On the Nature of Crime vs War - An Open Discussion on Terrorism and Censorship

I was originally going to post a reply to the below in the original thread but in the interest of open discussion without the possibility of being scolded like a child I am starting this thread. So please make no mistake, I want this to be a free dialogue of issues and positions with the only bounds being those of the rules of conduct of this board. I'm going to say some volatile things below that I'm sure will deeply polarize people, so "Man the Guns" but measure your responses and no shooting below the belt!

Goken wrote: I find this entire argument about whether it counts as terrorism or crime very odd. It can be both. In fact, it is both. The attack targeted civilians and was designed to inspire terror. I see no other motive other than to also kill some people. That makes it terrorism.

That said, terrorism is, in and of itself, a crime. You can be arrested for it, you can be tried for it, and you can be convicted of it in a court of law. It is a crime.

This entire argument has been like arguing that stealing isn't a crime, it's theft. Well theft is a crime so it's both theft and a crime.

TAKEN FROM:
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/115337-a-new-terrorist-attack-in-france-pray-for-france?limitstart=0&start=10

Your right to an extent. But I don’t think that was the original comparison, actually. The original comments were of the nature of crime vs war. There is a difference as I described in the other thread. Now that is also not to say that acts of war cannot also be unlawful. Acts of war can be either unlawful or lawful but their basal nature is still one of war, done for a cause outside one’s self.

_______________________

In the original thread, the OPer stated the world is getting more dangerous. That was countered by a claim that “crime rates” were actually getting better. That may be the case but this act was not crime in and of itself, it was war and those are increasing. A “discussion” ensued around that, nothing more. This is nothing more than the sort of discussion that would ensue at any other sort of service we would attend in real life; whispered conversations in the corners of rooms. This just happens to be a post board and as long as we continue to discuss issues and not people I don’t see a need to censor comments or chastise others for making them.

Acts of solidarity are great, but that thread never implicitly denied other posters from discussing the event in other ways outside of just leaving a “prayer comment”. In fact the last part of the OP opened the thread up to other discussion. Maybe it was a lack of clear communication on their part but that’s not the fault of subsequent posters that have made comments outside some ill imagined boundary of etiquette.

People are not made from cookie cutters and so everyone will have different reactions to violence such as this. Sorrow, anger, frustration, even hate. For anyone else to try and dictate to others what they should feel and how they should express it on a post board is quite frankly ridiculous. If the OP wants just one comment expressed over and over they should write a script and have everyone repost it with “insert name here”. Otherwise people are going to say things and express emotions in a myriad of unique ways. People need to be able to talk about this in whatever way (within the rules of conduct of this board) best allows them to express their emotions.

Having said that, here are a few of mine.

cnn wrote: QUOTED FROM CNN:
U.S. President Barack Obama issued a statement saying, "We stand in solidarity and partnership with France, our oldest ally, as they respond to and recover from this attack." while the Democrat candidate-in-waiting, Hillary Clinton, called for greater intelligence gathering to fight terror groups.

The presumptive nominees for the U.S. presidential election also reacted to the attack, taking strikingly different tones. Republican Donald Trump said he'd ask for a declaration of war against ISIS.

Obama continues to sit on his hands and do nothing, Hillary is no different. And I’m sure since the last attack was carried out with a truck that Obama is deeply involved in enacting truck control regulations now. We need to beseech the power of the Force for a successful election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States. Anything less will just invite further attacks from a radicalized enemy that currently perceives us as weak.

These extremist animals know nothing but war and violence and oppression. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until freedom is dead and their way of life is the only one that exists. Their systematic progression can only be ended by visiting a superior application of these concepts back onto them and never stopping that application until the enemy is completely and decisively eradicated. (and those that get this paragraphs reference, the comparison is on purpose)

And just to clarify, since I have been accused of this before, Yes I absolutely have been “boots on the ground, rifle in hand” in this fight and would do so again in a heartbeat if that privilege were to present itself to me. I think anyone that calls themself Jedi should feel the same way. We are ambassadors of peace but also should never hesitate to “fight” when there is no other recourse. And fight in this sense is not limited to violent conflict. Not all are capable of that but those that are should be willing to take up arms and those that are not should be willing to support those that do in any way they can. This is an obvious situation where the only path to peace and freedom will be through violence. To deny that fact is folly.

