War on ‘War on Terror’?

Larvatus Prodeo draws attention to a significant and sensible comment by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who has acknowledged the unhelpfulness and inaccuracy of the “War on Terror” phrase and indicated the British government stopped using it some time ago.  Anyone in Australia who has made the same point over the last seven or so years has usually been branded as being at best “soft on terror” or at worst as supporting terrorism, so it’s good to see one of our key allies acknowledging the stupidity of the phrase.  If Obama can do the same, we might finally have a real chance of making some progress.

On a related topic, there’s a good post at The Interpreter which argues the Downer / Howard legacy in regard to Australia’s uncritical relationship with the USA has not helped Australia significantly. Worth a read.

Like & share:


  1. I was wondering when Terror would surrender or when and how the “coalition of the willing” might negotiate an armistace with Terror. I’m not even sure Terror knows we’re fighting it?
    And what’s with this coalition of the willing. Can there be a coalition of the unwilling… which wouldn’t be much of a coalition… because they are unwilling, as in not in agreeance, as in, not a coalition, but anyway…

  2. RF:

    You have to understand the thinking behind the term ” War on Terror”,

    It can mean anything or nothing…. (certainly not horror movies)The main aim is to continue to introduce laws that attack our freedoms while blaiming it on something. Freedoms are always best removed during a period of war or conflict.

    IE War on Terror It could mean war on Terrorism.. but the problem is that terrorism is a method of warfare not an enemy in itself.

    It’s like saying lets have a war on drugs. They’ve been saying that for years yet I dont see any winners there either, and certainly the war on poverty hasnt produced any results. (in fact if our politicians were generals they’d all be sacked).

    But what has happened is that massive loss of liberty has been achieved. Take the sedition laws for instance, those laws virtually removed all our rights in Australia yet didn’t achieve anything. Except that people can be held for no crime at all. Virtually anyone who stands up against the government can be held for little or no reason at all.

    Now does it make sense ?


  3. Tony

    As an enthusiastic and oft posting supporter of the various wars, however defined, of the last few years that’s an interesting revisionist stance.

  4. According to a woman I know who escaped as a refugee to Guantanamo Bay from Cuba, we really need to take the war on terrorists seriously.

    When she got sick and had to go to hospital, there were Taliban patients from the jail there. She said they looked like wild animals and she was terribly afraid.

    She said we also need to be careful of bringing people here from cultures that aren’t like our own. She has met women from Afghanistan who believe that when a 9-year-old girl was raped and had a baby, she should have been murdered by her own parents.

    She said they send their men back to Afghanistan to find wives, because our women are not good enough for them.

    Conversely, her own son and daughter have Australian partners.


    I think Bob Hawke went a long way towards addressing poverty of sole parents and children. Unfortunately, the Howard government put a very large spanner in the works.

  5. I think it’s time people questioned the very pretext of the so-called ‘war on terror’. Starting in September 2008, 7 years later than I should have, I began to seriously research the controversy over the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

    I have carefully considered the claims of the “9/11 Truthers” and the “9/11 debunkers” and have arrived at the firm conclusion that 9/11 was a ‘false flag’ terrorist attack planned and orchestrated by the cabal centred on Cheney, Rumslfeld, Rice to advance their geo-political goals.

    I urge others to seriously consider the evidence. It shouldn’t take long form anyone with an open objective mind to see that a massive cover-up has occurred. And where there’s a cover-up a crime has usually occurred.

    Many credible and very well credentialed people, for example listed at http://www.patriotsquestion911.com are demanding that new proper invistigations, unlike the cover-ups conducted by NIST and the 9/11 Commissions be held.

  6. James:

    I tried to access your link without success.

    Lots of people have suggested that el richos from Saudi Arabia just about “own” the USA. So do you think the USA perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11 in order to get rid of the stranglehold of foreign interests?

    It’s a terribly disgusting thing to perpetrate such devastation, grief and suffering on your own citizens. If they did it, I think we should dump them as allies.

    I recently noticed that Condaleeza Rice had no problem at all telling the world of the personal advantages the US had gained in Iraq. I would therefore put nothing past them.

