torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (03/15/86)
In article <1705@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >Why are the Contras and Savimbi terrorists and the Afghans not terrorists? I don't know about Savimbi, but I question your comparison between the Contras and the Afghan resistance. To my knowledge, the Afghans direct their violence at the Soviet occupying forces and the remnants of the Soviet-installed Afghan government's army. I have not heard any reports of intentional slaughter of civilians by the Afghans (this doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't happen, but I haven't seen any evidence that it does). I cannot say the same for the Contras. --Paul V. Torek torek@umich
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (03/17/86)
> >[Me] > >Why are the Contras and Savimbi terrorists and the Afghans not terrorists? ------------------- > [Paul Torek] > I don't know about Savimbi, but I question your comparison between the Contras > and the Afghan resistance. To my knowledge, the Afghans direct their violence > at the Soviet occupying forces and the remnants of the Soviet-installed Afghan > government's army. I have not heard any reports of intentional slaughter of > civilians by the Afghans (this doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't happen, > but I haven't seen any evidence that it does). > I cannot say the same for the Contras. ------------------ First, I'm glad that you understood my point correctly, and did not assume that I think the Contra cause is as justified as that of the Afghan Resistance. The intentional slaughter of civilians has probably occurred on both sides of every protracted war in modern times, especially civil wars and guerrilla wars. No matter how justifiable their cause, nor how much worse the Soviets have done to them, I cannot believe that no such incidents have occurred among the Afghans. After all, some small number of Afghan civilians do support the Afghan puppet govenment. Also, the guerrillas are divided into five or six separate factions, often hostile to each other. My point was simply the following: In the absence of war, it is fairly easy to recognize terrorism. In the presence of guerrilla war, it becomes more difficult. I don't doubt that the Contras have deliberately killed innocent civilians. It is quite proper for opponents of the Contras to point this out. However, have you noticed the selectivity shown by both left-wing and right-wing idealogues in dishing out the term "terrorist" to the side whose cause they disagree with? On the right, we have our beloved President calling the Contras "noble freedom fighters" and the Sandinistas "terrorists and enemies of humanity". I mean, at least he could have left off the "noble". On the left, we have people calling the Contras and Savimbi "terrorists", but never using the term terrorists for "progressive" insurgencies. It's all enough to make you want to throw up. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (03/18/86)
It would seem virtually impossible for the Afghan to commit what is normally called terrorism, i.e. kill innocent civilians in order to frighten and otherwise "promote" their cause. The only remote possibility would be if the Soviets were still bringing any of their families to Afghanistan to accompany them while they serve. Knowing something of conditions there, this is extremely unlikely. Hence the only people that Afghan guerrillas can logically attack are the Soviet military, as you already said -- unless one supposes that they've taken to killing their own people indiscriminately... which, of course, is what our CIA-pimped Contras apparently were doing when they were still in Nicaragua, instead of back in Honduras where they are now. tom Schlesinger Plymouth State College Plymouth, N.H. 03264 decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
rak1@magic.UUCP (Rajesh Kumar) (03/21/86)
DISCLAIMER: I fully support the efforts by the Afghan resistance to
kick the Soviet Communists out of their land.
> It would seem virtually impossible for the Afghan to commit what
> is normally called terrorism, i.e. kill innocent civilians in order to
> frighten and otherwise "promote" their cause. The only remote
> possibility would be if the Soviets were still bringing any of their
> families to Afghanistan to accompany them while they serve. Knowing
> something of conditions there, this is extremely unlikely. Hence the
> only people that Afghan guerrillas can logically attack are the Soviet
> military, as you already said -- unless one supposes that they've
> taken to killing their own people indiscriminately...
There are in Afghanistan a small minority of collaborators who have
profited politically and economically from the Soviet occupation. The
membership of the previously insignificant Afghan Communist Party has
increased during the Soviet occupation. Often, these Afghan communists
and collaborators (and sometimes their families) are targets of the
Afghan resistance. Although this is not terrorism in the purest sense
of the word, you do have Afghans killing other Afghans [and not
indiscriminately]. Also, remember that Afghanistan is a socially
and politically backward country, and it has had a long history of
tribal clashes, vendetta killings etc. long before the Soviet occupation.
> which, of
> course, is what our CIA-pimped Contras apparently were doing when they
> were still in Nicaragua, instead of back in Honduras where they are
> now.
That's right! The Contras have been known to kill peasants/townsfolk
indiscriminately. I'd like them better if they confined their executions
to the Sandanista top brass.
> tom Schlesinger
> Plymouth State College
> Plymouth, N.H. 03264
> decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
R. Kumar
Bellcore, Morristown, New Jersey