War - what is it?

[eye2i2hear]

I wanted to get ya'll here's opinion as to what "war" is?

Barring those not old enough to be equally tempted with the pun as to the song:
"War (hunh! good-god ya'll)... what is it good for?"...

The reason I ask is that I am personally grappling with moral aspects of what the 'typical' freedom-seeking and morality-seeking individual today deals with as to Statism. Thus if it is a 'mere' human conflict, that seems one thing; where on the other hand, if it is more accurately 'war', then it seems wholely another.

I wonder what war is by common definition to most? And then if said common definition is historically accurate-- or more a product of Statist propaganda? In other words, what is war as a word versus war as a term (legaleze)?

And so I wander, for your consideration, into some 'standard' reference sources regarding what they offer for for the aenglish word 'war':

war: late O.E. (c.1050), wyrre, werre, from O.N.Fr. werre "war" (Fr. guerre), from Frank. *werra, from P.Gmc. *werso (cf. O.S. werran, O.H.G. werran, Ger. verwirren "to confuse, perplex"). Cognates suggest the original sense was "to bring into confusion." There was no common Gmc. word for "war" at the dawn of historical times. O.E. had many poetic words for "war" (guð, heaðo, hild, wig, all common in personal names), but the usual one to translate L. bellum was gewin "struggle, strife" (related to win).

source: Online Etymological Dictionary

^ This one was very interesting to me, in light of the typical civilized individual today! Is 'war' then simply any state of struggle or strife as founded upon or bringing about perplexity or confusion? Is it that simple (when the peaceful mind hasn't been influenced via Statist daffynitioning)!?!

Where it seems then logical that said struggle or strife results in aggressive violence by a party, as "to the death" or emprisonment (as then rendered non-combative?)-- but only by "Nations", of course, as today's version of the word (or is it the "term"?) 'war'...? [note, that 'term' implies restriction; eg "a term in office"; where then, regarding definitions, specific usage "term"inates at some decision... some one's distinction/benefit?]

So with just this historical perspective, taking out the Statist daffynitioning (restricting), are freedom-seeking individuals at war with Statists? (or perhaps better, have they 'declared' war on non-Statists?) [interestingly, as to Statist daffynitioning, aka The State of General Confusion, the word can be used more basically, as to the likes of "the war on drugs" and "the war on poverty" etc; so The Statist do know better, aye? thus "terms" vs "words"]

additional common reference:
war:
• noun 1 a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2 a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.

• verb (warred, warring) engage in a war.

— Origin: from a variant of Old French guerre ‘war’; related to worse.
source: Compact Oxford English Dictionary

Source: 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.

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.

2. (Law) A condition of belligerency to be maintained by
physical force. In this sense, levying war against the
sovereign authority is treason.

3. Instruments of war. [Poetic]

4. Forces; army. [poetic]

5. The profession of arms; the art of war.

6. a state of opposition or contest; an act of opposition; an
inimical contest, act, or action; enmity; hostility.
source: die.net online dictionary

So relative to 'us' central-north american natives* (ie 'americans')... are "We The People" at war with we the individuals? *[by 'natives' i simply mean those like me that found themselves here in the 20-21st century upon cognition]

And if that is the common case, does it change our actions?

thanking you in advance,
eye2i2hear

[eye2i2hear]

* PUTT *

(aka "pull up to top")

[that's "BUMP" for some of you cyber-tech-e's; hey, i gotta be me!]

[and "no!" NonE; there's not a typo of "P" for "B" in it having to be me...]

[NonEntity]

then: 6 times
as: 11 times

Okay, now that I've gotten THAT off my chest... ;D

Interesting investigation, 2i2. Causes my mind to contemplate. You know, one of the things that seems SO obvious to me, but which I think is probably not at all obvious to many others, is that fact that it is only the existence of a "state" which enables a war to happen. Think of it: without a "state," who would be fighting whom? Joe and Sally and Frederick are going to get together and be unanimously in conflict with Carlos, Roberto and Juanita? For what reason? Individuals may get in fights, but it takes a group mythology to have a war. "We" are not fighting the individuals in another country, but rather are fighting that "country." How crazy is that? We are fighting a fiction. (Of course, only a few of us - thanks to Marc - recognize that it IS a fiction.)

Imagine (kudos to John Lennon) this: Imagine that the world is all just a bunch of individuals going about their affairs, trading, loving, arguing, dancing, sleeping, growing, fighting, reconciling, ignoring, reading... Okay, now in such context, how would a war come about? Who would be at war and who would their enemy be? And how would they fund it?