  7. JAMES SINNAMON – like you, I’ve read many articles and several books since 9/11. I believe, that there are 3 possibilities; 1) It really was an attack by persons sympathetic to bin Laden and the Bush Administration knew nothing, 2) they found out but believed it useful to their agenda, and didn’t stop it, or 3) the Bush Administration, with a couple of key people organized it, perhaps with the secret service of Pakistan or ??- (they had been seen around the WH etc in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

    There’s an interesting book called, The New Pearl Harbour, by David Griffin(I got it from my local library) which points out the discepancies in the ‘story’ we were given; points out the ‘holes’ in accounts of key people; makes 30 assertions re statements that were impossible, and asks another 100 questions. Most interesting. It’s not a very big book, and easy to read. There’s an interesting paper/essay called, From Afghanistan to Iraq – Connecting the Dots with Oil (on the net)If you put 9/11 into your search engine, you’d find heaps, or even The Pentagon – there’s many questions about the alleged ‘passenger plane’ that was supposed to have hit it. Evidence, or perhaps lack of it raises many questions – for instance, the size of the whole left in the building! Then, there’s The Downing Street Memo, that clearly shows, that Blair lied when he said close to 2003, that he hadn’t decided to invade Iraq. He’d done it months before. I believe Howard did too! They all lied to us! Both Rice and Powell had stated in 2001, that Saddam Hussein was no threat to his neighbours let alone the US! It’s captured on film!
    They lied! 1 1/4 million people in Iraq are dead, and maybe the same in Afghanistan. Who knows?They should be arrested and charged with war crimes. Rumsfeld for crimes against humanity re Gittmo, Abu Graib and at least 2 other jails! Then there’s the torture and rendition of nationals of many countries – with British consent! They are the War OF Terror!

  8. When you read From Afghanistan to Iraq – Connecting the Dots with Oil, you’ll see that the goal re that country lay in the billions of dollars of oil and gas in the Caspian Sea. The Taliban were the elected govt, and those big oil companies plus other most interesting backers??wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan to the West. The Taliban had been entertained in Washington in 2001. They were proving most difficult. They were warned of being attacked, ‘bombs would be like rains of gold’ etc, or words to that effect. The Taliban never came to an agreement, and the situation is unresolved to this day, as far as I know. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbour, in that it gave a ‘legitimate’ reason to bomb Afghanistan, rather than Bush having to tell the american people, that they wanted to do the Afghani people out of their share of resources – a bit harder to sell that one! But get the people in an emotional state of shock and horror, now that’s a different story.

    The neocons, or as Ray McGovern, ex CIA expert of 30 years calls them, “the crazies” had wanted to invade Iraq for a long time. Read, Program for A New American Century, a group comprising all those at the helm of the Bush Admin.They approached Clinton but he wouldn’t buy it. So, I think George W was groomed for the job. The tricky bit was linking bin Laden and Saddam – they hated each other, and were never involved in any joint plans, ever. But, if you use Goebbels doctrine, ‘if you’re going to tell a lie, make it a big one, and say it often’ and it worked. The Administration had people convinced, that Saddam was partly to blame for 9/11. The rest as they say is history! John Pilger’s “Freedom Next Time” is a good read!
    The real terrorists have just left the White House. Sadly, the Iraqi people will get a bad deal over their oil sales for the next 30 yrs at least, the poverty, disease & destruction is horrific! Afghanistan is a hell hole, with the Taliban now very active in Pakistan.( Dateline last night!)

  9. Naomi:

    Can we then take it that you won’t be too happy if Kevin Rudd decides to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan?

    Today Anna Bligh called a State election for 21 March, so I don’t suppose Rudd will be giving troop movements a mention before then.

  10. Snore,grumble. toss in my sleep.Where have I read all these inputs before!?I might have to get Rude.Standard Oil.Who owns Standard Oil!?Innocent Bill Clinton,knew a crazy when he saw one!?Must of read about them in a comic!?Or the Warren Commission!? I wish Leon Russell was still alive!?Magic smoke mirrors!? The Wild Men of Afghanistan in Fidel’s!?If true they may have heard about Bill Mollison and Permaculture.Watch us win the war in Afghanistan by growing unwashed parsnips!?

  11. LORIKEET – “Naomi: Can we then take it that you won’t be too happy if Kevin Rudd decides to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan?” To do what exactly? Kill more Afghanis who had neither anything to do with the questionable Osama bin Laden, 9/11, nor anything else to do with the so-called war on terror(war OF terror more like it?). In fact, the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over, if the US provided proof of his guilt. They refused to do so! In fact, 12 months after Bush declared he’d catch him “dead or alive” he said he wasn’t interested in catching him. In fact, the FBI don’t list him on their most wanted list. Why? They say there’s no evidence of his guilt.

    It could have something to do with the fact, that almost 8 years after the invasion of Afghanistan, where more people were killed in the first days than were killed on 9/11, the problem of an agreement still desired re the pipeline through Afghanistan for the benefit of sending huge amounts of oil and gas from the Caspian Sea (about 16 trillion dollars worth?) could have some higher relevance.Shore up Iraq’s huge amounts of oil, not to mention that undiscovered, have CONTROL over who gets it and at what price, plus military bases in Iraq & Afghanistan – what more would US/Britain and our own BHP Billiton want, not to mention the huge oil companies in those countries. What’s another few thousand?a million? dead Afghanis got to do with those goodies?
    Besides, if Bush/Blair/Howard hadn’t had their rose coloured specs on re Mushareff, they’d have realized where the real danger lies. Now the Taliban are causing more grief in that country. Fancy that?With Khan selling/giving nuclear material and info to Nth Korea years ago – I’m getting nervous! The poor people of Afghanistan should be left alone! 30 yrs of wars; death & misery! But they’re UNpeople; they don’t count!
    Have you read From Afghanistan to Iraq-Connecting the Dots with Oil yet, LORIKEET! Most revealing!

  12. Naomi:

    I connected the dots on oil many years ago.

    I wonder if you’ve seen the new invention which is being keenly sought after by both Western and Middle Eastern countries. It’s a rapid-fire hand gun delivering a continuous shower of grenades.

    Yes, the Americans are such sociopaths that they don’t even mind admitting on national television that they have made “gains” in Iraq.

    I’m sure Rudd doesn’t want to participate in things that go on in Afghanistan. I find him to be very easy to read. I’m sure someone else has him over a barrel (probably an oil barrel!).

  13. War on Error:

    I checked your links for dates specifically relating to bin Laden. The only ones I found were 1999 and 2001, so unless you can come up with a link with a recent date, your information is of no use to us.

  14. Lorikeet, Naomi Woodledge et al.

    Firstly Naomi, the link should have been http://patriotsquestion911.com

    Secondly, the FBI’s wanted poster of Osama bin Laden (or Usama bin Laden) does not list the attack of Septmeber 2001 amongst the crimes for which he is wanted. See for yourself at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

    My apologies for not having responded. I actually feared that people here would be at best indifferent to my post and at worst hostile.

    In fact, Mark Bahnisch deleted the same post from the forum in response to the article referred to by Andrew above.

    When I asked him why he refused to discuss it other than to say that he would not tolerate a 9/11 Truth discussion on http://lavartesuprodeo.net . I mean to follow this up further with him.

    Webdiary adamantly refuses to publish anything whatsoever which questions 9/11

    Another who refuses to question 9/11 is Phillip Adams.

    Late last year at the protest against mandatory internet filtering, members of the Democratic Sociliast Party (who sell ‘Green Left’) also refused to discuss 9/11. At on point one of them conceded that the 9/11 Truth movement may have a case, but told me that if they said so publicly they would be labeled as nuts. (So much for them supposedly fearlessly standing up for what they believe in.)

    A little bit later the same person turned on me and called me a nut.

    So, evidently, amongst many in Australia’s left and liberal milieu there is a bizarre attitude that no-one must question the US government’s explanation of 9/11.

    In part it possibly stems from the fact that Noam Chomsky, whom many believe to be an ardent opponent of the U.S. government, insists that the official US govenment explanation of 9/11 is true. You may find the YouTube video about Noam Chomsky by one of his erstwhile proteges Barrie Zwicker at http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU most interesting.


  15. Lorikeet:

    It stands to reason that if the FBI were no longer interested in apprehending bin Laden (i.e., they no longer a consider him as a wanted terrorist), they would remove him from their most wanted listed.

    But if you don’t think the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists list provides any useful information was to who the the FBI’s ten most wanted fugitives and most wanted terrorists are, there is a Visit our Kids page link that you might find interesting. Feel free to spend some time playing ‘Help Bobby Bureau Go Undercover!’ Here’s the synopsis just spark your interest:

    “Special Agent Bobby Bureau is about to go on an undercover assignment. Your job is to create an effective disguise to help him complete his mission. Use your mouse to add new hair, eyebrows, mustaches, or any other features you think will help keep Bobby Bureau from ‘blowing his cover.'”

