Head Of MI5 Says Situation Is 'Clear'
British Government Dumps 'War On Terror'
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/UKdumpsWOT.htm
As Foreign Office Confirms
Bush Approach Gives Succour To Terrorists

10 December 2006


"Cabinet ministers have been told by the Foreign Office to drop the phrase 'war on terror' and other terms seen as liable to anger British Muslims and increase tensions more broadly in the Islamic world. The shift marks a turning point in British political thinking about the strategy against extremism and underlines the growing gulf between the British and American approaches to the continuing problem of radical Islamic militancy.... A Foreign Office spokesman said the government wanted to 'avoid reinforcing and giving succour to the terrorists' narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive'. The same message has been sent to British diplomats and official spokespeople around the world......  Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, recently stressed the threat from growing radicalisation among young British Muslims. Whitehall officials believe that militants use a sense of war and crisis and a 'clash of civilisations' to recruit supporters, and thus the use of terms such as 'war', 'war on terror' or 'battle' can be counter-productive....Though neither Blair nor Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, has used the term 'war on terror' in a formal speech since June, President Bush continues to employ the term liberally."
Britain stops talk of 'war on terror'
Observer, 10 December 2006

manningham-buller.jpg (10387 bytes)
Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller
Head Of Britain's Interior Intelligence Service MI5

"I rarely speak in public. I prefer to avoid the limelight and get on with my job. I speak not as a politician, nor as a pundit, but as someone who has been an intelligence professional for 32 years..... There has been much speculation about what motivates young men and women to carry out acts of terrorism in the UK. My service needs to understand the motivations behind terrorism to succeed in countering it, as far as that is possible. Al-Qaeda has developed an ideology which claims that Islam is under attack, and needs to be defended.  This is a powerful narrative that weaves together conflicts from across the globe, presenting the West's response to varied and complex issues, from long-standing disputes such as Israel/Palestine and Kashmir to more recent events as evidence of an across-the-board determination to undermine and humiliate Islam worldwide. The video wills of British suicide bombers make it clear that they are motivated by perceived worldwide and long-standing injustices against Muslims - an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam promoted by some preachers and people of influence. And their interpretation as anti-Muslim of UK foreign policy, in particular the UK's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Speech by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, Head Of Britains Interior Intelligence Service MI5
BBC Online, 10 November 2006


Britain stops talk of 'war on terror'

Foreign Office has asked ministers to ditch the phrase invented by Bush to avoid stirring up tensions within the Islamic world

Jason Burke
Sunday December 10, 2006
The Observer

Cabinet ministers have been told by the Foreign Office to drop the phrase 'war on terror' and other terms seen as liable to anger British Muslims and increase tensions more broadly in the Islamic world.

The shift marks a turning point in British political thinking about the strategy against extremism and underlines the growing gulf between the British and American approaches to the continuing problem of radical Islamic militancy. It comes amid increasingly evident disagreements between President George Bush and Tony Blair over policy in the Middle East.

Experts have welcomed the move away from one of the phrases that has most defined the debate on Islamic extremism, but called it 'belated'.

'It's about time,' said Garry Hindle, terrorism expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London. 'Military terminology is completely counter-productive, merely contributing to isolating communities. This is a very positive move.'

A Foreign Office spokesman said the government wanted to 'avoid reinforcing and giving succour to the terrorists' narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive'. The same message has been sent to British diplomats and official spokespeople around the world.

'We tend to emphasise upholding shared values as a means to counter terrorists,' he added.

Many senior British politicians and counter-terrorism specialists have always been uneasy with the term 'the war on terror', coined by the White House in the week following the 9/11 attacks, arguing that the term risked inflaming opinions worldwide. Other critics said that it was too 'military' and did not adequately describe the nature of the diverse efforts made to counter the new threat.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, recently stressed the threat from growing radicalisation among young British Muslims. Whitehall officials believe that militants use a sense of war and crisis and a 'clash of civilisations' to recruit supporters, and thus the use of terms such as 'war', 'war on terror' or 'battle' can be counter-productive.

Though neither Blair nor Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, has used the term 'war on terror' in a formal speech since June, President Bush continues to employ the term liberally. The American leader spoke of how he hoped that Iraq would become 'an ally in the war on terror' during a joint press briefing with Blair in Washington last Friday.

