Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: re: Death to baby killers, NOW! Message-ID: <1582@ihlpg.UUCP> Date: Fri, 24-Jan-86 16:19:16 EST Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1582 Posted: Fri Jan 24 16:19:16 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 22:33:41 EST References: Upon request <202@aero.ARPA> <483@whuts.UUCP> <1566@ihlpg.UUCP> <499@whuts.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 86 > [Tim Sevener] > Here is a response to another of Bill Tannenbaums replies > to my article on terrorism: > > --- > > > 4)While Reagan and the American media wail against terrorism conducted > > > by the "enemy" they *never even mention* our own support for > > > terrorist campaigns against innocent civilians in Nicaragua and now > > > (thanks to Jerry Falwell, Jack Kemp and friends) in Angola. > > > Yet there was an interesting letter in the NYTimes (Jan. 9) from > > > Edgar Chamorro, a former leader of the contras who quit in disgust. > > > Here is an interesting statement he made in his letter: > > > [Long anti-Contra stuff omitted] > > --- > > There are civil wars going on in Nicaragua and Angola. Innocent civilians > > always suffer in civil wars. One cannot fault the U.S. for the one in Angola. > > The U. S. is a major instigator of the one in Nicaragua. All this is totally > > irrelevent to Kaddafi. Terrorism in Nicaragua is a byproduct of civil war. > --- > By this argument, Bill, the Soviets planting of booby-trapped toys > to kill children in Afghanistan, is perfectly alright since it is > simply a matter of "civil war" in Afghanistan. > I do not buy this argument. Afghanistan has been blatantly invaded > by the Soviet Union and Nicaragua's "civil war" is an invasion by > proxy by the United States. Innocent civilians are killed by these > "civil wars" subsidized by both superpowers just as much as they are > killed by random acts of terrorism subsidized by other governments. ---- Regardless of what you (or I) think of the Contras, they are Nicaraguans. U. S. support of them does not negate that. The killing of innocent civilians in Nicaragua or Afghanistan IS terrorism if done deliberately, and not as a side effect of military attacks. Such terrorism is NOT all right, but it is a byproduct of civil war, at least in Nicaragua. In Afghanistan, the Afghan Army is so militarily negligible that I wouldn't call it a civil war. It is all still irrelevent to Kaddafi. ---- > The reason however that most Americans don't care if innocent civilians > are killed in these random acts of violence in other countries paid for > by their government is that they see little likelihood that *they* will > be killed. So long as the killings can be kept to other countries not > much frequented by Americans then it is somehow less noteworthy. > However when *Americans* become the victims of nations' striving > for power then suddenly it becomes "terrorism" and something which > the rest of the world "must stop". The major distinction which I see > in the killing of innocent civilians occurring in Nicaragua and > Afghanistan and the killing of innocent civilians in Rome and Vienna > is that the latter case happened to involve some Americans. ---- Isolated acts of terrorism in countries not at war are always more newsworthy than such actions taking place in a war zone. The distiction is that Nicaragua and Afghanistan are both at war, whereas Italy and Austria are not. In Afghanistan, so many are being killed that a few more will never be noticed. It's not nice, but that's the way things are. ----- > We can see how blatantly "terrorism" has been defined by Reagan and the > media as "killing of Americans" in the shooting of four American > military advisers in El Salvador by the guerillas. This killing of > Americans who are advising the Salvadorans on how to bomb and > terrorize that segment of the population opposed to the government > was labelled as another "terrorist" act which required "reprisals" by > Ronald Reagan and George Schultz. The media simply picked up their > charges and dutifully repeated them as it parrots every other piece > of nonsense coming from the government. Were these American *military* > advisers even close to being any sort of "innocent civilians"? > Of course not. Yet they were Americans who were killed by those defined > as our "enemy" so therefore they were more "victims of terrorism". > I never heard a question raised by the mainstream media about whether > it made any sense whatsoever to consider these American military > advisers "innocent civilians" and victims of "terrorism". ---- The killing of U. S. military advisors in El Salvador by the guerillas is not terrorism. Reagan is wrong. See Tim, even you can't be wrong all the time. -) ---- > For this reason I refuse to accept the equation being foisted upon us > by the media that "killing of Americans by enemies" == terrorism > while "killing of Third World civilians" == civil war > That distinction is sheer hypocrisy and doublethink. ---- It is, so I am surprised that you made it up. I never heard Reagan or anyone else say that the non-American victims at Rome and Vienna were not victims of terrorism. Of the 60 or so victims in the hijacking on Malta, only one (I think) was an American. Many were Palestinian Arabs. The American media and Reagan still called them victims of terrorism. Tim, you are the master of the straw man technique of argument. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan