afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (01/07/86)
I think the time has come for the US to stop pussy-footing around with
the Khadaffy regime. Let's stop bothering with calls for diplomatic and
economic sanctions against Libya. Khadaffy has been a major world hemmorhoid
for long enough. We have an aircraft carrier there and the Israelis would be
more than happy (I'm sure) to help. No need to reduce Tripoli to a heap of
radioactive slag, just take out the palace, the terrorist training camps, and
their army and air force, and let the Libyans sort out the mess.
I'd like to see Khadaffy "harrass the American people in their own streets"
from the rubble of his obliterated palace.
The only thing that has kept us from doing this already (I think) is
concern for a tenuous (at best) "Middle East Peace Process". There will *never*
be peace in the Middle East as long as that psychotic butcher of the innocent in
Tripoli is alive.
KHADAFFY MUST DIE, NOW!david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) (01/10/86)
This is a very interesting idea, except I have a different viewpoint on the matter. I do not think for one second, given the state of middle east affairs and such, that if Khadaffy was any kind of a real threat to the U.S. or the middle east situation, that he would be allowed to do anything with far reaching affects before he was conveniently killed by (make up your own excuse here), for (make up your cause here), and the whole thing blamed on some other country. Think about it, if the guy was that dangerous, don't you think he would be bumped off by now by someone?? People have gone so far as to say we did this to a certain past president....... Paranoid and proud of it dave
kremen@aero.ARPA (Gary Kremen) (01/11/86)
> Micheal Lewis (afb@bucc-i) says: > I think the time has come for the US to stop pussy-footing around with >the Khadaffy regime. Let's stop bothering with calls for diplomatic and >economic sanctions against Libya. Khadaffy has been a major world hemmorhoid >for long enough. We have an aircraft carrier there and the Israelis would be >more than happy (I'm sure) to help. No need to reduce Tripoli to a heap of >radioactive slag, just take out the palace, the terrorist training camps, and >their army and air force, and let the Libyans sort out the mess. > I'd like to see Khadaffy "harrass the American people in their own > streets" from the rubble of his obliterated palace. > > The only thing that has kept us from doing this already (I think) is >concern for a tenuous (at best) "Middle East Peace Process". There will *never* >be peace in the Middle East as long as that psychotic butcher of the innocent in >Tripoli is alive. I second the motion. This guy Quadaffi is pure evil scum. Above plan sounds fine to me. I hope Reagan has the same idea. -- Name: Gary Kremen Address 1: kremen@aerospace.ARPA Address 2: {sdcrdcf,trwrb,randvax}!aero!kremen.UUCP Address 3: BITNET, CSNET, MAILNET, others - through correct gateways Quote:"Everybody loves to see justice done...on someone else" - Bruce Cockburn Contrapositive: "To Live and Die to live and drive in LA" Disclaimer 1: "The company does not know what I am doing" Disclaimer 2: "Both the company and I have great lawyers"
asp@hao.UUCP (Advanced Studies Project) (01/14/86)
> > Micheal Lewis (afb@bucc-i) says: > > > I think the time has come for the US to stop pussy-footing around with > >the Khadaffy regime. Let's stop bothering with calls for diplomatic and > >economic sanctions against Libya. Khadaffy has been a major world hemmorhoid > >for long enough. We have an aircraft carrier there and the Israelis would be > >more than happy (I'm sure) to help. No need to reduce Tripoli to a heap of > >radioactive slag, just take out the palace, the terrorist training camps, and > >their army and air force, and let the Libyans sort out the mess. > > I second the motion. This guy Quadaffi is pure evil scum. Above plan > sounds fine to me. I hope Reagan has the same idea. > > -- > Name: Gary Kremen These and at least one other posting I've read tell us to deal with the terrorist problem with a military response. While I rarely agree with Reagan, I think the actions taken are appropriate. A military response at this point would be premature because 1) There are (over 1000?) Americans still in Libya, who could be endangered by a U.S. military attack, 2) U.S. casaulties in a Libyan conflict would probably be substantial; we're not talking about Grenada this time. I said `conflict' not `attack' because the Libyans, and possibly some other Arab countries, won't just sit there after we "take out the palace." 3) The entire Arab community (including many nations which have good relations with the U.S.) is backing Libya. A military attack now runs a sizable risk of a broadened conflict and/or economic measures against us by several countries which support Libya (but don't support terrorists). What happens after the next Libyan-backed terrorist attack is another matter. But first the U.S. needs to demonstrate that virtually every non-military response has been attempted, if it expects to have the support of its allies and weaken the support of nations now backing Libya. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- allegra!nbires ucbvax!hplabs \ Chuck D'Ambra \ \ Advanced Study Program mcvax!seismo - hao!asp National Center for Atmospheric Research / P.O. Box 3000 {decvax|ihnp4}!noao Boulder, CO 80307
