[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are both acts of war. Again, as used today, both in international resolutions and common usage, terrorism involves intentional attacks on civilians, almost always with no other strategic value. As FN points out, this whole post is just an attempt to trivialize the meaning and contempt for terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is it an act of war if nobody knows who did it? <font color="red"> since when is knowledge of the perpetrator needed for something to be an act of war? At the time of attacks on Israel it wasnt known whether any support came from Iran or Syria, they were still acts of war if they were state sanctioned </font>
I mean, suppose 911 was a total state sponsored deal by saudi arabia. according to you, that was an act of war by saudi arabia. but since no one knows about it ... <font color="red"> if it was state sanctioned, yes, it was an act of war </font>

also, is iran justified in blowing up oil refineries or nuclear power plants in the US if they do it *covertly* and no one knows that iran is behind the attacks? <font color="red">of course not, and the us would be justified in retaliating against the act of war once theres reasonable assurance that it was iran that attacked </font>

also if it is an act of war, how can the US do it *covertly*? wouldn't it require a declaration of war by congress before the CIA or whoever can carry out an act of war? <font color="red"> no, the definition of "act of war" does not require a formal declaration of war</font>

see where I'm going with this?

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> around in circles?</font>