I think Terrorism is Criminal Act and not War

[francisca]

I was reading thru this thread and thought about something, the major drug cartels are actually considered terrorist organizations, and really they are, they are invading our country without stepping foot here, they send their products here because of the US demand for these drugs…yet when people are arrested for trafficking drugs, its never a terrorism charge…its always a civil drug charge, but if someone spouts off about Islam, buys a gun, etc they ARE charged with crimes relating to terrorism???

Furthermore, in the US, it is illegal to provide money to any terrorist organization, yet many many US companies hand out ‘monthly payments’ to the drug cartels, just for allowing their factories to operate in their turf in Mexico, I know about this first hand, I know an attorney for one of these companies, and learned about how the cartels set these things up, its common business practice down there, but highly illegal in the US, dont know about you, but Ive never seen any US companies being brought up on charges of supporting terrorism though (even though they give out millions to the cartels?)

Seems to me, this would be supporting your enemy during a time of ‘war’…right?

Maybe it does come down to how much money your group has, regarding whether you are pursued as a terrorist or just a common criminal? Its said the Mexican cartels bring in about 300 Billion each year, and Id say 95% of that cash comes from the US.

Your post makes me think this way:
What if these people they only use angry Uncle Joe to make profit…
Nobody can make nearly so much easy money like a drug cartels.
And these people, they don’t go to church neither to mosque!
When Pablo Escobar was arrested, he owns so many war aeroplanes and everything else.
It was an eye opener, and yes, there are contacts there and then.
And since everything happens in secret, no body knows the next chapters of the real story

Angry Uncle Joe can’t make his own weapons. He get it from somewhere.

 

[St_Francis]

I think if you are in the place of power, the way you treat your enemy will decide who you are.

It doesn’t matter if some “Uncle Joe” decide to declare a war, you are not uncle joe’s worthy enemy.
Uncle joe has commited many crimes even in the standard of legitimate war, so called “genocide”.
If you treat him according to the law, meaning fair and good process, then you are the hero, and uncle joe is the loser.
If you decide to blow his head off without any trial, then the people may think that uncle joe has a legitimate mission and is as much as a hero as you.

I’m just saying this because some people has mention the word “crusade” in the previous thread. I read it in other places too. It is rather worrying.

To stop the genocide is not a crusade. Capture them as war criminals and end it fast.

There should never be any killings in the name of “holy war” anymore. There isn’t anything holy about a war.

I just saying. and praying.

I was not really sure which of your posts to respond to, so I just picked this one.

I think that you are very sincere and passionate about what you are saying, but I think too that you lack understanding of the situation.

With the police or with the military, it is (hopefully) an encounter between good guys and bad guys.

Suppose there is a major druglord in a city. It is the police who would be sent after him, because it is a police matter. But the police would go in like the military, because rhe druglord is known to be surrounded by security men who are armed to the teeth. If the bad guys in this scenario start to shoot, instead of meekly surrendering, then a small-scale battle occurs, in which the criminals might be killed without a trial.

A war is like that but on a larger scale, right? How are we going to arrest the 50,000 (lowest estimate) bad guys who make up ISIS? By the time you put together a police force big enough, you have an army. And if they “resist arrest”–ie, fight back? Yes, they will be killed without a trial.

In war, if someone surrenders, under international law, they must be taken prisoner, not killed. So it’s not like indiscriminate killing is allowed.

All that the Crusades were were wars against people who were doing bad things, some of them as bad as what ISIS is doing now.

The Catholic Church teaches that war is bad, but is sometimes necessary to protect the people of an area. Wars are started by bad guys attacking and/or doing bad things. The bad guys need to be stopped because what they do is extremely destructive. So the Church teaches that societies have the right, and sometimes even the obligation to go to war.

ETA: Are you referring to anyone or anything in particular when you mention “Uncle Joe”?

 

[francisca]

I was not really sure which of your posts to respond to, so I just picked this one.

I think that you are very sincere and passionate about what you are saying, but I think too that you lack understanding of the situation.

With the police or with the military, it is (hopefully) an encounter between good guys and bad guys.

Suppose there is a major druglord in a city. It is the police who would be sent after him, because it is a police matter. But the police would go in like the military, because rhe druglord is known to be surrounded by security men who are armed to the teeth. If the bad guys in this scenario start to shoot, instead of meekly surrendering, then a small-scale battle occurs, in which the criminals might be killed without a trial.

Well, that was not the way Osama Bin Laden was killed. He was unarmed and surrender, but he was shot dead anyway, in front of his family. If only he was arrested, and put to trial, he will be executed anyway. Why execute him in his house when he was unarmed and surrendered? And this documentary is being shown to the whole world. I’m sure it angers many moslems people when they watch it. And that alone can become their inspiration to join the terrorist group.

