Terror is not the person we're fighting, the 'terrorist.' The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. ( )Ĭognitive linguistics professor George Lakoff, founder of the progressive think tank the Rockridge Institute, has argued, with respect to the phrase "War on Terror", "Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. engages in terrorism, he concludes that the "war against terror" is aimed only at terrorism directed at the U.S. in the name of "the war on terror." Since, according to Chomsky, the U.S. officials, also apply to many of the actions undertaken by the U.S. Noam Chomsky has argued that some commonly accepted definitions of "terrorism", as accepted by U.S. Likewise, Russia has recently asserted that its ongoing struggles with Chechen fighters should be part of the international effort. For example, the militant Islamist group Hamas, although directly responsible for violent acts that Israelis, Americans, and Europeans deem as terrorism, is also responsible for many of the charities and other social welfare programs in Palestine.Īmong those who accept the term "War on terrorism," there are disagreements as to which actions, by which states, should be considered as part of the "war." For example, the Bush administration, despite considerable international and domestic disagreement, contends that the pre-emptive 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation is a crucial part of the war on terrorism. There are difficulties inherent in labelling armed participants as "freedom-fighters," "terrorists," "insurgents," etc., due to the relative criteria required to meet such labels.Įven when the boundaries of an organization are clearly defined, there might not be a way to distinguish some organizations as terrorist or otherwise. For example, civil wars are not between "two internationally defined states", but rather two competing factions in the same geographical area. None of these conditions are met, and as the operations cannot be qualified as regular organized crime fighting either, he suggests that the fight against terrorism continue being called the fight against terrorism.īut Villepin's criteria may be an over-simplification of the complexities of recent armed conflicts. the respect of these laws being judged if needed after the war is over (see Nuremberg Trials).First, there has always been considerable debate as to what constitutes terrorism in addition, the notion of declaring war on an abstract concept is troubling to some (in the same vein as the war on drugs, war on poverty, and the war on crime).Īccording to French prime minister Dominique de Villepin, the term war implies the fighting of : The very phrase "War on terrorism" is the subject of some debate and disagreement. Critics maintain that the war on terrorism has been used as an excuse to curtail personal freedom, to restrict access to government information and to provide a pretext for pursuing domestic and international objectives unrelated to terrorism. embassy bombings, suicide bombings in Israel and the Lockerbie bombing. policy following the Septemattacks but other incidents have been cited as contributing factors for example, the World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 U.S. administration terms " rogue states" no longer support terrorist activities. policy circles as GWOT for Global War on Terror) is an effort by the governments of the United States and its principal allies to destroy groups deemed to be " terrorist" (primarily radical Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda) and to ensure that what the U.S. The war on terrorism or war on terror (abbreviated in U.S.