Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish,net.politics
Subject: Re: Terrorism Inc.
Message-ID: <36@unc.unc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 15:42:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.36
Posted: Tue Oct  8 15:42:52 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Oct-85 07:27:11 EDT
References: <488@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Distribution: net
Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 83
Xref: linus net.religion.jewish:2104 net.politics:10730
Summary: 


In article <487@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP
(Chedley Aouriri) writes:

>Terrorism is once again on the rise all over the world.  A few examples:
>
>1) Two palestininans and one british hold for a day, then murder a
>family of israelis vacationing in Cyprus.
>
>2) Israeli war-jets, with the active assistance of the US (in flight
>refueling in the air) raid a palestininan camp in the suburbs of Tunis,
>the capital of Tunisia, killing 20 tunisians and 40 palestinians.
>
>3) The French government sends a team of frogmen to blow up a boat of
>"Green-Peace", an anti nuke organization who was planning to demonstrate
>against french nuclear tests in the Pacific.  At least one person is killed. 
>
>These events and several others show that terrorism is not the weapon
>of the weak and politically frustrated any more.

Four points:

1)  To the extent that Israel is unable to protect its civilians
    from random murder, they too may be considered weak and frustrated.

2)  Even the weak and frustrated may not be excused practicing terrorism.
    Either terrorism is NOT a valid tool for ANYBODY to promote political
    change, or it is valid for EVERYBODY, strong as well as weak.

3)  The Israeli act was not terrorism.  The Israeli target was NOT a
    palestinian camp.  The Israelis raided the headquarters of the PLO,
    a valid military target (hence not terrorism).  Since the PLO
    persists in placing their military facilities in heavily populated
    areas, where their civilians will be endangered, then they alone
    are responsible for the resulting civilian casualties.

4)  The sinking of the Greenpeace ship was NOT an act of terrorism.
    It was an act of sabotage.

Definitions:
	Sabotage -- Secret attack aimed at destroying of enemy property.
		    Unintentional civilian deaths may result as an unavoidable
		    (and undesired) side-effect.

	Terrorism -- Intentional murder or kidnapping of civilians for political
		     ends.

Examples:

	If I aim a bazooka at an enemy tank or munitions factory,
	that is NOT terrorism, even if I miss and hit a loaded school
	bus by mistake.

	But, if I was really aiming for the school bus all the time,
	then that is terrorism.

Understood?

>State terrorism, State sponsored/condoned terrorism, along what one might
>call classical terrorism, is becoming an instrument of international policy. 
>This new phenomen may have perturbing implications worldwide.
>What's in store for us _IF_ governments decide to include terrorist methods
                         ^^
>in their political tools kit??
>Doesn't this implicitly vindicates the very terrorists we are seeking
>to combat?

What do you mean 'IF' governments include terrorist methods in their
political toolkits????  Governments such as the Soviet Union, Libyia,
the PLO (a self-proclaimed government in exile) have long sponsored terrorism.
Our continued acceptance of such governments in respected international circles
has already "vindicated" terrorism as a tactic.

>Some recent terrorist events seem to show that some nations decided that
>the best way to combat terrorism is to use the terrorist's methods.
>May be it's about time for governments to face and solve the political
>problem which is at the root of terrorist actions.
 
I suggest we ask the net community to suggest better ideas for ways
to combat terrorism.  And no, surrender to their political demands
is NOT in general a better way.

	Frank Silbermann