The "state" is a truly gargantuanly horrific concept, I think. It has no positive benefits whatsoever that I can see, and the huge deficit of creating walls between people where there are none.

- NonE

P.S. I have no idea what this means: "[and "no!" NonE; there's not a typo of "P" for "B" in it having to be me...]" ... sorry. :-(

[NonEntity]

As a small addendum, consider this: The difference between the folks living in New York City and the folks living in Casper, Wyoming have got to be much greater than the difference between those who live in Monterey, Mexico and San Antonio, Texas, and yet there are people with guns separating the latter two from each other while the former can come and go as they please. Explain that to me, Mr. Statist. Please?

- NonE

[learnin2]

Video from troops, to anti war people! Warning, foul language.
www.metacafe.com/watch/422994/you_have_no_idea_shut_up/

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

Think of it: without a "state," who would be fighting whom? Joe and Sally and Frederick are going to get together and be unanimously in conflict with Carlos, Roberto and Juanita? For what reason? Individuals may get in fights, but it takes a group mythology to have a war.

After having investigated the etymology of the word 'war', I feel I have to disagree here. Respectfully, of course, of course. But I also feel I grasp what you are after. I might add though that as with most aspects of State-think, with The State+violence being nothing more than illusion (belief system/a concept), it surely assists in the actual condition of war not being grasped by those individuals "seeing" said State --yet not necessarily seeing themselves personally, etc.

Perhaps any attempt of distinction of groups vs individuals simply comes still from the more contemporary understanding, thus usage of the word? Webster's numerical order of the multiple definitions sure seems to point to that? (I'm assuming those editors tend to list 1-thru-ever-how-many with the most common, popular usage first?) ie you only have war when you have "nations"/"states" etc.

For one parallel to this, how often do the today's news reports refer to "the fighting in Iraq..."? The question of course centers there as how closely-- in one's mind's eye --one's state/State of mind --the words are simply synonymous? As long of course, as individuals are doing such identical things under The Name/Flag/Authority of The Illusion..'er... The State Of [Confusion].

I've been contemplating the condition that the etymology seems to indicate as regarding what was historically intended to be conveyed-- at its core being "to confuse", "struggle", and "strife" -- and have come up with what seems to me to be more "the" definition rather than any or all of possible usages ("colors"). Which then goes something like this:

war: the condition of conflict wherein any of the parties involved is willing to escalate violence to whatever level is necessary or available to them in order to create confusion at the level necessary to have their position accepted as the rule.

Thus, indeed, the current group-think known by "The War On Drugs" is just that-- literal war. I offer that when the tax (armed robbery backed by armed policy powers) aspect is considered, so is "The War On Poverty"-- literal war. To The State Illusioned, the use of the word war is-- of course --simply to convey how serious "We" are. Where in actuality, it literally is-- etymologically --war. How serious such is of course should be noted in agreeing to The State+violence (central again in taxing power) to start with. For one to declare Citizenship therein is a declaration of war! [this is much akin to a parallel in slavery; where such can easily be incrementally established, as well as grasped; where it is the principle that must be considered then, not the degree]

Most all non-Statist-think folk find the likes of United States Code inherently confusing-- so is it, from a historical perspective, simply evidence of war --noting particularly then, the "enforcement" sections?! Not to even get into the current sections like "The War Powers Act" and "The Trading With The Enemy" act...

Interestingly enough too, is that the "declaration" of war is simply the admission of willingness to use violence for enforcement, no?

P.S. I have no idea what this means: "[and "no!" NonE; there's not a typo of "P" for "B" in it having to be me...]" ... sorry. :-(

apologies for the "inside" joke (inside obviously being a dark cranial one); perhaps you captured the general idea in noting my "then"s and "as"s, where you find me rather than "p"utting being more a pain in the "b"utting... with my writing

[eye2i2hear]

worthy of highlighting:

nonentity said:

The "state" is a truly gargantuanly horrific concept, I think. It has no positive benefits whatsoever that I can see, and the huge deficit of creating walls between people where there are none.

There is no "State"-- only the state of mind... (then acted upon)

[Darren Dirt]

The "official" or commonly accepted version of how and why the U.S. was involved in Vietnam sort of goes along the following lines:

* Non-communist South Vietnam was invaded by communist North Vietnam
* The United States came to the aid of the regime in the South.
* The regime in the South was democratic

Yet, it turns out that this is untrue, and it required massive propaganda to create this standard and accepted image...

