Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!duke!rjn From: rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <8673@duke.duke.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-Oct-86 23:59:08 EDT Article-I.D.: duke.8673 Posted: Sat Oct 4 23:59:08 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:05:02 EDT References: <8556@duke.duke.UUCP> <117200040@inmet> Reply-To: rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) Organization: Duke University, Durham NC Lines: 126 In article <117200040@inmet> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >>/* 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. > Depends on how you define innocent. I don't define many white South Africans as innocent. They have been supporting a racist government. That is not innocent in my book. Children are certainly innocent, but in the case of South Africa many more black children have been killed than white. This doesn't make killing children right. >>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. > Agreed, which is exactly why I say that the ANC is not a terrorist group. For the most part their violent actions have not been designed to cause terror, but to disrupt an enemy government. >>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! > The connotation of calling someone a terrorist is in my mind to say that they are wrong or bad. After all the President says we are going to 'wipe out terrorism' not wipe out Arab terrorism. I believe the commonly accepted meaning of the word is that of unjustified violence against innocents. In my opinion to place this label on the ANC is to say that they are wrong in their fight for freedom. Since this fight is for basic racial equality, to oppose it is racist. I also believe the moral issue of racial equality holds precedence over any type of political issue. I believe those who cry 'communist' all the time are simply making excuses. If the US made a STRONG comittment to black freedom, we could easily guide those people into democracy. But the US probably won't make that kind of comittment anywhere in Africa. The simple fact is that a large part of the US population is still very racist. Oh they give lip service to equality, but in their hearts they still don't really accept it. Now before people jump all over me for saying this you better be damn sure you have a good argument. There are large areas of the country where race relations are very good, especially in some of our large cities. But have you lived in the South, or the West (where Indians and Mexicans are the niggers of convenience)? Think hard, how many of your friends are racists? Many people I know and who I consider good people in every other way do not really believe in the equality of the races. Check out a factory or other blue collar setting sometime as an insider and you will see what I mean. >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? Racism is contemptable in any form. Perhaps you haven't experienced it like I have. Maybe you haven't had to listen to repeated statements that the black race is 'just plain inferior'. Maybe coon, nigger, darky, jigaboo, etc., aren't words that you have had to live with every day, but I have. Maybe if you had lived with racism as I have you might understand my extreme hate for the South African government. I equate the Afrikaners and the radical right in SA with the Klan, White Patriot Party, and the Aryan Nations in the US. If you think that the Afrikaners are even going to consider peacefully giving up control of that country to the blacks, I think you are sadly mistaken. If you really want to know just how strongly I feel about it I'll tell you. I would wholeheartedly support (even to the tune of joining up) military support for the black majority in South Africa. I would love to see blood and guts Ronnie send the military over to liberate our black brothers in South Africa. This would be one of the few instances of military intervention that I would support. BTW this might satisfy the people who are so afraid of a communist government in SA. Surely our military support would be a strong influence for democracy in that country. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay