At 04:25 AM 12/30/01, Jeroen wrote: >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.
They might if, for example*, the person you chose to hit was the president of a country and you stated that your reason for doing so was because you considered your country or organization at war with that country. _____ *Not necessarily the only possibility, so let's not pick nits. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam� God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989)
