What is the difference between terrorism and war?
Good question. The last time the USA officially declared war was when FDR declared war on Japan (and subsequently on Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania) after the 1941 Pearl Harbor attacks. Every major military conflict since (including Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq) have technically been considered “Extended Military Engagements.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
Not really much difference as they both ensure the continued feeding of the beast....The beast that is the military/industrial/congressional/security complex. The largest component of the United States government.
Not really much difference as they both ensure the continued feeding of the beast....The beast that is the military/industrial/congressional/security complex. The largest component of the United States government.
I seriously doubt that terrorists are attacking us to feed the military industrial machine.
Not really much difference as they both ensure the continued feeding of the beast....The beast that is the military/industrial/congressional/security complex. The largest component of the United States government.
I seriously doubt that terrorists are attacking us to feed the military industrial machine.
I'm not sure were you get the idea that I'm referring to the actual terrorists in my above post. The terrorists are attacking in an effort to bring the United States and other western powers into a larger conflict within the Middle East. What I am implying is that the beast that is the complex I referenced above plays along in order to continue its existence and, in fact, grow ever larger.
Perpetual war, or war for profit, has been at the root of the United States foreign military escapades for over 70+ years. Terrorism is simply the latest boogie man the complex utilizes to continue and grow its trillion dollar a year and growing federal budget appropriation.
Also, I'm not suggesting this is even some sort of grand conspiracy. It's simply the way the government and the corporate interests that feed from the trough of tax payer funds perpetuates itself. There are other examples within federal, state, and even local governments.
For instance, the for profit prison complex, the education complex (both public and private), even down to the local municipality that utilizes unlawful speed traps to help fund their law enforcement and court systems....A bit apples to oranges examples, but I hope you get my larger point.
[Edited on 12/20/2015 by Chain]
Not really much difference as they both ensure the continued feeding of the beast....The beast that is the military/industrial/congressional/security complex. The largest component of the United States government.
I seriously doubt that terrorists are attacking us to feed the military industrial machine.
I'm not sure were you get the idea that I'm referring to the actual terrorists in my above post. The terrorists are attacking in an effort to bring the United States and other western powers into a larger conflict within the Middle East. What I am implying is that the beast that is the complex I referenced above plays along in order to continue its existence and, in fact, grow ever larger.
Perpetual war, or war for profit, has been at the root of the United States foreign military escapades for over 70+ years. Terrorism is simply the latest boogie man the complex utilizes to continue and grow its trillion dollar a year and growing federal budget appropriation.
Also, I'm not suggesting this is even some sort of grand conspiracy. It's simply the way the government and the corporate interests that feed from the trough of tax payer funds perpetuates itself. There are other examples within federal, state, and even local governments.
For instance, the for profit prison complex, the education complex (both public and private), even down to the local municipality that utilizes unlawful speed traps to help fund their law enforcement and court systems....A bit apples to oranges examples, but I hope you get my larger point.
[Edited on 12/20/2015 by Chain]
Then your comments had nothing to do with the topic.
One difference with ISIL is that they are not a country. Neither is terrorism. Are we at "war" with all terrorism? If we were we would have to be rounding up Christian Right Wing extremists, like the guy who shot up Planned Parenthood facility, and putting them into Guantanamo with no charges and no proof of a crime.
Terrorism is the big scary monster that allows our Congress to keep spending trillions of dollars on a bloated and ineffective war machine. The same machine that hires Lobbyist who give Members of Congress kick backs. We are at war, just most Americans don't know or care about Afghanistan because we aren't making any sacrifices, no gas or food rationing, and only 1% of the population serve in the military.
In my mind terrorism is not the new word for war. The old word is good enough. The people are just ignorant to what war is and that we are even fighting in one.
What is the difference between terrorism and war?
We do not have conventional wars anymore so in order to go to other countries to do things, like initiate regime changes we need a good reason, something that the public will accept as our justification for going there. If we haven't been attacked by the country we want to go to, we just say:
a) we are chasing terrorists who went there or
b) the people are being overrun by a tyrannical leader (ie. Assad) or
c) terrorists are getting a foothold in the country we want to go to, so we have to stop them or
d) we are pretty sure they have weapons of mass destruction so we have to go and take them out of power before they use those WMD's.
The terror theme works well because nobody can prove the country doesn't have some sort of disgruntled population or insurgency just waiting to get a boost of weapons/money to fund them. If people make too much noise asking for proof, then we and our allied partners, hire Blackwater or others to go there and stir it up.
[Edited on 12/22/2015 by gina]
Glenn Greenwald wrote a great piece on what the word "terrorism" is actually being used for.
Key point being: The word "terrrorism" is "a completely malleable, manipulated, vapid term of propaganda that has no consistent application whatsoever. Recognition of that reality is vital to draining the term of its potency."
Whole article here and definitely worth a read:
Not really much difference as they both ensure the continued feeding of the beast....The beast that is the military/industrial/congressional/security complex. The largest component of the United States government.
I seriously doubt that terrorists are attacking us to feed the military industrial machine.
I'm not sure were you get the idea that I'm referring to the actual terrorists in my above post. The terrorists are attacking in an effort to bring the United States and other western powers into a larger conflict within the Middle East. What I am implying is that the beast that is the complex I referenced above plays along in order to continue its existence and, in fact, grow ever larger.
Perpetual war, or war for profit, has been at the root of the United States foreign military escapades for over 70+ years. Terrorism is simply the latest boogie man the complex utilizes to continue and grow its trillion dollar a year and growing federal budget appropriation.
Also, I'm not suggesting this is even some sort of grand conspiracy. It's simply the way the government and the corporate interests that feed from the trough of tax payer funds perpetuates itself. There are other examples within federal, state, and even local governments.
For instance, the for profit prison complex, the education complex (both public and private), even down to the local municipality that utilizes unlawful speed traps to help fund their law enforcement and court systems....A bit apples to oranges examples, but I hope you get my larger point.
[Edited on 12/20/2015 by Chain]
Then your comments had nothing to do with the topic. [/quot
I guess that would depend upon how one interrupts the question being asked. I just noticed Billy took it in a similar manner as I. I say all this in a respectful manner and not with a smart @ss, know it all sort of tone, by the way.
Glenn Greenwald wrote a great piece on what the word "terrorism" is actually being used for.
Key point being: The word "terrrorism" is "a completely malleable, manipulated, vapid term of propaganda that has no consistent application whatsoever. Recognition of that reality is vital to draining the term of its potency."
Whole article here and definitely worth a read:
"In other words, any violence by Muslims against the West is inherently “terrorism,” even if targeted only at soldiers at war and/or designed to resist invasion and occupation.
By stark contrast, no violence by the West against Muslims can possibly be “terrorism,” no matter how brutal, inhumane or indiscriminately civilian-killing."
Interesting observations by the writer. I hadn't thought of the word terrorism as a term of propaganda either, but if we look at how events are used to influence how people think then we know that is true.
[Edited on 12/23/2015 by gina]
for what it's worth, i read you loud and clear chain, and you nailed it dead on, very well stated, right on topic.
for what it's worth, i read you loud and clear chain, and you nailed it dead on, very well stated, right on topic.
Thank you BrerRabbit. It's a very good question by the way.