It's an act of war, stupid ...

(here, forced video at end of link)

The thing that used to get George Orwell going, the thing that Orwell used to think of as truly Orwellian, was the abuse of words, and the refusal to use words simply and honestly, as the English language allows ...

In his rant about this, here, he actually mentions the cunning ways of armchair warriors:

Pretentious diction. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic color, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion ...

These days he'd have to update that list with things like humanitarian mission, or a deployment, or combat operations against an insurgency, or operational activities, or just a mission, or other mumbo jumbo, as a way of conflating and confusing the notion of Australia going to war ...

Here's the reptiles swallowing the kool aid, and just letting it trickle down their throats:

It would be a dangerous mission but it was not strictly true to say Australia was at war, the Prime Minister said.
“I know that you’d love to have that headline, but it’s not strictly accurate,” he told reporters. 
“Yes, we are engaged in combat operations. But these are combat operations against an insurgency in support of the legitimate government of Iraq. 
“We’re not trying to build liberal pluralism in Iraq, we’re not trying to create a shining city on a hill.” 
Mr Abbott said “only Iraq can defeat ISIL, but Iraq shouldn’t be alone”.

Uh huh.

Yet the definition of war is simple and straightforward enough, and inclusive. Here's the first dictionary definition out of the gate:

1. a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. 
b. The period of such conflict. 
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

Parties, armed conflict. Deal done ...

Now just because it's a number of nations going to support another nation in a war against a third party or parties, or that Abbott can't actually articulate what the war is for, except to stand alongside the Iraq government, doesn't change the definition or the act.

How about some variations? Does that leave room for some weasel word wriggling/

1. (Military) open armed conflict between two or more parties, nations, or states.
1. armed conflict between nations or factions within a nation; warfare. (more and the source of the word here)

It's simple enough, and Abbott is such a mindless 'three word slogan' inept politician, he still manages to trip over the stupidity of his own rhetoric:

"ISIL has effectively declared war on the world," Mr Abbott said on October 3. "The world is responding."

Yes, if they've declared war on the world, and the world responds by declaring war on ISIL, then that means Australia is embarking on a war.

In the usual way, the ABC's fact check decided "It's war, not 'a mission': Abbott incorrect on Iraq, but the pond isn't inclined to such niceties.

Abbott, in his usual humbug way, is simply talking bullshit ...

That's the trouble when you get a man who can't go beyond simple three word mantras like "murderous death cult", and who hasn't got the simple integrity to acknowledge and admit what's actually happening ...

At least if you're going to bomb the shit out of others, for what might or might not be justifiable reasons, be honest in your use of the English language ...

Oh look, and there's a couple of fearless leaders off to war, and more Moir here.