It's not a semantic trifle because "being at war" is invariably used to justify encroachments on constitutional liberties. How many abominations against the fourth amendment were perpetrated in the holy name of the War on Drugs? "It's a war, you see. To win the war we may have to make some changes, maybe temporarily sacrifice some rights. What? You don't want to win the war? Whose side you on?"
That is precisely the reason those types of slogans are used to frame these issues in the public consciousness. You and I are in agreement on this.
There will always be a drug problem; groups with no access to conventional weaponry will always resort to terrorism.
Again, I fully agree.
It's not a semantic trifle because "being at war" is invariably used to justify encroachments on constitutional liberties.
I also agree with the second part of this sentence, but the first clause is misguided and irrelevant. I made no accusations of anyone's statements being semantic trifles, and I specifically acknowleged the appropriateness of debating the merits of these types of slogans. I also did specifically point out that your attempt to define the discussion in terms of your arbitrarily narrow definition of the word "war" was incorrect, and that the author's use of the word in the context of her article was correct.
How many abominations against the fourth amendment were perpetrated in the holy name of the War on Drugs? "It's a war, you see. To win the war we may have to make some changes, maybe temporarily sacrifice some rights. What? You don't want to win the war? Whose side you on?"
I'm on your side, Petronius. The so-called War On Drugs is a Trojan horse attack on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So are aspects of the War On Terrorism. We do have a corrupt "bi-partisan" oligarchical governing elite which is exploiting these and other issues, e.g. our open borders, to maximise their own power and further their own agendas. Our system of Constitutional checks and balances has been subverted into a legalised mob racket engaging in what I call "institutionalized treason". We have, as a people, fouled our own nest.
None of this, however, has anything to do with the fact that a resurgent radical Islam is at war with our "modern Western civilization", except in the sense of rendering us more vulnerable to the threat. The author of this article is not advocating or defending the cynical sloganeering which so greatly concerns you. She is simply acknowledging an evil reality, and suggesting that apologising to that evil is counterproductive. You have some legitimate disagreements with some of the posters in this thread, but not with the author's premise as stated in the original article. My posts here have simply been to refocus the discussion.