The U.S. is not at war in Iraq or Afghanistan

Originally posted by keymaster

I was wondering if anyone realizes that the United States is not at war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I'm not going to argue the linguistics of it, but I talked to my buddy serving in Iraq the other day and he informed me it sure as hell was a war. I informed him that he wasn't involved in a war. He told me he'd have to look into that.

The point that I was trying to make is that the media is using the words that I defined with out paying attention to their actual meaning.

If someone is trying to kill me I consider myself at war. In my opinion the people in Afghanistan and Iraq are just as much at war as the people in Europe or the Pacific during World War II.

One of the things I find interesting it the number of posts that state that the U.S. has no business being in either Iraq or Afghanistan and they should let the citizens of those countries do what they want. I really have no problems with that except for one thing. The people who are leading the insurgents are not citizens of those countries either.

Could this be any thing that 'John Titor' warned us about? Could there be a possible civil conflict? Or is there already? He did say in the year 2005, well ... it's still '05.

Any opinions?

Originally posted by Zeta_101
Could this be any thing that 'John Titor' warned us about? Could there be a possible civil conflict? Or is there already? He did say in the year 2005, well ... it's still '05.

Any opinions?

I am not familiar with John Titor. I don't know about a civil conflict prediction for 2005. I am not sure that you could group the current situation as all happening in one specific year. This has been brewing for centuries. It may be coming to a head this year with the bombings in the UK and now today in Egypt.

Originally posted by Zeta_101
Could this be any thing that 'John Titor' warned us about? Could there be a possible civil conflict? Or is there already? He did say in the year 2005, well ... it's still '05.

Any opinions?

No, stop trying to make everything about John Titor. He said there would be a Civil War in America not Iraq, so stop making excuses.

He was not a time traveler, was fake, it was proven. Give it up.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
What ever happened to "Thou shalt not kill?"
[edit on 22-7-2005 by MidnightDStroyer]

Dunno, If that was the commandment, we would all be dead of starvation by now,

Its Thou shalt not murder.

Originally posted by NoJustice

Originally posted by Zeta_101
Could this be any thing that 'John Titor' warned us about? Could there be a possible civil conflict? Or is there already? He did say in the year 2005, well ... it's still '05.

Any opinions?

No, stop trying to make everything about John Titor. He said there would be a Civil War in America not Iraq, so stop making excuses.

He was not a time traveler, was fake, it was proven. Give it up.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by NoJustice]

I did some reading on John Titor and have to agree with NoJustice. Give me a break! If he could really travel back in time don't you think that getting in touch with the original creators of UNIX and preventing the problem in the first place would be the way to go. If I was trying to get credability I would at least get the facts right as much as I could. Calling the Columbia Discovery is not going to make any points. I don't think that a Civil War will happen in the U.S. but I do believe that we may have a period of Civil Unrest like what happened in the late 60's and early 70's

Originally posted by NoJustice

Originally posted by Zeta_101
Could this be any thing that 'John Titor' warned us about? Could there be a possible civil conflict? Or is there already? He did say in the year 2005, well ... it's still '05.

Any opinions?

No, stop trying to make everything about John Titor. He said there would be a Civil War in America not Iraq, so stop making excuses.

He was not a time traveler, was fake, it was proven. Give it up.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by NoJustice]

Hey man, I'm not trying to make everything about 'John Titor' ... I believe in anything, I'm open-minded. And by civil conflict, I mean't it in America, yes. Now, it was proven fake? When? by who?

If someone has evidence that it is fake, then good.

Otherwise, I still continue to believe in anything.

In my own opinion, I think John Titor was whack, a very imaginative person, nothing more. So don't tell me to 'give it up', I'm no more of a John Titor believer than you are. Give me a break.

Please could a mod kill this thread now, as somehow it was turned into another titor thread.

I would appriciate it if this thread wasn't killed. I am still not too sure who Titor is and didn't know if he had any bearing on this subject.

Originally posted by C0le

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
What ever happened to "Thou shalt not kill?"

