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

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think it is a criminal act of war. Because it would be considered a war crime no matter what, people who deliberately kill civilians are criminals no matter what organization they belong too.

Although with the organization of Al Quada not being part of one Nation only, even organizations can wage war (like the CIA or other intelligence agencies who can do it secretly for example).

Technically the CIA or other Intel agencies cannot wage war. That is why spys are NOT covered by the Geneva Conventions.


Individuals and organizations that are not states do not have the same protections. methinks you are mistaking how we were using the term 'war'.

Well that still is very questionable, an organization can be supported very much by another country and that could be considered as an act of war. Isn't that why NATO, the US are at war vs Afghanistan (Taliban regime) since 9/11?

And spies are technically never at war because the government that uses the spies normally would not recognize them. But in reality they can fund a war (the CIA in Afghanistan vs Soviets), fight in a war (the CIA in Tibet vs China & maybe also in the war Georgia vs Russian Federation) or just train people who are in that war.

We all agree (the sane ones) that nations who harbor a threat are themselves at risk of being viewed as an impending threat. NATO can declare war? Or do individual nations need to declare war and sign on to a NATO led coalition?

Spies do not fund wars, countries they belong to do. Nations do not go to war with a declaration of war against spies or intel agencies do they? Proxie wars waged by the major powers/super powers have historically been (if memory serves me well) fought without declarations of war. Nations have avoided declaring war by funding, arming and training with logistic support and more, sides in civil wars, ethnic conflicts etc,....but war as we were speaking about it here is a legal and technical issue with rules of behavior and more.

Terrorists use that against us, but is that any reason to become like them to beat them at their own game? Can we not defeat them without losing our way as the Banana Republics in Central and South America have done (with our assistance)?


"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" is another of those phrases that people often miss the boat on in understanding...just like "Justice is blind"

those two statements say far more than what at first meets the mind. deep and profound are they.

I have faith we will beat the shitheads, but my faith in us coming out with our honor and integrity intact becomes shaky depending on who is in power.

I never did do fear and loathing very well. It is why I could never become a wingnut or a moonbat.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So are you saying that Saudi Arabia wants Muslim extremism to flourish?

Yes. Not so much the Saudi princes but the religious leaders, who basically control the princes anyway.

Do they really control the Princes?

I think I fully understand where you are coming from and where you are going with this. I will most likely agree with you on many of the broader points you can raise about the nomadic Arabs, who have become a state with all the baggage they bring to the table---their madrasah, and religious-cultural institutions, and their religious-tribal issues, it just so happens I will inevitably disagree with you on the particulars. Nuance is where I live on this (very few things are black and white---I know some are. this just ain't one of them for me).

Nuance here can change the picture to such an extent that it becomes unrecognizable to anyone who dares take a deeper look into it all. Just ask an Israeli who isn't caught up in the moment---the immediacy of the current crisis.

Too often everyone seems to look at the Saudi problem and the rise of Islamic demands on the world in stark black and white terms. If only it were that simple.


that said...let's roll!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Saudi Arabia is at odds with the Muslim extremists. sure their system has bred much of it, but we breed criminals in our ghettos...is ghetto crime part of the want of the US powers?

So are you saying that Saudi Arabia wants Muslim extremism to flourish? Do you make distinctions between the Saudi brand(s) of Islam and others that appear to be extreme?

Depends what you mean by "at odds." They are at odds with the extremists who want to take down the House of Saud, which many pious Muslims view as corrupt. However, Wahhabi'ism would very much be considered an extremist religion unto itself, more in line with the teachings of the Taliban than any other branch of Islam, let alone Christianity.

I started writing something and ended up disagreeing with myself on this one.

let me think about this one...

thanks

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So are you saying that Saudi Arabia wants Muslim extremism to flourish?

Yes. Not so much the Saudi princes but the religious leaders, who basically control the princes anyway.

If Saudi Arabia was ruled by the majority, it would be ruled by fundamentalist Muslims who support Sharia Law, and it would not be friendly to the US. Just the facts.

since it's irrational and out of the question that we can or should kill them all would you not agree we need to change how the majority views the world and specifically the west?

 

[Ravi]

If Saudi Arabia was ruled by the majority, it would be ruled by fundamentalist Muslims who support Sharia Law, and it would not be friendly to the US. Just the facts.

Saudi Arabia is ruled by fundamentalist Muslims that support Sharia law. Their constitution is the Koran and their laws are according to Sharia law.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is my understanding that a WAR requires two or more NATION STATES.

Hence terrorists cannot commit acts of war, but they certainly can commit acts of sobatage.

Now any nation which harbors those people IS committing an act of WAR, and is therefore fair game IF it can be proven.

And that is why most of America was with Bush after 911 when we went into Afghanistan. Then he blew the best thing that has happened in America in a long time...we had a nation undivided ...and he blew it.

sigh

 

[Old Rocks]

Not only did we have the nation united, we had the world united. Had we gone in, taken out Bin Laden, spent three months worth of what Iraq has cost us on rebuilding basic infra-structure in Afghanistan, the world would have stood and cheered. The night after 9-11, arround our embassy in Tehran, there were at least a hundred thousand Iranians holding a candlelight vigil in sympathy with those that died on that horrible day. It was only after invading Iraq, and Abu Ghariab, that the world turned against us, and many supported Bin Laden, for then he was able to turn to them, and say "See, I told you what they were really like".

More damning even than Bush's actions are the oppertunities that he lost. He could have been the President that ended the Al Queda, and united most of the world against this type of terrorist action. He could have been the President that demonstrated the strength of our Constitutional government. He could have been the President that ended our reliance on foriegn energy and made the US the store for alternative energies for the rest of the world.

9-11 was a criminal act that horrifed us and the rest of the world. We should have reacted to it as a criminal action, and focused on bringing the perpretators to justice. Our failure to do that has shown the rest of the world that you can inflict a greivous wound on America, and get away with it. Not a good message to send out.

 

[Munin]

We all agree (the sane ones) that nations who harbor a threat are themselves at risk of being viewed as an impending threat. NATO can declare war? Or do individual nations need to declare war and sign on to a NATO led coalition?

Spies do not fund wars, countries they belong to do. Nations do not go to war with a declaration of war against spies or intel agencies do they? Proxie wars waged by the major powers/super powers have historically been (if memory serves me well) fought without declarations of war. Nations have avoided declaring war by funding, arming and training with logistic support and more, sides in civil wars, ethnic conflicts etc,....but war as we were speaking about it here is a legal and technical issue with rules of behavior and more.

Terrorists use that against us, but is that any reason to become like them to beat them at their own game? Can we not defeat them without losing our way as the Banana Republics in Central and South America have done (with our assistance)?


"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" is another of those phrases that people often miss the boat on in understanding...just like "Justice is blind"

those two statements say far more than what at first meets the mind. deep and profound are they.

I have faith we will beat the shitheads, but my faith in us coming out with our honor and integrity intact becomes shaky depending on who is in power.

I never did do fear and loathing very well. It is why I could never become a wingnut or a moonbat.

I find it rather confusing, if 9/11 would be done by a nation then it would be considered an act of war. And as a result NATO would be at war with the nation that did this act of war. To me, it more seems the act itself is also significant in determining wether something is an act of war: when 2,974 die, it just is not captured anymore by the word crime alone because when you kill almost 3000 people on one day, one place, in one event it becomes an attack on a nation.


I have the impression that NATO was at war with Afghanistan after it was discovered that Bin Laden had a safe heaven there.

 

[garyd]

Unfortunately no one truly gets it yet, not even Bush and the neocons.

The Islamic world is for the most part a hodgepodge of states ruled mostly by antiquated kindoms, mad dictators assorted megalomaniacs, with some authoritarians mixed in for good measure. Most though scarcely all of the people in this poorly governed or grossly misgoverned states are poorly educated and have little or no real idea of how reality functions.

This is why the assorted despots that rule their require scape goats for the poverty, ignorance and disease that predominate and Islam properly interpreted by the proper Hadiths provide a ready source of such scape goats. i.e. anyone not currently a Moslem will generally do and you can make it work even against another Muslim provided he is the wrong sort of Muslim. Hence the Al Queda nut jobs, mostly Sunni, saw nothing wroing with killing half a hundred Shi'a women and children to maybe kill or wound one US serviceman.

