----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Preparations
>
> >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.
>
But, many times when I think your answer is obvious and respond to it, I
apparently misunderstand you. So, let me ask this very clearly. If it
clear that, Iraq and/or Afghanistan has aided in the attack on the US but it
is also clear that the people who made the attack were not regular military,
is the United States obliged to hold off until uniformed personal are used?
> >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.
>
So, if I understand correctly from your other posts, if Iraq and Afghanistan
were to support these attacks, our only legal and moral recourse is to
convince them that they acted incorrectly. That we are obligated to refrain
from any actions against the perpetrators of the actions until, the people
who supported the actions agree to hand over the people that they support?
Am I misunderstanding something?
Dan M.
