ab@unido.UUCP (Andreas Bormann) (04/16/86)
After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya
I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism.
In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of
children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses
similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who
are not responsible for their leaders' politics.
I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views.
Andreas Bormann
University of Dortmund [UniDo]
West Germany
Uucp: ab@unido.uucp
Path: {USA}!seismo!{mcvax}!unido!ab
{Europe}!{cernvax,diku,enea,ircam,mcvax,prlb2,tuvie,ukc}!unido!ab
Bitnet: ab@unido.bitnet (== ab@ddoinf6.bitnet)goddard@rochester.UUCP (04/18/86)
Britain is now paying the price for US support in the Falklands War: so far one bomb at Heathrow, three dead in the Lebanon, and one more kidnapped there. When the next request for support comes, will Margaret Thatcher act in the interests of the British people and the rest of the world and resist US pressure ? Judging by her record, the outlook is not good. There's a simple approach to eradicating terrorism in the middle east: bomb them into submission. There would not be many people left there when that was completed, but who cares, we only want the oil anyway. The only humane and practical way to deal with the problem is to address the root cause: Arab nationalism in general and the plight of the Palestinians in particular. If outside powers got out of the action, except perhaps to guarentee the DEFENCE of Israel (not including annexed and occupied territory), then maybe the voice of moderation in Israel, which has been stifled until now, could be heard and acted upon. Power politics being what it is, this will not happen, and so we can look forward to more rounds of retail terrorism (PLO, etc) and wholesale terrorism (US, UK, etc). Once again the only benificiaries will be the arms trafficers and their politician puppets. When will we ever learn ?
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (04/19/86)
In article <157@unido.UUCP> ab@unido.UUCP University of Dortmund . ... (Andreas Bormann) writes: >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >... the death of children and innocent people. >.. similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who >are not responsible for their leaders' politics. >I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. Define [Khaddafi=Kadafi=Qaddafi=Cadafih=Gadaffi]. .. the_manic-depressive_from_Libya The power Kadafi has, comes in no small part from his macho image as a European and Western people basher. His leadership is as much from "wolf pack" or mob psychology (sickology?) as it is from his innovativeness and support of causes meriting concern. One plane load of bombs were apparently released by a crashing U. S. bomber, and there was no intention to bash the people of Libya.. only the ones involved in the "sick activities" of DELIBERATE civilian terrorism. Mr. K would have no leadership without the acceptance of his extreme "junk yard dog" fanaticism by a good number of the people of Libya, and that includes an acceptance of the variety of penalties imposed by courageous governments whose peoples are victims of his stupidity. "Play around long enough and get layed around". We Americans are fully aware and have the greatest sympathy for the "innocents" of madness, but madness unchecked can lead to a holocaust. The Americans and the Europeans by this time are not stopping the semitic people of the M.E from solving the problems caused by their stupid policies of "official state religions" and going after us only diffuses the energy that must be focused to weld a solution among themselves. Mr. K is the worst kind of parasite that bleeds that concern and desire and diffuses the power it could bring to solving the real problem by spilling the blood of others whose governments he thinks should do the job for him. Things don't work that way, it takes blood guts and dedication of mind and body applied directly within that community to forge their Peace and Freedom, Sanctity and Prosperity for their following generations. After all we lost a good part of our young male population doing the same thing . . a couple of times. All semitics should face up to the task and cut loose the switchers and egomaniacs within thier midst. (Listening Tel Aviv, Tehran?). Thank you for your comment, Herr Dortmund.
boyter@westpt.UUCP (Cpt Brian Boyter) (04/19/86)
In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: > >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. In article <720@ark.UUCP> Peter Hommel of the Netherlands writes: > I think R. Reagan has done the right thing. Let's look at the facts: Numero uno: We tried ignoring Qaddafi... but he didn't go away. Numero two-o: Why is he bombing a disco in Germany?? A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... that only leaves one thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his brother under the rubble in Berlin??? ------------------------------------------------------ (( )) Cpt Brian Boyter (( )) US Military Academy (( )) West Point, NY 10996 ||| UUCP: philabs!westpt!boyter ||| MA: (914)938-3233 >|||< Muammar... Where are you??? _______________________________________________________
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (04/19/86)
In article <170@westpt.UUCP> boyter@westpt.UUCP (Cpt Brian Boyter) writes: >In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: >> >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >> >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > >In article <720@ark.UUCP> Peter Hommel of the Netherlands writes: >> I think R. Reagan has done the right thing. > >Let's look at the facts: >Numero uno: We tried ignoring Qaddafi... but he didn't go away. >Numero two-o: Why is he bombing a disco in Germany?? > >A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, >peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi >is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only >leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have >exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... that only leaves one >thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his >brother under the rubble in Berlin??? > I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 million who died in WWII might have lived. Es ueberrascht mich nicht, dasz ein Deutscher Sympathie fuer einen antisemitischen Verrueckten ausdrueckt, der die Welt ueberwaeltigen will (dem gruenen Buch nach) und der Terror um seiner politischen Objektiven willen benuetzt. Andreas Borman, Sie haben eine Stelle in der SA besessen. Wenn Frankreich und Groszbrittanien Hitler und Deutschland so in den 30s bestraft haette, wie Reagan Ihren Freund Gaddafi und Libien bestraft hat, haetten 40 Millionen, die im WWII gestorben sind, gelebt. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (04/20/86)
>A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, >peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi >is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only >leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have >exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... that only leaves one >thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his >brother under the rubble in Berlin??? >Cpt Brian Boyter (( )) >US Military Academy (( )) >West Point, NY 10996 ||| >UUCP: philabs!westpt!boyter ||| >MA: (914)938-3233 >|||< > Muammar... > Where are you??? I suffer no such illusions. Some people put nuclear mushroom clouds in their signatures. I do however see with my own eyes that this wonderful violence that people are so proud of having inflicted on Libya seems not to have done much to accomplish its stated goal. Am I too critical? What can I expect! We bomb them to stop terrorism and then it increases the terrorism...Mr Shein, you expect too much! It is such an easy answer, let's nuke 'em. But it doesn't work, can't you see that with your own two eyes? Didn't we learn this in VietNam? We dropped uncountable TONS of bombs, threw our military might against a populace and in the end lost (oh, I see, we didn't have our 'heart' in it? well, we sure dropped enough tonnage, I think that's just a poor apology for an outright failure, face it, we lost fair and square.) So what -should- we do? Well, maybe we should all paint ourselves blue and dance naked in the streets, looks like it will do about as much good as what we are doing now, it'd be more fun also. I have little doubt in my mind that Qaddaffi (Gaddafi, Khaddaffi, Khadafi) is a lunatic, but I think we give this lunatic far too much credit, I mean, think of it, we credit him with being behind 20 years or more of calculated, world-wide terrorism...boy are we in trouble! I remember we figured in VietNam if we could just kill Ho Chi Minh the war would just come to an end. Well, Ho dropped dead anyhow and it didn't help a bit, no one ever bothered to explain that one though. When are we going to see through the paradox of our own propaganda. We are a democracy, we believe in the will of the people. When a 'people' believe in something we don't like...well...then it must not be the people...must be some lunatic at the helm, the lone gunman theory of international politics. I think we gotta either deal with the issues or be ready to dabble in genocide. This current policy is clearly getting us nowhere. How about the hard road, there's a lot of real unhappy people out there, some of them are so desperate they'll do some really crazy things to prove their point, like throw bombs (you figure out which side I am speaking about). Some of them might even have some real gripes but, out of frustration, will follow a madman. -Barry Shein, Boston University
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (04/20/86)
>Britain is now paying the price for US support in the Falklands War: so >far one bomb at Heathrow, three dead in the Lebanon, and one more kidnapped >there. When the next request for support comes, will Margaret Thatcher >act in the interests of the British people and the rest of the world and >resist US pressure ? Judging by her record, the outlook is not good. Wait a minute, giving in to terrorism is acting "in the interests of the British people"? I would think that it would be in the interests of the British (and for that matter all) people to not encourage terrorism, and giving in is one sure way to encourage its continued use. Do you really think terrorists who are shown that terrorism is effective will stop using terrorism? >There's a simple approach to eradicating terrorism in the middle east: bomb >them into submission. There would not be many people left there when that >was completed, but who cares, we only want the oil anyway. Unfortunately this is an argument by caricature. The bombing was not aimed at Libyans in general, but at Kadaffi. >The only humane and practical way to deal with the problem is to address >the root cause: Arab nationalism in general and the plight of the >Palestinians in particular. The "root cause" is the refusal of most of the Arab states in question to recoginze that Israel has a right to exist. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
ins_ammm@jhunix.UUCP (Mazen Moein Mokhtar) (04/20/86)
In article <2570@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) writes: >>There's a simple approach to eradicating terrorism in the middle east: bomb >>them into submission. There would not be many people left there when that >>was completed, but who cares, we only want the oil anyway. >Unfortunately this is an argument by caricature. The bombing was not aimed >at Libyans in general, but at Kadaffi. Unfortunately, the president of the U. S. A. has said to the media on more than one accasion that the goal was not to kill Qadhafi. (Washington Post, most issues since last Monday). It does not require a genius to know that Qadhafi would not be in his home when it was bombed. The residence was in the middle of the city of Tripoly. Result : 15 month old adopted daughter of Qadhafi is killed 3 year old real son of Qadhafi in serious condition in hospital 4 year old real son of Qadhafi in serious condition in hospital Several civilian deaths Qadhafi intact, with more incentive to attack innocent Americans It is very unfortunate that the American government found it O. K. to kill foreign civilians in order to fight terrorism. It is a victory for terrorism. One does not punish a murderer by bombing his house and killing his children and claiming that the aim of bombing his house was not to kill him (and that it was known that only his children were in the house). One may fight fire with fire but may not fight murder with murder. Mazen MOKHTAR ---------------
jor_d015@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (04/21/86)
>>>There's a simple approach to eradicating terrorism in the middle east: bomb >>>them into submission. There would not be many people left there when that >>>was completed, but who cares, we only want the oil anyway. >>Unfortunately this is an argument by caricature. The bombing was not aimed >>at Libyans in general, but at Kadaffi. >Unfortunately, the president of the U. S. A. has said to the media on >more than one accasion that the goal was not to kill Qadhafi. What's he going to do, publicly announce to the world that he intended to kill Khadaffy? That would be an extremely stupid move. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (04/21/86)
> > In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: >> >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >> >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > > In article <720@ark.UUCP> Peter Hommel of the Netherlands writes: >> I think R. Reagan has done the right thing. > > Let's look at the facts: > Numero uno: We tried ignoring Qaddafi... but he didn't go away. > Numero two-o: Why is he bombing a disco in Germany?? > > A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, > peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi > is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only > leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have > exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... Bull. What economic sanctions has the U.S. taken against Libya? Have we made the import of Libyan goods illegal? Have we impounded Libyan funds in U.S. banks? The fact is that the U.S. goverment has made almost no attempt at peaceful ways of punishing Libya. Bombing raids make for bigger headlines. They also kill a lot of civilians. Don't try to say that civilian deaths are mistakes. They are the types of "mistakes" that inevitably happen during military actions (such as "surgical strikes"). > that only leaves one > thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his > brother under the rubble in Berlin??? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > (( )) > Cpt Brian Boyter (( )) > US Military Academy (( )) > West Point, NY 10996 ||| > UUCP: philabs!westpt!boyter ||| > MA: (914)938-3233 >|||< > Muammar... > Where are you??? > _______________________________________________________ Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (04/21/86)
> > I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic > lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who > used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas > Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain > had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 > million who died in WWII might have lived. > > Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami I will try to avoid terms like "addle-brained idiot" and "disgusting pig". I will merely point out that Andreas Borman expressed no sympathy whatever for Moammar Qadaffi in his original posting. He merely said that Reagan's actions make him as much a terrorist as Qadaffi. You may disagree with his opinion, but it in no way makes him a Nazi. Furthermore, the situation in Libya is *not comparable* to that in Nazi Germany. It's true that both cases have maniacal dictators who hate Jews, but that's where the resemblance ends. I think Mr. Ajami owes Mr. Borman an apology. I doubt that it will come. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (04/21/86)
I am pretty disgusted with the TV coverage of the aftermath of the raid
on Libya. They spend 99%+ of their time showing Libyan supplied footage
and inteviewing people who would obviously be opposed to the raid, such
as relative of current hostages. It seems that, other than the initial
press conference by the Secretaries of Defense and State, even the most
obvious arguments in favor of the administration, such as the argument
that we differ from the Libyans in that our raid tried to avoid civilian
casualties while the terrorism run the the Libyans tried to maximize
civiliam casulaties, get zero air time. I think that one could
reasonably be opposed to such slanted coverage regardless of whether you
thought the US raid was, on balance, a good idea or not. It is not even
that I would mind slanted coverage, it is the essentially total shut out
of any pro US administration views ...
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deewdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) (04/21/86)
In article <157@unido.UUCP> ab@unido.UUCP (Andreas Bormann) writes: >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. >In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of >children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses >similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who >are not responsible for their leaders' politics. > Terrorism? Maybe, but the real question is what would you recommend we do with Libya? Continuing to ignore him seems alittle silly and the Western Europeans rejected the call for economic sanctions. Should the US have stayed out of WWII because of the certainty that children and innocent people would be killed? I fear that because so many have waited so long to do something about terrorism many more innocent people will die before it is over.
bep@drutx.UUCP (PuryearB) (04/21/86)
I was not glad to see President Reagan bomb Libya, but I would have to say that
I support him. It would seem to me that if you read history, when the world has
ignored aggression it did not go away. If Europe had had the backbone to stand
up to Hilter in the early days I dont think world war two would have happen.
While I realise that this isn't the start of world war three (I hope) I dont
think that Gadaffi will just go away if we ignore him. Europe has shown in the
past that they will not do anything until some one actuality invades, and even
then they will runaround for months without doing anything. If Europe had joined
with America in doing some sort of economic sanctions things might not have
gotten so bad. When I think about this I do see some good out of it. I hope
that America sees what type of friends we have in Europe and might re-think out
why we try to play the world polceman. I would just love to see us pull evey
troop we have in Europe back. I think its time for us to worry about out
borders and the hell with Europe. It would be interesting to see how many protest
groups would be out burning our flag if we pulled out! I think that if we pulled
out of the rest of the world and just worred about what we have problems with,
we could get rid of our national debt and make America a much better place to
live. While I am on my soap box I would like to see the United Nations move from
America to the USSR or some other great country, then we could drop what we pay
in to that fund also. I guess I am tired of the rest of the world thinking that
we are suppose to be some type of moral leader. We are no better or worse than
any other country and have no reason to get involved in their problems. If the
leaders of this country would worry about out problems instead of trying to save
the world I think we would be in a lot better shape. The world at large might not
but that is not our problem. No other country with the one exception on England
is willing to help us and I dont see any reason why we should should be the savior
of the world.
For those who wish to flame me on this flame on because I doubt if its going to
change the way I think.
Bentz E. Puryear
My opinions are just my own for better or worse.
