----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Preparations
> At 21:32 14-9-01 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
>
> >Should State-sponsored terrorism against another State be considered an
act
> >of war? If this State-sponsored killing of thousands of civilians
should
> >not be considered an act of war, why not? And what should an act of war
be
> >defined as?
>
> In all fairness: my turn to ask the questions, and your turn to answer
them.
>
> #1: Country A supports terrorism against country B. Should country B be
> allowed to let its military strike back at country A?
At a minimum, it should be treated as though any other military force was
used...with rare exceptions that I will get into later. As with any use of
force, we can differentiate between legitimate and illigetimate uses of
force. For example, a country doesn't really have the right to invade
another country. Use of irregular forces against the invaders does not give
the invading country any more rights than they had to begin with.
>
> #2: If the answer to #1 is "yes", would this always be true, or only for
> certain countries B?
>
Always is a big statement because it virtually begs one to come up with the
rare exception. But, in virtually every case I can think of, the answer
would be yes.
> #3: If the answer to #2 is "only for certain countries B", then list those
> countries and explain why other countries are not on that list.
>
It wouldn't be certain countries, just certain situations.
> #4: If the answer to #1 is "no", then why not?
>
> #5: If country B strikes back at country A, would it be justified if
> country A would in turn attack country B (either through A's military or
> through further support for the terrorists)?
Most likely not. If the first attack were unjustified, then further attacks
would also be unjustified. The continuation of the war by Germany and
Japan was understandable, but not justified.
> #8: If the answer to #5 is "no", then why not?
>
I think I explained that just above. If not, tell me.
The one exception I can think of to the right to strike back is when two
countries that cannot afford to get into a direct war, like the CCCP and the
USA fight proxie wars by arming countries and arming insurgents within those
countries. It would be wrong for either one to attack the other directly.
So, it would be wrong for one country to sponser an attack directly on the
other. That's because it would escalate the war.
Dan M.
