Words have meaning, so what does War mean?
Once in a while I read KnoxBlab. It has some good local information and some off the wall stuff like the latest YouTubes that are interesting. You can also find the latest Top five Songs of any category.
One of the local socialist anarchists wrote about 9/11, “On this the anniversary of an unfortunately successful criminal attack on our nation, I refuse invitations of a moment of silence. That is indeed the problem. Too many of us have been too silent for too long. To honor those who had all taken from them, who were killed in most ironic fashion as are all victims of “Holy Wars”, I pledge not a moment of silence but instead, a lifetime noisy, raucous, unwavering support for the Constitution that the criminals and their cowardly cohorts in our own government are attempting to fully obviate.”
I replied, “Criminal attack? Are you Bill Clinton? That was an act of War.”
So this brings the question, America was attacked on 9/11, was this an act of War?
September 13th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
And you immediately broke Godwin’s Law in response. You lose.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Can you have a war between a sovereign nation and a group of people who do not have borders or a national identity, and are not authorized by an entity that would be considered a sovereign nation? If so, then it was war. If not, then it was a criminal act.
Example: if the KKK were to attack an African nation, it would not be war unless our government authorized it and/or condoned it.
Just my opinion.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
my personal rule of thumb: for a “war” to be possible against a given opponent, that opponent must —
be able to pull on some source of financial and natural resources the way a nation-state can,
be able to depend on the loyalty and support of a large group of people the way a nation-state could depend on its citizenry,
be able to conscript support whether it’s freely given or not the way a nation-state can press its citizens to support a war effort, and
be “defeatable” in the eyes of its “citizenry” such that their support would be terminated, and their end of the fighting would wind down, if you managed to do whatever it took to convince them their side had lost.
if your opponent doesn’t have at least most of those, then it’s not an opponent you can “wage war” on in the literal sense. the last three are critical, IMAO; the first one less so.
by this rule of thumb, of course, it’s a bit debatable whether even the action in Afghanistan could count as a “war”. Iraq does, however, but hunting for Osama bin Forgotten does not.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
argh. that would’ve been a really neat bulleted list, except the <ul> and <li> tags apparently aren’t kosher in comments here. bummer.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Bin Laden does have an army. Does it matter it is a private army?
September 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
It is a war.
The fighting of it must break all the previous rules tho.
Captures must be immediately executed or jailed forever…they have no country to be repatriated to.
Crossing borders in ‘hot pursuit’ or to destroy camps or supply lines must happen…whether or not they are allowed by the country owning the border or not.
Media outlets supporting the enemy are legitimate targets…where ever they are. Economic warfare against enablers must be stringent.
It is a world war…and in the absence of support by some of that world, they must take some of the responsibility.
We haven’t learned how to fight this war yet.
September 13th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
As much as I hate quoting from TV Shows:
From Battlestar Galactica
Groups such as Al-Qaida are foreign actors who are most decidedly enemies of the state not enemies of the people. As such they properly fall under the military’s purview. This is war.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Well, it’s a funny kind of war. Our government keeps admitting guys just like the 9/11 highjackers on student visas, but secures our airliners against highjacking by strip searching grandmothers who have had hip replacements and depriving toddlers of “sippy cups.” The government retaliated against the Saudis who attacked us by invading Iraq. None of it makes any sense to me.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
I don’t ever recall this “it can’t be war unless one sovereign nation declares it against another” until this recent conflict.
That definition would almost certainly never apply to a “civil war” then would it?
And what is a “sovereign nation” anyway? If dictator A invades country B and takes it over, is country B now part of a “sovereign nation” that now includes it and Dictator A’s original borders?
Al Capone controlled the government of Chicago for a time. Was Chicago then a “sovereign city” under the control of Capone? If we went in and invaded Chicago at that time in order to oust Capone and his cronies, would we have been violating Chicago’s “sovereignty”?
Iran’s government (sovereign or not) is arming and supporting the enemy in Iraq. Does that qualify?
Its all crap anyway. This is a war. You may call it a hamburger if you like, but there are still enemy trying to kill Americans and trying to kill anyone else in the western world, they call it a war, they have organization, they have funding, they have supply chains, and they need killin’.
And where were all you “its a police matter” and you “Civil Rights for the Terrorists” people when our own government was busy executing the Weavers and the Branch Davidians en masse? Hmm? Dead silent, you were then, and that speaks volumes.