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/14/86)
> > Micheal Lewis (afb@bucc-i) says: > > > I think the time has come for the US to stop pussy-footing around with > >the Khadaffy regime. Let's stop bothering with calls for diplomatic and > >economic sanctions against Libya. Khadaffy has been a major world hemmorhoid > >for long enough. We have an aircraft carrier there and the Israelis would be > >more than happy (I'm sure) to help. No need to reduce Tripoli to a heap of > >radioactive slag, just take out the palace, the terrorist training camps, and > >their army and air force, and let the Libyans sort out the mess. > > > I'd like to see Khadaffy "harrass the American people in their own > > streets" from the rubble of his obliterated palace. > > > > The only thing that has kept us from doing this already (I think) is > >concern for a tenuous (at best) "Middle East Peace Process". There will *never* > >be peace in the Middle East as long as that psychotic butcher of the innocent in > >Tripoli is alive. > > I second the motion. This guy Quadaffi is pure evil scum. Above plan > sounds fine to me. I hope Reagan has the same idea. > -- > Name: Gary Kremen 1)provide the evidence that Libya actually supported Abu Nydal. The Reagan administration has yet to provide it. Austria, the country which was the *victim* of the attack, has stated that they will join sanctions *when solid evidence is presented to prove any country's support*. The Austrian government says it has yet to see such evidence. The only "evidence" we have is Reagan's claim that he "knows" but can't say what his evidence is. Given that the Reagan administration has provided fabrications in the past, such as the argument that bee feces were evidence of "Yellow Rain" chemical warfare, such evidence which *cannot be revealed* hardly seems convincing. 2)South Africa some months ago blew up two Gulf oil refineries in Angola. The South African forces were caught in the act and the South African government admitted to the bombing. Were there calls for assassinating P.W. Botha and obliterating his reprehensible apartheid regime? The South African government is currently illegally occupying one country (Namibia) and openly launching attacks against Angola and Mozambique. Surely this qualifies as a *genuine* threat to regional security in Southern Africa. Has Reagan called for absolute sanctions against South Africa until it leaves Namibia? Of course not. 3)Some time ago there *was* a terrorist attack *in the capitol of the United States*. It was the bombing of a former member of the Chilean government under Allende by Pinochet's police forces. Did we hear anxious calls to "blow up Pinochet"? 4)While Reagan and the American media wail against terrorism conducted by the "enemy" they *never even mention* our own support for terrorist campaigns against innocent civilians in Nicaragua and now (thanks to Jerry Falwell, Jack Kemp and friends) in Angola. Yet there was an interesting letter in the NYTimes (Jan. 9) from Edgar Chamorro, a former leader of the contras who quit in disgust. Here is an interesting statement he made in his letter: "It is cynical to assert that the "contras" respect human rights. During my four years as a "contra" director it was premeditated policy to terrorize civilian noncombatants to prevent them from cooperating with the Government. Hundreds of civilian murders, mutilations, tortures and rapes were committed in pursuit of this policy, of which the "contra" leaders and their CIA superiors were well aware." It is an undisputed fact that the CIA mined Nicaragua's harbor. Moreover in 1984 the CIA manual advising the contras on how to go about conducting political assassinations, sabotage and campaigns of terror was uncovered and conceded by Wm Casey to be a CIA production. Thus Chamorro has backing for his statement that: "When I joined the FDN in 1981, I hoped it would be controlled by Nicaraguans and dedicated to objectives we would determine. But the "contras" were, and are, a proxy army controlled by the US government." Michael and Gary, my conclusion is that you have been duped by the Reagan administration which seeks to exploit *certain* acts of terrorism for its own political ends. The media has fallen right in step with Reagan's approach without a falter. Yes, I think we *must* oppose terrorism and the massacre of innocent civilians anywhere it occurs. Whether Libya was behind the latest bombings there is no doubt that they have provided support for terrorist organizations. But it is the grossest hypocrisy to say that it is *wrong* for Libya to support terrorists but perfectly acceptable for *us* to do so. Moreover it is an incredible bias on the part of the media to *fail to even mention this hypocrisy*! When Pinochet bombs his enemy on the streets of Washington, D.C. this is just as *wrong* as Khaddafy shooting his enemies on the streets of London. But which hits the headlines as "exported terrorism"? *THINK* for god's sake before salivating for flesh and carnage. tim sevener whuxn!orb
