berman@ihopb.UUCP (Rational Chutzpah) (12/10/84)
Gee, wouldn't the world be great if things and events fit into the
popular myths. Alas, the world is not black and white. What happened
this week?
1) A Kuwaiti jet was hijacked to Iran
2) Passengers on board were terrorized.
3) Two Americans on board were murdered.
4) The big-talk fast-shooting Reagan regime sat by totally impotent.
5) Brave men of the rather nasty Khomeni regime risked their
own lives by storming the plane and freeing the hostages.
I'm sorry. It doesn't fit the Reaganite views of the world.
Cowboy Reagan who got elected by portraying an image of an impotent
Jimmy Carter was even more impotent. The rotten Khomeni regime
saved the lives of Americans and others. The world is not so
black and white. Sorry.
Maybe it's time to re-think the myths.
-Andy Berman
"Facts are stubborn things"mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/12/84)
> Gee, wouldn't the world be great if things and events fit into the > popular myths. Alas, the world is not black and white. What happened > this week? > 1) A Kuwaiti jet was hijacked to Iran > 2) Passengers on board were terrorized. > 3) Two Americans on board were murdered. > 4) The big-talk fast-shooting Reagan regime sat by totally impotent. > 5) Brave men of the rather nasty Khomeni regime risked their > own lives by storming the plane and freeing the hostages. According to an analyst interviewed on last night's news, it seems very likely that the Iranian troops were faking the assault on the plane, largely for impact on the world TV audience. He made several points, but among them are (i) no-one storms a hijacked plane by a single obvious entrance; (ii) there was no need for smoke, except to ensure that the TV cameras did not see what was happening; (iii) there was no need to appear to beat up a hijacker on the tarmac except for the TV cameras. There were other more technical points, which I forget. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/12/84)
> Gee, wouldn't the world be great if things and events fit into the > popular myths. Alas, the world is not black and white. What happened > this week? > 1) A Kuwaiti jet was hijacked to Iran > 2) Passengers on board were terrorized. > 3) Two Americans on board were murdered. > 4) The big-talk fast-shooting Reagan regime sat by totally impotent. > 5) Brave men of the rather nasty Khomeni regime risked their > own lives by storming the plane and freeing the hostages. > > I'm sorry. It doesn't fit the Reaganite views of the world. > Cowboy Reagan who got elected by portraying an image of an impotent > Jimmy Carter was even more impotent. The rotten Khomeni regime > saved the lives of Americans and others. The world is not so > black and white. Sorry. > > Maybe it's time to re-think the myths. > -Andy Berman (berman@ihopb) An attack against an embassy is an act of war. Retaliation against Iran would have been in order under the circumstances. Carter sat on his hands and did nothing. This can correctly be called impotence. The hijacking of a Kuwaiti airplane to Iran does not involve the United States even if there are American citizens on board. No military action was called for, and none was taken. This is not impotence by any useful definition of the word. It's definitely time to rethink the myths, particularly the myth that Reagan is some sort of a macho gunslinger just itching to get the US into one war after another. The facts -- stubborn things that they are -- simply won't support that point of view. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/12/84)
> Gee, wouldn't the world be great if things and events fit into the > popular myths. Alas, the world is not black and white. What happened > this week? > 1) A Kuwaiti jet was hijacked to Iran > 2) Passengers on board were terrorized. > 3) Two Americans on board were murdered. > 4) The big-talk fast-shooting Reagan regime sat by totally impotent. Please try to make some attempt at rational language if you're trying to make reasonable points. "Reagan regime"?? What does that mean? > 5) Brave men of the rather nasty Khomeni regime risked their > own lives by storming the plane and freeing the hostages. And now it looks like the whole thing was done with the approval and assistance of the Iranian government. What do you think Reagan should have done? Sent a few battleships to bomb Iran's coastline? Sent some CIA men into Iran to find the families of the terrorists and murder them? If you're going to criticize, at least try and think of a point of view, and don't just attack everything you can think of without making some suggestions yourself. > I'm sorry. It doesn't fit the Reaganite views of the world. > Cowboy Reagan who got elected by portraying an image of an impotent > Jimmy Carter was even more impotent. The rotten Khomeni regime > saved the lives of Americans and others. The world is not so > black and white. Sorry. I don't Reagan ever has made it a part of his official platform that the world is black and white. It is only people who let themselves be influenced by every stunt that politicians of both the US and Iran pull off that get this impression in the first place. > Maybe it's time to re-think the myths. If you are the type that tends to believe these myths in the first place, that is. Wayne
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (12/13/84)
I agree with Wayne. Rational Chutzpah should change his name to irrational shiflut. If he is Jewish, I find his exaltation of a fanatic Islamic Jew-baiting, Christian-humiliating, Bahai-murdering regime particularly disgusting. Coming from this part of the world (perhaps some Arabic speaker will tell you what 'A`jami means), I think the only method of dealing with the Islamic crazies is the tried and true method of the British Empire. If British citizens or persons under British protection (ie capitulations) were attacked by the local howling savages, the British merely informed the Government they would be held responsible for the outcome. When the British did not appreciate the outcome, they went in and slaughtered the people responsible. I am an Anglophobe but the imperial British were competent and had the resolve to take necessary brutal action. Yehoyaqim Martillo-'A`jami
