orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/18/86)
> > [Tom Keller] > > We *ARE* directly supporting terrorism in many places around the globe. It > > makes no difference what govenrment is currently in power in these places, to > > support groups like th Contras or Savimbe's guerillas is to support terrorism. > > I do not necessarily support the Sandinista regime, nor the current government > > of Angola. I also do not support the campaign of terrorism against them that > > is currently being waged **BY THE UNITED STATES**. > ----------------------- > A question for Tom Keller, Tim Sevener, et. al.: > Do you feel that to support the Afghan Guerillas is to support terrorism? > If not, why not? Why are the Contras and Savimbi terrorists and the > Afghans not terrorists? > Remember, terrorism is a TACTIC, and has nothing to do with > the justification of the underlying cause. How do the ACTIONS of > Savimbi differ from those of the Afghan Guerillas. The relative > legitimacy of the Angolan and Afghan Governments has a great bearing > on whether we should support the respective guerillas, but no bearing on whether > or not the guerilla actions are terrorism. > Terrorism ala Keller/Sevener: Any action which results in > the deaths of innocent people taken on behalf of a cause with which > Keller/Sevener is out of sympathy. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Bill, you know very well that I, at least, have never voiced support for terrorism whether for a cause I support or not. Terrorism is the use of force against innocent civilians. It is indeed a reprehensible tactic used by many groups engaging in violent change. I do not understand why an intelligent person like yourself can have failed to *read* my postings on terrorism. I believe that in every case I have *always* noted my opposition to *ALL* terrorism, whether of left or right. I have *NEVER* condoned terrorism whether it be the PLO, the ANC, or the Contras. What I have tried to do is to simply point out that it is a blatant contradiction to claim to be concerned about terrorism and yet fund and support terrorism. I have also tried to point out that the media has fostered this contradiction by failing to label terrorism as terrorism and by selective reporting as well as labelling of incidents of terrorism. Thus even the generally critical New York Times has simply accepted the label of "Mexican Communist *terrorists*" as opposed to "Nicaraguan *rebels*" in a report on political groups paying for access to the media. As to Afghanistan, since the rebellion is generally supported and aided by the native population, I doubt that most attacks are directed against innocent civilians. On the other hand I am not sure that the Afghans violent resistance is the best form such resistance should take (tho it should *definitely* take some form) moreover I am afraid that the Islamic fundamentalism of the mujahadin will lead to severe repressions if they should ever come to power. BUT at least the Afghans have a right to freedom from Soviet domination. In South Africa, the ANC unfortunately began a campaign of terrorism a decade ago. As much as I support the ANC aim of dismantling apartheid, I cannot condone the ANC use of terrorism. Rather than serving the cause of abolishing apartheid I feel the ANC violence allows Botha's regime to rationalize apartheid and government policy as responses to "communist violence". Moreover such violence also serves the cause of the most militant and ruthless members of the ANC who become more likely to achieve power and to turn violence against their own black people when,as is inevitable, the ANC comes to power in S. Africa. Will *YOU* be so consistent in denouncing terrorism? tim sevener whuxn!orb