I have a real problem with the way terrorists are treated today. It's like if they wear a suit and talk like a politician, they're forgiven for all they've ever done. Two cases in point: Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein and Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority. I don't have as much of a quarrel with Mr. Adams; he actually is a politician. But the recent "canonization" of Yasser Arafat by the Western press has stumped me. I mean, this is the leader of the same organization that murdered Israeli athletes at Munich in 1972, held Jewish citizens hostage at Entebbe, and orchestrated the Intifada in the 1980s, to mention only some of the more prominent exploits. Granted, I'm very pro-Israeli, and a fan of Benjamin Netanyahu, but even if I wasn't, this is ridiculous. No matter what anyone says, Yasser Arafat is not, in my opinion, Eamon de Valera, even though history may see them as similar. So why do we treat Yasser Arafat as a legitimate ruler? Any group, in my opinion, that uses violence against innocent civilians as a method of gaining power is not civilized or "revolutionary." Violence against legitimate targets, such as the military, police and officials, is revolutionary. Violence against civilians is terrorism.
Why do terrorists feel the need to attack civilians? This is something I've never understood. For example, why can't the IRA stick to hard targets, rather than setting off bombs in the middle of Manchester? I'm sure that they, as well as other terrorist groups, would insist that they were "calling the attention of the community to the crimes of the government," or that "all the people are responsible for the crimes upon our people." (NOTE: These are actual statements, or as close to them as I could come up with.) Of course, a pub owner in Leicester who consistently votes Labour is responsible for what the Conservative government does. Yeah, right. Give me a break. In my opinion, these terrorists are cowards. If they were truly brave, they would be fighting the oppressors' armed forces, rather than civilians. And they wouldn't be dealing drugs, either. Oh, yes. I've read that the IRA, and I wouldn't be surprised if other groups, deal drugs to finance their operations. How else are they going to get the money for their operations? There's no more support from the Soviet Union, since it's gone. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists could get support from some Islamic nations, but Iran would only support Shiite Muslims, Syria is trying to look good in the eyes of the U.S., and Libya? Well, Libya is Libya. The IRA has a support network here, courtesy of their American representatives who pass the hat at the bars for the "Six Counties." Ever see that schlock-fest, The Devil's Own? Well, I haven't, and I probably won't. But don't you love the image of the heroic gunrunner, fighting off the evil English feudal lords who won't let his poor little repressed country out of the shackles of bondage? (I hope you realize that entire last sentence is sarcasm. If you didn't know, I'm a huge Anglophile, as well as pro-Israeli.)
I'd like to bring up one more question about terrorism...is it just me, or would some terrorists not like to reach their "objectives"? Yasser Arafat seemingly has, but yet he wants more and more land, even if Israeli security is lost? And did you hear this? I think I read somewhere that Chairman Arafat has threatened to restart the Intifada if he doesn't get what he wants. Do you know what this reminds me of? It sounds a lot like the little kid who threatens to hold his breath until his parents give in to what he wants. In my opinion, it's childish.
In conclusion, terrorists are a dangerous lot, but in some respects, they're rather silly. I mean, they go around talking tough, but they go after women and children. I think that this calls for a word not often used, but which is appropriate here: they're sissies.