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

[Trei, Peter]

> Riad S. Wahby[SMTP:rsw at 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