It was the act of a single corporate entity.

The attack on farmland was misdirected, or poorly executed.  It was 
however an attempt.  If I am not mistaken attempted homicide is a 
crime, regardless of whether the number of intended victims was 
achieved.  The case may be made for attempted vandalism, and 
destruction of public property, but what's the point?

Is it an act of war, or a crime?  I'm confused.  It seems that its a 
war when warfare is convenient and its a crime when its not.  I don't 
like all this nuance.  It makes me worry about the state of purity of 
my people, government, policies, actions, and agents.  I'm rather fond 
of purity.  Maybe if I got my ideas about purity from the bible instead 
of cowboy movies I wouldn't find nuance so confusing.

-jc

On Dec 7, 2004, at 1:44 PM, Met History wrote:

> In a message dated 12/7/2004 2:39:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> Then does it follow that the attack on Pearl Harbor was some 300+/-
>  events
> Interesting question.  Was the attack on the WTC, the Pentagon, and 
> some farmland in the heartland a single event?   christopher