On Friday, September 14, 2001, at 09:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --
> On 14 Sep 2001, at 0:27, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
>> The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually
>> exclusive. The former is by definition perpetrated by a
>> non-governmental grou The claims by Dubya et a
--
On 14 Sep 2001, at 0:27, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
> The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually
> exclusive. The former is by definition perpetrated by a
> non-governmental grou The claims by Dubya et al to the
> contrary are incoherent politibabble.
Nonsense. The words "te
Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exactly, and you ASSUMED A PRIORI that I would accept your definitions
> without stipulation.
No. Your acceptance or rejection of my definitions is irrelevant.
I'm predicting what definitions will be used by those who are
important in this situation---the
> Riad S. Wahby[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> > 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 ru
> Riad S. Wahby[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> > 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 ru
Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:20:22 -0500
> I can tell you one group that must get the shudders every time Bush or
> anyone else in the administration says, "These attacks are Acts of
> War." Correct me if I'm wrong,
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
"Riad S. Wahby" wrote:
> The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually exclusive.
> The former is by definition perpetrated by a non-governmental group;
> the latter requires actions by a government. The claims by Dubya et
> al to the contrary are incoherent politibabble.
>
> This
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
The re
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
> The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually exclusive.
> The former is by definition perpetrated by a non-governmental group;
> the latter requires actions by a government. The claims by Dubya et
> al to the contrary are incoherent pol
"Riad S. Wahby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> legal one. See below for
^
...the formal text of the standard. etc.
--
Riad Wahby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIT VI-2/A 2002
Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 sp
12 matches
Mail list logo
