To: MrLucky who wrote (15920 ) 4/4/2006 2:14:43 PM From: JohnM Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 541791 I agree. Terrorist should be a word very well understood and frequently used to describe the actions of insurgents in any country. Well, if so, then here's a small illustration of the mind games you get yourself involved with. The question is would you consider Menachem Begin a terrorist. The British certainly did. Begin was a member of Irgun. From Wikipedia.The Irgun was classified by the British authorities as a terrorist organization and regularly described as such by many, but others considered it to be a liberation movement. The bombing of the King David Hotel is the most controversial of their acts. Again, from Wikipedia.King David Hotel bombing (July 22, 1946) was a bombing attack against the British government of Palestine by members of Irgun —a militant Zionist group. The Irgun exploded a bomb at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which had been the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (police). 91 people were killed, most of them civilians: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other. Around 45 people were injured. The attack was initially ordered by David Ben Gurion, who was in the United States, but he later changed his mind and ordered the bombing to be cancelled. But Menachem Begin, the head of Irgun, went ahead anyway. Both Ben Gurion and Begin would later become Israeli Prime Ministers. The attack was commanded by Yosef Avni and Yisrael Levi. Frequently the term "terrorist" is used with two thoughts in mind: (1) attacks against civilian, in order (2) to inspire fear. If that is the case, there are more than a few illustrations of US bombing campaigns in WWII, that fit that definition. Frankly, I think the issue is best dropped. The Post article pictured a horrific deed. I don't care whether it was done by regular troops, insurgents, or whatever.