mr@homxb.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (01/15/86)
> > > Micheal Lewis (afb@bucc-i) says: > > . . . . . > > I second the motion. This guy Quadaffi is pure evil scum. Above plan > > sounds fine to me. I hope Reagan has the same idea. > > -- > > Name: Gary Kremen > > 1)provide the evidence that Libya actually supported Abu Nydal. > The Reagan administration has yet to provide it. Austria, the country > which was the *victim* of the attack, has stated that they will join > sanctions *when solid evidence is presented to prove any country's > support*. The Austrian government says it has yet to see such evidence. > The only "evidence" we have is Reagan's claim that he "knows" but can't > say what his evidence is. Given that the Reagan administration has > provided fabrications in the past, such as the argument that bee feces > were evidence of "Yellow Rain" chemical warfare, such evidence which > *cannot be revealed* hardly seems convincing. This is wonderful, everyone is asking the US to show exactly how their intelligence got information about all this. Do you know how valuable a good intelligence network is ? and how much value it loses when it becomes public ? > 3)Some time ago there *was* a terrorist attack *in the capitol of the > United States*. It was the bombing of a former member of the Chilean > government under Allende by Pinochet's police forces. Did we hear > anxious calls to "blow up Pinochet"? Like I said before, Libya is now the most recognized supporter of terrorism and will take the heat first. When a precedent has been set in US policy towards these types of countries then the rest will be taken care of. > 4)While Reagan and the American media wail against terrorism conducted > by the "enemy" they *never even mention* our own support for > terrorist campaigns against innocent civilians in Nicaragua and now > (thanks to Jerry Falwell, Jack Kemp and friends) in Angola. > Yet there was an interesting letter in the NYTimes (Jan. 9) from > Edgar Chamorro, a former leader of the contras who quit in disgust. > Here is an interesting statement he made in his letter: See above. > *THINK* for god's sake before salivating for flesh and carnage. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Mark homxb!mr Death to terrorists and supporters of terrorism
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/16/86)
> > > >From me (tim sevener) > Mark > > 3)Some time ago there *was* a terrorist attack *in the capitol of the > > United States*. It was the bombing of a former member of the Chilean > > government under Allende by Pinochet's police forces. Did we hear > > anxious calls to "blow up Pinochet"? > > Like I said before, Libya is now the most recognized supporter of terrorism > and will take the heat first. When a precedent has been set in US policy > towards these types of countries then the rest will be taken care of. > > > 4)While Reagan and the American media wail against terrorism conducted > > by the "enemy" they *never even mention* our own support for > > terrorist campaigns against innocent civilians in Nicaragua and now > > (thanks to Jerry Falwell, Jack Kemp and friends) in Angola. > > Yet there was an interesting letter in the NYTimes (Jan. 9) from > > Edgar Chamorro, a former leader of the contras who quit in disgust. > > Here is an interesting statement he made in his letter: > > See above. > > > *THINK* for god's sake before salivating for flesh and carnage. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > Mark This is truly 1984 Reagan doublethink. "Libya is now the most recognized supporter of terrorism". Recognized by whom? Recognized by the US government and media. I had a query about the bombing of the Gulf Oil refineries by South African commandos. The coverage of such incidents is so bad that even the more politically aware people in net.politics don't even know about it. The rest of the world did not think very highly of the mining in Nicaragua. A former major leader of the contras himself resigns in disgust at what he terms a US controlled campaign of terrorism in Nicaragua. Reagan says the contras are "freedom fighters". Khaddafy says the PLO is "freedom fighters". They are both lying through their teeth. No doubt the Libyan newspapers don't call the PLO "terrorists" but "freedom fighters for the struggle to regain Palestine". The contras, if they are mentioned at all, are of course labelled as "terrorists". Even *if* Libya is number one, then what does that make us, number two? Will we bomb ourselves for terrorism next? Just because *our* media defines support for the PLO as "terrorism" and simply accedes to Reagan's defining of support for the contras as "support for freedom fighters" does not change the contras tactics of terrorism. Try to get outside your narrow chauvinistic American viewpoint! tim sevener whuxn!orb
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (01/21/86)