This is the second time we have pulled out of the Middle East without finishing the job and I for one am getting tired of seeing my brothers and sisters bleed for nothing. Freedom is sacred but it is never free and politics have NO place in war.

Vote for a different outcome? I know I will be...
We can say that politics has no place in war but...now where we live, sadly politics is the reason for war. Does any one know the names of the people we are fighting over any time, gulf war? the names of the tribes? Persian gulf war? Iraquie war? Iranian war? ....no only their views and ideas, never names. Sad really. so ...politics run war.

My opinion is radically different than yours.
War is crime. There is no difference, except that war generally is much, much more unethical than petty crime. You kill one man, you're a murderer. A filthy criminal judged by our society to not even have enough merit to vote. You kill thousands, you're at war. Heck, the more you kill, the more likely you are to be called a hero. Regardless of why you're killing people, the fact is that you're still murdering people. Nowadays I guess we don't even do it in person, we just send drones to kill civilians and actual threats alike.
Is there anything at all which could possibly morally justify war? The only reason I could see someone give is that the ends justify the means. But that could only be true if no horrible unintended consequences occurred due to the war. For example, a good amount of people blame the USA not only for the formation of ISIS but also for arming ISIS indirectly (the latter being verifiably historically true). It would also require you to know for a fact that killing those people is morally superior to not killing them. But since value systems vary widely from person to person (if they didn't, nobody would go to war in the first place) it's impossible for anyone to definitively say that their code of ethics is inherently better than anyone else's.
Perhaps I will offend people by saying this, but I don't think there's anything heroic about killing another person. I don't think there's any justice in it. I don't think there's any reason for it. The conclusion that the response to violence must be violence -- I thought that we were all taught from childhood some basic things. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Two wrongs don't make a right. We're taught the value of peace but then forced into a society which glorifies military combat. It seems absurd.

But okay, I hear you. The practical task. We can set aside philosophy and let soldiers deal with the moral consequences of their own actions by themselves, we're currently being threatened. And I wholeheartedly support self-defense. If an enemy terrorist tries to attack a person, place, or thing in this country then we have every reason to disarm, neutralize, and imprison that person for the safety of all people. Maybe give them a swift and merciful, painless death. We do not have to behave like they do. We don't have to lower ourselves to their standards. I say boost domestic defenses and completely reject the idea of ever going to war unless we're facing a takeover.

But self-defense is not war. Self-defense is strictly defending our borders, our lands, our people. We have the technology to shoot missiles out of the sky. We have the technology to take out weapons caches from across the globe, never putting a single person in danger other than whoever might be guarding said weapons cache. Invading other people's countries and slaughtering its people is not self-defense. If we operated in the interest of self-defense, horrible things like the My Lai massacre would never have happened. When the military blows a city off the face of the map like in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or firebombs whole areas and kills tons of civilians like in Vietnam, or if a drone strike kills an innocent person (last I heard 90% of the drone strikes by the US have killed civilians), then WE, the United States, are committing terrorism.

We do have allied countries who may not be able to defend themselves. In those cases, it's perfectly acceptable for us to provide support to them so that they have the confident ability to defend themselves. Whether that means technology, weapons, or ground troops, those are all fine and good if they enter a country with the consent of its people for the purpose of defending them from outside threats coming into their country. Without the consent of the people, we have no place defending anyone other than ourselves.

We should not depersonalize terrorists. Those are people. They have feelings. They have thoughts. They have families. They may be religious extremists who commit terrible actions, but that doesn't change the fact that they're homo sapiens. They have the same organs as you, the same genetic code (nearly identical between all humans), etc. etc. They obviously have the capability to use reasoning, unfortunately, or they would never accomplish anything that they've accomplished. And people have done far worse things in the past -- am I supposed to consider Germans less than human because of the holocaust? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, you can't end terrorism through military action. It is impossible to kill an ideology. Unless you were to wipe every single one of them off the map and remove all possible record of them ever having existed, and destroy the source material from which they derived their code of ethics, the ideology will remain the same. And we simply can't erase something like this from history. Instead of saying that these aren't people, we should recognize that they are people. They have motivations. They have been motivated to commit terrorist action for some reason. And I am going to assume here that happy people in a productive and fair society which respects all of its citizens do not, generally, form large terrorist organizations. Shouldn't our goal, then, be to erase those situations which give rise to extremist thought and terrorist action? Improve the countries where terrorists are actively being recruited and I'm willing to bet everything in my wallet that you see a decrease in people joining terrorist organizations.

Edit: I must stress that these terrorist organizations ARE NOT countries. They can't be fought as if they're countries. We don't get rid of them by taking over their lands. We don't get rid of them by killing their armies. Every single US drone strike which takes out a terrorist and a single innocent civilian only gives rise to more people who want to join those terrorist organizations. They will be seen as a force fighting against those who are killing innocent civilians by the families and friends of the innocent people that we kill. I am certain that our killing of innocent people has lead to a raise in terrorism. We simply can't engage them like a country we're at war with. They don't follow the rules. There are no rules. The laws of war are irrelevant to them. There's a good amount of them out there, I'm sure, who aren't even fighting for radical Islam. They're fighting to avenge their mothers, fathers, friends, siblings, and neighbors. We can't keep doing this.

As for Donald Trump, the man is a jester who doesn't have the respect of other world leaders and doesn't have the temperament to maintain peaceful relations between us and some of our more delicate "friendships" with other countries. He shows very little respect for those outside of this country. I don't see anything good coming out of a Trump presidency, nor do I see anything good coming out of a Clinton presidency. As far as I'm concerned, we (Americans) are being asked to choose between a self-righteous Machiavellian schemer and a court jester for president. I won't be voting for either of them, my vote is better spent elsewhere.

Though that's just my opinion and I may be right or wrong.

So, the overall discussion, from what I've read, is the philosophy of the doctrine of double effect. For instance, killing some in order for the greater many to live; or, doing harm for the ultimate good. Even though killing is considered wrong, the decision remains because of the threat towards us. It's much like the pair of cases that involve a helicopter pilot either bombing an artillery factory, which has non-combatants working in it, or bombing a certain area that has both combatants and non-combatants to demoralize the enemy into giving up the fight. There are many arguments from either side, of which involves intent versus permissibility. I recently read a study that made it theoretically clear that intention has no bearing on permissibility. Another argument has to do with the weight of harm versus the intent to harm.

TheDude...
War is a crime. I can't say I'm see things differently. There may be other ways of stating things more...politically correctly but I would have to " HERE HERE!" to you at that point. I believe all life is sacred. Kind of reminds me of some native American stories about the wandering one... when he came to the protagonist he never slew him, he received them and put them in different "job" so to speak but continued to build the tribes WITH the Tribes them selfs. If we could act like that with that different thought...or any different thought rather than slay em all who oppose. I'm a believer in re writing our human history, starting with the individual. Then and only then can we make a... diffrence... one diffrence at least rather than the current one. Anythings better than war I think...


Ps I look forward to the day my vote once again has more... worth than what it has been reduced to.
One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small...either way our choices for this election suck.

War is a broad term in some ways, certainly in its usage, but also because the border between war operations and war-like operations is a work in progress during 'conflicted' situations. It should not be used as synonymous to 'killing' IMO.

The easiest way that I view 'war' is one end of a progression from peace to war, with various states of conflict in-between. While there are general themes about intention, like offensive, defensive, supporting and stabilization.... the application of force generally in the 'West' according to doctrine is that the goals be achieved in the most peaceful way possible. Obviously if it's an offensive operation then it gets more difficult to justify, supporting depends who your supporting, while defensive is generally easier and stabilization might seem the epitome of that, it too depends on who's definition of stable your using.

The 'spectrum of conflict', which ideally all legal military conduct would try to push to the left;



As a Jedi, I view these things against how well they try to pull things back to a non-harm resolution. But Jedi have no authority as Jedi to act beyond what every other citizen can legally do - unless in a professional which can. So back to the conduct of war, the sad reality in this world is sometimes people are intent to do harm and sometimes its for no reason then they want something which is not theirs, and if they are willing to go full violence then equal or greater force can be required to counter it.... and that inevitable can include violence, harm and unfortunately death. To try and limit the inhumanity of these conflicts, people have been creating the laws to limit conflict, and the contemporary Laws of War tries to define a 'legal' conduct of war as distinct from illegal conduct. In this case war can become defined within those parameters. Importantly in there is the distinction between combatants and non-combatants - which means if civilians are being targeted by a group for whatever reason, then it becomes illegal and can fall outside of that definition of 'war', which is where I use the definition of terrorism.

