Is terrorism that is not sponsered by a government a crime or an act of war?

[Dawggie]

Let's ask this of our candidates.

Look at the costs of considering it an act of war.

Look at how all nations poured out their hearts to us right after 9-11.

Look at the world opinion of the US today.

Look at over a million Iraqi dead.

Look at the number of amputees and injured American soldiers whose lives have been forever wounded by the considering it an act of war.

Look at the families of the dead whose husband, wife, mother, father, daughter or son will cause tears on every birthday forever.

Look at the billions of dollars that could have helped Americans with healthcare, education and to bolster the economy.

Now ask: What good has come of a "war on terror" that has lasted longer than WWII?


Yes, the economy is terrible.

Yes, healthcare is a mess.

but don't forget why we elected a democratic congress such a short time ago.

We need to end the war.

[Bonobo]

1. This is the key question we should have demanded be answered 7 years ago.

If we had properly called it what it was -namely a crime- none of this should could have happened.

[ixion]

2. historically, it's been treated as criminal

it was the bush regime who decided to make it military. This was, of course, a heinous and has done nothing but make the situation worse. It has also been used at every turn to shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[DJ13]

3. Crime

Act of war means military is the solution, but as we've seen with both Iraq and Afghanistan military actions are too blunt to effectively deal with individual groups of terrorists.

Those are best dealt with through law enforcement, be it ours or the host country's.

And if the host country doesnt want to deal with it, thats where diplomacy and/or threats of various kinds by our country comes into play.

[swoop]

4. The question to ask is...

...which way of looking at terrorism will keep us the safest? I don't know whether to call terrorism 'war' or not. I just know that all the Khobar Towers, embassy bombings, WTC'sI, USS Coles being rammed etc., that were treated as crimes, didn't stop--nor were they prosecuted very successfully--and we sure weren't safe from 9/11 happening. Since 9/11, we HAVE been safe.

The military is more geared for war--and they're well-organized. We don't seem to have a comparable system for dealing with crimes against our state; there's no 'police force' out there to handle them as crimes. Perhaps, if it's better to look at them as crimes, the first thing we need to do is to develop a more efficient and universal system for dealing with them that's as organized as well as the military.That way, we can be safest, prosecute them more successfully, and have something other than our military with which to deal with them (and thereby avoiding war.)