> 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.
Nothing wrong with the label as long as thats _all_ it is. But in the
context we weren't talking about just having a label - we were talking
about using that label to strip people of rights, in which case, many
of us feel that no label is sufficient (in context). Hence the
question "who's to say what a terrorist is" -- answering that question
in a vacuum of the context is fine, but within the context the
question was asked, imo the only viable answer is "no one".
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]
