Re: They're Terrorists - Not Activists

[G]

But that's separate. Someone asked "who's to say what a terrorist is", and i provided that definition. Once you've either used, or not used, that definition to determine whether someone is a "terrorist", how they are then treated (loss of rights, executed, whatever) is seperate from the method used to determine that label.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: S. Isaac Dealey
  To: CF-Community
  Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 8:40 AM
  Subject: Re: They're Terrorists - Not Activists

  > See my caveat.

  > And it was I who copied the text book definition of
  > "terrorism" in a post last week, a definition that many
  > people thought was nuts...and yet i haven't seen a better
  > one.

  It's not the definition I thought was nuts. What I thought was nuts
  was the idea that you could (or would want to) suspend any law on the
  grounds of any definition of terrorism, dictionary or otherwise. I
  suspect that's the case for others who responded as well.

  s. isaac dealey   954.927.5117

  new epoch : isn't it time for a change?

  add features without fixtures with
  the onTap open source framework
  http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
  http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
  http://www.fusiontap.com

---

[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

---