Newspeak can't have such a term: it's too offensive to Pepe and the head-hackers.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
War on Terror down the memory hole
Newspeak can't have such a term: it's too offensive to Pepe and the head-hackers.
Newspeak can't have such a term: it's too offensive to Pepe and the head-hackers.
It's just the natural evolution of our culture, Tecs. Just like Pepe said, get with it, girls have penises nowadays.
ReplyDeleteIt's not offensive, Tec. It's just a meaningless catch phrase that doesn't belong in the political discourse of a civilized nation.
ReplyDeleteRight. The Nazis were honourable opponents representing an alternative lifestyle too.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly do you find objectionable in WoT, Pepe: the word war, the word terror, or their juxtaposition?
ReplyDeleteWhat I found objectionable is that it failed to name the enemy. Terrorism is simply a form of war. So "War on Terror" was literally "War on a form of War", which is open to endless and stupid interpretations. It allowed the Pepean gerbils to make obscure their alliance with Islam Militant under the confusion as to what the hell this "terror" meant or included and why.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush clan's colleagues, and Ever Our Friends and Allies, The Saudis, in getting Georgie Deux to accept this label, built in a crippling mechanism to everything we did, or could have aspired to do. Might as well have called WWII a "War Against Blitzkriegs and Surprise Attacks".
Keep that label, throw out that label, replace that label, it doesn't change a whit the reality of what democracies are facing in the 21 first century: A Reformation of Islam Militant into an ideology that joins or coopts the Socialisms into a global United Front bent on the extirpation of all notions of human liberty and a government ruled by law from the people and not by the fiat of the Lords over the people.
Enfin, it was a War Against Pepeanism.
The Nazis were honourable opponents representing an alternative lifestyle too
ReplyDeleteOf course not. But if WWII has not been dubbed "the war on evil".
Yes, but World War III cannot be used, either -- it has another connotation. One thing I suspect the pinkos hate is the word "war" used in this context. For them, it's at most an Inspector Clouzeau police action (as in Mumbai), perhaps to throw a bone to the Neanderthal stoopid Ricains when they object too much to having their heads hacked (the gall!) But not a war -- not in a million years would a true Red go to war to defend Western Civilization. More like, ululate and salivate at the prospect of its untimely demise. Question is, what then. How will the pinkos fare once their dearest wishes are fulfilled?
ReplyDeleteWhat I found objectionable is that it failed to name the enemy. Terrorism is simply a form of war. So "War on Terror" was literally "War on a form of War", which is open to endless and stupid interpretations.
ReplyDeleteThis goes a long way in showing even a drooling cretin can utter words of wisdom.
Actually, WWWII has often been dubbed a war on evil, a war for good, as even leftist twats like you have done [if for no there reason than because your Stalin's ox ran the danger of being one of ones to be gored].
ReplyDeleteHence the phrase by liberals that WWII was "The (Last) Good War".
Of course, that you fail to show any connection between whether or not WWII was seen as a fight against evil, and what came earlier, makes it all just another pathetic nonsequitur out of PP's piehole. Like rain over Seattle.
Don't drool Pepe, fight against that Pavlovian upbringing with all your soul. You can do it!
ReplyDeleteWWII was often labeled a war against totalitarianism. Why else would we have had to invent the cutesy fiction about our benevolent friend Uncle Joe?
ReplyDeleteThis discussion is starting to acquire the stench of "terrorism is the new communism".
You stole that from one of my earlier posts, Mr Rot! Where is the attribution, when required?
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, however this War is called, the fact of the matter one needs an Army to fight it. And actions speak louder than words: The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion.
ReplyDeleteUlulate, Pepe, ululate.
Sorry, Tecs. OK, \cite{Tecs}. Actually, it deserves to be a label.
ReplyDeletecut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion.
ReplyDeleteYou want to throw more cash at these idiots ? They already had just about all the resources in the world and it took them five years to put down a rebellion lead by bedouins with firecrackers and molotoff cocktails. That cash will be much better spent on the arts, education and healthcare.
Also note that the minute Obama becomes prez, iraqis start behaving.
ReplyDeleteCause and effect, according to Pepean logic.
ReplyDeleteOf course when there is genuine cause and effect [say, the Taliban getting clobbered after 911 and the new found understanding Kadhafi had that, just perhaps, nukes are not necessary to the Diktator of IslamSoc] Pepeans cannot fathom it, so beyond their "logic' is the real mccoy.
ReplyDelete