US Retardation of Free Markets (was Airport insanity)
Roy M. Silvernail
roy at rant-central.com
Sun Oct 24 08:58:32 PDT 2004
On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 03:43 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
> McViegh did not target innocents. Bin Laden did target
> innocents.
I'm confused. Is Mr. Donald saying McVeigh did not surveil his target
sufficiently to know that there was a day care center in the damage
pattern? Or is he saying it only takes one "non-innocent" in a damage
zone to justify an attack? (in which case, how is he privy to Bin
Laden's attack plan, such that he can rule out any "non-innocent"
targets)
Or is the problem perhaps that any reasonable definition of "terrorist"
must describe both McVeigh and Bin Laden? Ends do not justify means. A
reasonable man would argue that attacking an occupied building with
highly destructive weapons is an act intended to incite terror, without
needing to even consider the motive.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy at rant-central.com, and you're not
"It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFS
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list