    Perhaps Bobby Bureau will blow Osama bin Laden’s cover by revealing bin Laden as a wanted terrorist.

  16. War on Error:

    Very funny. I can assure you I come from a family of excellent adult detectives. One of my sons has to keep Chinese and Russians out of Australia’s security systems.

    I detected a flaw in your argument. Your links didn’t have any dates on them except 1999 and 2001.

    It wasn’t me who disputed whether or not bin Laden was still a wanted man. So far no evidence has been produced to support either side of the argument.

    Here’s a little clue that might help. Find a link that has 2009 on it.

  17. Lorikeet – the date you saw (2001) is when bin laden was added to their list. He is still there. I presume that means they are still interested, or want it to appear so. They don’t have an updated notice on that webpage, so in theory, it could be old news, but I doubt it, on their own site.


    I have no particular opinion about bin laden’s guilt or innocence. Nor do I carry any brief for the FBI. Many lies and deceitful things surround the FBI, the CIA, MI5, and *gasp* even ASIO. Therefore, whether they have given up on him is a moot point – they wouldn’t tell us if they had, and if they said they had, I wouldn’t necessarily believe that, either.

    For what it is worth, the FBI site states “It is also important to note that these individuals will remain wanted in connection with their alleged crimes until such time as the charges are dropped or when credible physical evidence is obtained, which proves with 100% accuracy, that they are deceased.”


  18. Dolphins:

    Then the onus remains on Naomi to tell us what makes her think bin Laden has been removed from the US most wanted terrorists list.

    I get tired of accessing links that don’t have details of how current the information is.

    The latest news is that the attack on Sri Lankan cricketers was a setup by the Pakistani government. Nothing would surprise me any more.

  19. War on Error-I’ve also heard, that bin Laden is dead; has been dead for a while. There’s plenty of articles, opinions around that question 9/11 – I do too! I don’t trust anything the Bush Administration did or said. Both the US and Britain have been involved in too many countries over the years (particularly the Middle East) there’s too much written about how they financially supported both the Taliban & the Northern Alliance; how the now President of Afghanistan & his brother have been involved in the ‘oil & gas’ ‘activities’ in Afghanistan, as was John Major past PM of Britian; how John O’Neill, a long time senior person in the FBI tried to warn about 9/11, and was intimidated and harrassed (not allowed in Amman re a relevant bombing,and other impediments)so much so he resigned, went to work as a security person at the World Trade Centre and was killed on 9/11.Bitter irony!Google -John O’Neill 9/11 Interesting!

    George W himself was ‘hot’ about bin Laden in 2001/02 but 12 months later he didn’t care about him at all? The 10 Most Wanted on FBI site doesn’t mention OBL re 9/11? Richard Clarke(WH aide) tells of the ‘focus’ on Iraq right from first meeting on 9/11?Condoleeza Rice/Colin Powell’s comments re Saddam-no threat (2001?)! If you put 9/11 into Google; or read some articles via Information Clearing House; Seymour Hirsch etc, there’s some interesting articles. I heard a former CIA person say FBI not ‘blaming’ bin Laden 9/11(no evidence) and it’s in John Pilger’s book, The New Rulers of the World; Freedom Next Time. You can get a strong feeling about all the players by reading lots of books, articles, essays, interviews, documentaries etc.Also, Jack Straw past Security Minister? won’t allow cabinet minutes to be released, even though Judges have said the people have a right to know! The Downing Street Memo proves Blair lied re decision(timing)on Iraq?

  20. I was sent this video by a ‘new friend’ in the US. It is 1 hour 34 minutes, is most revealing, but disturbing. I’ve heard or read about all this material, but the way it’s all combined in one video is most informative.
    There’s a lot of information that will hopefully be revealed in time. I believe that the big ‘con’ is being unravelled, a bit at a time!

    The New American Century

    You can get on the website of Information Clearing House, and elect to receive a ‘newsletter’ each day that has a variety of essays, newspaper, TV and other informative articles each day. Information that you won’t have access to via our TV networks or newspapers etc. They then lead you to investigate the articles that are published. Most informative!

Comments are closed.