There are many events that take place around the world defined as terrorism. As many of these events as there are it seems the reaction by many observers is something less than shock or outrage. While being offended or outraged has been the liberal mantra with selected use rarely is it employed against terrorists but it is always used against those who resist or defend themselves in the face of terrorism.
Salama, Salama, Bologna is no exception. Israel is attacked by Hamas with rockets on consecutive days where Israel first employed diplomacy and public warnings to Hamas. When those actions were unsuccessful and they responded militarily many around the world first expressed outrage or some form of criticism of Israel. Just another example that there is plenty of bias against Israel. This is not to say Israel has never made a mistake. But so has everyone else. And in this case they did nothing wrong yet they are being criticized by a significant number of those who express their desire to eliminate Israel and others with similar attitudes. How about laying some blame on Hamas and other terrorist groups for bringing this on themselves and other parties unrelated to this particular event.
Stanford Matthews

How UK Terrorism Law Compares With Rest of World

The government says the proposed 42 days could be needed if the country faced a ´very grave and exceptional terrorist threat´.

If the United States and Germany allow police just two days for initial questioning of terrorism suspects, why is Britain proposing to grant up to six weeks? For civil liberties groups, the disparity is proof that British counter-terrorism law is growing ever more draconian. The government counters that bald comparisons are deeply misleading because of sharp differences between legal systems.
Parliament will vote on Wednesday on a bill to increase from 28 to 42 days the maximum time that police can hold terrorism suspects before having to charge or release them. Defeat in what is expected to be a close vote would severely undermine Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Rights group Liberty says the existing limit of 28 days is already "way out of line with the rest of Europe" and extending it would lead to more innocent people being detained for longer, creating injustice and undermining the "hearts and minds" struggle against Islamist militants.
The government says the proposed 42 days could be needed if the country faced a "very grave and exceptional terrorist threat", for example if police had to conduct complex investigations into multiple simultaneous attacks.
It argues that the threshold of evidence required for police to charge suspects in Britain is higher than in some overseas jurisdictions, where they need only to establish firm grounds for suspicion before handing cases to judges or prosecutors whose investigations may last for months or even years.
Following is a summary of detention and charging arrangements for terrorism cases in Britain and some other Western countries.
BRITAIN - Police need a warrant from a judge to keep a suspect in custody after the first 48 hours, and these warrants are usually updated weekly up to a current maximum of 28 days. At that point police must charge or release the suspect.
UNITED STATES - The maximum pre-charge detention period for criminal, including terrorist, suspects is 48 hours. Asked how the U.S. manages with so low a limit, the head of the FBI pointed recently to two key differences with the British legal system. He cited the use of plea bargaining in the United States and the fact that U.S. prosecutors -- unlike their British counterparts -- can make use in court of intelligence material obtained from tapping suspects' phones.
GERMANY - A person can be held in provisional police detention for up to 48 hours, after which a warrant from a judge is required to keep the suspect in investigative custody. At this point prosecutors publicly state the grounds for suspicion. It may, however, take many months for them to bring charges. For example, three men arrested on Sept. 4 last year on "urgent suspicion" of planning terrorist attacks on U.S. installations in Germany have not yet been formally charged.
FRANCE - A terrorism suspect can normally be held for up to four days for police questioning, increasing to six if there is proof an attack was being prepared. If suspicion is confirmed, the case is then transferred to an investigating judge. While the judge's investigation proceeds, a suspect may remain in detention for years, but has the right to appeal against it.

BACKGROUND

Guerrilla warfare, as fought by the Boers one century ago, is recognized internationally as the  honourable defence by disciplined fighters against a superior, armed enemy. The Boers attacked classical military targets, even though outnumbered most of the time by overwhelming numbers. The so-called 'freedom fighters' of Southern Africa, however, be they  Frelimo, Zanu, Swapo or the ANC/Communist Mkonto e Sizwe (MK), very seldom attacked  anything resembling a military target, - on the contrary, they specialized in the callous bombing of Wimpy Bars, the cowardly laying of landmines on farm roads, the barbarian 'necklacing' of defenceless township dwellers, and even the brutal torture of their own dissident comrades.  What makes these atrocities more despicable is that some of the organizations actually signed the Geneva Protocols, which explicitly forbid this kind of terror and cruel intimidation. Serious students who wish to get an unbiased and  balanced picture of the kind of terrorist 'war' fought by terrorist organisations like the ANC/SACP, the PAC and others should read the book "The Other Side of the Story" by Herman Stadtler, Sigma Press, ISBN 0-620-21100-8.
Here follow a few graphic images of atrocities committed by  the so-called 'Freedom Fighters' of Southern Africa. !Warning : The pictures may offend some readers' sensitivities.  
(images - Click on thumbnails for larger version)                   
               [image 1] The remains of a civilian bakkie [small truck], which detonated a landmine on the road between Ulundi and Nkongo in Eastern Ovamboland. Because many of the local people are poor and do not own a vehicle, locals used to hitch rides on the back of these vehicles to the nearest town to buy their daily needs. These "soft target" vehicles offered no protection against the Swapo mines, often boosted by placing two mines on top of each other.

