Split From Corbyn did win/The War On Terrorism

[Praktik]

Is this the same 'at war' we are with drugs and poverty or a different kind of 'at war'?

This is a great question, and I would actually see ways it is very similar with those other "wars", Drugs especially...

One of my fave quotes from the hilarious "Get Your War On" comic strip:

Clip Art Dude #1: Oh my God, this War on Terrorism is gonna RULE. I can't wait until the war is over and there's no more terrorism.

Clip Art Dude #2: I know! Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War on Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs any more? It'll be just like that!

Clip Art Dude #1: Right! God, if only the War on Drugs hadn't been so effective! I could really use some marijuana right now!​

 

[Ziggurat]

You could say that colloquially, but certainly not legally. War is a conflict between sovereign states.

Says who? Not the US Constitution. Not the AUMF which declared war on Al Qaeda. And not the actual facts on the ground. So what law says we can't be at war with a non-sovereign state?

Can you put a number on that?

How would I without access to operational details? But I don't need to. There's no reason we need to accept even an incremental increase in risk in order to keep our enemy alive.

And it's not an enemy, but a wanted terrorist and criminal.

He was very much an enemy.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is a great question, and I would actually see ways it is very similar with those other "wars", Drugs especially...

There are important differences, though. "War" in "war on drugs" (and "war on poverty", and "war on hunger") is a euphemism, because it's not actually a war, and the use of the word "war" doesn't make it a war. The word is used to try to lend the effort additional seriousness and justify its high costs, but it is a distortion of language to call it war.

The "war on terror" is also a euphemism, though of a different nature. Congress did not authorize a war on terror, it authorized a war against Al Qaeda. And it authorized an actual war. The war against Al Qaeda is an actual war, with the use of actual tools and tactics of war.

The real irony is that this actual war has been euphemistically renamed "overseas contingency operations" because this administration finds it inconvenient to publicly acknowledge that it's an actual war. So we call things which are not war "war", and we refuse to call actual war "war". It's insane.

 

[Praktik]

^^ Ya I was just thinking (after I posted) about how we should really address two different tracks:
- The narrowness of the AUMF connecting the authorization of military force to the people who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11
- The "War on Terror" euphemism, which is discussed much more broadly - probably this links to the American "Civilizing Mission" or "Exceptionalism", such that fighting against all terror everywhere in the world is now the American mission. Perhaps a mutation of the Wilsonian prerogative to "make the world safe for democracy"?

 

[baron]

The concept of the War on Terror is absurd. It's like terrorism was OK until it passed some sort of arbitrary milestone, and then it was, "Right! We've had enough! Bits of terror we can ignore but great big dollops of it will not be tolerated! This means War!"

 

[3point14]

The concept of the War on Terror is absurd. It's like terrorism was OK until it passed some sort of arbitrary milestone, and then it was, "Right! We've had enough! Bits of terror we can ignore but great big dollops of it will not be tolerated! This means War!"

That's pretty much what did happen,

 

[The Atheist]

These kinds of tactics could be deemed to be "cowardly" - just as drones could be - since the harm being inflicted on the enemy occurs with zero risk to the perpetrators of these attacks.

Deja vu.

 

[Craig B]

Killing the leader of a terrorist organisation is acceptable and legal because we are "at war" with that terrorist organisation.

Members of that terrorist organisation are classified as "enemy combatants" and as a consequence don't have the same rights as members of armed forces (no matter how irregular) of countries at war.

I guess it comes down to "because we can" and maybe we should stop handwringing over the whole thing.

If you live in a country whose rulers do what they want "because they can" then hand wringing, and other signs of acute anxiety, are very appropriate.

Anyway, writing as a non US citizen, resident in the UK, I would much prefer that the USA should attend to the legalities of what it does. And instruct its puppets such as Blair to do likewise.

The 9/11 outrage was crime, not war. If the U.S. armed forces required to be involved, that would be in their legitimate role of aiding in the enforcement of law. Persons apprehended by U.S. forces should have been tried, if there was evidence against them, or let go.

 

[Aber]

AFAICS, all here agree that the shooting of OBL was an act of extra-judicial execution.

I'd call it shot while resisting arrest.

 

[MikeG]

I'm hoping the mods will split this conversation away to a thread of its own, because it has nothing whatever to do with the Labour party.

 

[Loss Leader]

AFAICS, all here agree that the shooting of OBL was an act of extra-judicial execution.

I did agree with this until I saw Zero Dark Thirty. It showed me that the Seals had no real idea what to expect, whether anyone would resist, or who exactly was where. Firing without hesitation was the safest way to conduct the raid. I also don't question the fact that OBL was a legitimate enemy of the US.

 

[ddt]

The concept of the War on Terror is absurd. It's like terrorism was OK until it passed some sort of arbitrary milestone, and then it was, "Right! We've had enough! Bits of terror we can ignore but great big dollops of it will not be tolerated! This means War!"

And the ironic thing is that the USA never had the kind of sustained terrorism campaigns as Spain had with the ETA, or the UK with the IRA - what with the PM escaping only a hair's breadth from a bomb attack? - or Italy with the "Years of Lead" by both extreme-left and extreme-right terrorism groups. The USA had just one, single terrorism attack by Al Qaeda on a civilian target and they go berserk.

 

[Praktik]

You are making a good point ddt just need to specify a nuance: there is a deep and abiding tradition of domestic terrorism, so I would almost consider the attitude until 2001 to be akin to that of Spain and England - theirs being tied up in a history of separatism, America with a little twist or two making it their own brand of the same (much Christian White Nationalist violence carries echoes of the Civil War and even the Hamilton vs Jefferson split or the Jacksonian Bank Wars of the early 19th century). There has always been a schism in the American mind, the most recent violent history of this can be found here: https://www.splcenter.org/20100126/terror-right

To refocus your statement ddt probably better to highlight the foreignness of the attack in 2001 - it was the first major successful terrorist attack from foreigners and America went postal! And this may be somewhat distinguishing from the particular histories of ETA or the IRA.

