Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-bach!mahoney
From: mahoney@bach.DEC
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Terrorism
Message-ID: <1699@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 11:10:42 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1699
Posted: Wed Dec 11 11:10:42 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 19:41:34 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 40


     


     I have a simple definition of terrorism.

     Terrorism attacking of civilian population not directly
               involved in a war effort.


        That is if you are at war and bomb a factory building bombs
        or planes that is not terrorism.  You have killed civilians
        but they are to a point part of the army by what they are
        building.  If bomb a factory making dolls that would be
        terrorism.


        Attacking means any means of oppresion used weather
        psycological, emotional or physical.


        I feel that this definition leaves out war as terrorism as
        long as the civilian population is left out. (I don't
        believe in the theory of total war).  This definition also
        makes acts of represive governments terrorist acts aginst there
        own people which I feel is true.

   The acts by the Palastinians are terrorist attacks the attack by
  Isreali on the PLO Headqurters in Tunisia is not.  The Attack by the
  Contras and/or Sandinistas on villages in Nicaragua are terrorist
  attacks.

   Any comments on my definition?  If it is faulty please show me
   the light.


   Brian Mahoney
   "If I got a penny everytime Reagan screwed up a speech.
     I would be rich by now."