Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: State Terrorism
Message-ID: <1351@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 13:05:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1351
Posted: Sat Oct 12 13:05:24 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 04:21:56 EDT
References: <903@abnji.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 45
Xref: watmath net.flame:12291 net.politics:11462

> [James C. Armstrong]
> Well, I'll bet that many of you are happy that the US Government has
> hijacked a plane on which the alleged terrorists were leaving
> Egypt.  I ask you, however, to think for a moment on the implications
> of these actions.
> 
> Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as
> an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government?
---------
Unbelievable.  Just who is being terrorized here.  Terrorism is the
deliberate use of terror as a political weapon.  Mr. Armstrong is
either too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "terrorism",
or too dishonest to avoid applying the usage to forcible acts he
disapproves of.
---------
> By the US legal
> system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted
> without the due process of the law being followed.  US legal officers
> are required to follow the laws of the land when apprehending a 
> subject; I realise that the people on the plane were not in the US,
> and not subject by law to US constitutional protections, however
> I must urge people to extend our protections when dealing with
> others (The Golden rule, eh?), otherwise we end up with a regional
> chauvanism in our dealings with others.
---------
The terrorists were being set free.  What sort of due process is
that?  Were they sitting in an Egyptian or Italian jail instead,
awaiting trial, your comment would be valid.
---------
> I do not approve of terrorism, but I do not have an answer.  I do know
> that the use of terrorism in reprisal is not a cure.
-----
For god's sake man, look up terrorism in the dictionary.  The diversion
of that plane was not terrorism.
-----
> How can we expect
> people to believe us in the future when we say as a nation that we
> do not condone terrorism when we are one of the practitoners?
-----
How can we expect to discuss issues in net.politics if people
like Mr. Armstrong and others make up their own definitions.
By debasing the usage of the word "terrorism", Mr. Armstrong
and others are only lessening the onus on terrorists.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan