From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Nov 18 2004 - 14:54:12 GMT
mel:
I question your use of terrorism in the modern
sense, which is usually criminal acts of violence
in the name of an agenda by a weak party
unwilling to bear personal responsibility.
msh says:
Well here are three modern definitions of terrorism. Take your pick:
1) "[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a
violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of
the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be
a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the
United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the
policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or (iii) to affect
the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United
States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress,
Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par 3077, 98 STAT 2707 [West
Publishing Co., 1984].
2) As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons
or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or
social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1)
Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2)
The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are
committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)
3) DICTIONARY.COM
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 intimidation or coercion
or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
msh continues:
I suppose if you want to quibble you could ask, well what is meant by
"unlawful" during wartime? This evasion allows the aggressor to
simply say it is at war, and therefore avoid the charge of terrorism.
Anyway, I'll accept the UN idea that terrorism is the peace-time
equivalent of war crimes.
mel:
Most of your understanding of America WILL BE
mythological. It is too complex for you to hold
it all in your head and so you will reduce it to
significant representational "icons."
However, it can also be experiential and the
inferential projection of such is from which
I speak.
msh says:
You then go on to offer the views of INDIVIDUAL Americans. I'm
talking about the ACTIONS of the US Government. You'll need to be
clear about this if this discussion is going to be fruitful.
mel:
Oh, regarding mischief?
Inequitable applications of force
without consensus.
msh says:
Pretty vague. Such as forcibly moving people from their lands
(American Indians, Palestinians)? Financing, engineering, and
violently participating in the overthrow of popularly elected and
supported governments, for example Iran in the 50's, Chili in the
70's, Nicaragua in the 80's?
The rest of your "specific examples" are too vague to be meaningful.
Why not site specific historical events? Then we could have a
discussion.
Thanks,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations." - Thomas Jefferson MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 14:55:14 GMT