I cringe at the thought of what will happen after the next major successful attack from Islamists - it appears most are just hoping for the best and I don't see much commentary on how America could anticipate the next attack and figure out, ahead of time, the best way it should react.

One can hope that American homes and shopping bags festooned with the slogan "Keep Calm and Carry On" will live up to the words in the marketing ploy.

 

[Antony]

Why is that, then?

This sort of question is the reason why this discussion is becoming a test of stamina, rather than reason. If you have to ask the question, then you won't understand the answer - particularly as the answer immediately follows my comment which you quote.

 

[Antony]

Well, you'd be surprised how many people think the lives of our servicemen are worth less than that of a terrorist. ...

This is pure projection from someone who demonstrates a hierarchy of the value of human lives within different groups.

Let's see - there were 2,977 people killed in the 9/11 attacks, plus the 19 perpetrators. Not only do we know the exact number, but their names are listed; not one of them will be forgotten.

Tragic and appalling, of course - but not more tragic and appalling than the hundreds of thousands of uncounted, unnamed people killed in the wars resulting from the US reaction to 9/11, and the millions more displaced from their homes as refugees.

As long as western countries talk and act as though the only people whose lives and freedoms matter, are people in the west, there will be no solution to terrorism. The terror experienced by Afghan peasants facing US drone attacks, and Palestinians facing Israeli rockets is just as real as that of western businessmen.

Not only that, but one group of people alone suffered more deaths in the fraudulent Iraq war, than those who died in the twin towers: US soldiers. If you are concerned about the lives of our servicemen, then how about calling on politicians to stop sending them all over the world to fight illegal and pointless wars?

 

[baron]

This is pure projection from someone who demonstrates a hierarchy of the value of human lives within different groups.

Let's see - there were 2,977 people killed in the 9/11 attacks, plus the 19 perpetrators. Not only do we know the exact number, but their names are listed; not one of them will be forgotten.

Tragic and appalling, of course - but not more tragic and appalling than the hundreds of thousands of uncounted, unnamed people killed in the wars resulting from the US reaction to 9/11, and the millions more displaced from their homes as refugees.

First up, thank you for having faith that my miserable intellect will be able to parse this particular answer, after all we wouldn't want you wasting your time on people who are not equipped to deal with your superior faculties and morality.

You seem to have taken my statement, which when whittled down pits the lives of servicemen against terrorists, and extrapolated that to make out I think people with dark skin have less worth than people with white skin. Does this puerile method of discussion normally work out for you?

As long as western countries talk and act as though the only people whose lives and freedoms matter, are people in the west, there will be no solution to terrorism. The terror experienced by Afghan peasants facing US drone attacks, and Palestinians facing Israeli rockets is just as real as that of western businessmen.

The West has committed atrocities and has killed many innocent people but to suggest there is a ubiquitous disregard for any non-Western person is simply absurd. Do I really need to make this point? I mean, really?

Not only that, but one group of people alone suffered more deaths in the fraudulent Iraq war, than those who died in the twin towers: US soldiers. If you are concerned about the lives of our servicemen, then how about calling on politicians to stop sending them all over the world to fight illegal and pointless wars?

Pretty much like I do with regularity, you mean.

When you've something to say, wake me up.

And I'm not American.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We all know foreigners aren't worth as much as our own citizens. Whenever there is a bomb or airplane crash it's always worse if some of 'our' people are killed. Victims are listed in order of importance based on what country they come from. UK first, then any Europeans (western above eastern or southern) then USA then white Commonwealth nations then the brown people.

 

[Giz]

We all know foreigners aren't worth as much as our own citizens. Whenever there is a bomb or airplane crash it's always worse if some of 'our' people are killed. Victims are listed in order of importance based on what country they come from. UK first, then any Europeans (western above eastern or southern) then USA then white Commonwealth nations then the brown people.

And if there is an earthquake we care more about family than neighbors. And care more about neighbors than strangers.

Just horrible! Why can't we care about people equally?

 

[Craig B]

And if there is an earthquake we care more about family than neighbors. And care more about neighbors than strangers.

Just horrible! Why can't we care about people equally?

That's an insctinctive reaction about family and companions. That is NOT how we should encourage an elected government to assess the population of the world in general.

We don't expect a person to treat family members or friends equally with others; so no juror may, for example, decide a case involving a friend or family member. We apply different principles to government. That is what distinguishes a clan of barbarians from an organised state.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's an insctinctive reaction about family and companions. That is NOT how we should encourage an elected government to assess the population of the world in general.

We don't expect a person to treat family members or friends equally with others; so no juror may, for example, decide a case involving a friend or family member. We apply different principles to government. That is what distinguishes a clan of barbarians from an organised state.

What you mean "we", white man?

Seriously, though, this is naive and wrong. Governments naturally care for their own citizens more than the citizens of other countries, because that's their purpose. In a democracy, the government represents the voters. Voters are self-interested, as you have conceded. So a democratic government will naturally follow those interests. This isn't barbaric, but inevitable. A government which does not prioritize its own citizens can only maintain power by non-democratic means. Is this what you prefer?

I consent to be governed by my government, not by the government of another country, and citizens of other countries are subject to the laws of those other governments, they are not subject to the laws of my country. I'd like my government to care about the welfare of others, but I insist that the government treat their welfare as secondary to mine. That is right and proper, and I do not expect other governments to value my welfare as highly as their own citizens.