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

[Riad S. Wahby]

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