War is the absence of civilization and its normal procedures. It means that there is no possibility of dealing with the attackers under ordinary legal procedures. It is a breakdown in civilization. We "need" civilization, not an impossible legal procedure for contending with an organized attack on the country.

I think, perhaps, that the meaning of the word is lost only to you. All of those groups, inducing those islamic ones raising hell in the world, as a practice, employ vile and ruthless acts of violence to make a political statement and create fear.

Turning off your brain to someone, some group, who openly threatens mortal harm AND have proven their willingness to carry it out is fatally foolish.

" There is no law capable of dealing with the mass mayhem of terrorists."
We need the law esp in cases where we feel something is so bad it should just go to a mob vote or some other extrajudicial means.

More evidence that the word has no meaning

Is Oprahma going on the attack with lots of small distractions in an attempt to tie up the R majority congress, and prevent action against other larger programs?

Like the black panthers, the weather underground, the SEUI, Tim Mcvey, KKK, etc.

If a country has to defend itself it's already war. Once it starts it's pure hell, to be squashed as soon as possible.

Agreed. And taking the savages, animals and uncivilized (7C muslim extremists fit these criteria) off the chessboard is the entire point.

War is a breakdown in civilization. There is no law capable of dealing with the mass mayhem of terrorists. The goal is to end it as quickly as possible and return to civilization in which law is once again possible.

yes/no. A war can be just protecting ones interests as well. Lookup the guano war. http://timemarcheson.wordpress.com/2011/... :)

apologies...

"Not recognizing those who have done and seek to do you harm does in no way mean that these people are misunderstood or do not exist. In fact, this stance can only ensure your demise should those throwbacks decide one day to come for you and yours.

Not sure how I diced that up.

Names are for identification, hence Islamo-fascists.

A 'crime' is a violation of rights against the law in the context of an otherwise civilized society. An organized attack on a country is war. They are different concepts.

Just as denial and rose colored glasses does not equate to lack of evil in our time. Not recognizing for what they those who seek to, and have done, you harm does not mean that those people are misunderstood or do not exist. In fact, this stance only ensures that one day you will not.

"Err that is called a terrorist."
Okay. So terrorist equals someone who commits a violent crime for political reasons? Can a terrorist group be part of a state, like a secret police force in a totalitarian country? Can a mostly free country ever have leadership that carries out a few limited terrorist attacks for political reasons, i.e. attacking a civilian target to put pressure on enemy leadership? If someone does something illegal in his country for political reasons and someone dies as a direct result, is that person now a "terrorist"?
I guess if the answer is yes, then "terrorism" is a reasonable word that conveys "politically motivated violent crime" in one word. But more often it just conveys "time to turn off our brains." I've heard people use it to describe the most mundane decisions likes a change in a tariff.

" I believe. . sometimes, when people turn into base animals, the taming gets rough"
I agree with that. The wild part of the world is the system the first system that evolved to deal with crime. A person is discouraged from committing a heinous crime because he knows that rage may drive him or his family to come after the criminal even if it's a great cost, even if it's not in their own self-interest. In the civilized world, the law takes the place of that rage.

This reminds me of the "Riots Are Good" article. Before the law, that's all we had. One group of enraged people afraid of another group of enraged people. That genetic makeshift criminal justice system got the human race by until we developed legal systems: rules written down before the fact and institutions that attempt to enforce them without regard to opinions of powerful people.

"Do unto others... "
Could you finish the quote and briefly say how it relates.

Heinous crime + name calling does not equal a war.

You don't believe that terror inflicted as a strategy for its own sake is real?

Of course there is a war. The attacks, including 9/11 up to the current beheadings, are explicitly directed against this country and Israel by organized Islamo-fascists.

Two at the most, one if the first one is fatal. Better to cut if off at zero.

Do unto others... They behead us.

of course, CG, I was supposing that Jesus might be
a model for your behavior, but apparently not. . I view
the world as a wild place needing to be tamed, much
as Rand did, I believe. . sometimes, when people
turn into base animals, the taming gets rough. -- j

"They invalidate the honorable treatment of lawful soldiers fighting a legitimate war"
There's no war, legitimate or otherwise. It's only similar to war in that it's an opportunity for people in power to say, 'this is _so_ bad that we need rule of people instead of rule of law'.

"What a shameful attempt to create moral equivalence between a soldier and a terrorist. "
I do not believe the word 'terrorist' has any meaning, so I'm not creating any equivalence to it. Can soldiers commit acts of terrorism? I don't have an answer b/c terrorism is not real. It's like a swear word. People who commit violent crimes to make a political statement deserve to be called a swear word, though, so that part makes sense. But more important than swearing at them, which I support, is having a system to prove who committed and aided the crimes and put them in jail.

"Turn the other cheek" is a religious reference that maybe in some vague way informs my world view, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm saying now.