Tim Sevener shows his usual predilection for answering arguments with irrelevencies. In response to two individuals advocating the assassination of Kaddafi he writes: > 1)provide the evidence that Libya actually supported Abu Nydal. > The Reagan administration has yet to provide it. Austria, the country > which was the *victim* of the attack, has stated that they will join > sanctions *when solid evidence is presented to prove any country's > support*. The Austrian government says it has yet to see such evidence. > The only "evidence" we have is Reagan's claim that he "knows" but can't > say what his evidence is. Given that the Reagan administration has > provided fabrications in the past, such as the argument that bee feces > were evidence of "Yellow Rain" chemical warfare, such evidence which > *cannot be revealed* hardly seems convincing. --- As Tim himself admits later in this very posting, the evidence linking Libya with terrorism is overwhelming. The outcry against Kaddafi is not based solely on the Rome-Vienna attacks, but on a long history. At least Tim's comments above are relevent, unlike those that follow. --- > 2)South Africa some months ago blew up two Gulf oil refineries in Angola. > The South African forces were caught in the act and the South African > government admitted to the bombing. Were there calls for assassinating > P.W. Botha and obliterating his reprehensible apartheid regime? --- Obviously irrelevant to Kaddafi. The elimination of Botha would do nothing to change South Africa's policies. The elimination of Kaddafi would certainly change Libya's. Also, the blowing up of those refineries is an act of war against Angola, not terrorism. --- > The South African government is currently illegally occupying one > country (Namibia) and openly launching attacks against Angola and > Mozambique. Surely this qualifies as a *genuine* threat to regional > security in Southern Africa. Has Reagan called for absolute sanctions > against South Africa until it leaves Namibia? Of course not. --- All correct but totally irrelevant to Kaddafi. --- > 3)Some time ago there *was* a terrorist attack *in the capitol of the > United States*. It was the bombing of a former member of the Chilean > government under Allende by Pinochet's police forces. Did we hear > anxious calls to "blow up Pinochet"? --- No. Neither did we hear calls to blow up Kaddafi when his paid agent shot an anti-Kaddafi Libyan student in Colorado. Assassinating political opponents is one thing. The mass killing innocent people at random is quite another. --- > 4)While Reagan and the American media wail against terrorism conducted > by the "enemy" they *never even mention* our own support for > terrorist campaigns against innocent civilians in Nicaragua and now > (thanks to Jerry Falwell, Jack Kemp and friends) in Angola. > Yet there was an interesting letter in the NYTimes (Jan. 9) from > Edgar Chamorro, a former leader of the contras who quit in disgust. > Here is an interesting statement he made in his letter: > [Long anti-Contra stuff omitted] --- There are civil wars going on in Nicaragua and Angola. Innocent civilians always suffer in civil wars. One cannot fault the U.S. for the one in Angola. The U. S. is a major instigator of the one in Nicaragua. All this is totally irrelevent to Kaddafi. Terrorism in Nicaragua is a byproduct of civil war. --- > Michael and Gary, my conclusion is that you have been duped by the > Reagan administration which seeks to exploit *certain* acts of > terrorism for its own political ends. --- I hardly think Michael and Gary needed Reagan's cue. --- > The media has fallen right > in step with Reagan's approach without a falter. --- That's because they agree with him on Kaddafi. So does much of the British media, despite the stand of the British government. --- > Yes, I think we *must* oppose terrorism and the massacre of > innocent civilians anywhere it occurs. Whether Libya was behind > the latest bombings there is no doubt that they have provided > support for terrorist organizations. But it is the grossest hypocrisy > to say that it is *wrong* for Libya to support terrorists but > perfectly acceptable for *us* to do so. Moreover it is an > incredible bias on the part of the media to *fail to even mention > this hypocrisy*! When Pinochet bombs his enemy on the streets of > Washington, D.C. this is just as *wrong* as Khaddafy shooting his > enemies on the streets of London. But which hits the headlines > as "exported terrorism"? ---- Goddamn it, Tim. You either have a short memory or are deliberately lying. The killing of Orlando Letelier made big, big news. Pinochet was portrayed in the news (perhaps accurately) as a monster. The widespread disappearance of his opponents in Chile was given wide coverage. If Kaddafi had confined his attacks to Libyan political opponents, the outcry would have been muted. The London outrage was firing from the Libyan embassy randomly into a crowd of demonstratong students, killing a British policewoman. ---- > *THINK* for god's sake before salivating for flesh and carnage. > tim sevener whuxn!orb ---- I have thought. There are valid political reasons for not assassinating Kaddafi. The repercussions might be devastating. However, I challenge you to name one other individual in the world whose demise would do more good. Botha, Gorbachev, Khomeini, Pinochet, (insert your enemy here), would be replaced by someone similar, perhaps better, perhaps worse. But, with his buddy Idi Amin gone, Kaddafi stands out as one of a kind. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/22/86)
