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 [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not "It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFS SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss http://www.rant-central.com
