robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson) (02/24/88)
In article <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >In article <9612@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> sunset!oconnor@steinmetz.UUCP writes: >>The IDIOTS who died in Lebanon were the Civilians. They didn't have >>to be there and should have left. Same for the damn civilian >>hostages : to hell with them, they knew the risks. > >Here I disagree. They are Americans and there should not be any place >on Earth that an American cannot go to in reasonable safety. Like maybe Detroit? East Oakland (an example even closer to home for me)? I realize that I'm must be some sort ultra-liberal, anarchist piece of shit for putting my own concerns before those of our President's well-thought out, cohesive plan of "global strategic interests," but it really would mean much more to me to be able to go to East Oakland in reasonable safety than being able to go to Beirut in reasonable safety. >>Assholes >>who wouldn't let the Marines shoot back. > >Here you are getting a little off target. The people who wouldn't let >the Marines shoot back weren't afraid to kill a bunch of terrorists. >They were afraid of being hamstrung in the future by the kind of >Liberal idiots who called the Libya raid murder. Well, what else would you call the premeditated peacetime killing of innocent civilians? I'd like to know. What would you have called it if, instead of taking us to court, Nicaragua had dropped a few cluster bombs around Washington D.C. and San Diego in retaliation for the CIA mining their harbors? Would you have called that terrorism? Probably. Come to think of it, terrorism probably does describe the Libya raid better than murder. After all, that's what terrorism is, isn't it? The murder of innocent people to intimidate an adversary into changing their policies? Hmmm, and state-sponsored terrorism at that. >No. The PRINCIPAL idiots who got those men killed were people like >George Bachrach and the idiots on the net who condemn the Libya raid. Stop me before I kill again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) (02/24/88)
In article <23096@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU} robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson) writes: }}}Assholes }}}who wouldn't let the Marines shoot back. }}Here you are getting a little off target. The people who wouldn't let }}the Marines shoot back weren't afraid to kill a bunch of terrorists. }}They were afraid of being hamstrung in the future by the kind of }}Liberal idiots who called the Libya raid murder. }Well, what else would you call the premeditated peacetime killing of innocent }civilians? I'd like to know. }What would you have called it if, instead of taking us to court, Nicaragua }had dropped a few cluster bombs around Washington D.C. and San Diego in }retaliation for the CIA mining their harbors? }Would you have called that terrorism? Probably. If the attacks targeted civilians, probably. Especially if they were in retaliation for a military attack. Even if not, if I were in charge my first reaction to such an act would be to launch B-52 bombing attacks on all major Nicaraguan military bases. Attacks would continue for the days it would take to get the Marines to Nicaragua (or an airborne division, whichever is faster). }Come to think of it, terrorism probably does describe the Libya raid better }than murder. After all, that's what terrorism is, isn't it? The murder of }innocent people to intimidate an adversary into changing their policies? }Hmmm, and state-sponsored terrorism at that. The Libya raid did not target civilians. The intent was to avoid them, the actual results (and reasons for them) have been recently discussed in this group. If we had wanted to kill civilians it would have been easy, since we have weapons such as napalm and cluster bombs which are quite effective. Add to these incendiary bombs, and target everything on the areas of highest population density, and you can kill many. That could have reasonably been called terrorism. }}No. The PRINCIPAL idiots who got those men killed were people like }}George Bachrach and the idiots on the net who condemn the Libya raid. }Stop me before I kill again. I'll try... We have tried to be isolationist in the past. It didn't work. Before us, Japan tried. They didn't do any better. We forced them, and later they forced us, to pay attention to the rest of the world. We can't afford to make the same mistakes again. --John Carr (jfc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
andrew@mit-caf.UUCP (Joe Bigelow) (02/25/88)
In article <3185@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: >....Even if not, if I were in charge my first reaction to such an act would >be to launch B-52 bombing attacks on all major Nicaraguan military bases. >Attacks would continue for the days it would take to get the Marines to >Nicaragua (or an airborne division, whichever is faster). > >We have tried to be isolationist in the past. It didn't work. > --John Carr (jfc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) No, folks, not everybody at MIT is this uneducated about the world. It takes hard work, isolation from news reports and history books, coupled with poor teachers, backwood parents, ignorant friends, and a desire to stand out in the crowd like a piece of shit on a white linoleum floor. Also, either a morbid desire to watch other people die or a suicidal tendency due to lack of personality. I'll bet John Carr lives in a swamp, all alone, with only frogs for companionship. I though I saw him having set with the turtles.... Joe, the crazed idiot, Bigelow
andrew@mit-caf.UUCP (Joe Bigelow) (02/25/88)
In article <778@mit-caf.UUCP> andrew@mit-caf.UUCP (Joe Bigelow) writes: >I'll bet John Carr lives in a swamp, all alone, with only frogs >for companionship. I though I saw him having SEX with the >turtles.... > >Joe, the crazed idiot, Bigelow > Sorry, the editors missed it. Joe, Mr. spelling bee, Bigelow
jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) (02/25/88)
In article <778@mit-caf.UUCP> andrew@mit-caf.UUCP (Joe Bigelow) writes: >In article <3185@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (me) writes: ...that I would support invading Nicaragua if they attacked the US. >>We have tried to be isolationist in the past. It didn't work. >No, folks, not everybody at MIT is this uneducated about the world. >It takes hard work, isolation from news reports and history books, >coupled with poor teachers, backwood parents, ignorant friends, >and a desire to stand out in the crowd like a piece of shit >on a white linoleum floor. Also, either a morbid desire to >watch other people die or a suicidal tendency due to lack of >personality. >I'll bet John Carr lives in a swamp, all alone, with only frogs >for companionship. I though I saw him having set with the >turtles.... >Joe, the crazed idiot, Bigelow I'm tempted to respond with a flame, but why bother? "crazed idiot" seems quite accurate. Joe has earned the privilege which I have not even given to Tim Sevener, as much as he has offended me: the first person to be put in my KILL file. Had he included the slightest hint of reason in his reponse I would have argued my position. I will, however, dispute the one factual claim he makes: I do not live in a swamp, I live in the East Campus dormitory (he is correct that I live alone: most rooms in my dorm are singles). --John Carr (jfc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (02/27/88)
