911/ - A Criminal Act or an Act of War?

[Procrustes Stretched]

On September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization launched a hugely successful, military precision style attack on American soil. Were the events collectively known as 911,..a criminal act or an act of war?

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?

---

 

[Lycurgus]

Pre 9/11 this was pretty easy to answer. Not that terrorism was not a problem, it was, but, it did not strike deep into our personal lives, as it has in other countries.

For me it is a opinion which comes from my heart and soul. It is war, plain and simple and one we have to win, both in battle, politically and socially.

Good question.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Pre 9/11 this was pretty easy to answer. Not that terrorism was not a problem, it was, but, it did not strike deep into our personal lives, as it has in other countries.

For me it is a opinion which comes from my heart and soul. It is war, plain and simple and one we have to win, both in battle, politically and socially.

Good question.

So for you the world (perspective wise) changed on 911?

Do you think 911 really struck deep into the personal lives of all Americans; the lives of most; or the lives of more than a few Americans who are not related to or somehow acquainted with the victims of 911...(and no disrespect intended, by victims I do NOT include the families as for the purposes here they are already defined)?


You are younger than I. I remember the terrorism of the latter part of the 20th century. Palestinian terrorists, Germans terrorists, Japanese terrorists, Irish terrorists, Greek terrorists, Italian terrorists and more all hell bent of striking at Americans and American interests. I know the IRA looks clean from afar, but they were closer to the terrorists and their acts upon Americans and American interests than Saddam was to Aal qeada...far closer.

I mention the above because of a few personal things I will not bore people with....yet.

I believe in defeating the 911 terrorists and their allies and sympathizers in all the ways you've listed above, but I for one refuse to give them all the status of warrior/fighter. Criminals all. A few real fighters on a few urban battle grounds, but...

To me we are at war with terrorism only in an abstract sense. Sure there are a few places we've actually battled them, but those are teh exceptions that prove the rule.

re: reasonable and honest people can and do disagree on this.

d.

 

[elvis]

From a technical standpoint, criminal act. Acts of war are carried out by states.

 

[Red Dawn]

On September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization launched a hugely successful, military precision style attack on American soil. Were the events collectively known as 911,..a criminal act or an act of war?

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?

---

I don't think anyone outside the United States uses the term "War on Terror" anymore. Even the brits are giving it up.

We should never have elevated Bin Ladin to the status of feared enemy warrior. That only enhanced his stature, and prestige among a certain small element of the muslim world.

We should have always called him a criminal thug who committed an act of serial murder.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

From a technical standpoint, criminal act. Acts of war are carried out by states.

And therein lies the rub. We could not go to war against al qeada after chasing their asses out of protection by the Taliban in Afghanistan now could we?

I tried explaining this ages ago but the www/net is full of people with blinders on who only want to screech and make shit float. serious discussion about why we went in and why we stayed is almost totally absent on forums and message boards. what often passes for serious discussion is usually conspiracy hooey.

Think about it and think about the genius behind*how we entered Iraq and stayed there. Going in was one thing. I remember wondering why we stayed.

Then there was all that jibber jabber (which I partook of) that said we went in without plans to occupy or withdraw. then there is the nonsense about the defense department papers/war college papers. deflection and deceit worthy of my respect.

so we get to fund an undeclared war, in an unconventional way, against a foe who is unconventional. we have to stay in Afghanistan if we want to fund things. Serious international terrorism moves very slowly when it's purpose is to be effective and deadly on a large scale. No public could keep their attention on the ball for as long as it takes without a constant reminder.

you get the drift?

forget the memos, and the papers at the war college, links to organizations and individuals, focus on the money. We (the admin and others) needed ways and money to fund a war they have no power to declare.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't think anyone outside the United States uses the term "War on Terror" anymore. Even the brits are giving it up.

We should never have elevated Bin Ladin to the status of feared enemy warrior. That only enhanced his stature, and prestige among a certain small element of the muslim world.

We should have always called him a criminal thug who committed an act of serial murder.

I've always agreed with this sentiment, always.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Terrorists acts by Stateless people are not acts of War.

 

[Lycurgus]

So for you the world (perspective wise) changed on 911?

Do you think 911 really struck deep into the personal lives of all Americans; the lives of most; or the lives of more than a few Americans who are not related to or somehow acquainted with the victims of 911...(and no disrespect intended, by victims I do NOT include the families as for the purposes here they are already defined)?


You are younger than I. I remember the terrorism of the latter part of the 20th century. Palestinian terrorists, Germans terrorists, Japanese terrorists, Irish terrorists, Greek terrorists, Italian terrorists and more all hell bent of striking at Americans and American interests. I know the IRA looks clean from afar, but they were closer to the terrorists and their acts upon Americans and American interests than Saddam was to Aal qeada...far closer.

I mention the above because of a few personal things I will not bore people with....yet.

I believe in defeating the 911 terrorists and their allies and sympathizers in all the ways you've listed above, but I for one refuse to give them all the status of warrior/fighter. Criminals all. A few real fighters on a few urban battle grounds, but...

To me we are at war with terrorism only in an abstract sense. Sure there are a few places we've actually battled them, but those are teh exceptions that prove the rule.

re: reasonable and honest people can and do disagree on this.

d.

I can only speak for myself and in doing so I understand terror abroad, as most of my family still lives abroad and I own property abroad, very close to the Middle East.

9/11 very much changed it for me because it brought what I once had to travel to experience, battle and think about, right to my door step. It made it more than a reality, but, a living and breathing reality, if that makes sense.

As for being at war, I agree, in my heart and soul the war is with the concept and act of terrorism, no matter where it lives or who it strikes. I felt that way before, but, clearly not as passionately but that is humane, until our lives are directly disrupted in some way, though we understand things, maybe even have experienced them, if we are not living with them, they simply are not as vital as other things in our life.

My children's Godfather was ticketed to be on the PanAm flight which went down over Scotland, but, even that was not as real as 9/11 made it for me. We had family on the ship in the Med years ago where the wheelchair bound American was killed. I could go on.

The point is, for me, today it is more than a reality I understand, it is a threat to my family directly. Selfish? Maybe to some, but, not to me, simply more natural and human.

Our nation cannot defeat terrorism, but, the world can. It will always be there to some degree, but, we can reduce it's threat greatly. Further, I will not change my daily life because of it. I can live being prepared and alert, but, I will not live in fear and I will not let my family live that way. We didn't live that way when the Germans came storming in or when the Mongols tried to wipe out our entire family.

As for a nation, I would hope that we take this seriously, I would hope that 9/11 effected each American and still does, just as Pearl Harbor did for my parents and so on. But I'm a realist and understand that many will forget the importance and message that 9/11 sent. They may not forget 9/11, they may always morn for the people, but, as life gets back to normal, as life stays busy and as other issues come along, people change their priorities. So, I can only speak for myself, I don't. 9/11 made it a priority which will not change until I depart this world.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Terrorists acts by Stateless people are not acts of War.

If a terrorist organization cannot declare war on a state ...can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

and

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If a terrorist organization cannot declare war on a state ...can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

and

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?

We ARE in a war. That some of you do not want to admit it does not change the fact we are in a war. Specifically we went to war with 2 Countries. And personally I think there are several more that should be added to the list.

 

[Toro]

Act of war.

9/11 was a strike to draw us into a war. It was a foreign act of war meant to strike at the foundation of the nation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I can only speak for myself and in doing so I understand terror abroad, as most of my family still lives abroad and I own property abroad, very close to the Middle East.

9/11 very much changed it for me because it brought what I once had to travel to experience, battle and think about, right to my door step. It made it more than a reality, but, a living and breathing reality, if that makes sense.

As for being at war, I agree, in my heart and soul the war is with the concept and act of terrorism, no matter where it lives or who it strikes. I felt that way before, but, clearly not as passionately but that is humane, until our lives are directly disrupted in some way, though we understand things, maybe even have experienced them, if we are not living with them, they simply are not as vital as other things in our life.

My children's Godfather was ticketed to be on the PanAm flight which went down over Scotland, but, even that was not as real as 9/11 made it for me.

I understand.

We had family on the ship in the Med years ago where the wheelchair bound American was killed. I could go on

I remember that well. When I lived in NYC, I remember being told so and so wer the daughter(?) niece(?) wife(?) of Leon Klinghoffer.

The point is, for me, today it is more than a reality I understand, it is a threat to my family directly. Selfish? Maybe to some, but, not to me, simply more natural and human.

I understand.

Our nation cannot defeat terrorism, but, the world can. It will always be there to some degree, but, we can reduce it's threat greatly. Further, I will not change my daily life because of it. I can live being prepared and alert, but, I will not live in fear and I will not let my family live that way. We didn't live that way when the Germans came storming in or when the Mongols tried to wipe out our entire family.

Do you think the terrorism we know today could fizzle out...age, max out?

Is it possible to comprehend that the choices we make in dealing with the fight can be immediately successful, yet have dire consequences down the line...think Afghanistan/Mujahideen. It's not all black and white for me. I think since terrorist organizations since the late sixties started thinking globally teh fight against them will be global in nature, but a war in reality and not just in an abstract concept?

