start by refusing to use that ridiculous term. It isn't a war.

BRITISH SHED 'WAR ON TERROR' LANGUAGE
The term is considered too simplistic, and perhaps supportive of jihadist goals.

By Mark Rice-Oxley | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the April 18, 2007 edition

LONDON - Britain is rapidly backpedaling on the "war on terror." Not the global effort to subdue jihadists, but the three-word phrase, much used by President Bush, which in the British establishiment now fear is ill-defined, oversimplistic, and excessively martial and Manichaean.

Government ministers were quietly instructed several weeks ago to avoid using the term, but matters were brought into the open Monday when a senior cabinet minister rejected the phrase during a speech in America.

Hilary Benn, the Blair government's international development secretary, told a New York think tank that the concept of a war on terror sends out the wrong message on two levels: It encourages terrorists by dignifying their cause, and it suggests that only military measures could be a useful response.

"In [Britain], we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone and because this isn't us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives," Mr. Benn told a meeting in New York organized by the Center on International Cooperation.

It's one of the stupidest terms ever coined in modern statesmanship. You'll never have sanity in the war on terror as long as it remains "a war on terror".

( ... Link ... )

Lasthorseman fully endorses living dangerously. I care not for "security", I want the Stasi out of mine and my family's face. The basement lab is gearing up for cheap devices to fry implantable mark of the beast microchips and the search for lasers that permanently fry survellance camera CCD chips is ongoing. News of a tazer proof clothing is promising and research into GPS jamming devices continues.

In combatting the "war of terra" it is getting increasingly easy to point out obvious conflicting interests such as the North American Union and the NASCO corridor as proof that our "dear leaders" value global/financial interests far above yours.

Security is not the intent here, indoctrination is. You citizen MUST COMPLY and not question authority.

the petition and even added some apropos quotes from the First Inaugural Address of FDR regarding fear -- "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

That cannot alter the fact that the outfit sponsoring this effort, the petition and all, is obviously a right-wing reactionary group which aims to dismantle government in the name of quote freedom unquote.