danc@tekecs.UUCP (11/15/84)
A recent article in the local newspaper told how those beloved,
self-appointed caretakers of the earth --the Soviets, are removing
Afghan children, ages 7-9, from their families, and taking them
(all expenses paid) to the great Motherland for TEN YEARS of
indoctrination into communism and the grand, Soviet way of life.
Sounds like something out of of the television series "V"
doesn't it? Ah, but these lizards are for real.
A question that I can't ignore --in Kampuchea (sp?) the government
had a neat policy for getting rid of any possible resistance: starve
2 million people to death. Where are those children going? Or does
anyone care?
A related news story: 450 Afghan rebels were summarily executed
when they surrendered to Russian troops. How's that for conversion?
The world has turn its back on Afghanistan.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/15/84)
> A recent article in the local newspaper told how those beloved, > self-appointed caretakers of the earth --the Soviets, are removing > Afghan children, ages 7-9, from their families, and taking them > (all expenses paid) to the great Motherland for TEN YEARS of > indoctrination into communism and the grand, Soviet way of life. > Sounds like something out of of the television series "V" > doesn't it? Ah, but these lizards are for real. > > A question that I can't ignore --in Kampuchea (sp?) the government > had a neat policy for getting rid of any possible resistance: starve > 2 million people to death. Where are those children going? Or does > anyone care? > > A related news story: 450 Afghan rebels were summarily executed > when they surrendered to Russian troops. How's that for conversion? > > The world has turn its back on Afghanistan. But what can we do? Nuke the Russians because they are doing these things in Afghanistan? There's not much we can do about it, except to try and ensure that such things don't happen again by supporting nations that the USSR is now threatening. It makes you wonder about the sanity of people who are always complaining about how terrible the US is when it comes to "imperialism", but don't seem to realize what we are up against in fighting the USSR... Wayne
jon@boulder.UUCP (Jon Corbet) (11/17/84)
stuff. Our technique is different -- that's all. We get the Shah
of Iran to kill thousands (literally!) of his subjects. We get the Death
Squads to do the dirty work in El Salvador. Morally, we are simply in
no position to complain.
--
Jonathan Corbet
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Field Observing Facility
{seismo|hplabs}!hao!boulder!jonrobertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) (11/18/84)
The referenced article discussed the fact that a newspaper report described
a large group of Afghan children being sent out of Afghanistan for a 10
year program of "education".
A recent issue of _Soldier_of_Fortune_ printed an interview with a young
Afghan boy ( who, they were told by the Afghan rebels who had arrested him,
was FOURTEEN years old ) accused of collaborating with ( spying for -- its
all semantics ) the Afghan secret police. The boy had been sent to the
Soviet Union for "education" and there had been taught to smoke, drink and
lose his virginity. The idea was to break all cultural and religious patterns
that he may have. Supposedly his parents were Afghan Communists. He had been
given away by the Soviet issue pistol he had been given by his secret police
contacts. According to the interviewer the Afghan rebels were quite disgusted
by his actions as he was quite a sinner by their cultural standards. ( This
is a culture where the rebels caught some youth with some pornography, quite
tame by even our standards, and executed them. The rebels have a strong
Moslem religious streak. One of the rebel leaders is a descendant of the
Prophet. )
There are parallels in the Greek Civil War of the 1940's ( read _Eleni_ ),
and elsewhere. I think that most of the contributors to this newsgroup
have little understanding of the tactics of Soviet-sponsored "revolutions"
and are in fact quite out of their league to comment on them.
--
Robin D. Roberts (213) 450 9111 x 2916
TTI Zone V4 aka Buskirk the Valerian
3100 Ocean Park Blvd Death to Tyrants !
Santa Monica, CA 90405
UUCP: ..!ucbvax!ihnp4!vortex!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb
or {cadovax,flick,philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex,wtux2}!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb
or ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb@RAND-UNIX.ARPAkevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders) (11/20/84)
>I think that most of the contributors to this newsgroup >have little understanding of the tactics of Soviet-sponsored "revolutions" >and are in fact quite out of their league to comment on them. But surely now that you've informed them, they have this understanding, and can now move into the Big Leagues? :-> Or is it possible that only those who wish to play on one side or another of the War for the End of the World should be allowed to speak up? That those who are appalled by the schemes of the Great Powers on the grounds that they are unChristian, inhuman, immoral, and accept mass murder as their ultimate tool/weapon, should just shut up, because they are ignorant of the True Rules of the Game? I Am Curious (Yellow Rain), Kevin Eric Saunders
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/20/84)
> > stuff. Our technique is different -- that's all. We get the Shah > of Iran to kill thousands (literally!) of his subjects. We get the Death > Squads to do the dirty work in El Salvador. Morally, we are simply in > no position to complain. > > -- > Jonathan Corbet > National Center for Atmospheric Research, Field Observing Facility > {seismo|hplabs}!hao!boulder!jon The difference between the evils of the American Government and the evils of the Soviet Government is the same as the difference between thousands of deaths and millions of deaths---three orders of magnitude.
