Like much of good manners, the phrase war on terror is false. If there was a good idea behind it, it was to avoid alienating the broad swath of muslim opinion, to win the war for hearts and minds.

There are a few small radical Jewish groups out there. If one committed a terrorist act (on Israeli did on a bus last month during the Gaza pullout, shooting an Arab), I’d be pained to see my government declare a war on radical Judaism, even though that would be the correct phrase.

I understand the desire to avoid the use of a state of war as political prop. But the external aggression, and its manipulation by the US gov’t, are two different issues, both I think real.

The war on ‘terror’ is like the war on ‘crime.’ It existed long before the recent Bali bombings and will exist in one form or another long after. The only difference is that NYC took a grievous hit, and Dubya’s speechwriter coined a catchy phrase.

But as for the war on terror being unreal; however cynically it may be being prosecuted by the US gov’t, I doubt the Hindu population of Bali regards it as a fantasy.

To deny the reality of terrorism is to deny the reality of the KKK, America’s Al Qaida. Here is my definition:

• Terrorizing civilians – women and children.

• Concealing of the fighters’ identities (masks – no uniforms).

• Seeking to subjugate an entire population (reduce rather than expand human rights).

We celebrated Rosa Parks life and passing just a couple days ago. Personally I find parallels, and a heartening involvment in the ending of genocides and extension of human rights, and protection of the innocent.

Once the war on terror is over…

Once there is a fully functioning Southern Baptist church in Mecca, you’ll know that the war on “terror” is over.

M. Nam

i know, i know…blame it on the noam chomsky book i’m reading!

titled “imperial ambitions”. biased much?

there’s also a fascinating pamphlet by eqbal ahmad called “terrorism, theirs & ours” on this topic. very thought-provoking!

that’s a little naive and simplistic, methinks, but i salute your optimism. the “war on terror” practically is a political tool and media label, with nasty aftereffects like the Patriot Act and increased indiscrimate scrutiny on immigration.

there’s a fine line differentiating when the labels “terrorist” and “ally” are used–depending on political expediency and necessity. the war on terror will never end per se, it will merely take on a different name.

similarly (ang, to answer your question) will the patriot act ever be ‘reversed’? never because it will be the right thing to do, but only because it will suit the prevailing administration’s interests and priorities at the time.

Good luck with that. Fake war, artificially defined, politically useful, no termination date.

‘Once the war on poverty is over…’

I’m not American, so I will ask those of you who are, Even if you think there were the best of intentions behind the formation of the act, do you really think the patriot act will be reversed after the war “is over”? What if it isn’t?