aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (10/07/85)
Terrorism is once again on the rise all over the world. Some recent terrorist events seem to show that some nations decided that the best way to combat terrorism is to use the terrorist's methods. A few examples: 1) Two palestininans and one british hold for a day, then murder a family of israelis vacationing in Cyprus. 2) Israeli war-jets, with the active assistance of the US (in flight refueling in the air) raid a palestininan camp in the suburbs of Tunis, the capital of Tunisia, killing 20 tunisians and 40 palestinians. 3) The French government sends a team of frogmen to blow up a boat of "Green-Peace", an anti nuke organization who was planning to demonstrate against french nuclear tests in the Pacific.At least one person is killed. These events and several others show that terrorism is not the weapon of the weak and politically frustrated any more. State terrorism, State sponsored/condoned terrorism, along what one might call classical terrorism, is becoming an instrument of international policy. This new phenomen may have perturbing implications worldwide. What's in store for us if governments decide to include terrorist methods in their political tools kit?? Does'n't this implicitly vindicates the very terrorists we are seeking to combat? May be it's about time for governments to face and solve the political problem which is at the root of terrorist actions. Any comments???
ravi@mcnc.UUCP (Ravi Subrahmanyan) (10/08/85)
[shlurp....] >From: decvax!ittatc!ittvax!aouriri Sun Oct 6 17:56:06 1985 > >Terrorism is once again on the rise all over the world. >Some recent terrorist events seem to show that some >nations decided that the best way to combat terrorism is >to use the terrorist's methods. > ............. >These events and several others show that terrorism is not the >weapon of the weak and politically frustrated any more. >State terrorism, State sponsored/condoned terrorism, along what >one might call classical terrorism, is becoming an instrument of >international policy. >This new phenomen may have perturbing implications worldwide. > ^^^ > I've often wondered if 'state supported terrorism' is really all that new; it seems more like a new term for something that has been going on for a long, long time. It appears as though violent actions by a (usually politically unrepresented) group are termed terrorism, while similar actions by governments, both covert and overt, are called war, or something less objectionable. Is there such a big difference between actions by a government that lead to civilian casualties, and actions by terrorists (who, being fewer in number and probably low on resources, certainly lower than a government) choose to pick on smaller numbers of people (eg. a car bomb versus overthrowing a government)? Any comments?? -------------------------------------------------------------------- decvax!mcnc!ravi
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/08/85)
> Terrorism is once again on the rise all over the world. > Some recent terrorist events seem to show that some > nations decided that the best way to combat terrorism is > to use the terrorist's methods. > A few examples: > 1) Two palestininans and one british hold for a day, then murder a > family of israelis vacationing in Cyprus. > > 2) Israeli war-jets, with the active assistance of the US (in flight > refueling in the air) raid a palestininan camp in the suburbs of > Tunis, the capital of Tunisia, killing 20 tunisians and 40 > palestinians. > > > Any comments??? Your #2 comment is an extremely dangerous statement. Do you have any proof that U.S. tankers refueled Israeli jets? Did you ever stop to think that by falsely implementing the U.S. in the Tunisia attack, it could lead to more terrorist attacks against innocent people. Your irresponsible opinion could result in the death of someone. Terrorists don't need much in the area of probable cause to carry out their doctrines of death, don't give them any more reasons to do so than they already think they have. By the way, Israel has it's own in air refueling capabilities.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (10/08/85)
In article <487@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) writes: >Terrorism is once again on the rise all over the world. A few examples: > >1) Two palestininans and one british hold for a day, then murder a >family of israelis vacationing in Cyprus. > >2) Israeli war-jets, with the active assistance of the US (in flight >refueling in the air) raid a palestininan camp in the suburbs of Tunis, >the capital of Tunisia, killing 20 tunisians and 40 palestinians. > >3) The French government sends a team of frogmen to blow up a boat of >"Green-Peace", an anti nuke organization who was planning to demonstrate >against french nuclear tests in the Pacific. At least one person is killed. > >These events and several others show that terrorism is not the weapon >of the weak and politically frustrated any more. Four points: 1) To the extent that Israel is unable to protect its civilians from random murder, they too may be considered weak and frustrated. 