I think Terrorism is Criminal Act and not War

[francisca]

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.

No. He didn’t declare war.

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.)

The quote from Lumen Gentium in my last post, it quotes:

“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.”( Lumen Gentium, chapter V 42 (230) )

When I watched in youtube one of the wife of these martyrs said “I am at peace, I pray for his murderers that they become christians one day”-- I’m sure she didn’t read Lumen Gentium-- she said that because the holyspirit gave that peace and love towards her husband’s murderers.
This is a sign that God is present, and He is working. So we must work with Him too, trusting Him, instead of relying on human strength. Rather, we try to fight this war with righteousness, because ISIS is claiming the righteousness and using God’s name to kill people. The church teaches God love even ISIS and His Love is through these martyrs. He allow this to happen in order to stop more killings in the future.

I am not saying we just let them all die as martyrs. Sure effort for rescue operation is a must.

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.

I have been thinking long hard about how do I formulate my thoughts about this matter. And I have come out with the main reasons why “war approach” less preferable.

Please consider these factors:

1. US troops vs ISIS =equals= Armed-Soldiers vs Armed-Civilians =equals= unfair battle
2. US military/ politics have **THICK agenda in the area. **

These two factors alone indicate the harder you try to defeat them, the more unfair it looks, and the less sincere/ credible your presence there, according to the point of view of ALL moslems around the world. The third factor however is the most heavy:

1. Moslems solidarity based on fear of God. The less sincere your motivation in their eyes, the more likely they believe ISIS is God’s holy hand against your unsincere motivation, for example you attacked Irak-- against UN experts recommendation-- but couldn’t find any weapon of mass-destruction. You detained many innocent people without trial. Now, you’re trying to tople Assad, and you try to do many other things in their sovereign area. The more your politics, the less credibility/ trust in their eyes.

Today I just watched Gen. Demsey in youtube, He said he is trying to build network because Al qaeda was/ is a network and so on. Please compare such approach with the local police+interpol. Interpol is a network around the world. They’re not equipped for battle, but this is not unsolvable. **The approach of criminal law will be free of political agenda. **
No more customized-heavy-polical-military-agreements necessary (how do you do this with all countries around the world? It’s impossible, isn’t it? While moslems aren’t only in Irak and Syiria!).

With the police+interpol, it’s standard approach: ISIS kills unarmed civilians, they are dangerous criminal organization. No need to worry about sectarian issue, partisan issue, potential of civil war etc, because the approach is neutral towards them, and is very “focus” on ISIS “murderous” behavior. **Moreover this approach support Religious Liberty and Racial Harmony, thus inline with the purpose of building “multi-sectarian but unified Irak”. **

It is also necessary to review weapon business ethics
to maintain neutrality doesn’t mean anyone are allowed to buy weapon. If people come with good mission such as “freedom from dictatorship” or “against human right violition” and so on, these have to come with reports and thus they’re allowed to buy weapon. If proven that weapon is used for drug business or terrorism, then traders should be restricted from doing business with these criminals. And yes, this is crime approach too!.
military/ politicians/ police/ justice system/ gov agencies should not be allowed to receive any money from weapon trade. weapon traders must be heavily regulated.
military men shall never again be allowed to detain/ execute any civilians without any trial!

and so on…

Police+Interpol around the world must arrest anyone commit murder, regardless their religion/ race/ background
Any organization that allows killing/ commit violence towards unarmed civilians (i.e drug cartels) must be categorized as terrorist and thus dangerous crime organization

and so on…

Those are what I can think of rightnow. Eventhough I am not US citizen, I feel like I need to write this because terrorism can spread if not handle wisely. I think The church has duty to speak up against injustice and also to guide the faith both christians and non christians because God has given His signs!

 

[francisca]

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

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?

Just answer one of the three factors I offer you:

Do you honesly think
US troops vs ISIS =hence= Armed-Soldiers vs Armed-Civilians
a fair war?

Crime is always unfair for the victims. But criminals aren’t soldiers

 

[francisca]

Today I watched video in youtube
a group of americans dressed in soldier-like uniform waving their weapons declaring war against ISIS. They said** “we the people are blood thirsty, we the people will not be merciful…”

In my opinion, the above group-- despite their declaring war against ISIS-- they actually AGREE to ISIS SPIRIT, and therefore they want to do EXACTLY what ISIS do.**

If these groups of angry civilians aren’t handle carefully, I think we are very close to the crusade just as it happened centuries ago. Or, it may probably be more drastic than that, because now we have numerous moslems and christians all over the world, and more advanced weapons. The crusade last for more than 300years. The moslems won most of christians cities as the result.