I am not defending Osama Bin Laden, I am questioning whether the people of authority really believe in the right of all people to be put to a fair trial before being arrested/ executed, because of the interpretation of the law being passed at the time there was a great need to arrest and execute Pablo Escobar, but then it was used to do it to another man in another case in another country.

A war is like that but on a larger scale, right? How are we going to arrest the 50,000 (lowest estimate) bad guys who make up ISIS? By the time you put together a police force big enough, you have an army. And if they “resist arrest”–ie, fight back? Yes, they will be killed without a trial.

In war, if someone surrenders, under international law, they must be taken prisoner, not killed. So it’s not like indiscriminate killing is allowed.

All that the Crusades were were wars against people who were doing bad things, some of them as bad as what ISIS is doing now.

Pablo Escobar was a similar case. He was bloody, he wasn’t us-citizen, he lived in cuba. He had many men and so the police couldn’t catch him. So it was a massive military operation to arrest him (including joint military training for the cuban police and military), but it was A POLICE CASE, meaning he was arrested as a criminal, eventhough the operation was military. Basically you arrest the head (leaders) and the rest will crumble.

The crusade however is not the same. The word crusade itself means holy war. And ISIS say they are waging holy war. If this military operation is seen as the crusade, it will end differently. You will see christian people stoop to ISIS level and do to them exactly the same as what they do to us.

I do understand that in military operation, a person who is armed and refuse to surrender may be killed without trial. I am not arguing about this matter. I am trying to make a point about the difference in handling your enemy and see them as who they are and not who they say they are. ISIS are an angry mob, somebody supply them with weapons, and tada…** it’s not a military war, it’s an angry mob killing unarmed people with weapons. Where do they get the weapons from? **

See them as criminals, regardless who they proclaim they are, and arrest them as criminals, because killing unarmed people is crime. No crusade. Military operation is to save the people from genocide, and to arrest the criminals. It has to be a police case eventhough the operation is military, because we **focus on their crime they commit, and not on what they proclaim they are. **

**And as in any crime law, each arrested individual has the right to defend themselves in a fair court trial, and will be released if found not guilty. You may be surprised to find many of them are only following what the crowd do, and didn’t know fully the implication of their choice, and some of them may be praying that they will just live another day among the wild beasts.

The mob is not the same as your other military enemies. These people are genuinely believe they are in holy mission taught to them since they were born probably. They have never seen the gruesome of it until it happens. And some of them only say “ra… ra… God is great… ra… ra… away with infidels… ra… ra…” Some of them are under aged, and need to be taught a correct way of thinking regarding human dignity in the eyes of God and the value of forgiveness and love.
**

The Catholic Church teaches that war is bad, but is sometimes necessary to protect the people of an area. Wars are started by bad guys attacking and/or doing bad things. The bad guys need to be stopped because what they do is extremely destructive. So the Church teaches that societies have the right, and sometimes even the obligation to go to war.

To protect the people may be a military operation, but not for any victory other than the safety the unarmed people. As for the armed mob, they aren’t war enemies, they are dangerous criminals. No ideology conflict whatsoever, even if they are proclaiming such, so what? You proclaim your “holy-ness” by killing unarmed people, and we proclaim our “holy-ness” by not killing them as “heroes”, rather, we conduct a millitary operation to stop them from doing what they’re doing with minimum casualty and maximum arrest and fairness of trial.

ETA: Are you referring to anyone or anything in particular when you mention “Uncle Joe”?

Uncle Joe is an enemy of not your size and calibre.
Angry Uncle Joe is an angry mob that commit crime against unarmed people.

**The real enemy is the one supply uncle joe with weapons. **

 

[mikekle]

Things are different today, in the past, if you got rid of a certain groups leader, the entire group would crumble, not so today, now, even the low level drug dealers have back ups ready to go, surely arranged by the cartels, it doesnt matter who the ‘head guy’ is anymore, there will always be the next guy in line to take over the spot and continue the operation.

Plus with guys like Osama Bin Laden, Pablo Escobar, those high level guys will always be exterminated rather than brought to trial, I think because they could divulge all sorts of things the Secret Govt agencies dont want getting out, kind of like how right when 911 happened, the US Govt made sure to get Bin Ladens relatives out on a private plane, also some other strange things took place around that time…how did they know right away it was him? How did they find the relatives so quickly? CMON, thats a bit too much to be coincidence imo. lol

 

[francisca]

What makes me very concern is whether there is attempt to trace where the weapons were made, which marufacturers, and who are the chain traders and so on. Why everything is so murky? Weapons aren’t like drugs can grow anywhere. Weapons are made by manufacturers and even if it was assembled from different parts, it can still be traced the components and so on.

