Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Terrorism, Inc. (A definition?)
Message-ID: <266@umich.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 10:29:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.266
Posted: Thu Oct 10 10:29:10 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 18:06:36 EDT
References: <1060@ubc-vision.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 15
Summary: Can you say "rationalization"?

In article <1060> mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes:
>Even in real, full-scale wars waged by legitimate governments for whatever
>reason, casualties inflicted on the civilian population is definitely *not*
>a "mere unfortunate by-product". The concept of total war, formally adopted
>and used in WWII as well as Vietnam, is that civilian populations directly
>support  the armed forces, run the economy and the weapon-producing factories
>and provide new recruits and should therefore come under direct attack, 

Can you say: "rationalization"?

Somehow, baby Doe just doesn't seem very threatening to me.  I'm not 
denying that it might be a tragic necessity to drop a bomb in his general
vicinity.  But spare me the too-facile "justifications".

--Paul V Torek, the not-quite-thoroughly-morally-desensitized	torek@umich