'War on terrorism' is over !

[August]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese empire was a act of war.

The attack of 9/11 by a group of religious zealots was a crime.

So in your opinion what makes one an act of war and the other a crime?

Not a political declaration as the Empire of Japan certainly did not declare war before they attacked.

Both targeted civilian and military installations.

Both deliberately executed innocent civilians.

What's the difference?

Originally Posted by Aramike

While I neither agree or disagree with the rest of your post, Kapt Z, kudos for this. It's similar to what I was thinking, but couldn't find the words to say. It is a pretty tacky way to attempt a point, especially one so trivial as semantics.

And its pretty tacky to dismiss all those who died because of political expediency which you are showing here. Guess what, this happened and to ignore it or criticize those who post pictures of it demean those killed and their families.

It happened, innocent people died because it was a law enforcement action and this is one picture. It is easy to forget or pass it off because you haven't seen it recently. As DiNero said..........This is this.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by drEaPer

The only thing man learns from history: Man cannot learn from history.

No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.

Those who ignore the human being in their enemies, are enemies of humanity.
Those who fight for peace, but not for the peace of their enemies, are enemies of peace.

Democracy is limping guys.

You know, that picture is missing a caricature of Roosevelt with Zeros bombing Pearl Harbor in the back ground.

[Aramike]

And its pretty tacky to dismiss all those who died because of political expediency which you are showing here.

Excuse me? How am I showing "political expediency"? I'm making the obvious point that the terms we use are irrelevent. Rather, the behaviors are what matters.

Ever hear the phrase, "a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."?

I don't really give a damn if we call it a war, a police action, or whatever - as long as we are taking the steps necessary to prevent such a tragedy.

But nothing is tackier than someone (you) posting a tragic photo of an individual's final moment simply because you want YOUR term of choice used. That photo has absolutely NO bearing upon the intellectual argument of which term is correct.

Frankly, you were attempting the cheap tactic of soliciting a knee-jerk reaction to justify your point. It was transparent and it has failed.

Guess what, this happened and to ignore it or criticize those who post pictures of it demean those killed and their families.

Are you out of your mind? Who's ignoring what happened on 9/11? The only thing "demeaning" to such families is your insistance upon using them as fodder to feed your argument on semantics.

Is it impossible for you to frame your discussions within the realm of reality?

It happened, innocent people died because it was a law enforcement action and this is one picture. It is easy to forget or pass it off because you haven't seen it recently. As DiNero said..........This is this.

Umm, flat out wrong. 9/11 was in no way a result of it falling under the purview of law enforcement. It happened because the scope of responsibilities within law enforcement were poorly-defined.

You're attempting to make an argument through the silly notion that "law enforcement" is an end upon itself, and therefore cannot make the adjustments necessary to combat something that was once beyond its purview.

I have no problem with counter-terrorism being called a War on Terror or being called a police-action of some kind. So long as the bombs keep falling in the right place and the US stays safe, "a rose by any other name..."

You are correct. It is a police action.

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by August

So in your opinion what makes one an act of war and the other a crime?

Not a political declaration as the Empire of Japan certainly did not declare war before they attacked.

Both targeted civilian and military installations.

Both deliberately executed innocent civilians.

What's the difference?

One was carried out by members of a nation's military with knowledge and assumed assent of that nation's gov't.

The other was carried out by a number of individuals of a nonstate fanatical group.

It's just that simple. Semantics it's true, but how we respond makes all the difference.

If 9/11 had been committed by the IRA what would we have done? Invade Ireland? If the London bombings had been the work of the Branch Davidians would we have stood by as Britain attacked Texas?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by August

Not a political declaration as the Empire of Japan certainly did not declare war before they attacked.

Well technically they did. Its just the inept politicians dident get the message.