"War on Terror"... self perpetuating prophecy of terror?

[Kevin Spidel]

I hated that term since day one.

How does one define terror?

Did we qualify a never ending war?

Can we every "win?"

What are the variables which we can gage process?

By Bush & Co. coining that term, the media has adopted, and spun this new era of warefare into a constant state of fear and a war that has immeasurable variables. Bush & Co. can say "We are winning" and be right, because there is no measure. We can say "We are loosing" and be right.

This term, and this ideology has given birth to the new world of permanent warfare. And America has swallowed it with complacency driven by fear.

My question...

Has the "War on terror" actually spawn a world which superpowers have set their sites on the “enemy” thus giving more power to the “enemy.” Has defining the opponent actually empowered them? As seen by London, and a record more group/faction sponsored warfare tactics become a reality in this new world, because the “war on terror” exists.

Discuss…

[ihaveaquestion]

1. Good article with some insight.

London’s new blitz: who’s to blame?

" All right. It’s time to say it. THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR. There can never be. A war on “terror” is as delusional a concept as a “war on panic,” “a war on elation,” “a war on consternation,” “a war on alarm” or “a war on happy.” They are feelings, not groups of angry people.

There’s a difference between state-sponsored terrorist groups and ideological extremists who loathe Western nations because of their arrogance. Although Dubya insists these loosely connected free-floating groups “hate us for our freedom,” they don’t. They hate us because of our insolence. It’s not our lifestyle. It’s about how we treat the Islamic lifestyle and the Arabic culture, which is closely akin to the way Westerners view chimpanzees. Kinda like us. Amusing. Way primitive."

[KharmaTrain]

2. How Do You Wage War On A Word?

The right wing mantra has always been to cloak some perceived danger, then broad-brush it with some catchy name that soon becomes part of their and then the American lexicon.

"Commie" is a perfect example. It made no difference if they were Russian, Vietnamese, Cuban or Ethiopian, they were all equally evil. Since the cold war's demise, this group searched for a new boogie man...and found it in what they now call "islamist fundamentalism" (WTF that is)...and the evil guy with the Russian accent now sneaks around in dark skin, beard and speaks strange.

Open ended wars on things such as "Drugs" and "Terror" are also used to create an open-ended game of ball-puffing. In the old days, this usually meant just upping defense or other spending to those who make money from peddling this fear. Under this regime, they've taken this a step further to pro-active creation of more problems that will need future "interventions" and so on.

The concept of control and domination is always the undercurrent here. These types need to feel superior and have created their own world in which to play out their wierd phobias. It's now become a problem as it's spilt over into our reality.

Peace...

[DURHAM D]

3. Given your post is about the clever use of language to promote

an agenda you probably meant to put quotes around "cold war's".

[KharmaTrain]

4. True...it's when ""s lose their quotes

Yes, "cold war" should be written that way. It was a blanket term that covered so many conflicts that were rooted in other causes. I stand accused of being a product of my environment...growing up with Cold War without the quotes as a daily fact and fait accompli. I did the duck and cover fire drills and I can see how others can be so easily coerced into using a word to attack as the specific root causes. Creative thinking isn't encouraged these days.

Peace...

[shance]

5. The War on Terror is actually the War on Truth

and the War on those who are telling it.

Its the War on goodness and what is ethical and what is honest.

That's the way I see it.

If it were the War on Terror, the Bush Administration and the PNAC wouldn't be trying to terrorize and control everyone through fear and vague, unknown terrorist factions.

[Kevin Spidel]

6. but does the "War on terror"...

legitimize "terror"


i think so.

in essance.. Bush fueled this fire for political gain (period).

Death, destruction, injuries, a war.. well... collateral damage for the "cause."

god today is a whole-nutha level of my hate fest with Bush & Co. a new profound level of "ick"