is the war on terror over?!?!

**antaeus** · April 08, 2009, 08:19 PM

when questioned last week about why her administration is not using the term "war on terror", hilary clinton said there was no official directive, they're just not using the term any more...

(from time magazine)

so, if they've stopped calling it a war on terror, does that mean the war is over?

who won?

**Khannis** · April 08, 2009, 08:24 PM

Terror, of course, otherwise you wouldn't see more bombings, shootings, kidnaps, and so on...

**Visna** · April 08, 2009, 08:26 PM

They've hopefully stopped using the term because the term is retarded. Not because the "war" is over.

**Boyar Son** · April 08, 2009, 08:26 PM

The good guys won.

**Mr. Pink** · April 08, 2009, 08:27 PM

There will always be terror, so I suppose there will always be a 'war on terror'.

**Martin N** · April 08, 2009, 08:35 PM

The war will never end, not supposed to end, it was used as a scapegoat to attack any country we wanted, remember the old bush doctrine, if your not with us your against us, well there you go. Because think about it, its like declaring war on god, theres no way to prove that he exists, so the war will keep going, and going, and going, and going, Go figure, neither iraq nor afghanistan even had terrorists in them in the end whatsoever.

**Zephyrus** · April 09, 2009, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Martin N

The war will never end, not supposed to end, it was used as a scapegoat to attack any country we wanted, remember the old bush doctrine, if your not with us your against us, well there you go. Because think about it, its like declaring war on god, theres no way to prove that he exists, so the war will keep going, and going, and going, and going, Go figure, neither iraq nor afghanistan even had terrorists in them in the end whatsoever.

That, and labeling whoever is against their policies as a 'terrorist".

Terrorism is quite the convenient excuse for a lot of things.

**Pontifex Maximus** · April 08, 2009, 08:37 PM

You didn't hear? Following a new White House directive it is now referred to as "The scuffle against the respectable freedom fighters of the Middle Eastern region that have a completely understandable dislike of the United States"

**OccamR** · April 08, 2009, 09:01 PM

Apparently, terrorist attacks called 'man-caused disasters' now.

Well, looks like I just had a terrorist attack in my toilet.

**Quadratus** · April 08, 2009, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by OccamR

Apparently, terrorist attacks called 'man-caused disasters' now.

Well, looks like I just had a terrorist attack in my toilet.

HAHAHA! Oh my god.. I lol'ed.

But seriously, the name is stupid, "Man caused disasters".. It didn't happen on accident.

**Heathen Hammer** · April 08, 2009, 09:46 PM

Theer is no such thing as "war on terror". Just a list of measures american political elites take in order to stay in power.

**Alkarin** · April 08, 2009, 09:51 PM

hazah for global contingency actions! and half them arent even terrorists...just anti americans who don't cause any terror..

but some of them are WOW evil lol

**green tea** · April 08, 2009, 10:03 PM

Yes, the war on terror is over now- now we have the economy crisis. But don´t worry, there will always be enough reasons for small or big wars. And maybe we will see a revival (the retro-war on terror) in eight years, when the republicans reconquer the white house.

**CtrlAltDe1337** · April 08, 2009, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by antea

when questioned last week about why her administration is not using the term "war on terror", hilary clinton said there was no official directive, they're just not using the term any more...

(from time magazine)

so, if they've stopped calling it a war on terror, does that mean the war is over?

who won?

No, the war won't be over until the terrorists don't pose a serious threat to the West anymore.

**persianfan247** · April 08, 2009, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDe1337

No, the war won't be over until the terrorists don't pose a serious threat to the West anymore.

The problem with that is that its impossible to win the war on terror, because there will always be a Cause which will result in the extreme reaction of terrorism by some of its supporters.

You may get rid of all terrorist groups(which I don't think is possible) but inevitably someone in the future will will use terrorism in a attempt to support their cause, so it really is not something you can get rid of.

**Hambone** · April 09, 2009, 12:18 AM

I don't see why it matters what they call it, they could call it the disagreement on terrorist policy for all it matters.

**Trey** · April 09, 2009, 12:26 AM

I'm glad they aren't using the stupid term anymore. However, 'man caused disasters' is just as ridiculous.

**Nouvelle Vague** · April 09, 2009, 08:30 AM

You think they’ll ever find Bin Laden?

**Panzerbear** · April 09, 2009, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Tiberias

You think they’ll ever find Bin Laden?

no, because he died in 2001 out of kidney failure (interviews with witnesses of his burial, etc have been spread all over the US news, including Fox News, but then it was supressed and articles began misteriously dissapearing). how many

ing times do people have to tell you that current messages from "Bin Laden" are a CIA hoax?

OP: I think people need to realize that the so-called War on Terror was a major strategic blunder for the US administration and that US is trying to achieve the unachievable (if not to say, multiplying radical extremist ideology in the middle east by their actions)... now Americans are just trying to save face and scratching their heads on wtf are they going to do next.

**Father Jack** · April 09, 2009, 09:37 AM

I love the way some people link the death of Bin Laden with the end of the war on terror. It highlights the retardedness of the term 'war on terror.' Prior to 2001 did we coexist with the idea and act of terrorism in relative harmony, or what? Nope, terrorism will always exist in one form or another.