Riad S. Wahby[SMTP:rsw@mit.edu] wrote:

...

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.

Riad: Two points: 1. Goverments misdefine things whenever it fits their purposes. I don't see that other have to automatically bow before their definition. 2. *Even if*, for the sake of argument, we decide to use the text you quote as a definition; I fail to see how it rules out the possibility of nations engaging in terrorism - because of the phrase 'clandestine agents'. Clandestine agents include secret services. To give just two example: When Libyan agents carried out the bombing over Lockerbie, was that terrorism, or an act of war? When the CIA secretly mined the harbors of Nicaragua, was that terrorism, or an act of war? Peter Trei