Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
9/11 - Act of Aggessive War.

9/11 was an act of aggressive war against the US waged by a VNSA (Violent Non-State Actor). Not having cruise missiles, AQ improvised and, as a weapons system, used the functional equivalent - hijacked airliners. AQ's selected targets (WTC, Pentagon and the DC government complex) were militarily logical (disruption of US C&C and of the US economic system). In many ways, the AQ attacks resembled Pearl Harbor (a VSA, Violent State Actor, attack), and was so regarded by many here (including JMM).
I think some useful simplification might be in order here.

9/11 = Acts of War.
OK, so how does 9/11 differ from the Canary Warf Bombing or Madrid or the London Tube Attacks? These were not acts of war. The 1993 Attacks on the WTC were AQ perpetrated terrorism. How is 911 different? Use of civilian aircraft?

I don't doubt you are correct, but I need to see the reasoning. However I see no relationship between the IJNs attack on Pearl Harbour, which was entirely military, with AQ's entirely symbolic attack on DC and NY. Terrorism is generally and primarily symbolic. Do they have sever political effect? For sure. Symbolism can have massive psychological impact.

I don't see this as subjective. Political Violence using criminal means is not Political Violence using military means. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the FBI investigating 911? Are there not arrest warrants?

Now the only reason this matters to me at all, is that I personally don't see much merit (there is some) in studying Terrorism, from my subject area of military thought, because it is not military. Insurgency however is.