A spokesman for the US State Department yesterday told The Observer that there was no question of dropping the term. 'It's the President's phrase, and that's good enough for us,' she said.

The White House website has a page devoted to explaining the 'war on terrorism', the terminology preferred by the Pentagon, and how it will be won. In April this year Bush compared the 'war on terror' to the Cold War in a keynote speech.

Not all British government figures are abiding by the advice, issued by the Foreign Office's Engaging with the Islamic World Unit. Writing in the Sun recently, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred to 'our police and armed forces in the front line of the war on terror'.

'One of the problems will be getting all parts of government to abide [by the new guidelines],' said Hindle, the RUSI expert. 'Whether the Home Office will want to follow remains to be seen. And politicians all have their own agendas.'


How To Lose The So Called 'War On Terror'
Brought To You By The People With No Imagination

"Robert Gates, the man entrusted by President Bush to succeed Donald Rumsfeld and restore confidence in the War on Terror, admitted today that America was not winning the war in Iraq....In marked contrast to the truculence and optimism of his predecessor, when Mr Gates was asked by Senator Carl Levin, the incoming Democratic Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, whether America was winning the war, he replied: 'No, sir.'.... At the start of what is expected to be a relatively smooth confirmation of his appointment today, Mr Gates was told he faced a 'monumental challenge' as the next Secretary of Defence. Mr Levin, who opposed Mr Gates's appointment as CIA director in 1991, said that if he was installed in the Pentagon, the former intelligence analyst would have to rectify the worsening security situation in Iraq; defeat a resurgent Taleban; reconnect the Pentagon with its staff and repair the battered equipment of the world's powerful military. In what read as damning criticism of Mr Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration's conduct of the war so far, Mr Levin said: 'If confirmed as Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates will face the monumental challenge of picking up the pieces from broken policies and mistaken priorities for the past few years.'"
We are not winning in Iraq, says Rumsfeld successor
London Times, 5 December 2006

"If we have lost this war, and with it the likely capacity to forestall the vacuum that our defeat will surely leave behind, shouldn’t we just say so?.... Those in the Government in Baghdad are at their wits’ end and sinking: powerless to defeat what they hardly need Baker to tell them are the causes of the disaster unwinding on their doorsteps.... The [Baker] plan itself won’t work. As the BBC’s eloquent and curiously underrated Washington correspondent, Justin Webb, put it on the radio this week, 'it is the tone' not the detail of Baker’s report that is important and new. That’s true. The tone says: 'We’ve lost.' The tone says: 'We should have seen this coming.' The tone says: 'All we can do now is play a losing hand.' General Sir Mike Jackson, former Chief of the General Staff, missed the point magnificently this week when he worried aloud that the trouble with a set deadline (of 2008) was that we might have to quit without having achieved our war aims. Poor, upright, soldierly Sir Mike has not realised that that is the whole idea. But Mr Baker has, and furious neocons realise it too. The term realpolitik has become a cliché in media treatment of the ISG report this week but the irony is this: Baker’s conclusions are anything but realistic: they represent unrealism of the most fanciful kind. His route map is to La-la Land. He knows it. His report is the sugar. The pill is Defeat."
I should welcome the Baker report. So why do I feel sick?
London Times, 9 December 2006

And How To Win It

The Following Is An Extract From A Post-9/11 
Advertisement Published 23 September 2001 In The Washington Post And New York Times,
And 25 September 2001 In The International Herald Tribune

"When negotiations and the use of arms have failed to maintain peace in the family of nations, it is not wise to continue to pursue the path of failure. It is completely possible for the USA to take revenge against terrorists and continue to crush terrorism, month after month, and year after year, but the net result will be a chain of destruction from both sides. Remember, the US government rose against Hitler in order to stop destruction. Is it wise now for the USA to play the role of Hitler and initiate a world-wide destructive program? We would never like to compare President Bush with Hitler, but if the World War starts from this, what else could be the interpretation? Every military chief who waged a war at any time put forward very valid reasons to wage war. But it is the act of war that is devastating to the world. It doesn’t matter who plays the role of so-called bravery. In the beginning, when Hitler started his war, all of Germany was with him. Only the outside forces were there to counterbalance his wild fury. With the US government and the allies of NATO on one side, and the terrorists on the other side, life on earth — whether it is American life, Chinese life, Afghani life, or any life — will be burned in flames. Can brave Americans think how much of America and the allied countries will also be burned in this fierce competition of destruction from both sides? In this case, destruction will be the fate of both sides — terrorists and those who call themselves peacekeepers. Can the prevailing national defense system of any country save that country today from space-based warfare, chemical warfare, biological warfare, information warfare, guided missile warfare, suicidal attacks, and any other destructive system of warfare where the enemy is seen or unseen? If the government and people of the USA think they can destroy terrorism by starting to destroy terrorists, they should understand that any step in the direction of destruction will have destructive repercussions and will only help to create waves of destruction in time. This is a universal Law of Nature — action and reaction —  'As you sow, so shall you reap.'  It is a matter of truthfully facing the facts. The President of the US and the people of all the NATO alliance countries should understand that any war, anywhere, by anyone, will make the reality of war perpetual, as it has been throughout the ages. Wisdom in this scientific age demands eliminating the cause of all wars. We are making these logical inferences because we have a solution."
A PDF File Of The Advertisement Can Be Downloaded Here
(Source www.invincibledefence.org)

The Following Is An Extract From An Pre-9/11 Advertisement Published
12 April 1999 In The Wall St Journal, International Herald Tribune,
And Financial Times (London)

"The horror of war being witnessed in Yugoslavia is creating fear in the hearts of everyone everywhere. This crisis is a challenge to the wealthy of the world to save their own wealth and the life of all people in their nation. Today the UN has become a laughing-stock, failing everywhere, and is ignored. So NATO has attempted to control the Yugoslavian situation with violence. But its bombardment has intensified the disaster, and created a new bloody history of the world. World peace is now in the hands of those with the power to destroy. The danger to the world posed by NATO’s bombardment is terrifying. It has set an example to every nation in the world — if you don’t like another country, and they won’t obey you, then bomb them and destroy them.… Now bombardment can happen to any country in the world at any time. This is the reality — your city could be next. Therefore, can we wait even a single moment to establish world peace? - What is Happening In Yugoslavia Can Happen to Any Nation at Any Time - Can you imagine if bombs began to fall on Washington D.C., and to destroy the high-rises of the money markets of New York? Will NATO be able to prevent this? When this happens it will be beyond the power even of the wealthy to save the situation. When our house is in uncontrollable flames, it is too late to dig a well to get the water. Better to prevent the house from catching fire in the first place. A new approach to creating peace is urgently needed — one that prevents war. And if such an approach exists it must be tried. Persuasion does not create peace — the UN has proven that. Violence does not createpeace — NATO has proven that. In fact the whole human history has proven that neither of these approaches works. So our choices are to accept war throughout the world as inevitable, or to do something new that really has been demonstrated to create indomitable world peace."
The Above Text Was Reproduced Again As Part Of A Larger Post 9/11
Advertisement Published 23 September 2001 In The Washington Post And New York Times,
And 25 September 2001 In The International Herald Tribune
A PDF File Of The Advertisement Can Be Downloaded Here
(Source
www.invincibledefence.org)

'As You Sow So Shall You Reap'
What Really Happened In Yugoslavia?
US (and UK) Backed Islamic Terrorism In The Balkans
Click Here

No Solution In Sight?
The Biggest Challenge Of All Is Changing The Way People Think
Transforming Global Consciousness - Before It's Too Late

'Invincible Amercia'
A New Imaginative Initiative To Bring America Real Security
Click Here

"Stephen Cardinal believes this blip of a city in southeast Iowa could soon alleviate world strife.....'We're clearly on the threshold of a global transformation,' said [Dr John] Hagelin, a quantum physics researcher educated at Harvard and Dartmouth.... [A] private foundation has kicked in $12 million for the assembly. The money provides as much as $600 a month to cover expenses for each participant willing to relocate to southeastern Iowa."
Washington Post/Associated Press, 28 November 2006


Solar Energy, Agriculture and World Peace - click here

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex