Ending the "War on terror"
Merriam-Webster defines "terror" as a state of intense fear. To have a war on terror, then, is to have a war against a state of intense fear. Only a master of language on the level of George W. Bush could be comfortable with such an absurdity, one would think.
We should be so lucky. Bush has been scaring the country for the past seven years with terror alerts, fake accusations, dire warnings, and war mongering. Whatever "war on terror" exists is nothing more than a marketing campaign.
It has worked. Even Barack Obama talks about "winning" the "War on terror." When the language of national discourse is controlled, the debate about the country's priorities and direction is also under control. If it is accepted that there is a "War on terror," then the "war" has to be won. Good luck, President Obama.
The "war on terror" does not exist. No war has been declared by Congress, either against any nation or any person, persons, things, or states of mind. The invasions of "Afghanistan" and "Iraq" were authorized by resolutions in Congress to allow the president to use military force.
If the "War on terror" is really a marketing slogan, then what does exist that justifies its use and success as a propaganda tool? The phenomenon known as "terrorism" exists. Again, Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Hmm. Thanks for clearing that up.
Actually, what we call terrorism is the same methodology known as "resistance" in World War II. Wikepedia defines it thusly: "A resistance movement is a group or collection of individual groups, dedicated to fighting an invader in an occupied country or the government of a sovereign nation through either the use of physical force, or nonviolence." The Viet Cong, for whom I was drafted to fight (and then enlisted to engage in the manly art of projector repair), was a resistance movement.
"Al Qaida," organized partly by the "CIA," began as a resistance movement in "Afghanistan" to defeat the "Russian" invaders. When the "Russians" were driven out of the country, the resistance shifted focus to the "U.S.," which established bases in "Saudi Arabia" during the first invasion of "Iraq." The term translates as "The base" in English. Osama bin Laden is quoted as saying it was the name of a training camp during the "Russian" invasion of "Afghanistan."
There is little doubt that "Al Qaida," such as it exists, planned, organized, and implemented the attacks of September 11, 2001. Those involved should properly be pursued, arrested, and tried for their crimes. Military invasion was not and is not required to track down and apprehend the perpetrators. As we have seen with the Bush criminal organization, other agendas were the primary motivations for the invasions of "Afghanistan" and "Iraq." In other words, the "War on terror" is a smokescreen, a propaganda cover for the "real" purposes at hand.
Because the term "Al Qaida" has been such a useful marketing slogan for the Bush criminal regime, various groups have called themselves by that name, most notably in "Iraq." The name has image power in the West, and therefore has power in the rest of the world.
If we are fortunate, the Bush criminal regime will be out of power by January 20, 2009. Hopefully, even sooner. The various scams, ruses, subterfuges, negligences, hypes, schemes, and marketing campaigns will be a thing of the past, and a new administration will be in place to attempt to save our civilization.
If Barack Obama is to have any success in his ascension to power, he will have to change the linguistics and/or semantics of the country, the words we use and the use we make of them. He can start by ending the phony "War on terror."
Here's a little play on words.