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 (2489)	7/28/2005 5:47:31 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542050

I think when you use terror to take over politically, that fits the definition of terrorism. You can define states out, but that's not what our government has done- if you'll recall Bush and Clinton both talkes about "terrorist states". You'll recall that lots of states call other states "terrorist states"- I'll give you a few examples, and I've tried to take them from very different sides of the political spectrum, and from different countries: fpif.org english.aljazeera.net english.pravda.ru nationalreview.com ict.org.il newsmax.com hindu.com garnertedarmstrong.ws edit- you can, of course, define terrorist anyway you want to, but because of the accepted nature of the term "terrorist state" and the accompanying acceptance of the view that terrorism is just one more weapon a state can use, you would probably want to inform people with whom you discuss this that your definition excludes state actors. I would never have assumed that states were excluded.