[ image 2] To deliver rations to remote bases, 'rat run' trucks had to cover long distances over untarred roads. Ahead of them, the hardy 'sappers' walked these dusty dirt roads on foot, mile after mile under the blazing African sun, 'sweeping' the two well-defined tracks with their mine detectors. 
                                                                                                                                                     [image 3] Another landmine statistic : More innocent locals and their vehicle. Note the crater made by the explosion [foreground] and the distance the vehicle was flung. Those not dead were usually badly mutulated, for life. In his incident many black locals were killed.[photo - near Ulundi]

[image 4 & 5]  One of two pieces of a "Wit Olifant" [White elephant] after it struck a landmine. The name 'Wit olifant' was given to the big white  Mercedes Benz Trucks transporting goods to remote outposts throughout the old South West Africa (now Naminbia). In this instance the driver was on his way to Ruacana when he detonated a landmine. Because it was a civilian vehicle which detonated the mine, a police   task force in a 'Hippo' was sent out to investigate. The Hippo was a mine-protected personnel-carrying vehicle built on the chassis of the old 'vasbyt" Bedford. In this incident, the area was swept thoroughly for further landmines, declared "clear" and....WOOM,  the Hippo went up as well, just as it was about to leave the scene.   Actual figures of people killed or injured in this incident are not known. As in most cases it all happened near a local kraal [village]. The local people, although not hostile to the police and army forces, refused to say who planted the mines for fear of the brutal intimidation and savage methods of the terrorist. It was not uncommon for an "informant" (real or not) or simply the headman to have his tongue cut out, his child or wife killed, or, as in recent South Africa, to be tied up, soaked in petrol and then be burnt alive with a tyre round his neck For civilized soldiers anywhere this type of intimidation and situation was totally alien, and it is no wonder they were at wit's end.
                                                                                                                                                       [image 6] This civilian truck detonated a landmine near Nkongo in Northern South West Africa. The logistical wing of the army lend a hand to tow it to Oshakati. It is not known whether the driver was killed in the incident.

Church Street Bomb', 1983.

A beheaded victim of the notorious 'Church Street Bomb', 1983.  How can the detonation of a car packed full of explosives, parked at peak hour traffic in Church Street, Pretoria, in the middle of thousands of unarmed and inocent civilians, both black and white, be classified as an "act of war"?   [photo from the book, "The Other side of the Story, A True perspective."]

more imformations

[image 1] This victim of a necklace murder still has his arms tied behind his back. Although it is unthinkable for the normal human mind that people can dance and chant around a burning and begging human being, it actually happened in more than 400 reported cases. Why? One should ask the so-called 'Mother of the (Azanian) Nation',  Mrs Mandela,  what she meant, when she said, quote : "With tyres and matches we will liberate this country", unquote... [image 2] Still another victim of the "necklace" murders by supporters of the ANC/Communist alliance. Note the steel rings of the tyre still around the bodies' neck. All of these people were civilians, and they were murdered for such reasons as "not taking part in illegal strikes", not adhering to party policy and not obeying "non-shopping orders" Many mother's were forced to eat the borax and washing-powder they bought for their households because "they dared to challenge ANC's orders not to buy from whites"

images of terrorism

[above]Terrorism did not stop when the ANC/Communist alliance officially ended its terror war. The former terrorists had been given South Africa, lock, stock and barrel, by a spineless De Klerk government, but their slogans 'Kill a Boer, kill a Farmer', and 'One Settler, One Bullet' were  and are still being screamed out, the clenched fist is still raised, and anyway, old terrorist habits die hard. While the words 'peace', 'democracy', 'reconciliation' and 'justice' are gushing out like verbal diarrhea from politicians' mouths, something totally different is gushing out from countless defenceless, innocent victims : Blood and guts. Now classified under the euphemism 'crime', the terror continues unabated, - if anything, worse than ever before. The aim is still the same : To drive out the white man and to intimidate all opposition, white and black. The focus is still on lonely farms and on the weak and helpless : Especially the elderly, women, even babies are brutally attacked, beaten, raped and killed. The politically correct, fawning media reports the 'crime' on page 4, it even makes clucking noises every now and then, - but none dare call it what it is : Terrorism in its pure, unadulterated form. Terrorism aided and abetted by the Regime in its many forms and variations : Be they Ministers like Peter Mokaba shouting 'Kill the Boer", Missies Mandela screaming out hate-speech, hit-squads slaying opposition politicians, or the gullible mob doing the butchering on the streets, inside houses, at the work place, or on farms. By the end of 2001, 7 years into ANC/Communist rule more than 1150 mostly white farmers have already been murdered in the so-called democratic new South Africa.

TERRORISM

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.^[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).^{[citation needed]} Some definitions now exclude acts of state terrorism and some also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,^[3] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.^[4][5] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,^[6] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).^[6][7]
Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.^[8] An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.^[9]