To all: A word of caution! Please remember two things when answering this question. 1) Terrorism is a tactic, not a government. 2) Terrorists are global, they do not have a country per se, and they operate out of just about anywhere.
2007-05-10 17:22:02 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It's pretty clear-ans the points you made (correctly) show, that 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war.
But you have to remember--the right-wing regards all Muslims as enemies, and since some countries are Muslims, they view all of those nations as enemies complicit in the attack on the WTC.
Sure, that's irrational, but whoever said Bush and the neocons were rational? lol
Wolfpack:Bush invaded Iraq--and Afganistan--without a declarationof war. So by your definition, he's a criminal. BTW--no state sponsored al-Qaida They are criminals pure and simple.
2007-05-10 17:34:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's impossible to declare a War on Terrorism. Terrorism is not an entity. It's like declaring War on drugs. There's a reason why Bush declared WAr on Terror... if he declared War on just the Taliban, where was the pre-text for other global conquests? Not that Iraq was ever attached to terrorist groups, but that doesn't really matter as long as the average American eats it up.
Mostly it's just a political tactic (which I may add worked very well). Bush is not stupid like many believe, he's a very intuitive politician. It's not hard really... feed people fear and get them to fight an invisible enemy. War creates patriotic fervour which often transcends reason. This creates an intense blinding nationalism, which actually unifies people into following the norm. The administration can then use this unified people to achieve their agenda, while convincing them out of fear that they are actually fighting for their own safety.
This is nothing new. Many governments have done this... albeit rarely democratic countries.. with one exception I guess.. Nazi Germany before they made it a dictatorship.
2007-05-10 17:29:59 · answer #2 · answered by MattH 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
it quite is incredibly not seen an Act of conflict, it quite is seen an Act of Terror, meant to terrorize a inhabitants. Its all interior the wording, yet once you seem interior the Geneva convention and the regulation of Land conflict, you will see that there is a distinction. Pearl Harbor is an Act of conflict. State supported armed forces attack on the armed forces, when you consider that terrorist at the instant are not completely state supported it quite is merely an Act or Terror, like the embassy bombings, the united statesCole and so forth.
2017-01-09 15:23:04 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Criminal act. Arson, murder, premeditation, etc.... An act of war is to change a circumstance - not the case with 9/11. 9/11 happened because criminals were involved....mercenaries, terrorists - whatever, they are all criminals in my mind. An act of war could be construed as the people fighting back for their rights, not willing to go along with their current government. One country trying to bully another, another act of war. Individuals that make a conscious choice to hurt other human beings are criminals, period!
2007-05-10 17:28:21 · answer #4 · answered by daff73 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
REALLY a good question! Thank you! It would have fallen under the heading of "Criminal Act" were it not for the fact that it was "state sponsored" and endorsed either with tacit approval or not. But, because it was state sponsored, it was an act of war. All of this then, begs the question, which countries endorsed or sponsored outright this act? Surely not JUST Afghanistan... Politics makes for strange bed fellows. Hello Saudi Arabia and Pakistan...
2007-05-10 17:31:22 · answer #5 · answered by Doc 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Terrorism is a crime against humanity because lives were lost when the attacks were made.
2007-05-10 21:36:11 · answer #6 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The killing of thousands of men, women and children on peaceful soil is criminal. None of the dead were trained soldiers fighting against the trash who flew those planes into the towers so they weren't furthering the cause of any war they were fighting by murdering innocents. Just my POV.
2007-05-10 17:45:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is definitely a criminal act. An act of war can only be committed by a sovereign country. Those terrorists, aka al qaeda, are a group a people that acted in representation of their own interests, not a sovereign country. They would have to have been acting on behalf of a sovereign country.
2007-05-10 17:31:38 · answer #8 · answered by dean g 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Both - sending terrorist into another country is an act of war.
Any arson without a declared war is criminal.
2007-05-10 17:32:26 · answer #9 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
its a act of war i don't care if they have no government or a country i want us to kick the crap out of them i want the enemy to think crap we should not have attack them
2007-05-10 18:12:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