--
Bentz Puryear (303)538-1746 (drutx!bep)
11900 North Pecos Street Rm. 31G22
Denver, Colorado 80234timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) (04/21/86)
In article <157@unido.UUCP> ab@unido.UUCP writes: > > Andreas comments on the death of innocent bystanders in Libya... > and why he condemns the United States for our actions. > >I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. > > Andreas Bormann > University of Dortmund [UniDo] > West Germany > For the innocent people who were killed in the bombing no appology or other action will bring them back. Nor will the same bring back the ones killed by the terrorists bomb. It's true that non of the Tripoli people would have been hurt if we had not attacked. But we did, just as the Libyan have attacked us. I for one think Reagan had justification to make the raid on Libya. I do not think it an act of terrorism. It was reprisal for previous actions done by the Libyan state. I do not think a tit for tat is appropriate, but the EUROPEAN communtity would not support an economic sanction of Libya, so what else could the United States do to tell the world we have a problem? I think that now the world has at least acknowedged the fact Libya has been responsible for alot of the current terrorist activities, something just might get done to solve, or at least alleviate the problem. Another thing I find of interest is that France and Italy both allowed free movement of known terrorists in exchange for no activity on their souvreign ground. Finally, I also think that if the shoe were on the other foot (ala Hitler or Musselini (sp?)), the Europeans might have a different attitude, at least the history books I've read said the general public did appreciate the help the USA and England provided to the European continent. Who knows though, to read the current news from around the world, one would think that we should have let Hitler take all of Europe. At least we knew for sure his intentions, and knew who we could count on when things got warm for us. Thanks, and have a nice day. (ps. I have reletives in W. Germany, Nurnberg to be exact, and I do not want a large war to break out Europe any more than any European). -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 tektronix!tekigm2!timothym @@ 'Who said that?' PO Box 3500 d/s C1-937 Vancouver, WA. 98665
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (04/21/86)
> In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: > > >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > > >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > > Let's look at the facts: > Numero uno: We tried ignoring Qaddafi... but he didn't go away. > Numero two-o: Why is he bombing a disco in Germany?? > > A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, > peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi > is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only > leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have > exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... that only leaves one > thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his > brother under the rubble in Berlin??? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > (( )) > Cpt Brian Boyter (( )) > US Military Academy (( )) > West Point, NY 10996 ||| > UUCP: philabs!westpt!boyter ||| > MA: (914)938-3233 >|||< > Muammar... > Where are you??? > _______________________________________________________ Glad to see the Point on the net, with it's fine history (at times). Gives us all a chance to chat about the latest issue of the Journal of the US Army War College, or whatever. The mushroom cloud is an interesting extension of the ``Nuke Iran'' mentality evidenced during the Carter administration. Such ways of approaching foreign policy has a long history in the US military, General Custer's war of terrorism against terrorism is an obvious and early example. Maybe that's a bad example -- Custer's efforts eventually bore fruit. Are you aware of concrete evidence that Libya planned the disco bombing? The British Parliament might be interested, if you do. Since you seem so interested in supporting an undeclared war, perhaps you should go re-read your copy of _On Strategy_ by Col. Harry G. Summers. This insightful analysis of the Vietnam War from the US military's standpoint points to some dangers of this approach to foreign policy. It's used as a text at the US Army War College. At the Point, also? Cheers, jeff myers ``...I reply that since war is not an occupation by which a man [or woman] can at all times make an honorable living, it ought not to be followed as a business by anyone but a prince or a governor of a commonwealth; and if he is a wise man, he will not allow any of his subjects or citizens to make that his only profession -- indeed, no good man ever did, for surely no one can be called a good man who, in order to support himself, takes up a profession that obliges him at all times to be rapacious, fraudulent, and cruel, as of course must be all of those -- no matter what their rank -- who make a trade of war.'' Niccolo Machiavelli, *The Art of War*, 1521
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (04/22/86)
In article <224@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic >> lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who >> used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas >> Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain >> had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 >> million who died in WWII might have lived. >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami >I will try to avoid terms like "addle-brained idiot" and "disgusting pig". >I will merely point out that Andreas Borman expressed no sympathy whatever >for Moammar Qadaffi in his original posting. He merely said that Reagan's >actions make him as much a terrorist as Qadaffi. You may disagree with his >opinion, but it in no way makes him a Nazi. Furthermore, the situation in >Libya is *not comparable* to that in Nazi Germany. It's true that both cases >have maniacal dictators who hate Jews, but that's where the resemblance ends. >I think Mr. Ajami owes Mr. Borman an apology. I doubt that it will come. I admit to a poor choice of words. I should have said I am not surprised that a German is unable to make an ethical distinction between terrorism and response to terrorism. By calling Reagan's act state terrorism, he makes it impossible for any nation to respond to aggressive terrorist action through the use of force because innocent people might die. Well, then perhaps we should just invite Gadhafi to come over and take over. Anyway the image of Reagan terrorizing and murdering children and innocent people cannot help but evoke revulsion towards Reagan and make Gadhafi seem more sympathetic in contradistinction. By the way Ajami is my mother's family name, use either Martillo or Martillo Ajami in replies. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (04/22/86)
In article <4742@ut-sally.UUCP>, nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > In article <629@utastro.UUCP>, ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes: > > I would think that a proportionate > > and reasonable mode of retaliation would have been a campaign of > > assasinations aimed at the groups promoting terrorism, including > > Quadaffi. > > That's exactly what the raid aimed at -- they didn't drop a bomb within > 150 yards of his tent, and manage to kill one of his children and wound > two others, by accident. They were after the man himself. > > If you really like assasination as a policy, we already have it. Personally > I don't like it, in any form. > Well Ed, I have no doubt that we can argue about this in person, but as long as this is on the net I have a few more thoughts to broadcast. 1) I don't see anything immoral about trying to kill people who are guilty of murder, can be expected to murder again, and whose extradition or capture is absurdly unlikely. Whether or not this constitutes sound policy is a pragmatic question. In this case, Qadaffi is probably not a good target since his assasination would have uncertain, and possibly disastrous results. Those of his underlingswho are directly involved in this business are likely targets. 2) It is immoral to bomb civilian areas for the purpose of killing these people for the same reason that it is immoral to fire randomly into a crowd containing a fleeing murderer. 3) Obviously, bombing Qadaffi's family compound is immoral for the above reason, regardless of whether or not it actually kills innocent people. (as it clearly did.) 4) Bombing military bases in Libya in retaliation for terrorism is morally ambiguous, since the military may or may not be particularly involved in the terrorism. It is clear that the action is disproportionate. 5) After believing that the US had exhausted all efforts to get reasonable cooperation from our European allies, I was astounded to read that the US economic boycott specifically *excluded* the major oil companies. Taxes on these companies provide Libya with about a quarter of its budget. The US has *no* significant trade with Libya when one excludes these companies. This has led me to view the European refusal to cooperate with sanctions with more sympathy. How can we expect them to demolish their trade with Libya when we don't? -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
dpb@cbosgd.UUCP (Dain II Ironfoot) (04/22/86)
In article <223@rtech.UUCP>, jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: > > > > > > In article <720@ark.UUCP> Peter Hommel of the Netherlands writes: > > > > A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, > > peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi > > is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only > > leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have > > exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... > > Bull. What economic sanctions has the U.S. taken against Libya? In 1981 we took economic sanctions against Libya, because two Su-22's attacked two of our F-14's in, (surprise) the Gulf of Sidra(Sirte?). Their planes were destroyed. Economic Sanctions have been in effect ever since. They were stepped up after the Rome and Vienna airports massacre. > > > that only leaves one > > thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his > > brother under the rubble in Berlin??? > > > > Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on > Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when > his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. > -- Do you really think that the Russians are willing to kill themselves over Libya????? Maybe East Germany, or Hungary but not Libya.
mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) (04/22/86)
Summary: In <157@unido.UUCP> ab@unido.UUCP (Andreas Bormann) writes: >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. >In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of >children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses >similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who >are not responsible for their leaders' politics. > There is evidence to suggest that much of the damage to civilian areas is due to the Libyans aiming their anti-aircraft fire straight up. This caused shells that did not hit US planes to fall back and damage civilian areas. Those Libyans seem to have really terrible aim. Of course, I am not suggesting that the US did not cause damage to civilian areas in a more direct means, but the probability exists that much of this type of damage was caused by the Libyans. -- < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark D. Freeman mdf@osu-eddie.uucp StrongPoint Systems, Inc. mdf@osu-eddie.arpa Guest account at The Ohio State University ...!cbosgd!osu-eddie!mdf mdf@Ohio-State.EDU "Are you in charge here?" "No, but I'm full of ideas!" -- Dr. Who < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (04/22/86)
> In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: > > >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > > >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > > I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic > lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who > used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas > Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain > had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 > million who died in WWII might have lived. > > Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami A question: does anyone know a worse slime than Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami? Martillo, I am against cencorship, but I promise you $20 if you shut up. (The price is open to negotiation.) Piotr Berman
cramer@kontron.UUCP (04/22/86)
> > > > In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: > >> >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > >> >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > > > > In article <720@ark.UUCP> Peter Hommel of the Netherlands writes: > >> I think R. Reagan has done the right thing. > > > > Let's look at the facts: > > Numero uno: We tried ignoring Qaddafi... but he didn't go away. > > Numero two-o: Why is he bombing a disco in Germany?? > > > > A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, > > peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi > > is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only > > leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have > > exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... > > Bull. What economic sanctions has the U.S. taken against Libya? Have we > made the import of Libyan goods illegal? Have we impounded Libyan funds in > U.S. banks? The fact is that the U.S. goverment has made almost no attempt > at peaceful ways of punishing Libya. Bombing raids make for bigger headlines. I don't think you read the newspapers much, Mr. Lichtman. About two years ago the U.S. did set economic sanctions against Libya. Unfortunately, they don't do much good as long as Europe is unwilling to go along. > They also kill a lot of civilians. Don't try to say that civilian deaths > are mistakes. They are the types of "mistakes" that inevitably happen during > military actions (such as "surgical strikes"). > Building military targets in proximity to civilian housing is the fault of the Libyans -- if a criminal took a hostage and tried to kill you behind that cover, would you feel responsible if in defending yourself you killed the hostage? Of course not -- the criminal put the hostage at risk, and the criminal is responsible for the death. > > that only leaves one > > thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his > > brother under the rubble in Berlin??? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > (( )) > > Cpt Brian Boyter (( )) > > US Military Academy (( )) > > West Point, NY 10996 ||| > > UUCP: philabs!westpt!boyter ||| > > MA: (914)938-3233 >|||< > > Muammar... > > Where are you??? > > _______________________________________________________ > > Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on > Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when > his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) The "mushroom cloud" is a standard part of Boyter's signature -- perhaps he neglected to add a :-) Let's all remember that collective unwillingness to take actions against Mussolini and Hitler in the 1930s made World War II happen. Military against in 1936 when Hitler remilitarized the Ruhr would probably have brought Hitler's government down. Hand-wringing and polite requests are taken as signs of weakness by the truly evil.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (04/22/86)
> > > > I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic > > lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who > > used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas > > Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain > > had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 > > million who died in WWII might have lived. > > > > Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > > I will try to avoid terms like "addle-brained idiot" and "disgusting pig". > I will merely point out that Andreas Borman expressed no sympathy whatever > for Moammar Qadaffi in his original posting. He merely said that Reagan's > actions make him as much a terrorist as Qadaffi. You may disagree with his > opinion, but it in no way makes him a Nazi. Furthermore, the situation in > Libya is *not comparable* to that in Nazi Germany. It's true that both cases > have maniacal dictators who hate Jews, but that's where the resemblance ends. > > I think Mr. Ajami owes Mr. Borman an apology. I doubt that it will come. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) That's not where the resemblance ends. 1. Just like the 1930s, a lot of people professed pacifism as a solution to the problem of a maniac -- and because of the collective unwillingness to take action, the maniac is emboldened. 2. Just like the 1930s, many people in this country are making excuses for the maniac's actions. (See the recent net.politics posting in which someone claimed that Kaddaffi is only a problem to his own people -- demonstrably false, and not dissimilar to the sentiments of those Americans who felt that Hitler's wasn't our problem.) 3. Just like Germany's situation, there are some aggrieved parties who are getting the shaft (Germany in the 1930s because of the Treaty of Versailles, Palestinians today because of Israel), and a maniac taking advantage of that legitimate concern for his crazy purposes.
