Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Actually - I read it as more a statement to the effect that we (as a nation, our NCA, reporting MSM and blogospheric pundits) seem pretty confused by the whole GWOT while our enemies appear to have a pretty distinctive and more cohesive point-of-view about it - terrorism vs terroristic acts.
Richard's $.02
|
I agree with Richard's view, and some of the others.
We have a tendency to heap things up under a word and act like it defines or encompasses a set of acts or events in order to prosecute our actions or reactions against.
Racketeering as defined by New Oxford:
racketeer |ˌrakiˈti(ə)r|
noun
a person who engages in dishonest and fraudulent business dealings.
I think of these acts thanks to our laws (lawyers) as being extortion, money laundering, receiving stolen goods/selling stolen goods, counterfeiting, book making, protection enforcement Etc...... as a means to profit and further Organized Crime.....all part of Rico as I understand it.
So what are we calling Terrorism? Not just the definition, and how do we define individual acts or events? The act in Afghan is pretty clear on an act of War IMHO.
Hasan in my mind could go either way, that would go to motive and state of mind, if one were to ask a lawyer.
I believe it will be harder for the NCA to define what specifically the definition of terror encompasses in the furtherance of prosecuting a GWOT IMHO, if one were to single out specific acts or events. Its not PC to declare Jihad on Islam. It would have to bring out another term such as Radical Islam and provide definition to suit the lawyers.
Meanwhile the guys on the ground "Have To" (and they are) provide or look at our key terms to conduct operations. These are Task, Purpose, Intent, and End State. It would do the NCA a world of good to look at and apply those as well, because I'm not so sure they know what these are..........