Salmo,

"My understanding is that nations make war, and individuals commit crime. The reason the U.S. has treated most terrorist acts as crimes is because they were committed by individuals, even as members of organizations in some cases. But individuals, nonetheless, and not on behalf of any nation’s government. If any of the above acts had been on the behalf of any government, then it would have been an act of war, and we would be on the reasonable and ethical high ground by responding with a declaration of war on the sponsoring country. However, as far as I know, none of the acts cited in Ouimette’s speech were attributable to any nation. Therefore, they were terrorist acts that were classified and treated as “crimes.”"


I think this is the crux of the issue for most here. Prior to 911 the Clinton admin changed how we would address terrorism. Specifically after the first WTC bombings. They classified it as a crime and left it up to the FBI to investigate any acts. This essentially gave the terrorists a free punch at the US because like most crimes you cannot act on what someone might do. Post 911 this changed and we now can react premptively realizing that the terrorist in thier studies saw the gap in our laws and policies. They intentionally act not as a state but as a religion making them borderless. With the objective of making this a Judeo christian vs Islam battle. Traditionally we see this as religious persecution if we where go after a religion and Bush made that distinction very well in the early days post 911 and still does today. It is done with the hope that the so called "moderate" muslims of the world will isolate the "radical" muslims and join our side in condeming and ultimately ending thier sanctuary and actions. Either one disagrees with the classification of global terrorism as a crime or they see it as an act of war specifically in the case of Al Queda. Everything seems to stem from this one fundamental issue. It's intentional on the part of Al Queda they know the only way they can defeat us is to do it from with in. Creating global disconnect on Iraq was one of thier primary goals. It has worked in the early stages. Time will show that Iraq and some onther states going forward are of great danger to the peace of the world . Saddam would have given arms ,aid and support to Al Queda if he had not already . Others will as well. They made it our role to defeat them like it or not. I think that if each one of us where personally faced with an analogus situation in our personal live to this conflict we would reat much the same if our wives ,chlidrens,parents lives where at stake directly. We would not call the police and let them and the courts run thier course and wait for the outcome. We would take direct action to stop the threat.