On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald:
Bin Laden's intent was to make anyone in America afraid - thus the use of airliners, rather than truck bombs. McViegh's intent was to make BATF afraid.
J.A. Terranson:
This is idiotic. You're claiming that the definition of "terrorist" is dependent not on the act, but on why the act was committed.
Analogously, the definition of "murderer" depends on why the act was committed.
So if I was to go out tomorrow and spread 2000 curies of Ci into the local subway system "As payback for Ruby Ridge", this would not be an act of terrorism?
That would be terrorism, because regardless of what you *said* your intent was, you would not be targeting those responsible for Ruby Ridge.
And if the station I chose just happened to be the one servicing ATF? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time