Why we should stop using the word ‘war’

We used to call the Iraq War a ‘war’, and the Syrian Civil War a war, but as we watch the carnage of the war in Syria unfold, it’s time to stop using terms like war.

It’s time we stop using ‘war’.

In the words of former US president Barack Obama, a war is a conflict.

There’s a reason for this.

It is, in a word, a conflict, and a war has no boundaries.

And in the case of Syria, there’s no way to predict when or how the war will end.

It will not end soon.

The war in the Middle East has been raging since 2011, and the US has waged its war of aggression since 2013.

As a result, in terms of the number of casualties and casualties per year, the conflict in Syria is, by far, the most lethal.

And, like most wars, it is not without a beginning.

In 2011, when the war began, the UN estimated that more than a million people had been killed in the conflict.

This was, of course, a conservative estimate.

The Syrian civil war has been going on for decades, with a death toll estimated to be around 100 million people.

But when you consider that most of those who have died in the civil war have been civilians, and that the war has killed millions more in other conflicts, it becomes apparent that the number is far greater.

The death tolls in the war have far outstripped the numbers of people who have actually died in conflict, from the conflict with Serbia to the civil wars in Somalia, Burundi and Zimbabwe.

In Syria, the war is killing far more civilians than combatants, and there are more than 6.5 million people in need of aid and assistance.

There are, however, some signs of life.

Syria is a country of two million people, and has some of the most fragile humanitarian infrastructure in the world.

Syria has seen a lot of internal displacement in the last few years, but this is far from unprecedented.

The population of Syria is roughly equivalent to that of Switzerland.

In 2013, Syria saw a record 8.6 million refugees, most of whom were forced to flee their homes, and hundreds of thousands were internally displaced.

It has been reported that between 40 and 50 per cent of Syria’s population has experienced some form of displacement.

Syria also has a large, complex and impoverished economy, with the country being the fifth most-populous country in the entire world.

At the end of 2013, the International Organization for Migration estimated that there were more than 3.4 million internally displaced Syrians in Syria.

The number of refugees is likely to increase in the coming years, and this is a direct result of the civil conflict in the country.

There is little prospect of an end to the conflict anytime soon.

So, what should we do?

It is worth remembering that the term ‘war on terror’ was created in response to the September 11 attacks, and while it is often used in a negative light, it also has the power to shift the terms of engagement.

We should not take it for granted that the current war is over, but it is time to take the fight to the enemy.

It’s also worth remembering the way in which the conflict has been framed in the US.

It was an act of war by the US government, and it was justified on the basis that the US was in control of the country and it had a duty to protect the lives of Americans.

Since the end for the conflict, the US military has taken over much of the major cities of Syria.

In a bid to prevent an outbreak of another civil war, the Obama administration has been bombing ISIS targets.

It does this with the full knowledge that these attacks are likely to create more refugees, more displacement, and more death.

Instead, it should be clear that the main focus should be on defeating ISIS.

If we can stop them from taking over major cities like Raqqa, the Kurdish city of Kobani, and Baghdad, then the fight against ISIS will be won.

And the war that has been waging in the middle east for decades is over.