On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
> James A. Donald:
> > > Bin Laden's intent was to make anyone in America afraid -
> > > thus the use of airliners, rather than truck bombs.
> > > McViegh's intent was to make BATF afraid.
>
> J.A. Terranson:
> > This is idiotic. You're claiming that the definition of
> > "terrorist" is dependent not on the act, but on why the act
> > was committed.
>
> Analogously, the definition of "murderer" depends on why the
> act was committed.
>
> > So if I was to go out tomorrow and spread 2000 curies of Ci
> > into the local subway system "As payback for Ruby Ridge",
> > this would not be an act of terrorism?
>
> That would be terrorism, because regardless of what you *said*
> your intent was, you would not be targeting those responsible
> for Ruby Ridge.
And if the station I chose just happened to be the one servicing ATF?
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF
"An ill wind is stalking
while evil stars whir
and all the gold apples
go bad to the core"
S. Plath, Temper of Time
