Marc wrote:
> I started to say something similar to this earlier, although I would not
> have gone so far as to say is from another nation... just a group.
Not technically.
A group cannot, by definition, commit an act of war--they don't enjoy
sovereignty, only a nation does. If a group commits such an act, again by
definition, it is an act of terrorism.
> I think a large reason we view it as terrorism rather than war is
> because, as a nation the US believes itself to be at peace. Many
> groups around the world (and within the US border) have declared
> war on the US, its government, and/or its citizens. These groups
> are typically viewed as posing no risk to the US, especially at
> home. As a result the declaration of war has never been fully
> recognized by the US.
On the contrary, for the last several years, by law, the DoJ has tracked
acts of terrorism in the USA and a LOT more have occurred than are commonly
reported in the media. But despite the violent nature of these acts and
attempted acts, and the declarations made by those groups that they
"declared war" on the USA, the fact remains that their acts are not ones of
war (which are governed by the Geneva Convention and other rules of war, and
which involve military actions by sovereign nations), but violent crimes. To
call them acts of war dignifies them--these are murderers and violent
criminals pure and simple, and should be viewed as such, not as soldiers in
a war--the alternative is to view the suicide of the hijackers as
martyrhood--something far more exalted than they deserve!
> To people in those groups, todays acts might not be seen as terrorism but
> as acts of war. To go further, these actions could be viewed as
> retaliation for past actions the US is believed to have committed against
> certain groups. It's a matter of perspective. FOR EXAMPLE (and not an
> attempt to assign blame for events of today): The US has bombed various
> sites in Iraq (as well as other countries around the world), resulting in
> civilian casualties and the destruction of buildings. Today's events
> resulted in the same thing. We just happen to be on the receiving end this
> time.
Big difference, Marc. Our bombing of Iraq was a military response to the
military actions of another nation. As such, it was subject to the rules of
war, to International standards of decency (not that I can find any possible
"decent" way to kill innocent people, but . . .) and to political approval.
Our nation acted openly, with the knowledge that other nations could, if
they so choose, enact sanctions against us for the actions. AND our targets
were military, not deliberately civilian. In the case of the crimes today,
the targets were civilians, the terrorists too cowardly to identify
themselves, and the nations that SPONSOR those terrorists and harbor them
and their training camps are, themselves, to cowardly to openly declare war
on the USA and suffer any potential consequences.
Comparing the two is like comparing execution by the State to homicide.
While I oppose the death penalty, at least it has legitimacy in the sense of
representing a legal sanction approved by the legislatures, courts, and
population as a whole. Homicide, however, even if motivated by anger or a
feeling of being oppressed, is STILL homicide--a crime against society in
general and an individual in particular. Add to that the random nature of
the homicides committed today by the terrorists (ANYONE who was at the WTC
today was a fair target from the terrorist's perspective), and you have a
crime even more removed from any social justification at all.
> Perhaps the time has come for the US to realize that we are more
> vulnerable to attack than we would like to admit. And, it might be
> time to realize that we are at war with various groups around the
> world (including some groups within the US border) who pose a more
> serious threat to the safety of US citizens than we are comfortable
> admitting. As much as we might like our fellow Americans, there are
> people in the world that view the US and all US citizens as the enemy.
What is scary, of course, is the obvious fact that the politicians will use
these horrible events as an excuse to limit the rights of lawful citizens
even further (as happened after the event at the Atlanta Olympics)--instead
of spending the money to improve our intelligence capabilities (by adding a
LOT of humint support) which WOULD be a good response. I can't see the US
following the logical step--that of informing ALL nations known to harbor
terrorists that harboring a terrorist or failing to inform the USA of any
information they may have concerning today's events will be considered an
act of war by that nation against the USA and will result in a massive
military response. I'm not as worried about domestic terrorists to the same
degree--most of them are either impotent nut cases or right wing extremists
who don't have the kind of funding necessary to pull off a greater act than
building fertilizer bombs as I am about international terrorists who may
have access to enormous funds and to some of the many missing nuclear
weapons formerly part of the USSR's stockpiles in Baltic nations.
> I want to make it clear that I am not assigning blame to any
> group, nor am I suggesting we should declare war on any nation
> or its citizens.
I am--if we can identify the nation that sheltered/supported today's
terrorists we need to respond with a massive military action, if only to
prevent any other nation from every doing the same thing.
> I simply wanted to point out that how you interpret today's
> events depends on views of the world and past events that might
> not be shared by everyone.
Sorry, Marc, but I can't agree.
Today's events were NOT acts of war--that requires a nation as the
actor--but acts of senseless violence by a group of crazed political or
religious extremists acting purely in their own self-interests.
Rick
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
". . . and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone." --Fred Small
