| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value | - the mention of al Q. is silly, too -- sure, Afghanistan was a base of operations, but the attack itself wasn't state-sponsored, and it didn't use the resources or weapons of A-stan -- the notion that this most damaging attack was anything other than a counterexample to the article's main assertion (that state sponsored attacks are more dangerous than regular terrorism) is dubious, i think.posted b
|
