Wars and Famines

Originally posted by FMF
It would be a violent, criminal act and murder or attempted murder. The actual and perfectly sufficient meaning of words gets rinsed and distorted so much, and so unnecessarily. There is nothing to be gained from misusing the word "war" when the word "criminality" is available and perfectly apt.

In my initial post I did say "I don't know about that". And I really don't. The debate is going on in the US now about whether such terror acts should be tried in civil or military court.

Not being a legal expert, I don't know for sure. I think some overlap of criminality and warfare is inevitable. It would be nice to have clear catagories. But some overlap is going to happen and be exploited too.

I guess the term "warlords" might be more precise as "criminal lords". But for people under their activities its probably hard to see any difference.

Originally posted by jaywill
It would be nice to have clear catagories. But some overlap is going to happen and be exploited too.

There are clear meanings for these words. Deliberate overlap serves no purpose other than for rhetoric and propaganda. I would say that your question about whether the acts of a gang of criminals breaking into the Pentagon should be called "war" is you, in some tiny increment - inadvertently or perhaps deliberately - contributing to the gradual but incessant removal or altering of meaning from vocabulary, something which makes understanding things harder and therefore makes us all more susceptible to manipulation.

Originally posted by jaywill
I guess the implication of your question is that no "country" could be said to have attacked the Pentagon or the Capital Building (by intention).

Can only countries make war ?

Suppose someone gets together a few people and burst through the Pentagon gates with albiet primitive weapons, seeking to take out military officers.

No room there to call that an act of war though a "country" is not represented ?

correct. acts of war and declarations of war can only be done by sovereign countries. a few people busting through the pentagon is not an act of war, it's an act of crime and depending on their motives, it could also be considered an insurgency.

now an insurgency can turn into an act of war... if the insurgents control a territory and declare independence, they become a sovereign country and their declaration is an act of war. the country with which they are in conflict now has a casus belli to declare war against them.

on this note, many of the "wars" the united states likes to declare are bogus; war on drugs, war on crime, war on terror, etc. etc.

Originally posted by jaywill
Concerning four planes used as bombs or torpedos, aimed at the military center and the government center. (9/11)

You would not count an attempt to cripple a nation by destroying one of its financial centers as an act of war ? To crash a plane into a country's center for military planning would not be an act of war ?

I don't know about [b]that. [/b]

No I would not. If a sovereign power carried out such an act, of course it would be. Which sovereign power do you place in the frame?

Originally posted by FMF
There are clear meanings for these words. Deliberate overlap serves no purpose other than for rhetoric and propaganda. I would say that your question about whether the acts of a gang of criminals breaking into the Pentagon should be called "war" is you, in some tiny increment - inadvertently or perhaps deliberately - contributing to the gradual but incessant rem ...[text shortened]... makes understanding things harder and therefore makes us all more susceptible to manipulation.

There are clear meanings for these words. Deliberate overlap serves no purpose other than for rhetoric and propaganda.

What propoganda am I proposing ?

Suppose the overlap is not "deliberate" but kind of consequential ?

I would say that your question about whether the acts of a gang of criminals breaking into the Pentagon should be called "war" is you, in some tiny increment - inadvertently or perhaps deliberately - contributing to the gradual but incessant removal or altering of meaning from vocabulary, something which makes understanding things harder and therefore makes us all more susceptible to manipulation.

Slippery slope ?

Ununiformed combatants attacking an army installation of a country could conceivably be deemed by the attacked country as an act of war.

I have no preference in the matter. I just asked those who seem so sure about it. And I pointed out that how to try such aggressive activities is a debate going on in this country of the US now.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
No I would not. If a sovereign power carried out such an act, of course it would be. Which sovereign power do you place in the frame?

No I would not. If a sovereign power carried out such an act, of course it would be. Which sovereign power do you place in the frame?

From my understanding it was carried out by El Queda which is not a sovereign country.

In the American Revolution I wonder if some British also argued that some non-uniformed so-called "Minute Men" from a rogue British colony, firing on the king's troops should not have been considered an act of war.

Originally posted by jaywill

No I would not. If a sovereign power carried out such an act, of course it would be. Which sovereign power do you place in the frame?

