I think Terrorism is Criminal Act and not War

[St_Francis]

**continued from above **

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.

Well, I have no clue why this administration has been doing many of the things it has done in the ME, but it is a sharp departure from past policies.

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!).

Interpol also faces some of the same difficulties militaries do in gaining access to certain nations. It’s not like tv.

Moreover, in terms of searching for terrorists, all non-terrorists suffer from the same difficulty of finding them. They hide; people don’t say where they are; they are very mobile.

I can see that having a network to find terrorists would be valuable, and to some extent we have this; unfortunately, we rather stupidly allowed our real spies to retire out and replaced them with electronic surveillance and the like. Too much on the technological spying and too little with real human spies.

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”. **

I agree that this sort of method might have been usable when going after Al Qaeida, and in fact, we often did so. We would have used this method after 9/11 except that the Taliban would not let us in.

However, no way would it be possible to use police tactics against a para-military organization of thousands of people. Think about this–imagine the largest crowd you have seen on a movie or tv, and how would police officers arrest them?

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!

Unfortunately, there are no ethics in a large part of the international arms business. They just don’t care. We have already been going after arms dealers, but again, it’s very difficult to find them, and it’s very difficult to gather sufficient evidence against them. This is the tactic we take against them, but it is simply very difficult.

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…

Now that I understand what you are saying better, I think that you have some good ideas; the problem is implementing them. When we are unable to proceed in a police way, the group grows and then we have no recourse but the military.

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!

I sadly believe that Islamic extremist terrorism will grow no matter what we do. They will be defeated only when they believe that we are strong enough to contain them, and then they will only be resting until they can strike again. This is what their history shows they do. From the time of Mohammed they have attacked because they believe they have a mandate from God to take over the world and impose Islam on everyone.

 

[Latias]

Well, if your point is that Soviets offered a free society, then your idea of freedom is very different than the one that I hold.
What you essentially asked was why were those fighting against the West not called freedom fighters, if those fighting against Soviets were.

And that is what I have already answered. The Soviet system does not constitute freedom in any meaningful sense, and Reagan and Jphn Paul II did well by bringing it down.

Reagan essentially called a bunch of jihadi reactionaries and those death squads that massacre civilians “freedom-fighters”. I guess we can have idea what constitutes “freedom”.

I said that the PDPA along with Soviets instituted progressive reforms, and the reactionary Islamists were against that. Does anyone deny that the Afghani PDPA were progressive, especially towards women?

We wouldn’t be there if 1. Al Quaeda hadn’t attacked us, and 2. the Taliban had done something about AQ or allowed us to do so.

What does this have to do with Al Qaeda? If the Taliban were terrorists for harboring Al Qaeda, I guess the Weather Underground weren’t terrorists, since the US also had a terrorist training camp operated by government called the “School of the Americas” then. The Taliban demanded evidence that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were involved in the attack, but their requests were ignored by the US.

Therefore, the Taliban are not terrorists since they are just insurgents fighting against a foreign occupation regardless of the motivation of the occupation.

 

[St_Francis]

Reagan essentially called a bunch of jihadi reactionaries and those death squads that massacre civilians “freedom-fighters”. I guess we can have idea what constitutes “freedom”.

Basically, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s rebel or whatever. These are all words which have no legal definition, so they are in fact just ordinary words.

I don’t know that the mujehadeen were massacring civilians at that time.

And there can also be freedom from an invading force. The term freedom is also one not properly defined.

I said that the PDPA along with Soviets instituted progressive reforms, and the reactionary Islamists were against that. Does anyone deny that the Afghani PDPA were progressive, especially towards women?

The PDPA were headed by a Marxist. Communism is *not *freedom: it is as unfree as life under traditional Afghan rule. It is only a different type of captivity.

What does this have to do with Al Qaeda? If the Taliban were terrorists for harboring Al Qaeda,

Al Qaeda committed an act which was both a terrorist act and an act of war. As the nation which had been attacked (more than once at that point) and under threat of more attacks, the US, which is obliged to protect its citizens, wanted to defend itself.

When asked, the Taliban refused to cooperate. When the government of a nation habors those who commit an act of war against another nation, they in effect make themselves collaborators in the act.

This we went to war against Afghanistan, not because we deemed them terrorists but because we deemed them complicit in the act by their refusal to cooperate.

I guess the Weather Underground weren’t terrorists,

???

since the US also had a terrorist training camp operated by government called the “School of the Americas” then.

This was not a terrorist training camp–this was a military teaining school specializing in training the military of other nations to deal with insurgents and the like.

The Taliban demanded evidence that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were involved in the attack, but their requests were ignored by the US.

No, the intelligence reports were deemed insufficient by the Taliban, which had previously refused to extradite OBL for the 1998 embassy bombings.

