Good question that you, as a responsible newspaper, should have asked years ago.
All thinking and informed people not directly associated with or benefiting from or biased towards the power structure of the United States know that Miliband is absolutely right.
You cannot have a war on an idea or a concept. Full stop. Prominent figures in Britain and other places have made this point repeatedly.
The “War on Terror” is a cheap-trick phrase intended to blur as much as do anything else. It is worded to promote paranoia with its every utterance. It has also been used and promoted as a way to give Israel’s savage behavior a respectable name. The small number of criminals who executed 9/11 is thus associated with piteous victims in Gaza and Lebanon. Absurd.
Bush has specialized in such dishonest phrases. He is, after all, an essentially dishonest man who does not even understand his own impulses. He is an incompetent man with a narcissistic, if not somewhat sociopathic, streak
“You're either with us or against us.” “Bring 'em on!” “The Patriot Act.” “Mission accomplished.” “Axis of Evil.” All destructive and inaccurate rubbish.
Bush – or rather his writer of the moment - has specialized in Orwellian words that try hiding that which they name.
"Rendition" for kidnapping and torture is just one example.
The twentieth century has actually rendered the word “terrorist” rather meaningless.
The fire-bombing of Japanese cities. The atomic bombing of Japanese cities. The carpet bombing and napalming of Vietnamese cities and villages. The fire-bombing of German cities. The invasion of Iraq. Israel’s two invasions of Lebanon. The list is longer than I can possibly put here.
Of course, the true, brutal answer to your question is that they are dying only for good relations with the Pentagon.
1950 AMERICAN BOWMAN TRADING CARD ENTITLED "RAIDING A GERM LABORATORY"
1950 AMERICAN BOWMAN TRADING CARD ENTITLED "CITY OF THE DEAD"
