Now don't go crazy out there but I find a war on terror to be as open a statement as any can be.

Q: What is a terrorist? what is a freedom fighter?

A: Whatever our current perception takes it to be.

For instance was the IRA a terrorist organisation or freedom fighters ? My perception for many years was of course the former, however to many and most Irish Americans they were freedom fighters, massive financial support was given which continued the conflict well beyond the expected timeline of the British Government. This all came to an end in the late 90's. After 9/11 it became clear there was no longer ANY funds coming in to the IRA, certainly the the IRA would no longer be able to be seen as freedom fighters, perceptions had changed.

Result :A total resolution was realised this year.

My point is perceptions change and declaring war on a label is dangerous and easily twisted.

Do I have an answer ? no

Other than to say if you have to go to war then do it with purpose, conviction, and above all end it as quickly as possible, without including all those that can be conveniently labled under the same banner.

If it takes a sledghammer to crack a nut so be it but start with a sledgehammer not a toothpick. If it needs a toothpick then only use a toothpick.

Sir Shoak, a few minor comments If I may.

Your Straw man argument comparison, seem reasonable, but they are somewhat more valuable in the academic rather than the real world. Every point and question you posed, with included implied answers, have one essential element of life missing, as do most academically induced endeavors these days.

Perspective has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with rationality, and everything in the world to do with all circumstance involving reality.

You do have some concept that historically, in fact, rationality, like yours, has not, nor is not, a verb that portends a reality of action as being directly relevant to the circumstance of perspective reality in this world.

Nice speech, but preaching the mists and fogs of rationality, though very chick among the elite and euro-American- utopians, has never proven actionable as a force of resistance in effecting human perspective reality, except in very minute movements over extended human evolution.

Your great example of the IRA abutting for 500 years, in some form or another, the Empires reminisces of Colonial conquests, is nothing more, no matter the spin of perspectives, than a evolution in perspectives that has translated itself into a new reality having little to do directly with rationalities impact but as is case most of the time, it was the human will and determination to action that eventually changed the parties perspective of reality from hostile to co-existence.

Like the changes in Iraq, though perhaps fleeting, as some said of the IRA situation, they are not derived from rationality. They are derived at a high cost, from as in North Ireland, by a steadfastness to persist in changing some antagonist perspective of reality, that brutality is not rational in the end, unless the will to face it succumbs to what brutality objective of perspective is meant to achieve, fear and from that submission.

That is all

I could say that rationality has everything to do with perspective and reality depends on current cicumstance.

As I said it's a matter of perspective and that as you rightly state changes over time, as will the "war on terror"

That in itself is not a concern as much as to what direction the perspective of Terrorist will take us.