Originally posted by Jerry Smith
"They're doing it too" is not a valid defense for terrorism. Yes, the American military did apparently target civilians at Dresden (and Hiroshima, and Nagasaki) - that was terrorism. I don't know much about the history of the Zionist movement, but I have trust you that they targeted civilians at some point in their history. That was terrorism. Israel continues to target civilians in some cases (according to my understanding of the news reports). That is terrorism.
Terrorism should be condemned in all its forms, not re-named. "Guerrilla warfare" may include terrorism, but does not depend upon it exclusively. All dogs have fur, but not all furry animals are dogs, if you get my drift.
Separate question: How did Israel cover up the sinking of an American craft and the murder of those who escaped the wreck?
Last question first:
http://208.56.153.48/jim/ussliberty/
You have a commendable attitude that civilians are off-limits in any conflict and therefore you rightly conclude that bombing Dresden and the Israeli acts are equally terroristic with the Palestinian bombers. If everyone had that idealistic attitude, the world would be a lot more civilized and peace would have a better chance.
The reality is that there is no solid line between soldiers and civilians and what constitutes legitimate military targets. Clausewitz held that "war is politics by other means". If that is so, and that is a generally accepted idea, then whatever affects the politics is a legitimate target. If bombing Dresden causes the German people to rise up against Hitler, then bombing Dresden is acceptable. If assassinating Hamas leaders causes the Palestinians to change their politics of a separate state, then assassination is legitimate. Now, whether the collateral damage is acceptable or terrorism is another matter. Perhaps the fear of being caught next to a Hamas leader at the wrong time can cause people to oust them. If killing Israeli civilians convinces them to modify government policy and grant the Palestinians a state, then Israeli civilians become a legitimate target.
What "terrorism" usually means is violence with no legitimate military goal. Taking hostages for ransom. For Americans, it is the belief that America was not engaged in hostilities toward Muslims in the Mid-east, therefore the Sept. 11 attack on civilians had no legitimate goal. We would also view the use of nerve gas or nuclear weapons by Iraq on the cities of Saudi Arabia or Israel as not a legitimate military move because that would have no effect on the military forces engaged in Iraq. Bombing German and Japanese factories, OTOH, was justified as affecting war materiel production.
Of course, since 9/11, terrorism has become a label to put your opponents beyond the pale and deny them legitimacy. So, for Israel it is a smart political and military move to declare Palestinian bombers "terrorists" and deny any legitimacy to a separate Palestinian state.
Are they, or are they simply fighting as best they can, given the huge difference in power between the Palestinians and the Israelis?
BTW, the Palestinians use other methods. You hear every time that Israel occupies a West Bank town of battles with "Palestinian gunmen". Those are the guerillas shooting at the troops.
It might be more effective for Palestinians to target railroads, ports, and other infrastructure in Israel rather than people. But now we are talking tactics and not whether the Palestinians are "terrorists" in the usual use of the term.
