-- Webster: Main Entry: ter·ror·ism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of : coercion On 14 Sep 2001, at 1:01, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
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.
No one believes legislation, least of all those who write them. Everyone believes Webster's dictionary. If the legislators believed that, why would they authorize the president to make war on a country to be determined in order to punish it for terrorism? The word terrorism is most commonly applied to the acts of governments, for example "the great terror", "the red terror". Terrorism is a public good, thus only governments can efficiently supply terrorism. The use of the word for non government actions is a response to events in the middle east. For a long time everyone took for granted that only governments can supply terrorism, just as many today take for granted that only governments can issue money or build pavements. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG BWFs/TvSM6RHCruZ9ovUIQtpv8MC8CKMI7mt9iQN 4mo6bsyCe3xeX/1B3HPyIdj522vcXeIPw4ozCmtlt