Buzz words buzz in

Words. As the simplest constituents of every human language, they are the most basic element of our communication. Yet right now, Americans should be having some of the most eventful and important public discussions in our history, with opinion writers and public speakers operating at peak performance -- and we're fumbling all over the words.\nHere's the problem with words: we use the same ones, but we mean different things. We need to talk to each other about our current geopolitical situation, but I wonder how effective any public debate will be until we can agree on a common set of terms, or at least specify our differences in usage of loaded phrases. \nI want to start a new discussion. Free of the moral judgments that divide us, let's establish precise definitions of some words that are breaking down debate, or at least clarify where we differ. To illustrate, I want to re-examine "war" and "terrorism."\n"War"\n"War," in its non-metaphorical sense, is a conflict between political entities. Each of the groups involved are aware of the conflict (they agree that they are at "war"), and they each have very specific goals for its outcome.\nBy this definition, the events of Sept. 11 cannot be considered acts of "war." Those attacked were unaware of any conflict, and the attackers are still not a concretely defined group with a declared political goal.\nLikewise, the phrase "war on terrorism" is a misnomer. Because nations exist in a physical world, they cannot wage figurative "war" (like "war" against ideologies or activities). Rather, nations can only "war" with individuals and social or political institutions.\n"Terrorism"\nThe American Heritage Dictionary calls "terrorism" an "act of violence ... used to coerce or intimidate societies or governments ... for ideological or political reasons." \nBy this definition, the current U.S. "war" could be viewed as "terrorism," but the American public has drawn a clear distinction between the two recently. Namely, the difference is that even though the U.S. military, like the terrorists, knows that civilian injury and death will result from their actions, civilian harm is not an intended goal of the act. But in the case of "terrorism," civilian harm is not just a means; it is an end. Therefore, the U.S. "war" is not "terrorism," because we only kill civilians unintentionally or as "collateral damage." \nSome people probably disagree with these definitions. That's fine, and in fact it illustrates my point precisely -- multiple definitions are inevitable, but I'm asking that public speakers and writers be more specific in their word usage. Abstract public speech that presupposes everyone to be in agreement as to the definitions of relevant words renders opinion leaders ineffective and the public confused.