T.T. Arvind
Russ <mcresq@aol.com>did boldly declaim: <snipped through>

I have yet to see your definition of 'terrorism' and 'terrorist group.' A non-terrorist group in a just war can commit individual terrorist acts

without

thereby becoming a terrorist group (i.e. French Resistance). Just as the

army

of a nation-state in a just war can commit immoral, unjust or criminal acts

in

a war without thereby becoming a criminal army (i.e. RAF Bomber Command).

In law, yes. There are, however, many who would condemn the army's acts as criminal on moral grounds, even if our positions would not be stricly justified in international law. The same goes for the non-terrorist group - by engaging in terrorist acts, they sully their cause and their ability to morally justify their struggle.

I'm curious about one thing. I am sure you heard about the conference of Islamic states in which they refused to find a definition of terrorism and refused to condemn suicide bombers as terrorists. What are your thoughts

on

that?

The conference was divided on this - it was, ultimately, the west Asian countries who refused to condemn the Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists and, since there are more of them, they prevailed. Their argument was very similar to that advanced in support of the IRA.

Other Muslim-dominated countries - such as Malaysia and Bosnia - were more than willing to equally condemn Israel and the Palestinians.

But, even if you disagree with their reasoning, what do you expect? Kissinger-style self-interested action is accepted as a fair basis for States to structure their relations. Given that, one must not be surprised when other countries behave in a manner that is quite amoral.

I find it interesting that to the best of my knowledge, I've been killfiled

by

two people: you and Marty Michaelovich.

Oh, don't feel so bad - I'm sure there're more who don't air their killfiles so publically. ;-P