11 comments on “WAR

  1. Interesting coincidence, as this am I received a Facebook message from a Canadian friend, about a professor stating that there was no difference between “terrorism” and “war.” This is what I replied (feel free to comment on any of it) : As an anthropologist, with long-time interest in the archetype of the Warrior, psychological roots of male aggression, and the modern phenomenon of war, I disagree with the above statement. “Terrorism” is a term generally reserved for indiscriminate violence against civilians by a group or individuals, while “War” is a disciplined formal engagement sponsored by a state. the modern phenomenon of war as we know it is quite distinct in purpose and realization, and has a totally different character in its conduct. It is not aimed at creating “terror” in civilian populations, as a sudden and unexpected “raid” would. Among more simple societies, warriors regularly engage in well orchestrated episodes of warfare, with rules, whereas other activities such as raids on other villages are more terror provoking among civilians – women and children -, and are distinct from the activities of regulated warfare, much as a chess game is different from a breaking and entry action which results in murder. For instance the conquest of North Africa and the Middle East in the 7th century by Arab hordes is not considered a “war” by historians, as it was an invasion and massacre and subjugation of populations which were not “enemies” or even
    “hostile” . “It was called “the great Jihad”, conquest by force, directed at non-armed populations, and women and children . Similarly , today, violence toward civilians for a cause, by an individual or a group, is not considered equivalent to war . The Professor is obviously not well versed in social sciences or anthropology.

    • I couldn’t agree more Helene-and in my opinion clearly defines WK2 as a terrorist
      act. In this day and age of entities like Homeland Security I often wonder what the
      “official response” would have been, especially if it had taken place under the Bush
      Clearly every attempt to cast WK2 in the light of a war is and was a self serving
      attempt at legitimacy -often what isn’t mentioned is that elders and tribal leaders
      asked for time to consider AIM’s proposal, and is the way of terrorists with their
      own agenda none was given.
      The single event of taking hostages, many elderly, and one confined to a wheelchair,
      speaks to something more than liberation, as does looting and coldblooded murder.
      If one looks closely at the sketch above they will notice subtle nuances that illustrate
      unspoken truths-I might add for those who may not be aware that clicking on the
      image opens another page with an enlargement.
      Many historical items were either destroyed or stolen from the WK museum-some
      no doubt sold to the highest bidder-that to me is an act of genocide-a precept that
      seeks to destroy the history and important artifacts of a people.
      In view of these things I can only say that the AIM leadership that planned and
      engaged in anyway in their Reign of Terror at WK2 are nothing more than terrorists
      and genocidists, and as such they should be dealt with in that manner.
      Hanging a man on a cross to publicly beat for hours isn’t an act of war, it is an
      act of intimidation, an abject lesson for others that obedience is not only required,
      but demanded.

  2. oh yes the big difference as this one helene has said and we are made to know this
    difference and say thank you for speaking them and thank you for these good
    pictures to speak the truth.

    • Indeed it is M+J and the sketch speaks volumes.
      I can’t speak for the artist but what leaps off the page at me is the central figure holding the rifle.
      A figure that blends an upside down American flag being worn like a photo of Russell available on
      the net that he is enamored of.
      In addition this figure is wearing the trade mark hat of Banks with the concho head/hatband and has money clearly displayed, and of course the obligatory leather braid extentions Russell employs
      in lieu of a weave or wig.
      In the second sketch we see women huddled together seeking to protect a child, and immediately to
      the right a beer or alcohol bottle-an AIM “spiritual” favorite.
      We also see flames in the background symbolic of the arson and destruction that was committed.
      Viewed in it’s entirety as the third one represents I take it to be an honest and graphic depiction-and
      eager to see the finished version which I will do everything I am capable of to promote.
      And so I will second John Trudell’s statement that all be dragged into court to get
      to the bottom of things.

  3. A simple question: Why didn’t the FBI/ U.S gov. take out the “traitor,” Dick Wilson like Frank Fools Crow and Mathew King suggested to defamed SAC, Trimbach? Did it have something to do with uranium?

    • Could be-but then that leads to the question how do you remove a duly
      elected official without some kind of due process? Would that be
      tantamount to a coup at the hands of the U.S.? How would that
      address the issue of sovereignty?
      Personally I don’t have a high opinion of Wilson-but nonetheless
      the above questions are germane.

      Even more so since you would ask a “simple” question I’ll ask
      some very basic ones that don’t require FOI’s, myth, references
      to Nazi’s or Hitler to be answered.
      These are questions that only require a bare minimum of common
      sense and candor to reply to-perhaps that is why they seldom are.
      A few examples would be as follows:

      Is the taking and ransacking of a community of indigenous people
      by indigenous people an act of liberation?

      Who controlled WK, was it the feds or AIM?

      Who is responsible for what occurred within WK2-those who controlled
      it from within or those on the periphery?

      Who took hostages within the community during WK2 and in an attempt
      to validate doing so referred to them as white people when in fact
      they weren’t?

      Who murdered people, including Perry Ray Robinson jr., and buried them
      in unmarked graves?

      Who forced people from their homes, including an elderly man confined
      to a wheelchair, and committed acts of arson and vandalism?

      Who looted and set fire to the WK museum?

      These are simple questions that require simple answers, and I’ve kept
      them to a minimum so as not to confuse anyone. Until these questions
      are acknowledged and truthfully answered with the same simplicity they
      have been asked all other comments amount to nothing more than avoidance,
      an attempt to deny the the truth of WK2 in it’s ENTIRETY.
      Another simple question is why have all your boys repeatedly chosen to
      take the fifth? And what is the reason for taking the fifth? To avoid sellf
      incrimination as we all know.
      NO comments about Peltier, feds, tanks, or anything else is necessary
      to answer them-and that is why they never are.
      In a sense they are straight up and down questions that require in
      essence a yes or no response.
      Regardless of what the feds did or didn’t do the reality of what went on within
      WK2 during the “Liberation” stands on it’s own and needs to be truthfully
      You and others never do that because it exposes the chinks in the armor
      and raises too many questions.
      Now if you want to respond with some cockamamie reply that ultimately
      the feds were responsible because AIM was brain dead and couldn’t make
      decisions on their own, or Hitler, Nazis, and Woods did this or that forget
      it, as none of them were within the confines of WK or made AIM leadership
      decisions-none of them sacked, burned, pillaged, raped, took hostages, or
      committed an act of murder that led to unmarked graves.
      I might add that if you choose to respond that none of this reality matters
      to you as you have the past you will only serve to further pull your

      • As to be expected SB has found himself boxed into a corner again and cannot
        give a straight forward answer to straight forward questions- he can’t risk admitting
        something so obvious as AIM’s guilt.
        If and when the day comes that he musters the courage to do so and answers the
        specific questions asked above then he will be allowed to comment here.

  4. On the subject of war. Consider the “shock and awe” campaign on iraq. It was a sudden, devastatingly TERRIFYING experience. It killed not only enemies, but everyone else as well.

    The sudden force of it was a form of psychological warfare, much like the never ending troops the US sent at the indigenous. Or the paint wore by different tribes.

    Many aspects of war are to instill terror, so terrorism is not the entirety of war, but it is an aspect of it.

    To think the current way to wage war is somehow “purer” than before, is incorrect. War is SUPPOSED to be terrifying. It the overcoming of that terror that is part of the strength of a warrior.

    • Tali- the truth of the matter is that war isn’t “glamorous” or “romantic” in any sense of the
      word-yet that is the way AIM has sought to portray their actions at WK2 and throughout
      the entirety of their existence.
      On the surface It seems an odd thing to say there are rules of engagement at first glance,
      but when you look them, such as the Geneva Convention it only makes sense that if
      wars are to be conducted some attention has to be paid to what is “acceptable” during
      wartime and what is not.
      Even a cursory examination of AIM’s conduct during what they so proudly refer to as
      a war of liberation during WK2 illustrates they believed they were above any rules or
      constraints-observing such “rules” is in my opinionw also part of the strength of warriors.
      There are warriors, criminals, and raiders who burn and loot-of the three the latter two
      are the only definitions that apply to AIM as they willfully conducted their own “shock
      and awe”,
      Then once having had their ass handed to them and exposed have done nothing but
      complain and whine how others didn’t observe the “rules” they like during a “war” they
      started and continue to label as one.
      Well, bottom line is if wiretapping existed, if WK2 was “surrounded”, that hardly
      compares to what went on within WK2 -and while such things may have been an
      evil they most certainly are not a greater evil, and perhaps in taking a page from AIM’s
      book one could rightfully say if they hadn’t committed the atrocities they did maybe
      the feds couldn’t have responded in the way they did-so ultimately maybe they are
      to blame.
      Doesn’t work in that context does it? Neither does AIM’s version.

      • If you draw comparisons, WK2 was more like a hostage negotiation. Compare that to hostages in a bank, the feds tap into the hard line right away, so it’s not a stretch to consider wire tapping those related to the captors.

        You could also draw very similar comparisons to those taken by Al-Queda when you read the time line of Annie Mae.

        There are rules of war, but soldiers break them all the time when they can.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s