On "terror"? That's a tactic. That's an emotion. May as well declare "war" on loud noises, bright lights, heights.
But first, one must "declare" war. And then, when it's "won", sign an armistice. Did we "declare war" against Afghanistan? Nope. Nothing that legal. Just invaded. Have we signed an armistice? Again, nope.
So how could one free anyone when the "war" is "won", when it's not declared, and certainly not winnable?
Can't. So the situation is phony to begin with.
Could have pursued al-Qaeda, and screwed 'em to the wall. We could have done a great job there. Could have "won" that. Could have eliminated al-Qaeda for once and for all. Could have been selective and targeted.
Instead the tactics only provided a recruiting incentive for 'em. The heavy-handedness seems to have spawned more and more people willing to use terror as a tactic.
Can't "win" against terror any more than one can fear, or anger, or rage. May as well declare a war against revenge, and try to kill everyone and their families and friends who doesn't like you.
And any tactic which creates 10 or 20 enemies for every one you kill isn't a great tactic.
Arf
Current Events » in reply to They should be declared to "Prisoners of War" and held for the duration. That is the proper thing to do by international law.
What "war"?
The whole thread (28 posts)
- Sounds like a typical concentration camp...paid by your tax dollars.
- More on the SCotUS argument
- Gitmo is an abomination....
- They should be declared to "Prisoners of War" and held for the duration. That is the proper thing to do by international law. (n/t)
- "The most important theme in all the cases is the power of the president to conduct a new kind of war as he sees fit."
- It is, but it's "ours".
