Sam H. wrote:
> > If it was intended as an attack of humanity than there would have been
> > attacks worldwide.
>
> No. Some of the Nazi war criminals were convicted of crimes
> against humanity based on evidence of what they did to their own
> people in their own country.
Correct. But what we must ask us if the people that were attacked (those
in the WTC and the planes) were attacked because they were Americans or if
the attack was against the building WTC to create fear and hate among
Americans. If it was the first alternative then this was an attack on
humanity but not on the US (only on people being in a city in the US) and
vice versa. Personally I think it was an attack on the symbol of WTC,
terrorists normally want exposure and they get this by attacking well
known symbols.
> I do know an attack on humanity
> doesn't necessarily involve an extensive broad-reaching attack
> against people in other countries, otherwise none of the Serbian
> defendants would have been charged with crimes against humanity.
> None were accused of attacking anyone outside the borders of their
> own country.
Incorrect, as soon as the rest of the world saw Croatia and Bosnia as
countries any Serbian (or Yugoslavian whichever you prefer) forces were in
another country fighting an ethnic war (as opposed to a war to preserve
the territory of Yugoslavia which wouldn't have been illegal).
> I have never seen the full text of the internationally
> accepted "legal definition" of the term "crime against humanity".
Neither have I.
//Bernie
http://bernie.arachne.cz/
