"Terrorism" No longer to be used by US Sec. of HS Napolitano

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
"Terrorism" No longer to be used by US Sec. of HS Napolitano

2009-03-17 22:24:53

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5913|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor … 30,00.html

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Sec. of Homeland Security will not use the term "terrorism". This is more of the same Obama Admin. policy of avoiding the terms that state plainly the reality of the current situation: no more "War on Terror" or "Enemy Combatants" either.

I believe this will be viewed as a retreat by the forces of Radical Islamic Extremism and all global terrorist organizations. This woman is a bad choice for the American people and spent weeks avoiding the acknowledgement of the war going on in Mexico between Drug cartels and the Mexican government. She clearly does not see the dire consequences of neglecting to recognize and deal with the National Security issues that are so pertinent today and I believe this will leave the United States open to the possibility of a terrorist attack.

I believe this type of attack is probably imminent, and that dismantling the mechanisms that have aided in keeping American citizens safe for the past 7 1/2 years will only increase the likelihood of its occurrence.

2009-03-17 22:34:28

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7070

Maybe they think the word "terrorism" has been overused as a tool of fear by the past administration.

2009-03-17 22:38:41

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7019

I think changing the name is a good idea... Now the man caused disaster guys can get back to their weekend trips to home depot for the wife...

Love is the answer

2009-03-17 22:44:51

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6455|what

Oh no he didn't use the word terrorism in a speech, and after all the fear that was stirred up about it in the past we can't think for ourselves. What are we going to do?!

2009-03-17 22:49:22

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7019

AussieReaper wrote:
Oh no he didn't use the word terrorism in a speech, and after all the fear that was stirred up about it in the past we can't think for ourselves. What are we going to do?!

wait for the next man caused disaster i guess? lol

Love is the answer

2009-03-17 23:01:49

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6455|what

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Oh no he didn't use the word terrorism in a speech, and after all the fear that was stirred up about it in the past we can't think for ourselves. What are we going to do?!
wait for the next man caused disaster i guess? lol

I'd rather not see more fear mongering, because throwing around the words terrorism and extremism, "radical" extremist, etc may be something you're so used to, now that those terms are less frequent suddenly you think something is wrong?

If you are living in such a state a fear, which is a terrorists goal, to cause terror, they have won. Surely you can see that?

2009-03-18 00:56:28

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7019

AussieReaper wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Oh no he didn't use the word terrorism in a speech, and after all the fear that was stirred up about it in the past we can't think for ourselves. What are we going to do?!
wait for the next man caused disaster i guess? lol
I'd rather not see more fear mongering, because throwing around the words terrorism and extremism, "radical" extremist, etc may be something you're so used to, now that those terms are less frequent suddenly you think something is wrong?

If you are living in such a state a fear, which is a terrorists goal, to cause terror, they have won. Surely you can see that?

I am not living in fear... obviously what they have done up to now hasn't changed NY/DC or any place they have caused man disasters...lol
The problem is they still pose a serious threat and we all have to stay vigilant... To the extremists we look weak when we change names for them so as not to offend... thats the ridiculous part...

Man disasters sounds like a Saturday night live skit... and i bet they use it also... This Napolitano lady is dropping the ball on the Mexico situation as well and it will come back to haunt her...

Love is the answer

2009-03-18 01:09:19

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6455|what

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I am not living in fear...

https://forums.bf2s.com/img/avatars/8208.gif

Yeah okay...

2009-03-18 01:14:05

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6451|'straya

Hey it works with kids. don't give the terrorists attention and maybe they'll stop terrorising lol "D

2009-03-18 02:18:10

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7019

AussieReaper wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I am not living in fear...
http://forums.bf2s.com/img/avatars/8208.gif

Yeah okay...

i'm glad to hear you aren't living in fear... it's pointless... make sure you stay vigilant though... there are people that don't like us...

and i am more afraid of Nancy Peloser than any man caused disaster or any misunderstood... please don't hurt me i like your outfit former terrorist guy or whatever is acceptable to say?...lol... she is evil personified

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-03-18 02:24:15)

Love is the answer

2009-03-18 03:25:40

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6713|'Murka

It's the use of the word that caused the problems?

What color is the sky on that bitch's world?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-03-18 04:28:58

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

There have been very few 'terror' attacks for a good while now, plenty of attacks but no real 'terror' atttacks.
9/11 was simply an attack.

I can only think of the coordinated campaign of IRA bombings, bomb threats and kneecappings that amounted to terrorism in the real sense.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-03-18 05:56:18)

Fuck Israel

2009-03-18 05:48:08

13rin: Member; +977|6782

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Hey it works with kids. don't give the terrorists attention and maybe they'll stop terrorising lol "D

That gave us 9-11.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-03-18 05:50:26

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6455|what

Highlighting how scary a terrorist is, not even that in fact, but potential terrorism just empowers them and gives them motivation to carry out another attack.

Be alert but not alarmed.

