Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!guest From: guest@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: State Terrorism Message-ID: <312@ccivax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 19:36:19 EDT Article-I.D.: ccivax.312 Posted: Tue Oct 15 19:36:19 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Oct-85 21:03:09 EDT References: <903@abnji.UUCP> Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group, Rochester NY Lines: 136 > Well, I'll bet that many of you are happy that the US Government has > hijacked a plane on which the alleged terrorists were leaving > Egypt. I ask you, however, to think for a moment on the implications > of these actions. > > Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as > an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government? I am not familiar with all of the circumstances in this particular case. If the "forced landing" was done without the consent of the airline owner, then this probably could be considered terrorism. > By the US legal > system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted > without the due process of the law being followed. The reason the plane was downed was because suspected terrorists were on board. This represents "aprehending a felon". However, if anyone had been hurt, the U.S. would have been in hot water. > US legal officers > are required to follow the laws of the land when apprehending a > subject; Hate to disillusion you, but the U.S. legal officers abroad (military, CIA,...) very seldom "follow the rules". > I realise that the people on the plane were not in the US, > and not subject by law to US constitutional protections, however > I must urge people to extend our protections when dealing with > others (The Golden rule, eh?), otherwise we end up with a regional > chauvanism in our dealings with others. Only a few american allies offer their own citizens the same rights we have in our country. As far as protectorates (colonies) go, almost none of them provide even a few of those rights. > I do not approve of terrorism, but I do not have an answer. I do know > that the use of terrorism in reprisal is not a cure. How can we expect > people to believe us in the future when we say as a nation that we > do not condone terrorism when we are one of the practitoners? > -- > James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa Because, since world war II, we have exploited virtually any country we can control, no one really believes us when we condemn terrorism. Often, we let others do our dirty work for us. During WWII, if a german prisoner didn't tell us what we wanted to know, we sent them to "Stalin's boys", where they were given the same treatement Hitler have the Russians. In vietnam, we turned the vietcong over to the South Vietnamese, they were happy to use "tiger cages", torture, brainwashing, and anything else that was "Un-American". Even in recent U.S. history, exploitation and terrorism of blacks, indians, and latin-americans has been considered the norm. Every time the U.S. screams "Human Rights" in the U.N., the U.S.S.R. cites some recent violation of our own constitution in our own country. When the U.S. denies it, the whole general assembly just snickers. When Komini was in exile from Iran, he was sent films showing the torture and eventual murder of his son. The C.I.A. people were in the background watching. Most of our "colonies" are Facist Dictatorships, many modeled after Nazi Germany. These goverments openly practice terrorism with the support of American "Cheerleaders" from the C.I.A. and armed forces. Unfortunately, when you get a few "pressure cookers" like this going, you can't just "pop the lid" as Jimmy Carter tried to do. The result is things like the "Hostage Crisis". If truly free elections with full fledged political campaigns were held this month, we would have no political allies other than maybe Canada, Britain, and a few European countries. The Mexican border would be a war zone. Every factory, oil well, or other property held by a U.S. corporation would be "Nationalised" the day after the election, causing "international bankruptcy". The solution, begin by instituting a "Two-Party" system, heavily backed by businesses. Each party would offer slightly different solutions to the various problems, but both would uphold the rights of "Corporate Citizens". Prevent the formation of unions, not by shooting organisers, but by offering benefit plans similar to those offered by Japanese companies. Then, and only then, is it "safe" to begin discussing "human rights". Why has this not been done? Because it is expensive! A presidential primary can cost several million dollars. Unfortunately, the U.S. and it's corporations are gambling that they can get a "quick profit" by exploiting third-world countries before their holdings are "Nationalised" by "Communist" opposition movements. The Russians/Socialists/Communists are no better, many times even worse, but then they don't attempt to claim a "Human Rights" stand either. As has been pointed out by anyone from Don Black to yourself, Individuals blowing up a radio tower or other "Corporate Property" is "terrorism", governments anihalating entire cities, kidnapping people in the dead of night, and killing coffee pickers in the middle of harvest season is "a police action", and providing the equipment so a dictatorship/minority can do it for you is called "constructive engagement". Once you understand that violating the rights of others has many "Euphemistic" names. Once you understand that a word spoken in Washington or the U.N., or even the network news has a much different meaning than what ordinary people think it means. You can "constructively engage" "foreign agents" to "stabilize relations" with "subversive elements", or you can "pay off" "terrorist rebels" to "assassinate" "political leaders". It all depends on who's paying, who's getting shot, and by whom! Sound a little like Orwell's "News-speak"? Where do you think this double-talk comes from? 1984 is a reality for most people in the world today. If you don't believe me, just try to get decent pay and working conditions for workers in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, or even Mexico. Having views similar to a "New York Democrat" in some of these countries is enough to cause you to "disappear in the night". Rats, spiders, and bumble bees have given way to LSD, fear-drugs, and "Psycho-restraint" drugs, the same ones we condemned the Russians for using a year or two back. One hope is that Socialist/Communist countries will follow the lead of "Red China" and see that free enterprize and capitalism are not synonomous with "Fascist Oppression". Few non-american (third world and Soviet Block) realize that human rights in the U.S. is not just political propaganda. Not everyone enjoys them equally, even here, but here, you have the opportunity to attain them. Perhaps the hope of "Opportunity for All" will encourage Gorbachav and his "New Socialism" party to embrace some of the good parts of the American Democratic free enterprize system, just as we have incorporated some of the benefits of Socialism/Communism in our ADC, SSI, and EIC programs. [These opinions are mine and subject to change without notice] Rex B.