🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr17.054426.6015@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>	   You seem to have missed the point, irregardless of what you
>   believe about the Irgun (actually, anyone who tries to compare the
>   legitmate Irgun with the terrorist PLO as you have in your quandry is
>   either ignorant or lying), this one action (the bombing of the King
>   David hotel) cannot in any way be considered a "terrorist" attack by
>   any reasonable definition.

I think that there are many reasonable people who would beg to differ
with you.  The King David Hotel bombing was clearly a terrorist action
by a terrorist organization.

Why exactly do you claim that the Irgun was legitimate (implying
non-terrorist), while the PLO is terrorist (implying illegitimate)?
A simple denial of the Irgun's essentially terrorist nature is
insufficient.

Both the Irgun and the PLO pursue(d) random attacks against innocent
civilians; both have(had) international arms smuggling operations;
both are(were) financially supported by external interests; both
target(ed) government, police, and infrastructure installations; both
have(had) essentially secret membership.  Both try(tried) to wrest
political control over their perceived homeland from an occupying
force, using sporadic violence in an attempt to force political
issues.  Sounds to me like both are(were) terrorist organizations.

--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)