Is the "War on Terror" phrase an oxymoron?

Question

Shouldn't we be teaching that war is terrible?

Answer 1

Grammatically speaking "War on Terror" is not an oxymoron. Because an oxymoron is just two terms, not three.

But what you're saying is that a "war on terror" is a paradox or contradictory in nature.

I agree with you. If we don't teach that war is terrible, we'll be taught that war is terrible.

Answer 2

While I certainly agree that war is terrible, I'm not so sure the phrase "War on Terror" would qualify as an oxymoron. To be an oxymoron, I think there must be an ironic twist caused by the juxtaposition of contradictory terms. The words "war" and "terror" go together like like "pain" and "suffering." They mean almost the same thing and are profoundly unfunny. Not an oxymoron, I think.

Answer 3

There would be no War if no-one defended against aggressors. There would only be conquest. Unless you think that conquest is better than war - I'll take war.

That being said, War on Terror is an impossible goal. It's like a police chief saying "we'll get all the bad guys and there will be no crime" Historically, the Iraq War would already be considered won - the previous regime deposed. But for some odd reason, the hostilities continue - and not mostly with the occupying force. It's a bizarre scene.

Answer 4

Yes, it is an oxymoron, and no, we should not teach that it is terrible. INSTEAD, we should teach that peaceful negotiations are the ONLY way.

Let me explain: an Anti-War effort is needed for one war. Once the war is over, that effort is no longer needed, until the next one comes along. What to do with all of those people and all of the money and resources that are no longer used? And what about all of those people who are thinking about war and talking about war, and teaching of the atrocities of war? We are just perpetuating the idea in the minds of our people and children.

NOW, if you have a Peace effort, most people would stand and agree that peace is something they'd like to see sustained over a long term. By having consistent teaching and resources and money to push the idea of peace, by teaching about peace and the benefits of having peace and seeing how peace works, you are perpetuating the idea of peace in the minds of people and children. If you teach children that there is a peaceful solution to solving the problems they'll run in to as children, those children will grow using those solutions, and (for the most part) will use those solutions in their grown-up lives. Eventually you would have peace throughout the world, aside from those few who just can't get their act together. And then the people would have to find a way to keep those few from hurting others.

Naive, possibly, could it work? If we were patient and we had long enough and there was a great majority willing to try, eventually it would work.

Answer 5

War is terrible you are right.

But even technically that phrase is a wrong pharse guess why? War is fought between armies. you call street fight as a war do you?

Moreover War on terror gives a notion that it is violent and all that.

I would rather call it "for Peace on earth" but then again, diplomacy could have helped.

Answer 6

It's kind of like the War on Drugs. There is no specific nation that we're at war with, only militant groups who rally around an ideology. The problem is that we can't justify going to war with an ideology.

Answer 7

It's very silly. Even if, somehow, we captured or killed every terrorist and wiped the ideologies that breed them off the face of the earth, "terror" would still exist. A qualification of good political spin-doctoring is that it shouldn't make sense...otherwise, it's easy to use reason against it.

Answer 8

One flaw. warfare is often poor yet warfare is now and lower back necessary and intensely merely. to work together in warfare against "terror" may be very merely, perhaps no longer as necessary at cases yet rather necessary common.

Answer 9

War is bad but there's an old saying "if you want peace, prpare for war" I forgot who said it. What it means is to ensure the peace you have to be ready to defend it.

Answer 10

It's not an oxymoron it's the opposite... just very redundant.