orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/27/86)
Bill Tannenbaum is still trying to distinguish Reagan's support for the contras in Nicaragua from Libya's support for the PLO. The one he argues is support for a "civil war", the other is support for "terrorism". The following are the key points of his distinction: 1)a "civil war" involves the murder of one's "countryman" whereas "terrorism" does not. From Bill: > Regardless of what you (or I) think of the Contras, they are Nicaraguans. 2)"terrorism" involves the premeditated murder of innocent civilians whereas "civil war" may *accidentally* include the murder of innocent civilians From Bill: > 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. First, I am glad that Bill recognizes what the media seems to refuse to recognize - that killing innocent civilians in Nicaragua and Afghanistan is indeed *terrorism*. There is ample evidence that this is exactly what the contras are doing in Nicaragua with support from the US govt. Edgar Chamorro himself, a former Contra leader in the Contra directorate, said he observed himself that the contra campaign was based upon terrorism against innocent civilians. The murder of innocent civilians by the contras has also been well-documented by groups like Amnesty International and Americas Watch. It has also been documented by many church and peace groups who have gone to Nicaragua to help the people. Second, I do *not* agree that simply being from the same country as one's civilian victims is a distinction between "terrorism" and "civil war". The media has never made this distinction when it reports "terrorism" in Northern Ireland. The fact that most bombings by the IRA have been conducted by the Irish themselves against other Northern Irish has not stopped the media from labelling such attacks "terrorism". Is this a "civil war"? Not according to the media. The same can be said for bombings by the Red Brigade in Italy, or similar groups in West Germany - they are invariably labelled by the media as "terrorism". I do not disagree with this labelling. What I *DO* disagree with is the failure to label bombings of coffee cooperatives in Nicaragua as "terrorism". The fact that the terrorism in Nicaragua is far more widespread than that in Italy or West Germany does not make it distinguished from such terrorism. I do not agree that pointing out the Reagan Administration's support for terrorism in Nicaragua is irrelevant to the terrorism issue. If the world is going to attack terrorism then it must attack *all* terrorism and ignoring Reagan's support for terrorism in our own hemisphere is immoral, hypocritical and sure to be noted by non-aligned Third World nations as a sign that our opposition to terrorism is merely a two-faced political ploy. I argued about the media's refusal to label the contras terrorism as 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. Bill replied: > 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. Obviously Reagan is not about to single out *only* American casualties in the attacks which get labelled as "terrorism". That is not the point I am making. The question is which *sorts* of attacks Reagan and the media choose to focus on as instances of "terrorism". They are attacks on civilians by alleged enemies of the US in circumstances in which Americans are involved. What is totally ignored as instances of "terrorism" are : a) killing or disappearances of Americans which occur under regimes which the American govt supports b) killing of innocent civilians in countries which the US govt has defined as "enemies" by groups which the US govt itself supports Thus the killing of four nuns in El Salvador was never labelled as "terrorism". The disappearance of an American journalist in Guatemala has never been labelled as "terrorism". And the bombings of coffee cooperatives in Nicaragua and the regular murder of civilians there is also never labelled as "terrorism" either by Reagan or the media. "Terrorism" as thus defined then becomes simply a tool with which to gain support for American militarism abroad. The extreme example is Reagan's continued allusion to the killing of four US military advisers as "terrorism". You may agree this was not terrorism, Bill, but I have yet to see *any* of the mainstream media question this absurd contention. Which is why I say the media have displayed irresponsible bias on this whole issue. tim sevener whuxn!orb