2) Even the weak and frustrated may not be excused practicing terrorism. Either terrorism is NOT a valid tool for ANYBODY to promote political change, or it is valid for EVERYBODY, strong as well as weak. 3) The Israeli act was not terrorism. The Israeli target was NOT a palestinian camp. The Israelis raided the headquarters of the PLO, a valid military target (hence not terrorism). Since the PLO persists in placing their military facilities in heavily populated areas, where their civilians will be endangered, then they alone are responsible for the resulting civilian casualties. 4) The sinking of the Greenpeace ship was NOT an act of terrorism. It was an act of sabotage. Definitions: Sabotage -- Secret attack aimed at destroying of enemy property. Unintentional civilian deaths may result as an unavoidable (and undesired) side-effect. Terrorism -- Intentional murder or kidnapping of civilians for political ends. Examples: If I aim a bazooka at an enemy tank or munitions factory, that is NOT terrorism, even if I miss and hit a loaded school bus by mistake. But, if I was really aiming for the school bus all the time, then that is terrorism. Understood? >State terrorism, State sponsored/condoned terrorism, along what one might >call classical terrorism, is becoming an instrument of international policy. >This new phenomen may have perturbing implications worldwide. >What's in store for us _IF_ governments decide to include terrorist methods ^^ >in their political tools kit?? >Doesn't this implicitly vindicates the very terrorists we are seeking >to combat? What do you mean 'IF' governments include terrorist methods in their political toolkits???? Governments such as the Soviet Union, Libyia, the PLO (a self-proclaimed government in exile) have long sponsored terrorism. Our continued acceptance of such governments in respected international circles has already "vindicated" terrorism as a tactic. >Some recent terrorist events seem to show that some nations decided that >the best way to combat terrorism is to use the terrorist's methods. >May be it's about time for governments to face and solve the political >problem which is at the root of terrorist actions. I suggest we ask the net community to suggest better ideas for ways to combat terrorism. And no, surrender to their political demands is NOT in general a better way. Frank Silbermann
craig@think.ARPA (Craig Stanfill) (10/09/85)
It disturbs me to see the word `terrorism' used for all acts of war. I think it is, in fact, overused by those who want us to believe that the Israelis are somehow `as bad as' the PLO. To me, terrorism is the killing of civilians as an end unto itself. Thus, killing three Israelis civilians on their yacht is terrorism. An attack on the military facilities of your enemy is, on the other hand, a legitimate act of war. The PLO headquarters was certainly a military target. Yes, innocent Tunisian civilians were killed, but in war it is permissible to attack your enemy's military facilities regardless of where they are. Tunisia is a moderate Arab state, but it is not neutral; it knowingly permitted the PLO to establish its headquarters in Tunis, thereby forfeiting its protection as a neutral nation.
bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) (10/09/85)
> 2) Israeli war-jets, with the active assistance of the US (in flight > refueling in the air) raid a palestininan camp in the suburbs of > Tunis, the capital of Tunisia, killing 20 tunisians and 40 > palestinians. Didn't Israel deny the assistance of the US, i.e., they did their own refueling? > These events and several others show that terrorism is not the > weapon of the weak and politically frustrated any more. > State terrorism, State sponsored/condoned terrorism, along what > one might call classical terrorism, is becoming an instrument of > international policy. > This new phenomen may have perturbing implications worldwide. > What's in store for us if governments decide to > include terrorist methods in their political tools kit?? > Does'n't this implicitly vindicates the very terrorists we are > seeking to combat? > May be it's about time for governments to face and solve the > political problem which is at the root of terrorist actions. > > Any comments??? READ: The Terror Network by Claire Sterling publisher : Berkley Books An excellent synopsis of State sponsered terrorism with may footnotes and sources. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) (10/09/85)
> 2) Israeli war-jets, with the active assistance of the US (in flight > refueling in the air) raid a palestininan camp in the suburbs of > Tunis, the capital of Tunisia, killing 20 tunisians and 40 > palestinians. Didn't Israel deny the assistance of the US, i.e., they did their own refueling? > These events and several others show that terrorism is not the > weapon of the weak and politically frustrated any more. > State terrorism, State sponsored/condoned terrorism, along what > one might call classical terrorism, is becoming an instrument of > international policy. > This new phenomen may have perturbing implications worldwide. > What's in store for us if governments decide to > include terrorist methods in their political tools kit?? > Does'n't this implicitly vindicates the very terrorists we are > seeking to combat? > May be it's about time for governments to face and solve the > political problem which is at the root of terrorist actions. > > Any comments??? READ: The Terror Network by Claire Sterling publisher : Berkley Books An excellent synopsis of State sponsered terrorism with may footnotes and sources.
steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (10/10/85)
> Terrorism is once again on the rise all over the world. > ... > 2) Israeli war-jets ... raid a palestininan camp in the suburbs of > Tunis, the capital of Tunisia, killing 20 tunisians and 40 > palestinians. > How was this an act of "terrorism"? Do you think "terrorism" and "violence" are synonyms? THEY ARE NOT! Furthermore, by using them as synonyms you blur the distinction and reduce the moral repugnance your listeners naturally feel towards terrorism. This leads to an atmosphere in which terrorism is condoned, and thus encouraged. In other words, wittingly or unwittingly, your message acts to increase acceptance of terrorism, despite your surface protestations against it. Terrorism is violence directed at innocent bystanders or other non-combatants, with the aim of indirectly influencing others, either by getting publicity or by frightening or depressing these others. For instance, the recent hijacking of an ocean liner was terrorism. Attacks in which the PLO placed explosives in public market places in Israel were terrorism, since the intent was not to directly damage military targets but rather to cause chaos and disruption in civilian life. The Allied bombing of Dresden during World War II may well have been terrorism. (I'm not up on my WWII hsitory, so I've qualified that.) If Israel were to choose a village in Lebanon at random and bomb it, with the warning to the nearby villages not to cooperate with the PLO or else suffer a similar fate, that would be terrorism. The bombings in Tunisia were surely an act of violence, but they were not terror. The "camp" as you call it was not a residential center, it was a major headquarters of the PLO, and contained facilities that had been and were being used to plan and carry out attacks against Israel and Israelis. Most of these attacks against Israel were terroristic in form, which should draw our condemnation of the PLO; however even if these attacks had not been terroristic, e.g. had consisted of attacks on Israeli military facilities, surely Israel had a right to respond to them with force. Please, nobody respond with the statement that "that's not what *I* mean by 'terrorism'." The point is that we need SOME term for attacks directed towards innocent bystanders, simply so we can express our disgust at such actions. If you want to use a different term, please do so, but don't try to covertly condone such actions by refusing to make a distinction between them and other violence.
steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (10/10/85)
By the way, I think the French attack on the Green Peace ship was evil, but not terrorism. There is a strong tendency today to take a word like "Nazi" or "Communist" or "terrorist" that correctly applies to a particular kind of evil, and use it indiscriminately as a synonym for "bad". This is particularly done by people who are afraid that if they describe accurately what kind of "bad" they are referring to, their listener might not find it so bad. But in any case, whether due to deliberate deception or just fuzzy thinking, this kind of watering down of specific evils into the general "bad" is something we must resist because it reduces our ability to distinguish between evils, set priorities, and take actions against a specific evil that are appropriate for that evil.
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/10/85)
RAVI SUBRAHMANYAN writes: > I've often wondered if 'state supported terrorism' is really all that > new; it seems more like a new term for something that has been > going on for a long, long time. It appears as though violent actions by > a (usually politically unrepresented) group are termed terrorism, while > similar actions by governments, both covert and overt, are called war, > or something less objectionable. Is there such a big difference between > actions by a government that lead to civilian casualties, and actions > by terrorists (who, being fewer in number and probably low on resources, > certainly lower than a government) choose to pick on smaller numbers of > people (eg. a car bomb versus overthrowing a government)? > > Any comments?? I think this was discussed a few months ago over the net. Yeah, there is a big difference: one of intent. Let's look at few examples: 1. A suicide bomber blows up 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut. That's NOT terrorism -- the bomber was after fighting men, not civilians. 2. Jews blow up the King David Hotel, filled with British soldiers. Also not terrorism, for the same reason. 3. Israel blasts the PLO headquarters in Tunis. This was an act of war against the headquarters of the avowed enemy of Israel. Civilian casualties were incidental to the act of war. 4. The IRA tries to blow up Margaret Thatcher. Again, an act of war against the head of state of the IRA's arch-enemy. Any civilian casualties would have been incidental. 5. The African National Congress bombs the headquarters of the South African Air Force. Not terrorism. 6. West German Commie saboteurs bomb an American army base. Again, an act of war by our enemies against us. BUT: 7. The IRA plants a bomb on a Belfast street, killing a dozen innocent people. Here, the PURPOSE of the bombing is to impress upon everyone that even innocent Irishmen cannot go on living normal, peaceful lives as long as Ulster is under British/Protestant rule. Innocent people are deliberately targeted. That's terrorism. 8. The PLO invades a schoolhouse and kills Jewish children. The idea is to show Israelis that as long as the Zionist entity continues to exist and occupy Palestinian land (remember, the PLO was organized in 1964, when Judea, Samaria and Gaza were still in Arab hands), even little children will not be safe. That's terrorism. 9. PLO Force 17 thugs murder three Israeli tourists on a yacht off Cyprus. Innocent civilians were the object of the murder, so it's terrorism. 10. Arab pirates take over an Italian ship, hold innocent passengers as hostages, and murder an American. NO CAUSE justifies that kind of terrorism. Get the idea? If the downtrodden of the world go after those they consider their oppressors, namely soldiers, policemen, or Government leaders, and innocent people are killed in the course of their action, it's not terrorism -- it's the only way such people can wage war. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S GOOD. ONLY THE WARPED BELIEVE THAT WAR IS GOOD, whether waged by little groups with hand grenades or by nations with multimillion-dollar (or -ruble) warplanes. But if these same downtrodden people deliberately attack innocent civilians in order to terrorize a nation into granting their demands, then they are terrorists. The IRA man who attacks Margaret Thatcher is a hero. The same IRA man, if he bombs a civilian pub, is a murdering scum and a disgrace to the Irish people. -- Matt Rosenblatt
gjk@talcott.UUCP (John) (10/10/85)
In article <885@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>, ravi@mcnc.UUCP (Ravi Subrahmanyan) writes: > > I've often wondered if 'state supported terrorism' is really all that > new; it seems more like a new term for something that has been > going on for a long, long time. It appears as though violent actions by > a (usually politically unrepresented) group are termed terrorism, while > similar actions by governments, both covert and overt, are called war, > or something less objectionable. Is there such a big difference between > actions by a government that lead to civilian casualties, and actions > by terrorists (who, being fewer in number and probably low on resources, > certainly lower than a government) choose to pick on smaller numbers of > people (eg. a car bomb versus overthrowing a government)? Terrorism obviously comes from the word terror. Therefore it is the practice of acheiving political ends by evoking terror. Usually this means evoking terror in the general populace of some nation. War, on the other hand, is an attempt at direct takover (by violence) of some nation's resource or ruling body. Thus, it is clear why a politically unrepresented group would favor terrorism over war: Such groups usually don't have the means for the direct takeover of anything, but they may well have the means for random destruction of life or property. Of course, there is such a thing as state terrorism, and terrorism does often accompany war (Schrechtlichkeit [sp?], for example). Moreover, the dividing line between terrorism and war is not always clear. If, for example, you were to ask an Iranian about His Holiness's latest raid over Bagdad, he may say, "It is strike fear in the hearts of the enemy," or he may say, "I don't care whether or not the Iraqi's are scared, so long as they realize that we have a superior force," or he may say, "The attack was not a matter of psychology; it was a direct attempt at weakening the Iraqi state." -- abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz ^ ^^
aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (10/13/85)
> > 2) Israeli war-jets, with the active assistance of the US (in flight > > refueling in the air) raid a palestininan camp in the suburbs of > > Tunis, the capital of Tunisia, killing 20 tunisians and 40 > > palestinians. > > > > Your #2 comment is an extremely dangerous statement. Do you have any proof that > U.S. tankers refueled Israeli jets? Did you ever stop to think that by falsely Yes! I do have evidence that the US actively participated in the Israeli raid on Tunis, by refueling israeli war jets. Refering to a newspaper article written by a french military analyst and published in the french newspaper "Le Monde" (The equivalent of the Washington Post in France) the day after the raid. In that article, the author asserts that Israel has indeed refueling capabilities consisting of 3 air tankers. The raid on Tunis has been carried out by an escadron of 8 jets. The analyst shows then, that it is mathematically impossible for those 3 tankers to refuel the escadron of 8 jets, given the distance, the speed and the tank capacity of the jets and the refueling tankers. After eliminating the possibility of Egypt, Italy, Turkey Greece or France aiding the israeli air force in its mission, he concludes that the US helped refueling the israeli war jets .
wolpert@hpisla.UUCP (David Wolpert) (10/15/85)
> it's not terrorism -- it's the only way such people can wage war. > THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S GOOD. ONLY THE WARPED BELIEVE THAT WAR IS > GOOD, whether waged by little groups with hand grenades or by nations > with multimillion-dollar (or -ruble) warplanes. > -- Matt Rosenblatt "... you can say that again!" "okay..." Justification of acts of terrorism (or war, for that matter) usually goes along the lines of "It takes drastic action, otherwise our cause will be ignored". The problem with taking drastic action is that the "cure" is *always* worse than the disease. (I am being sincere here. I think the U.S. would be better off today if there had been no Revolution back in the 18th century, to say nothing of the wars since then). I believe that war (terrorism) destroys things that are required for survival: not just people and other natural resources, but trust and love. David Wolpert Hewlett-Packard Company, Instrument Systems Lab P O Box 301 - Loveland, Colorado - 80539 (USMail) {{*!}hp*!}hpisla!wolpert (un*x) (303) 667-5000 x3533 (phone) /HP0900/EM (HPDESK) *** RAW BITS: Not For Everybody ***
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (10/16/85)
(Odd numbers of ">"'s are Mr. Aourouri (sp?) ): > > > 2) Israeli war-jets, with the active assistance of the US... > > Your #2 comment is an extremely dangerous statement. Do you have any proof? > Yes! I do have evidence that the US actively participated in the > Israeli raid on Tunis, by refueling israeli war jets. > Refering to a newspaper article written by a french > military analyst and published in the french newspaper "Le Monde" > (The equivalent of the Washington Post in France) the day after the > raid. > In that article, the author asserts that Israel has indeed refueling > capabilities consisting of 3 air tankers. The raid on Tunis has > been carried out by an escadron of 8 jets. The analyst shows then, > that it is mathematically impossible for those 3 tankers to refuel > the escadron of 8 jets, given the distance, the speed and the tank > capacity of the jets and the refueling tankers. > After eliminating the possibility of Egypt, Italy, Turkey Greece or > France aiding the israeli air force in its mission, he concludes > that the US helped refueling the israeli war jets . Mr. Aourouri (spelling?) exercizes suspicious discrimination in his choice of sources. In the original article he claimed concern for a world battered by terrorists. But he is totally confused about what constitutes terrorism--including Israel as a "terrorist nation!" Since he accepts the childish propaganda of the "Ashaf (Hebrew acronym for PLO)," and from his name, I suspect that he may be of a persuasion similar to most PLO supporters. If this is so (now donning my psychiatrist's cap), he probably truly recognizes the utter destructiveness of the Ashaf. Unfortunately, he cannot bring himself to the recognition that the PLO (with other Arabs) and not Israel pursues the psychopathy of destruction. For those not familiar with, e.g., the writings of the psychologist Erich Fromm, I urge you to consult one of his books with the title something like "Man and the Nature of Human Destruction (that isn't the actual title)." The introduction to this book alone will acquaint you with the similarity between constructive and destructive behavior. To epitomize