"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 Testlist
mailing list