mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (10/26/84)
From the Chicago Tribune, October 26: "In his sharpest attack yet on terrorism, Secretary of State George Schultz said Thursday that the U.S. must be willing to retaliate against terrorists even though some 'innocent people' may die as a result. "... [Schultz called terrorists] 'depraved opponents of civilization itself, aided by the technology of modern weaponry.'" I suppose terrorists are the kind of people who advocate "neutralizing" officials of another government, hiring criminals to perform assasinations, and sabotaging utilities. Are these the kind of people Mr. Schultz considers "depraved opponents of civilization itself?" If so, he need look no further than Langley, Virginia, to find the first target for his retaliation. Of course, some "innocent" CIA people may die as a result, but that's just the price we'll have to pay for ridding the world of this threat to civilization. "People in glass houses...", as the saying goes, and right now George Schultz is living in a crystal palace. He should shut the hell up. Mike Kelly
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (10/30/84)
I found Schultz's announcement of a US policy to fight terrorism with
terrorism (never mind the cost to innocent civilians caught in the crossfire)
horrifying. What does he think that we are defending that is valuable enough
to justify our sinking to the level of the worst of our enemies?
Shortly afterward I heard something which, if true, is even more frightening.
John Stockwell, former CIA section head in Angola, recently spoke on the UT
campus. While the press has been focusing on the implications of Schultz's
announcement in places like Lebanon, Stockwell is convinced that the Reagan
administration intends to follow this policy domestically as well. That would
mean that if your next door neighbor (not to mention if you yourself) wound up
on a CIA list of alleged terrorists, you and everybody within shrapnel range
could be blown away in a pre-emptive strike -- any time, without warning,
without due process or a chance to prove innocence.
It sounds as though the Reagan administration is so happy with the state of
human rights in El Salvador that they want to use them as a model for the US.
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddlefaustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/02/84)
> I found Schultz's announcement of a US policy to fight terrorism with > terrorism (never mind the cost to innocent civilians caught in the crossfire) > horrifying. What does he think that we are defending that is valuable enough > to justify our sinking to the level of the worst of our enemies? I think you are exaggerating the sorts of things that would constitute "an agressive defense against terrorism". Groups like Islamic Jihad, which are hard to identify and strike against, are the main problem, but in this case a few things are pretty clear - the group is supported by Iran and/or Libya, and any retaliations or threats made against these countries would probably have the desired effect of discouraging their sponsoring of groups like this. A reasonable reaction to the first bombing would have been a threat of retaliation against Iran if such acts continued, and a demand that all military forces leave Lebanon at once (including Israel). Now, we probably never should have been in Lebanon in the first place, but the point is that once we are there, we should make sure that we are not made into a punching bag for every two-bit Islamic terrorist who has a gripe against the Lebanese government. As the saying goes, "Once you're up the creek without a paddle, you'd better learn to swim." Wayne
jdb@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) (11/02/84)
> ...Schultz's announcement of a US policy to fight terrorism with > terrorism... I was a tad shocked by Schultz' "anti-terrorism" announcement too. I had heard that State frequently feuds with CIA, but pre-emptive strikes on Langley? Oh, he didn't mean THOSE terrorists... "Stay close to the oligarchy and the army, because they have the power." order to US ambassador to El Salvador, 1961 -- Dr Memory ...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!jdb
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (11/02/84)
Whoa, wait just a cottin-pickin minute. Let's all just take a deep breath and think back a few weeks to a time when every red blooded democrat in the land was raising their fist and shouting 'Huzzah, Huzzah' when Fritz the Wimp said that he would retaliate immediately if terrorism was used during his administration. Is this any different than Shultz's remarks? Besides, it is not the President's policy as of now, so what can Shultz do? It would be the Wimp's policy, according to his own words. I, for one, do not think blind retaliation in any form is appropriate in these terrorism situations. Just as in the Harrod's Department store incident in London when the IRA set off a bomb among Christmas shoppers, the British did not rush off to blow up some Irish Department store. One of the most difficult things to do in these situations is to separate the terrorists from the rest of the crowd of innocent people. According to the Wimp, he would just blow hell out of any area that might contain terrorists. You just can't do that. I can see it now. Terrorists attack the Embassy in Beirut while the Wimp is President. The Wimp pulls the New Jersey up off shore and levels the Moslem quarter in the city. Then he sits back and says "I guess that will teach those terrorists a lesson." About the only person who would not feel bad about such a thing would be the Wimp, a few followers, and Martillo. T. C. Wheeler
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/04/84)
In article <2760@ucbcad.UUCP> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP writes: >I found Schultz's announcement of a US policy to fight terrorism with >terrorism (never mind the cost to innocent civilians caught in the crossfire) >horrifying. What does he think that we are defending that is valuable enough >to justify our sinking to the level of the worst of our enemies? Terrorism, by definition, uses terror and intimidation to achieve an end. The implication here is, the terrorist places his "cause" above the lives of people. Such people are fanatically attached to their cause. One of the chief encouragements for terrorists is the perception that their opposition will be bound by the principles of common decency and human rights. To the terrorist, then, the opposition is fighting with the proverbial hand tied behind its back. If that perception is weakened, by statements such as Schultz's, there may be less such encouragement. I agree totally that such scenarios are horrifying, but terrorism, particularly modern high-tech terrorism, is a very nasty problem to address. Playing by Queensbury rules while the opposition does not is hardly a way to prevail over it. I don't claim to have an answer, but I can understand both Mr. Schultz's position, and the writer to whose article I'm responding. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard