RT> CC> Just so I know we're on the same wavelength, would you 
RT> CC> define being a member of a terrorist group to me?
RT> I differ greatly in my definition from Janet Napolitano.  I believe
RT> that *known* terrorists are identified members of a group that believes
RT> that violence or the threat of that violence is the correct mode for
RT> settling differences or accomplishing goals.   
Then the discussion has just changed.  That includes many that I know 
including many military personel and LACs, me in some cases being one of 
them.  For example, I could be considered in the group thet believes that if 
you molest their family member that you should be killed.  Many military 
generals right now believes we should bomb Iraq because of their chemical 
weapons and their threat to shoot down our spy planes.  I still have 
connections in the criminal world that won't mess with you unless you mess 
with them, but you do something to them like steal their money or threaten 
them they'll kill you.  Many police are in the group that if you kill one of 
their comrades you should die.  Many examples, many people, all violent.  You 
may want to make your definition a little narrower, cause I have a feeling 
it's not very well thought out.  I know you probably wouldn't consider many 
of these people terrorists, or so I hope.
Peace.
--- CNet/3
---------------