Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!caip!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Frenchmen getting bombed, why them?
Message-ID: <117200225@inmet>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 20:31:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200225
Posted: Wed Oct  8 20:31:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 06:49:48 EDT
References: <7206@sri-spam.ARPA>
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #R:sri-spam.ARPA:-720600:inmet:117200225:000:892
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh    Oct  8 20:31:00 1986


>/* Written  5:58 pm  Oct  5, 1986 by brkirby@watdragon.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */
>In many ways, the [WWII French] 
>resistance were terrorists. The germans certainly looked
>at them that way.  Generally, the only difference between 'freedom
>fighters' and 'terrorists' is whether you agree or disagree with what they
>are fighting for.  

No -- the terrorists would like you to believe this.  The resistance
didn't, to my knowledge, ever deliberately attack the German wives and
children of the occupying forces.  Their activities were not meant to
foment terror among the general population, but rather fear and
ineffectiveness among the enemy combatants.

>The standard definiton for terrorism is that it is some action designed to
>produce terror (a nice recursive definition.)  This usually means that
>civilians are attacked.  

I suggest a new standard: the Netanyahu definition.