I guess I’ll be in the (probably very small) minority here but I never like the use of the term “war on terror” because its undefined and would never end. My concern is that it could indefinitely serve to justify extra constitutional excess for future administrations with no end in sight.
The best way to define it to me is Islam fanaticism but then that does not take into account the non muslims who join forces with the these fanatics against the west.
That is because your objection to the specific use of the words War on Terror or Seize That Islamic Jihadist Murderer whom I just witnessed detonating the explosives, is not a matter of reason gone mad,
of political correctness run amok, is not a political statement, but merely a personal preference in how you feel is the best most descriptive form of the term.
Whereas in the case of the mad-cow-disease-ravaged-populance over on that foggy-smoggy Island, the ancestors of whom saved their British arses and sacrificed so much blood, sweat, tears, lives, money, cigarettes, so that their descendants might live in freedom to exercise their rights as citizens of a free sovereign nation to do as they please even to betray, back stab the very county they owe everything to,
put politics first and foremost as the function of the words they use.
I never like the use of the term war on terror because its undefined and would never end.
Unless I mis-interpreted what you said, let me break this news to you: This war will not end until we surrender to Islam, or destroy the "jihadist's" will to fight.
"Jihad" was declared upon the USA in 1978. It took until September 2001 before a majority of Washington politicians actually realized that in Middle Eastern culture; one means what they say. That means Islamic Nazi Fascists declared war on us.
So when Islamic Nazi Fascists chant "Death to America" or (death to the big Satan) each Sabbath Friday; they really mean it.
Cheers,
OLA
I agree, for the reasons you stated.