Using force to oppress another's freedom....
same deal every time...
there seems to be a bit of romantacism toward slavery & serial killers through history.
the most well know is the Roman empire
they had slaves and used rape and murder to oppress cultures and other citys
they would routinely rape and murder children
many countries would do such things routinely for sport up until the early start of the 21st century
what we now define as ethnic cleansing and serial killers was previously a moral and goodly cause for serving the leadership or church
most historic wars were al about rape murder (of children including men boys & girls & women of any age)
burning their houses to the ground and then occupying their land or taking the strongest as slaves and children as sex slaves.
Todays button pressing moral separatism seems to have adopted a selective re-definition of the facts to cater to a somewhat insular narcissistic concept of global consciousness.
wholey human im sure.
the war on the poor by keeping low cost medication at premium prices
the war on drugs
the war on terrorism(the removal of civil rights to abuse citizens as a fascist state actor)
broken windows(the war on anyone who was not white and rich in the city)
the war on black people(in the usa as institutionalized racism)
there seems to be some type of sanctified conceptualisation of the term war
i find that quite interesting in a time where urban terrorism has become perceived as one of the most dominant social policy and law threats
urban nazi terrorists is the big issue in the usa(this is WWII continuing)
yet look at the length people will go to, to declare it is not war, however, the religious extremists and the nazi terrorists clearly claim they are soldiers in a war.
a war that spans the entire globe
is WWIII the religious(Nazi Christians/ Muslim jihadists) terrorist war against secular civilized society ?
the cold war, was it really a war ?
many want to claim it was a war
yet it doesnt fit the narative of what many want to hold out as some type of bridge too far to concede moral concepts of social mandate and culture definitions.
both sides argument seems to have creeped into the way "others" are effected
DPRK Zimbabwe
what other countrys have gone to war against their own people using starvation ?
has localized domestic cleansing been defined as not war ?
is their a collective ideological belief that is shared by people in different countries targeting the weak and poor ?
what about the touted new cold war II
is that a war ?
china usa trade war are people dying ?
all methods seem to have the terrorism label hung above it to sanctify the ability to commit war like actions against the weak and the poor while holding their retaliatory actions as being called terrorism.
more colloquially "sedition" traitors, non patriots etc etc.
last us election
Hilary was declared a traitor like the country was at war.
were they ?
are they ?
the irony of people talking about global wars as a frame to WWII & WWI is that they on the most part have no real idea about the wars and know next to nothing about them.
on the most part the question is wholey selfishly aligned for a need to assert grief and suffering to the exterior other and then compartmentalize that into something they feel they have no ability to positively influence a better outcome.
a disenfranchisement from personal cultural and social and global accountability
dont take my posts personally Saint
they are not specifically at you
they are about the majority of people who tend to ask the question.