The five men sentenced to life today for plotting to bomb London, were not soldiers fighting a war, they were criminals. Patient and professional surveillance work done by the Police is what caught them.
Calling it "war" increases these murderers' sense of their own importance, it legitimises them and makes them heroes and martyrs. Sending our soldiers to Islamic countries to kill the inhabitants is a sure way to recruit more criminals.
I've been critical of the Police in the past, but this was a brilliant bit of work. The Police are the ones who will save us from terrorist crime, not the army.
2007-04-30 06:31:04 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No Derek, I'm not "new", I'm a Londoner, as my question implied.
2007-04-30 07:28:51 · update #1
I quite agree.
Calling it a "war on terror" elevates these people to a higher status and suggests that they're an equal foe to you.
Especially with Al-Quida - if, after 9/11, the US Government had announced that they were criminals and that they were going to be brought to trial, Al-Quida would not have so may sypathisers. Instead they called it a "war on terror", elevating a small rag-tag loose network of extremists into some semi-mythical mass organisation, and look where we've ended up.
2007-04-30 06:38:00 · answer #1 · answered by Cardinal Fang 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Are you people new? Americans call every thing a war. George Carlin does a whole bit on it. We have the War on Drugs, the war on Crime, the war on Aids, the war on poverty. Declaring war on things we don't like is one of the few things Americans are great at; we don't do anything to actually solve the problem (as the war on terror proves) but we love to declare war.
The war on terror is not a real war, it is just a fancy slogan that lets the government go around and do what ever it wants and if anyone complains they can say "that means the terrorist win."
Edit: I did not mean new to America, I meant new to common cultural norms. There is no such thing as a "war on Terror" because terror is an intangible thing.
2007-04-30 06:57:59 · answer #2 · answered by The Teacher 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The "war" part began when we attacked Afghanistan, which was a country whose leaders supported and harbored the very terrorist organization that planned and executed 9/11... Other countries, including Syria, Lebanon, and Iran actively support Muslim terrorist groups... It was an argument of the Bush White House that Saddam was another supporter of terrorist organizations like al Qeuda, which is why we are fighting in Iraq now. Although Saddam's support of al Qeuda has been disproved I believe that Iraq is now tied to the war on terror because of the fact that terrorists are being recruited from outside Iraq and being sent in to cause trouble for the U.S. military. And yes, I consider al Sadir a terroist (though not an external one) because he uses the same terroist tactics.
2007-04-30 06:36:40 · answer #3 · answered by Ryan F 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They are terrorists until the criminal act is committed. Then the criminal part kicks in. Police have limited resources and jurisdictional coverage.
The "war on terrorism" is just a catch phrase.
2007-04-30 06:42:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because we tried treating it as a simple criminal matter - and it did not work.
Think about all of the terrorist attacks on the US that occurred when we were treating it as a police issue. After 9/11 we began looking at it as a war and there have been no more attacks on US soil.
Go with what works.
2007-04-30 06:43:32 · answer #5 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The government like to talk about a "war on terror" to justify introducing terror legislation which can criminalise people purely on suspicion, rather than for offences that have been committed. This makes suspected terrorists easier to prosecute and means due process and our long-respected criminal law is going out of the window.
I agree that these five men are criminals and they were prosecuted in the proper way.
2007-04-30 06:41:23 · answer #6 · answered by jo s 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
impossible! Foo Foo became with me that entire day playing Uno interior the Poconos. Um, Yeah, thats it! I keep in mind each element. We had rabbit stew for dinner. No wait... I recommend Duck a l'orange. Yeah, it incredibly is it! And um... we enjoyed the eclipse with a bottle of Mumms. Yeah...that's the fee ticket! (by using how Foofy, my Swiss account is not any. 12345qwerty67890)
2017-01-09 04:13:10 · answer #7 · answered by lamarque 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree. You can't wage war on an idea. Terrorism is a tactic. An Idea. Someone becomes a terrorist when they make a certain decision, thus the war would never end so long as there are free thinking people.
2007-04-30 06:42:54 · answer #8 · answered by Louis G 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Police are limited to small jurisdictions. Terrorists can operate over as large a span as necessary to do what they want to do.
2007-04-30 06:38:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
"War on terror" is a media sound bite spawned from the lips of George Bush which makes it dobley meaningless.
2007-04-30 06:41:40 · answer #10 · answered by 203 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