tischler@ihlpg.UUCP (Mark D. Tischler) (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. > > 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??? Realizing the fact that this does not belong in this newsgroup, I feel compelled to reply to this newsgroup since this is where the article was read. If you look up the definition of "terrorism", you will discover that you are mistaken in calling Israel's air attack of the PLO's headquarters in Tunis a terrorist action. It should, in fact, be correctly referred to as a "guerilla" attack. This is a big distinction, since this is, in par, what separates Israel from the PLO. -- Mark Tischler (312) 393-7199 (home) (312) 979-5123 (work) ihnp4!ihlpg!tischler
dave@andromeda.UUCP (Dave Bloom) (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. > 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. > 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? First, let's define terrorism: In my opinion, terrorism is when innocent people get hurt by those seeking political spectacle. Let's face it, when a Palestinian group murders a family or hijacks a ship and holds the pas- sengers hostage, that's obviously terrorism. But how can you call the Israeli airstrike of Tunis terrorism? It has been a long-standing publicly known policy of Israel to strike out against PLO strong-holds (not Palestinian civilians mind you) in retalliation of violent acts perpetrated against Israel. Tunisia knew the risk it was taking by harboring a terrorist organization.... it has since paid the penalty. The Israelis never hijacked a passenger liner... nor have they ever publicly supported a terrorist act. The PLO on the otherhand has openly condoned and promoted such acts on a global basis. Let's not worry about democracies like Israel... Let's worry more about the Arafats's, the Quadaffi's of Libya, and countries like Syria that fire up hate throughout the Middle-East. The press is enough to keep France from making idiot's of themselves again.... What will keep the Castro's in line? PS: The US is the king of wimps when it comes to foreign policy. How could we condone Israel for their Tunisian airstrike yet abstain from a UN vote condemning them for the same reason??? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- allegra\ harvard \ pyramid\ seismo \ pyrnj >!andromeda!dave Dave Bloom ut-sally >!topaz/ sri-iu / ihnp4!packard /
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. 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. > [Stuff about the middle east] > >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. > >State terrorism, State sponsored/condoned terrorism, along what one might call >classical terrorism, is becoming an instrument of international policy. 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. Examples: If I aim a bazooka at an enemy tank, that is NOT terrorism, even if I miss and hit a loaded school bus by mistake. But, if I was aiming for the school bus all the time, then that is terrorism. Understood? Frank Silbermann
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (10/09/85)
> 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: > > 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. > I would like to disagree with the inclusion of the above in your list of 'state terrorism' - a retaliatory military strike against a MILITARY target is not the same as bombing a school bus. Regretfully, the PLO loves to place their military targets in the middle of civilian areas (especialy hospitals and schools), so any action against them will raise a storm of controversy due to the civilian co-victims. -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner talcott!sesame!slerner@harvard.ARPA
days@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP (Judge Dredd) (10/09/85)
> 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??? Hasn't it always been governments who support terrorists. eg WW II, the European RESISTANCE movements were really terrorists, the USA supports the IRA etc, the USSR supports it's groups of weirdo's, and every other country no doubt has its own tame group of gun-toting guerillas. The only difference between a freedom-fighter and a terrorist, is that the terrorist is fighting you. An example from BBC radio news of a couple of days ago. "Israeli air force planes today bombed PLO camps in Tunis .........." The next item started: "IRA Terrorists today....." If you're paranoid, you begin to wonder if the newsreader realises what he is saying, or if they are all subject to subtle propaganda as well Ah well, in the hope for a workers Utopia within the next 100 yrs. -- Stephen Day, Comp Sci Dept, University of Glasgow, Scotland seismo!mcvax!ukc!glasgow!days If time were like a treacle bun, I would enjoy it so, But now it seems it's on the run, I'd really better go.
