🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Apr16.232347.13363@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack):
>In article <JIME.92Apr15124737@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>|In article <1992Apr15.140120.8193@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>|>   In article <1992Apr13.203813.19355@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:

>|>   # Aha!  Now we begin to get the idea.  If an act of resistance (such as
>|>   # blowing up a hotel serving as British headquarters and killing innocent
>|>   # Arabs, Jews and British) is committed by Zionists, it is NOT terrorism.
>|>   # If a similar act, of course, was committed by Palestinians (note,
>|>   # Makowsky, no cute ?) then it would be a heinous terrorist act.

>|>	   Not at all.  I suggest you do two things.  Go read about what
>|>   actually happened at the King David hotel (and why it had to happen),
>|>   and shut up when you do not know what you are talking about.

>|I _have_ read about what actually happened at the King David Hotel.
>|It had all the hallmarks of a well-planned terrorist attack, including
>|the proverbial warning phone call (which was ignored by the British),
>|and timing with another terrorist attack elsewhere.

>Which other terorist attacks have been preceded by phone calls telling
>when and where they would take place?  Am I missing a serious chunck
>of history?

The Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie was preceded by a warning several
weeks in advance, although it didn't specify the specific flight.  The
US State Department was widely criticized for  failing to notify 
passengers that there was a threat and that a risk existed.

Anyway, this is a side issue; the problem is, 'terrorist' is a loaded
word used by one side to condemn all uses of violence by the other side.
Good violence (done by US) is a justifiable military action, while bad 
violence (done by THEM) is an evil terrorist act.  

I'm not really sure what purpose a debate over whether a particular
event was terrorist serves; it's obvious that everybody feels their own
attacks *are* justified and that the other side's aren't.

Thus, to "Makowsky?", the King David is justified and therefore not
terrorist; to the British it WAS.  To George Bush, bombing dams in Iraq is 
justified and therefore not terrorist; to Iraqis it WAS.  To the IRA,
planting a bomb in London is good; to the British, shooting suspected IRA 
members in Gibraltar is good.  To the Palestinians, rock throwing is
justified; to Israelis, using force to stop them is.  To the Lebanese,
attacking Israeli soldiers in Lebanon is good; to Israel, bombing camps in 
Lebanon is justified.

Anyway, you all get the point.  I'm probably overstating my case, and
someone is going to be upset that I'm equating some of these actions.
But I'm not.  I'm pointing out that in the people's minds, they are
equal; either side feels it is justified in attempting to achieve its goals.

If we accept the goals, we ought to work towards them, whatever the
tactics of some of the parties, but we shouldn't accept the tactics.
Shouting terrorism is rarely a constructive approach, however.

>Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."