Originally Posted by tanda10506
I think it could go either way, an act of war or a criminal act depending on how you look at it and what defines an act of war. As far as I know, an "official" act of war can only be committed by one country vs another country, not a group of people vs a country, as Fan is saying.
But in a war situation, there are generally two combatants each with clearly defined goals consisting of such things as treasure, resources, territory, political control or simply for empire.
Terrorism in and of itself is not a goal - it's a tactic.
Practitioners of terrorism may wish to win converts to their ideology (which is a goal) by engaging in acts of terror, but an act of terrorism can only serve to draw attention to a cause or to an ideology and is unlikely to serve as a means of conquest.
Secondly, though terrorism may be employed by a single group for a single purpose, such groups do not generally own territory or claim nation status and are generally spread throughout a number of nations. Since an act of war usually prompts a response from those who have been attacked, where, precisely, would they aim their weapons to retaliate?
There is no nation called "Terror". Terrorists exist in all nations but are not representative of those nations. McVeigh was a terrorist and a U. S. citizen; so does that make the United States a terrorist nation? Of course not.
If he had brought his AMFO bomb to a foreign land and killed people there, would you agree that that nation has a right to send its military here to destroy our cities and occupy our country just because of the acts of a single person?
What I WOULD want is for that person to be arrested and charged with a crime.