Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2483)	7/28/2005 3:09:34 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542019

I don't see why states cannot engage in terrorism. They are a "group": ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n. 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. terrorism n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act] Nothing here says a state cannot engage in terrorism. "Mass murder by a legal authority or a warring nation is not the same as terrorism." I would suggest to you that the "war" in Rwanda certainly included acts of terrorism. In fact, in many ways it was a war of terrorism. And the Nazis certainly engaged in campaigns of terrorism. (And I think the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan, and the bombing of Dresden were acts of terrorism as well. Ditto for the repeated bombing of Japanese civilians.)