Bill Tanenbaum ignores the unfortunate realities of Middle East politics when he says: > --- > Obviously irrelevant to Kaddafi. The elimination of Botha would do nothing > to change South Africa's policies. The elimination of Kaddafi would certainly > change Libya's. Also, the blowing up of those refineries is an act of war > against Angola, not terrorism. Why would Khaddafi's assassination change Libyan support for Palestinian terrorism? Given that Libya joins Syria, Iran and other Arab governments in such support isn't it obvious that such support is independent of one man? The same reason you say Botha's elimination would do nothing to change South Africa's apartheid policies applies to Libya as well - because the reprehensible policies are supported by the government in general and not just one man. tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/22/86)
Here is a response to another of Bill Tannenbaums replies to my article on terrorism: > --- > > 4)While Reagan and the American media wail against terrorism conducted > > by the "enemy" they *never even mention* our own support for > > terrorist campaigns against innocent civilians in Nicaragua and now > > (thanks to Jerry Falwell, Jack Kemp and friends) in Angola. > > Yet there was an interesting letter in the NYTimes (Jan. 9) from > > Edgar Chamorro, a former leader of the contras who quit in disgust. > > Here is an interesting statement he made in his letter: > > [Long anti-Contra stuff omitted] > --- > There are civil wars going on in Nicaragua and Angola. Innocent civilians > always suffer in civil wars. One cannot fault the U.S. for the one in Angola. > The U. S. is a major instigator of the one in Nicaragua. All this is totally > irrelevent to Kaddafi. Terrorism in Nicaragua is a byproduct of civil war. By this argument, Bill, the Soviets planting of booby-trapped toys to kill children in Afghanistan, is perfectly alright since it is simply a matter of "civil war" in Afghanistan. I do not buy this argument. Afghanistan has been blatantly invaded by the Soviet Union and Nicaragua's "civil war" is an invasion by proxy by the United States. Innocent civilians are killed by these "civil wars" subsidized by both superpowers just as much as they are killed by random acts of terrorism subsidized by other governments. The reason however that most Americans don't care if innocent civilians are killed in these random acts of violence in other countries paid for by their government is that they see little likelihood that *they* will be killed. So long as the killings can be kept to other countries not much frequented by Americans then it is somehow less noteworthy. However when *Americans* become the victims of nations' striving for power then suddenly it becomes "terrorism" and something which the rest of the world "must stop". The major distinction which I see in the killing of innocent civilians occurring in Nicaragua and Afghanistan and the killing of innocent civilians in Rome and Vienna is that the latter case happened to involve some Americans. We can see how blatantly "terrorism" has been defined by Reagan and the media as "killing of Americans" in the shooting of four American military advisers in El Salvador by the guerillas. This killing of Americans who are advising the Salvadorans on how to bomb and terrorize that segment of the population opposed to the government was labelled as another "terrorist" act which required "reprisals" by Ronald Reagan and George Schultz. The media simply picked up their charges and dutifully repeated them as it parrots every other piece of nonsense coming from the government. Were these American *military* advisers even close to being any sort of "innocent civilians"? Of course not. Yet they were Americans who were killed by those defined as our "enemy" so therefore they were more "victims of terrorism". I never heard a question raised by the mainstream media about whether it made any sense whatsoever to consider these American military advisers "innocent civilians" and victims of "terrorism". For this reason I refuse to accept the equation being foisted upon us by the media that "killing of Americans by enemies" == terrorism while "killing of Third World civilians" == civil war That distinction is sheer hypocrisy and doublethink. tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/22/86)
