Author Topic: London terror attacks 4/6/17  (Read 525 times)

Offline pr126

Re: London terror attacks 4/6/17
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2017, 08:02:09 AM »
Comment from a blog:

Quote
These people are not normal criminals and the normal criminal courts are not constituted to deal with an insurgency. Criminal courts deal with crime. This is war.
To squeeze the jihad into a box made for civilian crime is a category error and will be ineffective.

Enemy combatants out of uniform and attacking civilians is a war crime. The remedy is courts martial. All residing in a Western country swearing loyalty to Daesh and intending the imposition of Sharia have rendered themselves subject to court martial.
‘War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.' 1984

Offline SGOS

Re: London terror attacks 4/6/17
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2017, 08:54:03 AM »
These people are not normal criminals and the normal criminal courts are not constituted to deal with an insurgency. Criminal courts deal with crime. This is war.
To squeeze the jihad into a box made for civilian crime is a category error and will be ineffective.

Enemy combatants out of uniform and attacking civilians is a war crime. The remedy is courts martial. All residing in a Western country swearing loyalty to Daesh and intending the imposition of Sharia have rendered themselves subject to court martial.
I'm not sure where I stand on this.  When 9-11 happened, the US had a big debate about prosecuting in courts vs military tribunals.  Each has it's merits, and back then I leaned toward civilian courts.  I perceived acts of terrorism as criminal activity, and I didn't want to puff up some Jihad's ego thinking his acts were worthy of a military tribunal, like he was recognized as a soldier of Allah, rather than just an out of control vandal or arsonist.  The tribunals won out and no one has talked about it since then until now.

Part of the question revolves around whether terrorism actually is war.  Was the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh an act of war?  That was clearly terrorism, and all terrorism is clearly terrorism, but not necessarily war.  The waters are further muddied by the US response to terrorism.  OK, so we don't have an official war going on.  Ha!  We are just engaged in "military actions."  Ha, again!  President after president insists we are not at war with Islam, and that's kind of true, not withstanding the fact that we bomb the heck out of Islamic Countries, although our actions are incidental byproducts of dealing with terrorism.

It seems strange to get tied up in the semantics at such times.  What we need is the most effective way to stop this shit, and no one seems to know how to do that.  Should terrorists be tried in courts or military tribunals?  What does it really matter?  At a minimum, they should be locked up for life.  Does the proper classification make that big a difference?  And if it does, maybe we should rethink why the classifications seem to be so important.

And if we are going to get serious about combating terrorism, we need to stop combating it with rhetoric and symbolism.  Instead of combating terrorism, we politicize it, and use it in in campaign rhetoric, much as Nero fiddled during the burning of Rome.

I'm not claiming to know answers here, but there should be come competent minds in government that could do something to help, except that no one is actually helping.  This is supported by observing the obvious increase in terrorism.  It's getting worse rather than better.  It sure looks as though no one is helping.  It's possible it was going to get worse no matter how we react.

And remember too, we are not dealing with rational people here.  We are dealing with religious fanatics that behave in unpredictable ways for reasons they don't even understand themselves, and our own response is to capitalize on the political value of terrorism to further our own agenda.  Maybe our own politicians have the best attitude; Rejoice in terrorism wherever it occurs, so you can use it to your own advantage.  It reminds me of Alfred E. Newman's campaign slogan, "What Me Worry?"

Offline pr126

Re: London terror attacks 4/6/17
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2017, 11:22:00 AM »
Here is Rahm Emanuel with his version.

‘War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.' 1984

Offline Baruch

Re: London terror attacks 4/6/17
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2017, 12:36:53 PM »
Comment from a blog:

Don't know how Brits do this, but enemy soldiers out of uniform don't get courts-martial ... they are tried and executed as spies (not eligible for prisoner of war status).  So you are prepared to do this to the entire Muslim population of GB (GB or EU citizens, non-citizens)?

As far as attacking civilians being a war crime .. this happens all the time, but there is no trial if you win the war.  Right now Daesh is winning.

In WW II, in the US, would you have gone farther than FDR, branded all Japanese in the US ... spies, and executed them?  Did Britain execute all Germans and Italians living in GB in 1939/1940?  Deportation won't work, they just keep coming back.

Rahm Emanuel's dad is Mossad.  Nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

"What we need is the most effective way to stop this shit, and no one seems to know how to do that." ... what people want in general, is a bloodless capitulation of opponents.  That simply doesn't happen in the real world.  Also opponents are future allies, and vice versa (see Germany today).  Life is complicated that way ... don't tell the Black/White thinkers.  Pacifists (who aren't Gandhi) aren't up to any challenge at all.  The governments have created sheeple, but such human-animal hybrids are helpless.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 12:46:53 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: London terror attacks 4/6/17
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2017, 08:54:15 PM »
I'm not sure where I stand on this.  When 9-11 happened, the US had a big debate about prosecuting in courts vs military tribunals.  Each has it's merits, and back then I leaned toward civilian courts.  I perceived acts of terrorism as criminal activity, and I didn't want to puff up some Jihad's ego thinking his acts were worthy of a military tribunal, like he was recognized as a soldier of Allah, rather than just an out of control vandal or arsonist.  The tribunals won out and no one has talked about it since then until now.

Part of the question revolves around whether terrorism actually is war.  Was the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh an act of war?  That was clearly terrorism, and all terrorism is clearly terrorism, but not necessarily war.  The waters are further muddied by the US response to terrorism.  OK, so we don't have an official war going on.  Ha!  We are just engaged in "military actions."  Ha, again!  President after president insists we are not at war with Islam, and that's kind of true, not withstanding the fact that we bomb the heck out of Islamic Countries, although our actions are incidental byproducts of dealing with terrorism.

It seems strange to get tied up in the semantics at such times.  What we need is the most effective way to stop this shit, and no one seems to know how to do that.  Should terrorists be tried in courts or military tribunals?  What does it really matter?  At a minimum, they should be locked up for life.  Does the proper classification make that big a difference?  And if it does, maybe we should rethink why the classifications seem to be so important.

And if we are going to get serious about combating terrorism, we need to stop combating it with rhetoric and symbolism.  Instead of combating terrorism, we politicize it, and use it in in campaign rhetoric, much as Nero fiddled during the burning of Rome.

I'm not claiming to know answers here, but there should be come competent minds in government that could do something to help, except that no one is actually helping.  This is supported by observing the obvious increase in terrorism.  It's getting worse rather than better.  It sure looks as though no one is helping.  It's possible it was going to get worse no matter how we react.

And remember too, we are not dealing with rational people here.  We are dealing with religious fanatics that behave in unpredictable ways for reasons they don't even understand themselves, and our own response is to capitalize on the political value of terrorism to further our own agenda.  Maybe our own politicians have the best attitude; Rejoice in terrorism wherever it occurs, so you can use it to your own advantage.  It reminds me of Alfred E. Newman's campaign slogan, "What Me Worry?"
In retrospect, the whole thing would have been better handled by Interpol as a crime. 

We could have saved 16 years of war.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: London terror attacks 4/6/17
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2017, 12:47:06 AM »
In retrospect, the whole thing would have been better handled by Interpol as a crime. 

We could have saved 16 years of war.

The whole point was 16 years of war ... just like in Vietnam.  You are too generous about human corruption.
שלום

Re: London terror attacks 4/6/17
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2017, 02:01:08 AM »
terrorism is not war, it is a tactic. The word was so severely abused that George Bush changed the definition of the word by repeatedly using it wrongly.

before George Bush the word terrorism meant extorsion, blackmail, etc. an act of violence to make people so afraid that the do something they would not normally do. Using a bomb does not automatically fit the definition of terorism (ok to say mass murder or bomber), and on the other end of the spectrum a violent act in which no one dies can be considered an act of terrorism (case in point- George Bush terrorized the Amercian people into accepting the Patriot Act which has provisions that violate the Constitution)

yes there is a big difference between calling a terrorist a criminal or an enemy soldier. A criminal has a right to a speedy trial, a right to know the charges against them. They can not be held indefinitely without charges being filed. and if they are found guilty they can be locked up for a long time. An enemy soldier can not be subject to any abuse or interrogation. They can be held indefinitely, but when the war is over they must be released; even according to U.S. law
Would you like to play with my invisible friend? HE can give you anything that you want. All you have to do is ask HIM

Offline Baruch

Re: London terror attacks 4/6/17
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2017, 08:30:14 AM »
In asymmetric warfare, you use non-uniformed irregulars.  We did it to the British in the American Revolution.  We are subject to asymmetric warfare ... and those combatants aren't military, and don't get military treatment.  That isn't how S Vietnamese regulars treated Viet Cong when captured.  In one famous scene during the Tet Offensive ... the non-existent Geneva convention rights of a Viet Cong operative, weren't observed much.  Summary execution on the street.  That is where we are heading, as society becomes completely criminal, top to bottom.  Anti-fa are domestic Viet Cong.  I would execute them without trial.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: London terror attacks 4/6/17
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2017, 05:41:59 AM »
terrorism is not war, it is a tactic. The word was so severely abused that George Bush changed the definition of the word by repeatedly using it wrongly.

before George Bush the word terrorism meant extorsion, blackmail, etc. an act of violence to make people so afraid that the do something they would not normally do. Using a bomb does not automatically fit the definition of terorism (ok to say mass murder or bomber), and on the other end of the spectrum a violent act in which no one dies can be considered an act of terrorism (case in point- George Bush terrorized the Amercian people into accepting the Patriot Act which has provisions that violate the Constitution)

yes there is a big difference between calling a terrorist a criminal or an enemy soldier. A criminal has a right to a speedy trial, a right to know the charges against them. They can not be held indefinitely without charges being filed. and if they are found guilty they can be locked up for a long time. An enemy soldier can not be subject to any abuse or interrogation. They can be held indefinitely, but when the war is over they must be released; even according to U.S. law

Enemy soldiers can be interrogated.  Interrogation does not require physical or psychological cruelty , just questions.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: London terror attacks 4/6/17
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2017, 07:21:27 AM »
Correct.  That and offering to feed the prisoner's smoking habit.  I used to work with a professional interrogator (well, when he was deployed in Iraq).  Which is funny, how that guy being interviewed by the FBI, over the Boston Marathon attack, suddenly was killed, even though he wasn't armed ;-(
שלום