2009-03-18 10:46:49

13rin: Member; +977|6782

AussieReaper wrote:
Highlighting how scary a terrorist is, not even that in fact, but potential terrorism just empowers them and gives them motivation to carry out another attack.

Be alert but not alarmed.

So what do you want to call these guys? We could make a symbol like the 'artist formerly know as Prince'...

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-03-18 11:11:27

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6525|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:
There have been very few 'terror' attacks for a good while now, plenty of attacks but no real 'terror' atttacks.
9/11 was simply an attack.

I can only think of the coordinated campaign of IRA bombings, bomb threats and kneecappings that amounted to terrorism in the real sense.

So the ultimate destruction of two skyscrapers, a segment of a massive military administration building, four planes and thousands of lives, wasn't terrorism? Bloody hell, I'd hate to see an actual terrorist attack, that must be when half the world explodes right?

2009-03-18 12:19:12

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,983|6935|949

nickb64 wrote:
Sec. of Homeland Security will not use the term "terrorism". This is more of the same Obama Admin. policy of avoiding the terms that state plainly the reality of the current situation: no more "War on Terror" or "Enemy Combatants" either.

Where did you read that the Napolitano said there would be no more War on Terror or "enemy combatants"? Or are you just throwing that out there to make your nonexistent point more relevant? I see the change in verbiage as an acknowledgement that much of the political decisions regarding the War on Terror were based off manipulating the public through fear to support measures proposed by government. The reality is that a War on Terror is better fought through gathering and sharing intelligence and fomenting interaction between government agencies, inside the US and with our allies. That was explained in the interview you linked.

nickb64 wrote:
I believe this will be viewed as a retreat by the forces of Radical Islamic Extremism and all global terrorist organizations. This woman is a bad choice for the American people and spent weeks avoiding the acknowledgement of the war going on in Mexico between Drug cartels and the Mexican government. She clearly does not see the dire consequences of neglecting to recognize and deal with the National Security issues that are so pertinent today and I believe this will leave the United States open to the possibility of a terrorist attack.

I believe this type of attack is probably imminent, and that dismantling the mechanisms that have aided in keeping American citizens safe for the past 7 1/2 years will only increase the likelihood of its occurrence.

She seemed to have no problem acknowledging the drug problems in the interview you linked. She seems to have a pragmatic idea of how not to address the border issues given her response to the question of a border fence.

The US will always be open to the possibility of a terrorist attack - virtually every nation is. How they could view a change in dialogue as a retreat when our forces are constantly engaging them militarily and from an intelligence standpoint is beyond me. The only people that seem to think that the use of a euphemism in place of the word "terrorism" is a retreat from the War on Terror are people that don't agree with the ideology of the Obama Administration in the first place.

2009-03-18 14:35:11

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6840|Long Island, New York

Last edited by Poseidon (2009-03-18 14:35:22)

2009-03-18 14:46:34

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6952

nickb64 wrote:
I believe this type of attack is probably imminent, and that dismantling the mechanisms that have aided in keeping American citizens safe for the past 7 1/2 years will only increase the likelihood of its occurrence.

Ohnoes terrorist are going to kill us all! Bush and company were all that was protecting us and now those filthy democrats are in power we're all totally screwed!

2009-03-18 14:57:06

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

M.O.A.B wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
There have been very few 'terror' attacks for a good while now, plenty of attacks but no real 'terror' atttacks.
9/11 was simply an attack.

I can only think of the coordinated campaign of IRA bombings, bomb threats and kneecappings that amounted to terrorism in the real sense.
So the ultimate destruction of two skyscrapers, a segment of a massive military administration building, four planes and thousands of lives, wasn't terrorism? Bloody hell, I'd hate to see an actual terrorist attack, that must be when half the world explodes right?

He means that a protracted campaign of similar attacks would have actually caused true fear in the USA.

A single attack achieved a dent in the US economy, a few sad US citizens and a shitload of very pissed off US citizens. There was no 'terror'. The USA didn't collectively cry out 'OH shit STOP PLEASE ZOMG WE ARE SCARED OF YOU...'

That can only be caused by a targeted campaign taking place over several years which gives the impression that the government can do fuck all to stop the terrorist organisation perpetrating the attacks.

@ DB, call them Al-Queda Operatives/Enemies of the State/Wankers/Uncivilised jerk-offs/nutjob extremists etc. etc.

@ nickb64, since when was the Obama Administration decommissioning and dismantling the CIA and NSA? I didn't see that one in the article, maybe I didn't read carefully enough.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-03-18 15:13:43

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6525|Escea

Wiki wrote:
Terrorism, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, is the systematic use of terror, "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands." At present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and deliberately target (or disregard the safety of) non-combatants.

It seems two of those common definitions would regard what occured on 9/11 as terrorism, a lot of people were frigging scared on that day by what happened and a lot of civilians were purposefully targeted. 9/11 was planned and exectued by a known terrorist group, therefore it was a terrorist attack designed to create fear amongst American civilians and indeed any Western civilian.

