> > <Calmer now: the main point> > > > > > the international community could > > > recognize that terrorism ... is inherently and intrinsically evil. > > > > Raised Mennonite I believe that war is inherently and intrinsically evil. > > <1>War is inherently evil. > > > > However as a recovering Mennonite and Athiest I have come to believe that > > war > > > is simply a regretable part of the human condition. It is somtimes > > rational, > > > and very, very occasionally the least of possible evils and "necessary". > > > > <2> Very often, even usually, "terrorism" is not an isolated crime but a > > rational act of war. > > > > <2a> Terrorism is typically commited by the weaker party. (This is > > relevant > > > since many ethical or moral systems, including Catholic theologies, grant > > a > > > "preferential option" to disadvantaged parties--all else being equal.) > > But, all other things are not equal. Deliberately targeting civilians in > lieu of targeting military forces is a tremendous step.
Yes, but it is a step that was taken in the 20th century. If it was acceptable for the US to use civilian urban populations to end the war with Japan (and I believe it was), then we must allow that those who claim to wage wars of national liberation might be justified in killing scores or even hundreds of civilians. > Further, I would > suggest that you understand the Catholic theology of a just war a bit > better before referring to it. And you might be right there. > A party cannot be the aggressor party and > still retain the privilege that you suggest. If you want to go into a > discussion of Catholic theology and God's preferential option for the poor > and its relevance to this, we can, but (to state it briefly), it hurts far > more than helps your case. > > > <2b> Terrorist acts _per se_ are no worse than some regrettable, but > > generally > > > acceptable acts of war. > > Hmm, Gautam published, on list, generally accepted rules of war, which this > contradicts. IIRC, it had to do with what could or could not be declared > war crimes. Would you, by any chance, have some reference that contradicts > this? Nope. But I don't have the war crimes list handy either. > > <conclusion> > > > > In short "terrorism" is a tool of war and statecraft. It is no better or > > worse than other forms of socially sanctioned types of violence, force, > > or coercion that are more-or-less acceptable for reasons of state or of > > civil emergency...or even civil threat. > > Since Timothy McVey was obviously at a disadvantage with respect to the US > government, he was clearly far weaker, was his terrorism also acceptable? Perhaps. Remember, I have not questioned Israel's right to retaliate against attacks. Likewise I have no problem with the way the US handled the Oklahoma City bombing. The question is whether the PA need renounce the use of tactics it deems politically and millitarilly effective that are broadly classified as terrorism and are regarded as inhumane to the point of war crimes by some parties. In the case of the OK City bombing the analog is not whether McVey was a criminal, it is whether he was also a war criminal akin to Milosovech. > > The "legitimacy" of terrorist acts must thus be considered situation and > > in the context of ethical conduct in extreme situations, most notable > > acceptable behavior by combatants and states in time of war. > > I suppose you could construct a theoretical case where terrorism could be > justified. It certainly isn't here. > Considering that the Palestinians are part of the agrees party, that has > overtly tried to destroy Israel no less than 4 times, and still having the > goal of destroying Israel (and likely killing all the Jews in Israel), its > hard to find their behavior ethical. Is there something special about > Israel that makes it's destruction ethical? > > > Dan M. I disagree. It is unclear to me that Palestinians or Arabs are the agressor party. Zionism is not racism _per se_. However, it is an *inherently* colonial project. Israel was paid for by expropriating Arab land. Oh well, that's politics. I'm American. My homeland was paid for by Indians. Too bad the early Zionist pioneers either couldn't or didn't exterminate or neutralize the "aboriginal" Palestinan population. (They had much better luck with Bedoin.) There are a lot of Palestinians left. They are going to try to reconquer their land. The Spanish did it. The Portuguese did it. The Dutch did it. The Irish did it. The Algerians did it. The East Timorese did it. . . . Some imply that my position is Judeophobic. I believe that it is not. Instead those who disagree with me are holding Palestinians to higher standard than that applied to Algerians, Vietnamese, and others throughout history and even higher standards than apply to current national liberation movements like those waged by Chechens, Kurds, Kachins, Iran Jayans and others. I believe that those on the otherside disadvantage the Palestinians not so much because they are Arab as they priviledge the Zionists because they are Jews...or because they are Western. I too tend to root for Israel because it is Jewish and Western. However, that does not change what I regard as a fact: Israel, like Canada, the US, Australia, Brazil, and so many other Western nations is predicated on a colonial crime. In the case of Israel the crime was "botched." === Saying terrorism is unacceptable is the same as saying a war of national liberation is impermissable.
