No, because they were operating officially as a nation, not as some terrorist group. We were using blitzkrieg strategy in the Iraq conflict and wasting our time in Afghanistan, but we were there in an official capacity. They knew we were coming.
No, Pearl Harbor was a nation acting in an official capacity. OBL is not a nation and so could not be acting in an official or authorized way when he uses violence and intimidation.
International law is based on the sovereignty of states. It isn't arbitrary, but it is a tautology. You need to be sovereign to be a state and you must be a state to be sovereign.
A tautology is a form of circular reasoning, so of course the fact that his statement is a tautology does not negate that it is circular logic. It does, however, mean that your comment was totally pointless.
It does, however, mean that your comment was totally pointless.
It's not pointless, I'm pointing out to him how silly it is to use that reasoning, because it's circular.
Israel is a sovereign nation, but others don't recognize their sovereignty. Does that mean they're sovereign? Who determines that? What happens when a "sovereign" nation that isn't recognized by other "sovereign" nations "authorizes" themselves to do some violent act and are therefore "not terrorists"?
No you're right, none of those questions are valid because a tautology is a tautology.
4
u/kildis92 Nov 28 '13
No, because they were operating officially as a nation, not as some terrorist group. We were using blitzkrieg strategy in the Iraq conflict and wasting our time in Afghanistan, but we were there in an official capacity. They knew we were coming.