Maverick: Miko,
Does a "group" have a legal position to "declare a war" against a recognized national state? If so, then your premise might have some validity but I don't think they do. I believe a war is a violent conflict between political states. Could be wrong. Given that a state of war did not exist and cannot then it isn't an act of war.
Self-recognised. We recognise whoever we want and refuse to recognise others and any other group of people can do the same. It's irrelevant in this context.
Just because a bunch of people who declared war on us did not have an offcicial recognition from US government (which it did - it is on the list of hostile entities), it does not mean our military does not perceive it as a threat or treats them as civilians when it has a chance to blow them up.
Al-Qaeda is a military organisation or at least it has a military wing. Which is a bunch or armed and trained people prepared to do violence.
It does not even matter whether we recognise them as military or not because the notion of "terrorism" is defined by its target, not its isource. So as long as we recognise the distinction between our military and out civilians, that's all there is.
Terrorism is a violent attack on civilians and civilian property for political goals.
Attack of military on another military is just an armed conflict. More valor is attributed to people who (volunteer to) serve in military because they stand ready to be involved in such a violent conflict.
Japain attack on Pearl harbotw as not a terrorist act. The french resistance' attacks on german soldiers were not terrorist acts.
The distinction is only semantic - though it may have some legal implications - but I though that the right use of words is important, as well as honoring teh dead sailors as fallen warriors, not victims.
Civilian victims would have left the premices if they expected the attack. The sailors would have stayed on USS Cole even if the attack was expected. That makes a huge difference.
miko
