Skip to main content

At What Point Does Conflict Become "War"?

.
A while back nations declared WAR and armies took the field to battle it out. The American Civil War was perhaps the last WAR that soldiers (Union) lined up in a row to shoot at soldiers (Confederate) lined up in a row to shoot back. Amazing. I can't think of anything as stupid as that!

During World War One the troops were just a bit further apart and there were trenches to offer a little protection. By the time World War II came along there had been a huge technology leap forward, the world had industrialized, long range weapons and airpower helped to increase the size of the battleground.

For some reason the declaring of WAR stopped in it's tracks.

Korea became a "Police Action". Exactly how was it different? 

Next, we went to Viet Nam as "Advisors" which was an obvious sham.  We stayed and fought in Viet Nam for many years - but WAR was never declared. 

And in neither case, Korea or Viet Nam, did we win the "what-ever-it-was".

In Korea a line was drawn and a truce declared. In Viet Nam we simply pulled out and let the Communist/Nationalist/Cambodian/Vietnamese sort the mess.

Which brings me to the "WAR ON TERROR". What does that mean? There is no government involved, no army, no territory, no boundaries - and etc.  If we are at WAR -who are we at WAR with?

Our leadership (such as it is) tells us we are not at WAR with the religion of ISLAM. Okaaay .... then why is it that only MUSLIMS have attacked us?  Our leaders tell us  "not-to-worry" because it is only:  

       *   a few RADICAL MUSLIMS operating as individuals,

       *   and rarely but sometimes MUSLIMS that are part of 
           small ISLAMIC hate groups,

       *   or just larger ISLAMIC terrorist organizations like
            the al Qaida, or Taliban.

Am I the only one that notices that the TERRORISTS ARE ALL MEMBERS OF: 

THE  RELIGION OF ISLAM?

More to come . . .

Comments

Rain Trueax said…
when terrorists bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who provide abortions, they have one religion in common. Is there significance to that?
November 18, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Dixon Webb said…
Hi Rain . . . I don't think so. Semantics. Murdering an abortion Doctor is murder. There may be an innocent person harmed but the Doctor is the target. The murderer could also be called an assassin but the word terrorist (to me) suggests there is no particular single target involved. Terrorism is the killing of innocent people to induce terror in the survivors.

Interestingly, if I were to carry my definitions forward and if doctor was murdered DURING an abortion procedure (and if you believe that life begins at conception), and the clinic or hospital was the target rather than a specific individual, then the killer might properly be called a terrorist.

Does that make sense?
November 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Rain Trueax said…
It makes sense but terror is exactly what they hope to produce by scaring other doctors away from doing abortions (which has happened). When they have bombed a clinic, it has been to terrorize people into not going to them. It is using terror to gain a political goal.

But my point really was that what they have in common is both are fundamentalists of the extreme sort. They do not represent the majority of either religion.
November 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Ingineer66 said…
Why are we so worried to be politically correct and not offend Muslims. If it would have been a group of Greek Orthodox monks that flew the planes into buildings on 9/11 you can bet that we would have no problem sending the FBI into every Orthodox church in America and stop every person that looked like one from getting on a plane. It seems to be a double standard maybe because Muslim countries produce a lot of oil. Or maybe another reason, but we sure seem to be less afraid of getting attacked than we do of offending anyone.
November 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Blackwater Mercenaries

Over some years the name Blackwater shows  up in the news. It is, by their own estimation, the largest mercenary group in the world. I think I first noticed it when reports from Iraq mentioned they were employed (by whom?) to escort and protect members of the Iraqi government from place to place. Then I became aware that they had joined several of the firefights between our marines and Iraqi enemies. I wondered just how these mercenaries (that supposedly came from the United States) were  hired by someone (who?) to fight? That led to the question of just who would be responsible if a situation involved the accidental killing of an innocent bystander? It  might be a little sticky for an unauthorised mercenary contracted by the United States but not a member of our military forces.  Or suppose a Blackwater type killed a military Iraqi combatant and was then captured by the enemy. Would he be treated as a spy, or as a American combatant, or whatelse...
18 comments
Read more

Gloves Off

. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS BETRAYED OUR TRUST AGAIN. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, makes no difference at all. Our legislators voted according to "what's best for them". It was clear that the people want to reduce the costs and improve access to our overall health care system. It was also VERY CLEAR that they did not want the 2000 page legislative monstrosity that was produced by a small number of far left liberal Democrats, who worked behind closed doors to fashion a pork filled blunderbuss that virtually no one has been able to read, or discuss, or debate, or offer alternatives to specific unreasoned clauses. It is (now) a BAD BILL , passed by BAD POLITICIANS, that compose a BAD MINORITY segment of America's out-of-control government. AND WE HAVE NO LOGICAL WAY TO PAY FOR IT EITHER. The far left liberals like to point at  SOCIAL SECURITY   as a text book success. They are wrong and will not admit it despi...
20 comments
Read more

Peter Arnett Visits The Geezers

PETER ARNETT 7-22-2010 Yesterday our guest at the  Geezer's Book Club meeting was the intrepid journalist, Peter Arnett.  Ray Herndon, one of our regular members, has known Peter Arnett for over  40 years. They were friendly competitive reporters during the war in Viet Nam, and the friendship has survived several wars since.  Peter began speaking with an overview of his time in  Viet Nam, and then briefly related a few highlights of the first 1st and 2nd war in Iraq.  After taking a deep breath, Peter focused on the intended subject of the day, China and the Chinese people.   CHINA Peter is now teaching journalism at a college about 400 miles north of Hong Kong, near the Chinese coast. Peter is 76 years old, in good health, full of energy and enjoys his job as an educator. In that capacity he is able to travel unhindered (not everyone can) throughout China. He has personally observ...
14 comments
Read more