2009-03-18 16:47:40

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5913|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
nickb64 wrote:
Sec. of Homeland Security will not use the term "terrorism". This is more of the same Obama Admin. policy of avoiding the terms that state plainly the reality of the current situation: no more "War on Terror" or "Enemy Combatants" either.
Where did you read that the Napolitano said there would be no more War on Terror or "enemy combatants"? Or are you just throwing that out there to make your nonexistent point more relevant? I see the change in verbiage as an acknowledgement that much of the political decisions regarding the War on Terror were based off manipulating the public through fear to support measures proposed by government. The reality is that a War on Terror is better fought through gathering and sharing intelligence and fomenting interaction between government agencies, inside the US and with our allies. That was explained in the interview you linked.

The Obama Administration as a whole has decided to stop using the terms "War on Terror" and "Enemy Combatants".

nickb64 wrote:
I believe this will be viewed as a retreat by the forces of Radical Islamic Extremism and all global terrorist organizations. This woman is a bad choice for the American people and spent weeks avoiding the acknowledgement of the war going on in Mexico between Drug cartels and the Mexican government. She clearly does not see the dire consequences of neglecting to recognize and deal with the National Security issues that are so pertinent today and I believe this will leave the United States open to the possibility of a terrorist attack.

I believe this type of attack is probably imminent, and that dismantling the mechanisms that have aided in keeping American citizens safe for the past 7 1/2 years will only increase the likelihood of its occurrence.

She seemed to have no problem acknowledging the drug problems in the interview you linked. She seems to have a pragmatic idea of how not to address the border issues given her response to the question of a border fence.

Her lack of acknowledging the Mexico issue was previously. She has finally acknowledged that is a major issue for National Security.

The US will always be open to the possibility of a terrorist attack - virtually every nation is. How they could view a change in dialogue as a retreat when our forces are constantly engaging them militarily and from an intelligence standpoint is beyond me. The only people that seem to think that the use of a euphemism in place of the word "terrorism" is a retreat from the War on Terror are people that don't agree with the ideology of the Obama Administration in the first place.

I know we will always be open, but I believe we will be possibly more open now that they are dismantling the Intelligence abilities that have been used over the last 7 1/2 years.

2009-03-18 16:49:24

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6708|North Carolina

Well, for what it's worth, the Bush administration didn't do shit about Mexico either.

It's like neither party wants to touch that shit. (They probably make too much money from illegals).

2009-03-18 17:01:31

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

The systematic part is what AQ are missing for the USA. They've pulled off, what, two or three successful attacks on US targets in how many years? The IRA caused far more trouble for the UK

Sure they hit Spain, the UK, connections with the Bali Bombings... Actual attacks on US targets are a bit thin on the ground though outside of Iraq/Afghanistan. Maybe that's why they want to change what they name the buggers. Maybe it's an attempt by the Obama Administration to show the extremists that they don't rate on the board with the new Government, to humiliate them. That they aren't perceived as a credible threat because they have lost their teeth or so it seems.

Thing is, an apple is an apple even if I chose to call it a banana. Why is it such a big issue what you name a collective group of sociopaths/extremists/psycopaths? Shouldn't anybody who is genuinely worried about national security be looking closely at Obama's budget and what it has in store for the CIA/NSA/Armed forces of the USA?

Besides, if AQ are a truly credible threat to US interests and inspired terror across the USA, why has the hunt for Bin Laden, the supposed leader of those responsible, completely dropped off the radar?

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-03-18 18:38:48

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6455|what

DBBrinson1 wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Highlighting how scary a terrorist is, not even that in fact, but potential terrorism just empowers them and gives them motivation to carry out another attack.

Be alert but not alarmed.
So what do you want to call these guys? We could make a symbol like the 'artist formerly know as Prince'...

How about simply mass murderers?

Don't glorify the fact that what they are doing is causing fear and terror, because in doing so it is the media and the heads of state causing the fear. If the goal of these guys is to scare Americans, don't empower them to do so.

Terror alert yellow. Terror alert red. Wtf does that mean to you, the average citizen? Stay in doors when it is above yellow? Don't go to the office because the alert is at red?

nickb64 wrote:
I know we will always be open, but I believe we will be possibly more open now that they are dismantling the Intelligence abilities that have been used over the last 7 1/2 years.

Is this the same Intelligence that produced evidence of Saddam seeking Uranium from Niger? The WMD's? How about the total lack of preparedness for 9/11? The ineffective state of having a CIA, FBI and Homeland Security offering conflicting reports, not sharing the intel between each other?

The list goes on. There needs to be a major overhaul over intelligence gathering services to make them far more effective and less counter-intuitive.

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
"Terrorism" No longer to be used by US Sec. of HS Napolitano

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums "Terrorism" No longer to be used by US Sec. of HS Napolitano

AussieReaper wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Wiki wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Board footer