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (12/13/84)
> > Gee, wouldn't the world be great if things and events fit into the > popular myths. Alas, the world is not black and white. What happened > this week? > 1) A Kuwaiti jet was hijacked to Iran > 2) Passengers on board were terrorized. > 3) Two Americans on board were murdered. > 4) The big-talk fast-shooting Reagan regime sat by totally impotent. > 5) Brave men of the rather nasty Khomeni regime risked their > own lives by storming the plane and freeing the hostages. > > I'm sorry. It doesn't fit the Reaganite views of the world. > Cowboy Reagan who got elected by portraying an image of an impotent > Jimmy Carter was even more impotent. The rotten Khomeni regime > saved the lives of Americans and others. The world is not so > black and white. Sorry. > > Maybe it's time to re-think the myths. > > > -Andy Berman > > "Facts are stubborn things" Yes, facts are indeed stubborn, Andy...and here's a few for you... (1) The Iranian government delayed a week in taking any action against the hijackers, and waited several days even after innocent people began dying. (2) The "brave" Iranian "commandos" entered the airplane through ONE door, an absolute "no-no" when you're storming a plane or building. You ALWAYS use as many entrances as practical, and if you can't use more than one, my understanding is you don't go. (3) Although lots of "shots" were fired, miraculously no one was hurt. Now when automatic weapons get used within the rather tight confines of an airplane, people will ALWAYS get hurt. There is just no way to avoid it. (4) I don't recall a single instance in the past where a plane (bus, train, you name it) was taken by storm where the hijackers got out completely unscathed. Again, it just doesn't happen that way. All these facts taken together convey a very strong impression that there was a deal between the Iranians and the hijackers, and that the "storming" of the plane was a setup designed to produce just the kind of propaganda results that you so kindly provided us with an example of. I got nothing against Iranians, but something sure smells fishy at Teheran airport. Also, Andy, what was Reagan supposed to do? With people like you, he's in a no-win situation. Who were we supposed to bomb/invade/arrest? If he takes some action, you're all over him for being a trigger-happy, militarist, imperialist cowboy, and if he doesn't then you use that as evidence that he's really just a wimpy paper tiger. Tell me, Andy, what was Reagan SUPPOSED to do? What could he have done that you WOULDN'T have criticized him for??? --- das
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/13/84)
> Cowboy Reagan who got elected by portraying an image of an impotent > Jimmy Carter was even more impotent. The rotten Khomeni regime > saved the lives of Americans and others. The world is not so > black and white. Sorry. At their first press conference in Germany after their rescue and release, the two surviving Americans praised the Iranian handling of the situation. They have not been permitted to speak to the press since. Guess they need some more "debriefing". Baba
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (12/18/84)
> An attack against an embassy is an act of war.
Such as the attack on the US Embassy in Lebanon?mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/19/84)
In respect of the Iranian plan-highjacking... > Also, Andy, what was Reagan supposed to do? With people like you, he's > in a no-win situation. Who were we supposed to bomb/invade/arrest? > If he takes some action, you're all over him for being a trigger-happy, > militarist, imperialist cowboy, and if he doesn't then you use that as > evidence that he's really just a wimpy paper tiger. Tell me, Andy, > what was Reagan SUPPOSED to do? What could he have done that you > WOULDN'T have criticized him for??? > > --- das Just about what he did! I don't know how many US citizens were on that plane, but if I remember rightly, it was a Kuwaiti plane highjacked by Iranians to Iran. Kuwait might have had some complaint demanding action, but there was not much call for the US to be big policeman. US citizens are abducted and killed by terrorists in lots of countries, and the usual (and appropriate) response is to help the local authorities to deal with the situation. Granted, that's a bit difficult in Iran, but there's not a great deal else to do. Suppose there were Russians and New Zealanders on the plane as well. Would anybody have been happy if three groups of commandos appeared at the airport demanding turns at storming the plane? Would anyone have been happy if US commandos had caused the death of Russians and New Zealanders? The great evil that Reagan has been guilty of is that he has brought instant force to a position of "respectability" as a first response to a disagreement. One should commend him for moderating that tendency. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (12/21/84)
>> Jimmy Carter was even more impotent. The rotten Khomeni regime >> saved the lives of Americans and others. The world is not so >> black and white. Sorry. >> >> Maybe it's time to re-think the myths. >> -Andy Berman (berman@ihopb) >An attack against an embassy is an act of war. Retaliation against Iran >would have been in order under the circumstances. Carter sat on his hands >and did nothing. This can correctly be called impotence. Nothing but try to look peaceful while a rescue team was trained. How many people really thought that Carter would do anything of the sort? (Yes, the mission failed. Carter, however, wasn't a helicopter mechanic.) rick