-intro to "Media, Propaganda and Vietnam"

[Darren Dirt]

Here's a few YT videos related to recent anti-war protests... to keep us mindful us of the anti-social nature of these thugs-in-uniform...


Give Peace A Chance---Tacoma Police Riot
Protesters tear-gassed several times. Confrontations had happened all night long between protesters and riot police.

No barricades were thrown, as police claim. A response video was made to police, in fact: watch it here:
youtube.com/watch?v=z-w7g_8ZCYU *



Miami Police Shot Protester, then laugh about it
What kind of mentality do these "defenders of the people" have ?
The lady is not the enemy !
The other protesters are not the enemy !
Funny that the ones they protect are the real enemy.


- - -

* Police claimed that barricades were thrown at them during the protest on 1/10/07. This claim is false. It was reported that it happened just before protesters were tear-gassed. But as you can see, nothing involving barricades happened just before that. The whole footage could be uploaded to prove this point, which was running the entire time. However, this videos shows 5--6 minutes before the tear-gassing.

Since the justification for tear-gassing was based on the claim that sawhorses were thrown at police, and that didn't in fact happen, it appears Tacoma Police are once again lying about the events that have happened at this protest.

King5 is apprectiated for getting both sides of the story here. They're trying to be objective about this. However, since my camera was in fact running the entire time protesters were at this particular place (about 30 minutes) and these barricades remain in the same exact place, I have concluded that the police are in fact mistaken about their justification for gassing protesters.

UPDATE: This is how confident I am that no barricades were thrown at police:

I spoke PERSONALLY to Detective Graham, the officer interviewed on King5, and told him I had full footage and recorded NO barricades thrown at police.

Detective Graham wasn't at the protest. He told reporters what he read on a report that a riot officer had issued. I told him to make that report public and he said he would.


- - -

see also youtube.com/watch?v=QWmLufB6Bsw , youtube.com/watch?v=DMDW4Fszj2U

[NonEntity]

You were in Tacoma, Darren? With a camera?

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

No.

And no.

I was pasting in the description provided by the YouTube video poster. Sorry I was the Author Of Confusion there

[Darren Dirt]

Saw the following in the "chatbox" on "WTFMatrix.com":

Porkmonkey
05 Apr : 09:47
FX, I saw a show last night called Trinity and Beyond(I'm pretty sure is the exact name of it) on Discovery HD, that blew my mind, no pun intended. It was about the United States testing of atom to hydrogen to thermonuclear weapons in the 50's. If you can find an link to it people will totally go abbie doobie for it.

video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22Trinity+and+Beyond%22

[dentistsugardust]

War - what is it? (good for)

Whomever the king deems himself to be

[Darren Dirt]

it's good for "spreading freedom", even when it's not wanted...

Regrets of the Statue Man

Remember the iconic images of Saddam's statue being torn down which came to symbolise the end of his regime? Kazim al Jabouri was the man responsible. But four years on, he bitterly regrets his actions.

In this moving film he explains why he regrets his actions and why life was better under Saddam. We also learn the fate of the other men who helped pull down Saddam's statue - who have disappeared or been murdered.

- - -

and remember, this is a motorcycle repairman who was put into prison by Saddam Hussein when he complained about Saddam taking a bike without paying. And yet he's more bitter *now*.



( see also The Man Who Toppled Saddam , Stage Managing Toppling of Saddam Statue , Iraqi Who Began Saddam Statue Topple: "I Regret It" , [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firdos_Square )

"better the devil we know... we no longer can tell friend from foe"


- - -

Trump: "Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States ... Hussein would shoot and kill terrorists. When terrorists came into this country, which he did control and he did dominate, he would kill terrorists. Now it is a breeding ground for terrorists."

[eye2i2hear]

seems I've missed my objective... (or maybe I'm just missing the significance of the etymology myself... or blame it on the "then" 's and "as" 's...)

war requires no "State" (que mp3 of marc here: There IS not "State")

war IS always between individuals, no?

So I'll re-ask my initial question:

Is 'war' simply any condition of struggle or strife between any individuals, founded upon or bringing about perplexity or confusion? Is (or was) it that simple? (when the peaceful mind hasn't been influenced via Statist daffynitioning)!?! Where of course, war can escalate to the most destructive level of violence, but doesn't literally require its manifestation by definition?

[catch marc's comments in the last 10 minutes or so of the April 28, 2001 No State Project broadcast for a parallel-- to appear here shortly]