Re: "Attack on America" - a Personal Response (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:20:22 -0500 I can tell you one group that must get the shudders every time Bush or anyone else in the administration says, "These attacks are Acts of War." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that both standard property and life insurance policies specifically exempt claims due to acts of war. Think about the fun and games in the courtrooms of America on THAT issue!
Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:20:22 -0500 I can tell you one group that must get the shudders every time Bush or anyone else in the administration says, "These attacks are Acts of War." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that both standard property and life insurance policies specifically exempt claims due to acts of war. Think about the fun and games in the courtrooms of America on THAT issue!
The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually exclusive. The former is by definition perpetrated by a non-governmental group; the latter requires actions by a government. The claims by Dubya et al to the contrary are incoherent politibabble. This has been discussed within the last month here on the list, IIRC. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually exclusive. The former is by definition perpetrated by a non-governmental group; the latter requires actions by a government. The claims by Dubya et al to the contrary are incoherent politibabble.
Malarky. War - conflict by force of arms, as between nations Terrorism - calculated use of violence, mayhem, and murder to inspire terror. It's a question of scale, not participants. A nation can engage in terrorism (eg Syria, Libya). -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002
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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> wrote:
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
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> wrote:
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.
Considering your logic so far, this doesn't surprise me.
The question is thus: "were actions X, Y, and Z acts of terrorism or acts of war?"
Exactly, and you ASSUMED A PRIORI that I would accept your definitions without stipulation. Since you're the representative of the 'government' and are making the prooposal it is standard practice that the 'opposition' get to question the definitions for relevency. I did, you lost. Your definition of 'war' and 'terrorism' are inaccurate. The claim that there is some 'legal definition' that prevents 'nations' or 'states' from participating in 'terrorism' is inaccurate. Even the US (whose laws I'm ASSUMING you're are refering to) recognizes 'state sponsored terrorism'. In short the very pillars of your argument have been demonstrated to be false. Your argument failed. In responce you're not ingaging in straw man and ad hominim hoping that nobody will notice. Come back when you can play with adults. -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> wrote:
Exactly, and you ASSUMED A PRIORI that I would accept your definitions without stipulation.
No. Your acceptance or rejection of my definitions is irrelevant. I'm predicting what definitions will be used by those who are important in this situation---the people acting to decide whether or not the insurance policy will be paid.
Since you're the representative of the 'government' and are making the prooposal it is standard practice that the 'opposition' get to question the definitions for relevency.
You can question them, but in this case it's clear that the definitions that are important are those that the insurance company will use in determining whether an act of war was committed. If they don't pay out, the people who hold the policies will go to court, and once in court the legal definition will be used.
I did, you lost. Your definition of 'war' and 'terrorism' are inaccurate.
Perhaps they do not agree with your definitions. I contend that my definitions are accurate inasmuch as they reflect those which will be used when the people who will eventually make this decision endeavor to do so.
The claim that there is some 'legal definition' that prevents 'nations' or 'states' from participating in 'terrorism' is inaccurate. Even the US (whose laws I'm ASSUMING you're are refering to) recognizes 'state sponsored terrorism'.
Yes, but it does not recognize that state-sponsored terrorism constitutes an act of war, which is the important question here.
In short the very pillars of your argument have been demonstrated to be false. Your argument failed.
The question here was "will the insurance companies pay out?" My answer was that this was clearly an act of terrorism and not an act of war. Even if it were sponsored by a state, it would be an act of terrorism, not an act of war. I'm not questioning the existence of state-sponsored terrorism.
In responce you're not ingaging in straw man and ad hominim hoping that nobody will notice.
Interesting that you're accusing me of ad hominem attacks and the use of straw men, as this is your standard m.o.---in this case, the squirrel definitions that started this ridiculous discussion and 'your beenie is wound too tight, junior."
Come back when you can play with adults.
Jim, I'm going to give you a clue. You're generally regarded here as the village idiot. You are not respected, your arguments are ignored, and your posts are deleted on reception by most people. To some this would send a clear warning that something is wrong. Perhaps you need someone to tell you this outright: shut the fuck up and crank up those meds. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002
-- 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
"Riad S. Wahby" wrote:
The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually exclusive. The former is by definition perpetrated by a non-governmental group; the latter requires actions by a government. The claims by Dubya et al to the contrary are incoherent politibabble.
This has been discussed within the last month here on the list, IIRC.
That might be current contemporary US usage, but it is not how the word started. Originally it was used (In French I suspect) for states terrorising the people they ruled, like the Russian pogroms. Later it was widened to include non-governmental groups. In WW2 bombing of residential cities was widely called "terror bombing" (even by Churchill in private). But it is a distinction without a difference. Who would you think had the most capacity to wage war, a small state such as Nauru or St Lucia, or an armed non-state like ETA or some of the Colombian gangs? Calling this attack "war" or "terrorism" is a matter of emotional colour. Ken
-- On 14 Sep 2001, at 0:27, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually exclusive. The former is by definition perpetrated by a non-governmental grou The claims by Dubya et al to the contrary are incoherent politibabble.
Nonsense. The words "terror" and "terrorism" came to have their modern meaning when they employed to describe the policies of the government of France, and later the policies of the Paris Commune. "Terrorism" is something that governments do. Later the word came to be extended by as hyperbole to the large scale violent acts of private organizations and individuals. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 1hyZaCFIbUJENZrS13LtF0UzviFJzURoXXNhj4fj 4q6r72GE0VAfAUP2u43osF7qZJBOb+oa2cf5Fh+BA
On Friday, September 14, 2001, at 09:30 AM, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
-- On 14 Sep 2001, at 0:27, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
The labels "act of terrorism" and "act of war" are mutually exclusive. The former is by definition perpetrated by a non-governmental grou The claims by Dubya et al to the contrary are incoherent politibabble.
Nonsense. The words "terror" and "terrorism" came to have their modern meaning when they employed to describe the policies of the government of France, and later the policies of the Paris Commune.
"Terrorism" is something that governments do. Later the word came to be extended by as hyperbole to the large scale violent acts of private organizations and individuals.
What is called terrorism is just warfare carried on in one of its many forms: -- the terror bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, all designed to so terrify the population that they would sue for peace -- the practice for millennia of "torching a village," usually with residents locked inside. Or of piling skulls, or of placing heads on pikes, or of "taking ears" -- the mining of the harbor of Managua by U.S.G. forces, designed to terrify the local population into overthrowing the government they had mostly-democratically elected (much more democratic than, say, the government of Egypt or Pakistan, etc., none of whose harbors the U.S.G. mined) And so on. Warfare carried on by other means. --Tim May
participants (8)
-
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate
-
Jim Choate -
Ken Brown -
Riad S. Wahby -
Riad S. Wahby
-
Tim May