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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

Jim Choate 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

"Riad S. Wahby" wrote:

legal one. See below for ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ...the formal text of the standard. etc.

-- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002

Jim Choate 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

"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 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