@whiic Has Tim Pool said that we're in a war, or has he said that we're drawing CLOSER to a war?
From the videos of his that he's seen, he's said the latter, essentially.

Fourth-generation warfare is normally characterized by a violent non-state actor (VNSA) fighting a state. This fighting can be physically done, such as by modern examples Hezbollah or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).[5] In this realm, the VNSA uses all three levels of fourth generation warfare. These are the physical (actual combat; it is considered the least important), mental (the will to fight, belief in victory, etc.,) and moral (the most important, this includes cultural norms, etc.) levels.

A 4GW enemy has the following characteristics: lack of hierarchical authority, lack of formal structure, patience and flexibility, ability to keep a low profile when needed, and small size.[6] A 4GW adversary might use the tactics of an insurgent, terrorist, or guerrilla in order to wage war against a nation's infrastructure. Fourth generation warfare takes place on all fronts: economical, political, the media, military, and civilian. Conventional military forces often have to adapt tactics to fight a 4GW enemy.[7]

Resistance can also be below the physical level of violence. This is via non-violent means, such as Gandhi's opposition to the British Empire or Martin Luther King's marches. Both desired their factions to deescalate the conflict while the state escalates against them, the objective being to target the opponent on the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level. The state is then seen as a bully and loses support.

@SPOOKY Phil, Ruler of Heck He has said we might already have been in a war for many years... without knowing it.

That's Tim Pool.

Another characteristic of fourth-generation warfare is that unlike in third generation warfare, the VNSA’s forces are decentralized. With fourth generation warfare, there may even be no single organisation and that smaller groups organize into impromptu alliances to target a bigger threat (that being the state armed forces or another faction). As a result, these alliances are weak and if the state’s military leadership is smart enough they can split their enemy and cause them to fight amongst themselves.

Fourth-generation warfare goals:[8]

Survival.
To convince the enemy's political decision makers that their goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit.[9]
Yet, another factor is that political centers of gravity have changed. These centers of gravity may revolve around nationalism, religion, or family or clan honor.

Disaggregated forces, such as guerrillas, terrorists, and rioters, which lack a center of gravity, deny to their enemies a focal point at which to deliver a conflict ending blow.[8] As a result, strategy becomes more problematic while combating a VNSA.

It has been theorized that a state vs. state conflict in fourth-generation warfare would involve the use of computer hackers and international law to obtain the weaker side’s objectives, the logic being that the civilians of the stronger state would lose the will to fight as a result of seeing their state engage in alleged atrocities and having their own bank accounts harmed.[citation needed]

Three principal attributes of the new-age terrorism were held to be their hybrid structure (as opposed to the traditional microscopic command and control pattern[10]), importance given to systemic disruption vis-a-vis target destruction, and sophisticated use of technological advancements (including social media and mobile communications technology).[11] A terrorist network could be designed to be either acephalous (headless like Al-Qaeda after Bin Laden) or polycephalous (hydra-headed like Kashmiri separatists). Social media networks supporting the terrorists are characterized by positive feedback loops, tight coupling and non-linear response propagation (viz. a small perturbation causing a large disproportionate response).

@SnowPirate67 OK, and how many attacks have Antifa as a VNSA done against a state or against federal govt?

I mean, you are going to make an argument that there's a war going on, not just crazy, unconnected lunatics doing crazy, violent stuff.

You need a pattern.

Ice facility raid? mean much?

One attack?

Or perhaps the attempted assassination of Scalese?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+war+of+words
Not all wars involve actual physical fighting (even though the majority do) TBF

But most who use words "culture war" don't claim it's an actual war.

They regularly dox, harass and beat up innocent people

bruh 4GW even states that the war in some characteristics might not even be physical

Nor is meme war an actual war.

you are clearly misrepresentating

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/15/can-there-be-war-without-soldiers-weapons-cyberwarfare/

@whiic do you consider a "cyber-war" to be an actual war?

Resistance can also be below the physical level of violence. This is via non-violent means, such as Gandhi's opposition to the British Empire or Martin Luther King's marches. Both desired their factions to deescalate the conflict while the state escalates against them, the objective being to target the opponent on the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level. The state is then seen as a bully and loses support.

@SnowPirate67 But was Gandhi's passive resistance a "war"? Was Gandhi thus by definition a warmonger, warhawk, warlord?

in some aspects yes it was a form of 4GW. They were initially denied participation and demanded redress and by their means got the goals they desired

So far nothing but strawmen, red herrings, and constantly begging the question

whole lot of logical fallacies

@SPOOKY Phil, Ruler of Heck Well, if drone strikes are not war, then how could cyber attacks (even if done by a state, against another state) be war?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war
@whiic
War can also mean "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism" or even "a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end" (Class War for example)

Well, I don't believe in class war.

That's a lot of crap.

@whiic I'd consider drone-strikes to be on the level of border-skirmishes, not an all-out war, but that's just my opinion 🤷🏻

And I consider "cyber war" as it exists between many countries to be even less than border-skirmishes. It's more like espionage, breach of airspace without shooting.

When digital espionage crosses to what I would consider "cyber war" is when nuclear plants melt down and there's actual casualties.

Stealing corporate secrets of a rivaling country is not literal warfare.

@whiic so would you consider the "Pig War" to be an actual war or not?

https://www.quora.com/Have-there-ever-been-any-battles-that-had-zero-or-close-to-zero-low-tens-deaths-and-overall-low-casualties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)

Don't know. Too specific and too historic to care.

<:thunk:462282216467333140>

It'd help to look at the wikipedia article

God, I can't believe I have to do this....

TL;DR: The USA and UK got into a war against eachother over pigs