As for a nation, I would hope that we take this seriously, I would hope that 9/11 effected each American and still does, just as Pearl Harbor did for my parents and so on. But I'm a realist and understand that many will forget the importance and message that 9/11 sent. They may not forget 9/11, they may always morn for the people, but, as life gets back to normal, as life stays busy and as other issues come along, people change their priorities. So, I can only speak for myself, I don't. 9/11 made it a priority which will not change until I depart this world.

People always take terrorism seriously when it affects them personally. I am sure 911 affected most every American, but not in the ways we either of us can imagine. The hearts and 'souls' of people are not so easily read.

I think the terrorists of today are not worse, and no more dedicated to their agenda than those I grew up experiencing, but the weapons are more deadly. That is a lousy reason to go from a war footing to a fight against thugs and international criminals with militias and bands of armed hoodlums.

Remember when we went into Afghanistan we fought an Army run by the Taliban. al qeada were large, but they were not the Taliban.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We ARE in a war. That some of you do not want to admit it does not change the fact we are in a war. Specifically we went to war with 2 Countries. And personally I think there are several more that should be added to the list.

I perfectly understand what you are saying and where you are coming from but I would appreciate you not taking the stand they I am part of any 'some of you' for a few reasons which may or may not reveal themselves to you or appear to you.

I supported going into two countries militarily. I was for going back into Iraq pre-911. We had a war resolutions act passed by the Congress of the USA after 911, which I also supported wholeheartedly.

re: In 1991 did we go to war? It was on the basis of the Kuwait military action the Gulf War document signings that I favored going back in militarily. I wouldn't know about picking the time we did or staying which never made sense to me until later.

Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War.

That resolution authorized the president to "use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council's resolutions passed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait."

The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war.

In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all.

It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to "restore international peace and security in that area," so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.

Did we declare was on Afghanistan or Iraq?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Act of war.

9/11 was a strike to draw us into a war. It was a foreign act of war meant to strike at the foundation of the nation.

Sure if you want to use war in an abstract way as in war on drugs, war on poverty...and I know we all use the term "war in "Iraq" but does calling something 'war' mean anything?

For purposes here you need to start at the top of the thread. First post:

On September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization launched a hugely successful, military precision style attack on American soil. Were the events collectively known as 911,..a criminal act or an act of war?

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?

---

 

[garyd]

Yet for all practical purposes as Mullah Omar's favorite Holy man and relative by Marriage bin Laden was as much a ruler of Afghanistan as any one else. This is why this is very much more complicated than your average leftist believes.

Not to menmtion which I don't much care what people who would rather have the occassional bomb blow up in their own country rather than try to solve the actual problem think.

9/11 changed nothing. It merely revealed the world that every one not in the US or Western Europe has been having to deal with for the last 1400 years.

 

[Toro]

Sure if you want to use war in an abstract way as in war on drugs, war on poverty...and I know we all use the term "war in "Iraq" but does calling something 'war' mean anything?

An act of war is an act of deliberate aggression by a foreign power on another nation's homeland. That the act was not perpetrated by a foreign government is not necessarily relevant. The fact that others have opted to debase the meaning of "war" does not change this.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yet for all practical purposes as Mullah Omar's favorite Holy man and relative by Marriage bin Laden was as much a ruler of Afghanistan as any one else. This is why this is very much more complicated than your average leftist believes.

Not to menmtion which I don't much care what people who would rather have the occassional bomb blow up in their own rather than try to solve the actual problem think.

9/11 changed nothing. It merely revealed the world that every not in the US or Western Europe has been having to deal with for the last 1400 years.

I'm trying to be respectful here.
I'm having a difficult time understanding you in this post.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

An act of war is an act of deliberate aggression by a foreign power on another nation's homeland. That the act was not perpetrated by a foreign government is not necessarily relevant. The fact that others have opted to debase the meaning of "war" does not change this.

Not relevant? To what, the purposes of this discussion or reality? The realities on the ground in Afghanistan look like war and in Iraq the realities on the ground look like something close to war, but a police action can look like war too.

It appears you are having a one sided argument with yourself here.


one more time...

On September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization launched a hugely successful, military precision style attack on American soil. Were the events collectively known as 911,..a criminal act or an act of war?

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?

 

[Toro]

Not relevant? To what, the purposes of this discussion or reality? The realities on the ground in Afghanistan look like war and in Iraq the realities on the ground look like something close to war, but a police action can look like war too.

You asked

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

The answer is "yes." An act of war does not preclude all entities other than states. War is often waged by mercenary or proxy armies not affiliated with states. If you assume that only states can act in a state of war, then there is no such thing as a civil war because usually in a civil war, at least one side does not have the powers of the apparatus of the state. The recent wars in sub-Saharan Africa for example, which have claimed millions of lives, are almost never formal wars between states, even though the staging and battlegrounds are often trans-national.