[jtfanclub]

Let's see, declared wars. All three wars were declared.

We were fighting a declared war on Al Qaeda long before 9/11...I seem to recall Clinton bombing several sites of theirs, including in Afghanistan and the Sudan. Since it's a declared war, it's not terrorism, by your definition.

Furthermore, we're still fighting a war in Iraq. Saddam never surrendered, and in fact ordered his men to continue fighting after his death. What, it's over because one side declared victory?

So, all three are declared wars. No difference there.

Most horrifying way possible? Um, blowing something up, vs. radiation poisoning killing people over a period of weeks or years? No contest.

Without regard to the identy of his victims? 9/11 was innocent American civillians that had nothing to do with the war. Hiroshima was innocent Japanese civillians who had nothing to do with the war- there was no manufacturing there, no weapons, no threat. We chose it as a target because it had never been attacked, so it would be a perfect before and after. We had never attacked it because it had no military value at all.

So what's left? That it's unattainable? So if you think it can't succeed it's terrorism, and if it can succeed it's not terrorism? I'm sure the British considered us terorrists, then, since in 1776 the idea of being rulled by a group other than merchant princes, the Church or inherited kings was unthinkable. Even now, our overarching goal is to bring Democracy to the entire planet. I don't know how attainable that is, but I don't think it's less attianable than having the entire world ruled by Shar'ia law, which is what the terorrists want.

By your definition, none of these attacks apply. You're just trying to have it both ways, like most people. If WE bomb a 'terrorist' camp site in Libya, and then THEY set off bombs in the World Trade Center, that wasn't fair! It's not an officially declared war by your definition apparently. If WE bomb them in Afghanistan, and then THEY run planes into our buildings, that's not fair either! Why can't they just line up in rows and let us shoot them down! After all, that's what we did! We gave them plenty of warning, right? We sent soldiers down to their camps, right? We didn't blow them up while sitting well out of range and not giving any advance warning, now did we? Oh wait, yes we did.

Sorry, I've heard way too many of these twisted definitions before. We blow up a wedding party in Anbar, that's not terrorism. One of the survivors blows up a marketplace with a remote controlled bomb, that's terorism. Bullshit.

I understand what you're trying to do, but it doesn't work. Maybe you should rethink your definitions. Or just admit what I do. This fight isn't about the good guys wearing white hats shooting down the bad guys. It's about survival. As in, if we don't beat the Islamists, we, and our way of life, won't survive.

[jtfanclub]

Oh yeah, the official declaration of war (from Wikipedia):

In 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, (a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad), co-signed a fatwa (religious edict) in the name of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, declaring:

“ [t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.

In response to the 1998 United States embassy bombings following the fatwa, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets that could be linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order, authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. launched an attack using cruise missiles. The attack failed to harm bin Laden but killed 19 other people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can anybody seriously argue that is not a declaration of war? And even if you are the one in six billion, then how is sending cruise missiles to try to kill him not an act of war?

[Winstonm]

Quote

It's about survival. As in, if we don't beat the Islamists, we, and our way of life, won't survive.

Quote

in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

What you asert about the need to beat the Islamics is not supported by the quote of the proclamation of war. The reason is stated as to liberate a mosque in Jeruselem, another in Makka, and to defeat and drive out other armies so Muslims won't be threatened by those armies. There is no stated reason of world domination by Islam - in fact, this declaration reads to me like a defensive statement.

The wars you claim are not declared wars - only Congress has the power to declare war and must do so with a Declaration of War - however, there is a blur now with Congress allowing limited engagements such as Iraq is supposed to be.
Iraq is not a declared war.

That is the reason to have Congress declare war - it is an open admission of war against another nation, and that includes all inhabitants of that nation, its political parties, and its armies.

Had we actually declared war on Iraq, the results would have been better although not something I agree with - but we would have crushed them and continued to crush any and all resistance without trying to limit collateral damgage - real war is about absolute win or absolute loss - the very reason you do not go into it lightly or without overwhelming cause.

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Feb 16 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

Furthermore, we're still fighting a war in Iraq.  Saddam never surrendered, and in fact ordered his men to continue fighting after his death.  What, it's over because one side declared victory?

we're fighting, but we never declared war

Quote

Most horrifying way possible?  Um, blowing something up, vs. radiation poisoning killing people over a period of weeks or years?  No contest.

not "blowing something up," killing women and children indiscriminately... and the bombings in japan were in a declared war, a war started by japan

Quote

Without regard to the identy of his victims? 9/11 was innocent American civillians that had nothing to do with the war.  Hiroshima was innocent Japanese civillians who had nothing to do with the war- there was no manufacturing there, no weapons, no threat.

there was no war on 9/11... read this part of my definition (and remember, this is just *my* definition - you're free to offer your own): the goal is unattainable.. it ends when life is lived by the rules of the terrorist...

now look at al-quaida's "declaration" of war you posted: "...is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'."

is that attainable? when does it end? when life is lived by the rules of the terrorist, per the words of the terrorist...

Quote

We chose it as a target because it had never been attacked, so it would be a perfect before and after.  We had never attacked it because it had no military value at all.

we chose it (them, actually) as a target because we had declared war on a country that had attacked us

Quote

Sorry, I've heard way too many of these twisted definitions before.

twisted? then what is your definition? do you like this one? the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants... would that be terrorism?

Quote

Had we actually declared war on Iraq, the results would have been better although not something I agree with - but we would have crushed them and continued to crush any and all resistance without trying to limit collateral damgage - real war is about absolute win or absolute loss - the very reason you do not go into it lightly or without overwhelming cause.

exactly so... if you're going to commit american troops, give them the courtesy of declaring a war and then winning the damn thing... use ALL force at your disposal to win the war with the least loss of american lives possible... if you aren't willing to do this, stay home

[Winstonm]

Quote

exactly so... if you're going to commit american troops, give them the courtesy of declaring a war and then winning the damn thing... use ALL force at your disposal to win the war with the least loss of american lives possible... if you aren't willing to do this, stay home

And to this I might add that I blame Congress for abandoning their duty to either declare war or stay home.

Quote

now look at al-quaida's "declaration" of war you posted: "...is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'."

This is interesting, Jimmy, as I do not get the same message that you do from this quote. I do not think this should be removed from context. I read this in conjuction with the prior qualifying statements as to the reasons for war - that to "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah," means to me a defensive battle against tumult and oppression in their land, and winning this battle their faith in the justice of Allah prevails.

There cause was simply stated - to liberate Jeruselem, Makka, and drive enemy forced from Isamic lands. I do not see a threat or admonition to kill every human being on earth who is not Islamic - and I do not believe forced conversion or death is part of Islamic beliefs.

But then it may be we read into the words what we wish to see based on our own biases.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

we're fighting, but we never declared war

We didn't declare war, no. But they did. The idea that THEY are terrorists because WE didn't declare war seems silly to me. Besides, that makes fuel-air bombs, cluster bombs, and a whole host of other actions that we performed terrorist activities, since we weren't at war. You sure you want to go down that route?

What do you think Saddam and Osama needed to do in order to make this an official, declared war? Was there some form they were supposed to fill out in triplicate? We certainly took Osama's 1998 manifesto as a declaration of war. Clinton attacked him almost immediately.

Quote

not "blowing something up," killing women and children indiscriminately... and the bombings in japan were in a declared war, a war started by japan

So if they hadn't declared war, and just kept up the sneak attacks, we'd have been committing terrorism?

I was just going through each section of your definition. One of them was killing people in as horrifying a way as possible.

Quote

there was no war on 9/11... read this part of my definition

They had a declared war with us since 1998 (actually, since 1996, but we didn't react to that one). Again, what did Osama need to do in order to make this an official war? Or can we just bomb the hell out of his camps and as long as we don't accept his declaration of war he's not allowed to fight back?

The question is, using your definition of terrorism, is there a difference between Hiroshima and 9/11? It seems like the difference is that we're allowed to reject other parties declarations of war, and as long as we reject them, they're not allowed to fight us. Very civilized, I guess.

Quote

now look at al-quaida's "declaration" of war you posted: "...is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'."

Well yeah. As Winston pointed out, their immediate goal was control over two mosques, in Jerusalem and Mecca. Surely that was attainable. Their overall goal was Sharia control over the world which is unattainable. Our goal in Iraq is democracy in Iraq. Attainable. Our overall goal is democracy throughout the world. Unattianable. Still not seeing a difference here.

Quote

we chose it (them, actually) as a target because we had declared war on a country that had attacked us

The reason why we chose Hiroshima in contrast to hundreds of other targets in Japan.

Quote

twisted? then what is your definition? do you like this one? the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants... would that be terrorism?

I gave you my definition of terrorism in this thread. By my definition, Hiroshima was terrorism, because its sole purpose was to influence the government in Tokyo. Nagasaki was not terorrism, because one of its main purposes was to eliminate Nagasaki as a major military port- it was a legitimate military target. By my defintion, the planes being smashed into the World Trade Center were terrorism, since the sole purpose was to influence Washington. Smashing a plane into the Pentagon was not, because that was a legitimate military target.

What makes your definition twisted is that you claim what al Qaeda does is terrorism because they haven't declared war, when in fact they've delcared war several times. So, you've made an impossible standard for them to follow.

Or maybe you haven't, and I've missed something. But to me, the argument that if only they'd declared war it wouldn't be terrorism is specious.

[Winstonm]

Quote

What makes your definition twisted is that you claim what al Qaeda does is terrorism because they haven't declared war, when in fact they've delcared war several times. So, you've made an impossible standard for them to follow.

Of course, we could debate whether jihad or holy war should be classified as other wars and what defines terrorism. I do not think that as important as the understanding of the reasoning within the declaration of war. As I have said, I do not see the claimed determination for Islamic control of the entire world - I read it as a defensive jihad againt what are considered invaders in their lands. The understanding of the actual definition of their goals would be critical in guaging whether their intention is a world-wide holy war until Islam is supreme or whether they are stating a desire simply to free their own lands from "infadels".

If the goal is as you say, then there are a bunch of dangerous nut-cases running around trying to turn the entire world into an Islamic empire; however, if my view of the words is accurate - that their purpose is to protect their area from non-Islamics and drive them from the region - then you have a politcal agenda within the "holy war" that may be an initial starting point for compromise.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Feb 17 2007, 09:11 AM, said:

I do not think that as important as the understanding of the reasoning within the declaration of war. As I have said, I do not see the claimed determination for Islamic control of the entire world - I read it as a defensive jihad againt what are considered invaders in their lands. The understanding of the actual definition of their goals would be critical in guaging whether their intention is a world-wide holy war until Islam is supreme or whether they are stating a desire simply to free their own lands from "infadels".

I don't deny that. It's entirely possible that their purpose and their war are not the same, just as we are accepting help from the King of Saudi Arabia while still fighting a war for democracy. Would they have declared war on us were we not in the Middle East and/or supporting Israel? I doubt it. But I doubt they'd be peaceful either.

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Feb 17 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 17 2007, 09:11 AM, said:

I do not think that as important as the understanding of the reasoning within the declaration of war.  As I have said, I do not see the claimed determination for Islamic control of the entire world - I read it as a defensive jihad againt what are considered invaders in their lands.  The understanding of the actual definition of their goals would be critical in guaging whether their intention is a world-wide holy war until Islam is supreme or whether they are stating a desire simply to free their own lands from "infadels".

I don't deny that. It's entirely possible that their purpose and their war are not the same, just as we are accepting help from the King of Saudi Arabia while still fighting a war for democracy. Would they have declared war on us were we not in the Middle East and/or supporting Israel? I doubt it. But I doubt they'd be peaceful either.

No, never peaceful while Israel is still a viable state - and, of course, reading their statement and understanding their meaning is automatically biased by our own point of view - the reason I see it as less global threat but I could be wrong in my understanding of their intent.

It appears to me at its heart a religious difference about what group will control holy sites common to each religion. I do not suggest that the Islamics claims are valid - only that their views are real to them and thus perhaps not so much a global terror threat as proclaimed.

I am not saying whether we should or should not support Israel, as that is another debate entirely - my thinking though is that 9-11 would never have occured if the U.S. had been neutral in the Israel/Arab/Islam conflicts. I believe we were targeted because we are viewed as an ally to Israel - right or wrong - and not as Bush suggests that our freedom is hated and there is global conspiracy for radical Islam to take over the world.

When a wide brush is used to paint a picture of maniacal, wild-eyed terrorists intent on revolutionizing the world and that view is believed, it automatically obviates any need for dialogue or negotiations with that group. And this view may be completely accurate - but I have my own personal doubts that this is the reality of the situation and, after all, the neocons did say that "we create our own reality."

Before we all jump on the bandwagon of radical-Islam bashing, it is my opinion that we should remember that the leader of this movement is one who has had a history of being disingineous, at best, and perhaps criminal, at worst.

That does not mean that this time he is wrong - but it should make us cautious and cause us to look deeply into the claims before giving unwavering support.