At 23:43 29-12-01 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: > > An act of terrorism is not an act of > >war, so this was not something NATO should have gotten involved in. > >The Treaty, however, refers to "armed attack" not "act of war."
This was not an armed attack. The only items that could be seen as weapons are the boxcutters and the likes that were used against the crews and passengers of those planes. Hijacking a plane is not an act of war, it is an act of terrorism. The WTC and Pentagon were hit by civilian airplanes; civilian airplanes are not weapons. One can then argue that they did damage, and therefore they were weapons. The problem with that reasoning is that you can then label *anything* an act of war. When that plane was blown up over Lockerbie, it did not only kill everyone on board and destroy the plane, it also did a lot of damage on the ground. Did anyone say Libya committed an act of war against Scotland? No, it was called terrorism. Heck, when I hit someone with my bare hands, my hands, are that moment, (potentially leathel) weapons. Yet nobody will call the act of hitting that person an act of war. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