 

[St_Francis]

o

Well, that was not the way Osama Bin Laden was killed. He was unarmed and surrender, but he was shot dead anyway, in front of his family. If only he was arrested, and put to trial, he will be executed anyway. Why execute him in his house when he was unarmed and surrendered? And this documentary is being shown to the whole world. I’m sure it angers many moslems people when they watch it. And that alone can become their inspiration to join the terrorist group.

I am not defending Osama Bin Laden, I am questioning whether the people of authority really believe in the right of all people to be put to a fair trial before being arrested/ executed, because of the interpretation of the law being passed at the time there was a great need to arrest and execute Pablo Escobar, but then it was used to do it to another man in another case in another country.

OK, I see what you are saying now.

I do not know enough about the capture of bin Laden to comment directly on that situation; however, in general I agree that we should not directly kill those whom we know are not a threat to us.

However, if really bad guys hang out with their families while waging war against others, then shooting them in front if their families is not really the fault of the shooters but of the bad guy. This has always been one of the problems with terrorists: they hide among those whom we do not want to kill.

Pablo Escobar was a similar case. He was bloody, he wasn’t us-citizen, he lived in cuba. He had many men and so the police couldn’t catch him. So it was a massive military operation to arrest him (including joint military training for the cuban police and military), but it was A POLICE CASE, meaning he was arrested as a criminal, eventhough the operation was military. Basically you arrest the head (leaders) and the rest will crumble.

Did Pablo Escobar declare war against anyone?

The crusade however is not the same. The word crusade itself means holy war. And ISIS say they are waging holy war. If this military operation is seen as the crusade, it will end differently. You will see christian people stoop to ISIS level and do to them exactly the same as what they do to us.

Are you concerned that we will start beheading anyone we capture? Are you concerned we will force children to kill prisoners? Are you concerned that we will throw homosexuals off rooftops? What exactly are you concerned about, because I don’t think we will do any of those things.

I do understand that in military operation, a person who is armed and refuse to surrender may be killed without trial. I am not arguing about this matter. I am trying to make a point about the difference in handling your enemy and see them as who they are and not who they say they are. ISIS are an angry mob, somebody supply them with weapons, and tada…** it’s not a military war, it’s an angry mob killing unarmed people with weapons. Where do they get the weapons from? **

First, a number of the weapons were supplied to what the US considered freedom fighter who then joined up with ISIS (whether voluntarily or not); then, a number of weapons were those we left behind after we left Iraq, which everyone seemed to be so interested in our doing.

I can’t say that either move was prudential: I have no idea why we were so intent on ousting Assad; I have no idea why we left weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reality is that who supplied the weapons is not terribly relevent. Al Queda didn’t have weapons, so they turned our civilian airplanes against us. The insurgents didn’t have weapons, so they made them out of stuff they had available. For example, a certain type of fertilizer can be used as an explosive: would you reccommend that we stop sending fertilizer to these nations?

Basically, some people want to kill other people and they use anything they can get their hands on. The problem is not so much that they are acquiring weapons but that they want to use the weapons.

**Continued below **

 

[St_Francis]

**continued from above **

See them as criminals, regardless who they proclaim they are, and arrest them as criminals, because killing unarmed people is crime. No crusade. Military operation is to save the people from genocide, and to arrest the criminals. It has to be a police case eventhough the operation is military, because we **focus on their crime they commit, and not on what they proclaim they are. **

What difference do you think will exist if we do consider them criminals rather than war fighters? How do we call them criminals when they claim to be combatants and act like combatants?

**And as in any crime law, each arrested individual has the right to defend themselves in a fair court trial, and will be released if found not guilty. You may be surprised to find many of them are only following what the crowd do, and didn’t know fully the implication of their choice, and some of them may be praying that they will just live another day among the wild beasts. **

So what if they are just following the crowd? Are they mindless drones who can’t think for themselves? If they are afraid they will be tortured or killed if they leave, then they are keeping their own lives on the backs of their victims! If you lies down with dogs, you get up with fleas: they made a really bad decision and if they realize it and do nothing about it, why should we judge them based on what they later say their feelings were?

The mob is not the same as your other military enemies. These people are genuinely believe they are in holy mission taught to them since they were born probably. They have never seen the gruesome of it until it happens. And some of them only say “ra… ra… God is great… ra… ra… away with infidels… ra… ra…” Some of them are under aged, and need to be taught a correct way of thinking regarding human dignity in the eyes of God and the value of forgiveness and love.

