[tarheelswamprat]

Now we are at war again. This time with an enemy that has no borders, no country, no government, and no recognizable army.

**Sigh** Then it's not a "war." Look up the definition.

I have. The author's use of the word is correct. Your statement is not.

Anyone who seriously talks about a "war on terror" (or a war on poverty or drugs) should be led by the hand to a nice quiet room where he can't harm anyone.

While it is certainly appropriate to argue the semantic merits of those phrases, your qualifications to render such a judgement on those who use them are dubious, particularly in light of your demonstrated lack of understanding of the nature of war. Sorry, Petronius, you are no Arbiter.

[BIGLOOK]

We focus too much on individuals. UBL is nothing. He can't make a phone call.

We are at war. A war of cultures. Our laws are universal; we strive to protect the rights of all (though we are fallible, we improve): Sha'ria is the Islamic law, idiocentric, which grants rights only to followers. It grants followers extralegal protection and pardons crimes committed against "nonbelievers"

The Islamists use our laws against us. They seek only disruption of western society, conversion and dominance.

[Petronius]

The problem with waging "wars" against drugs, poverty, or terror is that absolutely nothing could ever constitute winning them. There will always be a drug problem; groups with no access to conventional weaponry will always resort to terrorism.

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?"