On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> 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 speaking.
Jim, I must admit I'm surprised to see even the likes of you making the above argument.
Considering your logic so far, this doesn't surprise me.
The question is thus: "were actions X, Y, and Z acts of terrorism or acts of war?"
Exactly, and you ASSUMED A PRIORI that I would accept your definitions without stipulation. Since you're the representative of the 'government' and are making the prooposal it is standard practice that the 'opposition' get to question the definitions for relevency. I did, you lost. Your definition of 'war' and 'terrorism' are inaccurate. The claim that there is some 'legal definition' that prevents 'nations' or 'states' from participating in 'terrorism' is inaccurate. Even the US (whose laws I'm ASSUMING you're are refering to) recognizes 'state sponsored terrorism'. In short the very pillars of your argument have been demonstrated to be false. Your argument failed. In responce you're not ingaging in straw man and ad hominim hoping that nobody will notice. Come back when you can play with adults. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------