To protect the people may be a military operation, but not for any victory other than the safety the unarmed people. As for the armed mob, they aren’t war enemies, they are dangerous criminals. No ideology conflict whatsoever, even if they are proclaiming such, so what? You proclaim your “holy-ness” by killing unarmed people, and we proclaim our “holy-ness” by not killing them as “heroes”, rather, we conduct a millitary operation to stop them from doing what they’re doing with minimum casualty and maximum arrest and fairness of trial.
How many unarmed people have we killed, and how many did OBL kill? How many unarmed people is ISIS killing now?

We are not the people who decide to kill unarmed people, to sell little girls as sex slaves, to bury people up to their necks and let them die like that, to behead people and show it on Youtube, to throw people off buildings, etc, etc, etc.

So I am not sure what you are saying here.

Uncle Joe is an enemy of not your size and calibre.
Angry Uncle Joe is an angry mob that commit crime against unarmed people.

**The real enemy is the one supply uncle joe with weapons. **

Not when Uncle Joe uses anything it can find as weapons. Weapons don’t jump up and decide to kill people: people make that decision. Our real enemy is the people who decide to kill people. Those who knowlingly sell weapons to people they know want to kill people are at fault, and should be punished, but the ones who actually use the weapons are indeed bad guys.

 

[mikekle]

What makes me very concern is whether there is attempt to trace where the weapons were made, which marufacturers, and who are the chain traders and so on. Why everything is so murky? Weapons aren’t like drugs can grow anywhere. Weapons are made by manufacturers and even if it was assembled from different parts, it can still be traced the components and so on.

Not all guns, ‘ghost guns’ are widely available all over the place, these are usually the types sold in back alleys and out of peoples trunks, I watched a good show about these guns recently, basically they are made by machinists with NO serial numbers, NO markings, nothing, so it cannot be linked to any manufacturer, buyer, seller, etc. and if the police do recover it, nothing much they can do with it. (except for fingerprints).

The shop featured on the show was operating in Chicago, they said they crank out about 100 guns a month, most popular is the .45 handgun and the AK47 (that is scary!!), but they said they could make any gun that is available to the public or the military. I imagine this has been going on for some time, as its not really difficult to make a gun, as long as you have the right machining tools.

 

[francisca]

o
However, if really bad guys hang out with their families while waging war against others, then shooting them in front if their families is not really the fault of the shooters but of the bad guy.

Sure. That was not what was shown on the screen. He had no idea what was coming, they could have easily arrested him alive.

This has always been one of the problems with terrorists: they hide among those whom we do not want to kill.

Well, he was home among his family.

Did Pablo Escobar declare war against anyone?

I can’t remember clearly but at the time there was a slogan “war on drugs” was it during bush snr?

Are you concerned that we will start beheading anyone we capture? Are you concerned we will force children to kill prisoners?

Well if the setting is crusade… anything is possible…

Are you concerned that we will throw homosexuals off rooftops?*

We’re off topic here, bro

What exactly are you concerned about, because I don’t think we will do any of those things.

Sure thing…oh well…
There are shootings not only in syiria, I think in new york city you can hear police sirene every few minutes.

First, a number of the weapons were supplied to what the US considered freedom fighter who then joined up with ISIS (whether voluntarily or not); then, a number of weapons were those we left behind after we left Iraq, which everyone seemed to be so interested in our doing.

I can’t say that either move was prudential: I have no idea why we were so intent on ousting Assad; I have no idea why we left weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Prudential” is preferable keyword now…
Oh boy oh boy… you can’t be forgetful and leave your toys behind!

The reality is that who supplied the weapons is not terribly relevent. Al Queda didn’t have weapons, so they turned our civilian airplanes against us. The insurgents didn’t have weapons, so they made them out of stuff they had available. For example, a certain type of fertilizer can be used as an explosive: would you reccommend that we stop sending fertilizer to these nations?

Nope. I’m only saying, let them declare war, we aren’t going to play the game they want.
If they commit crime, get their government arrest them as criminals. put them to trial as criminals. Let their own people witness and learn that terrorism is a shameful crime and not war. Let them be put to shame and not glorified as “war heroes”.

The more you want to fight them the more they get what they want. Such is terrorism.
Plus, if there’s some greedy game behind them-- maybe among your own-- they won’t get the piece of pie they want! Cos some people do make big profits out of big wars!

Basically, some people want to kill other people and they use anything they can get their hands on. The problem is not so much that they are acquiring weapons but that they want to use the weapons.

Isn’t that sounds more like criminals than military men?

**Continued below **

 

[francisca]

**continued from above **

What difference do you think will exist if we do consider them criminals rather than war fighters? How do we call them criminals when they claim to be combatants and act like combatants?*
So what if they are just following the crowd? Are they mindless drones who can’t think for themselves? If they are afraid they will be tortured or killed if they leave, then they are keeping their own lives on the backs of their victims! If you lies down with dogs, you get up with fleas: they made a really bad decision and if they realize it and do nothing about it, why should we judge them based on what they later say their feelings were?

I have lived in a moslem country before. Some of them are too poor to go to school, so they only study the quran all of their life. They aren’t smart really, I’m telling you you cant compare these with americans. They are incapable of rational thinking. And if their intent was to please their God, and then they see bad examples and their hearts are full of fear, I say, as long as they aren’t guilty of anything serious, they’re basically saying “ra ra ra God is great…”. If you execute all of them you’ll be doing what they’re doing.

Now if we are who claim the righteous people can’t show them righteousness-- we just do what they do to us-- then they can’t be expected to understand righteousness, simply because we don’t

I watched the christian family whose husband/father being executed by ISIS. They said, when they saw in the video, their husband/ father died keeping his christian faith, they felt at peace and prayed that the executors will become christians one day. Can a war make their prayers come true? I mean, these are people whose family member being killed by ISIS: they do not desire anymore killings! They desire forgiveness.

How many unarmed people have we killed, and how many did OBL kill? How many unarmed people is ISIS killing now?

We are not the people who decide to kill unarmed people, to sell little girls as sex slaves, to bury people up to their necks and let them die like that, to behead people and show it on Youtube, to throw people off buildings, etc, etc, etc.

So I am not sure what you are saying here.

1. Constitution of the church doesn’t allow anymore killing in the name of God.
2. Military operation is only *to protect the unarmed peole and to stop genocide
3. Airstrike? Bomb them all? No!!!
4. Do you think you can win war on terror by inflicting fear? These people know fear more than you can imagine. Their Quran teaches fear. What they do not know is respect, secure, sincere, trustable, gentle
5. Want to end War on Terror? Show them you’re different compared to “their KHALIFAH” !

Not when Uncle Joe uses anything it can find as weapons. Weapons don’t jump up and decide to kill people: people make that decision. Our real enemy is the people who decide to kill people. Those who knowlingly sell weapons to people they know want to kill people are at fault, and should be punished, but the ones who actually use the weapons are indeed bad guys.

I agree with the above, therefore I said they commit crime in doing so. But what you want is war. That is a different matter. It’s not their choice how you view them. It’s your choice.

I watch a catholic media (2015-07-09 you know which one) discussing US strategy against ISIS, and one of the questions they do not know the answer was :
“why aren’t we arming the kurds and the christians yet?”

For me, the answer to such question is very easy: if you arm the kurds and the christians, you will have civil war. Now why a catholic media can’t see want I can? That is so worrying.

 

[francisca]

Not all guns, ‘ghost guns’ are widely available all over the place, these are usually the types sold in back alleys and out of peoples trunks, I watched a good show about these guns recently, basically they are made by machinists with NO serial numbers, NO markings, nothing, so it cannot be linked to any manufacturer, buyer, seller, etc. and if the police do recover it, nothing much they can do with it. (except for fingerprints).

I see. I had no idea about “ghost guns”.*

The shop featured on the show was operating in Chicago, they said they crank out about 100 guns a month, most popular is the .45 handgun and the AK47 (that is scary!!), but they said they could make any gun that is available to the public or the military. I imagine this has been going on for some time, as its not really difficult to make a gun, as long as you have the right machining tools.

It means these ISIS people probably making their own guns…? Are they that skilful? Well, I didn’t know that making gun is so easy. And I thought making dumpling is hard !!!

 

[mikekle]

I see. I had no idea about “ghost guns”.*

It means these ISIS people probably making their own guns…? Are they that skilful? Well, I didn’t know that making gun is so easy. And I thought making dumpling is hard !!!

No, ISIS doesnt have to make their own guns, they are making good use of the many US weapons, trucks and equipment. Ever notice ISIS is often pictured driving around in black humvees? Plus, I believe they are also being supplied with weapons/ equipment by supporters.

A gun is not that complicated of a device, (the ammo really does most of the work), if you have machining skills, CNC skills, you can make a gun pretty easy, plus, ANY non-automatic gun can be converted to FULL automatic if you know what you are doing.

 

[St_Francis]

Sure. That was not what was shown on the screen. He had no idea what was coming, they could have easily arrested him alive.

In general, bin Laden knew we were after him.

And they might have been able to capture him or they might not have been able to.

Your description was that he was shot hiding behind one of his wives. That is not an attitude of surrender: he too easily could have been hiding a gun behind her as well–not an unknown tactic!

Well, he was home among his family.

If a large group of people wants to kill you and you know they are even willing to use drones, would you stay with your family? Or would you protect them by staying far away from them?

OBL *chose *to stay with his family. It wasn’t like he was dragged by the US to the separate place where his family was and shot in front of them; he chose to be there.

I can’t remember clearly but at the time there was a slogan “war on drugs” was it during bush snr?

Did Escobar declare war?

And yes, we had a war on drugs. We also had a war on poverty: do you think that means we shot poor people? We use “war on…” as a metaphor: the GOP was accused of a war on women, but that did not imply that the GOP was shooting them.

Well if the setting is crusade… anything is possible…

And unicorns might start coming out of my ears too.

First, there is not a shred of evidence that any of the Western militaries would descend to this barbaric behavior; if any rogue members did so, they would be punished very severely and almost everyone would wish we had more severe punishments to mete out to them.

Second, simply calling an action a crusade will not somehow make that improbability somehow more likely to occur. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

We’re off topic here, bro

I was referring to our military doing that, which since you had just said that by calling a military action a crusade might cause a descent of our troops to the level of those we are fighting makes it perfectly on-topic.

Sure thing…oh well…
There are shootings not only in syiria, I think in new york city you can hear police sirene every few minutes.

I do not know what you are referring to wrt shootings in Syria–we are not in Syria? And as to what criminals do in the US when fighting for drug turf, that bears no relationship to what our military does.

You wrote: *The crusade however is not the same. The word crusade itself means holy war. And ISIS say they are waging holy war. If this military operation is seen as the crusade, it will end differently. **You will see christian people stoop to ISIS level **and do to them exactly the same as what they do to us. * This is why I have been asking you if you think we will start doing what ISIS, et al, are doing.

We are not the ones who refer to this action as a Crusade: it is radical Islamists who are doing that: they call us crusaders. And again, we also use the word crusade in a non-religious, metalhorical sense.

And the Western militaries have done more than any military in history to reduce civilian deaths, and to punish those few who violate the rules against causing civilian deaths.

“Prudential” is preferable keyword now…
Oh boy oh boy… you can’t be forgetful and leave your toys behind!

Well, apparently not, since ISIS will pick them up and use them against civilians.

Nope. I’m only saying, let them declare war, we aren’t going to play the game they want.
If they commit crime, get their government arrest them as criminals. put them to trial as criminals. Let their own people witness and learn that terrorism is a shameful crime and not war. Let them be put to shame and not glorified as “war heroes”.

The more you want to fight them the more they get what they want. Such is terrorism.
Plus, if there’s some greedy game behind them-- maybe among your own-- they won’t get the piece of pie they want! Cos some people do make big profits out of big wars!

We treated terrorism as a crime and got 9/11. I don’t think treating terrorism as a crime will improve matters at all, and now that this movement has gained so many people, we can not treat it as a crime.

Isn’t that sounds more like criminals than military men?

Had the Taliban gone after bin Laden or allowed us to do so, we could have kept this at a crime level; however, the fact that Afghanistan was allowing a group of people who had committed an act of war against another nation to have sanctuary in their own nation put this on the level of war.

 

[francisca]

They need quite a lot of resources to sustain their activity for quite sometime now. It seems to me that they also have advance weapons? Otherwise why would US troops needs tanks and airforce, and so on.

 

[mikekle]

We treated terrorism as a crime and got 9/11. I don’t think treating terrorism as a crime will improve matters at all, and now that this movement has gained so many people, we can not treat it as a crime.

Look at the Heroin problem currenty ravaging many US cities now, this drug is killing 1000s of people, it is the root cause of most street crime, thefts, robberies, etc. This drug is being supplied by a foreign ‘terrorist’ organization…imo, that is an invasion of sorts. I just saw on the news the other day, they say all the new laws targeting Heroin have not worked, they say OD deaths are up 150%, so at what point does law enforcement recognize this and realize going after it in the same way is not going to work, it still remains a crime though??

If this were any other type of invasion, the US military would be involved, if ISIS was killing 1000s of people within the US, I am certain the Govt would try something to stop it, or at least slow it down. Im sorry, but if the US can find Osama bin laden in Pakistan, Im fairly sure we are able to locate the 1000s of acres of poppie fields in mexico!

Yet, to this day, the major cartels are able to consistently able to get enough product thru the borders to keep most every US city fully supplied…this is an amazing thing imo, especially post 9-11!!!

Ive always wondered why they dont treat this drug invasion like a terrorist invasion, that is really what it is, although I assume too many people/industries are making big bucks off this heroin problem, mainly for profit prisons, drug manufacturers, law enforcement agencies, etc, so there may be a degree of collusion, that would explain how the cartels have been able to do what they do consistently.

 

[francisca]

Did Escobar declare war?

I dont’ really recall he did. He did killed many people though. I think it was somekind of gang war with the police. He killed all who was against him. It was quite bloody.

