According to Sir Ken MacDonald, no.
The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, put himself at odds with the home secretary and Downing Street last night by denying that Britain is caught up in a "war on terror" and calling for a "culture of legislative restraint" in passing laws to deal with terrorism.

Sir Ken warned of the pernicious risk that a "fear-driven and inappropriate" response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials and the due process of law.

He said: "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a 'war on terror', just as there can be no such thing as a 'war on drugs'.

Full article: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1997247,00.html

God, I love my country. Why can't all you fuckers be as sensible as us?

Now we just need a Prime Minister who isn't too scared to say boo to the President. Soon come, hopefully.

Yet, the apparatus that spawned such men remains, and they do indeed consider it a war. Why is a "war on terror" a fouled concept, necessarily?

Because it's hysterical and disproportionate?

Now we just need a Prime Minister who isn't too scared to say boo to the President. Soon come, hopefully.

Theres only one PM man enough for that! Man, we shouldnt have let her go.

Picture here. (http://www.igshistoryonline.co.uk/Images/PMs%20-%20thatcher.jpg)

May she rot in peace.:D

She was in Reagan's pocket, playing with his shrivelled old pecker when Nancy wasn't looking.

I thought she was a big hit with gays.

I thought she was a big hit with gays.Only the hair dahling, Only the hair.

Let's not make light of this. She was a supremely evil old bitch, a monster, an abomination. I'd pay good money to see her cold, dead corpse butt-raped by the Devil himself.

Because it's hysterical and disproportionate?

To...?

God, I love my country. Why can't all you fuckers be as sensible as us?

Can you explain? Is there no war on terror because Bush is focusing all his energy on Iraq instead of terrorist organizations? Am I misunderstanding how there is no war on terror? And what are you getting at?

Now we just need a Prime Minister who isn't too scared to say boo to the President. Soon come, hopefully.

Yeah, I hope so too. Do you think it'll be a Labour, a Conservative, or a Lib Dem?

Yet, the apparatus that spawned such men remains,

Dear Geoff,

i hope all is well.

So true you are here, , so the last 5 years or so and the deaths of many inncoent people have been in vein. The question is then why are we not doing anything about dismantling the apparatus, even though Bush and CO know where the heart of this dispicable ideology lies.

It appears that their easy options and quick wins have even back fired on them!!!

So perhaps they should have gone straight to the real problem here, the KSA.

Why no, why not, why not!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Take care
zak

Dear Zakariya,

Welcome back to SciForums! I hope you were okay. Did you forget about us?

I'm not sure why the machine hasn't been dismantled. I sure would love to see that happen. But if it doesn't, well... at least we only have two more years to have to live through!

-----

Take care,
Wulf

To...?
Reality.
Can you explain? Is there no war on terror because Bush is focusing all his energy on Iraq instead of terrorist organizations? Am I misunderstanding how there is no war on terror? And what are you getting at?
There is no war on terror. You, the American public, are being conned into thinking there is. The word 'war' has a specific meaning - and the mere act of labelling something a 'war' doesn't make it into one. Your government is in the business of finding and eliminating specific, highly elusive individuals who are plotting against you. My government too. This is enough in itself without the hysterical and transparent vote-winning propaganda.
"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war.And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a 'war on terror', just as there can be no such thing as a 'war on drugs'.
Do you think it'll be a Labour, a Conservative, or a Lib Dem?
Labour, and probably Gordon Brown as PM. He isn't so enamoured with America as Blair and will probably - I hope - put some distance in the relationship. Personally I wish he'd ditch it altogether but right now that's mere fantasy.

The individuals are plotting against me, or against Bush & Co.?

You personally, Geoff. Boy, have they got plans for you.

I don't doubt. Good thing I hijacked someone else's system before posting this.

Counter-terrorism. But not by war.

I'd agree with that.

Dear Zakariya,

Welcome back to SciForums! I hope you were okay. Did you forget about us?

I'm not sure why the machine hasn't been dismantled. I sure would love to see that happen. But if it doesn't, well... at least we only have two more years to have to live through!

-----

Take care,
Wulf

Hello Wulf,

Thank you for your welcome, its most appreciated.

