4 ms·

Because it's a military, not criminal issue. Al Qaeda is not the Mafia or the Triads; they're a paramilitary group that has declared war on the West. They war

Because it's a military, not criminal issue. Al Qaeda is not the Mafia or the Triads; they're a paramilitary group that has declared war on the West. They warrant a military response.

aqme28 14y ago
Excellent! That means we're done and can wrap this whole thing up then: "We achieved our central goal … or have come very close to achieving our central goal, which is to de-capacitate al-Qaeda, to dismantle them, to make sure that they can’t attack us again." -Barack Obama (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-obama-afghanistan-idUSBRE90A0ZT20130112 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-obama-afghanist...)
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  Just because Hitler killed himself doesn't mean you don't shoot back at the soldiers defending Berlin.
  - aqme28 14y ago
    I think the analogy you should have used is "The war is over and the Germans have surrendered. Now let's continue to kill people who were "involved" in "activities."
    - redthrowaway 14y ago
      The death of bin Laden does not mean that Al Qaeda is not a threat. Just because the AQ leadership has been decimated does not mean that you cease operations against them, or that its members cease to be legitimate military targets. Edit: My response made more sense before the parent edited their comment. Their original comment simply asked me to explain how mine was appropriate in the context of this discussion.
    - redthrowaway 14y ago
      That's a ridiculous analogy. The war is by no means over, and no one's surrendered.
      - adventured 14y ago
        The whole idea is to make sure the war is never over. Which is why America is now in a state of permanent war. Can't go on spending a trillion a year on 'security' and 'defense' if there's no war to rally around.
        mc32 14y ago
        Columbia has had an insurgency war going on for 60 or so years, if not more. I don't think people think "how can we prolong this conflict, this war must not stop!" It's mainly opposition (not incumbent) forces are like that, they seldom want to give in. Look at NI or Sri Lanka. Even after peace treaties, renegades continue on.
    - mc32 14y ago
      Nazi Germany was organized and hierarchical and wore identifying uniforms (unlike AQ, which is purpose-built cell-based). When German forces were defeated, there wasn't a threat of ongoing action from factional Nazis --well, there were a few who refused to surrender and became saboteurs and the Allies did search for and destroy them.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        > well, there were a few who refused to surrender and became saboteurs and the Allies did search for and destroy them. Interesting article about Japanese troops who were not aware of the surrender, or refused to recognize it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout
    - emkemp 14y ago
      Al-Qaeda surrendered?
nemothekid 14y ago
In this case, you are right. I made my earlier comment before reading the actual paper, and the paper makes it pretty clear that they are not talking about "terrorists" but "Senior members of Al-Qaeda and Associates." So yes, I can see why such a response is necessary. I guess now the issue falls specifically on the wording of the issue. Terrorist can really mean anything and are we on a "slippery slope" where the President is being given power to assassinate any citizen he can label?
- jowiar 14y ago
  The wording is key. The reasoning in this paper is pretty sound. I think the bigger issue, if there is one, is that the AUMF in 2001 grants the President too much power to determine which "nations, organizations, or persons planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." That wording is a bit of a recipe for endless war (as written a dozen years later).

Because it's a military, not criminal issue. Al Qaeda is not the Mafia or the Triads; they're a paramilitary group that has declared war on the West. They warrant a military response.

aqme28 14y ago

Excellent! That means we're done and can wrap this whole thing up then: "We achieved our central goal … or have come very close to achieving our central goal, which is to de-capacitate al-Qaeda, to dismantle them, to make sure that they can’t attack us again." -Barack Obama (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-obama-afghanistan-idUSBRE90A0ZT20130112 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/12/us-obama-afghanist...)

redthrowaway 14y ago
Just because Hitler killed himself doesn't mean you don't shoot back at the soldiers defending Berlin.
- aqme28 14y ago
  I think the analogy you should have used is "The war is over and the Germans have surrendered. Now let's continue to kill people who were "involved" in "activities."
  - redthrowaway 14y ago
    The death of bin Laden does not mean that Al Qaeda is not a threat. Just because the AQ leadership has been decimated does not mean that you cease operations against them, or that its members cease to be legitimate military targets. Edit: My response made more sense before the parent edited their comment. Their original comment simply asked me to explain how mine was appropriate in the context of this discussion.
  - redthrowaway 14y ago
    That's a ridiculous analogy. The war is by no means over, and no one's surrendered.
    - adventured 14y ago
      The whole idea is to make sure the war is never over. Which is why America is now in a state of permanent war. Can't go on spending a trillion a year on 'security' and 'defense' if there's no war to rally around.
      - mc32 14y ago
        Columbia has had an insurgency war going on for 60 or so years, if not more. I don't think people think "how can we prolong this conflict, this war must not stop!" It's mainly opposition (not incumbent) forces are like that, they seldom want to give in. Look at NI or Sri Lanka. Even after peace treaties, renegades continue on.
  - mc32 14y ago
    Nazi Germany was organized and hierarchical and wore identifying uniforms (unlike AQ, which is purpose-built cell-based). When German forces were defeated, there wasn't a threat of ongoing action from factional Nazis --well, there were a few who refused to surrender and became saboteurs and the Allies did search for and destroy them.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > well, there were a few who refused to surrender and became saboteurs and the Allies did search for and destroy them. Interesting article about Japanese troops who were not aware of the surrender, or refused to recognize it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout
  - emkemp 14y ago
    Al-Qaeda surrendered?

nemothekid 14y ago

In this case, you are right. I made my earlier comment before reading the actual paper, and the paper makes it pretty clear that they are not talking about "terrorists" but "Senior members of Al-Qaeda and Associates." So yes, I can see why such a response is necessary. I guess now the issue falls specifically on the wording of the issue. Terrorist can really mean anything and are we on a "slippery slope" where the President is being given power to assassinate any citizen he can label?

jowiar 14y ago
The wording is key. The reasoning in this paper is pretty sound. I think the bigger issue, if there is one, is that the AUMF in 2001 grants the President too much power to determine which "nations, organizations, or persons planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." That wording is a bit of a recipe for endless war (as written a dozen years later).