thain@magic.UUCP (04/22/86)
In article <3542@sun.uucp>, rmarti@sun.uucp (Bob Marti) writes: > In article 1829@ihlpg.UUCP, Bill Tanenbaum writes: > > ... But I am INFURIATED by those such as Mr. Bormann who call such > > a response terrorism ... > > ... If only the raid jolts the Europeans out of their lethargy and > > inaction, they will have a positive effect. > > It doesn't matter what you call it, the fact remains that American planes > bombed innocent civilians. How long does it take you to understand that > this is NOT the way to deal with terrorism? How long does it take you > to understand that this kind of utterly inconsiderate operation is > counterproductive, not only as far as terrorism is concerned, but, > more importantly, as far as the picture of the United States in the > world is concerned? Yes, you are abslutely right that the raid jolts > the Europeans out of their lethargy: Never since the Vietnam war have > anti-US demonstrations in Europe been so big as they are right now! I'm afraid that I disagree with your point, Mr. Marti, for some very good and sound reasons. Terrorism is not a controlable force, terrorists fully expect to die for whatever fanatical cause they espouse. They are fully aware of the consenquences of their actions, and the possible reprisals which might follow. They are determined to use violence and intimidation and death as a way to achieve their final goal(s). Terrorism is not a problem for the US, or Europe, or Russia, but a world wide problem which must be countered and countered swiftly every time it rears it's ugly head. Since life is meaningless to terrorists, ( I believe my point is well documented with the recent acts perpertrated against the world's citizens), the lives of their victems are also meaningless. As cruel and as heartless as that sounds, it is a reality. Terrorists kill hostages. Terrorists expect to die. Hence, terrorist victems which are returned safley are not the norm, but the exception. Terrorism unfortunatly has become a facet of life in the world. To capitulate to terrorism by negotation only weakens the position of the government in question. Unreasonable force, execessive acts of violence are meat and potatoes to the terrorists diet. They are prepared to give an "eye for and eye", and have done so. We must be prepared to do the same. Or suffer more dead and maimed as a result. We are at war with terrorism, have been since the 1970's. It is a war we well would wish to avoid, but it is a war. To treat it as anything less is to deny the place of the fallen so far. If we relax our persecution of terrorism, they indeed have died in vain. > But then again, Americans -- well, at least the 70% who voted for Reagan > and the 77% who support Reagan's actions against Libya -- don't really > care so much about what the rest of the world thinks of them: I care what the world thinks, and I imagine most Americans do. I am sickened that the war against terrorism had to esclate, but I realize the necessity for such actions. I feel for the Lybian people. But I remember the worry that I had when my wife to be was in Europe on tour, and the Athens Airport had become a war zone. I was glad she had the sense to post a few notes, to let me know how she was doing. ( We wern't engaged at that time, although we'd known each other for years). No one should have to fear to travel abroad. Terrorism denies freedom, freedom of movment, freedom from fear, freedom in some cases of *life*. The European Nations already played this scenerio out, about 50 years ago when Hitler terrorized the European Nations into a standstill. Neither France nor England lifted a finger, rather they followed the will of the people to find a peaceful alternative. But sometimes such an alternative is good only in the short run. The then Prime Minister Lord Chamberlin, of England, was positive that in a few years Hitler would fade and pale, and no further problems would be forthcomming. We all have history as a grim reminder of such indecision. I for one would hate to see the Europeans make the same mistake again. > Dissenters are just a bunch of terrorists, communists, wimps, and/or > a**holes anyway! If necessary, America can always sponsor some > "freedom fighters" (what a euphemism!) to topple unfavorable regimes, > or -- if the former is not a viable option -- just drop a couple of > bombs on them to bring them back in line with The American Way of > seeing things. I would suggest you follow up with some reading on terrorism, and Mr. Khadafy (sp) in particular. It isn't a case of realigning his thinking to the "American Way", but to a humanitarian way of thinking. Mr. Khadafy has openly called for "Jihad", which is a Holy War, pitting Moslems against everyone else. He has said many times that he wishes the *extermination* of the Jewish state of Israel. This is not a man one can reason with, this is a madman. If the technology to do so was in his hands, I seriously believe he would use nuclear weapons. To most Americans and Europeans, Khadafy is a buffoon, who will just go away if left alone. But we have a lesson only 50 years old to remind us that such thinking could be naive. > > You think these statements are ridiculous? Well, lets see: Remember the > Bay of Pigs invasion 25 years ago? Vietnam? The toppling of Allende in > Chile 1973, maybe? Or what about Nicaragua? Maybe Reagan's remark about > ruling out the Soviets by nuking them away will do? Or do you remember > former Secretary of State Alexander Haig's comments about the possibility > of a nuclear war confined to Europe? (He was in office at that time.) I don't take any comments you've made as ridiculous, but muddying the issues with past ambiguities dosen't help. We are trying to work inside the framework that we've set up, i.e. negoitation. But this particular alternative hasn't worked. As I stated before, terrorists fully expect to *die*, an alternative abhorrent to most civilized peoples. We don't understand this, hence when it becomes a reality we ignore it, or attempt solutions via peaceful means. I support this line of thinking with all my heart. But bullies are bullies, and sometimes stern measures must be taken to insure the saftey of all concerned. We can't arrest Khadafy for his crimes, he is above traditional and accepted means of formal punishment. Hence, we are left with the only alternative possible, physical violence. > It'll be interesting to see how you will explain all of the above points > away, as I have no doubt you will. The problem is that words will not > be able to convince me, only past and future actions of the Reagan > administration will convince me one way or another. > --Bob Marti It's a shame you feel this way, because words are the only way you'll be able to voice your displeasure to the administration before 1988. I would urge strongly that you write your congressman and let him know how you feel. I have, and I have also given my reluctant support to the current administration with regards to this topic, ( terrorism and ways to combat it.). I can see no peaceful alternative to terrorism, because we are not dealing with people who wish to compromise, we are dealing with people who consider lives expendable, whether those lives are innocent or not doesn't matter. In their eyes, there are no innocents. Pax, Glenn thain@src.DEC.COM (The opinions expressed are my own, colored by my experiences and education, and in no way should be mistaken for anyone else's, unless they wish them to be.)
zappe@cad.UUCP (Hans P. Zappe) (04/23/86)
In article <289@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) writes: > >In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: > >> >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > >> >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > > I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic > lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who > used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas > Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain > had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 > million who died in WWII might have lived. > Plus an attempt at repeating the same in mangled German ... > Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami *I* am not surprised that Mr. Martillo has begun to malign another ethnic/cultural/religious/take-your-pick group. First we preach the destruction of Islam, now all Germans are Nazis. It must be easy to see the world in such distinct black and white: all Muslims are murderous lunatics who eat their young, all Germans are anti-semitic aryan supremacists, all Russians are godless androids, WHO'S NEXT ? The only stereotype we can safely ignore, it appears, is that all people at MIT have their head screwed on right. The SA, for your information, was hardly a place for people who even considered criticising the government or the military, it was a unit perfectly suited for narrow-minded individuals who could be brought to a deep, irrational hatred of an ethnic group. The less questions, the better. The less thinking, the better. The blacker and whiter, the better. THAT, not the questioning of motives and actions, is what facilitates facism and barbarism.
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (04/23/86)
In article <224@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic >>... >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > >I will try to avoid terms like "addle-brained idiot" and "disgusting pig". >I will merely point out that Andreas Borman expressed no sympathy whatever >for Moammar Qadaffi in his original posting. He merely said that Reagan's >... > >I think Mr. Ajami owes Mr. Borman an apology. I doubt that it will come. You are correct, Jeff. Yakim "CarloS" Martillo has expressed his violent hatred before on this net, and so it is not surprising that he smears as rapidly and as fanatically as possible anyone who disagrees with him. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (04/23/86)
In article <2109@yale.ARPA> ksmith@yale-cheops.UUCP (Keith A. Smith) writes: > >I suspect that Reagan was mislead as to the liklihood of civilian casulties >by generals and the like who have always over-rated the accuracy of aerial >bombing. > The undisiplined and massive firing of SAMs and other antiaircraft weapons by the Libyans on numerous occasions when no attack was taking place resulted in more civilian casualties than were caused by the Ammerican bombs directed at terrorist and air defense instal- lations. Of course, I'll bet the they passed a few casulties off as having happened during the primary attack. The bombs dropped during the WWII against military targets were more than an order of magnitude more destructive of civilians than in this attack even including 16 tons of explosive (eight block buster size bombs) that were dumped or shaken loose by military hits on the crashing F111. Death of civilians is always counter productive, as we all know, and American policy and technology would be happiest if ONLY military targets and NOT A SINGLE CIVIlIAN would be affected by defensive counter-attacks. A 1% Hitler is capable of murdering sixty thousand people. Americans have great patience but when they are pushed too far they will leap frog to do what's necessary to bring the problem to a head and extract a solution. When one compares this attack with the "eye for and eye" attacks of the Israeli's against their semitic "brothers", it looks like an Easter Sunday Communion Picnic. Family fights always seem to be the worst kind. The European Israeli's who have survived the holocaust have done so at a price. Their genetic makeup is geared for survival under stress. They may not ever compromise because of the competitive edge they have in extreme stress. That adds more danger. In the words of Lindin LeRouch, "Cadet Khadafi is obviously an agent of the Israeli influence :-), in the sense that he is bringing the United States in, as a target of hostility in order to diffuse energy needed to weld a solution to the underlying problem of semitic peoples. That is of course the exploitation of a fevent religoius beliefs by cyn- ical political types to create monolithic State Religions with internal religious caste systems. If they don't knock that crap off soon, another generation of very creative people are going to be lost to meaningless misery or weapons making, and a fitful coexistence. > >Of the postings I've seen on this net about the Soviet response to the >kidnappng of four of their diplomats in Beirut are true (or even if they >are not true), this seems to me to be a better way to fight terrorism. The US - CIA and DIA have the closest correspondence to the Russian (kgb), but, Congress has limited the CIA's ability to respond in such a manner. That wasn't always the case and the United States wasn't always the push over it is recently. The Libyan response is one step in the right direction. What the hell maybe perhaps the CIA wouldn't take advantage of having a more free hand to "recover" Western political kidnap victims. Hey you Brits! ... Where is James Bond anyway? Why? Americans? We love underdogs and terrorist Revolutionaries, even though sometimes it's a bit misguided, it gives more balance to the con- flict. The theory is that the side most deserving will fight the hardest and win. They support the IRA the Israeli's , some of them even support young Cadet Khadafi. They could be much more sympathetic with the Palestinians if they wouldn't be so gutless and would no longer pull the chicken shit, bushwhacking or kidnapping westerners on travel or service assignments.
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (04/23/86)
This isn't really a flame, inspite of bep's invitation at the end, but I would like to both comment on the bombing, and reply to his comments. In article <141@drutx.UUCP> bep@drutx.UUCP (PuryearB) writes: >I was not glad to see President Reagan bomb Libya, but I would have to say that >I support him. I suppose I support him too, but I don't think it was a good idea for two reasons: 1) It assumes that Qaddaffi is the *only* reason for the anti-American (and anti- other countries too) terrorism. I think that this is a gross over-simplification (which politicians of every stripe are prone to - particularly w.r.t. public relations to their people). Certainly, the Americans (and other countries) may have very valid evidence that Libya/Qaddaffi are in support of, provides support to, and cheer-leads terrorist actions. But, nowhere can I see any justification in the suggestion that if Libya/Qaddaffi stopped supporting terrorism that there would be much difference. The causes that these terrorists are fighting for have nothing to do with Libya (they are related to Israel as a state, and foreign intervention in Lebanon to name a few). The bombings of Libya had no impact whatsover on these root causes. Thus, without Qaddaffi, the terrorism would still continue. Maybe a little less intensity, maybe with harder-to-obtain weapons, maybe with another cheer-leader, but it would *still* continue. Heck, most of the terrorist actions aren't done by Libyans! The solution to terrorism lies in a different direction. Which direction? I wish I knew that answer - one thing I can be certain of is that it includes negotiation and flexibility. The other thing I'm certain of is that the Palestinian issue (or any other Middle-east cause) will NEVER BE SOLVED purely by military action (not even if you genocide *every* Palestinian). There has to be some compromise and flexibility - I see very little on either side (with the notable exception of the Camp David Accord - Jimmy Carter for President again!) 2) Why, in the face of repeated examples to the contrary, do people continue to believe that retaliation (even if Qaddaffi was the *sole* perpetrator/instigator) would help any? While the Americans were in Lebanon, they incurred continuous *minor* attacks until they decided to retaliate by having the USS New Jersey fire its 18 inchers into the supposed "terrorist" strong-holds. What was the result? 300+ US dead in the bombing of the barracks to name just one response. An eye-for-an-eye (and especially the 10:1 doctrine which some Middle-East countries are so fond of) doesn't make things better, it makes things *WORSE*! All it results in is continuous escalation on both sides. What next? Air India all over again, except that this time it's Pan Am? Then what? US troops invade Libya? This is one scenario I hope we stay out of! I'm not going to do any flying on US airlines til further notice! [Which'll play merry hell with corporate travel arrangements] >It would seem to me that if you read history, when the world has >ignored aggression it did not go away. If Europe had had the backbone to stand >up to Hilter in the early days I dont think world war two would have happen. Certainly, ignoring aggression had something to do with WWII. But, surely you don't think a Rambo Reagan style bombing raid on Berlin in the late 30's would have avoided WWII do you? On the contrary, it would have simply started the war earlier. In retrospect, the only thing that Europe could have done that had any chance of avoiding WWII (if you ignore assassination attempts in the very early 30's, before people realized how dangerous Hitler would be), would have been to send troops into Czeckloslovakia (I always have trouble spelling that - sorry) on the invitation of that country *before* Hitler invaded it. And, at that point Europe wasn't ready for a military confrontation. They still weren't ready when they finally drew the line and followed through on Poland ("If you invade Poland, a state of war will exist between ..."), but they managed to hold on and develop their strength until they could effectively combat Germany (with assistance of course from the US later on). Surely you aren't suggesting that only the US stood up to Hitler are you? > Europe has shown in the >past that they will not do anything until some one actuality invades, and even >then they will runaround for months without doing anything. I'd hardly call what happened "running around". On the day war was declared England instituted attacks on Germany and Italy to the best of its ability at the time (Hamburg or Berlin I think (ineffective PR-type raid) and Taranto (moderately successful Italian Navy strike)). France and England were virtually incapable of mounting anything bigger than annoyance strikes at the time. There is no way that they could have done anything significant to prevent the invasion of France. The only thing that they could have done was fire most of their generals - then maybe the invasion wouldn't have succeeded. But they did start gearing up as fast as they could. It took longer for the US to respond militarily to Pearl Harbor (could be wrong - how soon was the Doolittle raid?), or Hitler's declaration of war on the US. >If Europe had joined >with America in doing some sort of economic sanctions things might not have >gotten so bad. When I think about this I do see some good out of it. I hope Maybe. I doubt it however. Sanctions haven't had much effect on the USSR w.r.t. Afghanistan... >I hope that America sees what type of friends we have in Europe and might >re-think out why we try to play the world polceman. I would just love to >see us pull evey troop we have in Europe back. I really wish Americans would realize that they really *do* have good friends in the rest of the world. The backbone of basic support for the US in Canada, Europe and the rest of the world (eg: Japan) is really staggering. Why do you think that they ask your support when needed? Why do you think many European countries are installing US nuclear weapons in spite of grave doubts as to whether it's a good idea or not? Why do you think that NATO, NORAD, and SEATO still exist? Why do you think that the Canadian Ambassador risked everything to hide Americans during the Iranian crisis? I remember quite well the reaction of the US to that - an outpouring of thanks, and *surprise* that anybody would risk anything for Americans. [How soon people forget...] There shouldn't be any surprise - most of the rest of the world *is* more or less on your side. Unfortunately, US media usually only publishes the down-side, and in its parochialism, prevents US citizens from seeing what foreign attitudes towards the US are really like. All you see is the raised fists in Libya, not how Americans are received (in general) throughout the world. [Have you ever done much foreign travelling?] Further, this parochialism leads towards the US applying simplistic (and oriented towards popularity with the US citizenry) solutions in the rest of the world. In Nicarauga, and Libya, at least, the US is *not* acting like a policeman (which would be "I'm in trouble - please help"), but more like a vigilante ("I know what's best for you") - the shift in American attitudes exemplified by the "Rambo" movies is scaring the hell out of me (and probably almost every non-American - I could just see it, a air-raid on Ottawa because our lumber exports might be hurting your lumber industry - that rates only half a smiley face!). Please, please, don't take your marbles and go home - stay around and work in concert with the rest of the world. Isolationism doesn't work. Vigilantism doesn't work either. Halfways reasonable and flexible diplomacy does! Unfortunately, the US has shown very little of that since Reagan took office. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
blm@chinet.UUCP (Brad L. McKinley) (04/24/86)
Mr. Borman, did I miss your posting when the terrorist(s) blew up a Berlin Disco? I must have also missed your posting concerning the TWA flight that had a nasty run in with plastique explosives. And what about the Rome and Vienna airport massacres? Naturally I *ASSUME* that you were just as outspoken on the net about those incidences too. A few more miscellaneous points. You imply that your country, as well as other European countries, were doing the best you could to combat terrorism. Tell me then, why have the European countries *just now* begun to expell Libyans from those countries? For the record, Mr Borman, how much trading does your country do with Libya a year? My, isn't interesting how we can overlook certain *flaws* with governments when we have a healthy amount of trade existing between said countries. The U.S. also has the same problem (remember Iran everyone?) but that isn't right either. On the subject of casualties (civilian and otherwise), as I understand it, American aircraft were jamming all the Libyan SAMs. The Libyans, in there infinite wisdom, decided to fire the missiles straight up to intercept incoming F-111's. Fact: what goes up must come down. Where does it come down? Well probably in the area of where they were launched from. Could they possibly hit civilian areas? Yes, and it seems quite probable that some did. >> > that only leaves one >> > thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his >> > brother under the rubble in Berlin??? Mr. Borman, I sincerely hope that your brother, nor anyone elses brother, is found beneath rubble anywhere. The *wrongful* death of anyone on the planet diminishes us all piece by piece. But we did not start this war. Indeed, we have been *very* patient with the Libyans (as weel as others) in are dealings. I am no fan of President Reagan but those people who insist upon him being trigger happy have had to wait 6 years for him to pull the trigger. I think *this time* he was justified in doing so and I support him. ----- The views expressed here a solely mine and not my employer. Brad L. McKinley -- ihnp4!chinet!blm OR ihnp4!chinet!mdr!blm -- (503) 889-4321 USMail: M D R Professional Software, Inc., 915 SW 3rd Avenue, Ontario, OR 97914 "First you say it, then you do it" -- Bill Cosby --- ----- Brad L. McKinley -- ihnp4!chinet!blm OR ihnp4!chinet!mdr!blm -- (503) 889-4321 USMail: M D R Professional Software, Inc., 915 SW 3rd Avenue, Ontario, OR 97914 "First you say it, then you do it" -- Bill Cosby
hommel@ark.UUCP (04/24/86)
I wonder why these terrorist always aim at american citizens in Europe. I can't remember any terrorist action in the U.S. themselves. It seems as if they're freeing the way for their Revolution. They've already succeeded in frightning the american toerists. Sooner or later the american soldiers will follow and finally the road is clear for the Red Army. We've reached the same point as before WWII, and who came to save a weak (and they still are) Europe? I bet they'll do it again in spite of anti-american feelings in Europe. Some people'll never learn. They fall for pictures of wounded people in Libya, without asking themselves what's really going on, what the ultimate goal of people like Gadaffi is, You all agree we must prevent him for achieving his goals, don't you? Right on Ronnie (if you can hear me) -- Peter Hommel Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands (=Holland) hommel@vu44.UUCP (...!mcvax!vu44!hommel)
zappe@cad.UUCP (Hans P. Zappe) (04/25/86)
In article <202@psc70.UUCP>, tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) writes: > ... The US used military force to > attack military forces. Just as in the case of Mr. Arafat and the way > his headquarters were always to be found in nice residential areas, it > was the Libyan government's responsibility if they placed military > activities in residential areas. ... Let's rewrite that as: The [terrorists] used military force to attack military forces. Just as in the case of [whoever] and the way his headquarters were always to be found in nice residential areas, it was the [US Army's] responsibility if they placed military [personnel] in [discoteques]. You see, that doesn't justify bombing "La Belle" in Berlin, just because it happens to be a known hangout for US soldiers, just as the above argument fails to justify attacking civilian targets, even if unintentionally. Dead civilians are dead civilians, whether or not they just happen to live next to a military target. No amount of talk or justification will bring them back to life. And of course this applies to all sides, be it Libyan children killed by errant bombs or American children sucked out of aircraft. The point is that fighting terrorism with terrorism begets terrorism. -- +========================+ ::::::::::::::::::::: Hans P. Zappe :::::::::::::::::::::::: Solid State Group -|- EECS @ UC Berkeley -|- Berkeley, California ::::::::::::::::::::: zappe@cad.berkeley.edu :::::::::::::::::::::::: +========================+
galenr@shark.UUCP (Galen Redfield) (04/26/86)
In article <419@aero.ARPA> foy@aerospace.UUCP (Richard Foy) writes: >Twenty percent of the people that called The White House after the attack >were opposed. Two Senators publicly criticised the attack. I agree with >Bormans view. I'm underwhelmed. >Nature or God gave us a great big brain. We seem to use it very well in >building very complex weapons. We have very little time in learning to >use it in finding human ways of living with human beings who differ with >us. While we think, the bomb in the airplane goes off. >Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA >The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of >hard knocks. Thus they are my own. So, Richard, why don't you knock on that great big brain of yours and tell the rest of us how we can find a way to live with Khadafi, since all that is wrong is that he differs with us. Please. Warm regards, Galen.
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (04/26/86)
In article <901@harvard.UUCP>, greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes: > As for the statement "one cannot cure international terrorism with this > policy of bombing foreign cities", there was a persuasive article in Time > a few weeks ago by the Israeli ambassador to the UN explaining why and how > we should retaliate against international terrorism. > -- > gregregreg It would be amusing, if it were not so tragic, that the state that inflicted more terror than any in the Middle East - namely Israel - should now educate us in the art of suppressing terrorism. The state that has killed 20,000 in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon, killed at least as many in air attacks on South Lebanon in the preceding decade -displacing nearly half a million South Lebanese from their homes and continues to inflict misery with its regular forays into South Lebanon and inhumane treatment of Palestinians under occupation, has no right to preach to the world. Of course what we are facing here is a classic case of European/Western racism. The lives of Palestinian, Lebanese and other "non-civilized" groups do not merit the same concern as the lives of Americans, English, etc. Israel's cleverly constructed message tells the West, "We are a civilized people, like you. You've got to side with us against those savages." I have referred before to the fact that Israel has a long history of terrorism. An example of such terrorism is referred to in Noam Chomsky's book, "The Fateful Triangle," (South End Press, Boston, 1983), In the light of American beliefs about the history of terrorism, it should perhaps be observed that along with acts of piracy such as these, Israel has also resorted to hijacking of airplanes, and may indeed have initiated this practice. In December 1954, a Syrian civillian airliner was captured by Israeli military aircraft to obtain hostages for exchange with Israeli soldiers who had been captured by Syria.
dml@bu-cs.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) (04/27/86)
In article <2094@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP writes: >> >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > >A question: does anyone know a worse slime than Joachim Carlo Santos >Martillo Ajami? Martillo, I am against cencorship, but I promise you >$20 if you shut up. (The price is open to negotiation.) > >Piotr Berman Personal attack should be kept out of the net. If you want to contribute something, please do, else keep it in E-mail. David Matthew Lyle Boston University dml@bu-cs.CSNET dml@buenga.BITNET
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (04/27/86)
In article <206@psc70.UUCP> tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) writes: > > The thesis that collateral damage in Tripoli may have been caused >by Libyan missiles falling back after failing to reach their targets >has been exposed as totally implausible... to persons acquainted with >munitions it was absurd from the start. The damage to those >buildings in Tripoli was clearly caused by bombs, and fairly heavy >ones at that, which are designed to burst their way into a structure >in good part by their weight before the fuse detonates the payload of >explosives. The missiles fired at aircraft are relatively light and >have fuses and explosive charges designed to attack the extremely >vulnerable thin skins of aircraft. Thus even if they did fall back to >earth (which in terms of trajectories would still make them unlikely >to land in Tripoli) they would not cause the kind of building damage >which was shown. > WRONG! You're perhaps talking about WW II antiaircraft weapons, but in order to knock down heavily armored F-111's, SAM missiles have hundred pound plus explosives which are not fused. They heat seek and explode on impact or electronically in a close pass. Con- sidering relative speeds involved, a close pass would not be lethal if the explosives were less than this amount. The bombs dropped by F111's were 2000 pound bombs which were "block busters" in the WWII, but are more "brissant" to have greater underground bunker knock out capacity. These bombs level buildings over a square block. Most of the damage shown could have been easily caused by SAM's. Why was the Western Press asked to leave Libya?? It's NOT because of the expulsion of Libyan students from Western countries. The last thing a country who has an honest story to tell would do is expel the press. They apparently could NOT convince the press that spent SAM's engines were the remains of US aircraft. One of these was shown near its very large impact and detonation crater. They also got tired of the press's insistence on seeing the military and most terrorist target areas, which of course was never allowed. Be a little more careful and maybe try watching more detective shows. Your interpretation of the evidence is kind of sloppy. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (04/28/86)
From the Wall Street Journal, Wednesday April 9, 1986, p. 33 by Enno von Loewenstern editorial page editor of die Zeit. Bonn -- "America's claim to world domination can also be recognized in the political principles of the Potsdam agreement. The United States could agree only to a socio-political system that guaranteed it the strongest political and economic influence." This hypothesis was presented to the pupils of a Hamburg high school with the request that they find proof for it in the text of the Potsdam agreement itself. One pupil who didn't recognize a claim to world domination in this agreement received a low grade. To the charge that there might be a subtle campaign to defame the U.S. in Hamburg's schools, the education minister for the state of Hamburg, Joist Grolle, indignantly responded in the negative. But the subtle campaign existed then, and it lives on. Mr. Grolle, a member of the city-state's ruling Social Democratic Party, advised Hamburg teachers in 1985 to call America's Strategic Defense Initiative "a station on the way to a new war" when they spoke of the program in the classroom. Although the opposition Christian Democratic Party demanded his resignation for this recommendation, Mr. Grolle was supported by the Social Democrats and kept his job. And Hamburg is no isolated case. Back in 1984, Chancellor Helmut Kohl complained that West German schoolchildren learn far too little about why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded. He condemned the new-style "peace education" that equates democratic and totalitarian states and "denies the indissoluble correlation of peace with liberty." Schools in West Germany's conservative-run states generally don't indoctrinate students against the U.S. But in Social Democratic-run states like Hamburg or Bremen, peace education is promoted. An English grammar book used in some states is a good example. It deals mainly with two subjects: violence in the U.S. and injustice to the American Indians. The cover of a world history book treating the period since 1776 is adorned with a picture not of Bismarck or Lincoln, but of a peace demonstration. The same book devotes a chapter to "Imperialism of the U.S.A," in the 19th century. There is no chapter on Russian imperialism. Russia's conquests in Central Asia and East Asia during the 19th century are hardly touched on. The book also condemns Hitler's crimes with commendable severity. As for the millions murdered in the Soviet Union, though, it merely says that "numerous" people were jailed in Stalin's time and that "many" did not survive. Anti-Americanism and soft-pedaling Soviet infamies are but two symptoms. The slanting is also reflected in discussions of business. Cracks about worker oppression and profit-grubbing bosses abound. A book for seven-year-olds teaches expropriation in a nursery rhyme. "Wouldn't it be wonderful? 'Mine' and 'Yours' will be abolished! Then everyone will get what he needs..." An investigation by a group of educators chaired by a professor at the University of Cologne, Henning Guenther, in 1982 showed that about half of all West German schoolbooks teaching the German language, political science or religion criticize private property. Some 80% of German language books, 66% of books on social science, and 55% of books on religion insist that West German society is a class society with exploiters and "manipulators" and their victims. The descriptions given of labor's situation in West Germany are frightening; they speak of nine-hour work-days and hourly wages of $1.20. These are outdated by decades, but even the trade unions do not protest although the books implicitly deny their achievements. Law and justice are portrayed as protecting the rich and powerful. Squatters' actions, for instance, are justified with horror stories about exploitive landlords. The family is a special object of ridicule or defamation. Stories of child abuse abound, and children are advised to "resist," even to strike their parents. Children are taught that the family is a "field of conflict." Many religious books attack the family and praise unmarried life in communes. One book proposes that children poll friends on the ideal parent and confront their parents with the result. Such books are the work of respected publishing houses whose spokesmen admit they are distressed with some of their products but feel compelled to publish them because activist bureaucrats in some culture ministries recommend only books with such texts. That alibi prompted sociologist Helmut Schoeck to comment: "Isn't that exactly the kind of accommodation that these young pedagogues [who write these books] charge was practiced by the schoolbook publishers of Hitler's time?" Educators feel that the wave of "emancipatory" schoolbooks published in the late 1960s has been receding since 1975. But they admit that most of the "class struggle" terminology is still present. Most West German children nevertheless grow up to become as sensible as adults anywhere. But there are those who claim that there is no use working for a living because they are destined to die anyway as a result of atomic bombs or environment poisoning. And they feel that, even if they do survive, work is sinnentleert, or empty of meaning, and they will not submit to exploitation. Many violently demonstrate in West German streets, calling for a revolution, which may explain the strategy behind those schoolbooks.
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (04/28/86)
Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher should bomb New York? Mike Williams
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (04/29/86)
In article <629@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes: >We *could* declare war on Libya, but >it would be stupid and disproportionate. For the same reason I >think that the bombing raid on Libya was a mistake. Certainly the >intention was not to kill civilians, but only the most foolish optimist >would have expected an attempted bombing of the security apparatus >headquarters in a residential neighborhood to spare civilian lives. I agree that the bombing raid was a mistake for this reason. But how about a raid directed only at targets in non-residential areas? The main goal of the raid, "sending a signal", would be preserved, even if some tactical goals (knocking out terrorist training centers?) were not. >What can we do? Clearly diplomatic efforts were being pursued before >the bombing with no visible results. I would think that a proportionate >and reasonable mode of retaliation would have been a campaign of >assasinations aimed at the groups promoting terrorism, including >Quadaffi. Would his successor be any better? (A non-rhetorical question -- if so, I agree.) >Well, it's not the only one. The other response is to do nothing at all. It may be the best; at least if we deny the terrorists their goals: changes of policy on our part in the direction they desire. Those who recommend doing this in the name of "addressing the root causes of terrorism" certainly have a strange notion of how to discourage an activity: reward it. --Paul Torek torek@umich
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (04/29/86)
In article <1668@shark.UUCP> galenr@shark.UUCP (Galen Redfield) writes: >In article <419@aero.ARPA> foy@aerospace.UUCP (Richard Foy) writes: > >Nature or God gave us a great big brain. We seem to use it very well in > >building very complex weapons. We have very little time in learning to > >use it in finding human ways of living with human beings who differ with > >us. >While we think, the bomb in the airplane goes off. So what's your point (if you have one)? That thinking should be prohibited? Seems to be consistent with your comment, at any rate. Jeff Winslow
gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (04/29/86)
I was interested to read that on April 1st, the US Navy launched
a conventionally-armed Tomahawk missile, which travelled 400 miles
to explode it's 1000 lb warhead directly over a parked airplane.
AW&ST has a photo of the plane blowing up.
Why didn't we use these to:
1. Hit the targets without losing aircraft
2. Hit the targets without hitting civilians.
These can be launched from submarines. Would we use this if another
terrorist attack pointed to Libya?
What is scary is that these could easily hit Syria, Lebanon, or Iran.
Talk about push-button war.
--
-- Bob Gottlieb
UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb
Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720
Phone: (617) 263-9110
Foot: "You can't get there from here".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"dunbar@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP (Neil Dunbar) (04/29/86)
> I think R. Reagan has done the right thing. The western european countries are > the ones who are really responsible this could have happened. They failed > to follow the US in their boycot of Libya. It's maybe because no german > or italian or other european citizens are target to terrorist actions. > I believe an economic boycot and any other soft method > to deal with Gadaffi c.s is of no use, although these should be tried first. > People like Gadaffi understand one language only, but I doubt he will > be impressed by this attack. In any case it's regrettable Gadaffi > himself wasn't killed only innocent people. And this sure is food > for those who try to divide the US from their western european friends. > > n.b. Western europe excluding the UK, which are sometimes target too > and thus have supported the raid. > -- > Peter Hommel > Vrije Universiteit > Amsterdam, The Netherlands > hommel@vu44.UUCP (...!{decvax,seismo,philabs}!mcvax!vu44!hommel) I cannot see how you can say that the West Germans or the Italians are not subject to terrorist attack. It was not so long ago that the Baader-Meinhof were killing and bombing German police and the like every week. The Germans have shown, via GSG-9, that they are not "soft" on terrorism. ( The Bavarians in Munich were also subject to attacks by the Black September group. I group these separately, since I believe the Bavarians prefer to be called as such ). Please do not get the impression that the British people as a whole flocked to Thatcher's support for this US action. On the contrary, I believe that she has shown that she is unable to resist the will of President Reagan. I think she will come to regret her servility. Perhaps the Iron Lady is made of weaker stuff.... Neil Dunbar.
