Do you consider terrorist attacks crimes or acts of war?
by 
Cowboy-Matter of Fact
ANSWERS: 15
-
It depends on who is responsible for the attacks. If it is a state-based terrorist attack, then it is an act of war. If it is an independent terrorist organization, it is a crime. Unfortunately this line has been extremely blurred since it is so difficult to determine whether or not an attack is state-based. The concept of war has been based on city-states or nations, something with a geographical political boundary. Terrorism has coincided with a transition of conflicts between nations to conflicts between ideologies. It has become a very gray area.
-
Terrorism is a crime against humanity (as is war), but technically it is only an act of war if it is arranged or ordered by a government.
-
I believe that terrorists attacks are often used by both sides participating in a war.
-
Terrorism - that is, attacks whose main aim is to cause terror and not to achieve some other military end - is a crime under all circumstances. Terrorism is often practiced by non-military units because it is easier than legitimate freedom fighting. But organised military units can also be guilty of terrorism within a legitimate war. Conversely, not all attacks by non-military units are *necessarily* terrorism - though they frequently are.
-
Terrorist attacks are crimes, as simple as that. There is a distinct diffrence between the two. An act of war is something done by an army or similar armed force, it is aimed at a strategic target of the enemy, that target could be milatary or governement, but it is a target that has something to do with the war! An act of terrorism is an attack on the general public not a specific target, but a bus, a street, a train ect! If I go to the 911 attacks (feel free to slate me for this as I am sure many will) the twin towers were terrorist attacks without a doubt. The attack on the pentagon could be considered an act of war, yes inocent people were hurt and injured, but it was a milatary target! I would however still call it terrorism as they used a civilian airliner for the attack, so although the target was legit the method was not and as such it was an act of terror! I hope that makes sense!
-
Terrorist acts are just that...terrorist Acts....99% of them are religion based and acted out in support of something...the main goal...to terrorize everyone and to bestow fear in everyone to make them believe they are not safe and that no one can protect them...they should all die...terroists that is...;)
-
If it is a crime would a terrorist attack be handled by the court system? If the answer is yes, I would say it is not a crime. If it is an act of war would the accused terrorist be kept in a pow camp until the war was over? That doesn't seem to fit,either. Terrorist attacks against civilians may require new methods of adjudication that are outside our accepted norms of civilian and military justice. Terrorists refuse to abide by the rules that have existed in and between civilized countries. Should they be given access to these rules when prosecuted? Or should a new set of rules be created to fit crimes that fall between individual acts and acts of governments? New rules seem necessary in order to deal with the problem, in my opinion.
-
From our point of view, they are crimes. From the point of view of the terrorist, they are acts of war. In reference to Muslim attacks, the world view of Islam sees only two camps: Darul Islam (the World of Islam) and Dar Al Harb (The World of War). The aim is to make the Dar Al Harb "submit" (that is what Islam means "peace by submission") and enter the Darul Islam. Any method can be used against those who resist, and those who do resist are not classified as "innocent" civilians, but active participants in the war. Innocence means submitting. Anyone who does not is guilty.
-
Terrorist are cowards and criminals that should be killed – acts of war take place when someone in a uniform performs some mission in a war environment
-
The terrorists think they are at war. Therefore, we should treat their actions as acts of war. The terrorists are well organized, they acknowledge an organizational hierarchy, they are well funded and have "boot camps". We should treat them as they want to be treated.
-
charity.
-
They're crimes against humanity.
-
To consider terrorist attacks as acts of war a war would have to be declared. Terrorists are simply fanatic criminals reason why they can not be tried in the Internal Court of Law.
-
more like acts of wars...they are starting a war...
-
First, I have to ascertain what a 'terrorist' attack is. If somebody is defending themselves or fighting back, I'd hardly call that a terrorist act
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC