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

jamesd at echeque.com jamesd at echeque.com
Sat Sep 15 07:48:33 PDT 2001


    --
Webster: Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of 
: coercion

On 14 Sep 2001, at 1:01, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
> 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.

No one believes legislation, least of all those who write 
them.  Everyone believes Webster's dictionary.

If the legislators believed that, why would they authorize 
the president to make war on a country to be determined in
order to punish it for terrorism?

The word terrorism is most commonly applied to the acts of 
governments, for example "the great terror", "the red 
terror".  Terrorism is a public good, thus only governments 
can efficiently supply terrorism.   The use of the word for 
non government actions is a response to events in the middle 
east.  For a long time everyone took for granted that only 
governments can supply terrorism, just as many today take for 
granted that only governments can issue money or build 
pavements. 

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     BWFs/TvSM6RHCruZ9ovUIQtpv8MC8CKMI7mt9iQN
     4mo6bsyCe3xeX/1B3HPyIdj522vcXeIPw4ozCmtlt





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list