From my understanding it was carried out by El Queda which is not a sovereign country.

In the American Revolution I wonder if some British also argued that some non-uniformed so-called "Minute ...[text shortened]... ue British colony, firing on the king's troops should not have been considered an act of war.

an act of war by whom? originally, they would've considered the acts of minutemen in various degrees of sedition, civil unrest, civil disobedience or insurrection.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
an act of war by whom? originally, they would've considered the acts of minutemen in various degrees of sedition, civil unrest, civil disobedience or insurrection.

There had been a Declaration of Independence, so it was a revolutionary war or a war of independence; 'insurrection' perhaps from the British point of view, but clearly a 'war'.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Even if God exists , you have to look at the facts. And they tend to show a decline in war and famine, per capita than say 100 years ago, when the world was definatetly more "Male-orientated" . Cant you guys see this? you are desparately trying to convince us that the world is worse than before. Why? So it fullfills your deep held views?

Sorry, g-m ...[text shortened]... eful,intelligent youth coming through. We just have to educate them with our experience,eh?

Thanks for your comments as I always respect them and do here.
One thing that we all need to remember is what we all see first hand in person is only as old as we all are and that is only a speck in the thousands of years that man has been alive and had civilazions. And some of us live in better parts of the world and are not exposed to the many parts of the world that are not only suffering from constant wars or the threat of them but just in everyday struggles for very basic things such as drinkable water that comes out of our faucets so easily.
And yes so many of the bad things going on all over this planet have always existed in one degree or another and has always ebbed and flowed.
But we have to look at the words of Jesus and realize he said them for a reason and that someday in the future they would have to apply and be real.
And again it's not just one or two of these things happening but it would be all of them happening and to a degree that some, not all, would notice.
So not even including the wars and earthquakes and famines, etc, just the general attitude of most would be what is described here at 2 Tim:



The Bible foretold that during this period in history, people would be “lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, . . . unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)



Just one little thing of many that is an example of peoples attitudes is "road rage".
Again this is ( 1 ) of many examples of what 2 Tim shows would be the general attitude of humans and it may sound like a no big deal but I never heard of this 20 years ago. I know it's happened as long as their have been cars I'm sure, but now there are hundreds of these attacks just in our country daily.
And we all know the list of how cold and not caring so many are now on all levels and it is getting worse.
I manage a self storage facility and have done this for almost 15 years now, and I can see just in that short time how the people I deal with are changing. We still have the good people but now more then never we have to watch them more and have called the police more and more each year for problems.
Who here played out on the streets when they were young even after dark at times? I did and no one ever worried about it.
But I don't think too many here would let their kids do that now? You can't even trust your immediate neighbors anymore.

Originally posted by galveston75
Again this is ( 1 ) of many examples of what 2 Tim shows would be the general attitude of humans and it may sound like a no big deal but I never heard of this 20 years ago. I know it's happened as long as their have been cars I'm sure, but now there are hundreds of these attacks just in our country daily.

This is merely a function of how many cars there are, how much time people are spending in cars, and how much such incidents are reported. I personally have not experienced road rage (by myself or others) because I generally do not drive in high traffic areas.
But claiming that road rage is a general attitude of humans is really really desperately seeking signs that aren't there.

And we all know the list of how cold and not caring so many are now on all levels and it is getting worse.
That may be true where you live, but it is not universal.

We still have the good people but now more then never we have to watch them more and have called the police more and more each year for problems.
Yet the police say that crime is going down. Who do we believe?

Who here played out on the streets when they were young even after dark at times? I did and no one ever worried about it.
But I don't think too many here would let their kids do that now? You can't even trust your immediate neighbors anymore.
Trust is a function of news etc, not a function of how bad your neighbours are. As regards children, it is also a function of how many children you have. As families have got smaller, parents have got more careful with their children. It is true that we are a lot more careful as parents, it is not true that our children are in more danger - in fact quite the opposite.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is merely a function of how many cars there are, how much time people are spending in cars, and how much such incidents are reported. I personally have not experienced road rage (by myself or others) because I generally do not drive in high traffic areas.
But claiming that road rage is a general attitude of humans is really really desperately seekin ...[text shortened]... as parents, it is not true that our children are in more danger - in fact quite the opposite.