Dunno, If that was the commandment, we would all be dead of starvation by now,

Incorrect. It is possible to live without killing.

Its Thou shalt not murder.

Well perhaps your 'Christian' president should top murdering people then?

I don't know if anyone is interested in the truth of the matter, but here's some information, for those who really do want the truth...

Declaration of War by the US

We are not formerly 'at war'. Only only congress can declare war and they didn't. They gave Bush authorization to “use force”, not declare war. We are in a 'military engagement'.

With respect to the soldier mentioned, I'm sure to him, he is at war.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We are not formerly 'at war'. Only only congress can declare war and they didn't. They gave Bush authorization to “use force”, not declare war. We are in a 'military engagement'.

Long engagement. . . . .When's the Wedding?

I thought the definition of insurgent has already been discussed in another thread. Either way there are no insurgents in Iraq. This is just war propaganda. You cannot label an Iraqi civilian an insurgent, and you cannot label a foreign mercenary an insurgent - there was no rebeliion. There would have to exist a rebellion against the Sadaam regime, or government, in order for this to be true. The coalition was not a governing body, we were invaders, oops, evil dictator regime removers.

Let's call the insurgents what they are, citizens of Iraq, and foreign Jihad fighters.

or how about russian sponsered mercenaries

Originally posted by AdamJ
or how about russian sponsered mercenaries

Speaking of Russia, maybe JIMC5499 can tell us if they were ever at war with Afghanistan.

I was just reading through a document, from 1996, on the Soviet conflict in Afghanistan and this is what they say:

The Bear Went Over the Mountain - Soviet Tactics in Afghanistan.pdf

On 27 December 1979, Moscow struck with a Coup de Main.
Using the same techniques as they employed during the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Soviets rapidly seized the major cities, radio stations
and centers of power. They executed Amin and put an Afghan communist exile, Babrak Karmal, in power. They crushed the resistance by the Afghan Army and began consolidating their power.
The Soviets soon discovered that Afghanistan was not going to be a repeat of their Czechoslovakian experience. Their force commitment, initially assessed as requiring several months, was to last over nine years and require increasing numbers of Soviet forces.

--snip--

The Soviet concept for military occupation of Afghanistan was based on the following:

* stabilizing the country by garrisoning the main routes, major cities, airbases and logistics sites;

* relieving the Afghan government forces of garrison duties and pushing them into the countryside to battle the resistance;

* providing logistic, air, artillery and intelligence support to the Afghan forces;

* providing minimum interface between the Soviet occupation forces and the local populace;

* accepting minimal Soviet casualties;

* strengthening the Afghan forces, so once the resistance was
defeated, the Soviet Army could be withdrawn.’

That sounds kind of familiar.

This just in!:
In yet another gross overstepping (in a long tradition of such) of presidential authority, GWB actually had the audacity to declare war on an ideology. Formally this was reserved only for organised opposition groups & sovereign nations, but due to to Bushy's wondrous power (I totally worship him! NOT) he has transcended mere human executive powers and declared war on a concept. Wow! That's almost as poignant as declaring a war on drugs, poverty, or anything else that can't be actually engaged with excessive military force.

war on communism?

war on anything that cant actually be war-ed

That does sound familiar ace. Can you say, doctrine acceptance among think tanks?

I think you partially nailed it there Adam, Russian sponsored. Sponsor is a heavy word, how about "cellular activation"? I believe you are the first person on this forum to recognize this, at least any responses I have read. The American public is not ready for that yet. They need a couple novels on the subject first. That way they won't believe it anyway, that revenge is a dish served on tall buldings and in sandy places. Congratulations on seeing the white hot,

It's ironic that 'TERRORISM' can be a label that fits perfectly with the US government using dictionary definitions.

So if there's no war in Iraq or Afghanistan, be definition alone America are Terrorists.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by C0le

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
What ever happened to "Thou shalt not kill?"

Dunno, If that was the commandment, we would all be dead of starvation by now,

Incorrect. It is possible to live without killing.

True, however, the bible also states which animals we should eat and which animals we should not eat, we would have to kill the animal in order to eat it.