From: Kenneth Hurst (k_hurst18@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 23:57:50 MDT
On Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 2:17 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> --- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:>
> > If you take the current US definition for the word
> > we have
> > clearly practiced terrorism in Latin and South
> > America and
> > trained, funded and aided others in doing so.
>
> Uh, no, Samantha, we haven't. You are crapping out
> your mouth again. Terrorism, as we in the US define
> it, is attacks by *ununiformed* individuals
> specifically against completely civilian targets,
> targets which have not and are not being used to base,
> aid, or support opposition military or paramilitary
> forces.
Mike, I don't know what definition you've been using, but my dictionary
(dictionary.com) defined terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of
force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or
property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or
governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Where did you get
the idea that terrorists have to be uniformed? You later make the
distinction between terrorism (non-uniformed) and war crimes (uniformed),
but
it seems to me that if a government does it, it should still be terrorism.
You could call it war crimes *too,* but don't call it *not* terrorism.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:34 MST