Is there such a thing as a "war on terror"?

Question

Terror is an emotion, not a physical enemy.

Terrorism is a tactic, typically used by combatants who are weak in weapons.

Is it sanity to declare "war" on an emotion or a tactic? Or is it just abuse of language to blunt critical thought, as in Orwell's "1984"?

Answer 1

I would go for the abuse on Language. But also it is a term coined by "terror" creators.

You points are very valid.

Answer 2

To me it's just a brand on a war. All it does is keeps people at odds on what they think the war in the middle east really is. I think it's kind've a sign of the times. Think about how these days everyone has their words, different words to mean other things. In other words were encouraged to come up with out own definitions or meanings for the war, saying The War On Terror gives people something to build off of.

It's like a company coming up with a slogan for a marketing campaign to grab the consumers attention. In the early days people didn't care about slogans or sayings as they do today. Think of how many variations would have been used to descrbe WW1 or WW2 or even the Vietnam War.

It's all just branding a war, this or that, what you think of it is how you perceive it. But in the end everyone knows you're talking about The War on Terror. However I do agree with what you say.

Answer 3

I think the term is used by politicians to impress the public that they are really serious about the issue. Consider the term in connection with drugs or hunger etc. I don't think that most people realize that when "war" is declared in the context of drugs or terrorism, it is really a double speak way of stating that certain civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution are going to be suspended or eliminated in order to fight the problem.

Answer 4

that's why it don't work.