gig@ritcv.UUCP (gordon ) (10/09/85)
> 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. > 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?? > > Any comments??? The history of the world is punctuated at regular intervals with attrocities and terrorism committed (primarilly!!!!) by governments. In this century, alone for example, one can point to the massacre of Armenians by the Turkish Government, the starvation of Ukranians by the Stalin, Nazis extermination of Jews and Russians, US extermination of Vietnamese and Ugandan & Cambodian extermination of themselves. I'm not sure if I see the distinction you are making except to note that governments tend to do things on grander and less personal scale.
alaa@idec.UUCP (Alaa Zeineldine) (10/10/85)
Dave, In article <14@andromeda.UUCP> dave@andromeda.UUCP (Dave Bloom) you wrote: >... >First, let's define terrorism... >... >But how can you call the Israeli airstrike of Tunis terrorism? It has... What would you call a millitary action taken by a state in another country where it has neither jurisdiction nor permission? >...been a long-standing publicly known policy of Israel to strike.. Does publicity change the nature of a deed, be it evil or noble? >PLO strong-holds (not Palestinian civilians mind you... Once they've been driven out of their homes, from their refugee camps and from their second refugee camps! >...in retalliation of >violent acts perpetrated against Israel. Tunisia knew the risk it was >taking by harboring a terrorist organization.... it has since paid the >penalty. If we set our mind back to the Beirut seige of 1982, we may remember that when Tunisia agreed to accept parts of the PLO, it was part of an agreement to defuse an explosive situation which would have otherwise ended in a bloody battle; when this agreement was reached many people around the world (no doubt including many Israelis) sighed a deep sigh of relief. This was an agreement that would not have been implemented without Israel's consent, and one in which America was a principle party. So, we should remember that when Tunisia accepted the role of host to the PLO, it was doing so as a peace-maker, and we should also remember that other countries refused to have anything to do with the matter in fear of an internal destablising effect that they thought the presence of the Palestinians could cause. Tunisia has always been a very peaceful, moderate country. But as you say, it has paid the penalty, but this penalty was not for accepting the Palestinians as you suggest, but it was the penalty which Israel decides someone will have to pay when it finds an opportunity to demonstrate its dominance. -- Alaa Zeineldine <alaa@idec.UUCP> ...seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!idec!alaa STC IDEC, Stevenage, Herts SG1 1YB, England +44 (0)438 726161 Ext 8938
earlw@pesnta.UUCP (20) (10/11/85)
Since the government is really people in high office, terrorism must reflect their option of humans, after all, there is only two classes: - those who are controlled. - those who control. Carbon-based units (ex: humans) will never be happy until every form of life in the universe is under their control. Only the upper level humans, of course. It just happens to be the nature of man/woman-kind to kill and torture others and don't even think this will change in 10, 20 or 30,000 years because it won't. Man is man. Did you ever want to have something just to have it and thereby keep someone else from having it? Well, welcome to mankind! Now, do you *really* think terrorism will stop anytime soon? I am not surprised at the governments of the World using terrorists tactics since the operational cost is low and who cares about public opinon anyway? Doesn't the government control the people? Sure it does! ha-ha! I bet you thought it was the other way around! The jokes on you! gover
rlr@stcvax.UUCP (Roger Rose) (10/14/85)
>>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. > >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. > > Frank Silbermann Why would anyone consider an international organization for peace, which has never initiated any acts of aggression, to be an "enemy"? Likewise, how does an unarmed ship, owned by such an organization, constitute "enemy property"? -- Roger Rose UUCP: {hao ihnp4 decvax}!stcvax!rlr USnail: Storage Technology Corp. - MD 3T / Louisville, Co. 80028 phone: 673-6873
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (10/16/85)
