Reply #47: Here's why I don't agree...

[Violet_Crumble]

How could either attack constituted or not constituted a crime of war as no war was going on at the time of the attacks? Using the word terrorism to describe what was definately an act of terrorism isn't misusing the word. Hell, after the King David Hotel bombing which you describe as a legitimate military act against a hostile power, most Jews in Palestine didn't join a general boycott called because they viewed the British as the legitimate authority. Ben-Gurion denounced the bombing and later on tried to convince the British to remain in Palestine. So how exactly were the British a hostile enemy and where was the direct military value of destroying a wing of the hotel and in doing so killing so many civilians? The only direct military value I can see is that it gave birth to modern terrorism where the aim of attacks are to make them as high profile publicity-wise as possible, and to make a name for those carrying out the attacks...

Violet...