janw@inmet.UUCP (09/25/86)
[rjn@duke.UUCP ] [/* ---- "Re: South Africa terrorizes Souther" ---- */] >In article <8143@watrose.UUCP> gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) writes: [...] >>I agree, but there is no way that you can convince me that a bomb placed >>in a dustbin in a shopping mall or fast food restaurant that is not >>even close to a military base, is not a blatant act of terrorism. >And there is no way, given the circumstances, that you can con- >vince me that it is. The white South Africans who do not actively >oppose apartheid are supporting it by inaction if nothing else. I >have the same contempt for them as I do for the Americans who sat >back and let us get involved in Vietnam. And *contempt* is sufficient justification for tearing them into pieces? >As a supposedly democratic country (at least if you're white) >all white South Africans are directly or indirectly responsible >for their governments actions. They should be actively fighting >alongside the blacks for equal rights and justice. Under penalty of violent death? Babies, too, should be actively fighting, under the same penalty? Finally, how do you know some of those blown up in a mall *are* not actively fighting etc.? Jan Wasilewsky
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (10/05/86)
In article <117200159@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[rjn@duke.UUCP ] [/* ---- "Re: South Africa terrorizes Souther" ---- */] >>In article <8143@watrose.UUCP> gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) writes: >[...] >>>I agree, but there is no way that you can convince me that a bomb placed >>>in a dustbin in a shopping mall or fast food restaurant that is not >>>even close to a military base, is not a blatant act of terrorism. > >>And there is no way, given the circumstances, that you can con- >>vince me that it is. The white South Africans who do not actively >>oppose apartheid are supporting it by inaction if nothing else. I >>have the same contempt for them as I do for the Americans who sat >>back and let us get involved in Vietnam. > >And *contempt* is sufficient justification for tearing them >into pieces? > I said I have contempt for them, but I'm not the one blowing them to pieces. I imagine that many black South Africans have considerably more than contempt for their white oppressors. >>As a supposedly democratic country (at least if you're white) >>all white South Africans are directly or indirectly responsible >>for their governments actions. They should be actively fighting >>alongside the blacks for equal rights and justice. > >Under penalty of violent death? Babies, too, should be actively >fighting, under the same penalty? Finally, how do you know >some of those blown up in a mall *are* not actively fighting etc.? > > Jan Wasilewsky How quick you all are to criticize the ANC, and how slow to criticize the white government. What about the school children shot in the back by security forces? I question the ability of many people on the net to equate a very small number of white lives with the thousands of blacks of all ages and sexes who have been killed over the years. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/07/86)
[rjn@duke.UUCP ] [/* ---- "Re: South Africa terrorizes Souther" ---- */] >How quick you all are to criticize the ANC, and how slow to cri- >ticize the white government. What about the school children shot >in the back by security forces? I question the ability of many >people on the net to equate a very small number of white lives >with the thousands of blacks of all ages and sexes who have been >killed over the years. (1) The Pretoria regime is intolerable and has to be changed - I *hope* not for the *worse*. (2) The great majority of those killed in this struggle - on both sides, by both sides - and the majority of those killing them, are black. One reason is that the majority are black, another is that the whites have more means to keep themselves from being killed, and even from the need to pull the trigger. (3) The white victims (however few) do not offset the black victims but are added to the toll. If killing an innocent white *saved* one or more blacks - that would make some argument for the terror - though I think unacceptable. But you did not argue that. (4) On the contrary, it is probable that terrorizing the whites will cause more blacks to be killed. What is even worse, it may make killing a way of life in SA, and any eventual stable regime to emerge from this (white, quite likely) may institutionalize it. (5) As means of extracting concessions, terror has apparently been counterproductive, but strikes and boycotts quite effective. Terror does *not* advance the cause - it only advances the more extreme *people* within the movement. There is *no* reason to justify the terror.
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (10/13/86)
Only the points I wish to argue are reprinted here. I agreed with most of what Jan had to say. In article <117200220@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[rjn@duke.UUCP ] [/* ---- "Re: South Africa terrorizes Souther" ---- */] >>How quick you all are to criticize the ANC, and how slow to cri- >>ticize the white government. What about the school children shot >>in the back by security forces? I question the ability of many >>people on the net to equate a very small number of white lives >>with the thousands of blacks of all ages and sexes who have been >>killed over the years. > >(3) The white victims (however few) do not offset the black victims >but are added to the toll. If killing an innocent white *saved* >one or more blacks - that would make some argument for the terror - >though I think unacceptable. But you did not argue that. > >(4) On the contrary, it is probable that terrorizing the whites will >cause more blacks to be killed. What is even worse, it may make >killing a way of life in SA, and any eventual stable regime to >emerge from this (white, quite likely) may institutionalize it. > >(5) As means of extracting concessions, terror has apparently >been counterproductive, but strikes and boycotts quite effective. > >Terror does *not* advance the cause - it only advances the more >extreme *people* within the movement. > >There is *no* reason to justify the terror. What I want to point out here is that I do not think the whites are being terrorized. My intention has never been to argue for the use of terror, it was to argue that the ANC has not used terror against the general population as their means of forcing change. I don't see any evidence that white South Africans are terrorized. On the other hand I think the South African government makes liberal use of terror against the blacks. To the best of my knowledge (note disclaimer here, my knowledge is based on the media, which some claim is biased) the ANC has not claimed responsibility for those acts which can clearly be labeled terrorism. In fact I clearly remember the ANC speaking out against one incident that appeared to be obvious terrorism. I do not think the ANC has made terrorism its strategy. I have seen no one give solid examples proving that the ANC is involved in what I would consider terrorism. A solid example would be an incident for which the ANC claims responsibility, where obvious innocents were obviously killed on purpose. Terrorist acts have taken place in SA, but I have seen no real proof that these acts were condoned, planned or executed by the mainline ANC. If someone wants to give such proof, please clearly cite the source. I will then check it out and if I am wrong I will admit it. My knowledge and recollection may be faulty, or I may have been hearing biased reports. On the other hand, some people may be starting out with a bias against black Africa in general. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/13/86)
Jan Wasilewski, devoted supporter of Contra terrorism writes: > > (4) On the contrary, it is probable that terrorizing the whites will > cause more blacks to be killed. What is even worse, it may make > killing a way of life in SA, and any eventual stable regime to > emerge from this (white, quite likely) may institutionalize it. > > (5) As means of extracting concessions, terror has apparently > been counterproductive, but strikes and boycotts quite effective. > > Terror does *not* advance the cause - it only advances the more > extreme *people* within the movement. > > There is *no* reason to justify the terror. I agree completely. So why do you *oppose* terrorism against apartheid in South Africa but *praise* terrorism by ex-Somocistas in Nicaragua? Unlike the blacks in South Africa, who have no political rights whatsoever, Arturo Cruz, now with the Contra terrorists, was asked several times by the Sandinistas to run in the elections in 1984 in which opposition parties won 35% of the seats. Why did he refuse and choose violent terrorism? Why are you so blinded by your ideology that you can see the bad results of pursuing terrorism in South Africa but you cannot see the results are just as bad by pursuing terrorism in Nicaragua? tim sevener whuxn!orb "Peace in the World, or the World in Pieces!!"