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (04/30/86)
> The problem isn't that Kadaffi & Co. differ with us -- the problem is that > they are willing to kill innocent and uninvolved people. > > Clayton E. Cramer So are Reagan & Co., and I think that that is also a problem. -- -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (04/30/86)
In article <223@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP writes: >Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on >Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when >his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. The Soviet Union would in fact be delighted if the U.S. dropped an A-bomb on Libya. There is nothing they could do, and few things we could do, which would do more to alienate us from our European allies. Wavering countries all over the world would move one step closer to the Soviet camp (neutral instead of allied with us, allied with them instead of neutral). It could well be the turning point of the whole Cold War. But they would *not* respond by launching a strike against the U.S. They are no more suicidal than the next man. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (04/30/86)
In article <425@magic.DEC.COM> thain@magic.UUCP writes: > I'm afraid that I disagree with your point, Mr. Marti, for some very good >and sound reasons. Terrorism is not a controlable force, terrorists fully >expect to die for whatever fanatical cause they espouse. They are fully aware >of the consenquences of their actions, and the possible reprisals which might >follow. They are determined to use violence and intimidation and death as a >way to achieve their final goal(s). This is true of some terrorists, but not most. Most have more or less the same attitude as the traditional "good soldier": willing to die for their cause if necessary, but having no great desire to do so. >Hence, terrorist victems which are returned safley are not the >norm, but the exception. But they *aren't* the exception. Most of those kidnapped by terrorists *are* returned safely. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (04/30/86)
In article <744@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >> Nature or God gave us a great big brain. We seem to use it very well in >> building very complex weapons. We have very little time in learning to >> use it in finding human ways of living with human beings who differ with >> us. >> >> Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA > >The problem isn't that Kadaffi & Co. differ with us -- the problem is that >they are willing to kill innocent and uninvolved people. > >Clayton E. Cramer As are our leaders in Washington! Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of hard knocks. Thus they are my own.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/01/86)
> I think that anyone who thinks that the bombing of > Libya was a good idea has a blinkered view of what > was achieved. Already 3 British hostages have been > murdered by Beruit terrorists, and the murder of 400 > passengers aboard an El Al plane was narrowly > avoided, all because the F1-11's were British based > planes. And just yesterday a British journalist in > Beruit was taken hostage; unconfirmed reports today > say that he to has been murdered. > And this sort of activity was going on all along. Tell me how it would be any better if the bombing raid hadn't happened. > Does the fact that Reagan has said that any country > has the right to attack countries ( killing innocent > citizens as well as military ) who engage in terrorism > suggests that Nicuragua has the right to attack CIA Langley > in Virginia because they are aiding terrorists to attack Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas bombed the Capitol in Washington, and several other government buildings in the last several years. Maybe you didn't hear about it. > targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a > democratically elected government ). How much longer Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament after he took over. > can the U.S.A. go on objecting to governments because > they are left-wing when they have supported right-wing > dictatorships for so long ( President Marcos is a good > example of someone who they kept in power ). If, as is Marcos was democratically elected as well. Double standard, anyone? > highly possible, Britain elects the Labour party at > the next election will the U.S. government give support > to terrorist organisations like the I.R.A. ? > Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a Labour Party government in England at this point can't be distinguished from a Communist government by any reasonable measure. > Thatcher must be extremely myopic if she did not > realise that letting Reagan use F1-11's based in > Britain would lead to the unnecessary deaths of many > Britons. Here in Britain she is not too popular right Kadaffi must have been prescient -- he *knew* the U.S. would bomb Libya last year, so he had that British policewoman shot. :-) > now, a poll the day after the bombing raid showed > that 65% of people in Britain were against Britain > being involved in such a provocative move. This is > the complete opposite of the views of the majority > of people in U.S.A. who are not in such a vulnerable > position as the people of Europe. > Anytime we travel to Europe, we are vunerable. There comes a point where killing those who are trying to kill you is the only solution. > By the way, I am not anti-American in any way (my > brother-in-law is in the U.S. Navy), rather, this is > view held by many people in Scotland. I would rather > have seen the U.S. retaliate ( as they surely had to > after the Berlin bombing ) in a way that would isolate > Libya rather than gaining them support in Arab states. > This have could been done by placing economic sanctions, > which I am sure the whole of Europe would have agreed > to if they had known the outcome of the bombing, on > Libya whose economy is already suffering greatly from > the fall in oil prices. > Except that just hours before the raid, the EEC *refused* to enact sanctions against Libya. That's why the bombing raid happened. > I do hope that no more lifes are lost because of this > action and that I am wrong in my assumption that > terrorist activities will increase rather than die out > because of the bombing. > Your belief that terrorism will increase, at least in the short run, is shared by the U.S. government. In spite of what the government says, the objective was to kill Kadaffi in hopes that someone more rational (not necessarily more friendly) would take his place. A *rational* enemy of the U.S. is preferable, since a *rational* leader would recognize that threatening the U.S. and provoking an incident in the Gulf of Sidra *might* get your country destroyed. > Please will people in the U.S. reply as, I am sure, > most people in Britain would like to here what your > views are on the subject. Let's try to bring an end > to all senseless killings, including those brought > about by Gadaffi's senseless utterings about the > worldwide revolution. When dealing with truly evil people (Soviet leadership), the threat of force is sometimes enough. When dealing with the truly crazy (Kadaffi, Hitler), nothing sort of destruction seems to work. Note: I'm not entirely happy about the action that was taken, and I'm willing to entertain arguments about better ways to have killed Kadaffi, and better ways to have discouraged Libya's support of terrorism. Arguments about its "immorality" are as valid as the Peace Movement of the 1930s. Clayton E. Cramer "Beyond gravity -- a new way of thinking."
greg@harvard.UUCP (05/01/86)
In article <1120@erix.UUCP> mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) writes: >Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are >financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher >should bomb New York? > >Mike Williams Funding IRA terrorist is not the policy of the federal government, the state of New York, or the city of New York. No building in New York is by any stretch of the imagination a training camp or command center for the IRA terrorists. If by chance Maggie finds any person or organization responsible for organizing, supporting, or selling arms to the IRA, then she has the right to take whatever police action she feels is necessary to stop those terrorist actions. If this person or organization is in the United State, then it would probably be more appropriate for Maggie to ask the US government to take police action on her behalf; I'm sure the US government would be more than happy to comply. -- gregregreg
ladkin@kestrel.UUCP (05/02/86)
In article <122@paisley.ac.uk>, alastair@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Alastair McAvoy) writes: > This could have been done by placing economic sanctions, > which I am sure the whole of Europe would have agreed > to if they had known the outcome of the bombing, Sanctions had been suggested by the U.S., quite forcefully I believe, and had met with a distinct lack of interest in Europe. Until now. One could draw cynical conclusions from all this. Peter Ladkin
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (05/02/86)
> In article <2094@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP writes: > >> > >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > > > >A question: does anyone know a worse slime than Joachim Carlo Santos > >Martillo Ajami? Martillo, I am against cencorship, but I promise you > >$20 if you shut up. (The price is open to negotiation.) > > > >Piotr Berman > > Personal attack should be kept out of the net. If you want to contribute > something, please do, else keep it in E-mail. > > > David Matthew Lyle > Boston University > dml@bu-cs.CSNET > dml@buenga.BITNET I did not wrote 'Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami'. This is a signature, put under a posting in which said individual was explaining a German netter that his place is in SA. I think that it was extremally low attack by Martillo, and sadly, very characteristic for this individual. Some time ago there was a discussion whether certain individual should not be discuraged to post, since he espoused hatred to Jews and many others. Martillo on the other hand keeps ranting against muslim ('should be supressed', 'deserve to be treated like shit' etc.) and now equates a German with a Nazi. I do not know how is it in USA, but in my country it is the gravest of insults. Therefore I am appaled that while some bigots are shunned, others are condoned. Martillo should apologize to Bormann, but knowing his style of thinking I know that he will never do. I did not send E-mail to Martillo because I think that it is a valid matter for this net. How shall we accomodate hateful fanatics here? By patting them on the back and saying: nicely written, isn't it? Bigotry is the worst illness of a society, and I have some little experience of my own. Martillo is well read, intelligent and hateful. He looks everywhere and sees only reflections of his own hate. In a sence, he is explaing us what is the way a person like Kaddafi may think. I think it is important not to be nice to hateful bigots. They shouldn't be respected. Otherwise they can spread the poison. Piotr Berman
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (05/03/86)
In article <7554@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >(c) The occupation of the Sudetenland was forced by the Allies (peace >in our time, you know.) At that time the Czech's were the military >equal of Germany; however the major Czech fortifications were in the >Sudetenland. The effect of the surrender of the Sudetenland was to >drastically alter the balance of power between Germany and Czechoslovakia. A quibble - the Czech's were not really the equal of Germany at that point. However, they could very likely have held them off for a long time. If either Britain or France had been willing to support them, the Czech's were willing to defend themselves; and Germany would certainly have backed down at that point. As you note, Britain and France instead pressured Czechoslovakia to accept the German terms, after which Germany was much stronger than Czechoslovakia. An interesting side note: in 1939, Poland thought it was a great power, able to meet Germany on close to even terms. If the Polish leaders had realized what the real power relationship between the two countries was, things might have gone very differently. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (05/04/86)
In article <2119@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> In article <2094@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP writes: >> >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami >> >A question: does anyone know a worse slime than Joachim Carlo Santos >> >Martillo Ajami? Martillo, I am against cencorship, but I promise you >> >$20 if you shut up. (The price is open to negotiation.) >> >Piotr Berman >> Personal attack should be kept out of the net. If you want to contribute >> something, please do, else keep it in E-mail. >> David Matthew Lyle >> Boston University >> dml@bu-cs.CSNET >> dml@buenga.BITNET >I did not wrote 'Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami'. >This is a signature, put under a posting in which said individual >was explaining a German netter that his place is in SA. I happen to have studied Weimar. Bormann's attitude in his inability to make ethical distinction was quite typical of extremist attitudes in Weimar Germany and was quite common among those who joined the SA especially the leftist-leaning members like Otto and Gregor Strasser. >I think that it was extremally low attack by Martillo, and sadly, >very characteristic for this individual. Borman was trying to incite disgust at Reagan in a rather low fashion and deserved an attact to the point. >Some time ago there was a discussion whether certain individual >should not be discuraged to post, since he espoused hatred to Jews >and many others. Martillo on the other hand keeps ranting against >muslim ('should be supressed', 'deserve to be treated like shit' etc.) >and now equates a German with a Nazi. I think people who cannot distinguish between bigotry and hatred of bigotry should be discouraged from posting. >I do not know how is it in USA, but in my country it is the gravest >of insults. Therefore I am appaled that while some bigots are shunned, >others are condoned. Martillo should apologize to Bormann, but knowing >his style of thinking I know that he will never do. Just out of curiosity, to which wonderful country are you referring. BTW, I rephrased my criticism of Bormann in response to another article. >I did not send E-mail to Martillo because I think that it is a valid >matter for this net. How shall we accomodate hateful fanatics here? >By patting them on the back and saying: nicely written, isn't it? >Bigotry is the worst illness of a society, and I have some little >experience of my own. Martillo is well read, intelligent and hateful. >He looks everywhere and sees only reflections of his own hate. >In a sence, he is explaing us what is the way a person like Kaddafi >may think. I think it is important not to be nice to hateful bigots. >They shouldn't be respected. Otherwise they can spread the poison. I agree bigotry is the worst illness of a society. For this reason I attack Islamic bigotry. I guess anyone who does not agree with Berman's leftist orthodoxy is hateful. I invite Berman to study Arabic and Islam and on the basis of some knowledge convince me I am wrong. He should probably also go live in a Muslim country for long enough that the Muslims forget he is not one of the local non-Muslims. Unlike Berman, a large part of my family and my fiance grew up in Muslim countries. My attitudes are much kinder. We have a basic philosophical difference. I am not a relativist. Some practices are simply wrong. Some cultures contain too much evil to be permitted to exist. Nazism was such a culture. Others must change because of the evil they contain. South Africa and Islam represent such cultures. Either Berman tells me constructive criticism of a culture is not permissible because all have equal validity or he is telling me only criticism of specific cultures by some criterion of leftist orthodoxy is allowed. The first possibility is ethically unacceptable because then I cannot criticize apartheid. The second is Stalinist. In either case, I think Berman should rethink his position before posting any more articles to the net.
baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (05/04/86)
In article <227@alliant.UUCP> gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) writes: >I was interested to read that on April 1st, the US Navy launched >a conventionally-armed Tomahawk missile, which travelled 400 miles >to explode it's 1000 lb warhead directly over a parked airplane. >AW&ST has a photo of the plane blowing up. > >Why didn't we use these to: > 1. Hit the targets without losing aircraft > 2. Hit the targets without hitting civilians. I would imagine that the Navy would be disinclined to risk having one captured and given to the Soviets for spite. As it stands, the Ruskies may have gotten an F-111, which by all reports is the kind of plane we'd sort of *like* them to copy. Baba
karate@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Goodman) (05/04/86)
In article <289@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: >I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic >lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who >used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas >Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain >had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 >million who died in WWII might have lived. > Firstly, if France and Britain had treated Hitler the way Reagan treats our friend Gaddafi, then who started WWII? I'd rather be certain that my side are the good guys. Would the USA have joined the allies in the war if there had been any uncertainty? You poultry dragged your heels quite enough as it was. This is what is happening to USA's allies at the moment. We aren't sure that you are the good guys. Secondly, I object to your racist snobbery in the remark about the SA, please try not to be quite such a caricature, it doesn't win any sympathy for your arguments at all. In fact, I support the Americans in their attack on Libya, and was only provoked to reply at all by your exceptionally childish insult to Mr Borman, which I didn't feel was deserved. Nigel Gale, returned from beyond
karate@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Goodman) (05/04/86)
I agreed with everything said in the article except this: > >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a >Labour Party government in England at this point can't >be distinguished from a Communist government by any >reasonable measure. >... >Clayton E. Cramer > >"Beyond gravity -- a new way of thinking." Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they confess themselves.
karate@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Goodman) (05/04/86)
In article <908@harvard.UUCP> greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes: >Funding IRA terrorist is not the policy of the federal government, the >state of New York, or the city of New York. No building in New York >is by any stretch of the imagination a training camp or command center >for the IRA terrorists. > ...so the Nicaraguans are entitled to bomb only specific buildings in the USA in retaliation for American funding of the contras.