Second, simply calling an action a crusade will not somehow make that improbability somehow more likely to occur. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
We are not the ones who refer to this action as a Crusade: it is radical Islamists who are doing that: they call us crusaders. And again, we also use the word crusade in a non-religious, metalhorical sense.

“Crusade” implies “ideology/ religious conflict”.

We treated terrorism as a crime and got 9/11. I don’t think treating terrorism as a crime will improve matters at all, and now that this movement has gained so many people, we can not treat it as a crime.
Had the Taliban gone after bin Laden or allowed us to do so, we could have kept this at a crime level; however, the fact that Afghanistan was allowing a group of people who had committed an act of war against another nation to have sanctuary in their own nation put this on the level of war.

OK, aside from the things they say,
Would you agree if I say: their actions alone towards civilians-- these actions, by definition, are strictly criminal?

 

[St_Francis]

I have lived in a moslem country before. Some of them are too poor to go to school, so they only study the quran all of their life. They aren’t smart really, I’m telling you you cant compare these with americans. They are incapable of rational thinking. And if their intent was to please their God, and then they see bad examples and their hearts are full of fear, I say, as long as they aren’t guilty of anything serious, they’re basically saying “ra ra ra God is great…”. If you execute all of them you’ll be doing what they’re doing.

Who is talking about “executing all of them”? Yes, we want to *stop *whoever is killing and/or terrorizing anyone, but we certainly do not have as a goal to execute anyone.

Now if we are who claim the righteous people can’t show them righteousness-- we just do what they do to us-- then they can’t be expected to understand righteousness, simply because we don’t

Same as above

I watched the christian family whose husband/father being executed by ISIS. They said, when they saw in the video, their husband/ father died keeping his christian faith, they felt at peace and prayed that the executors will become christians one day. Can a war make their prayers come true? I mean, these are people whose family member being killed by ISIS: they do not desire anymore killings! They desire forgiveness.

Here, I think, may be what you do not understand about Catholic teaching.

Say I am the **ruler **of a nation called Anyland. Some people from the neighboring country come over and start killing and torturing the Christians in my country. As the ruler, what should I do? Should I say, weeellll, they’re Christians, they’re being martyred for their faith, and they want forgiveness, not fighting, so I guess I will not get involved.

Can you see that that would be totally wrong of me? *it is part of my job as ruler to protect those under my authority! *

1. Constitution of the church doesn’t allow anymore killing in the name of God.

What document are you talking about, and which section are you referring to?

1. Military operation is only *to protect the unarmed peole and to stop genocide
2. Airstrike? Bomb them all? No!!!

An airstrike against an army, official or not, headed to another town to kill the men, use the women, and sell all survivors as slaves or sex-slaves–you think this would be wrong? Do you think it would be better to have fighting in the streets of the town, where there is a much greater likelihood of civilians casualities? Or do you think we should just let them have their way and kill and enslave all of the civilians in their path?

1. Do you think you can win war on terror by inflicting fear? These people know fear more than you can imagine. Their Quran teaches fear. What they do not know is respect, secure, sincere, trustable, gentle

What do you propose as an alternative?

1. Want to end War on Terror? Show them you’re different compared to “their KHALIFAH” !

If we do not fight, they do not see respect and love, they see weakness.

I agree with the above, therefore I said they commit crime in doing so. But what you want is war. That is a different matter. It’s not their choice how you view them. It’s your choice.

When people are fighting a war against you, you have to fight a war back.

I watch a catholic media (2015-07-09 you know which one) discussing US strategy against ISIS, and one of the questions they do not know the answer was :
“why aren’t we arming the kurds and the christians yet?”

For me, the answer to such question is very easy: if you arm the kurds and the christians, you will have civil war. Now why a catholic media can’t see want I can? That is so worrying.

Do you honestly think that allowing these barbarians to run through the Middle East selling little girls as sex slaves, and blowing up babies to demonstrate something, is preferable to fighting them?

 

[St_Francis]

I dont’ really recall he did. He did killed many people though. I think it was somekind of gang war with the police. He killed all who was against him. It was quite bloody.

So he didn’t declare war; he did not attempt to take over land from other nations, etc? He killed a lot of people, but drug lords do that: they kill the police who come after them, they kill the members of other drug gangs who do something they don’t like, etc. This is not war, per se.

“Crusade” implies “ideology/ religious conflict”.

1. We are not the ones using the term; the terrorists are.
2. Look up the word to see that it also has a secular, non-war meaning. (I would do this for you but am having trouble copying some things.)

OK, aside from the things they say,
Would you agree if I say: their actions alone towards civilians-- these actions, by definition, are strictly criminal?

