alister air wrote:
> It's amazing that this is so old and so relevant.  Possibly scary,
> even.  The full piece is here
> http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~baitoven/interlink/lying.html

I agree, but I don't think it is scary.  Rather it suggests the need for
a layer of world institutions that have the power to standardize the
meaning of the terms that individual states change to suit their
purposes, and to enforce the standardized meaning.  There is no global
context that is enforceable.  But California could not accuse Montana of
terrorism, for example, for having nuclear missile silos on its soil.
It *is* terrorism, of course, to house nuclear missile silos, by the
definition you quoted, but California can't accuse Montana of being
terrorist for housing missile silos, because then California would be
admitting guilt as well.  And it *is* guilty of terrorism, of course, by
the same definition, but both California and Montana submit to the
authority of the US government, which doesn't use that definition with
respect to itself.  If there was a world body with the power to enforce
this definition of terrorism, and to force its elimination, then the
world would be able to force the US to dismantle its nuclear missiles.

martin

--
Martin Smith               email: [log in to unmask]
Vollsveien 9               tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482               mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway