[Mark Granier]

Definitions are tricky, I admit, but it seems to me that "terrorism" is not the right word to use when a recognized sovereign nation engages in acts of war to obtain a military objective, even if that nation engages in repulsive and destructive measures that one might condemn as heartily as one condemns "terrorism." That is, a nation may do something as bad as terrorism, in theory, but that doesn't make it terrorism as I feel the word is used.

Tricky, eh? Well, that's one way of putting it Roger. I think Robert Fisk himself is one of the best-placed people to respond to that, being in the thick of the action. This is from a week-old report :

Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist. There is something perverse about all this, the slaughter and massive destruction and the self-righteous, constant, cancerous use of the word "terrorist". No, let us not forget that the Hizbollah broke international law, crossed the Israeli border, killed three Israeli soldiers, captured two others and dragged them back through the border fence. It was an act of calculated ruthlessness that should never allow Hizbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to grin so broadly ay his press conference. It has brought unparalleled tragedy to countless innocents in Lebanon. And of course, it has led Hizbollah to fire at least 170 Katyusha rockets into Israel.

But what would happen if the powerless Lebanese government had actually unleashed air attacks across Israel the last time Israel's troops crossed into Lebanon? What if the Lebanese air force then killed 73 Israeli civilians in bombing raids in Ashkelon, Tel Aviv and Israeli West Jerusalem? What if a Lebanese fighter aircraft bombed Ben Gurion airport? What if a Lebanese plane destroyed 26 road bridges across Israel? Would it not be called "terrorism"? I rather think it would. But if Israel was the victim, it would also probably be Word War Three.

Full article on
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle14000.htm