Am I the only one who thinks that phrase is one of the most tasteless and retarded pieces of propaganda ever used on the American public. It makes no sense whatsoever. You can't have a "war" against and idea. And even if you could have a war against terror would you really be using guns and cruise missiles? Call me crazy but if my family was blown into little bits of goo right before my eyes with no justification I think I would be more inclined to do something hostile back but again maybe I'm just a loose cannon.
2007-06-11 13:45:31 · 7 answers · asked by simpletonjguy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The word "war" has been abused for many decades now.
War on poverty, war on drugs, etc.
They are all failures.
In at least two distinct ways the "War on Terror" is by definition unwinable.
If any human anywhere in the world experiences the feeling of terror, the war is still on. Thus, it will always be.
Ditto if there is an act of terrorism, the war is not won.
War against a strategy is an incoherent concept (look at the source, also incoherent).
Notice how the second "front" in the war on terror (or as Dan Rather always said "terra") was a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
And notice that it was started with an act of terror: Shock and Awe -- what is that, if not a way of saying "We intend to inspire the feeling of terror in every citizen of Iraq.
But then that's also the pupose of the torture we've been committing since early 2002 -- a way of terrorising people.
Also notice how it has expanded to include everyone who disagrees with any word or deed of Bush's -- which is most Americans, and nearly everyone on the planet.
So, it's a war ON terror, using terror, yet the "enemy" is everyone who doesn't think Bush should have absolute power.
But propaganda?!
Nah.
Don't know WHAT gave you THAT idea!
;-)
2007-06-11 14:08:38 · answer #1 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok,you and Edwards can start giving hair dressing lessons on terror then.
2007-06-11 20:49:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terror was truncated from Terrorist.
It is actually the War on Terrorist.
2007-06-11 20:55:27 · answer #3 · answered by Goldilocks 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're right. The general support they had to launch that campaign is even more frightening. Stealing oil at the cost of public debts.
2007-06-11 20:51:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
9/11 was NO idea! It didn't have a face, an address but it sure as hell was "terrorism".
2007-06-11 20:49:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I just think you don't get it. If city buses started blowing up in your neighborhood you'd get it. But anything short of you seeing it, you still won't get it.
2007-06-11 20:48:39 · answer #6 · answered by Army Retired Guy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ok. You are crazy.
2007-06-11 20:52:54 · answer #7 · answered by Ret. Sgt. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