I have not actually been away fromScifi's but just not being able to post very frequently as i am extremely busy of late. I will be doing sparadic bursts or the odd post every now and again for the next 2 months or so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take it ez

Zak

People, really. Get to your senses. In the maintime, I will explain it one-more-time:

Is there no war on terror because....

...semantically it doesn't make sense. Let's use an analogy first:

War on cancer. No, that just sounds stupid. Mind you, you can FIGHT against cancer, stupidity or gravitation, but you can not have a war on them.

Why not?

Because war is a military conflict between 2 or more entities. A country and a fraction, north vs, south, red vs, blue, you get the picture.

Terror is not an entity but a method, a tool usually for the weaker side.

Thus you can not have a war on terror. There you have it.

The correct English (but very un-PC) translation of the expression "war on terror" is: fight for global dominance (also known as empire).

See? Was it that hard? And it didn't even hurt....

the problem is even if you win every fight, every battle you won't come out victorious at the other end of war of terror...

Here a link to a interresting lecture about modern warfare by General Sir Rupert Smith who wrote "utillity of force":
http://www.thersa.org/audio/lecture181006.mp3

Let's not make light of this. She was a supremely evil old bitch, a monster, an abomination. I'd pay good money to see her cold, dead corpse butt-raped by the Devil himself.

supply me with a corpse.

There is no war on terror. You, the American public, are being conned into thinking there is. The word 'war' has a specific meaning - and the mere act of labelling something a 'war' doesn't make it into one. Your government is in the business of finding and eliminating specific, highly elusive individuals who are plotting against you. My government too. This is enough in itself without the hysterical and transparent vote-winning propaganda.

So if I understand correctly, the conflict we refer to when we say "war on terrorism" is happening, but calling it a "war" is a misnomer meant to garner support, and it should be called something else?

Mind, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm aware of the tendency to label efforts against things other than countries a war.

Labour, and probably Gordon Brown as PM. He isn't so enamoured with America as Blair and will probably - I hope - put some distance in the relationship. Personally I wish he'd ditch it altogether but right now that's mere fantasy.

Good. At least you won't get another lap dog.

...semantically it doesn't make sense. Let's use an analogy first:

War on cancer. No, that just sounds stupid. Mind you, you can FIGHT against cancer, stupidity or gravitation, but you can not have a war on them.

Why not?

Because war is a military conflict between 2 or more entities. A country and a fraction, north vs, south, red vs, blue, you get the picture.

Terror is not an entity but a method, a tool usually for the weaker side.

Thus you can not have a war on terror. There you have it.

So it seems I was right. I'm familiar with this, but I've never seen it coupled with a claim that there was no war. I've just thought of this "war" as a metaphorical one, of the type which the right-as-in-wing wing seems to like to fight.

The correct English (but very un-PC) translation of the expression "war on terror" is: fight for global dominance (also known as empire).

Not disagreeing, but merely asking for an explanation: How is it a fight for global dominance?

See? Was it that hard? And it didn't even hurt....

Your post did its job well and didn't need such an insult to my intelligence (assuming that was meant to be such, and was directed at me in particular).

Well, I didn't mean to insult you personally, but I am tired of people taking everything at facevalue that comes from the media or government without applying common sense.
Just because they say so, it doesn't make it true. Just because it is in print, that doesn't necessery the truth.

As about global dominence, the US needed a catchphrase, an excuse, a casus beli what they can use to describe in a PC way what they are doing.
Global dominence or building an empire just doesn't seem so good these days, although that is what actually happening....

supply me with a corpse.

Over my dead body.

Of course there is no war on terror.. How the hell do you fight a noun ? with a verb ? ..
Seriously though..
The chance of you dying in a terrorist attack is less likely than you dying from flu, road accident, and heart attack. I think if you combine flu and heart attack.. its still likely than you dying from a terrorist attack.
So Americans (in particular), Australians, Brits, Frenchies all need to stop thinking about a terrorist attack and go buy yourself a heart attack inducing doughut/crossiant/whatever you have from a coughing teenager and drive away without a seatbelt and remember that those who use the war as an excuse,are those that you should declare it on.