Again to respond to Bill Tannenbaum's replies to my criticism of the media's coverage of "terrorism": > --- > > Yes, I think we *must* oppose terrorism and the massacre of > > innocent civilians anywhere it occurs. Whether Libya was behind > > the latest bombings there is no doubt that they have provided > > support for terrorist organizations. But it is the grossest hypocrisy > > to say that it is *wrong* for Libya to support terrorists but > > perfectly acceptable for *us* to do so. Moreover it is an > > incredible bias on the part of the media to *fail to even mention > > this hypocrisy*! When Pinochet bombs his enemy on the streets of > > Washington, D.C. this is just as *wrong* as Khaddafy shooting his > > enemies on the streets of London. But which hits the headlines > > as "exported terrorism"? > ---- > Goddamn it, Tim. You either have a short memory or are deliberately > lying. The killing of Orlando Letelier made big, big news. Pinochet > was portrayed in the news (perhaps accurately) as a monster. The > widespread disappearance of his opponents in Chile was given wide > coverage. Are you going to tell me, Bill, that the assassination of Orlando Letelier was on the headlines and the TV news for weeks? That is news to me. Certainly the initial incident was covered briefly for a day. But I got absolutely exhausted at the coverage of the Achille Lauro incident for not just a day or days but *weeks* while there was not a single report on bombings in El Salvador or contra's murders in Nicaragua. Admittedly the killing of Letelier was somewhat different since he was an admitted opponent of Pinochet's dictatorship. But then, how about the journalist whose brother "disappeared" in Guatemala and was last seen in a military helicopter? His brother has been to the State Dept. repeatedly trying to get them to pursue the case to no avail. Has this case been in the headlines for weeks? Of course not. It was in the back pages of the New York Times once. tim sevener whuxn!orb
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (01/24/86)
> Bill Tanenbaum ignores the unfortunate realities of Middle East > politics when he says: > > --- > > Obviously irrelevant to Kaddafi. The elimination of Botha would do nothing > > to change South Africa's policies. The elimination of Kaddafi would certainly > > change Libya's. Also, the blowing up of those refineries is an act of war > > against Angola, not terrorism. ----- > Why would Khaddafi's assassination change Libyan support for Palestinian > terrorism? Given that Libya joins Syria, Iran and other Arab governments > in such support isn't it obvious that such support is independent > of one man? > > The same reason you say Botha's elimination would do nothing to change > South Africa's apartheid policies applies to Libya as well - because > the reprehensible policies are supported by the government in general > and not just one man. > tim sevener whuxn!orb ----- Tim Sevener ignores the reality of Libya. The present policies of Libya are clearly due to Kaddafi's personal idiosynchratic view of the world. Iran's policies stem from a religious fundamentalism which goes far deeper in Iran than Khomeini himself. Syria's policies come from Assad's pragmatic perception of Syria's and his own self-interest. Assad's replacement or Khomeini's replacement could easily be worse. (No other Mid-Eastern governments that I know of support Abu Nidal's brand of terrorism, although others support Arafat's quite different brand.) I don't know what Kaddafi's replacement would be like, but I'll give you 10 to 1 that it's a great improvement. Disclaimer: I do not advocate the assassination of Kaddafi. Such an act by the U. S. would have drastic repercussions. However, with Idi Amin and Pol Pot out of power, it's hard to think of anyone else whose demise in itself would do more good. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (01/25/86)
> [Tim Sevener] > Here is a response to another of Bill Tannenbaums replies > to my article on terrorism: > > --- > > > 4)While Reagan and the American media wail against terrorism conducted > > > by the "enemy" they *never even mention* our own support for > > > terrorist campaigns against innocent civilians in Nicaragua and now > > > (thanks to Jerry Falwell, Jack Kemp and friends) in Angola. > > > Yet there was an interesting letter in the NYTimes (Jan. 9) from > > > Edgar Chamorro, a former leader of the contras who quit in disgust. > > > Here is an interesting statement he made in his letter: > > > [Long anti-Contra stuff omitted] > > --- > > There are civil wars going on in Nicaragua and Angola. Innocent civilians > > always suffer in civil wars. One cannot fault the U.S. for the one in Angola. > > The U. S. is a major instigator of the one in Nicaragua. All this is totally > > irrelevent to Kaddafi. Terrorism in Nicaragua is a byproduct of civil war. > --- > By this argument, Bill, the Soviets planting of booby-trapped toys > to kill children in Afghanistan, is perfectly alright since it is > simply a matter of "civil war" in Afghanistan. > I do not buy this argument. Afghanistan has been blatantly invaded > by the Soviet Union and Nicaragua's "civil war" is an invasion by > proxy by the United States. Innocent civilians are killed by these > "civil wars" subsidized by both superpowers just as much as they are > killed by random acts of terrorism subsidized by other governments. ---- Regardless of what you (or I) think of the Contras, they are Nicaraguans. U. S. support of them does not negate that. The killing of innocent civilians in Nicaragua or Afghanistan IS terrorism if