Therefore, the Taliban are not terrorists since they are just insurgents fighting against a foreign occupation regardless of the motivation of the occupation.

I did not say the Taliban were terrorists.

 

[Latias]

Basically, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s rebel or whatever. These are all words which have no legal definition, so they are in fact just ordinary words.

I don’t know that the mujehadeen were massacring civilians at that time.

And there can also be freedom from an invading force. The term freedom is also one not properly defined.

The PDPA were headed by a Marxist. Communism is *not *freedom: it is as unfree as life under traditional Afghan rule. It is only a different type of captivity.

One could also say that capitalism isn’t freedom either. It is best to abandon the word “freedom” as such words have no substantive meaning and are merely propaganda integral to promoting the ostensible superiority of American institutions and values and justifying its influence throughout the world.

Yes, the Taliban certainly wanted freedom from the coalition occupation.

This we went to war against Afghanistan, not because we deemed them terrorists but because we deemed them complicit in the act by their refusal to cooperate.

That was the pretext for going to war in Afghanistan; the reason for going to war in Afghanistan which has more to do with the control of key resources and geopolitics.

This was not a terrorist training camp–this was a military teaining school specializing in training the military of other nations to deal with insurgents and the like.

Yeah, it was only a counterinsurgency school that did not teach its students torture methods, and its students participated in no massacres of civilians.

 

[St_Francis]

One could also say that capitalism isn’t freedom either. It is best to abandon the word “freedom” as such words have no substantive meaning and are merely propaganda integral to promoting the ostensible superiority of American institutions and values and justifying its influence throughout the world.

I think that as Catholics we can come to a good definition of the word freedom, one which is backed up by a consistent and moral morality. I do not think that those outside the Faith can do so.

Yes, the Taliban certainly wanted freedom from the coalition occupation.

Again ???

That was the pretext for going to war in Afghanistan; the reason for going to war in Afghanistan which has more to do with the control of key resources and geopolitics.

And what key resources or geopolitics would we have gained control of had we accomplished what we set out to do? Considering that we did not set out to gain permanent control of Afghanistan or its resources (which seem to be mostly opium…).

Yeah, it was only a counterinsurgency school that did not teach its students torture methods, and its students participated in no massacres of civilians.

Having looked quickly myself, it does seem that there is good evidence of this.

I do hate to think of our military men being involved in doing something so wrong.

 

[francisca]

Well, first of all, it is very difficult for me to comment on something with such a vague description (I think it was an RT documentary…). Secondly, I don’t understand your point here.

ETA: Also, thirdly, Americans tend not to trust Russian media as we recall that the KGB was a master of propaganda.

In fact, when the Soviets were still around, I used to regularly read some of their publications for the US. Very propagandistic.

Putin was a member of the KGB–I am sure he is familiar with their techniques.

How about the fact that the Judge who sentenced Saddam was beheaded by ISIS last year?
His name was Raouf Abdul Rahman, he was murdered by ISIS june 2014.

There is also a german magazine Der Spiegel who got ISIS organization chart from its source mentioning names from former Saddam’s military men.

Even if this one is not so convincing, I still find it very logical that ISIS men get some training from people who know how to use tanks and heavy weapons and know the territory very well.

If the above is true then ISIS is the continuation of Iraq War. I don’t know if we can still call them terrorist. if they’re actually lead by former Saddam’s people, they’re US legitimate enemy who retaliate against US invasion.

Der Spiegel also wrote that the document shows that ISIS is more political than ideological movement.

 

[St_Francis]

How about the fact that the Judge who sentenced Saddam was beheaded by ISIS last year?
His name was Raouf Abdul Rahman, he was murdered by ISIS june 2014.

There is also a german magazine Der Spiegel who got ISIS organization chart from its source mentioning names from former Saddam’s military men.

Even if this one is not so convincing, I still find it very logical that ISIS men get some training from people who know how to use tanks and heavy weapons and know the territory very well.

If the above is true then ISIS is the continuation of Iraq War. I don’t know if we can still call them terrorist. if they’re actually lead by former Saddam’s people, they’re US legitimate enemy who retaliate against US invasion.

Der Spiegel also wrote that the document shows that ISIS is more political than ideological movement.

dear Spiegel also wrote that the set-up was very similar to that of the Stasi, the East German Communist secret police, so maybe this is all just a continuation of the Cold War?

 

[francisca]

dear Spiegel also wrote that the set-up was very similar to that of the Stasi, the East German Communist secret police, so maybe this is all just a continuation of the Cold War?

I am talking about “direct” continuation. It’s not about similarity.
They’re angry Iraqi (because of the invasion) who most probably led by some of the former Saddam people.

Do you still remember a journalist threw to W. Bush both of his “size 7 shoes” during press conference?
That insident was an indication how angry some Iraqi has been to what W. Bush has done to their country.

 

[St_Francis]

I am talking about “direct” continuation. It’s not about similarity.
They’re angry Iraqi (because of the invasion) who most probably led by some of the former Saddam people.

Do you still remember a journalist threw to W. Bush both of his “size 7 shoes” during press conference?
That insident was an indication how angry some Iraqi has been to what W. Bush has done to their country.

You have a newspaper article saying a man who was formerly a member of SH’s administration set up a vast spy and enforcement which including marrying into prominent families in under two years and this proves that the entirety of ISIS is just Iraqis upset about the war.

I don’t think so…

 

[francisca]

You have a newspaper article saying a man who was formerly a member of SH’s administration set up a vast spy and enforcement which including marrying into prominent families in under two years and this proves that the entirety of ISIS is just Iraqis upset about the war.

I don’t think so…

I also watched The Trial of Saddam Hussein (BBC documentary). He was tried in Iraq and was shown live in national television. First few days, the defense team insist that the trial was not a fair trial because it was done during US invasion and two of the defence lawyers were killed. During trial before cross examination the rest of the defense team walked out. They were then replaced by other defense team. During this few months period, Saddam use this time to speak against the invasion. The nation was divided between those who want him sentenced to death and those who yell on the street “long live saddam!”.

US foreign policy has done this to Iraq. This is the fact.

From “911 to Iraq War”: is this a good flow of thinking? Is there anything wrong somewhere?

My argument: something is wrong because crime law was completely skipped in 911.

And then later, a law to detained civilians without trial also “a law against crime law”. Judicial process is skipped in such a law

and it’s against human right too

 

[Darryl_Revok]

All war is terrorism, and all terrorism is war.

 

[francisca]

All war is terrorism, and all terrorism is war.

I agree in the case of ISIS, it is a war that also use terrorism methods too.

 

[francisca]

This morning I walked my dog, and the sense of morning peace came to me, I thanked the Lord for it. I couldn’t imagine if ever there were any war-- for any reason to let go such peace.

Eventhough ISIS may use the most horrible intepretation of Islam to retaliate, I still can understand their anger.

I have lived in a huge peaceful moslem country in Asia (where majority was/ is Sunni) before. I had moslem schoolmates, some moslem teachers, friends. I also have read the entire book of the quran. I do have “opinion” about it (the quran), but I also know that the quran CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY change a human being into a monster, just as much as a BIBLE can’t automatically change a human being into A SAINT.

I do think that the quran can give influence to a person, just as much as a bible can give influence to a person. Besides, without the holy spirit, not much can happen to a person. Thus during my time when I was among them, I can see that I share my HUMANITY with them, despite different point of view about many things. Despite the “horrible fears” inside the quran, the moslems are capable of living in peace and have their SENSE of humanity like NORMAL people.

The fact that there are sectarianism among them, none should use such situation for political use and moreover give them guns to fight each other. This is the first mistake. Second mistake is to provoke them with social injustice, prejudice, unjust treatments. Anyone can be angry if being provoke, moreover if systematically. This creates religious extremists and terrorists.

Irak War, as righteous as it may appeared, was/is THE worst provocation humanity can design for our own fellowmen. If I were an Iraqi, I would be as angry, eventhough I may not behead people’s head. Actually, I do not know how I would behave, considering my enemy is a SUPERPOWER.

A superpower country can potentially kill (or already killed, and still killing) more people than ISIS. And I have seen the evidence of it now and probably in the future if nothing change.

I find religious attitude is useless if it departs from the love of God for all people (a sense of HUMANITY shared with others). Moslem Terrorists has fallen into this mistake, and so-- even MORE than them-- those who started the war.

 

[Faithdancer]

I could think of only one word-- Isis. These are diabolical criminals, no better than Manson or Gacy. They are not following any conventions of war, but are following their master, Satan. They deserve to be captured, tried, and quickly executed as mass murderers, imho.

 

[Darryl1958]

Before the ISIS leadership can be tried as war criminals, (in International Courts according to international law) they must be defeated militarily.

The ME is schizophrenic on the issue. Turkey and Saudi and the Sunni states give to ISIS in the dark what they take away in the light. Saudi Arabia especially is schizophrenic. It is in their interests to fight terrorists like ISIS, while supporting ISIS military victories against the Shia domination that will come with Iranian domination of ISIS controlled lands. The Islamist terrorists are also an existential threat to the Saudi royalty though, and the Wahhabi religious police and the royals co-exist under an uneasy truce.

It was a mistake for American leadership to pretend that the war was against terrorism, which is a method. The actual war is against an ideology becoming dominant in the ME, and elsewhere.
That ideology is Islamism, and it comes in both Sunni and Shia forms.
Both forms are the ideology that defines what we, as a people, are been called to fight.