You can't play this strictly as a law enforce issue because eventually you miss one and thousands of your citizens will die. However good your intelligence apparatus is it will never be perfect

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unfortunately no one truly gets it yet, not even Bush and the neocons.

The Islamic world is for the most part a hodgepodge of states ruled mostly by antiquated kindoms, mad dictators assorted megalomaniacs, with some authoritarians mixed in for good measure. Most though scarcely all of the people in this poorly governed or grossly misgoverned states are poorly educated and have little or no real idea of how reality functions.

This is why the assorted despots that rule their require scape goats for the poverty, ignorance and disease that predominate and Islam properly interpreted by the proper Hadiths provide a ready source of such scape goats. i.e. anyone not currently a Moslem will generally do and you can make it work even against another Muslim provided he is the wrong sort of Muslim. Hence the Al Queda nut jobs, mostly Sunni, saw nothing wroing with killing half a hundred Shi'a women and children to maybe kill or wound one US serviceman.

You can't play this strictly as a law enforce issue because eventually you miss one and thousands of your citizens will die. However good your intelligence apparatus is it will never be perfect

No matter what we do we will eventually miss one.

Missing one comes with freedom.

To create a structure and a system that would guarantee (in our minds) we never miss one would mean giving up too many freedoms.You sound like the PC people who want all toys and playgrounds and water, and parks and cars and food and work places made so 'safe' (because they've imagined the possibilities of what maybe, could, might, one never knows, probably happen)---that everything eventually breaks down.

I for one refuse to allow the government people like you are always claiming is inept, to take away my freedoms for an unproven and restrictive ideal of safety.

No one I know is proposing we "play this strictly as a law enforce issue" since certain situations will demand we act militarily. Acting militarily is not always the equivalent of being at war. When the dogs of war are unleashed it is always a sad day for humanity. Nobody of sound mind likes war.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We all agree (the sane ones) that nations who harbor a threat are themselves at risk of being viewed as an impending threat. NATO can declare war? Or do individual nations need to declare war and sign on to a NATO led coalition?

Spies do not fund wars, countries they belong to do. Nations do not go to war with a declaration of war against spies or intel agencies do they? Proxie wars waged by the major powers/super powers have historically been (if memory serves me well) fought without declarations of war. Nations have avoided declaring war by funding, arming and training with logistic support and more, sides in civil wars, ethnic conflicts etc,....but war as we were speaking about it here is a legal and technical issue with rules of behavior and more.

Terrorists use that against us, but is that any reason to become like them to beat them at their own game? Can we not defeat them without losing our way as the Banana Republics in Central and South America have done (with our assistance)?


"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" is another of those phrases that people often miss the boat on in understanding...just like "Justice is blind"

those two statements say far more than what at first meets the mind. deep and profound are they.

I have faith we will beat the shitheads, but my faith in us coming out with our honor and integrity intact becomes shaky depending on who is in power.

I never did do fear and loathing very well. It is why I could never become a wingnut or a moonbat.

I find it rather confusing, if 9/11 would be done by a nation then it would be considered an act of war. And as a result NATO would be at war with the nation that did this act of war.

Yes, if a nation did so it would be considered an act of war (the obvious: a state is attacking another state) against the USA, and no NATO would not necessarily be at war with the offending nation. NATO countries have other alliances and interests. We would have to convince individual NATO countries to sign on as we did.

To me, it more seems the act itself is also significant in determining wether something is an act of war: when 2,974 die, it just is not captured anymore by the word crime alone because when you kill almost 3000 people on one day, one place, in one event it becomes an attack on a nation.

So Tim McVeigh (Gulf War veteran), was at war with the USA? Why did we try him as a criminal?

I have the impression that NATO was at war with Afghanistan after it was discovered that Bin Laden had a safe heaven there.

There was no discovery. It was common knowledge for years before 911.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not only did we have the nation united, we had the world united. Had we gone in, taken out Bin Laden, spent three months worth of what Iraq has cost us on rebuilding basic infra-structure in Afghanistan, the world would have stood and cheered. The night after 9-11, arround our embassy in Tehran, there were at least a hundred thousand Iranians holding a candlelight vigil in sympathy with those that died on that horrible day. It was only after invading Iraq, and Abu Ghariab, that the world turned against us, and many supported Bin Laden, for then he was able to turn to them, and say "See, I told you what they were really like".

More damning even than Bush's actions are the oppertunities that he lost. He could have been the President that ended the Al Queda, and united most of the world against this type of terrorist action. He could have been the President that demonstrated the strength of our Constitutional government. He could have been the President that ended our reliance on foriegn energy and made the US the store for alternative energies for the rest of the world.

9-11 was a criminal act that horrifed us and the rest of the world. We should have reacted to it as a criminal action, and focused on bringing the perpretators to justice. Our failure to do that has shown the rest of the world that you can inflict a greivous wound on America, and get away with it. Not a good message to send out.

'nuf said

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Saudi Arabia is at odds with the Muslim extremists. sure their system has bred much of it, but we breed criminals in our ghettos...is ghetto crime part of the want of the US powers?

So are you saying that Saudi Arabia wants Muslim extremism to flourish? Do you make distinctions between the Saudi brand(s) of Islam and others that appear to be extreme?

Depends what you mean by "at odds." They are at odds with the extremists who want to take down the House of Saud, which many pious Muslims view as corrupt. However, Wahhabi'ism would very much be considered an extremist religion unto itself, more in line with the teachings of the Taliban than any other branch of Islam, let alone Christianity.

I can't disagree with you so I am at a loss on how we differ. I don't think we do. Are all extremists equal?

 

[garyd]

Treating it as a police problem means that it will never go away because the root of the problem remains unchecked. Short of nuking Pakistan we weren't going to stop the Al Qeada and Taliban anytime soon.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Treating it as a police problem means that it will never go away because the root of the problem remains unchecked. Short of nuking Pakistan we weren't going to stop the Al Qeada and Taliban anytime soon.

there's where you are deluded. we had al qaeda in our sights and the Taliban had skipped town. we took most all of our resources and put them into...gulp...Iraq.

nobody is saying to treat terrorism as a police problem so stop arguing with straw men of the mind and start listening to what others are saying.

terrorism being treated as a criminal act does not mean the resources thrown at it are 'police' in nature or alone. terrorism is a heinous criminal act. the terrorists are not soldiers and they are not warriors. they are criminals. they can use military weapons, but that does not make them soldiers. they can bomb places like Timothy McVeigh, former US Military man did, but that did not make McVeigh's act a military one. McVeigh committed a crime.

 

[garyd]

Still don't understand. The problem in the Middle East is the current paradigm of government. basically despot succeeds despot and the same top down management operating under the same sort of nearly feudal system it always has simply guarantees a continuation of ignorance and poverty for the masses.

If you are going to fix the problem you are going to have to change the way in which government is done in the Middle East to some degree. This has been accomplished in Iraq to a certain extent. We are now beginning to transfer troops to Afghanistan, and given that Afghanistan has always been the more difficult of the two it only made sense to end first the war with Saddam which had been going on for more than a decade and in which the shooting had already resumed before G.W. Bush took office, and then begin the tranfer of forces in Afghanistan. We could also count on a few of our Nato Allies in Afghanistan.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Still don't understand. The problem in the Middle East is the current paradigm of government. basically despot succeeds despot and the same top down management operating under the same sort of nearly feudal system it always has simply guarantees a continuation of ignorance and poverty for the masses.

If you are going to fix the problem you are going to have to change the way in which government is done in the Middle East to some degree. This has been accomplished in Iraq to a certain extent. We are now beginning to transfer troops to Afghanistan, and given that Afghanistan has always been the more difficult of the two it only made sense to end first the war with Saddam which had been going on for more than a decade and in which the shooting had already resumed before G.W. Bush took office, and then begin the tranfer of forces in Afghanistan. We could also count on a few of our Nato Allies in Afghanistan.

one word: yugoslavia

you live in a dream world with paradigms. the real world has tradition, culture, history, hatred and more. people must change themselves.

one cannot really change things by force. just ask Tito, who was rolling in his grave not long after his passing.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "the shooting" in Iraq before Bush took office.

as far as Afghanistan goes, WTF are you talking about? Afghanistan has always been the more difficult of the two for what? Has anyone been trying to do something constructive over there besides trying to occupy it--- or to support a puppet regime as the Soviets did?

do you think we or anyone else can go and make people behave certain ways? What the fuck is this old colonialist attitude you have? I bet you would've been one of those goof balls coming to early America and trying to convert the savages to the white man's ways for their own good.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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 suggest that the answer lies in the in the nature and scale of the organization, the nature and scale of the event and whether any precedent exists to assist us in determining how to view those events.