this concept, man has the built-in desire to influence his surroundings; while it is preferable to influence them in a constructive way (such as building a homeland for Jews), when this is not possible it is still satisfying to do so in a destructive way (such as senseless terrorism against targets unrelated to achieving any positive goals). Unfortunately, it appears that the Anti-Israel Arabs have fomented such hate among generations of youth, particularly in (but not limited to) the Palestinian "refugee" camps (these camps cannot be considered refugee camps when their inhabitants, now into their third generation, have never lived in lands now contained within Israel--i.e., they are not "refugee"'s but rather, resident aliens) that they are unable to distinguish between constructive and destructive actions. This will have the most far-reaching implications for their future abilities to support themselves, to advance their standards of living, etc., etc. I personally am deeply disturbed by the effective destruction of a large population, but in this case sadly there isn't anything I can do to help. There is no possibility of branding the Israelis as terrorists. I do not expect non-Jews to feel a special joy because of the existence of the State of Israel, but that is quite different from accepting it as a sovereign state (something no Arab country with the exception of Egypt has shown any inclination to do). As a sovereign state, Israel has the right to protect itself, and its people, against enemies. Israel has never rattled its sabre threateningly against any of the Arab States, but not a day passes during which several of the Arab States don`t vilify and threaten little Israel with destruction. When Israeli men are forced to lay down their livelihoods and pick up rifles, and manage to repel the would-be invaders, they know very well that if they fail their entire country would be overrun by hostile armies and Israel would be wiped off the face of the map and they would all die, G-d forbid that this should ever happen! But when they take over the Sinai peninsula, they are forced to return it to Egypt without a peace treaty not once but three times. Israel, it is widely acknowledged, could have had its troops in the streets of not only Cairo, but also Damascus, Syria during the 1973 war--what constructive Arab leader would resisted marching into Jerusalem if they ever get the opportunity? For those who believe that some kind of "Jewish Lobby" is responsible for the support given Israel by the United States, I offer you this parallel between Israel and the U. S. and between the Arabs and the Russians: After the end of WW II, the U. S. possessed the most potent military weapon ever known until then to mankind. The U. S. could have exercised its military influence at that juncture to dominate the rest of the world--particularly the Soviets who were marching into German territory (of course, Communism was a fitting punishment for the Germans). But we did not. Do you for a moment think that given the Soviets would have refrained from using the nuclear bomb to advance its ideological ends? Actually, many suspect that the same situation exists today, and that the Israelis have the bomb, whereas the Arabs do not. --J. Abeles
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/16/85)
Another fine example of French friendliness to the U.S.
and Israel. You eliminate Egypt, Italy, et al as the
refueler and you absolutely positively know Israel's
equipment quantities and presto...Uncle Sam did it !
I think that is called inference, deduction, or circumstantial
evidence but not just plain evidence.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (10/16/85)
The title of the book I referred to in the parent article is, "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness," by Erich Fromm --J. Abeles
bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) (10/16/85)
> > > 2) Israeli war-jets, with the active assistance of the US (in flight > > > refueling in the air) raid a palestininan camp in the suburbs of > > > Tunis, the capital of Tunisia, killing 20 tunisians and 40 > > > palestinians. > > > > > > > Your #2 comment is an extremely dangerous statement. Do you have any proof that > > U.S. tankers refueled Israeli jets? Did you ever stop to think that by falsely > > Yes! I do have evidence that the US actively participated in the > Israeli raid on Tunis, by refueling israeli war jets. > Refering to a newspaper article written by a french > military analyst and published in the french newspaper "Le Monde" > (The equivalent of the Washington Post in France) the day after the > raid. > After eliminating the possibility of Egypt, Italy, Turkey Greece or > France aiding the israeli air force in its mission, he concludes > that the US helped refueling the israeli war jets . A logical digression by this military analyst may contain meticulous logic, however, claiming the possession of evidence of US participation seems illogical when (as I can ascertain from your comments on the article) the conclusion claiming US participation is arrived at by saying five other countries couldn't have participated.
aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (10/17/85)
Re: J.Abolus 's article 10391 in net.politics <449@mhuxm.UUCP> Oh Boy!!! I apparently touched a raw nerve! I never thought that reading or referencing to an article in a respected french newspaper would bring out all this hilarious and vociferous pro- israeli propaganda from you!!! Keep on charging!! Talking with a jewish leader in my community, he suggested non- jokingly for the US to transplant Israel in desertic parts of the western states (Arizona, California,..): the climate and geographic conditions are similar to those in Israel. They would farm and blossom the land. This would be cheaper for the american taxpayer than today's US aid and support for Israel, and of course, this would solve the Middle East problem by returning the israeli territories to the palestinians, would be palestininans and the like. Everybody would be happy!! I could not figure out whether he was joking or talking seriously.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/18/85)
> > Another fine example of French friendliness to the U.S. > and Israel. You eliminate Egypt, Italy, et al as the > refueler and you absolutely positively know Israel's > equipment quantities and presto...Uncle Sam did it ! > > I think that is called inference, deduction, or circumstantial > evidence but not just plain evidence. > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} I fully agree with you. Your supposed to be considered innocent till proven guilty. The US cannot be implicated in the raid on Tunis without due process of law. And considering the 'ify' evidence, I think the US has nothing to worry about.
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/18/85)
DAVID WOLPERT writes: > Justification of acts of terrorism (or war, for that matter) > usually goes along the lines of "It takes drastic action, otherwise > our cause will be ignored". The problem with taking drastic action > is that the "cure" is *always* worse than the disease. (I am being > sincere here. I think the U.S. would be better off today if there > had been no Revolution back in the 18th century, to say nothing of > the wars since then). [D. WOLPERT] All I said was that only the warped think war is good. I didn't say anything about war being worse than any conceivable alternative. Does Mr. Wolpert believe the people of the Confederate States of America, all of them, would have been better off had there been no War Between the States in the First century before my time, with the South being allowed peacefully to secede? Does he believe the Children of Israel would have been better off if they had ignored the L-rd's command to war against the Canaanites and conquer them, and instead either (a) wandered around forever in the desert till they died out, or (b) returned to Egypt and tried peacefully to persuade their former masters to treat them better? Does he believe that today's Jews would be better off if there had been no War of Independence 37 years ago, and Palestine was still under the British Mandate with Arab pogroms every Monday and Thursday? What should Israel's response be if Syria decides, chas v'sholom, to start exterminating all Syrian Jewry in gas chambers? > I believe that war (terrorism) destroys > things that are required for survival: not just people and other > natural resources, but trust and love. [D. WOLPERT] I agree 100%. But war and terrorism are not the only things that destroy people, resources, trust, and love. Just as American Jews live their lives balancing off the competing good values of Truth, Justice, Freedom, Yiddishkeit, Ivy, and the American Way, so mankind as a whole must sometimes choose the Lesser Evil among War, Terrorism, Persecution, Slavery, and Standing Idly By Your Brother's Blood. No one ever said it was easy! -- Matt Rosenblatt -------- "SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM."
oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) (10/20/85)
In article <1742@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: > >Another fine example of French friendliness to the U.S. >and Israel. You eliminate Egypt, Italy, et al as the >refueler and you absolutely positively know Israel's >equipment quantities and presto...Uncle Sam did it ! > >I think that is called inference, deduction, or circumstantial >evidence but not just plain evidence. > >Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} It's called wishful thinking. Bill Oliver
steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (10/22/85)
>From: aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri @ ITT-ATC, Shelton Ct.) > > Oh Boy!!! I apparently touched a raw nerve! I never thought > that reading or referencing to an article in a respected french > newspaper would bring out all this hilarious and vociferous pro- > israeli propaganda from you!!! There are two schools of thought on the proper response to this kind of message. One says that responding to it merely dignifies it, and rewards the sender (who apparently enjoys making Jews angry). After all, it should be apparent to anyone reading these messages that the vociferous response was not for referencing the article (let alone reading it!) but for the statements surrounding it that were calculated to damage Israel. Furthermore, Aouriri clearly has no rational defense since he is reduced to name calling. Aouriri appears foolish enough by himself, why respond? The other school of thought says that, unfortunately, history has proven that if we do not respond to such things an atmosphere is established in which it is legitimate to say the most outrageous things, and they do damage, even when not totally believed, because of the attitude on the hearers' part that "where there's smoke there must be fire", i.e. that if all these things are being said at least some of them must be true. In this case, I might not have responded were it not necessary to point out and refute another implicit claim: > Talking with a jewish leader in my community, he suggested non- > jokingly for the US to transplant Israel in desertic parts of > the western states [...] and of course, > this would solve the Middle East problem by returning the israeli > territories to the palestinians, would be palestininans and the > like. Everybody would be happy!! No real Jewish leader would say this seriously. In fact, no one who knows anything about the Middle East should say this seriously, since it makes the implicit claim that removing Israel from the Middle East would solve "the Middle East problem". In fact Israel is far from the only Middle East problem, as witness the splintered factions in Lebanon, the problems between Libya and its neighbors, the problems between Syria and Jordan and between Iran and Iraq, etc., etc. Implying that Israel is "the" Middle East problem means that all the United States has to do is throw Israel to the wolves, and we would magically be freed of all our problems with the Middle East. This is an attractive thought to some, but it is wishful thinking. Even without Israel the Middle East would be a major trouble spot and policy dilemma for the US. The other implicit claim here is that for Jews the land of Israel is simply so much acreage and is replacable by any other land of similar climate. In fact, there is a deep cultural attachment to this specific land, even for the non-religious. Note, for instance, that for places like Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) the Hebrew name is *older* than the Arabic one. This attachment is based on historical facts, not just the theological claims (although for those who believe the theology, it is of course the primary claim). It would make more sense to propose moving the palestinian homeland to some other arid land in the Arab world, since there at least the culture and language would be the same. Perhaps this "Jewish leader" was trying to educate you by making an obviously obsurd suggestion in the hope that by thinking about why it was obsurd you would learn something?
harry@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (& I. Rubin) (10/22/85)
In article <12439@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > {Speaking about alleged U.S. refueling of Israeli jets during Israel's > recent bombing raid on Tunis.} > > ... Your {sic} supposed to be considered innocent till proven >guilty. The US cannot be implicated in the raid on Tunis without due process >of law. This is true in U.S. law, not necessarily true in international law, and certainly not true of worldwide public opinion. "This court must construe according to the law; the people of this land must construe according to their wits!" -- spoken by Sir Thomas More, in A MAN FOR ALL SEASON by Robert Bolt (if memory serves)
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (10/22/85)
In <495@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) writes: >Talking with a jewish leader in my community, he suggested non- >jokingly for the US to transplant Israel in desertic parts of >the western states (Arizona, California,..): the climate and >geographic conditions are similar to those in Israel. They would >farm and blossom the land. This would be cheaper for the american >taxpayer than today's US aid and support for Israel, and of course, >this would solve the Middle East problem by returning the israeli >territories to the palestinians, would be palestininans and the >like. Everybody would be happy!! Hardly. The Jewish people have a special link to the Land of Israel. For two thousand years, we have said at Passover, "Next Year in Jerusalem!". Jewish law has a whole set of rules which apply only within the borders of the (biblical) Land of Israel. And Israel has never been without Jews; Jerusalem, in particular, has had a Jewish majority since the mid-19th century or before. "Returning territory" to the Arabs is not the issue. Resettling the Arabs who are in "refugee camps" (once you're into the third generation, that's hardly the right term anymore) is. Israel absorbed millions of Jews from around the world, including hundreds of thousands from Arab countries. The Arab countries could absorb the "Palestinian refugees" if they wanted to. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave