, you really need a life. :skeleton:

Be carefull, the boogie man is out there.

 

[Muezzin]

You know, I think this thread has gone about as far as it can go, because it is now becoming sidetracked. Inevitable I suppose, because there is only so much that can be said about the original news story.

Thread closed.