Columnist – John Sammon
What is the difference?

Between war, and what the intended Nigerian underwear airplane bomber did?

It seems to be largely ruled by semantics.

The bomber, a troubled, insecure, boy, allowed himself to be duped by Yemeni extremists. That was wrong, what he tried to do.

But if a whole row of buildings are blown up in Baghdad and 1,000 people killed in an American air strike, nobody cares. In the US that is. That’s war. They deserved it, because they live in a country with bad people. Even though many of them were innocent. They just happened to be unfortunate enough to live there and be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nobody in the US hears about them dying or cares.

But if a nut targets a plane with innocent people, who, according to the nut, live in a bad country, then the world shudders.

It seems to be the use of the word “war.”

When we kill them it’s war. When they kill us it’s terror. It’s semantics. In the case of both, the rights of innocent civilians are often totally disregarded.

Why is war acceptable? Why does the use of that term make it so?

In World War Two, thousands of civilians in Germany were killed by bombing. It can be argued that in that case, at the very least, war was used to stop war. The Nazis had to be stopped.

Unlike World War Two, Iraq is a war we started under false pretenses (false weapons of mass destruction).

Thus, in this case, war is not terror.

War is when the leaders of a country decide the leaders of another country (or a movement in that country) are bad and take steps to inflict damage on that country and its population. Terror is when the leaders of a country (or movement) decide the leaders of another country are bad and take steps to inflict damage on that country and its population. Both are pursued to increase or change influence in a region.

Thus, war is not terror.

But back to semantics. Why does the word “war” sound more acceptable than use of the word “terror?” When we do it to them, it’s war. When they do it to us, it’s terror. War often results in terror (ever have a bomb dropped on your head and not be terrified)?

Sometimes our leaders use the phrase “war on terror.” This is kind of an oxymoron. It’s like saying “stink on shit.”
They both stink.

War sounds much more noble and upbeat than does the word terror. Perhaps if we could find out which side used the “war” the most, we could determine who was using the word to sugar coat what is in both cases, a simple brutal resort to force to settle a dispute.

Words have psychological meanings that are important. For example, no intelligent person would dispute there is a huge difference between calling someone a “faggot,” and calling them a person into an “alternative lifestyle.”

Perhaps, similarly, war and terror mean basically just the same thing, with a difference of intent, that of justifying one argument against the other.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-