So we are at war with "terror". How can we wage war on an emotion? Will we have a skirmish with "the heebie jeebies"?

Comments

• LMAOOOOOOOO ROCK PAPER SCISSORS LOLLLLL...
  are we playing mercy with anything? how about rubber chicken?

  • Report
  

  by LuckyLefty on July 11th, 2008

• I'm offended! Wasn't there at least some Rather Stern Looks at Offensiveness?
  +5

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 11th, 2008

Comments

• Excellent. :-)
  +5

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 12th, 2008

• BTW - Did you hear the Joy has just been admitted to rehab? Extasy problem, I hear.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 12th, 2008

• No, haven't heard that one!

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on July 13th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• Yes. It' Orwellian New-speak.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 17th, 2009

Comments

• How about something like the recognition that most nations are engaged in a continuous effort to prevent or at least minimize illegal actions - like killing people, destroying property and the like?
  .
  As you say, there is no nation or even single ideology to be against. There are actions.
  .
  One problem I see with jingoistic labels like "War on Terror" is that it simply becomes a euphemism for what we all know is meant by it. As you so beautifully showed, "If we say "War on Islam" then that will tick off the American Muslims. Should we say "War on Jihad" or "The Taliban War"".
  .
  Until Sept 11, the biggest terrorist act in the US was committed by an apple pie lovin', corn-fed, red blooded, All-American white man. I think he was even a Christian.
  .
  For many years, terrorism in the UK and Ireland meant the IRA.
  .
  In Europe, for much of the 60's and 70's it meant gangs of various political affiliation.
  .

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 17th, 2009

• And yet every one of your alternative labels focus on Islam.
  .
  What to call the war(s)? How about Bush's Lie for Iraq and Bush's Spectacular Failure for the Afghan one?
  .
  Or to be politically neutral, just the Middle East War?
  .
  +6

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 17th, 2009

• What do you mean there isn't an ideology to be against? Of course there is. The unwavering belief that all non Muslims must be converted, killed, or enslaved is a pretty big ideology. That is what we are fighting against. That believe leads to the actions.
  .
  Quote "How about something like the recognition that most nations are engaged in a continuous effort to prevent or at least minimize illegal actions - like killing people, destroying property and the like?" you make it sound like we have declared war on neighborhood thugs and the worst they are doing is mugging and tagging.
  .
  Quote "And yet every one of your alternative labels focus on Islam." That is because that is who we are fighting.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on November 17th, 2009

• War on our Constitutional rights?

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on November 17th, 2009

• Rand - So why not be honest with yourselves and with the rest of the world and call it a war in Islam? You obviously don't seem to care that terrorists can and have been of different religions and politics. You are at war with another religion.
  .
  As for fighting illegal acts - I am against the acts, not the religion (any more than any other religion, anyway). For instance, I think lying to launch a war that has killed 10's of 1,000's of innocent people is just as bad as blowing up a bus-load of them.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 17th, 2009

• I don't think He intentional lied, but anyway, I don't care what we call it. You seemed to care, that is what I asked you? All I care about is winning it. They can call it the Butter Battle for all I care.
  .
  The War on our Constitutional rights is going on in Washington right now under the name of Health Care Reform.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on November 17th, 2009

Comments

• + 5 again. :-)

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 11th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• I have heard War on Terror more often than I can count. Hence a war on an emotion.
  
  But to be fair, The War on Terrorism, is common enough as well. And that's a method or perhaps belief system. Another intangible that bullets and bombs can't hit.
  
  A war on Terrorists would be fine since they are actually people and hence killable. But that would be dangerous since the difference between terrorist and heroic partisan is usually in who wins. The American Patriots who fought the Brits were considered terrorists by the Brits since they didn't adhere to accepted rules of combat, for instance.
  
  Ant any rate, I have never heard about the US's War on Terrorists anyway so that point's rather a moot one.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on July 11th, 2008