On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> 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 /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------