If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Crime or Act of War?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Following our recent discussion about the recording of crime statistics I was wondering...
The NYC attacks lead to the deaths of 6000+ people. Would these deaths be recorded as homicides or as an act of war?
I know that in the scheme of things it is irrelevant, but it was just a thought...an act of war would have to have been at the behest of a foreign Govt, and OBL doesn't fall into that category. In which case it was a crime, which would just add to our discussion as to why crime figures can appear to be high...
The NYC attacks lead to the deaths of 6000+ people. Would these deaths be recorded as homicides or as an act of war?
I know that in the scheme of things it is irrelevant, but it was just a thought...an act of war would have to have been at the behest of a foreign Govt, and OBL doesn't fall into that category. In which case it was a crime, which would just add to our discussion as to why crime figures can appear to be high...
0
Comments
Its not a war, they are not soldiers, they are just common criminals. Talking about Al-Queda here.
When Colgate say they are declaring war on tooth decay, does that mean they are sending in the soldiers?
Whoa. For fuck's sake this isn't a chance to bash the US, this isn't about Bush's reaction it is about the reporting of crime statistics.
One event can be reported as 6000+ homicides. Surely the US crime stats for 2001 will look really shit now, bearing in mind that they would have about 15,000 homicides anyway...
Let me use an example from over here. I am drving down the M1 at a steady 95mph. Over a distance of 50 miles, I pass 5 speed cameras, each one taking a picture. Have I committed 5 driving offences, or just one?
But since this is pretty much the first crime of this scale, it doesn't really matter in terms of US homicide statistics. I don't know if they'll include these 6000 (I thought it was down to 3000?) as a separate category just for the sake of comaprisons with previous years. Minor point really. I've always wondered that. Presumably it's five different offences, so you could probably lose your licence for what is effectively one period of speeding. That seems somewhat unfair since the tickets take weeks to arrive and thus they have not provided an opportunity for you to alter your driving habits, which, lets face it, should be the point of speed traps.
*hates speed cameras*
Not true. There have been numerous cases of wars fought not at the behest of a foreign government. I refer you to William Wallace, the American Revolution, the Indochina war against the French...
Yes, we see those as acts of war now. But at the time they were classed as criminal acts. William Wallace was tried as a petty criminal and sentenced to death. We saw the American revolutionaries as criminals and I'm sure the French saw the Indo people as them too.
Maybe in decades to come we will see the WTC as an act of war and not crime, maybe we won't.
As for the speed camera thing, you will be convicted of 5 seperate motoring offences.
No, he was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered for high treason -- waging war against his king.
And if 'war' can only be between legitimate governments then the United Kingdom has never been 'at war' since our governmental system has never been subject to a popular consititutional convention and/or ratification by referendum, hence is not legitimate.
What worries me is that after five months they still haven't found Osama Bin Laden. After the atrocities of September the eleventh everyone was worried about what else he could do, airport security was increased....but he still hasnt been found is security still what it was after that? I would suggest not after seeing $4 million stolen from Heathrow.
What i am saying is the government did warn us that it would take time, but is anything being done apart from taking over Afghanistan from the Taliban? Have they done anything since, to try and find him (Bin Laden), it would seem people have gotten bored of it, yet Bin Laden could easily attack again, he has the money and power to do so, i dont think many people would fly planes into a building for any old rich twat.
The United States fought a war (called such at the time) with the pirates of the Barbary Coast. Britain fought a war against warlords in China, and called it a war. Then there is the little matter of India. Also a war, a mutiny in fact. There are lots of examples in history. A little (very little) research will make that plainly obvious.
What the 'criminals' thought they were doing is irrelevant; Al-Quaeda feel theyre fighting a war with the US, the Scots thought they were fighting a war against the English. War is a very ambiguous word, but it has strong connotations, which si why Bush used it.
Not true in every case, or in even most cases. THe Chinese warlords were not seen as criminals, they were seen as interfering with British business and corrupt, but they were breaking no laws in China. Do not mistake press statements as anything but what they were, a way to get public support.
And the Mutineers were seen as military criminals, but the Mutiny was also seen as a war. That is more than evident in the correspondence between India and the Home Office.
If you prefer a very old example, look at the Roman Empire and its wars against the various invaders, many of whom had no government. Or the conflicts in England with the Viking raiders.
The point is that war does not require "governments" and never has.