Isn’t this getting a little bit overboard, even for Politically Correct terminology?
They are no longer “Enemy Combatantsâ€. I don’t know what they are, but they aren’t that.
It is no longer Terrorism, but a “Man-Caused Disasterâ€
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...-term-man-caus
And we are no longer engaged in a Global War on Terror (I guess because they aren’t terrorist acts anymore?). It’s an “Overseas Contingency Operationâ€
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...al-war-terror/
Um, what? 
They are no longer “Enemy Combatantsâ€. I don’t know what they are, but they aren’t that.
It is no longer Terrorism, but a “Man-Caused Disasterâ€
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...-term-man-caus
And we are no longer engaged in a Global War on Terror (I guess because they aren’t terrorist acts anymore?). It’s an “Overseas Contingency Operationâ€
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...al-war-terror/
Quote:
| Critics have pleaded with the Obama administration to abandon the use of "Global War on Terror" because they say it mischaracterizes the nature of the enemy and its abilities. |



















So me and everyone else who isn't an influential person in political and social life