Are you sick of the "war on TERROR"

[4_Legs_Good]

I am just fuming every single time I hear the term "War on Terror". No war will ever EVER stop "terror", ever, never ever ever ever ever ever ever forever!

Why the hell can't they just call it the "War on teorrism" or even the "war on terrorists". I mean defeating "terror" means you'll defeat everything scary in the world, in addition to all good horror movies!

GAHHHHHHHHHHH! it drives me nuts!

It's even worse than hearing everyone refer to the war in Iraq as a "pre-emptive war" when it was, in fact, a PREVENTATIVE (if that) war.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

david

[catzies]

1. It was a handy, convenient replacement for the Cold War

Hence the prominence of many of the old Cold Warriors. It justifies the contined existence of and funding for the military-industrial complex, the people who run it and the people who are in charge. No wait, those two groups are actually one and the same.

[Judson39]

2. Terror is just a flame-name to make the public think they are under attack

Whenever you target for assassination, hundreds of people who are opposed to your military incursions into their respective countries, and they strike back, that is what this administration calls terrorist attacks, and makes every American the possible target for retaliation by someone who is fighting to save his life or country.

[4_Legs_Good]

5. Right, but why "terror" instead of...

... "terrorism" or "terrorists"? It was a very subtle, yet deliberate change in semantics. Why was it chosen. It just makes the whole thing sound stupid to anyone with a brain (I have a friend with a brain who told me about it or I would never have known).

I mean, you can fight against terrorists. You can even fight against terrorism (maybe), but you simply CANNOT fight terror, I guess maybe you could with Prozac or labotomies or something. But I'm afraid of moths and wasps. To fight a war on Terror which you might have some chance of winning you would have to get rid of crazy things that might kill me as well as moths and wasps.

So why did they make that change? Does the word "terror" just seem more ephemeral or something? I guess it does. It might even give the wager the air of being "good".

It drives me nuts.

david

[Ellen Forradalom]

3. I believe it was Monty Python's Terry Jones who asked,

"How can you make war on an abstract noun?"

[Ein]

4. Yep.

As long as we are the only superpower, and keep making these heavy handed power grabs to privatize other countries resources... We are gonna get terrorized. It's only gonna get worse.

[Redleg]

6. I am sick of the war on Democrats and the phony war in Iraq.

The real war on terror (which does not include Iraq) is all right.

[4_Legs_Good]

7. But why is it "terror"???

It's not terror! It's terrorism, or those who commit acts of terrorism or political violence. Terror is a completely different thing!

The question is why did they *conciously* choose the word "TERROR"? Who coined the term "WAR ON TERROR" or "UNITED AGAINST TERROR"

Terrorism causes terror. Fine, but spiders also cause terror. The Shining causes terror. George Bush Jr. can cause Terror. Dean can cause terror. Lieberman can cause terror. Osama bin Laden can cause terror. Casper can cause terror. Liquid hot magma can cause terror.

Why that term? And why the shift. At one point, early on it was called "The War on Terrorism". When and why did it shift to "The War on Terror" and why does nobody question this??? Intelligent commentators (in the middle and even on the left) who I listen to use this term. Just like they all used "pre-emptive war" to describe Iraq, when VERY early on it was discussed (and then completely dropped) that this wasn't a pre-emptive war, but a preventatitive war. Now only far left intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn will refer to these things properly. Why has everyone bought this whole thing wholesale, or do we really not think it matters? Personally I think it's incredibly important and I think George Orwell would agree with me.

david

[Redleg]

13. I got ya. You are talking about the semantics of "terror."

The pre-emptive war bothers the hell out of me. Shouldn't that simply be called an act of aggression?

[SOS]

8. With 9/11

22 months ago, the US still only inspects 2-3% of shipping containers entering the country. The nuclear, chemical and bio weapons in the former USSR are not being secured, despite Nunn-Lugar mandate. Add these two facts together and conclude that there is no war on terror(ism).

[whoYaCallinAlib]

9. Can you ever stop "hunger"? What about Johnson's "war on hunger"?

I think your are "fuming" and "driving yourself nuts" over nothing. Don't pop a gasket over a few words.

[4_Legs_Good]

10. Hmmmmm... maybe

Somehow I see that as different. I think you actually could stop hunger, but maybe you're right, maybe it should have been a "war on malnutrition" or a "war on starvation". I mean, we all get hungry, but then we eat - the idea was to make sure that people who got hungry also got to eat.

Good point, I'll agree with the "hunger" bit, but I still think the "terror" bit is odd. And again, why the change, and why did everyone sign on?

Could just be me, though.

david

[Nay]

11. I have pondered the exact same question, david, and here's my take on it.

The use of the word "terror" is, like you argue, totally incorrect. "Terror" has a distinctly different meaning from "terrorism" and "terrorists" as you have so eloquently discussed. "Terror" means "extreme fear," nothing else. We are really supposed to be fighing terrorists or terrorism, not terror.

Imagine if the repubs started a war on socialism, or socialists, but began calling it a "war on sociability." This is the same sort of error, and this error would evoke a "what the F***" response almost immediately. Why does it not do so in the "terror" example?

My theory is that there is a huge sub- and unconscious response among the public to the word "terror," because that is what we all felt on Sept. 11. The Repubs are linking their fakey, dipshit efforts to quell terrorism directly to the public's deep-seated fear of such a death happening to them personally, and they are getting a lot of mental mileage out of it.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

12. At the end of the day . . . it's all about PR.

That's why the repukes will call it the "war on terroe" til the end of time.

[markses]

14. Sick of it? It never even started!

Let's assume (though we shouldn't) that the so-called war on TERROR is in fact a war against a specific terrorist network involved in several attacks against the US since the early 1990's, most notably, the attacks of September 11, 2001.

We've been far too busy fighting the war for Bush credibility (in Afghanistan) and the war for oil and general petty wounded American resentment (in Iraq) to engage in anything like a war on Terror. It's a grand farce, with flag waving imbeciles in the lead roles.

[leftofthedial]

15. A. It's not a "war."

B. As waged so far, it has almost nothing to do with stopping "terrorism."

C. Neither "war" nor "terrorism" has been defined.