On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
> Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's a question of scale, not participants. A nation can engage in
> > terrorism (eg Syria, Libya).
>
> Squirrel definition! Don't you know that squirrels are poor form and
> generally lead to point reduction? Obviously you were never a debate
> judge. :-P
Boo Hoo.
> The relevant definitions here are clearly not those of Webster, but
> those of the appropriate US laws. By said laws, it is most certainly
> _not_ a question of scale. Governments can't be terrorists, period.
> The letter of the law.
I don't believe that particular 'boundary condition' was included in the
original question/point. In fact, injecting spurious boundary conditions
after the problem is presented (ie "Oh, I meant to include...) is itself
considered bad form, logically speaking.
As to the point, if nations can't participate in terrorism then exactly
what is it that Afghanistan is being theatened with for harboring the
raghead? Exactly why did their leaders go into hiding again? Exactly why is
Pakistan running around like a sub-woofie? Exactly why did the US use
F-111's to drop bombs on a particular 'rogue state' for engaging in
'terrorism' (ie Libya)? What exactly do you thing Amin was doing, besides
killing croc's that is...
You've got your beenie wound too tight junior.
--
____________________________________________________________________
natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks
Matsuo Basho
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
