At 11:33 PM 9/16/01 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>>The first one, Dan beat me to:
>> >So, if a country only employed civilians to build and launch a nuclear
>> >missle, it would not be an act of war?
>
>This point is moot. I *know* of no country that would only employ civilians
>for this, and I do not think any country *would* leave it to only civilians.
Consider, however, this case. What of a country that employs civilians to
kill thousands of civilians in another country. Even those people have
engaged in a conscious, deliberate, and state-supported attempt to destory
the people and infrastructure of another country, do you still consider
them non-military simply because they do not carry a military rank?
>>If it is demonstrated that military officials of Afghanistan or Iraq or
>>both gave aid or comfort or both to the terrorists that implemented this
>>attack, does that constitute an act of war?
>
>No, because neither Afghanistan nor Iraq launched a military strike against
>the US. Did you see Afghani or Iraqi troops, planes or other signs of their
>presence in Manhattan or Washington? I certainly did not.
It depends on your definition of "troops." If you mean individuals acting
with the support and funding of one country with the intent of killing the
people and destroying the infrastructure of another country, then *yes*, I
did.
>>Should State-sponsored terrorism against another State be considered an act
>>of war?
>
>My answer should be obvious from some of my earlier posts on the subject.
I will consider your answer, then, to be "no."
>>If this State-sponsored killing of thousands of civilians should
>>not be considered an act of war, why not?
>
>My answer should be obvious from some of my earlier posts on the subject.
I will also consider your answer to be "no."
>>What is the appropriate US response to the killing of thousands of
civilians?
>
>The appropriate response would be the same as for any other crime: find out
>which individuals are responsible, gather evidence, arrest them, and give
>them a fair trial.
Yes, but how do we do that if these individuals are acting with the support
of another country? For example, the United States has a warrant for
the rest of Osama bin Laden - for klling Americans at Khobar, Nairboi, Dar
es Salaam, and at Aden. Yet, the government of Afghanistan has refused
to give him up for trial.
Now, if I understand you correctly, you recommend that there was nothing
the United States could do. Am I correct? Since Osama bin Laden is
not a commissioned member for the Afghani military, the United States would
*not* be justified in using missiles, aircraft, or special forces to
apprehend Osama bin Laden within Afghanistan. Correct?
Of course, doing nothing(1) has allowed Osama bin Laden to continue to act
with the support of the Afghani and Iraqi governments to kill over
*five*thousand* innocent Americans, and destroy *tens*of*billions* worth of
US property.
So what now, Jeroen, we again do nothing? What if next time it is a
mushroom cloud over Manhattan? What then? Still nothing?
Is there no justifiable recourse in your mind for the United States against
countries that seek to destroy us through non-military means?
JDG
(1) - O.k., o.k., the US *has* launched air strikes and cruise missiles at
Afghanistan in the past. They were unsuccessful, and they certainly fell
far short of our current state of war. But, if I understand Jeroen
correctly he opposed even those military actions, let alone our current
state of war - thus the point is moot. Despite the strikes, their
unsuccessful nature left the US as essentially having done nothing, just as
Jeroen advocated.
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Freedom itself was attacked today, and Freedom will be Defended."
-U.S. President George W. Bush, 09/11/01