The ideology that we, as a people, are fighting for is Western liberalism.
Those who do not identify with western liberalism are not our people. They are outsiders. in this war.

The Islamist movement is global, and is not interested in coexistence with a liberal West.
Sometimes criminal procedures will be needed to thwart the Islamists in their goals. Other times it will take military action.
And military actions and the consequences that flow from military responses, need to be responded to through military procedures. It would be ludicrous therefore to treat Guatanomo inmates as criminals, since they were captured through the procedures of war. Likewise, American citizens on American soil engaging in terrorist activities are not to be bombed, but tried in American courts.
That would only change when the terrorists in America escalate their actions to the point of a civil war.

 

[francisca]

Before the ISIS leadership can be tried as war criminals, (in International Courts according to international law) they must be defeated militarily.

True. In all war, you gotta defeat your enemy.
Nevertheless, your troops aren’t on the soil anymore.
There is option to continue the Iraq war, or see it as their own civil war.
In any case, you just have no choice but to respect local people’s aspiration anyway.

Sectarianism between sunni and shia has been there even before Saddam Hussein. Saddam had to handle them too. US foreign policy used this excuse to topple him.

In the end, peace justice democracy and freedom can’t be forced on by other nations to a soil that doesn’t belong to them! Unless you still believe in “Imperialism concept”… which also against “democratic/ freedom”…

The ME is schizophrenic on the issue.

Isn’t it understandable? Iraq War has open a can of worms for everybody. A mistake on US side!

Turkey and Saudi and the Sunni states give to ISIS in the dark what they take away in the light.

I’m glad you follow this development. There’s also Hammas vs Israel.
The above is an evidence that war will-- in the end-- degenerate to economical&power calculation for everybody’s own interest. This war may use “ideology” to motivate people, but in the end no war is purely ideology nowadays.

There are oil wells in kirkuk and alomar near turkey border. This oil is flown to turkey via ceyhan pipes. From turkey this oil goes via tanker to askelon in Israel then sent to europe. The oil flow shows the flow of money, it also shows good indication the flow of weapons. And because this is a lot of money, it is very hard to say no to it. After all, all consumers always want cheap oil.

So you see, Iraq war is not about “Saddam was a bad dictator”, it was about oil since the beginning until now. Everyone is conflicting their own ideology, who care about idelogy? It’s all about gaining resources to win more power and more resources.

Saudi Arabia especially is schizophrenic. It is in their interests to fight terrorists like ISIS, while supporting ISIS military victories against the Shia domination that will come with Iranian domination of ISIS controlled lands. The Islamist terrorists are also an existential threat to the Saudi royalty though, and the Wahhabi religious police and the royals co-exist under an uneasy truce.

Iran deal is good. It provides diplomatic ways to handle situations. The fact that Iran has nuclear can’t be ruled out simply because there’s no deal. Kerry and Obama is way way wiser than GWBush. This will enforce diplomatic talk provided US/any parties wouldn’t skip rules like GWBush did.

It was a mistake for American leadership to pretend that the war was against terrorism, which is a method. The actual war is against an ideology becoming dominant in the ME, and elsewhere.
That ideology is Islamism, and it comes in both Sunni and Shia forms.
Both forms are the ideology that defines what we, as a people, are been called to fight.

US foreign policy in Middle East has never been about ideology.
The local people civil war is about ideology, but often be used for politic by others.

The ideology that we, as a people, are fighting for is Western liberalism.
Those who do not identify with western liberalism are not our people. They are outsiders. in this war.

This war is not about being Christian/ Moslem neither Dictatorship/ Democratic/ Liberalism.
How do you enforce freedom/ democracy using weapons? In the end “liberalism” is euphoria of arm power

The Islamist movement is global, and is not interested in coexistence with a liberal West.
Sometimes criminal procedures will be needed to thwart the Islamists in their goals. Other times it will take military action.

If it is about ideology, then use evangelization, education, debate, speech, exchange of thoughts, writings, peaceful gathering of people, diplomatic talk, freedom of speech channels.

Prejudice toward one religion is the one create religious extremists. No body wants to be marginalize. In your own soil you gotta establish justice for all, freedom of religion for all, defend minority rights, defend everybody’s human right.

If the above not done in your own soil, then what’s “West Liberal” really means?

And military actions and the consequences that flow from military responses, need to be responded to through military procedures. It would be ludicrous therefore to treat Guatanomo inmates as criminals, since they were captured through the procedures of war.

Many of the Guantanamo detainees were captured wrongly. Many of them has nothing to do with the war.

Likewise, American citizens on American soil engaging in terrorist activities are not to be bombed, but tried in American courts.
That would only change when the terrorists in America escalate their actions to the point of a civil war.

You should pray that there should never be any religious war in your own soil. No war is worthed compared to living in peace and harmony with everybody.