I am curious, Mr. Donald, how exactly you define the word "terrorist". I request that your definition be generic; i.e. not a definition like "anyone who attacks the US". I'd be willing to bet that you cannot provide a clear generic definition of "terrorist". Moreover, I can guarantee that you cannot provide a definition that isn't self-contradictory. -Adam On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:59:15 -0700, "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> said:
-- On 19 Oct 2004 at 10:23, Tyler Durden wrote:
Most Cypherpunks would agree that free markets are a good thing. Basically, if you leave people alone, they'll figure out how to meet the needs that are out in there and, in the process, get a few of the goodies available to us as vapors on this world. I assume you would agree to this.
There are however some bad people, who want to conquer and rule. Some of them are nastier than others. Those people need to be killed. Killing some of them is regrettably controversial. Killing terrorists should not be controversial.
More than that, some of the countries we've been kicked out or prevented from influencing have been modernizing rapidly, the most obvious example is China and Vietnam.
Your history is back to front. China and Vietnam stagnated, until they invited capitalists back in, and promised they could get rich. Mean while the countries that we were not "kicked out of" for example Taiwan and South Korea, became rich.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG y7IV2I3RzvTRwezbeYDac49MQJFtu4pLd09CpaV1 4wwT8kfGpRCZY7aO/mhgeoOcaR9vYeYFWae8aMM/M