I don’t want to hear a peep out of you until after you’ve come out in favor of civil rights for American citizens first. We’ll start with the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. How many of you are rallying against the attempts to ban religeon from public places? How many of you are for full Vermont-style carry in all 50 states? How many of you are protesting against this stupid “Fairness Doctrine”? How many are forming organizations to fight this latest expansion of “Imminent Domain”?
I don’t give a f@#k about what you call jihadi killing– the more dead jihadis the better. The faster we kill them, and the more convinced they are that they have no hope, the sooner this will stop.
Our rights matter completely. They have no rights at all, except the right to surrender or die.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
“The faster we kill them, and the more convinced they are that they have no hope, the sooner this will stop.”
You don’t understand the logic of martyrdom. They look forward to death, because they see hope in Heaven and their martyrdom is meant to inspire future martyrs, which it does. As for the Weavers and the Branch Davidians, the former is such a confused mess of a story, that we will never know what really went down and the latter was a bungle of bungles for which Reno should have been sacked.
#9: You’re getting your ass kicked again on the Blab. So. Much. Fun.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
It was a act of war! And any libfag who says different is as much a enemy of the United States as Bin Lauden is.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
It’s not a war because there isn’t a chain of command for the other side and they can’t retain control of their forces.
War is only between at least two different governments. No government = no chain of command = no control.
What happened on 9/11 was a criminal act. When we attacked Iraq it was a war, but now that the command has been eliminated, it is now an insurrection against an occupying force. Same with Afghanistan.
Eliminating the Iraqi chain of command was the stupidest objective of the Iraq war – we should have placed ourselves at the top of it instead if we wanted stability. But no, we done fucked up.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
It is good that many commenters have recognized the difference between the state and the people. Many conservatives have a hard time doing so for ‘patriotic’ or moral goals, but see the distinction for socialist goals. Re must all remember that even if we personally agree with the governments goals that it is the biggest threat to our liberties – nothing else. The number one cause of death last century, besides old age, was democide. Governments killed more people than heart-disease, smoking, car accidents, etc…
September 13th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
#9: You’re getting your ass kicked again on the Blab. So. Much. Fun.
metulj, no one will stand and deliver on the Blab. rikki has gone into a fit, you can’t understand anything he writes, you can’t even tell who he is talking to.
CAFKIA is afraid to even answer.
You write it is all the fault of Bush the First. No surprise there. Both of your sock-puppets are out. Insert denial here_____________.
And everyone else says how much Hillary sucks even though you know you all will vote for her. The only ass kicking on the Blab is self inflicted from you and your pals. I once thought a few of you had some ability to debate, but you have proven yet again I overestimated you.
Will you ever figure out that all I have to do is let you show everyone what you think? It isn’t fair. But you are slow learners. And I am a little mean like that.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Metulj Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
“The faster we kill them, and the more convinced they are that they have no hope, the sooner this will stop.”
You don’t understand the logic of martyrdom. They look forward to death, because they see hope in Heaven and their martyrdom is meant to inspire future martyrs, which it does.
Well, then, don’t you think we would be less than courteous if we didn’t help them attain their goals of martyrdom? I am all for martyring every damn one of them. This is a war.
As for the rest of your comment, it is a lie. It isn’t confusing at all. That was crime. Reno should be on death row. Degan got what he asked for and everybody else that committed federally sanctioned murder walked, some to be rewarded for it. That was crime.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:18 am
The “war on terror” is not a war. It is two wars and the possibility of more. If the first world war was the war to end all wars, the war on terror is the war that starts all wars. It is the stale religious animosity that has impeded human progress for longer than we have been civilized. It is the greedy desire to eradicate a problem overtaking rational efforts to control them. It is not so much a war as it is a disease.
The 9/11 planners and attackers were hoping their tiny cult could start a war. No doubt they are grateful for #9 aiding and abetting their cause.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:19 am
It is the stale religious animosity that has impeded human progress for longer than we have been civilized. It is the greedy desire to eradicate a problem overtaking rational efforts to control them. It is not so much a war as it is a disease.
Whatever.
Most believe it is because Radical Islamofascist terrorists are attacking countries all over the world to try to enslave the entire world under the flag of Islam.
But persimmon sees it as our fault. There is a sickness, just not the one you describe. I don’t understand the self loathing of people in our country who really believe everything is our fault. Many of them are atheist elitist pseudo intellectuals.
Deep down you really think we had it coming don’t you? Maybe you watch too much Keith Olbermann.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:44 am
“metulj, no one will stand and deliver on the Blab. rikki has gone into a fit, you can’t understand anything he writes, you can’t even tell who he is talking to.”
Again, the irony of you saying this is amazing considering your incredibly poor ability to read with comprehension and reply coherently. I know rikki and I will be the farm that he is doing it to you on purpose because of your reputation for delusion and your inability to follow the plot.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:13 am
You don’t say who “we” is. I was speaking broadly of human history, all of us, spanning the millenia before there was a USA. In that sense, human history is indeed our fault, by definition.
America used to be the beacon of freedom, democracy and equality, the standard bearer on the march away from our savage past toward a peaceful future. We have abdicated that role. Your response has helped me understand why: you see the lofty goals we once aspired to as elitist and arrogant. You are more comfortable letting America get dragged down to the level of terrorist savages.
You seem to have a lot more respect for Osama bin Laden than for atheist pseudointellectuals. You actually seem to think Islamofascists could enslave the world! I guess blowing shit up is all a savage like you understands.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:17 am
You seem to have a lot more respect for Osama bin Laden than for atheist pseudointellectuals. You actually seem to think Islamofascists could enslave the world!
Pretty funny. Osama can’t even get a good camel burger. He steps foot out of his cave and he is done.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Do I understand you correctly? You simultaneously believe radical Islamofascists have started a war that threatens to enslave the world AND they can’t leave their cave to get a sandwich.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
“Do I understand you correctly? You simultaneously believe radical Islamofascists have started a war that threatens to enslave the world AND they can’t leave their cave to get a sandwich.”
Ding. Ding. Ding. The ‘nutterbutter bell has tolled.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
atheist elitist pseudo intellectuals.
Don’t forget fascist new urbanist socialists ecofreaks.
We like to be referred to by all our titles, please.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:28 am
First, I said “atheist elitist pseudo intellectuals”, not atheist pseudo intellectuals. How elitist of you.
I am sorry I omitted fascist new urbanist socialists ecofreaks. You were right to correct me. My apologies.
Interesting how only three readers were offended. Was that a little to close to home comrades?
September 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
First, I said “atheist elitist pseudo intellectuals”, not atheist pseudo intellectuals.
By definition, intellectuals are a elite class. Interesting of you to make a Marxist argument.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
By definition, intellectuals are a elite class. Interesting of you to make a Marxist argument.
Websters Dictionary:
intellectual
Function: noun
1 plural, archaic : intellectual powers
2 : an intellectual person
Might want to have the dictionaries at Rutgers checked. A Marxist argument? Where?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
“Intellectual \In`tel*lec”tu*al\ (?; 135), a. [L. intellectualis:
cf. F. intellectuel.]
[1913 Webster]
1. Belonging to, or performed by, the intellect; mental; as,
intellectual powers, activities, etc.
[1913 Webster]
Logic is to teach us the right use of our reason or
intellectual powers. –I. Watts.
[1913 Webster]
2. Endowed with intellect; having the power of understanding;
having capacity for the higher forms of knowledge or
thought; characterized by intelligence or mental capacity;
as, an intellectual person.
[1913 Webster]
Who would lose,
Though full of pain, this intellectual being,
Those thoughts that wander through eternity?
–Milton.
[1913 Webster]
3. Suitable for exercising the intellect; formed by, and
existing for, the intellect alone; perceived by the
intellect; as, intellectual employments.
[1913 Webster]
4. Relating to the understanding; treating of the mind; as,
intellectual philosophy, sometimes called “mental”
philosophy.
[1913 Webster]
”
Notice the words and terms “belonging,” “endowed,” and “having the power.” Trotsky was killed for being an intellectual (among other reasons) by Lenin and the gang. The Khmer Rouge immediately eliminated all intellectuals, including Marxists, upon seizing power in Cambodia. Nice to see you finally showing your anti-intellectual roots, comrade.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I will have to take your word for it. I cannot find a 1913 Webster Dictionary. Comrade.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
“I cannot find a 1913 Webster Dictionary”
http://www.freedictionary.com
Look, you are the one who hates intellectuals. Why are you a Maoist?
September 17th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
http://www.freedictionary.org, that is.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Look, you are the one who hates intellectuals.
Who said this? Maybe you?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:25 am
“atheist elitist pseudo intellectuals”
You hate them. They get to sit around all day and be smart. You? Who knows? You faux anonymity “protects” you.