niko@houem.UUCP (N.TSOLAS) (11/01/85)
It is very easy to judge other's people actions and critisize them if we haven't experienced their problems. It is impossible for somebody who never experienced hunger to UNDERSTAND the actions of a hungry person. But I was curious, HOW all of you anti-Palestinians would have reacted if you were in their position. Nick Tsolas ihnp4!houem!niko
steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (11/07/85)
> Nick Tsolas ihnp4!houem!niko: > It is very easy to judge other's people actions and > critisize them if we haven't experienced their problems. [...] > But I was curious, HOW all of you anti-Palestinians > would have reacted if you were in their position. As you say, it's hard to know for sure how I would behave in circumstances I have never really experienced, but let me point out Zionists reacted before the State of Israel existed. (Yes, I know the circumstances are not identical, but the comparison is still revealing.) The Jewish underground did engage in violence, but only against legitimate military targets including the British Army and various armed Arab groups. There were at most a few deviations from this policy on the part of small sub-groups. These few cases (i.e. attacks on innocent bystanders) were strongly denounced by most of the underground and denied by those groups accused of them. There was an explicit ideology, "tohar haneshek", i.e. "purity of arms", against targeting the innocent. The PLO, on the other hand, has made innocent bystanders (children on a school bus, an American tourist in a wheelchair, etc.) their primary targets. The groups involved in these attacks proudly take credit, and are never denounced by anyone connected in any way with the PLO. Thus, in circustances that were at least as trying, the Zionist underground was able to refrain from the sort of tactics used by the PLO. These tactics are evil and **even if you sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians**, the actions of the PLO deserve condemnation.
niko@houem.UUCP (N.TSOLAS) (11/16/85)
....... >I have never really experienced, but let me point out Zionists reacted >before the State of Israel existed. (Yes, I know the circumstances >are not identical, but the comparison is still revealing.) There is no comparison whatsoever. >The Jewish underground did engage in violence, but only against legitimate >military targets including the British Army and various armed Arab groups. >There were at most a few deviations from this policy on the part of small >sub-groups. These few cases (i.e. attacks on innocent bystanders) were >strongly denounced by most of the underground and denied by those groups >accused of them. There was an explicit ideology, "tohar haneshek", i.e. >"purity of arms", against targeting the innocent. I know and I would like to point out that, perhaps, only the Jewish people can understand the plight of the Palestinians. They have been through worst situations and even here, until recently, they were second class citizens. I have met some and I heard that in Israel there is a minority of Israelis who sympathize with them. But the government's official policy for solving the Palestinian problem is by extermination.( Don't tell me about the people who live in the West Bank. It is a matter of time for them to leave their homes) >The PLO, on the other hand, has made innocent bystanders (children on >a school bus, an American tourist in a wheelchair, etc.) their primary >targets. The groups involved in these attacks proudly take credit, >and are never denounced by anyone connected in any way with the PLO. How many Palestinian children and innocent bystanders have been killed by Israeli bombings? If you beleive in "an eye for eye ..." then I think you would agree that the odds are against them. >Thus, in circustances that were at least as trying, the Zionist >underground was able to refrain from the sort of tactics used by >the PLO. These tactics are evil and **even if you sympathize with >the plight of the Palestinians**, the actions of the PLO deserve >condemnation. Good and evil are "relative" concepts (depending who you talk to). But you should also condemn the actions of the government of Israel. PLOs will always exist no matter if all the Palestinian children are killed. History proves it. If the Jewish people waited for 2000 years the Palestinians can wait too.
lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) (11/17/85)
In article <411@houem.UUCP> niko@houem.UUCP (N.TSOLAS) writes: > >I have met some and I heard that in Israel there is a minority >of Israelis who sympathize with them [Palestinians]. But the government's >official policy for solving the Palestinian problem is by >extermination.( Don't tell me about the people who live in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >West Bank. It is a matter of time for them to leave their homes) Even assuming that Mr. Tsolas is correct, in the English language requiring people to leave their homes in *not* extermination. (The premise is also open to question, since this is an overt policy of only 1 member of the Israeli parliament, Meir Kahane, a real sicko. I must admit, however, that the Likud party has been distressing cavalier towards the property owners of the West Bank.) andy
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (11/17/85)
> >Thus, in circustances that were at least as trying, the Zionist > >underground was able to refrain from the sort of tactics used by > >the PLO. These tactics are evil and **even if you sympathize with > >the plight of the Palestinians**, the actions of the PLO deserve > >condemnation. > > Good and evil are "relative" concepts (depending who you talk to). > But you should also condemn the actions of the government of Israel. > PLOs will always exist no matter if all the Palestinian children > are killed. History proves it. If the Jewish people waited for > 2000 years the Palestinians can wait too. GOOD AND EVIL are NOT "RELATIVE" CONCEPTS! And it is a little presumptuous to assume that the "Palestinians" will wait for 2000 years. Actually it is more than presumptuous, it is IDIOTIC! Palestinians Arabs have no significant culture which can hold them together for 2000 years. Many peoples came and went in those 2000 years, but aside from the dominant culture, ONLY the Jews survived. And going back some 3500 years, Jewish culture is the only survivor in the world. I know that other peoples have been around that long, but NOT their culture, unchanged. Yes, it must be viewed with awe and possibly as a miracle that Jews, with their Torah, survived h-ll, fire, and high water for thousands of years and nobody, but nobody, can hold a candle to that fact!
warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (11/18/85)
In article <411@houem.UUCP>, niko@houem.UUCP (N.TSOLAS) writes: > But the government's > official policy for solving the Palestinian problem is by > extermination.( Don't tell me about the people who live in the > West Bank. It is a matter of time for them to leave their homes) 1) Enormous exaggeration here. Forcibly exiling a people is very different from extermination. 2) This is not the government's policy, official or otherwise. It is the platform of Kahane's party. Destruction of Israel. however is the official policy of the PLO, it's in their charter. > >The PLO, on the other hand, has made innocent bystanders (children on > >a school bus, an American tourist in a wheelchair, etc.) their primary > >targets. The groups involved in these attacks proudly take credit, > >and are never denounced by anyone connected in any way with the PLO. > > How many Palestinian children and innocent bystanders have been > killed by Israeli bombings? If you beleive in "an eye for eye ..." > then I think you would agree that the odds are against them. Do you know any way to fight a war without killing innocents? I don't but unless you're a pacifist there's a world of difference between soldiers and terrorists who *intend to* kill innocents. > >Thus, in circustances that were at least as trying, the Zionist > >underground was able to refrain from the sort of tactics used by > >the PLO. These tactics are evil and **even if you sympathize with > >the plight of the Palestinians**, the actions of the PLO deserve > >condemnation. > > Good and evil are "relative" concepts (depending who you talk to). Neither the Torah nor the Koran takes this view. > But you should also condemn the actions of the government of Israel. > PLOs will always exist no matter if all the Palestinian children > are killed. History proves it. If the Jewish people waited for > 2000 years the Palestinians can wait too. I sincerely hope it will not take the Palestinians 2000 years to find a way to accept the existance of Israel and get about the business of negotiating. I am sure that sane people can sit down together and fix this mess.
niko@houem.UUCP (N.TSOLAS) (11/19/85)
>GOOD AND EVIL are NOT "RELATIVE" CONCEPTS! And it is a little >presumptuous to assume that the "Palestinians" will wait for >2000 years. Actually it is more than presumptuous, it is >IDIOTIC! Palestinians Arabs have no significant culture which can hold ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >them together for 2000 years. Many peoples came and went in those >2000 years, but aside from the dominant culture, ONLY the Jews survived. You are confusing religion with culture. I can name many that survived for thousands of years. Jews, as many other people, have been influenced by many cultures. Even in Israel today they talk about arab Jews and western (European) Jews. Palestineans HAVE their own culture. Whether it is significant or not, neither you nor anybody else can judge. >And going back some 3500 years, Jewish culture is the only survivor >in the world. I know that other peoples have been around that long, >but NOT their culture, unchanged. Yes, it must be viewed with awe ^^^ >and possibly as a miracle that Jews, with their Torah, survived ^^^^^^^ >h-ll, fire, and high water for thousands of years and nobody, >but nobody, can hold a candle to that fact! I don't viewed it with owe and I don't believe in miracles. The fact that Jews survived is because their religion is different, not better not worst, just different than others. Reacting to a hustle environment forced them to stick together in order to survive.