done deliberately, and not as a side effect of military attacks. Such terrorism is NOT all right, but it is a byproduct of civil war, at least in Nicaragua. In Afghanistan, the Afghan Army is so militarily negligible that I wouldn't call it a civil war. It is all still irrelevent to Kaddafi. ---- > The reason however that most Americans don't care if innocent civilians > are killed in these random acts of violence in other countries paid for > by their government is that they see little likelihood that *they* will > be killed. So long as the killings can be kept to other countries not > much frequented by Americans then it is somehow less noteworthy. > However when *Americans* become the victims of nations' striving > for power then suddenly it becomes "terrorism" and something which > the rest of the world "must stop". The major distinction which I see > in the killing of innocent civilians occurring in Nicaragua and > Afghanistan and the killing of innocent civilians in Rome and Vienna > is that the latter case happened to involve some Americans. ---- Isolated acts of terrorism in countries not at war are always more newsworthy than such actions taking place in a war zone. The distiction is that Nicaragua and Afghanistan are both at war, whereas Italy and Austria are not. In Afghanistan, so many are being killed that a few more will never be noticed. It's not nice, but that's the way things are. ----- > We can see how blatantly "terrorism" has been defined by Reagan and the > media as "killing of Americans" in the shooting of four American > military advisers in El Salvador by the guerillas. This killing of > Americans who are advising the Salvadorans on how to bomb and > terrorize that segment of the population opposed to the government > was labelled as another "terrorist" act which required "reprisals" by > Ronald Reagan and George Schultz. The media simply picked up their > charges and dutifully repeated them as it parrots every other piece > of nonsense coming from the government. Were these American *military* > advisers even close to being any sort of "innocent civilians"? > Of course not. Yet they were Americans who were killed by those defined > as our "enemy" so therefore they were more "victims of terrorism". > I never heard a question raised by the mainstream media about whether > it made any sense whatsoever to consider these American military > advisers "innocent civilians" and victims of "terrorism". ---- The killing of U. S. military advisors in El Salvador by the guerillas is not terrorism. Reagan is wrong. See Tim, even you can't be wrong all the time. -) ---- > For this reason I refuse to accept the equation being foisted upon us > by the media that "killing of Americans by enemies" == terrorism > while "killing of Third World civilians" == civil war > That distinction is sheer hypocrisy and doublethink. ---- It is, so I am surprised that you made it up. I never heard Reagan or anyone else say that the non-American victims at Rome and Vienna were not victims of terrorism. Of the 60 or so victims in the hijacking on Malta, only one (I think) was an American. Many were Palestinian Arabs. The American media and Reagan still called them victims of terrorism. Tim, you are the master of the straw man technique of argument. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/28/86)
In article <500@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> Goddamn it, Tim. You either have a short memory or are deliberately >> lying. The killing of Orlando Letelier made big, big news. Pinochet >> was portrayed in the news (perhaps accurately) as a monster. The >> widespread disappearance of his opponents in Chile was given wide >> coverage. > >Are you going to tell me, Bill, that the assassination of Orlando Letelier >was on the headlines and the TV news for weeks? That is news to me. >Certainly the initial incident was covered briefly for a day. >But I got absolutely exhausted at the coverage of the Achille Lauro >incident for not just a day or days but *weeks* while there was not a >single report on bombings in El Salvador or contra's murders in Nicaragua. Was Orlando Letelier assassinated over a period of several weeks? The press covers the news as it happens; if it happens over several weeks, it gets reported ad nauseum. >Admittedly the killing of Letelier was somewhat different since he >was an admitted opponent of Pinochet's dictatorship. But then, how >about the journalist whose brother "disappeared" in Guatemala and was >last seen in a military helicopter? His brother has been to the State Dept. >repeatedly trying to get them to pursue the case to no avail. >Has this case been in the headlines for weeks? Of course not. >It was in the back pages of the New York Times once. I dare say the average disappearance in South America gets more coverage by the American media than the average disappearance in the Soviet Union. That is to say, rarely in South America, and very rarely in the Soviet Union. If the press reported every person who "disappeared" in any reasonably large dictatorship, there wouldn't be room for any news. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108