[Peace-discuss] Fwd: "war on terror"

[Margaret E. Kosal]

 From the Monty Python camp ...

> > > Why grammar is the first casualty of war
> > > By Terry Jones, Monty Python member, writer and
> > > performer
> > >
> > >
> > > WHAT really alarms me about President Bush's "war on
> > > terrorism" is the grammar. How do you wage war on an
> > > abstract noun? It's rather like bombing murder.
> > >
> > > Imagine if Bush had said: "We're going to bomb murder
> > > wherever it lurks. We are going to seek out the
> > > murderers and the would-be murderers, and bomb any
> > > government that harbours murderers."
> > >
> > > The other thing that worries me about Bush and Blair's
> > > "war on terrorism" is: how will they know when they've
> > > won it? With most wars, you can say you've won when
> > > the other side is either all dead or surrenders. But
> > > how is terrorism going to surrender?
> > >
> > > It's hard for abstract nouns to surrender. In fact
> > > it's very hard for abstract nouns to do anything at
> > > all of their own volition - even trained philologists
> > > can't negotiate with them. It's difficult to find
> > > their hide-outs, useless to try to cut off their
> > > supplies.
> > >
> > > The bitter semantic truth is that you can't win
> > > against these sort of words - unless, I suppose, you
> > > get them thrown out of the Oxford English Dictionary.
> > > That would show 'em. Admittedly, the Second World War
> > > was fought against fascism.
> > >
> > > But that particular abstract noun was cunningly hiding
> > > behind the very real Nazi government. We simply had to
> > > defeat Germany to win. In President Bush's war, there
> > > is no such solution. Saying "We will destroy
> > > terrorism" is about as meaningful as saying: "We shall
> > > annihilate mockery."
> > >
> > > Moreover, in its current usage, terrorism cannot be
> > > committed by a country. When America bombed a Sudanese
> > > pharmaceutical factory under the impression that it
> > > was a chemical weapons establishment, that was stupid.
> > > But it was not an act of terrorism because the US
> > > Government did it officially. And it apologised for
> > > it.
> > >
> > > That's very important: no self-respecting terrorist
> > > ever apologises. It's one of the few things that
> > > distinguishes legitimate governments from terrorists.
> > > So, it was difficult for President Bush to know whom
> > > to bomb after the World Trade Centre outrage.
> > >
> > > If Bermuda had done it, then it would have been
> > > simple: he could have bombed the Bahamas. It must have
> > > been really irritating that the people who perpetrated
> > > such a horrendous catastrophe were not a nation.
> > >
> > > What's more, terrorists - unlike a country - won't
> > > keep still in one place so you can bomb them. They
> > > have this annoying habit of moving around, sometimes
> > > even going abroad. It's all very un-American (apart
> > > from the training, that is).
> > >
> > > On top of all this, you have no idea who the
> > > terrorists are. It's in their nature not to be known
> > > until they've committed their particular act of
> > > terrorism. Otherwise, they're just plain old Tim
> > > McVeigh who lives next door, or that nice Mr Atta
> > > who's taking flying lessons.
> > >
> > > So, let's forget the abstract noun. Let's rename this
> > > conflict the "war on terrorists"; that sounds a bit
> > > more concrete. But, actually, the semantics get even
> > > more obscure. What exactly does President Bush mean by
> > > terrorists? He hasn't defined the term, so we'll have
> > > to try to work out what he means from his actions.
> > >
> > > Judging by those actions, the terrorists all live
> > > together in "camps" in Afghanistan. Presumably, they
> > > spend the evenings playing the guitar and eating chow
> > > around the campfire. In these "camps", the terrorists
> > > also engage in "training" and stockpiling weapons,
> > > which we can obliterate with our cluster bombs and
> > > missiles.
> > >
> > > Nobody seems to have told the President that the
> > > horrors of September were perpetrated with little more
> > > than a couple of dozen box-cutters. I suppose the US
> > > could bomb all the stockpiles of box-cutters in the
> > > world, but I have a sneaking feeling that it's still
> > > not going to eradicate terrorists.
> > >
> > > Besides, I thought the terrorists who crashed those
> > > planes into the World Trade Centre were living in
> > > Florida and New Jersey. I thought the al-Qa'eda
> > > network was operating in 64 countries, including
> > > America and many European states - which even
> > > President Bush might prefer not to bomb.
> > >
> > > But no: the President, Congress, Tony Blair and pretty
> > > well the entire House of Commons are convinced that
> > > terrorists live in Afghanistan. And what is meant by:
> > > "We mustn't give in to the terrorists"? We gave in to
> > > them the moment the first bombs fell on Afghanistan.
> > >
> > > The instigators of September 11 must have been popping
> > > the corks on their non-alcoholic champagne. They had
> > > successfully provoked America into attacking yet
> > > another poor country it didn't previously know much
> > > about, thereby creating revulsion throughout the Arab
> > > world and ensuring support for the Islamic
> > > fundamentalists.
> > >
> > > Words have become devalued, some have changed their
> > > meaning, and the philologists can only shake their
> > > heads. The first casualty of war is grammar.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is an edited version of an essay by Terry Jones,
> > > extracted from Voices for Peace: an Anthology
> > > (Scribner, £7.99) published in aid of Warchild.
> > >
> > > go to...  www.americanpolitics.com/20020114MoPaul.html
> > >
> > > go there NOW, and drink your weak lemon drink... drink
> > > it NOW