Was the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center "an Act of War"?

[Winterblues]

How about the Oklahoma City Bombing? Is it the amount of people killed that makes it an "act of war" or is it just Republican's wish for "War Profiteering" that makes it so..

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Can ANY attack that isn't sponsored by a sovereign nation be an "Act of War"?

If the PLO instead of Al-Quaeda flew those airplanes, would it be an act of war as opposed to a country like Syria, or say . . . , Iran? Is it the act itself or the ability to have a standing army and military that represents that country or organization that makes it so?

[Winterblues]

2. IMO no it can not be but then I am not a Republican either.

:shrug:

[Ozymanithrax]

5. The PLO is the administrative body in the West Bank.

If the PLO, or the PLA, planned, coordinated, and made the 9/11 attacks on the US, it does fall within the tecnical definition of an act of war.

But the whole war on terror was a policy choice by the Bush administration to treat these types of attacks and specific organizations using the military rather than as criminal acts that are opposed using criminal law and police forces.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Technically, an act of war is a violent attack by one country on another with which it is normally

at peace.

The World Trade Center bombing was not considered an act of war because the Clinton administrations policy of handling terrorist acts by organizations was to treat them as a criminal act. They were opposed using police and FBI locally, the police forces of other nations, and limited military strikes or black ops.

The Oklahoma City Bombing was perpetrated by disgruntled right wing American citizens who thought they could initiate a civil war as per the "The Turner Diaries." It was viewed as a problem for law enforcement and handled as a crime. And, really, who would we have declared war upon, ourselves.

The Bush administration chose to change the policy of treating terrorist attacks as criminal acts and treat terrorist attacks as acts of war by organizations. It stretches the idea of war as hostile military actions between nations states to conflict between a nation and extra-national organizations.

An act of war has nothing to do with the number of people killed. It is simply a policy decision on how we choose to treat terrorist organizations. Before 9/11 terrorist attacks were treated as criminal acts. Obama has not openly changed the policy, but we haven't admitted to a major terrorist attack against the US or a US Facility in another country. The Fort Hood murders are being treated as a criminal act rather than an act of war. So, perhaps, Obama is shifting the way we will react to such acts in the future.

[Winterblues]

9. But even during the Bush* administration certain terrorists were tried as criminals in Civilian cour

Moussowi(sp), The show Bomber, for example, and many others...

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Yes, there were a few, but the response was using military force.

President Clinton did not invade those countries where terrorists abide. He use diplomatic pressure and law enforcement techniques to investigate and bring criminals into the courts.

President Bush change that policy. The conflict with terrorists was changed to a war response. The Taliban's refusal to turn him over to the US for trial was taken as an act of war, when it was actually a diplomatic act of refusal. Rather than continue to pursue sanctions or negotiate with other nations to punish Afghanistan for refusing to turn over Bin Laden for trial, Bush chose to take us to war. He committed us to a similar policy with Saddam, choosing to end the policy of diplomatic containment of Iraq and invade the country.


Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden

Note: The above link gives a quick history of the attempts to retrieve Bin Laden by diplomatic means so that he could stand trial for crimes committed against the United States or its embassies.

[Bitwit1234]

4. Rove and Fox said it was an attack on our military

and should be tried in a military court. How stupid was that statement. But then look at the people saying it.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. One person can not make war upon a country.

Under the Bush administrastion, internatonal and extranational organizations were given the same status as nations, and we made war upon them.

So far, no matter how hard the right has tried to sh ow that the Fort Hood murders were an attack by muslims on the US military, the evidence I've seen still makes it a crime rather than an act of war.

Conservative Republicans do not trust the U.S. Constitution to be strong enough to handle acts like this. They want to take vengance rather than seek justice.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. There was a Pan American hijacking in 1970 that answered this...

and was referenced during the 9/11 saber rattling. Since damage from war is excluded from insurance policies, but can be covered by special "war" polices in international trade, the question was whether the property insurer or the war insurer was going to pay for the plane the hijackers blew up.

Very simplified, the Second Circuit ruled that there was no war going on at the time so the war exclusion didn't apply.

[dysfunctional press]

8. 9/11 wasn't an act of war either.

it was a crime, and should have been treated as such.

but that wouldn't fit into poppy's plans...

so the 2000 selection HAD to be stolen.

[Winterblues]

10. Ummm

9-11 happened in 2001, nine months after the 2000 election was decided.

[dysfunctional press]

11. exactly.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. ARe you saying that Poppy Bush planned 9/11 before Jr. began his run...

for the Presidency in 1998?

[dysfunctional press]

14. all parts of the same operation.

so it would seem to have been at least a twinkle in his eye at the time.