Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <117200040@inmet>
Date: Thu, 18-Sep-86 01:48:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200040
Posted: Thu Sep 18 01:48:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:19:24 EDT
References: <8556@duke.duke.UUCP>
Lines: 56
Nf-ID: #R:duke.duke.UUCP:-855600:inmet:117200040:000:2926
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh    Sep 18 01:48:00 1986


>/* Written 11:13 am  Sep 11, 1986 by rjn@duke.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */
>/* ---------- "Re: South Africa terrorizes Souther" ---------- */
>The word terrorist is an over used one these days.  Terrorism and legitimate
>revolution are often confused.  In many cases the difference between the two
>depends on an individuals political and moral views.  

I think not.  Terrorism consists of  deliberate action against
the innocent.  I've elsewhere posted an excellent definition of 
terrorism (from "Terrorism: How the West Can Win" by Netanyahu).  Unless
there is some confusion about who is a combatant and who is not,
about which action is deliberate and which is not, there
should be little  confusion about who employs terrorism and who does not.

>Violence is not in
>itself terrorism, nor is the killing of civilians.  If this were true then
>the Afghani freedom fighters are also terrorists, as are the Isrealis, and
>the United States (after all we killed civilians and children when we
>bombed Libya).  

The presence of noncombatant, nonsupport, civilians plays no enlightening
role in accounting for the bombing, as I understand it.   If we knew
that not a single civilian would have been killed, we would have
gone ahead with the mission.  A terrorist attempts to foment 
TERROR -- he attacks the civilian population because it is a good
way to do this.  If you were to tell him (authoritatively) that a 
bomb in given place  wouldn't harm a soul, he'd choose another target.  He's
after terror, not demolished buildings.

While innocents died in the US bombing of Libya attack, this was an unavoidable
side-effect of an attack aimed at military installations, rather than
a deliberate attack on, say, a disco in West Germany.

>In my opinion and the opinion of many others, violence and
>armed conflict in South Africa is justified given the circumstances.  Attempts
>at a peaceful solution have been rebuffed by a repressive government.
>
>A group cannot be measured by its actions alone, these actions must be put
>in the context of their situation.  The ANC is not a terrorist group.  To
>argue that they are is to support a racist government.  

Oh, tosh.  I don't know the situation, but to say they are terrorist or
not terrorist is to define something of their procedure and targets.  
If they kill people, shall we not call them "killers" because it would
"support a racist government"?  Of course not!  

Now it may be that folks arguing against a good cause may wrongly 
accuse the cause of inspiring terrorism in order to denigrate the cause,
THIS is a contemptible action.  But to label terrorists acting in 
(what you think to be) a good cause is merely to call a spade a spade.

>This is a contemptable
>action for any intelligent individual.  

Is there a name for this tactic of labelling your opponents as contemptible
or unintelligent (take your pick) before you've heard their side of it?