And since a crime only exists if there is a law to define it as such, you can see why I could argue war is not a crime. War is about as far from ideal or humane as humanity can get, as inhumane as humanity can be, but even the sad reality of the existence of war is not immune from efforts of people to try and make it more humane. I think its those efforts which define civilization, and as such what differentiates legal from illegal.

Adder wrote: War is a broad term in some ways, certainly in its usage, but also because the border between war operations and war-like operations is a work in progress during 'conflicted' situations. It should not be used as synonymous to 'killing' IMO.

The easiest way that I view 'war' is one end of a progression from peace to war, with various states of conflict in-between. While there are general themes about intention, like offensive, defensive, supporting and stabilization.... the application of force generally in the 'West' according to doctrine is that the goals be achieved in the most peaceful way possible. Obviously if it's an offensive operation then it gets more difficult to justify, supporting depends who your supporting, while defensive is generally easier and stabilization might seem the epitome of that, it too depends on who's definition of stable your using.

The 'spectrum of conflict', which ideally all legal military conduct would try to push to the left;

As a Jedi, I view these things against how well they try to pull things back to a non-harm resolution. But Jedi have no authority as Jedi to act beyond what every other citizen can legally do - unless in a professional which can. So back to the conduct of war, the sad reality in this world is sometimes people are intent to do harm and sometimes its for no reason then they want something which is not theirs, and if they are willing to go full violence then equal or greater force can be required to counter it.... and that inevitable can include violence, harm and unfortunately death. To try and limit the inhumanity of these conflicts, people have been creating the laws to limit conflict, and the contemporary Laws of War tries to define a 'legal' conduct of war as distinct from illegal conduct. In this case war can become defined within those parameters. Importantly in there is the distinction between combatants and non-combatants - which means if civilians are being targeted by a group for whatever reason, then it becomes illegal and can fall outside of that definition of 'war', which is where I use the definition of terrorism.

And since a crime only exists if there is a law to define it as such, you can see why I could argue war is not a crime. War is about as far from ideal or humane as humanity can get, as inhumane as humanity can be, but even the sad reality of the existence of war is not immune from efforts of people to try and make it more humane. I think its those efforts which define civilization, and as such what differentiates legal from illegal.

I defiantly see what you mean. The term is accepted for a many terms similar. I take the side all life is sacred, including and especially my enemies. When the conflict has vanished so to will the term enemies if we do it right I think. A bit more difficult to if you think in those terms. Thank u brother Adder... when I learn new things it's evidence of this place continue testament to its true strengths and the Jedi way. Hadn't even thought of war being expressed differently. I'm an old soldier you say war I get pictures of me and my team in a street, running to a spot that's clear so we can complete our mission and not die in the same run. War is different to different people. War, to me was also interviewing natives and asking questions, seeing patients from different city's and villages, meeting new people of different faith and place. Thanks Adder! Gotta keep that in mind and heart!

Thanks for the comments.

The Dude,
War as a crime is a matter of opinion that I do not share. I understand your position towards humanity and I appreciate it but sometimes we also have to realize that we will never attain some enlightened state of nirvana on this planet. We as a species will always have to deal with conflict and we should always do our best to resolve that conflict with the most peaceful means available. Sometimes that will be through negotiation and compromise but sometimes it’s unavoidable that it will be through violence. To bury our heads in the sand and pretend that war can never an option is not a viable position. Yes life is sacred and should be held in highest regard but not higher regard than every human beings basic inalienable rights. When those rights are infringed upon through violence, it many times can only be met with equal violence. No being has any more right to live than another but no being is either so sacred that they should not be put down if they become rabid to humans as a species/subgroup. It’s just life and we are not any more special than any other form of life.

You prove my point yourself by asking the question “is war ever morally justified” and then you go on to state several reasons why it could be morally justified. Invasion being one of the more prominent. I submit that we have been invaded if one comes to this country with the intent to attack it whether that person be a part of an army or a lone individual that hijacks a plane. On your comments of invasion you seem to have an incredibly naive view of what an invasion would entail. It may be just a few missiles flying by but it could also be troops on the ground going home to home. What would you do if you found an enemy combatant raping your mother or your wife or girlfriend? Would you say oh let’s not meet violence with violence but instead find a way to all get along in that case? What these terrorists are doing to us is equivalent to rape on a societal level and they have no interest in “getting along” they have interest in oppression and domination.

