For the record, I’m tired of euphemisms, but they’re characteristic of the age in which we live. To borrow liberally from Rothbard, we no longer have depressions, even recessions, now they’re “economic downturns.” The “sectarian violence” in Iraq, affectionately labeled by the MSM, is nothing more than a clever euphemism for “civil war,” the use of which term would indicate near-total failure of our military’s objective(s) there. And prisoners of war, well, that’s subjective now, too. The two Israeli soldiers are not “kidnapped” any moreso than the hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo bay are “kidnapped.” They are not “unlawful enemy combatants,” they are not “kidnapped,” they are prisoners of war. We can come up with a euphemistic term to rationalize any response. Failure to recognize the legitimacy of the faction with whom you are at war does nothing to lessen the truth of the situation. The ostrich buries its head in the sand…

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines ter·ror·ism n. – The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

In other words, bombing civilian bridges, civilian airports, civilian housing complexes in densely populated areas, etc. Pity the nation, indeed. Israel has been doing an awful lot of this lately, as reported in today’s Washington Post:

Israel has imposed a blockade on Lebanon by land, sea and air, forcing its airport to close, cutting off ports and wrecking bridges and roads in attempt to force the release of the abducted soldiers. But the Lebanese government exercises little, if any, control over the Shiite group, and Hezbollah said the captives would be turned over only as part of a prisoner exchange — an option Israeli leaders say is out of the question.

If it wasn’t painfully clear (and it should have been) during the aftermath of 9/11, a terrorist’s “nationality” is nothing short of irrelevant. We have not declared war on Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, or wherever else the hijackers came from. Grouping together thousands, if not millions of people because the issuer of their passports is the same is no less insiduous than grouping them together based on their race, their religion, the color of their skin, etc. It simply is not justifiable to go to war with a nation when your opponents are individuals.

“It’s tough, and it’s toughest on the people,” said Talib Saad, a 50-year-old plumber, who had waited three hours for a ride to Beirut from the destroyed bridge. “It’s the people who suffer. They’re the ones who are always destroyed.” … Mohammed Ashkafi asks: “This is criminal. What are [the Israelis] going to achieve with all this?”

Noha Ibrahim, 48, interrupted him. “They want to wipe out the resistance, and that’s impossible,” she said. “They want the two prisoners, and they’re going to destroy the country trying to get them.”

War is always hardest on the innocents, most of whom either didn’t want war to begin with, or have been duped or forced into supporting it by a minority who does. These unwilling accomplices, truly victims, cannot withdraw their support, they can’t stop the damage to their country, their homes, their industry, or their lives.