dml@bu-cs.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) (05/04/86)
In article <1120@erix.UUCP> mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) writes: | Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are | financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher | should bomb New York? | | Mike Williams No, it means she should get proof of violation of the law and take the organizations/persons to court. (an option not available to the US in Lybia) -- David Matthew Lyle dml@bu-cs.bu.edu Boston University dml@buenga.BITNET Distributed Systems Group ...harvard!bu-cs!dml
greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) (05/05/86)
In article <1145@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> karate@ukc.ukc.ac.uk (NCG) writes: >In article <908@harvard.UUCP> greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes: >>Funding IRA terrorist is not the policy of the federal government, the >>state of New York, or the city of New York. No building in New York >>is by any stretch of the imagination a training camp or command center >>for the IRA terrorists. >> > >...so the Nicaraguans are entitled to bomb only specific buildings in >the USA in retaliation for American funding of the contras. This conclusion follows from two assumptions: 1) The Israeli doctrine on retaliating to international terrorism is the correct one. 2) Funding the contras is an act of international terrorism. Very few people believe both assumptions. If you believe both of these assumptions, then I guess yes, the Nicaraguans are "morally entitled" to bomb the United States. However, the Israeli doctrine assumes that the retaliating nation is more powerful than the terrorist organization under attack. Since this is not true for the US and Nicaragua, bombing the USA would be a grossly ineffective policy. It is not clear to what degree a government is "morally entitled" to follow any disastrous policy. -- gregregreg
ptodd@tekchips.UUCP (Philip Todd) (05/06/86)
In article <908@harvard.UUCP>, greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes: > In article <1120@erix.UUCP> mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) writes: > >Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are > >financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher > >should bomb New York? > > > >Mike Williams > > Funding IRA terrorist is not the policy of the federal government, the > state of New York, or the city of New York. No building in New York > is by any stretch of the imagination a training camp or command center > for the IRA terrorists. > > If by chance Maggie finds any person or organization responsible for > organizing, supporting, or selling arms to the IRA, then she has the > right to take whatever police action she feels is necessary to stop > those terrorist actions. If this person or organization is in the > United State, then it would probably be more appropriate for Maggie > to ask the US government to take police action on her behalf; I'm sure > the US government would be more than happy to comply. > -- > gregregreg Not true If my memory serves me right there are a number of known (alledged to be precise) IRA terrorists whose extradition to the UK from the USA has been blocked by courts here, on the grounds that these are political offences, or something of that kind. If you were a judge in Boston, who had to face reelection, would you send an IRA man back to the UK? Philip Todd
andersa@kuling.UUCP (Anders Andersson) (05/06/86)
[Save net.general/followup - this is clearly politics] In article <508@bu-cs.UUCP> dml@bucsd.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) writes: >How about causing the European Allies to finally begin to take >diplomatic and economic action against Libya?? Until the raid, >there were no significant limits on Libyan diplomats(or whatever >they are), except in England. Governments have to defend their actions in some way or another. Sending foreign diplomats back home is usually preceeded by accusing them for something. Recently, the Swedish government sent five Czechs back home because of their espionage activity here - it was an immediate response when that was discovered. In much the same way, if we didn't find enough reason to send home Khadaffi's "nephews" before the air raid - how would we be able to do it *afterwards*? Should the air raid be viewed as some kind of reason? Never mind what WE know is the reason, I'm worrying about how such an action would be described (and used) by HIS allies. He might very well be counting on this, which would explain part of his relative silence since the raid. As portraited in a satire song in TV the other day: "I'm an Outstanding Martyre! I'm an Outstanding Martyre! I'm..." I'm afraid I haven't had enough time myself to study the proofs showing Khadaffi's involvement in specific terrorist actions. Could someone give a summary? They would be great to use as arguments. Unfortunately, the air raid has dominated the whole thing. -- Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Phone: +46 18 183170 UUCP: andersa@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (05/06/86)
In article <430@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP writes: >I remember we figured in VietNam if we could just kill Ho Chi Minh >the war would just come to an end. Well, Ho dropped dead anyhow and >it didn't help a bit, no one ever bothered to explain that one though. Funny. I paid rather a lot of attention to the Vietnamese war at the time, and this is the first time I ever heard this suggestion. It was certainly *not* the basis of American strategy. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (05/06/86)
In article <2109@yale.ARPA> ksmith@yale-cheops.UUCP (Keith A. Smith) writes: >This is not to say, however, that I in any way condone the attack. To me >it seems to have been a useless gesture, and hence a useless loss of life >on both sides, because I strongly doubt that it will have the desired >effect of detering the Libya, or anyone else, from sponsoring terrorist acts. It now appears that there was a revolt against Qaddafi (a name I can apparently spell any way I please) in the wake of the bombings; a revolt which unfortunately failed. This is best argument yet in favor of the bombings -- if the revolt had succeeded, they would certainly not have been useless. In this light, I am modifying my initial negative response to the attack, to a more neutral view. From the evidence, it appears that Qaddafi has gone over the line from being a shrewd but extremist nationalist leader to megalomania. The former would be quietly backing off now. Qaddafi seems to be pushing harder, apparently in the belief that he is beyond the reach of effective American power. He will soon learn otherwise. Unfortunately, the lesson may prove almost as expensive to us as it is to him. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
nbc@rlvd.UUCP (Neil Calton) (05/06/86)
In article <616@tekigm2.UUCP> timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes: >Another thing I find of interest is that France and Italy both allowed free >movement of known terrorists in exchange for no activity on their souvreign >ground. > You mean like the IRA members whom the American courts refuse to extradite to GB and are walking round free in the US. Oh, but they are political crimes, I almost forgot. -- Neil Calton UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!nbc Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: nbc@uk.ac.rl.vd USS Great Britain or N.B.M.CALTON@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5740 "Wearing badges is not enough, in days like these."
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/06/86)
> Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are > financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher > should bomb New York? > > Mike Williams False analogy. The Libyan government provides assistance to the terrorists. No part of our government assists or encourages the IRA -- quite the opposite. Clayton E. Cramer
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (05/08/86)
In article <395@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian (Yakim Martillo) writes: >I happen to have studied Weimar. Bormann's attitude in his inability >to make ethical distinction was quite typical of extremist attitudes >in Weimar Germany and was quite common among those who joined the SA I happen to have studied Weimar. Martillo's attitude in his inability to make ethical distinctions was quite typical of extremist attitudes in Weimar Germany and was quite common among those who joined the SA. >Borman was trying to incite disgust at Reagan in a rather low fashion >and deserved an attact to the point. Martullo is trying to incite disgust at Bormann in a rather low fashion and deserves an attack on this point. >I think people who cannot distinguish between bigotry and hatred of >bigotry should be discouraged from posting. Ditto. >I >think Berman should rethink his position before posting any more >articles to the net. I think Martallo should rethink his position before posting any more articles to the net. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!weyl!gsmith The Josh McDowell of the Net
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (05/08/86)
In article <215@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >I have referred before to the fact that Israel has a long history of >terrorism. An example of such terrorism is referred to in Noam Chomsky's >book, "The Fateful Triangle," (South End Press, Boston, 1983), I heard that Israel once attacked a US Navy Intelligence ship, killing most of the crew. They were in the way and Israel didn't want them to watch what Israeli forces were doing. -- If a reactor melts down in Russia will they call it the America syndrome? Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (05/08/86)
In article <755@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >> I think that anyone who thinks that the bombing of >> Libya was a good idea has a blinkered view of what >> was achieved. Already 3 British hostages have been >> murdered by Beruit terrorists, and the murder of 400 >> passengers aboard an El Al plane was narrowly >> avoided, all because the F1-11's were British based >> planes. And just yesterday a British journalist in >> Beruit was taken hostage; unconfirmed reports today >> say that he to has been murdered. >> > >And this sort of activity was going on all along. Tell me how >it would be any better if the bombing raid hadn't happened. If the bombing has made the world a better, safer place to live, why are many Americans so sh*t-scared of that hotbed of murder and terrorism - Europe - that they're cancelling their holidays (sorry vacations) here? They're in more danger on the streets of New York or Los Angeles from their fellow freedom-loving, gun-toting citizens. Maybe the incidents above wouldn't have happened if the Americans didn't bomb Libya, maybe they would. Who can tell? You don't need to be smart to realise that there are a lot of crazy people who are itching to retaliate for the US bombing. It'll hardly be surprising if there are more terrorist acts and they're unlikely to occur on the shores on the US of A. Ronnie's safely cooped up in the White House - who cares if a few Europeans get blown up in Europe? It's a long, long way from the eastern seaboard... :-) [Sort of.] >> Does the fact that Reagan has said that any country >> has the right to attack countries ( killing innocent >> citizens as well as military ) who engage in terrorism >> suggests that Nicuragua has the right to attack CIA Langley >> in Virginia because they are aiding terrorists to attack > >Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas bombed the Capitol in >Washington, and several other government buildings in the last >several years. Maybe you didn't hear about it. I didn't. The perpetrators were wrong to do this and deserve to face justice for these acts. If they were Sandanista supporters (something I find a little hard to accept), the Reagan doctrine would justify their acts. After all, he decided to bomb Libya in self-defence and he's trying to wage war in Nicaragua. Furthermore, the Contras have been committing atrocities and terrorist acts just like the Libyans... He who lives by the sword.... >> targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a >> democratically elected government ). How much longer > >Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" >situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, >and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament >after he took over. This is nonsense. The elections in Nicaragua were free and fair, though there may have been isolated incidents to contradict the overall picture. The elections were open to all parties and the electorate had a secret ballot. The Reagan-backed opposition declined to contest the election, no doubt so the White House could attempt to give some credence to the opinion above. The fact that these people (the remains of the old Somoza regime) would have had little or no electoral success presumably had no bearing on their decision. >> can the U.S.A. go on objecting to governments because >> they are left-wing when they have supported right-wing >> dictatorships for so long ( President Marcos is a good >> example of someone who they kept in power ). If, as is > >Marcos was democratically elected as well. Double standard, anyone? Rubbish! Marcos was "democratically elected" by blatant systematic ballot rigging and the murder or violent intimidation of political opponents. (Remember Benino Acquino?) The Sandanistas have been at great pains to hold elections that have been as fair as possible - witness the EEC and UN observers who were invited to see the elections for themselves. The US were prepared to give the nod to Marcos as a "defender of democracy"+ until they saw he no longer had any semblance of support from the Phillipine people. _____ + Ronald Reagan, addressing the Marcoses at the White House a few years ago It seems to me that US foreign policy is and has been to prop up nasty regimes all over the world, provided these regimes support US interests, regardless of how they treat their own citizens. Examples - the Shah in Iran, South Korea, the generals in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, Marcos, Somoza and South Africa. Is this how the successors to George Washington, Lincoln and Franklin should be behaving? >...a Labour Party government in England at this point can't >be distinguished from a Communist government by any >reasonable measure. More garbage! I don't see the Labour party advocating a police state or abolishing a free press. [A press that on the whole is owned by friends and supporters of Mrs. Thatcher and is rather nasty in the way it reports on the Labour Party.] I don't see the Labour party supporting the development and deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons either. You can't even identify the United Kingdom, so I'm not surprised you fail to see the distinction between the Communists and the *British* Labour party. [I see myself as a Scot, not a Briton BTW.] >Anytime we travel to Europe, we are vunerable. There comes >a point where killing those who are trying to kill you is >the only solution. This defies common sense. Killing only begets killing. You kill me, my brother kills you, your brother kills my brother...... There's nothing better to nourish a sense of grievance as a martyr. [The IRA are quite good at that...] >Except that just hours before the raid, the EEC *refused* >to enact sanctions against Libya. That's why the bombing >raid happened. I don't think so. The bombing raid had more to do with US *domestic* policy. [Look how tough our wonderful President is.] If the EEC meeting of foreign ministers - a forum where nothing ever happens as a matter of course - had known the US were serious about military action, I'm sure there would have been a better response. The UK foreign secretary knew that the US were planning a bombing mission, but he didn't tell the other ministers. He knew of the US request to use the bases in the UK before the meeting took place. >When dealing with truly evil people (Soviet leadership), >the threat of force is sometimes enough. When dealing with >the truly crazy (Kadaffi, Hitler), nothing sort of destruction >seems to work. Can't you appreciate that the Soviets are using a similar argument about the evil United States to justify their hegemony? The main problem is to prevent the circumstances that allow the crazies to assume power in the first place. The superpowers fail to use their power and influence properly so it's hardly surprising that in places like the Middle East - or in post-WW1 Germany - there is considerable antagonism towards the states who were responsible for creating the conditions for unrest in the first place. Examples would be the British and French bringing about economic ruin in Germany after WW1, the partitioning in Ireland by Britain, and the unqualified backing by the US of Israel who in some respects are behaving like Nazi Germany - invading neighbouring states, annexing territory and oppressing the Palestinian arabs. Violence and destruction only causes violence and destruction in retaliation. After a time, the participants forget what they're fighting about, except that they're continuing to kill and be killed. >Note: I'm not entirely happy about the action that was taken, >and I'm willing to entertain arguments about better ways to >have killed Kadaffi, and better ways to have discouraged >Libya's support of terrorism. Arguments about its "immorality" >are as valid as the Peace Movement of the 1930s. Nobody has the right to kill anybody, even evil people like Gaddafi. If you say killing someone who is evil is morally OK, what's to stop someone deciding you are evil and then killing you? I find your statement above offensive. How would you feel if some Libyans started discussing on the net how to go about killing your President? Your statement about the peace movement in the 30's is specious. The "appeasers" of Hitler didn't bring about the war. War was inevitable when he came to power. The allies of WW1 didn't care about Germany until it was too late and the appeal of the myth of Nordic supremacy coupled to a convenient scapegoat - the Jews - was too great for the downtrodden and desparate Germany of the 20's and 30's. At least the US had the gumption not to make the same mistake after WW2 when they instituted the Marshall Plan. Being "soft on terrorism" is not the cause of terrorism. It is our apathy and lack of respect for the condition of other human beings that is the cause of terrorism by bringing about social and political conditions which encourage people to pick up guns and start killing. Like it or not, we are all to blame. Jim
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/08/86)
> In article <227@alliant.UUCP> gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) writes: > >I was interested to read that on April 1st, the US Navy launched > >a conventionally-armed Tomahawk missile, which travelled 400 miles > >to explode it's 1000 lb warhead directly over a parked airplane. > >AW&ST has a photo of the plane blowing up. > > > >Why didn't we use these to: > > 1. Hit the targets without losing aircraft > > 2. Hit the targets without hitting civilians. > > I would imagine that the Navy would be disinclined to risk having one > captured and given to the Soviets for spite. As it stands, the Ruskies > may have gotten an F-111, which by all reports is the kind of plane we'd > sort of *like* them to copy. > > Baba What? If they want to nuke us, that's one thing, but I won't stand for having Russian copies of the F-111 falling apart in US airspace. :-) Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/08/86)
> I agreed with everything said in the article except this: > > > > >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a > >Labour Party government in England at this point can't > >be distinguished from a Communist government by any > >reasonable measure. > >... > >Clayton E. Cramer > > > >"Beyond gravity -- a new way of thinking." > > > Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that > very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no > matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they > confess themselves. Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? Clayton E. Cramer
brian@sequent.UUCP (05/09/86)
>Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are >financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher >should bomb New York? They probably wouldn't notice, anyway.
marty@ism780c.UUCP (05/10/86)
In article <11610@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <215@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >>I have referred before to the fact that Israel has a long history of >>terrorism. An example of such terrorism is referred to in Noam Chomsky's >>book, "The Fateful Triangle," (South End Press, Boston, 1983), > >I heard that Israel once attacked a US Navy Intelligence ship, killing >most of the crew. They were in the way and Israel didn't want them to >watch what Israeli forces were doing. >-- The IDF did indeed attack the USS Liberty during the six day war. An account of the attack is presented in ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY; I believe the author's name is Ennis. He was on the bridge during the attack. 23 men were killed, most of them by a torpedo from an IDF gunboat. 71 men were injured. Isreal claimed that the attack was an accident caused when somebody mistakenly identified the Liberty as a ship belonging to Egypt. None of Isreal's arguments are believable, in my opinion, but our government accepted Isreal's explanation, and Isreal paid damages. The book gives a compelling case that the attack was deliberate, claiming that its purpose was to keep us from knowing about Isreal's surprise attack on the Golan Heights. Apparently, claims the book, the attack on the Golan Heights was delayed until the Liberty could be eliminated. The argument makes sense in light of the knowledge that then President Johnson had warned Isreal that US support would be withdrawn if it was ever determined that Isreal had initiated any of the fighting. Much more evidence is presented in the book. martin smith
mnl@cernvax.UUCP (mnl) (05/10/86)
In article <120@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes: > > . > . > [discussing bombing of Libya, terrorism, U.S. policy] > . > . > >It seems to me that US foreign policy is and has been to prop up nasty regimes >all over the world, provided these regimes support US interests, regardless of >how they treat their own citizens. Examples - the Shah in Iran, South Korea, >the generals in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, Marcos, Somoza >and South Africa. Is this how the successors to George Washington, Lincoln and ^^^^^^^ >Franklin should be behaving? > I find it interesting that you include President Lincoln in this list. After all, Lincoln is remembered primarily for leading the overthrow of a very popular government through the application of armed force. Sounds vaguely like what some recent U.S. president is trying to do. And nobody flame me about the war being fought over slavery. The Confederate states seceeded primarily for economic reasons, for example freer trade with Great Britain. And the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states-- slaves in loyal (e.g. Maryland) and neutral (e.g. Missouri and Kentucky) border states were not freed until the 16th (?????) ammendment 20 some years later. >>...a Labour Party government in England at this point can't >>be distinguished from a Communist government by any >>reasonable measure. > >More garbage! I don't see the Labour party advocating a police state or >abolishing a free press. [A press that on the whole is owned by friends >and supporters of Mrs. Thatcher and is rather nasty in the way it reports >on the Labour Party.] I don't see the Labour party supporting the development >and deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons either. You can't >even identify the United Kingdom, so I'm not surprised you fail to see the >distinction between the Communists and the *British* Labour party. [I see >myself as a Scot, not a Briton BTW.] > I'll have to admit that I don't know much about the British Labour party, but I'm very sad to see that the Soviet Union had given communism such a bad name that it is immediately identified with a police state, lack of free press, chemical weapons, etc. And I always though communism had something to do with economics :-). The above definition is going to make a lot of right-wing dictators very unhappy when they find out that they are really communists. > > [The discussion continues] > -- Mark Nelson mnl@cernvax.bitnet or ...!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!mnl "This function is occasionally useful as the arguement to a function which requires a function as an arguement." Guy Steele
ptodd@tekchips.UUCP (Philip Todd) (05/12/86)
In article <778@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > I agreed with everything said in the article except this: > > > > > > > >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a > > >Labour Party government in England at this point can't > > >be distinguished from a Communist government by any > > >reasonable measure. > > >... > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > > > > >"Beyond gravity -- a new way of thinking." > > > > > > Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that > > very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no > > matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they > > confess themselves. > > Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- > free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think > Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? > > Clayton E. Cramer So it is now considered communist to be a nuclear free zone, or to be outwith NATO. Pretty soon the definition of acommunist country will be one which is not the U.S.A. Phil Todd
ladkin@kestrel.UUCP (05/12/86)
In article <778@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: * [...] but a * Labour Party government in England at this point can't * be distinguished from a Communist government by any * reasonable measure. He backs this up with the following evidence: > Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- > free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think > Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? I guess what he means by "Communist" is different from what anyone else means by the word. Or is this merely a non-sequitur, do you think? Peter Ladkin
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (05/13/86)
In article <778@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> I agreed with everything said in the article except this: >> >> > >> >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a >> >Labour Party government in England at this point can't >> >be distinguished from a Communist government by any >> >reasonable measure. >> >> Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that >> very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no >> matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they >> confess themselves. > >Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- >free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think >Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? > >Clayton E. Cramer Unless I am mistaken the Labour Party espouses *democratic* socialism. I.e. they have no intention of suspending the democratic process that would eventually lead to their downfall (as eventually happens with *all* governments in *all* democracies) should they gain power. In this respect one could not by any stretch of the imagination place them in the same league as the communists who not only do not believe in the democratic process, as best exemplified by elections, but also are willing to commit even the vilest of acts in order to retain the power that they have so ruthlessly achieved. Just for the record I'm about as fiscally conservative as they come and thus consider the British Labour Party's policies (as well as those of our own home grown socialist party here in Canada) to be based on an inaccurate model of human behaviour. However, when I see someone advocating a view that is incorrectly held by a not insignificant percentage of Americans I feel compelled to put in my two cents worth. If Canada's socialists ever got into power (at the federal level) I would expect quite a bit of economic damage to be done. However, I do not for a minute think that rather than lose an election they'd whip out the AK-47s that some would presume are neatly stashed under their beds and commence shooting. J.B. Robinson PS In the interest of fostering a greater understanding of democratic socialism by our neighbours to the South, I am hereby offering, by the powers vested in me by no one in particular, to *give*, totally free of charge, to the USA nine tenths of all of our socialists. Since the US's population is about 9 to 10 times Canada's I would deem the division to be fair. However, with only a modicum of persuasion I'm sure I'd been willing to let go of all of them. :-)
ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (05/13/86)
In article <2182@ism780c.UUCP>, marty@ism780c.UUCP writes: > In article <11610@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > >In article <215@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: > >>I have referred before to the fact that Israel has a long history of > >>terrorism. An example of such terrorism is referred to in Noam Chomsky's > >>book, "The Fateful Triangle," (South End Press, Boston, 1983), > > > >I heard that Israel once attacked a US Navy Intelligence ship, killing > >most of the crew. They were in the way and Israel didn't want them to > >watch what Israeli forces were doing. > >-- > The IDF did indeed attack the USS Liberty during the six day war. An > account of the attack is presented in ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY; I believe the > author's name is Ennis. He was on the bridge during the attack. > The book "Puzzle Palace", which is about the National Security Agency, gives a rather graphic account of what happened to the USS Liberty. According to the book the Liberty was attacked by Phantoms, gunboats, torpedoes, napalm, armor piercing shells, and helicopter gun ships. The Israel's apparently planed to destroy the ship, not disable it. According to the book it flew an American flag until the Israelies shot it down on the third pass. -- Kenneth Ng: uucp(unreliable) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet New Jersey Institute of Technology Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center Newark, New Jersey 07102
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (05/14/86)
In article <766@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > >> Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are >> financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher >> should bomb New York? >> >> Mike Williams > >False analogy. The Libyan government provides assistance to the terrorists. >No part of our government assists or encourages the IRA -- quite the >opposite. > >Clayton E. Cramer Your government legislates, and under its legislation it protects IRA terrorists from extradition because it holds their acts of murder as 'political'. And you know damn well that it does so because of the Irish American vote. -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/15/86)
> In article <778@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a > > > >Labour Party government in England at this point can't > > > >be distinguished from a Communist government by any > > > >reasonable measure. > > > >... > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > > > > > Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that > > > very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no > > > matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they > > > confess themselves. > > > > Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- > > free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think > > Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? > > > > Clayton E. Cramer > > I've received a lot of criticism for my posting -- let me make it clear that the policies described above are a not a complete statement of the similiarities of the Labor Party and the Communists -- there are many more in the economic area, which I neglected to include. > So it is now considered communist to be a nuclear free zone, or to be > outwith NATO. > > Pretty soon the definition of acommunist country will be one which is not > the U.S.A. > > Phil Todd The idea that declaring yourself a "nuclear free zone" is going to make even ONE bit of difference whether war is fought on your soil is so incredibly naive as to be unbelievable. Since otherwise intelligent people claim to believe this nonsense, I am forced to conclude that they do so because they are attempting to create a popular support for pacifism. Totalitarians have always benefitted from pacifism -- that's why groups like CND exist. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/15/86)
> If the bombing has made the world a better, safer place to live, why are many > Americans so sh*t-scared of that hotbed of murder and terrorism - Europe - > that they're cancelling their holidays (sorry vacations) here? They're in > more danger on the streets of New York or Los Angeles from their fellow > freedom-loving, gun-toting citizens. > Expressing displeasure with the lack of courage demonstrated by the Europeans. > >> Does the fact that Reagan has said that any country > >> has the right to attack countries ( killing innocent > >> citizens as well as military ) who engage in terrorism > >> suggests that Nicuragua has the right to attack CIA Langley > >> in Virginia because they are aiding terrorists to attack > > > >Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas bombed the Capitol in > >Washington, and several other government buildings in the last > >several years. Maybe you didn't hear about it. > > >> targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a > >> democratically elected government ). How much longer > > > >Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" > >situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, > >and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament > >after he took over. > > This is nonsense. The elections in Nicaragua were free and fair, though > there may have been isolated incidents to contradict the overall picture. > The elections were open to all parties and the electorate had a secret ballot. Freedom of the press was turned on just before the election, and off just after the election. By their own admission, political use of food ration cards has been going on for a long while in Nicaragua. Sounds like a great way to encourage political opponents. > The Reagan-backed opposition declined to contest the election, no doubt so the > White House could attempt to give some credence to the opinion above. The fact > that these people (the remains of the old Somoza regime) would have had little > or no electoral success presumably had no bearing on their decision. > Because of the grossly unfair and violent tactics of the Sandinistas against opposition parties. The opposition is MOSTLY not old Somoza people -- lots of the opposition are former Sandinistas. > >> can the U.S.A. go on objecting to governments because > >> they are left-wing when they have supported right-wing > >> dictatorships for so long ( President Marcos is a good > >> example of someone who they kept in power ). If, as is > > > >Marcos was democratically elected as well. Double standard, anyone? > > Rubbish! Marcos was "democratically elected" by blatant systematic ballot > rigging and the murder or violent intimidation of political opponents. Wrong. The last election was thoroughly corrupt. Marcos originally took power in free and fair elections. You need to be better informed about the world -- maybe you would understand my position better. > >Anytime we travel to Europe, we are vunerable. There comes > >a point where killing those who are trying to kill you is > >the only solution. > > This defies common sense. Killing only begets killing. You kill me, my > brother kills you, your brother kills my brother...... There's nothing > better to nourish a sense of grievance as a martyr. [The IRA are quite > good at that...] > It defies common sense to think that ignoring brutal creeps will make them go away. > >When dealing with truly evil people (Soviet leadership), > >the threat of force is sometimes enough. When dealing with > >the truly crazy (Kadaffi, Hitler), nothing sort of destruction > >seems to work. > > Can't you appreciate that the Soviets are using a similar argument about > the evil United States to justify their hegemony? The main problem is to > prevent the circumstances that allow the crazies to assume power in the > first place. The superpowers fail to use their power and influence properly > so it's hardly surprising that in places like the Middle East - or in > post-WW1 Germany - there is considerable antagonism towards the states who > were responsible for creating the conditions for unrest in the first place. > Examples would be the British and French bringing about economic ruin in > Germany after WW1, the partitioning in Ireland by Britain, and the unqualified > backing by the US of Israel who in some respects are behaving like Nazi > Germany - invading neighbouring states, annexing territory and oppressing the > Palestinian arabs. > You seem to be arguing that there's no other difference. Shows how confused you really are. > Violence and destruction only causes violence and destruction in retaliation. > After a time, the participants forget what they're fighting about, except that > they're continuing to kill and be killed. > I guess we should have just ignored Adolph Hitler. (And the pacifists of his day said what you are saying above to protect him until war was too late to avoid.) > >Note: I'm not entirely happy about the action that was taken, > >and I'm willing to entertain arguments about better ways to > >have killed Kadaffi, and better ways to have discouraged > >Libya's support of terrorism. Arguments about its "immorality" > >are as valid as the Peace Movement of the 1930s. > > Nobody has the right to kill anybody, even evil people like Gaddafi. If you > say killing someone who is evil is morally OK, what's to stop someone deciding > you are evil and then killing you? I find your statement above offensive. How > would you feel if some Libyans started discussing on the net how to go about > killing your President? > Only if they promise to get our Congress as well. :-) > Your statement about the peace movement in the 30's is specious. The > "appeasers" of Hitler didn't bring about the war. War was inevitable when > he came to power. The allies of WW1 didn't care about Germany until it was > too late and the appeal of the myth of Nordic supremacy coupled to a convenient > scapegoat - the Jews - was too great for the downtrodden and desparate Germany > of the 20's and 30's. At least the US had the gumption not to make the same > mistake after WW2 when they instituted the Marshall Plan. > Hitler would have fallen if anyone had stood up to him in 1936 when he reoccupied the Ruhr. > Being "soft on terrorism" is not the cause of terrorism. It is our apathy and > lack of respect for the condition of other human beings that is the cause of > terrorism by bringing about social and political conditions which encourage > people to pick up guns and start killing. Like it or not, we are all to blame. > > > Jim Certainly true that there are legitimate problems and the U.S. policy of being a whore to Israel has a lot to do with it -- but targetting innocent non-combatants is ALWAYS wrong -- and killing them accidentally is something to be avoided -- when possible. Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ? Clayton E. Cramer
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (05/16/86)
> If Canada's socialists ever got into power (at the federal level) I > would expect quite a bit of economic damage to be done. However, I do > not for a minute think that rather than lose an election they'd > whip out the AK-47s that some would presume are neatly stashed under their > beds and commence shooting. > > J.B. Robinson > > PS In the interest of fostering a greater understanding of democratic > socialism by our neighbours to the South, I am hereby offering, > by the powers vested in me by no one in particular, to *give*, totally > free of charge, to the USA nine tenths of all of our socialists. > Since the US's population is about 9 to 10 times Canada's I would deem > the division to be fair. However, with only a modicum of persuasion > I'm sure I'd been willing to let go of all of them. :-) ---- Great! And in return we will send Canada 90% of our "Moral Majority" types. Including Ray Frank. Lets get moving on this now!-) -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
ptodd@tekchips.UUCP (Philip Todd) (05/16/86)
> > Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ? > > Clayton E. Cramer It is very revealing that CC seems to have made this a permanent part of his signature. The fact is, Clayton, that Europeans do read a far more diverse selection of news and opinion than is available here in the U.S. Your question should really be Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ Whitehouse propaganda? The answer to this is NO.
andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) (05/18/86)
In article <783@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >> If the bombing has made the world a better, safer place to live, why are many >> Americans so sh*t-scared of that hotbed of murder and terrorism - Europe - >> that they're cancelling their holidays (sorry vacations) here? They're in >> more danger on the streets of New York or Los Angeles from their fellow >> freedom-loving, gun-toting citizens. >> >Expressing displeasure with the lack of courage demonstrated by the >Europeans. > Strange I thought it was because they were scare to go to Europe because of the American action against Libya. Just a question is Britain also to be considered a nation with lack of courage ? >> >> Does the fact that Reagan has said that any country >> >> has the right to attack countries ( killing innocent >> >> citizens as well as military ) who engage in terrorism >> >> suggests that Nicuragua has the right to attack CIA Langley >> >> in Virginia because they are aiding terrorists to attack >> > >> >Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas bombed the Capitol in >> >Washington, and several other government buildings in the last >> >several years. Maybe you didn't hear about it. >> >> >> targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a >> >> democratically elected government ). How much longer >> > >> >Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" >> >situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, >> >and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament >> >after he took over. >> >> This is nonsense. The elections in Nicaragua were free and fair, though >> there may have been isolated incidents to contradict the overall picture. >> The elections were open to all parties and the electorate had a secret ballot. > >Freedom of the press was turned on just before the election, and off just >after the election. By their own admission, political use of food ration >cards has been going on for a long while in Nicaragua. Sounds like a >great way to encourage political opponents. > I haven't heard that before, do this mean our press is ineffective > >> Violence and destruction only causes violence and destruction in retaliation. >> After a time, the participants forget what they're fighting about, except that >> they're continuing to kill and be killed. >> > >I guess we should have just ignored Adolph Hitler. (And the pacifists >of his day said what you are saying above to protect him until war was >too late to avoid.) Agreed >> >Note: I'm not entirely happy about the action that was taken, >> >and I'm willing to entertain arguments about better ways to >> >have killed Kadaffi, and better ways to have discouraged >> >Libya's support of terrorism. Arguments about its "immorality" >> >are as valid as the Peace Movement of the 1930s. >> >> Nobody has the right to kill anybody, even evil people like Gaddafi. If you >> say killing someone who is evil is morally OK, what's to stop someone deciding >> you are evil and then killing you? I find your statement above offensive. How >> would you feel if some Libyans started discussing on the net how to go about >> killing your President? >> > >Only if they promise to get our Congress as well. :-) > I still think voting against them at elections is a better way of getting rid of them, but each to his own I suppose. >> Your statement about the peace movement in the 30's is specious. The >> "appeasers" of Hitler didn't bring about the war. War was inevitable when >> he came to power. The allies of WW1 didn't care about Germany until it was >> too late and the appeal of the myth of Nordic supremacy coupled to a convenient >> scapegoat - the Jews - was too great for the downtrodden and desparate Germany >> of the 20's and 30's. At least the US had the gumption not to make the same >> mistake after WW2 when they instituted the Marshall Plan. >> > >Hitler would have fallen if anyone had stood up to him in 1936 when he >reoccupied the Ruhr. > Spectulation nobody knows what would have happen !!!! >> Being "soft on terrorism" is not the cause of terrorism. It is our apathy and >> lack of respect for the condition of other human beings that is the cause of >> terrorism by bringing about social and political conditions which encourage >> people to pick up guns and start killing. Like it or not, we are all to blame. >> >> >> Jim > >Certainly true that there are legitimate problems and the U.S. policy of >being a whore to Israel has a lot to do with it -- but targetting innocent >non-combatants is ALWAYS wrong -- and killing them accidentally is something >to be avoided -- when possible. > >Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ? > >Clayton E. Cramer When you say does "Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ" do you mean read as in reading your postings or as in read history ? In either case the answer is yes I do read . One last point, if you are a typical american, I think it explains the problem in communications we appear to be having between our two peoples at the moment Are Americans paranoid ? Andrew Fleming
craig@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Craig Wylie) (05/19/86)
In article <782@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > lots and lots of stuff about Communism and Socialism and UK Labour Party ... >The idea that declaring yourself a "nuclear free zone" is going to make >even ONE bit of difference whether war is fought on your soil is so >incredibly naive as to be unbelievable. Since otherwise intelligent >people claim to believe this nonsense, I am forced to conclude that >they do so because they are attempting to create a popular support for >pacifism. > >Clayton E. Cramer Ok, firstly have you never in your life taken a symbolic stand over something ? Declaring a Nuclear free zone dosen't mean that you don't expect people to fire them at you. Nobody would be so stupid as to say ' Under statute blah, para blah blah .... It is now illegal to nuke ...... (insert your favourite nuclear free zone here)' The point is that the people who declare nuclear free zones are saying that they do not agree with the concept of nuclear war and that they will do as much as they can to try to avoid allowing nuclear associated actions within their area of influence. This can make it difficult for those groups servicing the nuclear industry, or the military, to function. > .... Totalitarians have always benefitted from pacifism -- that's >why groups like CND exist. Are you suggesting from this that CND (and others) are simply a front for a totalitarian group of some form? You may say that they are unaware of their manipulation and that they are doing it for honest and good reasons, but they are being duped. Poor silly people, imagine being so easy to manipulate. If you were paranoid like the rest of us sane people then you would know that the only way to be safe is to kill everybody who doesn't agree with you, it's obvious really. Craig. -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig| Post: University of Lancaster, DARPA: craig%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Department of Computing, JANET: craig@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4146 | LA1 4YR Project: Cosmos Distributed Operating Systems Research Group
mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/19/86)
In article <783@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >> If the bombing has made the world a better, safer place to live, why are many >> Americans so sh*t-scared of that hotbed of murder and terrorism - Europe - >> that they're cancelling their holidays (sorry vacations) here? They're in >> more danger on the streets of New York or Los Angeles from their fellow >> freedom-loving, gun-toting citizens. >> >Expressing displeasure with the lack of courage demonstrated by the >Europeans. They're also expressing the impression that the European countries cannot provide adequate security. It is not cowardice that keeps people from walking into situations where they might be murdered without cause or warning - it's intelligence. --MKR
cramer@kontron.UUCP (05/19/86)
> In article <778@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> I agreed with everything said in the article except this: > >> > >> > > >> >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a > >> >Labour Party government in England at this point can't > >> >be distinguished from a Communist government by any > >> >reasonable measure. > >> > >> Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that > >> very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no > >> matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they > >> confess themselves. > > > >Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- > >free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think > >Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > Unless I am mistaken the Labour Party espouses *democratic* socialism. > I.e. they have no intention of suspending the democratic process that > would eventually lead to their downfall (as eventually happens with *all* > governments in *all* democracies) should they gain power. In this respect > one could not by any stretch of the imagination place them in the > same league as the communists who not only do not believe in the > democratic process, as best exemplified by elections, but also are willing > to commit even the vilest of acts in order to retain the power > that they have so ruthlessly achieved. > I'm not persuaded that the difference between "democratic socialism" and Marxist-Leninist socialism is as dramatic as you believe it to be. For starters, Communists *have* participated in free elections before, and have even won one (sort of) in Chile. Conversely, my experiences dealing with "democratic socialists" here in California leads to me believe that their support of free speech is purely pragmatic. Consider the efforts of the various feminist groups in the U.S. to restrict pornography -- and I understand that a Labour M.P. recently attempted to get Parliament to restrict papers like the _Sun_ because of their childish fascination with bare breasts. > PS In the interest of fostering a greater understanding of democratic > socialism by our neighbours to the South, I am hereby offering, > by the powers vested in me by no one in particular, to *give*, totally > free of charge, to the USA nine tenths of all of our socialists. > Since the US's population is about 9 to 10 times Canada's I would deem > the division to be fair. However, with only a modicum of persuasion > I'm sure I'd been willing to let go of all of them. :-) OK, OK, we'll stop acid rain! There's no need for threats! Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (05/19/86)
> > > > Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ? > > > > Clayton E. Cramer > > It is very revealing that CC seems to have made this a permanent part of > his signature. > > The fact is, Clayton, that Europeans do read a far more diverse selection > of news and opinion than is available here in the U.S. > My original comment was based on the lack of knowledge about the elections in Nicaragua. And my information about those elections doesn't come from the White House -- it comes from the newspapers. Clayton E. Cramer
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (05/20/86)
In article <782@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > >... Totalitarians have always benefitted from pacifism -- that's >why groups like CND exist. > >Clayton E. Cramer And war-mongerers have always benefitted from psychotic paranoia -- that's why people like CEC exist. -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
ray@rochester.UUCP (05/20/86)
> > The fact is, Clayton, that Europeans do read a far more diverse selection > > of news and opinion than is available here in the U.S. > > Where did you read this, the NY Times? National Enquirer? Well, you can't believe everything you read, and that holds true for European readers to. In fact, you can't believe what you're reading right now, unless you want to. ray
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (05/22/86)
In article <794@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > ............... my experiences dealing >with "democratic socialists" here in California leads to me believe that >their support of free speech is purely pragmatic. Consider the efforts >of the various feminist groups in the U.S. to restrict pornography -- and >I understand that a Labour M.P. recently attempted to get Parliament >to restrict papers like the _Sun_ because of their childish fascination >with bare breasts. The so-called restriction on a "newspaper" like the Sun was to stop the pathetic bare breasted Page-3 pinups. Perhaps if Mr Cramer read the Sun - maybe that's where he gets his political analyses from - he would see how obnoxious any decent human being would find these pictures. I can't see how banning them could be considered an example of nasty socialist censorship. The Sun would still be free to continue with its rather offensive, jingoistic, right-wing stand. [The worst example was a 900-point headline "Gotcha!" above a picture of the sinking Argentinian cruiser during the Falklands war.] In any event, the bill was talked out of time in Parlaiment and has been dropped. Jim
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/23/86)
> >> >> targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a > >> >> democratically elected government ). How much longer > >> > > >> >Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" > >> >situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, > >> >and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament > >> >after he took over. > >> > >> This is nonsense. The elections in Nicaragua were free and fair, though > >> there may have been isolated incidents to contradict the overall picture. > >> The elections were open to all parties and the electorate had a secret ballot. > > > >Freedom of the press was turned on just before the election, and off just > >after the election. By their own admission, political use of food ration > >cards has been going on for a long while in Nicaragua. Sounds like a > >great way to encourage political opponents. > > > I haven't heard that before, do this mean our press is ineffective > Probably. It seems from some of the postings that British press are giving an EXTREMELY incomplete description of what's going on in Nicaragua. > >> Your statement about the peace movement in the 30's is specious. The > >> "appeasers" of Hitler didn't bring about the war. War was inevitable when > >> he came to power. The allies of WW1 didn't care about Germany until it was > >> too late and the appeal of the myth of Nordic supremacy coupled to a convenient > >> scapegoat - the Jews - was too great for the downtrodden and desparate Germany > >> of the 20's and 30's. At least the US had the gumption not to make the same > >> mistake after WW2 when they instituted the Marshall Plan. > >> > > > >Hitler would have fallen if anyone had stood up to him in 1936 when he > >reoccupied the Ruhr. > > > Spectulation nobody knows what would have happen !!!! Actually, this claim was made by a member of the German General Staff after the war. He claimed that Germany was not prepared for war in 1936, and the decision to remilitarize the Ruhr was opposed by the General Staff for this very reason. > >Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ? > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > When you say does "Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ" do you mean > read as in reading your postings or as in read history ? > > In either case the answer is yes I do read . > "Read history" is what I meant. Jim's postings in particular indicate utter ignorance of the 1930s. (Something I find quite common among college-educated Europeans -- much more common than among average Americans here. Perhaps the 1930s are too painful of a time, especially if you are a pacifist.) > One last point, if you are a typical american, I think it explains > the problem in communications we appear to be having between our > two peoples at the moment > > > > Are Americans paranoid ? > Andrew Fleming Paranoid? Americans have been targeted by various terrorist groups for the last few years for actions taken by our government (which we do not control, except in a very narrow sense). Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas set off bombs in public buildings in Washington, D.C. Our supposed allies DO NOTHING about terrorism being committed in European cities that kill vast numbers of their citizens, and then get angry at us for retaliating against the source of that terrorism. There are huge fleets of Soviet ICBMs aimed at the United States, and Europe (who we are pledged to protect from the Soviet Union) claims there's no danger from the Soviets, but they are still worried about a war between the Soviet Union and the USA. (And if they aren't worried about a war between us, why the concern about the nuclear weapons in Europe.) Paranoid? Our fears sound pretty rational to me. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/23/86)
> In article <782@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > > > lots and lots of stuff about Communism and Socialism and UK Labour Party ... > > >The idea that declaring yourself a "nuclear free zone" is going to make > >even ONE bit of difference whether war is fought on your soil is so > >incredibly naive as to be unbelievable. Since otherwise intelligent > >people claim to believe this nonsense, I am forced to conclude that > >they do so because they are attempting to create a popular support for > >pacifism. > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > Ok, firstly have you never in your life taken a symbolic stand over > something ? Declaring a Nuclear free zone dosen't mean that you don't > expect people to fire them at you. Nobody would be so stupid as > to say > > ' Under statute blah, para blah blah .... > It is now illegal to nuke ...... (insert your favourite > nuclear free zone here)' > That's how the laws are written here. A number of cities that have declared themselves nuclear-free zones have made it a misdemeanor to set off a nuclear weapon within the city limits. Who's kidding whom? Symbolic stands are worthless. You can take all the symbolic stands against nuclear weapons you want. Unless you attack the underlying causes, it does NOTHING. > The point is that the people who declare nuclear free zones are saying > that they do not agree with the concept of nuclear war and that they will > do as much as they can to try to avoid allowing nuclear associated > actions within their area of influence. This can make it difficult for > those groups servicing the nuclear industry, or the military, to function. > And of course, if you make nuclear weapons go away, so will war? No. Japan was "nuclear-free zone" when the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you really think the Soviet Union would let the presence or absence of nuclear weapons affect strategic decisions? > > > .... Totalitarians have always benefitted from pacifism -- that's > >why groups like CND exist. > > Are you suggesting from this that CND (and others) are simply a front > for a totalitarian group of some form? You may say that they are unaware > of their manipulation and that they are doing it for honest and > good reasons, but they are being duped. Poor silly people, imagine > being so easy to manipulate. If you were paranoid like the rest of us > sane people then you would know that the only way to be safe is to kill > everybody who doesn't agree with you, it's obvious really. > > > Craig. I suggest that you take a look into the history of pacifist organizations in Europe and America. We had a group here called America First who were isolationists, not really pacifists, but they had roughly the same effect. After the war, it turned out that the Nazis funded the organization (without America First or its people knowing it) and manipulated it into doing what the Nazis wanted. I suspect that you should look into what happened to all the Britons and Americans who so nobly took the Oxford Pledge in the 1930s. When con- fronted with the evil of Naziism, reality took precedence. Clayton E. Cramer
jte@gondor.UUCP (Jon T. Eckhardt) (05/24/86)
In article ??? dpb@cbosgd.UUCP (Dain II Ironfoot) writes >> Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on >> Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when >> his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. >> -- > Do you really think that the Russians are willing to kill themselves > over Libya????? Maybe East Germany, or Hungary but not Libya. A Russian Embasy person was killed by terrorists (Don't know if it was backed by Libya) after the incident they said that terrorism had gone to far. I don't think that they would put to much to risk over Libya. I think that they might want to put a different government in though, one that the Soviets had more control over. --Jon Eckhardt Pennslyvania State University psuvax1!gondor!jte All complaints will be forwarded to the management