DPP: There Is No War On Terror

[Dr Adequate]

Department Of I Wish I'd Said That.

The UK Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said:

London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists ... The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice...

We wouldn't get far in promoting a civilising culture of repect for rights amongst and between citizens if we set about undermining fair trials in the simple pursuit of greater numbers of inevitably less safe convictions. On the contrary, it is obvious that the process of winning convictions ought to be in keeping with a consensual rule of law and not detatched from it...

We must protect ourselves from these atrocious crimes without abandoning our traditions of freedom.

Discuss.

 

[Garrette]

As a PR piece, it is near perfect. If it is a true indication of how such people will be tracked and fought, it's a disaster. It is unlikely that law enforcement agencies alone can prevail.

But painting the bad guys in such an unflattering light and letting the people know that the proper, effective, response is not to panic and not to live in fear, is spot on.

 

[hammegk]

The UK's 9/11 is still pending. Given such an incident, will islamofascist terrorists still be just a law enforcement problem?

 

[The Don]

The UK's 9/11 is still pending. Given such an incident, will islamofascist terrorists still be just a law enforcement problem?

Our 9/11 already occurred, funded in the main by United States citizens and residents.

It took longer than 9/11 but it claimed as many lives.

You may recall the "troubles" in Northern Ireland.

 

[casebro]

Department Of I Wish I'd Said That.

The UK Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said:

"deluded narcissistic inadequate"

Discuss.

Who needs a new catch phrase?

 

[Katana]

Right. Because it's a war on terrorism.

When did terrorism turn into terror? I find that change in terminology annoying. Terrorism causes terror. Now which one are we really fighting? The cause or the effect?

 

[hammegk]

Our 9/11 already occurred, funded in the main by United States citizens and residents.

It took longer than 9/11 but it claimed as many lives.

You may classify the IRA in the same league as Al Queda et al; I don't.

You may recall the "troubles" in Northern Ireland.

And we had Tim McVeigh, and misc. anti-abortion types.

I don't think your attempt at comparison is valid. Could you envision in your wildest nighmares an IRA nuke in London?

 

[The Don]

You may classify the IRA in the same league as Al Queda et al; I don't.

Over 2,000 dead in Northern Ireland, the equivalent on a per-capita basis of 120,000 dead in the U.S.

So no, not the same league, an entirely different higher league

And remember, the IRA were largely funded by donations from people living in the freedom loving U.S. of A.

I don't think your attempt at comparison is valid. Could you envision in your wildest nighmares an IRA nuke in London?

All kinds of scenarios were postulated as part of the process of demonising the republican movement. A link to the Libyan nuclear programme was mentioned at one time.

The same thing is happening with Al Queda. Always portray the worst possible scenario so whatever happens doesn't seem so bad

 

[Darth Rotor]

Over 2,000 dead in Northern Ireland, the equivalent on a per-capita basis of 120,000 dead in the U.S.

The same thing is happening with Al Queda. Always portray the worst possible scenario so whatever happens doesn't seem so bad

IRA and Al Q strike me as apples and oranges.

How many bombs did the IRA set off in Ethopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Singapore, Bali, Spain, Italy, the Philippines, etc. I recall some IRA sponsored murders were comitted against members of BOAR and their families, in Germany, but I don't recall how many. (IIRC less than 20, but memory fuzzy.)

DR

 

[The Don]

I was responding to Hammegk's implication that the reason why there's no War on Terror is that we're complacent because we're not been on the receiving end of a terrorist attack.

I'm merely highlighting that those of us who were around in the 70's and to a lesser extent the 80's are unfortunately all too familiar with terrorism.

What the OP seeks to highlight is that the posturing approach of "the war on ********"" really means very little especially when the conflict does not conform to the "normal" rules of engagement

 

[steverino]

The same thing is happening with Al Queda. Always portray the worst possible scenario so whatever happens doesn't seem so bad

Al-Qaeda portrays the worst possible scenario. You imply that just the "evil" Americans do this. Al-Qaeda states frequently their desire to destroy our country and culture. They state openly that they will do so as soon as they have the means. We must accept this threat as much more enormous in degree than the isolated case of a troubled white supremacist with a car bomb. Simply dragging a few terrorists in front of the judge will not save our society.

As for the IRA, their ultimate goal to remove the English from the northern six counties, IMO, does not equate with removing America and Great Britain from the planet.

By the way, there is no "Al Queda" spelling as far as I can find.

 

[The Don]

Al-Qaeda portrays the worst possible scenario. You imply that just the "evil" Americans do this. Al-Qaeda states frequently their desire to destroy our country and culture. They state openly that they will do so as soon as they have the means. We must accept this threat as much more enormous in degree than the isolated case of a troubled white supremacist with a car bomb. Simply dragging a few terrorists in front of the judge will not save our society.

I'm not saying it's just the "evil" Americans who are doing this. Everyone portrays their enemy in the worst possible light and claims that they're out to destroy their culture. It's just what we do.

Al Qaeda, I'm sure, tell their supporters that the West are out destroy Islam by any means possible, when this is demonstrably not the case.

As for the IRA, their ultimate goal to remove the English from the northern six counties, IMO, does not equate with removing America and Great Britain from the planet.

See above.... We have chosen to say that Al Qaeda intend to remove America and Great Britain from the planet.

Sounds like you're a bit of an IRA apologist Steverino. Do you condone the killing of over 2,000 people, the majority of whom were uninvolved in the struggle in the aim of a united Ireland ?

By the way, there is no "Al Queda" spelling as far as I can find.

