Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Terrorism Inc.
Message-ID: <2039@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 09:22:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2039
Posted: Thu Oct 10 09:22:28 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 08:02:13 EDT
References: <488@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <885@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 76

RAVI SUBRAHMANYAN writes:

> I've often wondered if 'state supported terrorism' is really all that
> new; it seems more like a new term for something that has been 
> going on for a long, long time.  It appears as though violent actions by
> a (usually politically unrepresented) group are termed terrorism, while
> similar actions by governments, both covert and overt, are called war,
> or something less objectionable.  Is there such a big difference between
> actions by a government that lead to civilian casualties, and actions
> by terrorists (who, being fewer in number and probably low on resources,
> certainly lower than a government) choose to pick on smaller numbers of
> people (eg. a car bomb versus overthrowing a government)? 
> 
> Any comments??

I think this was discussed a few months ago over the net.  Yeah, there is a
big difference:  one of intent.  Let's look at few examples:

1.  A suicide bomber blows up 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut.  That's NOT
terrorism -- the bomber was after fighting men, not civilians.

2.  Jews blow up the King David Hotel, filled with British soldiers.
Also not terrorism, for the same reason.

3.  Israel blasts the PLO headquarters in Tunis.  This was an act of war
against the headquarters of the avowed enemy of Israel.  Civilian 
casualties were incidental to the act of war.

4.  The IRA tries to blow up Margaret Thatcher.  Again, an act of war
against the head of state of the IRA's arch-enemy.  Any civilian
casualties would have been incidental.

5.  The African National Congress bombs the headquarters of the
South African Air Force.  Not terrorism.

6.  West German Commie saboteurs bomb an American army base.
Again, an act of war by our enemies against us.

BUT:

7.  The IRA plants a bomb on a Belfast street, killing a dozen innocent
people.  Here, the PURPOSE of the bombing is to impress upon everyone that
even innocent Irishmen cannot go on living normal, peaceful lives as long
as Ulster is under British/Protestant rule.  Innocent people are 
deliberately targeted.  That's terrorism.

8.  The PLO invades a schoolhouse and kills Jewish children.  The idea
is to show Israelis that as long as the Zionist entity continues to
exist and occupy Palestinian land (remember, the PLO was organized
in 1964, when Judea, Samaria and Gaza were still in Arab hands), even
little children will not be safe.  That's terrorism.

9.   PLO Force 17 thugs murder three Israeli tourists on a yacht off
Cyprus.  Innocent civilians were the object of the murder, so it's
terrorism.

10.  Arab pirates take over an Italian ship, hold innocent passengers
as hostages, and murder an American.  NO CAUSE justifies that kind of
terrorism.

Get the idea?  If the downtrodden of the world go after those they
consider their oppressors, namely soldiers, policemen, or Government
leaders, and innocent people are killed in the course of their action,
it's not terrorism -- it's the only way such people can wage war.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S GOOD.  ONLY THE WARPED BELIEVE THAT WAR IS
GOOD, whether waged by little groups with hand grenades or by nations
with multimillion-dollar (or -ruble) warplanes.  

But if these same downtrodden people deliberately attack innocent
civilians in order to terrorize a nation into granting their demands,
then they are terrorists.  The IRA man who attacks Margaret Thatcher
is a hero.  The same IRA man, if he bombs a civilian pub, is a
murdering scum and a disgrace to the Irish people.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt