I notice that sides in the ‘War Against Terrorism’ have at last been properly defined; thanks for clarifying that, George W Bush. So it’s terrorism vs humanity.
Now, what are you all waiting for? Choose a side and get fighting.
Myself, I would definitely like to consider my ideals as fitting the definition ‘humanity’; my main problem is that I don’t have a lot of respect for its self-elected leaders, so in the name of maintaining my independence I may be forced to become a terrorist.
This sounds extreme, but it’s worth pointing out that Bush’s terminology elevates the actions of terrorists from simple acts of terrorism – which are underhand, illegal and plain bad – to acts of war, which are altogether different. Because although nobody likes having to kill people in wars, it’s generally the accepted way things are done. During the blitz, horrific though the falling bombs were, nobody was saying ‘What right do the Germans have to bomb us? This is unacceptable!’ because we were doing the same to them. Remember that next time people get blown up on the tube – war legitimises violence.
In a way, you could say that by defining it as part of a two-sided war, Bush has glorified terrorism. I wonder if that’s grounds for trying to have him arrested by Charles Clarke?