Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ray
From: ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: State Terrorism
Message-ID: <12300@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Oct-85 13:29:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocheste.12300
Posted: Sun Oct 13 13:29:57 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 05:48:14 EDT
References: <903@abnji.UUCP> <1351@ihlpg.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 59

> > [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.
> > 
Think.  Think.  That's enough. 
Your dog gone right some of us are happy.  Not just a few but a lot.

> > Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as
> > an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government?
> ---------

I say SO WHAT!  Maybe it was an act of terrorism, but at least it was 
terrorism aimed at known terrorist murderers, not at a helpless man in
a wheelchair or some sunbathers on a boat, or a baby in a shopping center.

It would appear that the face of war is changing.  We will have terrorism with
us for many years to come.  As the terrorist strike more and more frequently,
countries whose citizens are involved will themselves inevidibly get more
involved.  It will be a sort of war, and as is well known, in times of war,
the rules are bent.

Terrorism is the deliberate use of terror against helpless people who are in
no way involved with the politics surrounding terrorism.

> > 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.
> ---------

These people (terrorists) are obviously guilty of many crimes. Period, no 
apoligies or qualifications necessary.  Due process of law will in no way
find them innocent, especially since they've admitted their guilt publically.

> > 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.
> -----

You're absolutely right, it is no cure, but looking the other way is obviously
no cure either.  What you really should do though is look up the definition
of 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?
> -----

The notion of us as terrorists is only in your head and the heads of the PLO.
The terrorist believe in us, but that doesn't deter them from murdering our
citizens.  If it does somehow lead us to rule bending in apprehending these
terrorists, then so be it, we could be considered terrorists aimed at terrorists
rather than terrorists aimed at babies and cripples.