Wednesday, November 18, 2009

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: 


More to come . . .


Rain said...

when terrorists bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who provide abortions, they have one religion in common. Is there significance to that?

The Grey Geezer . . . . . . . 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?

Rain 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.

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.