In article <417@stcvax.UUCP> rlr@stcvax.UUCP (Roger Rose) writes: >> >>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. >> >> Frank Silbermann >Why would anyone consider an international organization for peace, >which has never initiated any acts of aggression, to be an "enemy"? >Likewise, how does an unarmed ship, owned by such an organization, >constitute "enemy property"? >-- Roger Rose Good point. I would re-classify this killing as second degree murder. An example of second degree murder would be killing a man during a hold up. That is, the murder was not premeditated, but merely an unfortunate and unplanned by-product of a crime against property. This is not quite so morally noxious as terrorism. Terrorism is first degree (pre-meditated) murder of civilians done for political purposes. Killing a helpless kidnap victim would be one example. As an aside, when both attacker and attackee are soldiers in uniform, then we are talking of plain warfare, which IS a valid political tool, and should not be subject to the same moral outrage, even if some civilian bystanders accidently get caught in the cross-fire and die. On the other hand, soldiers who attack while wearing civilian clothes violate the generally accepted rules of warfare, and should be put to death when captured. The Geneva Convention rules for humane treatment of military prisoners protects only captured UNIFORMED soldiers. Uniforms are necessary to warn civilians to try to get out of the way, thus reducing the horror of warfare. Frank Silbermann
svn@sdchema.UUCP (Sameer Nadkarni) (10/18/85)
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. >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: ... >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. ... > ...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??? While we take note of these dangerous developments (state sponsored/supported terrorism) please let's keep the record straight. Do you really think of the "Green-Peace" organization as a terrorist group? But yes, I agree that state terrorism is deplorable in the extreme. The incident involving "Green-Peace" (besides other examples) just goes to show that govt(s) are not only justifying the use of terrorist means against terrorists, but also against groups in the opposition. Sameer Nadkarni sdcsvax!sdchema!svn
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev x268) (10/18/85)
[] >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. Terrorists and the individuals informing terrosrist organizations! Please identify yourselves, so we can make disclaimers for your benefit! Or, even better, how about creating a new news group : net.terrorism? Paranoya running wild..... -- -----------------------------------+ With deep indifference, "I disbelieve an army of invisible | Oleg Kiselev. mind-flayers!" | DISCLAIMER: "OK. They are *still* not there." | I don't know what I am talking about and -----------------------------------+ therefore am not responsible for any damages to people who take me seriously! ...!trwrb!felix!birtch!oleg ...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg Nothing I ever say reflects the views or opinions of my employers. They knew who they hired though!
tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) (10/22/85)
>>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. >> >> Frank Silbermann > >Why would anyone consider an international organization for peace, >which has never initiated any acts of aggression, to be an "enemy"? >Likewise, how does an unarmed ship, owned by such an organization, >constitute "enemy property"? Someone can be an enemy without being armed. The propaganda war is a war like the others, especially when one party (Greenpeace in this case) uses wrong facts and induces many people in errors: - The waters around Mururoa are *NOT* radioactive, rather less than many other places in the world. - The island soil itself has *NOT* been affected by the nuclear explosions. The seismic activity of this region has remained *VERY* low compared to many places where people live without any perceptible earthshake. I put in doubt Greenpeace being an organization for peace. Why then are they going to war against countries? In my opinion, you can only bring to the world the peace you have yourself, in your own life. One can be a man of peace, in every situation of life, but I doubt that this means to have attitudes like the Greepeace people, disrupting others... This being said, it is not at all my intention to present the French government or military as those who are right. No, France *AND* Greenpeace are *both* wrong, they are both warmongers, none of the parties are working *FOR* peace. They are in war with each other, and in war many things are done, not always kind things... In this way, it is an act of sabotage and not of terrorism, as terrorism is the intentional murder or kidnapping of *innocent* civilians, to be more precise than Frank Silbermann. And in my opinion the Greepeace people are not *innocent*. Well, I already see the inhabitants of Netland preparing their flamethrowers, so I'd better go and hide. No no, I am not going to give you my private address (-: -- --- Karl Tombre @ CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy) UUCP: ...!vmucnam!crin!tombre or ...!inria!crin!tombre COSAC: crin/tombre POST: Karl Tombre, CRIN, B.P. 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France "Car le plus lourd fardeau, c'est d'exister sans vivre." (Victor Hugo)
