Would an attack on a US military base in another country be considered terrorism?

Question

This is a follow-up to my other question about US military bases in other countries being US property. This is research for a film script, by the way.

Answer 1

Not if it's in a country that the US is already terrorizing.

Answer 2

An attack un-provoked is terrorism, regardless of the location. Terrorism is usually associated with an attack by an individual and not by another army or military force.

When the US Marines kick in some innocent persons door at 3AM in Baghdad to look for an insurgent, (freedom fighter), it is not terrorism, although if it happened to Americans it would be considered terrorism. How come the US never bothered with their buddy Saddam Hussein until after 9/11?

Answer 3

That all depends if it was done by terrorists. Let's say the North Koreans crossed the 39th parallel and attacked the US military base in there in South Korea. That would be considered an act of war on the US. But if terrorist like Al Qaeda were to attack a US military base that would not be an act of war because terrorist are not an attacking soverign nation. The "war on terror" is a totally misleading statement because war is legally defined as a conflict between nations not individuals like terrorists.

Answer 4

Many American bases have been attacked in the past. But to define it as terrorism depends on the method of attack. I was in germany when a bomb was blown up at rhein main Airbase near Frankfurt in the 80's. The baider mainhoff group was also killing soldiers for there ID cards just prior to that. If an armed force of uniformed soldiers attacked a US base, that would not be considered terrorism. But method used not by a known country, with deception or an overt attack. They would be considered terrorists.

Answer 5

Groups do terrorism; countries do war. An attack on US military property or US embassies would be terrorism if it is made by a vague amorphous terror group. If a legitimate, recognized government does such an attack, it is an act of war. That is why it is so important to establish who is responsible for the attack. If a government sponsors or approves of such an attack in its own country, it is also an act of war. US bases are usually framed as permanent leaseholds, but the US always treats their leaseholds as US property for the duration of the lease. Embassies are universally agreed to be tiny little autonomous countries attached to their respective governments in perpetuity. B.

Answer 6

No. Terrorism is defined as an attack on civilian targets in order to effect political change.

If the attack was made against a military installation by the forces of a foreign government or a proxy of a foreign government, it would be an act of war.

If that attack came from a force not aligned with a foreign government, it would simply be an attack.

Answer 7

Any attack by a non military force against any other force can be considered terrorism. A sneak attack by a military force without a war declaration can also be considered terrorism.

Answer 8

The brecent attack on The American Embassy in Syria was considered to be terrorism.

As usual, it was conducted by American secret service agents, as reported by the Syrian Government.


Most terrorism is conducted by the secret services, primarily CIA/MI6/Mossad/ISI, who between them are responsible for 9/11, 7/7, Madrid train bombing, Bali bombing, Mumbai train bombing, Lockerbie air disaster, and loads more.



The idea of terrorism is to promote the agenda of the Illuminati/New World Order, who control the governments, and their secret services. That agenda is to take control of the entire world, remove over half the population, and reduce the freedoms of the remainder to the levels of slavery

An Illuminati Primer
http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/illuminati.html

Rothschild/Rockefeller
The Architecture of Modern Political Power
http://dgwa1.fortunecity.com/fourthreich/rockroth.html

Answer 9

It depends on who is doing the attacking. If it is the armed forces of another country, then it is an act of war. If it is militants, not necessarily aligned with a specific government (but could be), then it is an act of terrorism.

Answer 10

No, such an attack would be an act of war. Attacking military targets to achieve an objective is one thing. Attacking civilian populations simply to instill terror, is another. What distinguishes soldiers from terrorists are their targets & tactics, not their nationality.

Answer 11

It is an act of war. Same as the embassies, ships, trade center and pentagon. A base is considered US property even if leased, for territorial rights under international law.