niko@houem.UUCP (N.TSOLAS) (11/19/85)
>Even assuming that Mr. Tsolas is correct, in the English language >requiring people to leave their homes in *not* extermination. True, but forcible exile leads to extermination. In addition, Palestineans are not only exiled but also they are hunted by Arabs as well. And I am comming again in my original question. "What would you, or anybody else, do in their situation?"
hjm@ihlpf.UUCP (Moore) (11/20/85)
> > >The PLO, on the other hand, has made innocent bystanders (children on > >a school bus, an American tourist in a wheelchair, etc.) their primary > >targets. The groups involved in these attacks proudly take credit, > >and are never denounced by anyone connected in any way with the PLO. > > How many Palestinian children and innocent bystanders have been > killed by Israeli bombings? If you beleive in "an eye for eye ..." > then I think you would agree that the odds are against them. > Just for a moment ... You come across two groups, both with arbitrary, generally non-descript differences, which only they are fully capable of seeing (or so they claim.) Since they happen to be at war (and wars are interesting,) you read about them, watch what they do, how they each fight, etc.. While watching, you notice something interesting: + One group (it doesnt matter which,) when they place a military headquarters, etc., has a strong tendency to use places like apartments, or other buildings where there will be a maximum of civilian casualties if they are attacked. + The other group, however, has a tendency to isolate their headquarters, etc., thereby minimizing the number of civilian casualties in the event of an attack. While watching, you also notice some interesting differences in their respective modes of combat: + The first group has the strange habit of selecting, as primary targets, civilian busses, resturants, tourists, cars, crowded sidewalks, etc.. + The second group however, tends to select as their primary targets the first groups training camps, military headquarters, fighters, arms stashes, etc.. When either group fights, civilians tend to get killed. There is a difference however: + when the first group attacks, their goal often appears to be to kill or injure civilians, to make a bloody mess, to kill the uninvolved, + when the second group attacks, they often cannot avoid killing civilians because of what would appear to be the deliberate efforts of the first group to place their targets in such a way as to ensure the greatest loss of civilian life. Which group would you consider more responsible for the loss of innocent lives? ------------------- Whatever shall be, probably won't. ------------------- Hank Moore ihnp4!ihlpf!hjm
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/20/85)
In article <486@mhuxm.UUCP> abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles) writes: > GOOD AND EVIL are NOT "RELATIVE" CONCEPTS! I suppose you think your capitalization makes it so? Otherwise you might have supplied an argument. > And going back some 3500 years, Jewish culture is the only survivor > in the world. I know that other peoples have been around that long, > but NOT their culture, unchanged. Yes, it must be viewed with awe > and possibly as a miracle that Jews, with their Torah, survived > h-ll, fire, and high water for thousands of years and nobody, but nobody, > can hold a candle to that fact! I can just imagine all those biblical shepherds dressed like Hassidem and talking Yiddish, wearing their armored yamulkas into holy war. There is nothing miraculous about the fact that there must be an oldest book/culture/person/etc. in the world. If it happens to be Jewish, whoopie. Some would debate that dubious honor. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (11/21/85)
> [...] And it is a little > presumptuous to assume that the "Palestinians" will wait for > 2000 years. [...] Palestinians Arabs have no significant culture > which can hold them together for 2000 years. Many peoples came > and went in those 2000 years, but aside from the dominant culture, > ONLY the Jews survived. > And going back some 3500 years, Jewish culture is the only survivor > in the world. I know that other peoples have been around that long, > but NOT their culture, unchanged. [...] - Leaving aside the thinly veiled attempt to deny the Palestinians their national identity (by putting quotes around the word) - Leaving aside the chauvinism implicit in the lie that Palestinians "have no significant culture" - Leaving aside the historical ignorance displayed in the assertion that dominant cultures aside (whatever that means) "ONLY the Jews survived" as a people the past 2000 years - Leaving aside the total confusion of culture and religion in the above quoted passage - Leaving aside the ludicrous statement that Jewish culture has remained "unchanged" for 3500 years (an insult on Jewish culture, for sure) Leaving all these aside, the argument put forth in the above quoted passage is still nonesense. Jewish people have every right to be proud, very proud of their culture and their contributions to human civilisation. But this gives no right to the state of Israel to inflict injustice upon other people. Mind you, the same type of argument was advanced by colonial powers to exhonorate the atrocities they committed during colonisation. Somehow the "superior" Western culture made the enslaving of Africans and the extermination of native people in America a justifiable act. --Vassos Hadzilacos.
lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) (11/25/85)
In article <416@houem.UUCP> niko@houem.UUCP (N.TSOLAS) writes: > > >>Even assuming that Mr. Tsolas is correct, in the English language >>requiring people to leave their homes in *not* extermination. > >True, but forcible exile leads to extermination. The Jews are themselves evidence that this is not true. andy
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (11/28/85)
In article <1656@utcsri.UUCP> vassos@utcsri.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: >> [...] And it is a little >> presumptuous to assume that the "Palestinians" will wait for >> 2000 years. [...] Palestinians Arabs have no significant culture >> which can hold them together for 2000 years. Many peoples came >> and went in those 2000 years, but aside from the dominant culture, >> ONLY the Jews survived. >> And going back some 3500 years, Jewish culture is the only survivor >> in the world. I know that other peoples have been around that long, >> but NOT their culture, unchanged. [...] > >- Leaving aside the thinly veiled attempt to deny the Palestinians their > national identity (by putting quotes around the word) >- Leaving aside the chauvinism implicit in the lie that Palestinians > "have no significant culture" >- Leaving aside the historical ignorance displayed in the assertion > that dominant cultures aside (whatever that means) "ONLY the Jews > survived" as a people the past 2000 years >- Leaving aside the total confusion of culture and religion in the > above quoted passage >- Leaving aside the ludicrous statement that Jewish culture has remained > "unchanged" for 3500 years (an insult on Jewish culture, for sure) > >Leaving all these aside, the argument put forth in the above quoted >passage is still nonesense. > >Jewish people have every right to be proud, very proud of their >culture and their contributions to human civilisation. But this >gives no right to the state of Israel to inflict injustice upon >other people. Mind you, the same type of argument was advanced >by colonial powers to exhonorate the atrocities they committed >during colonisation. Somehow the "superior" Western culture made >the enslaving of Africans and the extermination of native people >in America a justifiable act. > >--Vassos Hadzilacos. Again Hadzilacos shows his gross Western chauvinistic ignorance. Jewish culture is more non-Western than Islamic culture. Anyway sympathizing with the former Muslim persecutors of Jews would be like sympathizing with Afrikaner attempts to regain S. Africa should the blacks ever gain control of the nation from the white oppressors. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) (11/29/85)
> >>Even assuming that Mr. Tsolas is correct, in the English language > >>requiring people to leave their homes in *not* extermination. > > > >True, but forcible exile leads to extermination. > > The Jews are themselves evidence that this is not true. Are we talking about the same Jews? I would say that Jewish history, particularly in this century, furnishes a great deal of evidence that exile DOES lead to extermination attempts. However, even if it were not so, the Jews have suffered greatly from repeated exiles, and the history of Judaism demonstrates graphically the horror of forced migration. Can you really repeat this process for your enemies in good conscience? -=- Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot, CMU Center for Art and Technology tim@k.cs.cmu.edu | uucp: {seismo,decwrl,ucbvax,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 | CMU. Tomorrow's networking nightmares -- today!
warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (12/03/85)
In article <683@k.cs.cmu.edu>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) writes: >4 Even assuming that Mr. Tsolas is correct, in the English language >4 requiring people to leave their homes in *not* extermination. >3 True, but forcible exile leads to extermination. >2 The Jews are themselves evidence that this is not true. > Are we talking about the same Jews? I would say that Jewish history, > particularly in this century, furnishes a great deal of evidence that exile > DOES lead to extermination attempts. However, even if it were not so, the > Jews have suffered greatly from repeated exiles, and the history of Judaism > demonstrates graphically the horror of forced migration. Can you really > repeat this process for your enemies in good conscience? The objection to Tsolas was that he said that the policy of Israel was to exterminate the Arabs in territories under its control. He brought as evidence that Israel plans to expel them. There were two objections: 1) There is a world of difference between exile and genocide. 2) The government of Israel supports neither.
lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) (12/04/85)
In article <683@k.cs.cmu.edu> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) writes: >> >>Even assuming that Mr. Tsolas is correct, in the English language >> >>requiring people to leave their homes in *not* extermination. >> > >> >True, but forcible exile leads to extermination. >> >> The Jews are themselves evidence that this is not true. > >Are we talking about the same Jews? I would say that Jewish history, >particularly in this century, furnishes a great deal of evidence that exile >DOES lead to extermination attempts. However, even if it were not so, the >Jews have suffered greatly from repeated exiles, and the history of Judaism >demonstrates graphically the horror of forced migration. Can you really >repeat this process for your enemies in good conscience? >-=- The answer to the last question is NO (see my other postings). However, even with respect to the Jews, the people doing the exiling were not always bent on extermination. I just wanted to make clear that the two are not equivalent concepts and that it is possible to suffer one without the other. In view of the Palestinians' close ties to other, large ethnic groups, I would say that the only way they could be exterminated is by global nuclear war. andy
buchbind@agrigene.UUCP (12/04/85)
> >>Even assuming that Mr. Tsolas is correct, in the English language > >>requiring people to leave their homes in *not* extermination. > > > >True, but forcible exile leads to extermination. No, it leads to loss of identity, not extermination (i.e. biological death or lack of reproduction). > The Jews are themselves evidence that this is not true. The Jews are an 'exception that proves the rule'. We show that it is possible but unlikely. (And what happened to the exiled inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom? Their descendant have been 'swallowed by history, though those that were not exiled [the Samaritans] still exist.) -- Barry Buchbinder (608)221-5000 Agrigenetics Corp.; 5649 E. Buckeye Rd.; Madison WI 53716 USA {seismo!uwvax!|decvax|ihnp4}!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind
mahoney@bach.DEC (12/11/85)
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."
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (12/12/85)
> Terrorism = attacking of civilian population not directly > involved in a war effort. The problem I see with this definition is that the current theory of war as I understand it includes attacks on the civilian population as an integral part. The idea is that by attacking the civilian population you induce demoralization and contribute to the breakdown of the society as a whole. This doctrine was practiced extensively by both sides in WWII. For example consider the bombing of London, the bombing of German cities, the V1 and V2 rocket attacks on England, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was originally intended that the ancient capital, Kyoto, be bombed first, with the explicit purpose of destroying Japanese culture so as to demoralize the civilian population. Fortunately someone stopped that particular act of war. Anyway, terrorizing the civilian population is accepted in the theory of war as a means towards destruction of the enemy. This principle is currently being extensively applied in Afghanistan, where the Soviets are using every method they can think of, no matter how brutal, disgusting, immoral, and degrading, to demoralize and destroy the opposition. I claim that the current terrorist activities are part of a world wide low level war between the Soviets and the west. Part of the idea is to induce conflict between various groups, so that the Soviets can move in while the others are preoccupied fighting each other. So these terrorist activities are most definitely acts of war. For example the Soviets support and exploit Arab terrorism against Israel in order to gain territory in the Middle East. The definition is probably good if you don't claim that terrorism is distinct from war.
aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (12/14/85)
> I claim that the current terrorist activities are part of a world wide > low level war between the Soviets and the west. Part of the idea > is to induce conflict between various groups, so that the Soviets > can move in while the others are preoccupied fighting each other. > So these terrorist activities are most definitely acts of war. > For example the Soviets support and exploit Arab terrorism against > Israel in order to gain territory in the Middle East. Viewing any international political problem or conflict from the East-West angle only is a major reason explaining the failure to comprehend, understand and eventually wipe out modern terrorism. The fact of the matter is that TERRORISM is always the manifestation of an unresolved political conflict. It is the SYMPTOM, NOT THE CAUSE OF THE CONFLICT. Of course, the superpowers try to exploit the conflict by manipulating the "terrorists" (or "freedom fighters", depending on which side of the fence you are) to further heir own geopolitical objectives. Take for example the palestinian problem. Do you really believe that it is induced by the russians? The russians do try to exploit it -unsuccessfully so far- for their own purposes, but it is by no means an East-West problem. It can however escalate to an East-West conflict or even war. One of the most plausible scenarios leading to Armageddon is a regional conflict such as in the Middle East, escalating to an open war between regional parties, where each side is backed up by one superpower. Unchecked, the escalation can inch up to an East-West war, a nuclear exchange then a "full-exchange" ie. Armageddon. An early beginning of this escalation has been actually observed in the October 1973 Arab-israel war.
