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

Popular posts from this blog

Intellectual / Incompetent / Liberal

We all know that there are serious problems with ou American political system. The federal government and national media have been telling us that we continue to lead the world in just about everything. Unfortunately, we do not. Measuring our status against other nations is difficult as it entails comparison of different attributes and characteristics. Comparisons are, at best, crude.  Surely, if we look, it's clear that America is no longer dominant among the world's communities. 


For decades following the 1929 economic depression, America has enriched foreign industries at the expense of our own. We have subsidized foreign military powers while allowing the depletion of our own. We've defended other nations borders while, at the same time, not defended our own. We've spent trillions of dollars to subsidize unworthy governments, and let our own infrastructure to fall into disrepair. 

The use of our economic power as a diplomatic tool may have been the correct thing to d…

Cruel and Thoughtless . . .

A disheartening situation has hit our family. A cousin, one that we don't know very well, has reached 93 years of age. Most of the Chapman family made it to the mid 80's, but Mary Lou Chapman has managed a few years more. And, she's not gone yet. Mary was unmarried her entire life. She grew up in a good home, was well educated, has always hd a good job, and has enjoyed pretty good health - until just a few years ago. While she is still very much alive, I sometimes speak in the past tense as if she had already died. Mary is either confused or in her own little world now. She began losing some of her sparkle a few years ago. At first it was mild memory loss, and then mild hearing loss, and then drifting in her speech as she lost track of what she wanted to say. Her Doctor said it was a mild dementia coming on with old age, and nothing to worry about yet. A few month's passed by before she began to have problems driving herself to the market and appointments and so forth,…

Mark Turner - Another Look

MARK TURNER.  I'm an interested ex-corporate exec., now retired, and have little to contribute to this. Perhaps you can help? At first I thought Mark's story was so complicated it couldn't be true. I discovered later that  Mark's business may indeed have  generated as much money as he said it did. His story is long and complicated, but regardless of his guilt or innocence, there is definitely  something wrong with the legal process he encountered. Maggie Thornton says his business dealings were honest. I'm not thoroughly convinced, but she may be right.  There is no question that he was improperly sentenced in one court, and deserves an appeal process in another. 


I have received several comments from a blogger named "Anonymous". He (or she) has chosen to remain unknown but clearly has an inside track to information about Mark's problems. I have removed my original speculations from this blog and regret there were so many errors. Sorry folks, my fault…