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (10/22/85)
In article <511@idec.UUCP> alaa@idec.UUCP (Alaa Zeineldine) writes: >>But how can you call the Israeli airstrike of Tunis terrorism? It has... > >What would you call a millitary action taken by a state in another country >where it has neither jurisdiction nor permission? Huh? In time of war, no country ever asks about "jurisdiction" or "permission" to attack another. Israel is in a state of war, and will continue to be until Arab countries and the PLO are prepared to stop seeking Israel's destruction. >>PLO strong-holds (not Palestinian civilians mind you... > >Once they've been driven out of their homes, from their refugee camps and >from their second refugee camps! Driven out of their homes? The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs who left Israel in 1948 did so at the request of their Arab brethren, who were going to "push the Jews into the sea". Perhaps those same Arab brethren, with their millions upon millions of square miles of land, could find room to absorb a few hundred thousand refugees. >If we set our mind back to the Beirut seige of 1982, we may remember >that when Tunisia agreed to accept parts of the PLO, it was part of an >agreement to defuse an explosive situation which would have otherwise >ended in a bloody battle; when this agreement was reached many people >around the world (no doubt including many Israelis) sighed a deep sigh >of relief. This was an agreement that would not have been implemented >without Israel's consent, and one in which America was a principle >party. Had Tunisia continued merely to habour the PLO as a political entity, that would be one thing. But if the PLO headquarters was being used to plan and direct terrorist and guerrilla attacks, respectively against Israeli civilians and the Israeli military (not to mention against Jews elsewhere), that is quite another. Prime Minister Peres has stated that Israel has incontrovertible and absolute proof that such was the case. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (10/28/85)
>>>The sinking of the Greenpeace ship was NOT an act of terrorism. >>>It was an act of sabotage. >>Why would anyone consider an international organization for peace, >>which has never initiated any acts of aggression, to be an "enemy"? >>Likewise, how does an unarmed ship, owned by such an organization, >>constitute "enemy property"? >...war like the others, especially when one party (Greenpeace in this >case) uses wrong facts and induces many people in errors: > - The island soil itself has *NOT* been affected by the nuclear >explosions. Amazing, with all those tests in the athmosphere! > I put in doubt Greenpeace being an organization for peace. Of course. After all that's what your government tells you... >Why then are they going to war against countries? When? Where? >In my opinion, you can only bring to the world the peace you have yourself, >in your own life. Yes, and that's exactly what Mitterand, Hernu etc. did and are still doing; but I do see some difference between mining a ship and peace. > This being said, it is not at all my intention to present the French >government or military as those who are right. Oh? >No, France *AND* Greenpeace are *both* wrong, they are both warmongers, Right: the former against, the latter for the environment where other people like you and me have to live in/with. >And in my opinion the Greepeace people are not *innocent*. No, a photographer indeed is a *very* dangerous and highly noxious person, at least to some governments; they sure must feel pretty comfortable one was killed.... -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (piet@mcvax.UUCP)
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (10/28/85)
>In article <511@idec.UUCP> alaa@idec.UUCP (Alaa Zeineldine) writes: >>>But how can you call the Israeli airstrike of Tunis terrorism? It has... >> >>What would you call a millitary action taken by a state in another country >>where it has neither jurisdiction nor permission? > >Huh? In time of war, no country ever asks about "jurisdiction" >or "permission" to attack another. Israel is in a state of war, >and will continue to be... Ah! I see. So the US highjacked an Egyptian plane and threatened Italian soldiers on a NATO base just because they're in war with Egypt and Italy... -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (piet@mcvax.UUCP)
dave@circadia.UUCP (David Messer) (10/29/85)
ARE YOU BOZOS EVER GOING TO MOVE THIS DISCUSSION TO net.politics
WERE IT BELONGS?
--
David Messer UUCP: ...ihnp4!circadia!dave
FIDO: 14/415 (SYSOP)felix@imag.UUCP (Francois Felix Ingrand) (10/29/85)
> - The waters around Mururoa are *NOT* radioactive, rather less than >many other places in the world. > - The island soil itself has *NOT* been affected by the nuclear >explosions. The seismic activity of this region has remained *VERY* low Really, what do we (and you with your *NOT* and *VERY*) know about the consequences of these experimentations.... It is not because Mr Quilles (French Defense Minister) take a bath in the lagoon that there is no radioactvity... It is not because only glasses on the table (I have seen this at the TV) move that it is a small "seismic activity"... This point are french propaganda... I do not know if it is the same thing everywherere, but the french government, the french army, the CEA (Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique), EDF and etc make *MORE* propaganda and *LIE MORE* than Greenpeace. Generaly Greenpeace say: "We do not know the consequences, and we are afraid by what they could be (the past has show us)" But the others always say " No problems... All is OK... Trust us... " > I put in doubt Greenpeace being an organization for peace. Why then are >they going to war against countries? In my opinion, you can only bring to >the world the peace you have yourself, in your own life. One can be a man of >peace, in every situation of life, but I doubt that this means to have >attitudes like the Greepeace people, disrupting others... I think that you are true and your are wrong, first GreenPeace stay for "Green" "Peace" (not Peace in general), in fact it an ecological organization. Second I agree with you when you say that peace is a thing ok every day and everytime. > This being said, it is not at all my intention to present the French >government or military as those who are right. No, France *AND* Greenpeace >are *both* wrong, they are both warmongers, none of the parties are working >*FOR* peace. They are in war with each other, and in war many things are >done, not always kind things... War do not excuse anything... >In this way, it is an act of sabotage and >not of terrorism, as terrorism is the intentional murder or kidnapping of >*innocent* civilians, to be more precise than Frank Silbermann. And in my >opinion the Greepeace people are not *innocent*. If they are not *innocent*, so it is a *transgression* to fight against war. > Well, I already see the inhabitants of Netland preparing their >flamethrowers, so I'd better go and hide. No no, I am not going to give you >my private address (-: Les francais reagiront peut etre avant.... UUCP : ...mcvax!inria!imag!felix "Pourquoi tant de haine" (Edika dans Fluide Glacial)
malutza@daemen.UUCP (@@=> Zapzigon <=@@) (11/15/85)
> >>What would you call a millitary action taken by a state in another country > >>where it has neither jurisdiction nor permission? > > > >Huh? In time of war, no country ever asks about "jurisdiction" > >or "permission" to attack another. Israel is in a state of war, > >and will continue to be... > Ah! I see. So the US highjacked an Egyptian plane and threatened Italian soldiers > on a NATO base just because they're in war with Egypt and Italy... > Note the planes had fighter pilots from other NATO nations as well not only Americans. > -- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > (piet@mcvax.UUCP) If you are yelling at the US for this action,why are you(or any one with the same ideas) yelling at U.S.S.R. for its action against Keorean Airline,flight 007 where 250+ people were murdered by a Soviet fighter plane which BLASTED the plane out of the sky. The U.S and hopefully western world is civilized enough to have heart.Look the US could of rebeled against that Egyptian plane the same way as the Soviets did or as the Isrealis did to the Tunis PLO headquarters, but it didn't since the US has some ethics where the Soviets don't. Stop playing games with words as US being at war with Egypt and Italy since there is *NO* fighting between these countries in the first place. And talking of terrorism isn't what happened to those 250+ people on KAL, flight 007 terroristic,Moscow is Terrorism handquarters. Lenin once said" With terrorism the world will crumble to our footsteps,and with our assistance Russia will be the Rising Sun of the World". This quote alone,without strangely enough to say where ever terror goes on the Soviet KGB (NKVD) is not far from the action ,shows they're mixed in the the 'beams of terror'. -- ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* Roman Malutza,Leroy Kiefer and Kieth Lemberg UUCP: {decvax,dual,watmath,rockvax,rocksanne}!sunybcs!daemen!malutza "Any statement just made are not mine,this computer must of mistaken me for some low I.Q moron". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. Feel free anyways for any response to the posting to this confused newsite!!!! -->>> Address :: !sunybcs!daemen!malutza