In my humble opinion, the priority-- therefore-- is NOT ONLY how to save the people in syria and irak and middle east, rather how to distance ourselves from religious content of the conflict and prevent deeper and deeper religious hatred everywhere around the world.. Otherwise the spirit of ISIS may deceive christian people & childrens too.

I also watched dr John ankerberg interviewing “a prophecy scholar international journalist” whose prophesy “babylon shall be destroyed”. He quotes bible and selling three parts of videos about bible prophecy related to ISIS and also a book from another writer. The package from $49-$100
I think this kind of prophesy is wrong and should not be regarded as the will of God. The will of God is to save the people and prevent greater and longer war.

If we as christians think that we should do to them-- in a armed-civilian battle-- exactly the way they do to us, I would say ISIS has won the war. This war is about winning the idea of “justice and righteousness”

For IS, they feel like they are wronged because US troops came and attacked their land for no cause. How do you handle such issue? I guess we need to pray…

 

[St_Francis]

Hi Francisca,
I have been trying to get back to you because your recent longer post had some very good points which clarified your thinking.

However, I am working on a project and so having trouble finding the time to consider and write a good response. In the meantime, I just wanted to respond to one thing, which I am doing below.

Just answer one of the three factors I offer you:

Do you honesly think
US troops vs ISIS =hence= Armed-Soldiers vs Armed-Civilians
a fair war?

Crime is always unfair for the victims. But criminals aren’t soldiers

The idea that something is “unfair” because a large force uses its massive resources against a smaller force is absurd, given the criteria for just war and self defense laid out by St Thomas Aquinas.

The appropriate force to be used against an aggressor is what is needed. Fairness comes in when one who wants to aggress says that would be wrong and refrains from doing it. That’s fair. When an aggressor acts, however, *he puts himself *in harm’s way by his act, and the appropriate amount of force to be used against him is limited by what will stop his aggression, not the amount the aggressor has available to him!

Given that ISIS has rules of engagement which differ from ours, notably in their view of human life, it might be necessary to use a greater force against them to stop their aggression.

 

[St_Francis]

Today I watched video in youtube
a group of americans dressed in soldier-like uniform waving their weapons declaring war against ISIS. They said** “we the people are blood thirsty, we the people will not be merciful…”

In my opinion, the above group-- despite their declaring war against ISIS-- they actually AGREE to ISIS SPIRIT, and therefore they want to do EXACTLY what ISIS do.**

If these groups of angry civilians aren’t handle carefully, I think we are very close to the crusade just as it happened centuries ago. Or, it may probably be more drastic than that, because now we have numerous moslems and christians all over the world, and more advanced weapons. The crusade last for more than 300years. The moslems won most of christians cities as the result.

In my humble opinion, the priority-- therefore-- is NOT ONLY how to save the people in syria and irak and middle east, rather how to distance ourselves from religious content of the conflict and prevent deeper and deeper religious hatred everywhere around the world… Otherwise the spirit of ISIS may deceive christian people & childrens too.

I also watched dr John ankerberg interviewing “a prophecy scholar international journalist” whose prophesy “babylon shall be destroyed”. He quotes bible and selling three parts of videos about bible prophecy related to ISIS and also a book from another writer. The package from $49-$100
I think this kind of prophesy is wrong and should not be regarded as the will of God. The will of God is to save the people and prevent greater and longer war.

**If we as christians think that we should do to them-- in a armed-civilian battle-- exactly the way they do to us, **I would say ISIS has won the war. This war is about winning the idea of “justice and righteousness”

For IS, they feel like they are wronged because US troops came and attacked their land for no cause. How do you handle such issue? I guess we need to pray…

Re: the part I bolded: You have several times brought up this issue of “Christians” (a misnomer) will descend to the level of ISIS. You have not answered any of my questions regarding this.

1. What do you fear that the military fighting ISIS will do?
2. What evidence do you have that this might happen?

 

[St_Francis]

Today I watched video in youtube
a group of americans dressed in soldier-like uniform waving their weapons declaring war against ISIS. They said** “we the people are blood thirsty, we the people will not be merciful…”

In my opinion, the above group-- despite their declaring war against ISIS-- they actually AGREE to ISIS SPIRIT, and therefore they want to do EXACTLY what ISIS do.**

If these groups of angry civilians aren’t handle carefully, I think we are very close to the crusade just as it happened centuries ago. Or, it may probably be more drastic than that, because now we have numerous moslems and christians all over the world, and more advanced weapons. The crusade last for more than 300years. The moslems won most of christians cities as the result.

In my humble opinion, the priority-- therefore-- is NOT ONLY how to save the people in syria and irak and middle east, rather how to distance ourselves from religious content of the conflict and prevent deeper and deeper religious hatred everywhere around the world… Otherwise the spirit of ISIS may deceive christian people & childrens too.

I also watched dr John ankerberg interviewing “a prophecy scholar international journalist” whose prophesy “babylon shall be destroyed”. He quotes bible and selling three parts of videos about bible prophecy related to ISIS and also a book from another writer. The package from $49-$100
I think this kind of prophesy is wrong and should not be regarded as the will of God. The will of God is to save the people and prevent greater and longer war.

**If we as christians think that we should do to them-- in a armed-civilian battle-- exactly the way they do to us, **I would say ISIS has won the war. This war is about winning the idea of “justice and righteousness”

For IS, they feel like they are wronged because US troops came and attacked their land for no cause. How do you handle such issue? I guess we need to pray…

Re: the part I bolded: You have several times brought up this issue of “Christians” (a misnomer) will descend to the level of ISIS. You have not answered any of my questions regarding this.

1. What do you fear that the military fighting ISIS will do?
2. What evidence do you have that this might happen?

Any Western forces sent to fight ISIS will be well-disciplined fighters who follow international law or are severely punished for transgressions. For you to claim this over and over with no evidence is insulting.

Moreover, the Western nations can not really be callled Christian at this point, and it is generally no regarded as a Christian vs Moslem situation. Westerners do understand that not all Moslems are interested in this sort of thing, and few of us are practicing Christians, so there is no sense in acting as if we are back in the 12th century just because *some, *radical Moslems are behaving as if they were back in the 8th century.

 

[francisca]

Hi Francisca,
I have been trying to get back to you because your recent longer post had some very good points which clarified your thinking.

However, I am working on a project and so having trouble finding the time to consider and write a good response. In the meantime, I just wanted to respond to one thing, which I am doing below.

Hi
I wish you great success on your project

The idea that something is “unfair” because a large force uses its massive resources against a smaller force is absurd, given the criteria for just war and self defense laid out by St Thomas Aquinas.

The appropriate force to be used against an aggressor is what is needed. Fairness comes in when one who wants to aggress says that would be wrong and refrains from doing it. That’s fair. When an aggressor acts, however, *he puts himself *in harm’s way by his act, and the appropriate amount of force to be used against him is limited by what will stop his aggression, not the amount the aggressor has available to him!

I am no lawyer about this matter, but I do think that international law say the army who come to a foreign land is in offence position, unless they have good reason for being there. I am saying these people didn’t start the war. And it is important to acknowledge this.

Now that they have upper hand of the situation, who become the aggressor? who is in defense postion? The owner of the land is in defense position, that’s according to the international law.

Given that ISIS has rules of engagement which differ from ours, notably in their view of human life, it might be necessary to use a greater force against them to stop their aggression.

.

Since you brought up this topic “just war”… let’s discuss what is just about this war first.

The owner of the land didn’t start the war. Now situation get out of hand because a group of angry people willing to die to get the payback for what they have lost. And you say?
Whose life is more precious than whose? What’s your answer to this question?

 

[francisca]

Re: the part I bolded: You have several times brought up this issue of “Christians” (a misnomer) will descend to the level of ISIS. You have not answered any of my questions regarding this.

1. What do you fear that the military fighting ISIS will do?

My worry is not about the military fighting ISIS. I think you’ve misunderstood me since yourpost #34.
As I explained, my worry was about the use of the word “crusade” in the effort fighting ISIS. I was trying to say “the spirit of the fight” must be maintained away from the crusade, despite ISIS shout “holy war”, and crusade also mean “holy war”.

1. What evidence do you have that this might happen?

The evidence that this war can degenerate to become the crusade (as it happened in 12-14century) is in mypost#44.

Any Western forces sent to fight ISIS will be well-disciplined fighters who follow international law or are severely punished for transgressions. For you to claim this over and over with no evidence is insulting.

Moreover, the Western nations can not really be callled Christian at this point, and it is generally no regarded as a Christian vs Moslem situation. Westerners do understand that not all Moslems are interested in this sort of thing, and few of us are practicing Christians, so there is no sense in acting as if we are back in the 12th century just because *some, *radical Moslems are behaving as if they were back in the 8th century.

When I refered to the word “crusade”, I meant literally “christians vs moslems” war as it happened centuries ago. My worry is this war will degenerate to become like The Crusade.
**
The Crusade lasted 300years because it was no longer military against military only. It was civilians against civilans too**. Since ISIS also use “emotional approach”, people may get very emotional, and follow their hater instead of finding a better way to fight them.

Maybe I should have separated the word “Terrorism” away from “ISIS in Iraq&Syria” first and then analyze it separately between the iraq/syria-politic/war itself from the campaign of “Against Terrorism” which in my opinion more effective with “criminal” approach in order to prevent more people “around the world” want to become terrorist thus join ISIS.

 

[lynnvinc]

Would you agree?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=951063&page=3

cruxnow.com/church/2015/03/13/vatican-backs-military-force-to-stop-isis-genocide/

I was just thinking about that. What if we had treated 9/11 as a crime, a very heinous one at that, rather than an act of war…

We may have still invaded Afghanistan to try and get the masterminds behind it (since the Taliban gov there was not cooperating), but perhaps we would not have gone to war with Iraq. Or maybe we would have had Interpol help us track down the criminals …

And we would have downplayed the event to the chagrin of al Qaeda, by referring to it as a heinous crime by a criminal organization, rather than dignifying it as an act of war, making al Qaeda out to being akin to a legitimate state.

Then we wouldn’t even be worried about ISIS today bec it probably wouldn’t exist.

 

[Latias]

I was just thinking about that. What if we had treated 9/11 as a crime, a very heinous one at that, rather than an act of war…

We may have still invaded Afghanistan to try and get the masterminds behind it (since the Taliban gov there was not cooperating), but perhaps we would not have gone to war with Iraq. Or maybe we would have had Interpol help us track down the criminals …

And we would have downplayed the event to the chagrin of al Qaeda, by referring to it as a heinous crime by a criminal organization, rather than dignifying it as an act of war, making al Qaeda out to being akin to a legitimate state.

Then we wouldn’t even be worried about ISIS today bec it probably wouldn’t exist.

It is about the intentions of US foreign policy, rather than whether 9/11 constituted a “heinous criminal act” instead of an act of war. The US wanted to invade Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda provided a convenient casus belli. The Taliban were hesitant to extradite bin Laden unless they were given convincing evidence that he was behind the attacks, and then the US invaded.

 

[lynnvinc]

It is about the intentions of US foreign policy, rather than whether 9/11 constituted a “heinous criminal act” instead of an act of war. The US wanted to invade Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda provided a convenient casus belli. The Taliban were hesitant to extradite bin Laden unless they were given convincing evidence that he was behind the attacks, and then the US invaded.

That’s interesting.

Not sure why the US wanted to invade Afghanistan (for the opium? or strategic position vis-à-vis Russia?), but I would agree that we are a war-faring nation and “every generation has to go to war” (a line from a poem I wrote years ago about the Viet Nam war). Of course the military-industrial complex has to be fed money and power, but it’s almost as if it’s about making men out of boys or some twisted horrible ideology.

Costa Rica some decades ago decided not to spend on their military, but on their people’s health and welfare, which is why WHO ranks them above the US on healthcare, despite being a poor Central Am nation. Their prez came to our campus and gave a talk. It was really impressive.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think when a group says it’s at war with you, you can take them at their word, and should.

 

[francisca]

It is about the intentions of US foreign policy, rather than whether 9/11 constituted a “heinous criminal act” instead of an act of war.

Isn’t it funny that Osama Bin Laden has never been interogated by the police?

Foreighn policy shouldn’t be allowed to interrupt police investigation, because
all men must abide under the law, and shouldn’t be allowed to interrupt crime investigation.

Besides, military intervention will only install a military pupet which basically another regime…

At least Assad insist on this: that the Local people’s aspiration is the sovereign of the land. And such is the most important matter to be respected by any foregn policy.

The US wanted to invade Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda provided a convenient casus belli. The Taliban were hesitant to extradite bin Laden unless they were given convincing evidence that he was behind the attacks, and then the US invaded.

A country can’t keep a criminal under international law (interpol).
Diplomatic and interpol approach was not used.

 

[francisca]

I think when a group says it’s at war with you, you can take them at their word, and should.

If I were to declare war with the US, and Obama respond to me, I will suddenly become the most important woman in the whole world. Before, I was only a regular housewife doing my own thing…

 

[francisca]

The most scary part of all is not ISIS really.

Rather, a super power country can play outside so many rules to attack and destroy any countries displeasing to it.

That’s scary.

With all the advanced darpa weapons, ISIS is nothing. We can destroy the whole planet if we want to.
The question is whether weapons can teach anyone to believe in freedom? Are we surprised that ISIS is the outcome?

The map of oil and weapon trade is the complicate matters that should not be allowed to take advantage of local politics. That’s just inhuman and scary.

 

[St_Francis]

The most scary part of all is not ISIS really.

Rather, a super power country can play outside so many rules to attack and destroy any countries displeasing to it.

I have to admit, this is true (and yes, I am American). Without a balancing superpower, we can lose our way by just not being forced to think things through.

That’s scary.

With all the advanced darpa weapons, ISIS is nothing. We can destroy the whole planet if we want to.

The thing is that no one wants to destroy the whole world. Even for a power-hungry arch-villian, what would be the point?

The question is whether weapons can teach anyone to believe in freedom? Are we surprised that ISIS is the outcome?

Is it the job if the military to teach people to love freedom? (Which I am not sure is a good goal, but is another discussion!). I woukd say that various groups have their functions: police are to protect those within a nation; military to protect from enemies outside the nation, and it is the job of missionaries to bring the peace of Christ to others.

In what wat could we possibly teach anything to people who are actively engaged in the level of cruelty ISIS is engaged in?

The map of oil and weapon trade is the complicate matters that should not be allowed to take advantage of local politics. That’s just inhuman and scary.

Yes, I think that developing alternate sources of energy would be good, but environmentalists have been fighting against that for decades.

 

[esieffe]

If a country / nation state / large group of organized people harm citizens of another country in a sponsored or organized attack, it is in my estimation an act of war. The lines may be muddy at points I agree, but they are none the less there. :twocents:

 

[lynnvinc]

I guess it’s how we define things. I learned that only state-level societies can engage in war. For other levels, it’s referred to as feuding. (and for some band level societies it is not even referred to as crime, since they don’t have “law.”)

As barbaric as the “barbarians” (a term for a type of non-state level society used up thru the 19th c, with “savage” or “of the forest” used for least complex societies) were, their crimes, attacks, and feuding were not nearly as harmful in terms of deaths and property destruction as state-level warfare.

Which brings up the point – who are the real “barbarians” and “savages”?

 

[St_Francis]

I guess it’s how we define things. I learned that only state-level societies can engage in war. For other levels, it’s referred to as feuding. (and for some band level societies it is not even referred to as crime, since they don’t have “law.”)

As barbaric as the “barbarians” (a term for a type of non-state level society used up thru the 19th c, with “savage” or “of the forest” used for least complex societies) were, their crimes, attacks, and feuding were not nearly as harmful in terms of deaths and property destruction as state-level warfare.

Which brings up the point – who are the real “barbarians” and “savages”?

The problem is that this definition worked in a situation in which nations were policing their own, but now we are dealing with a situation in which a “feud” is fought against all with a view to amassing territory by a group of tens or thousands. The word barbarian does still apply, tho.

Now, in just war theory, one if the requirements is that competent authorities declare the war. Apparently under Moslem thought, the ideas are different: a fatwah from a cleric is all that is needed. And “regaining territory lost to” non-Moslems is sufficient cause. And no care need be taken of civilians; to the contrary, they are legitimate target.

So what do we do when dealing with people with a completely different set of rules? It’s all well and good to have definitions, but when others have different definitions, and are killing people, what are we to do?

 

[lynnvinc]

The problem is that this definition worked in a situation in which nations were policing their own, but now we are dealing with a situation in which a “feud” is fought against all with a view to amassing territory by a group of tens or thousands. The word barbarian does still apply, tho.

Now, in just war theory, one if the requirements is that competent authorities declare the war. Apparently under Moslem thought, the ideas are different: a fatwah from a cleric is all that is needed. And “regaining territory lost to” non-Moslems is sufficient cause. And no care need be taken of civilians; to the contrary, they are legitimate target.

So what do we do when dealing with people with a completely different set of rules? It’s all well and good to have definitions, but when others have different definitions, and are killing people, what are we to do?

If it weren’t for the fact that we’ve been in a couple of wars (the one in Iraq being unnecessary and perhaps partly causal of the rise of ISIS) and are exceedingly war-weary and that ISIS has a way of hiding among civilians, we could probably along with many other nations of the world go to war with ISIS…which is claiming to be a state, a wannabe state.

My posts were mainly with 9/11 and al Qaeda in mind.