ward@ttidcc.UUCP (Don Ward) (06/24/85)
It seems that Israel, with their wealth of enemies in close proximity to their country, have amply demonstrated the value of responding to terrorist activities at a level sufficiently disproportionate to dis- courage future would-be terrorists. Unfortunately, the USA doesn't respond at all. It appears that our government is unwilling to act unless all rules of evidence and legal nicities are satisfied and thus encourages acts of violence. All of our supposed military power is worthless if those transgressing against our interests and citizens are convinced that we will not respond with force. I remember vaguely reading about a case during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (the good Roosevelt) where TR said, in effect, our guy alive or your leader dead. All this crap about "innocent" Shias makes me want to puke. Are our citizens any less innocent? I'm sure we know where Khoumani lives. We ought to issue an ultimatum to these so-called terrorists (actually murderers and kidnappers) that unless our people are released immediately, Khoumani's house and surroundings will be missing tommorow morning. Had we retaliated thus when one of our citizens was murdered a few months ago, this wouldn't be necessary. If we don't do anything now, when will we?
west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (06/29/85)
In article <500@ttidcc.UUCP> ward@ttidcc.UUCP (Don Ward) writes: >It seems that Israel, with their wealth of enemies in close proximity >to their country, have amply demonstrated the value of responding to >terrorist activities at a level sufficiently disproportionate to dis- >courage future would-be terrorists. That's funny, I hadn't noticed much of a long-term decline in the number of terrorist actions against Israel. But then you probably only worry about an eye for an eye, and not about the future. > Unfortunately, the USA doesn't >respond at all. It appears that our government is unwilling to act >unless all rules of evidence and legal nicities are satisfied and thus >encourages acts of violence. Legal nicities such as finding those responsible and not killing innocent people, which even that great moralist Ronnie Reagan realizes is terrorism (well, except in Nicaragua, South Africa, etc.)? > All of our supposed military power is >worthless if those transgressing against our interests and citizens >are convinced that we will not respond with force. And how much is it worth if we knock off a few hundred thousand people? Or maybe we should measure ideologies that we exterminate? > I remember vaguely >reading about a case during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (the >good Roosevelt) where TR said, in effect, our guy alive or your leader >dead. I suggest you try reading less vaguely. The "good Roosevelt"? Hmmm. Well, I guess you must really enjoy imperialism. >All this crap about "innocent" Shias makes me want to puke. Are our >citizens any less innocent? People with weak stomachs should not get involved in politics. It's not for the faint-hearted. You seem to be saying that since our citizens are "innocent", we should feel free to visit retribution upon anyone else who is "innocent". If this is what you meant, I'd like to hear you defend it. ...... You appear to miss a major point of the hijacking, which is that Lebanon is a mess and we've helped make it that way. We can't pretent to be an uninvolved bystander when we've been supplying the arms and money that has been fueling the conflict there for over a decade. And we have no higher moral ground on which to stand, considering our policies and actions in Nicaragua and South Africa. Or do you think that Nicaragua should threaten to bomb the White House unless Reagan stops funding the CIA-backed (-funded, -trained, -armed) terrorists in that country? And my main point is that you can't just strike out at people who have a cause. You'll only create martyrs and breed more determination and more drastic actions. -- Larry West Institute for Cognitive Science (USA+619-)452-6220 UC San Diego (mailcode C-015) [x6220] ARPA: <west@nprdc.ARPA> La Jolla, CA 92093 U.S.A. UUCP: {ucbvax,sdcrdcf,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west OR ulysses!sdcsla!west
cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (07/02/85)
In article <920@sdcsla.UUCP> west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) writes: > >You appear to miss a major point of the hijacking, which is that >Lebanon is a mess and we've helped make it that way. We can't >pretent to be an uninvolved bystander when we've been supplying the >arms and money that has been fueling the conflict there for over a >decade. >-- > >Larry West Institute for Cognitive Science I have some questions.. Who (in Lebanon) has the US been supplying with arms in order to "fuel the conflict". I don't mean just selling weapons on the world's arms market, but government-sponsored support. Agreed, Lebanon is a mess, but did the US have a starring role in the conflict? Or did the US just sell popcorn? The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think that "we've helped make Lebanon a mess" is a justified charge, especially when considered over the last 10 years. The same goes for Israel, since it is only recently that Israel has gotten involved with Lebanon (in order to destroy the PLO). Lebanon's internal troubles have been their own fault for a long time. Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo I was walking down the street one day, when suddenly... my baloney melted !
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/04/85)
>Lebanon's internal troubles have been their own fault for a long time. > >Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath > Before King Hussein kicked the PLO out of Jordan because they were messing up his country, Lebanon was the jewel of the Middle East, and Beirut the jewel of the Mediterranean. It was the one place in the area that had a reputation as tolerant and safe, both Western and Arab in culture and contact. For the PLO, it was another place they didn't want to be, but still a convenient base for terrorism, and terrorists don't much approve of moderates or of toleration. (Not trying to claim most Palestinians are terrorists, or even that they don't have very legitimate grievances both against the Arab nations and against Israel). When you put a large group of armed outcasts into a "nice" society, like Lebanon was, the society doesn't have much chance to survive in its original form. If Lebanon is to blame for its own troubles, it is largely because it was tolerant enough (or weak enough or shortsighted enough) to allow the PLO to set up shop there. As another point, Syria never really accepted the separation of Lebanon, and has always wanted to assert its authority (and presumably eventually extend its territory into the area). A stable Lebanese government is not in Syria's interests. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt