Jim Choate
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. The question is thus: "were actions X, Y, and Z acts of terrorism or acts of war?" If the answer is war, the insurance contract states that no coverage will be provided. If the answer is terrorism, the insurance companies will have to pay in full the $11e9 policy carried by the WTC. If there is some disagreement as to whether or not the attacks were acts of terrorism or acts of war, it will be settled in court. In said court, the standard that will be considered is the legal one. See below for Clearly, then, the original question did include that boundary condition.
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...
None of the above is relevant. According to 22 USC Sec. 2656f(d) [1]: the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents The House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans' Affairs, and International Relations has stated that the above sets the standard for a terrorist act [2]. By this definition, it's pretty clear that the events of 9/11 were terrorism. If there is a government that was supporting the people who committed Tuesday's acts of terrorism, the only action that can be considered an act of war is that of lending support or quarter to the terrorists. The terrorists are still responsible for the destruction of the WTC, and said destruction is still an act of terrorism. Thus, it is undoubtedly the case that an act of terrorism was committed in the destruction of the WTC. In addition, it is possible that an act of war has been committed, although it is currently unclear whether one has or not.
You've got your beenie wound too tight junior.
Find a new thread on which to blather, Choate. You're way out of your league. [1] http://envirotext.eh.doe.gov/data/uscode/22/2656f.shtml [2] http://www.house.gov/reform/ns/web_resources/briefing_memo_march_27_2001.htm -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002