Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <117200224@inmet> Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 20:20:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.117200224 Posted: Wed Oct 8 20:20:00 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 06:52:47 EDT References: <5407@decwrl.DEC.COM> Lines: 202 Nf-ID: #R:decwrl.DEC.COM:-540700:inmet:117200224:000:9888 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh Oct 8 20:20:00 1986 >/* Written 11:59 pm Oct 4, 1986 by rjn@duke.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >In article <117200040@inmet> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >> >>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. And therefore non-terrorist attacks would target only those folks the possibility of whose innocence may be safely discounted: members of the government, soldiers, combatants. Simply exploding a bomb in a public place is an not an act calculated to exclude the innocent, and not an act forced on the bomber by lack of official targets. This notion of defining non-combatants as non-innocent, WITHOUT establishing their guilt is a typical terrorist tactic -- it is what allows them to "justify" pushing helpless old men off boats. The terrorists would like you to believe that nobody is innocent (at least, after the bomb went off that killed them). This is what justifies hijacking American airplanes -- those on board must be "part" of the "imperialist" American way of life, right? >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. Correct -- therefore terrorism remains terrorism, regardless of the worthiness of the cause used to justify the action. Once again, the ideological *ends* do not matter: terrorism is a tactic. >>>Violence is not in >>>itself terrorism, nor is the killing of civilians. Again, check out Netanyahu's definition. >>>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. "For the most part", eh? Not persuasive. "For the most part" a pregnant woman isn't pregnant, but that doesn't mean she is *NOT* pregnant. If the ANC indulges, even occasionally in terrorism, it is a terrorist organization. Certainly you seem to stand ready to justify such conduct: can we expect less from them? >>>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. That's because it *is* wrong or bad to engage in terrorism. Even in a just cause. >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. I think you'll find that Netanyahu's definition is more precise; that's why I took advantage of your article to propose it. >In my opinion to place this label on the ANC is to say that they are wrong >in their fight for freedom. No -- merely that their choice of tactics is evil. As I said before, I *don't* know the situation with the ANC. I don't care what they are fighting for: terrorism remains an evil. >Since this fight is for basic racial equality, >to oppose it is racist. Really? Suppose they proposed to torture to death any whites they found, in the name of "racial equality". Would opposing *THAT* be racist? Why not? Both are merely tactics of a "good" cause; both are unpalatable. >I also believe the moral issue of racial equality >holds precedence over any type of political issue. I rather doubt that: for example would you prefer a society where there was no right to life, (but there was racial equality) to one that didn't allow Asians to vote but guaranteed them every other liberty? >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. Guide them, or at least offer to, yes: but that doesn't mean they'd care to follow us. They have the right not to, if they choose. >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. The worthiness of the ANC's cause is not in dispute here. I will gladly postulate it; but that doesn't excuse even a single act of terrorism. Nor does it render racist the refusal to excuse such acts. >>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. But you haven't established that opposition to any action of the ANC constitutes racism. This is rather like certain pro-Israeli people who have argued that since the Jews want Israel so badly, opposition to US funding of Israel's sovereignty constitutes anti-semitism. Nonsense! One may disagree on means while agreeing on ends. One may disagree with religious people without being anti-religious, and one may oppose terrorism without the slightest reflection on the cause the terrorists are fighting for. >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. I don't doubt the resolve of the Afrikaners, nor the sad desirability of violence in certain cases (once again, I protest my ignorance of the specifics in SA). I do not dispute your rhetorical buildup of your anti-racism credentials: I merely note that terrorism, in however good a cause, remains terrorism. >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. So prove it: join up. I'm sure the insurgents would welcome you. On the other hand, when you're asked to set off explosives in a busy bus station "for the good of the causes", I hope whatever remains of your conscience calls this to mind: the ends *DO NOT* justify the means.