What are their actions? Al Qaida: bombed several military targets, used planes as bombs in a civilian area: these are acts of war, not crimes.

ISIS: declaring themselves a state; using a de facto army to take over large swaths of territories; practicing genocide against non-ISIS civilians: these are acts of war and barbarity, not crimes.

 

[francisca]

Here, I think, may be what you do not understand about Catholic teaching.

I do know catholic teaching about just war. Tks.

What document are you talking about, and which section are you referring to?

LUMEN GENTIUM

CHAPTER V THE UNIVERSAL CALL TO HOLINESS IN THE CHURCH
42. “God is love, and he who abides in love, abides in God and God in Him”.(227) But, God pours out his love into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, Who has been given to us;(228) thus the first and most necessary gift is love, by which we love God above all things and our neighbor because of God…… It is the love of God and the love of one’s neighbor which points out the true disciple of Christ.
Since Jesus, the Son of God, manifested His charity by laying down His life for us, so too no one has greater love than he who lays down his life for Christ and His brothers.(230) From the earliest times, then, some Christians have been called upon—and some will always be called upon—to give the supreme testimony of this love to all men, but especially to persecutors. The Church, then, considers martyrdom as an exceptional gift and as the fullest proof of love. By martyrdom a disciple is transformed into an image of his Master by freely accepting death for the salvation of the world—as well as his conformity to Christ in the shedding of his blood. Though few are presented such an opportunity, nevertheless all must be prepared to confess Christ before men. They must be prepared to make this profession of faith even in the midst of persecutions, which will never be lacking to the Church, in following the way of the cross.

CHAPTER VI RELIGIOUS
46. Religious should carefully keep before their minds the fact that the Church presents Christ to believers and non-believers alike in a striking manner daily through them. …

An airstrike against an army, official or not, headed to another town to kill the men, use the women, and sell all survivors as slaves or sex-slaves–you think this would be wrong?

Do you think it would be better to have fighting in the streets of the town, where there is a much greater likelihood of civilians casualities?

I do not know how to answer you about the detail of airstrike/ ground battle. How it supposedly done and so on.

Or do you think we should just let them have their way and kill and enslave all of the civilians in their path?

I have answered similar questions before. The answer is no. Rescue civilians with minimal casualty. Rescue&Arrest mission is different compared to a full fledged war.

What do you propose as an alternative?

I think we’re beating around the bush here.
Maybe the topic is too difficult.
My question is simple whether you see terrorism as crime or war?
Seeing terrorism as crime is what I propose as alternative
If you really see it as war, then please vote it as war. It’s fine with me. I would like to see how many people can see it as crime and how many people can see it as war and nothing else.

If we do not fight, they do not see respect and love, they see weakness.

I’m not saying you should’t fight. It’s just a different kind of fight.

These people can’t tell the difference between heroism and crime. They see the battle between US and Terrorist-- from their point of view-- “armed soldiers”(US troops) kill “civilians who are fighting for a holy-mission”, thus they think “Americans are Terrorists (too)!”

This isn’t my point of view, rather I’m trying to get you see how it looks like from the other side of the fence.

Do you honestly think that allowing these barbarians to run through the Middle East selling little girls as sex slaves, and blowing up babies to demonstrate something, is preferable to fighting them?

No, that’s not what I am saying.

I am saying, after you defeat them, they still have many more people willing to join them so long the mission is still holy…

 

[francisca]

Look at the Heroin problem currenty ravaging many US cities now, this drug is killing 1000s of people, it is the root cause of most street crime, thefts, robberies, etc. This drug is being supplied by a foreign ‘terrorist’ organization…imo, that is an invasion of sorts. I just saw on the news the other day, they say all the new laws targeting Heroin have not worked, they say OD deaths are up 150%, so at what point does law enforcement recognize this and realize going after it in the same way is not going to work, it still remains a crime though??

If this were any other type of invasion, the US military would be involved, if ISIS was killing 1000s of people within the US, I am certain the Govt would try something to stop it, or at least slow it down. Im sorry, but if the US can find Osama bin laden in Pakistan, Im fairly sure we are able to locate the 1000s of acres of poppie fields in mexico!

Yet, to this day, the major cartels are able to consistently able to get enough product thru the borders to keep most every US city fully supplied…this is an amazing thing imo, especially post 9-11!!!

Ive always wondered why they dont treat this drug invasion like a terrorist invasion, that is really what it is, although I assume too many people/industries are making big bucks off this heroin problem, mainly for profit prisons, drug manufacturers, law enforcement agencies, etc, so there may be a degree of collusion, that would explain how the cartels have been able to do what they do consistently.

If drug cartels can buy many war aeroplanes, it means anyone can buy anything so long they have money…