danc@tekecs.UUCP (11/27/84)
In a response to my article regarding the Soviet carnage of Afghanistan, Johnathan Corbet writes: >> stuff. Our technique is different -- that's all. We get the Shah >> of Iran to kill thousands (literally!) of his subjects. We get the Death >> Squads to do the dirty work in El Salvador. Morally, we are simply in >> no position to complain. We got the Shah of Iran to kill thousands??? Certainly the Shah did kill thousands, but we had nothing to do with it! Explain to me why on Earth it would have been in our interests to kill thousands of Iranians. Are you so naive to believe that we could compel a leader to kill his own people, or that we would even want to??? Garbage. We were a strategic ally of the Shah of Iran. His internal problems were of his own making. He brought about his own downfall. Don't place the blame on the US for the actions of the Shah, and especially don't use the word "we" because I won't accept that. (After the Ayatolla (forgive my spelling) dies and the thousands (literally!) that he executed are remembered, are you going to blame that on us too?) Please, Please, give me any shread of evidence that suggests that we are involved with the death squads in El Salvador!!! More garbage!!! And when you have come up empty handed, explain to me why we would want to do such thing! Such action by Duarte only serves to alienate him from the people, and we have done everything to discourage him from taking that kind of action. The murder of an innocent is without a doubt the most horrible crime commited by anyone. Don't you dare state that somehow the US is supporting such crimes without giving me specific evidence! Afghanistan: Morally, WE ARE IN A POSITION TO COMPLAIN!!! THE DEATH OF AN INNOCENT MAN, WOMAN, OR CHILD IS NEVER, NEVER JUSTIFIABLE OR DEFENDABLE!! I WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR POSITION. For you to support such a position, especially on this network, is deplorable, because YOU LEGITIMIZE THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS. YOU MAKE THE DESTRUCTION OF PEOPLE, AND FAMILIES, AND A NATION MEANINGLESS.
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/28/84)
In article <4166@tekecs.UUCP> danc@tekecs.UUCP writes: > >... the Soviets, are removing >Afghan children, ages 7-9, from their families, ... > >... in Kampuchea (sp?) the government ... > starve 2 million people to death. > >A related news story: 450 Afghan rebels were summarily executed >when they surrendered to Russian troops. How's that for conversion? > Jane Fonda! Tom Hayden! Where are you now? When the vile imperialist Americans were slaughtering innocent women and children in Viet Nam, you were there, tellng the world how horrible it was. WHERE ARE YOU NOW? P.S. At least Joan Baez had the decency to protest the Pot government of Kampuchea. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
reza@ihuxb.UUCP (Reza Taheri) (11/28/84)
> >> stuff. Our technique is different -- that's all. We get the Shah > >> of Iran to kill thousands (literally!) of his subjects. We get the Death > >> Squads to do the dirty work in El Salvador. Morally, we are simply in > >> no position to complain. > > We got the Shah of Iran to kill thousands??? Certainly the Shah did kill > thousands, but we had nothing to do with it! Explain to me why on Earth > it would have been in our interests to kill thousands of Iranians. Are you > so naive to believe that we could compel a leader to kill his own people, > or that we would even want to??? Garbage. We were a strategic ally of the > Shah of Iran. His internal problems were of his own making. He brought > about his own downfall. Don't place the blame on the US for the actions of the > Shah, and especially don't use the word "we" because I won't accept that. > (After the Ayatolla (forgive my spelling) dies and the thousands (literally!) > that he executed are remembered, are you going to blame that on us too?) I will explain to you why it was in your interest to kill thousands of Iranians. Until 1953 the Iranian oil was drilled by the British for the benefit of the British; Iran got a mere 16% of the profits. In 1953, prime minister Mosaddegh of Iran nationalized the oil and kicked out the British and the Shah, who wanted to keep the status quo and his throne. The Shah was later brought back to power by a CIA sponsored coup. This is not just a "blame-it-all-on-America" fairy tale; consult any history book. It was in the interest of the US to keep the Shah in power (and keep the cheap oil running) at any price. Furthermore, with the crises in the Middle East, a man to do the dirty work for America was badly needed. Shah was that man and did everything from invading Oman (to keep the US out of another Vietnam), to buying the surplus Jordanian citrus product (and let the Iranian citrus product rot away) to help the Jordanian economy when the US wanted to show a friendly gesture to Jordan. Of course the Shah has to get a lot of the blame, and so do many Iranians who had a hand in murders and the destruction of the Iranian economy. But none of that would have been possible without the support of the US government. Believe it or not, I do think that the US is partially to blame for Khomeini! If the US hadn't kept the Shah in power for so long, chances were he would have been replaced by a more moderate regime. H. Reza Taheri ...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza (312)-979-7473
kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders) (11/29/84)
>>> stuff. Our technique is different -- that's all. We get the Shah >>> of Iran to kill thousands (literally!) of his subjects. We get the Death >>> Squads to do the dirty work in El Salvador. Morally, we are simply in >>> no position to complain. > >We got the Shah of Iran to kill thousands??? Certainly the Shah did kill >thousands, but we had nothing to do with it! Explain to me why on Earth >it would have been in our interests to kill thousands of Iranians. Are you >so naive to believe that we could compel a leader to kill his own people, >or that we would even want to??? Garbage. We were a strategic ally of the Since you ask what we had to do with it: In 1953 the CIA had the democratically elected Premier of Iran (Mossadegh) overthrown: he was a socialist, and had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Shah (a king, remember? an hereditary king, of the sort we violently rebelled against some *200* years ago) was flown back in from to take over. Why was it in our interests to kill thousands of Iranians? Because some Iranians were Communists or merely anti-imperialists who would screw around with *our* :-) oil. The secret police of the Shah, the dreaded and despised SAVAK, were trained by the CIA and worked in coordination with our intelligence services, like the secret police of any "friendly" country. Americans didn't pull the trigger-- but we oiled the gun and loaded it. Oh yes, don't forget the electronic/signals intelligence station in Iran, which was our primary means for a long time of monitoring Soviet missile tests. BTW, please don't talk about naivete when you're waxing skeptical about well-publicized American crimes in third world countries--it sounds crushingly, well, naive. Most of this stuff was revealed in the 1973 Senate hearings on Intelligence activities. For more background, check out _The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence_ (Marchetti & Marks, 1974) or _The Man Who Kept the Secrets_ (Powers, 1979). Top Secret, Kevin Eric Saunders kevin.lasspvax@cornell.arpa
ryan@fremen.DEC (11/30/84)
In response to orca!tekecs!dancs posting of November 27: You're correct in saying that we didn't "get" the Shah to kill his own people, but we do have to assume some responsibility for it - our silence and constant military support to the Shah's government implicitly condoned the way he conducted his government. Also, our failure to encourage moderate, responsible government in Iran is directly responsible for the rise of the Ayatollah, who never could have gained such power without the strength of the backlash against the atrocities of the Shah. Yes, "we" must accept some of the blame for what has happened in Iran. Again, regarding the death squads in El Salvador, our silence has implicitly condoned this. In El Salvador (as I have said before), I support our policies in general, but if there is to be lasting peace and true democracy in a country friendly to the United States, we must lean on Duarte to take strong action against both the right-wing and left-wing terrorists in his nation. Finally, you're correct that morally, we are in a position to complain about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The fact that our own policies sometimes fall short of what would be morally ideal does not mean we cannot speak out against such atrocities. As a matter of fact, this brings up something I've been wanting to flame about for the last week. The day after Thanksgiving, I heard Paul Harvey (who I previously had always enjoyed and respected) speak about the recent racial incidents in that white Chicago neighborhood. His conclusion: that while such things still happen in the United States, American citizens have no right to complain about South African apartheid!!! This outraged me tremendously; does he think we have to eliminate bigotry in our country completely before we can think of objecting to such tyranny? As I stated above, we have the right to object to such things regardless of how far we may be from attaining the ideals we're expressing ourselves. Besides, how can he compare the actions of a small group of private citizens with the government-sponsored subjugation (essentially slavery) of most of the citizens of a nation to a privileged minority and expect to be taken seriously by any intelligent (non-racist) listener? How? Why? The (*&^&*(.... Excuse me, but the English language lacks the words necessary to express my indignation... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! (A reaction which clearly astonished my 10-year-old brother, in the car with me at the time - for once, I hope he wasn't paying attention to the news). Mike