On Jun 23, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> Again, a faulty analogy. Terrorism is not nearly as structured as a
> colony of ants. There is no single leadership figure, or mother head,
> in the terrorist organizational structure, than when eliminated would
> destroy the entire colony, like there is in an ant colony. Terrorist
> groups are loosely couple, if at all, and work independent of one
> another. When the leadership of one cell of terrorist is eliminated,
> there is an immediately replaced by his second in command, (eg
> number two).
Terrorism is also "in the eye of the beholder". The terrorists in
Nicaragua in the 1980s were politically sympathetic to the US, so
Ronald Reagan called them "freedom fighters". The comparisons to our
own history have also been made; the colonists who revolted against
the British used terrorism as a tactic, too.
That's the important point: terrorism is merely a tactic employed
when one side is not as powerful as the other as a way of evening the
playing field. Were the people in the Middle East to start targeting
only military targets, would people insist on continuing to refer to
them as terrorists?
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