Merely repeating Hammegk's spelling to enable him to read it

 

[steverino]

Merely repeating Hammegk's spelling to enable him to read it

C'mon dude. Be real.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Al-Qaeda portrays the worst possible scenario. You imply that just the "evil" Americans do this. Al-Qaeda states frequently their desire to destroy our country and culture. They state openly that they will do so as soon as they have the means. We must accept this threat as much more enormous in degree than the isolated case of a troubled white supremacist with a car bomb. Simply dragging a few terrorists in front of the judge will not save our society.

So how is the situation solved? You are rejecting legal solutions, so what are you advocating?

 

[Darth Rotor]

What the OP seeks to highlight is that the posturing approach of "the war on ********"" really means very little especially when the conflict does not conform to the "normal" rules of engagement

FWIW, when I first heard the "war on terrorism" sound byte, I expected it to mean boosts in funding for

Customs
DEA
FBI
CIA
Spec Ops
Coast Guard
ATF

INTERPOL liaison

Various police departments. Modest US military support to inter agency operations, sort of like the War on Drugs deal.

I expected it to look like some of the recent work in Somalia and the Philippines: small units, lots of cloak and dagger, and loads of work with foreign governments, loads of "deals" with foreign governments to overcome the internal rot that lets the gov'ts turn a blind eye, loads of logistic support and training to friendly governments, and governments we want to make better friends. Not a lot in the press until after missions were done and there was a head to show the cameramen.

I guess that approach, while utile, doesn't attract votes in the proper numbers.

Afghanistan made sense if for no other reason than vengeance -- though it is more than that -- and it is still a far different MO than Iraq.

I didn't expect Iraq. It still doesn't fit "global terrorism" as a mission objective. I think the guy in the OP has a good sense of what a sound mental framework is for approaching the problem.

Tidbit: I have a medal that indicates my participation in T.W.A.T. : The War Against Terrorism. Well, it is officially for "the GWOT(global war on terrorism)," so named, I guess, after the first T.W.A.T. t-shirt hit the streets.

My T.W.A.T. coffee cup fell onto a tiled floor, and shattered. Bummer. They were getting hard to find.

DR

 

[steverino]

So how is the situation solved? You are rejecting legal solutions, so what are you advocating?

Damn. Great question, or as they used to say, the $64,000 question. I wish it were that cheap. Ponder- I am in way over my head here to offer some learned legal argument for "declaring war on terrorists and treating them as war criminals," vs. treating those caught, or almost caught, with weapons or plans to bomb us, as naughty individuals. My gut response is that America needs to engage moderate Muslim nations and regain their trust to help look at the big picture as a huge, cultural crisis (extremists vs. our culture.) If we look at terrorist attacks on us as isolated acts by a limited number of crazy guys, then leaning on the world community to monitor terror movement, training, and nuclear materials would be pointless. Also, to assume such monitoring is a non-legal solution is not (always) the case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't expect Iraq. It still doesn't fit "global terrorism" as a mission objective. I think the guy in the OP has a good sense of what a sound mental framework is for approaching the problem.

But with out Iraq, how would we have gotten a concentration of terrorists to fight against so that they can be held up and shown as progress?

 

[Twilek]

Right. Because it's a war on terrorism.

When did terrorism turn into terror? I find that change in terminology annoying. Terrorism causes terror. Now which one are we really fighting? The cause or the effect?

Thank you. Calling it the War on "Terror" or saying we are "fighting terror", or the many other misuses of the word that I've read/heard has bugged me for years.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Damn. Great question, or as they used to say, the $64,000 question. I wish it were that cheap. Ponder- I am in way over my head here to offer some learned legal argument for "declaring war on terrorists and treating them as war criminals," vs. treating those caught, or almost caught, with weapons or plans to bomb us, as naughty individuals.

Why is a war criminal different from a regular criminal? They both get trials and all of that defenses(well they used to, there are people trying to remove that part of the war criminal procedure). A murderer is a murderer, in uniform or not.

This reminds me of when a similar statement was used against kerry and then someone on bushs side said the same thing that they where blasting kerry for.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But with out Iraq, how would we have gotten a concentration of terrorists to fight against so that they can be held up and shown as progress?

Whilst I appreciate your sarcasm, there were already plenty of terrorists the world over to fight without looking for new ones. The State Department list of terrorist organizations offered ample roll call for prospective targets.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

Whilst I appreciate your sarcasm, there were already plenty of terrorists the world over to fight without looking for new ones. The State Department list of terrorist organizations offered ample roll call for prospective targets.

DR

Yes, but they where too diffuse, and not concentrated enough. After all we have to fight them in Iraq or they will follow us home.(hearing that quote made me imagine a puppy with a suicide vest on it)

 

[Tony]

Department Of I Wish I'd Said That.

The UK Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said:



Discuss.

The man is absolutely right. By waging a so-called "war" against these wannabes, you bestow onto them the prestege and recognition for which they're looking.

 

[Tony]

Simply dragging a few terrorists in front of the judge will not save our society.

But allowing anti-american right-wingers (ie Bush, Rove, Delay, Cheney) to call the shots will.

 

[steverino]

But allowing anti-american right-wingers (ie Bush, Rove, Delay, Cheney) to call the shots will.

What is an "anti-American" who is an American? I am not familiar with this sobriquet.

 

[steverino]

Why is a war criminal different from a regular criminal? A murderer is a murderer, in uniform or not.

I don't know for sure, but I think a war criminal's aim is to tamper with a government in a very harmful way, and is often part of a larger organizational network. A "murderer" is a lone wolf who kills for jealousy, lust, money, or is, let's say, schizofrenic, like Mark David Chapman.