These days all one hears is "We have to fight this War on Terror...." Every time I hear that phrase I want to cover my ears and cry as if someone tied me down and made me listen to "Barbie Girl" by Aqua over and over again. It's not because the connection between Iraq and the terrorism we have suffered is pretty much non-existent. A lot of us agree and still use the term.
No, my problem is that it's bad writing. While you declare war on someone or something, you don't fight the war ON them, you fight a war AGAINST them. A matter of words, perhaps; but words are important because they're all we have here. Even more insidious, is the use of this word "terror" when we mean "terrorism." You can't fight a war against an emotion. There will always be terror. Terror is neither good nor bad. It's terrorism we hate.
The phrase "War on Terror" is therefore meaningless. It is newspeak. It's big and bad and means very little. I applaud Charlie Rose for using the phrase, "war against terrorism"(I can't remember when he said it, but I know he did). We are trying to weed out terrorism, not terror. That's like saying "War on Fear."
No, my problem is that it's bad writing. While you declare war on someone or something, you don't fight the war ON them, you fight a war AGAINST them. A matter of words, perhaps; but words are important because they're all we have here. Even more insidious, is the use of this word "terror" when we mean "terrorism." You can't fight a war against an emotion. There will always be terror. Terror is neither good nor bad. It's terrorism we hate.
The phrase "War on Terror" is therefore meaningless. It is newspeak. It's big and bad and means very little. I applaud Charlie Rose for using the phrase, "war against terrorism"(I can't remember when he said it, but I know he did). We are trying to weed out terrorism, not terror. That's like saying "War on Fear."
