From: Adam Flinton 

Gene McAloon wrote:

> On Sat, 29 May 2004 05:48:10 -0400, Monte Davis 
wrote:
>
>
>>Terrorism is a *tactic* that can be used by anyone -- rebels, the
>>powers that be, or outside powers. IMHO its essence is not in the
>>perpetrator or the purpose, but that the targets are more or less
>>random (anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time) rather than the
>>organized forces of one's opponent.
>>
>>E.g., it would be terrorism if De Valera's men set off a bomb in a
>>marketplace, but not if they bombed a Black & Tan outpost. The Bay of
>>Pigs invasion, however stupid, was not terrorism; blowing up Cuban
>>sugar mills (or later, financing the Honduran death squads that our
>>prospective ambassador to Iraq couldn't seem to notice) was.
>
>
> The distinction is not only supportable, it reflects the reality quite
nicely.
>

Hardly.  Uncle Ho & Che Guevara & Fidel Castro & many others
were "Terrorists" to the US. Tell me then Geo of the "terror
using threats" the US has faced since say 1945, who were freedom
fighters & who were terrorists?

Are Hamas freedom fighters or terrorists? Were the Contras?
Were the Cuban supported left wing types in South America?

If they are fighting against US interests are they thus automatically (to
you) terrorists (e.g. Iraqi "militants") whereas if fighting for
US interests (e. the AUC, contras etc) they are freedom fighters?



> Terrorism is not a "tactic" except insofar as it is a
particular form of
> violence. Violence for political ends is what is involved and the methods
used,
> from suicide bombers to B52s, is dictated by the effort thought justified or
by
> the limitations that force reliance on a particular type of violence.
>

Yup & while murder is universally wrong, war is universally OK.

> The distinction you try to make between targeting civilians and targeting
> military forces is what is unsupportable. Under that definition the carpet
> bombing of German and Japanese cites during WWII would have been terrorist.
> Perhaps you can see how phony the distinction is.
>

Or that those actions were as terrorist as the German targeting of
Guernica. We have just got used to terror bombing as a facet of modern war.

> To be more specific, suicide bombing of school kids in Israel is no different
> from killing Palestinian school kids using attack helicopters and tanks. You
can
> try to justify the latter by the using the euphemism of "collateral damage,
but
> tell that to the parents of those Palestinian kids. It is a distinction
without
> a difference.
>

Indeed. In fact State terror is by far the worst sort of terror. The state
has resources & "legality" on it's side when operating
"internally". I'd be much more scared living in the Ukraine in
the 20'es
& 30'es vs living in a state under threat from external/non state
terrorists.



Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5