auto301094@hushmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
James wrote:
What is this, Henry Kissinger's vanity website or something? It reads like one of his Nixon era State Dept. memos on Vietnam or some shit. Pure felgercarb.
What objective criteria do you use to tell good analysis from bad?
dict.org cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913): War War, n. OE. & AS. werre; akin to OHG. werra scandal, quarrel, sedition, werran to confound, mix, D. warren, G. wirren, verwirren, to embroil, confound, disturb, and perhaps to E. worse; cf. OF. werre war, F. querre, of Teutonic origin. Cf. Guerrilla, Warrior. 1. A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, whether for defence, for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition of territory, for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers; declared and open hostilities. Men will ever distinguish war from mere bloodshed. --F. W. Robertson. Note: As war is the contest of nations or states, it always implies that such contest is authorized by the monarch or the sovereign power of the nation. A war begun by attacking another nation, is called an offensive war, and such attack is aggressive. War undertaken to repel invasion, or the attacks of an enemy, is called defensive. This is not the definition used in the analysis, which references the much-bandied "war on terrorism". Granted that the English language is no longer what it was after nearly a century of concerted corruption through constant misuse by all stripes of propagandists, disinformation artists, and damned liars, but any analysis that supplants shoddy analogies and metaphor for precise usage (and I'm wondering for what reason) is suspect. Also granted that this is what the politicians are touting, with only tangential suggestions of conflict with other states. That's just for starters. It gets worse from there. Since that's the major premise of the article, though, I see no point in proceeding further.
Mr. Bin Laden must be flattered no end if he thinks that the U.S. reallly considers him personally, or even his entire organization, that much of a menace.
You mean the way some people around here are convinced that this list will somehow be declared a terrorist organization? Like that?
Or like the way governments have got into the habit of placing individuals into roles formerly reserved for nations and states. They should be more careful about that. Sets a dangerous precedent, if you ask me.I don't think the idea is to acknowledge sovereign powers, either, incur an obligation to treat with, etc., but that's the inescapable conclusion. Better hope the sheep don't look up, huh?
Doubt he's that stupid, though.
Probably not.
~F.
Some people may hope he is. jbdigriz