Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ucbvax!ucbernie!tedrick
From: tedrick@ucbernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Terrorism, Inc. (A definition?)
Message-ID: <10639@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 13-Oct-85 04:49:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10639
Posted: Sun Oct 13 04:49:41 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 04:52:41 EDT
References: <1060@ubc-vision.UUCP> <266@umich.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.ARPA
Reply-To: tedrick@ucbernie.UUCP (Tom Tedrick)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 21

>>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".

My current imperfect understanding of war says that the aim of
war is to destroy the will of the enemy to resist. This includes
destroying enemy morale. Therefore if killing civilians (this is
very painful for me to say) weakens enemy morale, it is entirely
consistent with the aim of war.

I hope we can find a way to solve world problems without war ...

  -Tom
   tedrick@berkeley