You say we can’t kill an ideology? Was the ideology of Nazism killed? I think it was and it took extreme means to accomplish that but it was successful. Today we don’t seem to have the resolve we once did to do what it takes to accomplish a similar goal with radical jihadists. As for them not being countries, on the contrary they do occupy land and have established bases.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-all-of-the-area-that-isis-controls-2015-3

Let me ask you this question again. How do you meet the aggression of another that is bent on your destruction and has no interest in discussing other options? They want power and control over others to subjugate an entire gender and they find it perfectly lawful and justifiable and even revere the systematic killing of others to get their way. So what makes your sense of Justice/law greater than theirs? Make no mistake, these people consider themselves at war and they have the resolve to eradicate their enemy by any means. That includes anything we may find morally reprehensible or criminal, they don’t care about our morals because they believe they have a God on their side that has given them a holy mission. I mentioned Nazis earlier, the mission they were on is no different than the mission of these radicals and I see no reason to not meet them head on with the same solution to their hate and radical persecution of other humans.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: These extremist animals know nothing but war and violence and oppression. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until freedom is dead and their way of life is the only one that exists. Their systematic progression can only be ended by visiting a superior application of these concepts back onto them and never stopping that application until the enemy is completely and decisively eradicated. (and those that get this paragraphs reference, the comparison is on purpose)

Kyrin, I appreciate your willingness to be frank and honest with your opinions, and please take my response here as an open invitation to "go to guns" on me as well (per the agreed upon rules, of course).

I selected this specific excerpt from your overall response because in my eyes it is a glaring example of a fundamental misunderstanding about the so-called "War on Terror". The words you have chosen could literally be a recruitment speech for ISIS, Al Queda or any number of other organizations. In the eyes of these people, the U.S. Military is a terrorist organization.

Consider your words as they could describe the U.S.

We have been a nation constantly at war, committing acts of violence and oppressing other nations. We cannot be bargained with, other than perhaps for oil. We refuse reason unless it is our reason while ignoring the reason of our allies. We bomb cities with drones that feel no pity, remorse or fear and we have yet to stop because our way of life is not the only one that exists. And so, our systematic progression can only be ended by these groups visiting a superior application of these concepts back onto us via high-jacked airplanes, bombs, mass shootings and trucks until we are completely and decisively defeated.

Electing a man who will "declare war on ISIS" (that's in quotes on purpose because it can't even legally be done without Congress) will not make us appear strong. It will strengthen the resolve of groups who have already demonstrated that they have nothing to lose and therefore have no fear. What it will also do is drive even more to join their ranks in response to his hate-filled, racist and intolerant rants. It will cause our allies to question our motives as a nation and our ability to lead.

It will also undoubtedly put our currently deployed military personnel at even greater risk and jeopardize their ability to complete missions safely and effectively. I respect and commend you for your service to my country and I will never fully appreciate the sacrifice you have made as "boots on the ground", and that is why I fear having a Commander In Chief who shows little or no concern for foreign relations. The guy wants to build a fence to keep brown people out, and we're going to put him in a position to control the movement of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers?

One need only look at the attempted coup in Turkey to see how inflammatory political rhetoric in our own country can be extremely dangerous. The irony is not lost on me. It was the secularists in the military attempting a coup because they believed the government of Turkey is now too Islamic. This is a NATO ally bordering Syria and Iraq that we're talking about. Is Trump going to try to kick them out of NATO for being too Muslim? Are we going to lose access to the most strategically important air base in the region because Trump doesn't like the religion of the people running it? Or will it be the rest of NATO who will no longer be interested in going along for the ride on yet another war in the sand?

At the very least, Trump is alienating our European allies. At the very worst, he's driving countries with Islamic majorities to the other side. As former military, doesn't this concern you?

Shots fired, but with the intent of participating in this training exercise. I will now hide in my fox hole in anticipation of return fire.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You say we can’t kill an ideology? Was the ideology of Nazism killed? I think it was and it took extreme means to accomplish that but it was successful. Today we don’t seem to have the resolve we once did to do what it takes to accomplish a similar goal with radical jihadists. As for them not being countries, on the contrary they do occupy land and have established bases.

Note: Spoiler contains Nazi imagery and may be unsuitable and/or prohibited. Please view with discretion.