The invasion of Afghanistan was hot pursuit of criminal conspirators .... the taliban were not recognised as the legitimate government of the country, and there existed considerable evidence of them aiding the criminals .... so there was just cause for immediate and thorough police action
Pearl Harbour was a crime, and also an act of war, coming as it did at the hands of a navy directly controlled by a government considered in legitimate rule of the nation ..... in this case, nations were in fact at war, each with their dozens of millions of citizens involved, something quite unlike Afghanistan
You seem to imply that the term 'crime' is somehow less potent than the term 'war', and so criminals may get off lighter, or be pursued with less vigour, than warriors ...... this need not be the case, i think in fact it is the opposite of what should happen - in speaking of crime we are upholding the civilised rule of law, instead of reverting to pure might-makes-right gangland struggle
This does not equate to rendering our police less mighty, we still have military forces to augment their capabilities .... there is nothing gained, and considerable advantage lost, in elevating the perpetrators of crimes to the status of warriors, they are just dirty little murdering religious whackos, we should swat them like mosquitos, not honour them in this fashion ..... and in the process retain our respect for law, our dignity, our cool
Of course some will resist this approach because it does not hand blank-cheque justification for military control of all sovereign nations to a small group in the back rooms of a any particular national capital, as would the title 'War' .... well tough luck i say, let em B&M, the Rest of Us have a civilisation to build, let's get on with it |
