You know, when the term "terrorism" was coined, it was used to describe acts of
violence by governments against rebellion and insurrection (get a dictionary
and look those up, okay?) In modern usage it means the actions of outsiders
(those rebels, factions, insurrectionsists and undergrounds) against
governments.

Remember Tim McVeigh? Terrorism. Go back and check the dialogue on that.

Now I have two more questions about either philology or perhaps semantics.

1."War" in Iraq.
Doesn't a war need a government and an army on both sides? Isn't this more of
an invasion and occupation scenario? We invaded Iraq, now we occupy it????

1 "jobless recovery"
I just read that the employment situation in the US is the worst since the 30's
With all of this job loss, rising homelessness (especially among families with
children) and both jobs and capital migrating to asia....Why is this a
RECOVERY?

Just asking

On 13 Sep 2003 00:41:10 GMT, daav0@aol.com (DAAV0) wrote:

The question is if there is anything left to recover. If you look at
the economy of country's like the US and to a certain extend Europe
you see that the last decades it's mostly based on spending money that
you don't yet have. This works fine if you keep a balance between real
assets an virtual assets (stocks & second mortgages). And even creates
a certain economic drive.

But when you lose the real assets as a country you will have to
decrease the virtual assets as well. This hasn't been done in the
90's. And on top of that a lot of figures were falsified for personal
benefits. Which helped create the stock crash of the end 90's.

I think the hard reality is that the western world is loosing their #1
position. And that liberalising the world market will not help the
average hard working western world citizen. It will just generate more
capital for multinational company's and make things worse for the
average Joe.

I hope I'm wrong here though because I'm a one of those western world
citizens ..

Why don't world leaders focus on these issues instead of some kind of
insane war against Arab's.

Again, just my 2 cents ..

A1. Not in this generation, it doesn't. They refer to many threats as a
war (e.g. war on drugs, war on terrorism, etc.)... The basic essence is
fighting something that you perceive to be a threat to you... And
besides... now that the Russians aren't perceived or purported to be a big
threat to the USA... they've got to figure-out how to justify their
supply-side military spending machine to enrich their ultra-wealthy
constituents at the expense of the good ole' US tax payer.... Also, what the
US did was "invade"... the fact is that Iraq never attacked the US nor any
of its neighbors for over about a decade.... Oh yes... and what a big threat
they were to us. I'd say it was the ass-whipping of the new century (3
weeks to over-through a nation)... The worst part (aside from the thousands
of people killed) was that they obviously didn't justify their action in any
credible way... so sad...

A2. It's considered a recovery because the govt. has put billions of
borrowed $$$ into the pipe that the thieves have been spending with
abandon.... Those $$$, along with early tax refunds, will lead to higher
economic statistics... Taken into proper perspective (i.e. accounting for
the massive debt spending that they've done... one has to sigh or just
wonder...), the alternative is to cry for & demand massive reform.... but
that probably won't happen until the US govt. defaults on its debts for lack
of a tax base capable of sending in sufficient $$$ to pay for their spending
habits & general fleecing of America.

"DAAV0" <daav0@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030912204110.19823.00000828@mb-m28.aol.com...