"Attack on America" - a Personal Response (fwd)

[Riad S. Wahby]

Jim Choate <ravage at 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 at mit.edu
MIT VI-2/A 2002