Hummmm. No disrespect here for your opinion but what planet do you live on? Do you watch the news at all or read the paper?

Anyway as I said it's not the one or two things your pointing out here by themselves, it's all the things Jesus said.

If one see's dark clouds out over the ocean, it could mean a hurricane. If one sees the tides rising, it could mean a hurricane. If one sees the pressure dropping, it could mean a hurricane. If the winds pick up, it could mean a hurricane.
Separately none of these by themselves are a hurricane.
But put them all together and guess what? You have a hurricane.

Now if one has the understanding of ALL the SIGNS that Jesus described and wants to see them instead of ignoring them, then would would piece them together and realize what's going on, just as one should piece the signs of a hurricane together and do the right actions to save ones life.

Originally posted by galveston75
Hummmm. No disrespect here for your opinion but what planet do you live on? Do you watch the news at all or read the paper?

Yes, but not the same ones you do.
I have, as far as I can recall, never seen an incident of road rage on the news or in the paper. I have heard about it only from documentaries and other similar sources.

Anyway as I said it's not the one or two things your pointing out here by themselves, it's all the things Jesus said.
Yet when we challenge someone making that claim, they cant point out even one of those things. When we successfully show that the initially claimed 'sign' is an illusion, they always do as you have done and vaguely say "well its all those other signs" but wont be specific.
If you are being honest, you should have no problem listing all the things Jesus said and pointing out how they are, or are not being seen today.

If one see's dark clouds out over the ocean, it could mean a hurricane. If one sees the tides rising, it could mean a hurricane. If one sees the pressure dropping, it could mean a hurricane. If the winds pick up, it could mean a hurricane.
Separately none of these by themselves are a hurricane.
But put them all together and guess what? You have a hurricane.
And guess what, you are hiding under the bed in clear weather because you saw a hurricane on the news. The hurricane wasn't even this year, it was the one from the 1800s! You need to realise that the news is biased and needs to be taken in context.

Now if one has the understanding of ALL the SIGNS that Jesus described and wants to see them instead of ignoring them, then would would piece them together and realize what's going on, just as one should piece the signs of a hurricane together and do the right actions to save ones life.
Then go ahead. List them for us. Don't just vaguely talk about them whilst failing to prove the existence of even one.


Let me also strongly recommend that you try watching a Chinese new channel for a while. You will be amazed at how much more positive your outlook on life will be.

Originally posted by jaywill

No I would not. If a sovereign power carried out such an act, of course it would be. Which sovereign power do you place in the frame?

From my understanding it was carried out by El Queda which is not a sovereign country.

In the American Revolution I wonder if some British also argued that some non-uniformed so-called "Minute ...[text shortened]... ue British colony, firing on the king's troops should not have been considered an act of war.

If we are to believe the evidence so far made public by the US investigators, it was carried out by an independent group of fanatics who had received an unknown amount of training and funding from a Saudi exile living in the hinterlands of a largely ungoverned country. I really don't see any parallel between this and the US War of Independence, do you?

To my knowledge, there was no credible evidence linking the attack to Iraq, nor even to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and yet the US and Britain felt justified to invade these sovereign states. These invasions were certainly acts of war, but I don't see how the terrorist attacks could be considered such.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, but not the same ones you do.
I have, as far as I can recall, never seen an incident of road rage on the news or in the paper. I have heard about it only from documentaries and other similar sources.

[b]Anyway as I said it's not the one or two things your pointing out here by themselves, it's all the things Jesus said.
Yet when we challenge ...[text shortened]... or a while. You will be amazed at how much more positive your outlook on life will be.[/b]

What? Are you serious? No road rage, no hurricanes? What cave do you live in?

Originally posted by FMF
There had been a Declaration of Independence, so it was a revolutionary war or a war of independence; 'insurrection' perhaps from the British point of view, but clearly a 'war'.

if memory serves me, there was an armed encounter (or several) before formal declaration of independence, i think it had something to do with an ammunition depot. it is to that i was referring to in my comment.