Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:11:52 -0400
> You missed the point. It's pretty clearly stated in Mr. Jacobson's first
> two sentences. I would go farther and say that for terrorists, 1) the war
> is fought on foreign soil, i.e., they, generally, don't fight on their own
> land, and 2) the act of terror is the battle being waged rather than being
> incidental to the battle. It's this second point that differentiates
> terrorists from revolutionaries.
ETA - Spain
FLQ (Ancient history) - Canada
IRA - Britain (which Northern Ireland was a part of)
Shining Path - Bolivia
Timothy McVeigh - USA
And on the other side:
British assasinate suspected IRA members in Gibraltar.
US bombs pharmacuetical factory in Sudan.
Israel routinely bomb civilian targets in Lebanon and Gaza and
assasinate suspected "terrorists".
If any of these acts were committed by "rogue nations" or terrorist
groups they would have been called "Acts of Terror."
So by 1) these must be all freedom fighters rather than terrorists?
And since, in the early days of Israel, Israelis set off bombs outside
the boundaries of Israel (i.e. in Jerusalem) at the time, it must clearly
be the ultimate terror state. Actually I suppose thats not so big a stretch,
Its very simple - a terrorist is on the other side, a freedom fighter is on
our side. If they switch sides or win, we rehabilitate them. See the IRA and FLQ