Just a thought:
The Administration is shifting their language regarding the War on Terror. They are slowly beginning to refer to it as a long war, global war, fight against terrorism, etc. AND the Administration asserts that the terrorists attacked first so America needs to strike back, "We're fighting them over there...blah, blah, blah."
But what could the shift of one simple preposition do to the definition OF the war? If we were to change 'on' to 'of'?
THE WAR ON TERROR becomes the war OF terror, and more in line to the actual type of war waged since it more closely resembles the tactics, techniques and emotive responses that terrorism resembles. We bomb them there so that they can not bomb us here? We raid their homes, detain their citizens, and occupy their streets with our tanks and troops, for what? So that they can't do "IT" to us?
But we are so lucky, no? That we aren't the average Joe who happened to have been born in a foreign land where tanks, troops, and detention become daily life. That your neighborhood, daily, must face the jackboots of the foreigner.
I am one that firmly believes that terrorism, no matter who perpetrates it upon whom, has no place in the moral fabric of human decency. And as an American, one who is of the most free people on this earth, I should be one that attempts to afford to those, what I am given by birth. And this is why I do not support our Government's use of terrorism, in their war OF terrorism.
If the Administration was truly fighting against terrorism, then why would they utilize it as a technique and tactic? When the Administration chooses to not capitalize on terror as a tactic, then they will be faced with the dilemma of fighting a war against terror because then, tactics and techniques utilized will not be allowed to include terrorism as an acceptable form of coercion and intimidation that calls into question the lawful use OF such techniques.