Kristen has a very g
Kristen has a very good point. Our policies are determined by what we call something. Sometime language can, therefore, be an obstacle to our understanding of a problem. As you know, there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. It is certainly a term that will evoke strong sentiments on all sides of the issue.
posted by Dipak K. Gupta at 9:31 AM
2 Comments:
It's called a war on terrorism because of the vaguenss of the term. There's no politically acceptable way to name the war that the U.S is fighting.
"The War against Islamic Fundamentalism" - Will alienate all the Muslim allies.
"The War to avenge 9/11" - Sounds petty and immature.
"The War to Change Middle Eastern Societies into secular Democracies" - will alienate Muslim allies and raise obvious objections whether a War is the right way to accomplish this goal.
"A War to Enhance America's Strategic Objectives in the Middle East" - alas realpolitik doesn't play nicely at the polls. Anoying little thing, democracy.
So maybe we should just stick to the 'War on Terror'
word manipulation is propaganda. propaganda has been a part of warfare since the begining. If terrorism is about messages, to "fight terrorism" you must counter with your own message. Should we call them freedom bombers, or marytrs? Its my personal opinon that the phrase "war on ____" is overplayed.
Post a Comment
<< Home