1. The nature of the organization. We know that AQ is a multinational organization. It is large, diffuse and well funded. It clearly has the capability to reach into many countries to push its agenda and effect national and international events.

2. The event. The US has never known a more deadly event caused on its soil by a foreign force. In scale (human lives) it was large even than the attack on Pearl Harbor. In character, it was precisely the same as Pearl Harbor. A sudden and unannounced act of enormous scale. If Pearl Harbor was large enough to launch us into WWII, then 9/11 was large enough in scale to launch us into a "war."

3. Precedent. The precedent I see is the the pirates of the Barbary Coast in the early 1800s. See the 1st Barbary War. Although the scale of the events is not equal (9/11 was much greater), the organization was much the same as AQ. There you have an organization that was affecting international events. Piracy on the high seas. It is a "crime" much like terrorism. However, cover was to be had in lawless countries or in countries where protection could be purchased. Sound familiar? Ransom for ships and people were made much like was is occurring off Somalia now.

What was our response? We sent in the Marines. This is where the line in the Marine Hymn "....to the shores of Tripoli" comes from. Was it a "declared" war? No and neither is this. The President was given the power by Congress to deal with it militarily.

For me, this makes a compelling argument that we should deal with the perpetrators of 9/11 as an organization that has declared war on the US and we should respond as if the organization was a nation-state. Further, we should amend our laws to so that the existence of an extra-national actor makes sense in the context of those laws. Much of the divisiveness that has occurred over the Bush administration was because AQ and our struggle against them do not make sense in the context of our existing laws.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Treating it as a police problem means that it will never go away because the root of the problem remains unchecked. Short of nuking Pakistan we weren't going to stop the Al Qeada and Taliban anytime soon.

there's where you are deluded. we had al qaeda in our sights and the Taliban had skipped town. we took most all of our resources and put them into...gulp...Iraq.

nobody is saying to treat terrorism as a police problem so stop arguing with straw men of the mind and start listening to what others are saying.

terrorism being treated as a criminal act does not mean the resources thrown at it are 'police' in nature or alone. terrorism is a heinous criminal act. the terrorists are not soldiers and they are not warriors. they are criminals. they can use military weapons, but that does not make them soldiers. they can bomb places like Timothy McVeigh, former US Military man did, but that did not make McVeigh's act a military one. McVeigh committed a crime.

Really? What in your estimation would make them "warriors or soldiers?"

 

[Tech_Esq]

Not only did we have the nation united, we had the world united. Had we gone in, taken out Bin Laden, spent three months worth of what Iraq has cost us on rebuilding basic infra-structure in Afghanistan, the world would have stood and cheered.

I'll leave aside the whole Iraq issue and just deal with this part of your analysis.

Had we just gone in and taken bin Laden out?

A ridiculous statement. We got incredibly lucky to even get kinda close in Tora Bora. Once he escaped from there, we never had a shot. We can argue back and forth about how we went into Afghanistan. What I learn from history is that if you go in like the Soviets and British, large numbers with large supply trains and a large foot print. You will alienate every Afghani and your stay will be punctuated by death and misery until you are forced to leave with your tail between your legs. In my view, we actually learned something from history when we attacked with Special Forces and indigenous troops. We did not come in as occupiers like the Soviets and British, but as allies of Afghan people.

Part of the down side of that is we were somewhat at the mercy of the Afghan leaders at Tora Bora. We didn't get to do everything we wanted. In my estimation, it sounds like the commander in charge also made a mistake by not allowing a helo-borne insertion of SF troops behind bin Laden at TB putting a blocking force between bin Laden and Pakistan. Perhaps he had his reasons that are not apparent to me or the SF troops with the Afghans in front of TB.

Be that as it may, we couldn't find Eric Rudolph in the hills of North Carolina when we held all the cards for YEARS. What makes you think anyone can find bin Laden in the mountains of two hostile countries. It's just stupid to even talk like that.

Seven years of public works have not fixed everything I hardly think 3 months would have.