In article <23096@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU} robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson) writes: }In article <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU} lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: }}In article <9612@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP} sunset!oconnor@steinmetz.UUCP writes: }}}The IDIOTS who died in Lebanon were the Civilians. They didn't have }}}to be there and should have left. Same for the damn civilian }}}hostages : to hell with them, they knew the risks. }}Here I disagree. They are Americans and there should not be any place }}on Earth that an American cannot go to in reasonable safety. } }Like maybe Detroit? East Oakland (an example even closer to home for me)? }I realize that I'm must be some sort ultra-liberal, anarchist piece of shit }for putting my own concerns before those of our President's well-thought out, }cohesive plan of "global strategic interests," but it really would mean much }more to me to be able to go to East Oakland in reasonable safety than being able }to go to Beirut in reasonable safety. Well, then all you have to do is support stiff sentences. If the typical punishment for murder is the chair and the typical punishment for assault is 10 or 15 years in prison I will bet that Detroit and East Oakland will be a lot safer. }}}Assholes }}}who wouldn't let the Marines shoot back. }}Here you are getting a little off target. The people who wouldn't let }}the Marines shoot back weren't afraid to kill a bunch of terrorists. }}They were afraid of being hamstrung in the future by the kind of }}Liberal idiots who called the Libya raid murder. }Well, what else would you call the premeditated peacetime killing of innocent }civilians? I'd like to know. The unavoidable deaths of innocent civilians during a military attack. }What would you have called it if, instead of taking us to court, Nicaragua }had dropped a few cluster bombs around Washington D.C. and San Diego in }retaliation for the CIA mining their harbors? }Would you have called that terrorism? Probably. Yup. If they had just bombed a military base I would have called it an act of war. Either way, I would then support going in and cleaning them out. I think most Americans would agree with me in that situation. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) (02/27/88)
In article <23132@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson) writes: >A while ago, someone made the ludicrous assertion that persons at MIT were >naturally more conservative because they were generally more intelligent. I >am beginning to suspect that the actual case is quite the opposite. This person later retracted the statement (it wasn't me). The actual case is quite the opposite? Then you claim persons MIT are more liberal? (I admit, we do have our share of the "protest anything and everything" types here). >In article <3185@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (me) writes: >>The Libya raid did not target civilians. The intent was to avoid them, >EXCUSE ME, AGAIN? While they did intend to minimize the number of civilian >casualties, the targets of the Tripoli raid (as opposed to the Benghazi raid) >were, in fact, civilians. Friends, advisors, and family of Qaddafi do not >become members of the military by association. The Pentagon themselves >admitted they expected civilian casualties. Answer to this at end. >And, speaking of intelligence at MIT, this: >>We have tried to be isolationist in the past. It didn't work. >Therefore this: NO! This was not concluded from the last sentence. It is a misrepresentation of my position. I said, if Nicaragua attacked the United States, then... >>...if I were in charge my first reaction to such an act would >>be to launch B-52 bombing attacks on all major Nicaraguan military bases. >>Attacks would continue for the days it would take to get the Marines to >>Nicaragua (or an airborne division, whichever is faster). >Q.E.D. ? >For those who don't see it, the argument is that, because an extreme and >unreasonable foriegn policy has unsatisfactory consequences, we should >therefore adopt an opposite, but equally extreme and unreasonable foriegn >policy straight from the Saturday morning cartoons. I did not say that. Try reading my articles before flaming about them. I said in one paragraph that I would retaliate for Nicaraguan attacks on the US. I said in another paragraph that we should not, can not, be isolationist. I did not say how agressive our foreign policy should be. If you quote me, please do it in context. >By the way, you never did answer my question. What *would* you call the >premeditated peacetime killing of innocent civilians? I forget the context, so I'll answer in the context of US military operations. First, let's agree on some definitions: premeditated: The intended results were "peacetime killing of innocent civilians". i.e. killings which were not the goal of an operation do not count, even if they were judged a likely result. A plan should be designed to minimize unnecessary casualties. peacetime: Not a state of war (including undeclared wars, so Korea and Vietnam were not peacetime). innocent: This is hard to define, I would say "not supporting acts against the US or its allies." The degree of support is what makes the definition hard. Passive support of a government should not count except in cases of war. Examples: Most Libyans are probably "innocent" in this definition, on the other hand many South Vietnamese were supporting the enemy and so were not "innocent". civilians: People not associated with the government (of a country) or leadership (of a group) with which the US is in conflict (not necessarily war). So, Khaddafi (Qaddafi, or whatever spelling is in style this week) is not a civilian nor are his advisors. My answer: a military operation by the United States, the intended and actual result of which is the killing of people who have no association with and do not support any organization which violently opposes the United States or its allies, is {whatever word I was expected to use. Was it "terrorism" ?}. I am not aware of any such operations. --John Carr (jfc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)