mahoney@bach.DEC (12/17/85)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 12-DEC-1985 10:14--------------------- >Posted by: decwrl!ucbvax!ernie!tedrick >Organization: University of California, Berkeley > >> Terrorism = attacking of civilian population not directly >> involved in a war effort. > >The problem I see with this definition is that the current >theory of war as I understand it includes attacks on the civilian >population as an integral part. The idea is that by attacking >the civilian population you induce demoralization and contribute >to the breakdown of the society as a whole. > [what is here gives examples of the above during WWII and the Soviet War in Afghanistan] >The definition is probably good if you don't claim that >terrorism is distinct from war. I do feel that you can have terrorist activities in war such as the fire bombing of Dresden and the bombings of London Berlin and Tokyo. These were all terrorist acts as far as I am concerned. Bombing a factory (accidents happen if you hit something else in war by accident then it is not terrorism) that produces war material is not a terrorist attack. Bombing the whole city to demoralize the population is. As I stated I do not and will never believe in the Total War theory. What the Soviet Union is an abomination as far as I am concerned and deserves the scorn of the whole world. I am also not thrilled with American activities in Nicaragua. The biggest problem in the world is that the Superpowers (throughout the ages) have felt that their neighbors are there playthings. This has led to more problems then anything else. Remember that war will always beget war. Brian Mahoney "A liberal is a terrible thing to waste mount one on your wall as a trophy"
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (12/17/85)
>As I stated I do not and will never believe in the Total War theory.
I am curious as to what you mean by the total war theory, and what
it means not to believe in it.
My understanding is that the idea as it evolved was of waging war using
the full resources of the country as opposed to using small
armies. I certainly dislike the idea of total war. john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (12/17/85)
>> Terrorism = attacking of civilian population not directly >> involved in a war effort. > >The problem I see with this definition is that the current >theory of war as I understand it includes attacks on the civilian >population as an integral part. The idea is that by attacking >the civilian population you induce demoralization and contribute >to the breakdown of the society as a whole. > >This doctrine was practiced extensively by both sides in WWII. >Anyway, terrorizing the civilian population is accepted in >the theory of war as a means towards destruction of the >enemy. It may be of interest to point out that Catholic moralists have NEVER accepted terror against civilian populations as a legitimate way of prosecuting a war. You may be permitted to take actions that incidentally will result in civilian casualties, but to deliberately attack non-combatants (as the US did to Japan and Germany, or Germany to the UK) is always wrong, even if done for nice motives, such as the destruction of Hitlerism. So the "current theory of war" referred to is in direct opposition to the traditional theories of war ("doctrine of just war"), that were current in Europe since the end of antiquity. I think the old rules are far better than our modern ones. -- Peace and Good!, (Fr.) John Woolley "Quid enim sunt servi Dei nisi quidem joculatores ejus, qui corda hominum erigere debent et movere ad laetitiam spiritualem?" -- S. Franciscus
mahoney@bach.DEC (12/18/85)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 17-DEC-1985 12:43---------------------
Total War means that instead of armies opposing each other then
you start attacking the civilian population as well. The reasoning
is that the people do not actively oppose the war thus they support
if the support then we have the right to attack them and do. This
idea is grotesque and personally I think that it should be outlawed
by international law. (I know I am naive so don't bother telling me)
The reason for attacking the population is also to so totally demoralize
them that the revolt aginst the government and bring it down or
force the government to negotiate.
Brian Mahoney
mahoney%bach.dec@decwrl.arpa
"If someone has a cure all you can
be sure it will make you sick."andersa@kuling.UUCP (Anders Andersson) (05/06/86)
[I'm directing comments to net.politics, aware that I won't be able to read them, unless redirected or sent by mail. Still I think this is important.] In article <593@umich.UUCP> torek@zippy.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes: >It may be the best; at least if we deny the terrorists their goals: changes >of policy on our part in the direction they desire. Those who recommend >doing this in the name of "addressing the root causes of terrorism" certainly >have a strange notion of how to discourage an activity: reward it. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder..." Yes, I see your point, but what does it mean in practice? PLO has indeed committed terrorist actions "on behalf of the Palestinian people". Should we therefore deny Palestinians any demands or wishes they might have, regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong" in what they ask for? If not forever, for how long? There are numerous peoples all around the world who find their own situation unpleasant or unfair in some way or another. For some of them, terrorist groups have been formed, for others not (yet). In order to set a good example, we should all rush to the assistance of the latter, while they still exist - it would of course be best if all (potential) problems could get a peaceful solution from the very beginning. Unfortunately, we can't turn the time backwards, and I agree that it's a dilemma - what to do with all those "root causes" that will remain? -- Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Phone: +46 18 183170 UUCP: andersa@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (05/12/86)
> There are numerous peoples all around the world who find their own > situation unpleasant or unfair in some way or another. For some of them, > terrorist groups have been formed, for others not (yet). In order to set > a good example, we should all rush to the assistance of the latter, while > they still exist - it would of course be best if all (potential) problems > could get a peaceful solution from the very beginning. Unfortunately, we > can't turn the time backwards, and I agree that it's a dilemma - what to > do with all those "root causes" that will remain? > Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden --------------- The above is incredibly naive and simplistic. What, for example, would Mr. Andersson do about Puerto Rican independence, Quebec separatists, Basque separatists, Breton separatists, etc. Are their "root causes" justified? The Puerto Rican independence party gets less than 10% of the vote. Should Puerto Rico be severed from the United States against the will of more than 90% of the people of Puerto Rico just to avoid a few acts of terrorism? One person's peaceful solution is another person's "root cause". -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
gtaylor@astroatc.UUCP (oh...*Gregory* Taylor...never mind.) (05/13/86)
I'd just like to mention that there's an excellent, thought-provoking article by Connor Cruise O'Brien on Terrorism in the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly (it's the one with "The Origins of the Underclass" as its cover story). I recommend it highly. -- "And all the seven heavens showed to me/their magnitudes, their speeds, the distances/of each from each. The little threshing floor/that so incites our savagery was all-/from hills to river mouths-revealed to me..." Dante, Paradiso (XX I,148-152) Gregory Taylor (gtaylor@astroatc)
andersa@kuling.UUCP (Anders Andersson) (05/19/86)
In article <1902@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP writes: >> There are numerous peoples all around the world who find their own >> situation unpleasant or unfair in some way or another. For some of them, >> terrorist groups have been formed, for others not (yet). In order to set >> a good example, we should all rush to the assistance of the latter, while >> they still exist - it would of course be best if all (potential) problems >> could get a peaceful solution from the very beginning. Unfortunately, we >> can't turn the time backwards, and I agree that it's a dilemma - what to >> do with all those "root causes" that will remain? >> Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden >--------------- >The above is incredibly naive and simplistic. What, for example, would >Mr. Andersson do about Puerto Rican independence, Quebec separatists, >Basque separatists, Breton separatists, etc. Are their "root causes" >justified? The Puerto Rican independence party gets less than 10% of the >vote. Should Puerto Rico be severed from the United States against the >will of more than 90% of the people of Puerto Rico just to avoid a few >acts of terrorism? > One person's peaceful solution is another person's "root cause". >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan I'm sorry if I was a bit unclear. I was arguing against the suggestion, that those who want to solve the "root causes" have a strange notion of fighting terrorism, namely "rewarding" it. I didn't say that national separation is a good and peaceful "solution" to any problem at all, and I don't think it is either. Still, the world is not perfect - most people today live in countries which are not democracies (ok, I haven't counted them, but maybe "half" is close), and some of them suffers quite bad treatment. I'm not thinking of Puerto Ricans or Basques, but of for instance the Kurds in Turkey. Speaking or teaching Kurdish is forbidden there, and they are discriminated in other ways. So what happens? Yes, yet another three-letter combination (*) enters the news headlines, claiming "the rights of their people" or whatever they think they exist for. I don't want to give these individuals anything except for a prompt trial and verdict (they actually gunned down one of their own countrymen in my town), but still I believe the Kurdish _people_ deserves our attention (I know a few of them). May we assist them, or will we then be "rewarding" those terrorists? It's difficult to be brief and avoid misunderstandings at the same time, and in my previous posting I was speaking in the context of what I commented on. I hope the above isn't too simplistic or naive. It's more or less a question. (*) I prefer not spelling out their name, and thereby giving them any more publicity than they already have. -- Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Phone: +46 18 183170 UUCP: andersa@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)