robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) (09/19/86)
Hello there. I suppose that most people by now are aware of
the fact that France is under terrorist attack. At least 5
bombings, diplomatic personel assasinated, etc..
I find it interesting to note that France refused the U.S. use
of their airspace during the attack on Libya, assumedly because they
did not want to antagonize the terrorist community. However, of the
two countries which took part in the attack, the U.S. and Britain,
neither has suffered retailiatory terrorist atacks, and in fact overall
terrorism has declined against those two countries.
Could it be that appeasement is not the answer?
Robert Allen,
robert@sri-spam.ARPAbrkirby@watdragon.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (09/24/86)
In article <7206@sri-spam.ARPA> robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: > > Hello there. I suppose that most people by now are aware of >the fact that France is under terrorist attack. At least 5 >bombings, diplomatic personel assasinated, etc.. > > I find it interesting to note that France refused the U.S. use >of their airspace during the attack on Libya, assumedly because they >did not want to antagonize the terrorist community. However, of the >two countries which took part in the attack, the U.S. and Britain, >neither has suffered retailiatory terrorist atacks, and in fact overall >terrorism has declined against those two countries. > > Could it be that appeasement is not the answer? The fact that there were a number of terrorist attacks in France has nothing to do with the american bombing of Libya. The attacks in Paris have been carried out by a small group of radical, lebanese terrorists that couldn't care less about Khaddafy's daughter. They are attacking France because the french hold one of their members in prison. The fact that there were no retaliatory terrorist attacks in the US is of no particular interest because they were virtually non-existent before. All it proves is that Reagan's hype about Libyan control of terrorists is bulls**t. Otherwise, there would have been retaliation. (Killing a lunatic's daughter isn't about to promote friendship.) The vast majority of terrorist attacks do not involve americans, despite their media's self-centred ignorance of this fact. Bruce Kirby ----------------------- Of all the stupid things I could have thought, this was the worst. -- Joe Jackson "Hometown" ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (09/24/86)
In article <7206@sri-spam.ARPA> robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: > > I find it interesting to note that France refused the U.S. use >of their airspace during the attack on Libya, assumedly because they >did not want to antagonize the terrorist community. However, of the >two countries which took part in the attack, the U.S. and Britain, >neither has suffered retailiatory terrorist atacks, and in fact overall >terrorism has declined against those two countries. > > Could it be that appeasement is not the answer? I've seen this line of argument in newspaper editorials recently as well. It is based on the assumption that International Terrorism is some kind of monolithic entity with its corporate headquarters in Tripoli. There is no evidence that this is the case, and plenty that it is not. The bombings in France have been claimed by Lebanese groups with grudges dating from the French mandate in the Levant. Why should they care what assistance the French gave or denied to Reagan's bombing of Libyans in retaliation for the acts of Palestinians? Baba
hijab@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU (Raif Hijab) (09/24/86)
In article <7206@sri-spam.ARPA> robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: > > I find it interesting to note that France refused the U.S. use >of their airspace during the attack on Libya, assumedly because they >did not want to antagonize the terrorist community. > > Could it be that appeasement is not the answer? It is tragic that the U.S. (government, media and hence people) insist on viewing terrorism as a monolith orchestrated by one evil source. Those following events in the Middle East will recognize that France's troubles stem from its perceived policies and role in Lebanon, and are intimately connected to its colonial legacy (Many in Lebanon blame France for its nurturing and institutionalizing the sectarian political system which is the source of Lebanon's civil strife.) If you want to look for an explanation of the targets, frequency and intensity of terrorist acts, it helps to study the local conditions under which terrorism sprouts.
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (09/25/86)
In article <7206@sri-spam.ARPA> robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: > > Hello there. I suppose that most people by now are aware of >the fact that France is under terrorist attack. At least 5 >bombings, diplomatic personel assasinated, etc.. > > I find it interesting to note that France refused the U.S. use >of their airspace during the attack on Libya, assumedly because they >did not want to antagonize the terrorist community. However, of the >two countries which took part in the attack, the U.S. and Britain, >neither has suffered retailiatory terrorist atacks, and in fact overall >terrorism has declined against those two countries. I hardly think that there's been enough time to determine whether this is a trend or not. Besides, in the last couple of weeks, a Pan Am aircraft was hijacked in Pakistan (note that they started off by singling out and killing an American, and it was a US aircraft), and at least two kidnappings of US citizens in Beirut. Actually, the major reason that France is being hit now is that they've been relatively lenient in giving shelter to certain varieties of the "targets" of terrorists. Eg: the ex-Prime Minister of Iran. So, in the inter-necine (sp?) rivalries of the various groups, they attack each other in France, occasionally get captured, and hence France becomes the target of the "release our buddies or else" type of terrorism (as was the Pan-Am one). In contrast, as far as I can recall, neither the US or Britain (except for IRA members) has *ever* captured a terrorist that belonged to the sort of group that would commit terrorist acts to get them back. Certainly not on their own soil. US and British forces have killed terrorists (eg: Libya (probably), the Iranian embassy takeover), but hasn't captured any members of, say, the PLO. [Well, actually, the US did, but the Italians didn't let 'em keep 'em. You would have had some interesting times if you had managed to keep Abu Nidal] Lest we forget though, there *is* a terrorist presense in Britain - the IRA. I hardly think that they're being appeased. Nor does it ever seem to get any better. I would imagine that France is easier to smuggle arms or terrorists into. Not to blame France's security forces however - unlike the US and Britain, say, France directly borders on a lot of other countries - it's impossible to impose perfect security. Lest Americans feel smug about their security (eg: Airports), it's been my experience that security at US airports is laxer than places like Toronto, Gatwick, Heathrow, French airports etc. And none of them were so wonderfully perfect either. Heck, I'm sure I could smuggle some nasties past the almost non-existant security at O'Hare. Nor do they appear to have anything likely to prevent airport massacres either. (Actually, maybe I shouldn't have said that. Then again, they must already know) Canada, the US and Britain are pretty lucky - being bordered on the most part by "friends" and/or the ocean. There is relatively little terrorism, possibly because of that fact. Certainly, the SDS, Weathermen, and FLQ had their day and were actively combatted, but the former two were nutcases and had little true support, and the latter's aims took over the government of Quebec (is that appeasement? Nope. They were democratically elected. Fortunately, they just lost). > Could it be that appeasement is not the answer? > > Robert Allen, I wouldn't exactly call it "appeasement" - "avoidance of uneccessary stirring up of the hornet's nest" yes. In fact, the opposite might be true - France has actively and strenuously fought terrorism since before the U.S. noticed that terrorism existed. The CRS (French security forces) have carried machine guns and has *used* them for decades. Look where it got them? No, in the face of *really* determined and popular terrorism nurtured in other countries, unless you can completely annihilate the whole terrorist group almost instantaneously, you're probably better off trying to figger out some other way to stop it. Heck, their demands may not even be particularly unreasonable (though, I can't think of one off the top of my head). As well, before throwing stones, how about actively combating the abortion clinic bombers, and some of the extreme right-wing bomb-throwers etc. down there? Or, for that matter, the Contras. Oh, I'm sorry, *those* terrorists are extensions of your Government's policies.... You guys only torch city blocks for communists. ;-{ (cynical/sarcastic smiley face...) [Ps: don't get me wrong, I personally feel France's foreign policies are far worse than even the US's. Fortunately they don't have such a big stick] -- Chris Lewis UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (09/25/86)
>Those following events in the Middle East will recognize >that France's troubles stem from its perceived policies and role in >Lebanon, and are intimately connected to its colonial legacy (Many >in Lebanon blame France for its nurturing and institutionalizing the >sectarian political system which is the source of Lebanon's civil >strife.) If you want to look for an explanation of the targets, >frequency and intensity of terrorist acts, it helps to study the >local conditions under which terrorism sprouts. Hence, it is France's own fault that it is being bombed, and the solution is for France to be nicer to the Muslims. Right? I seriously advise you to read Clausewitz, Lidell-Hart, or J.F.C. Fuller if you believe that. War is war whatever excuses you make for one side and whatever bad things you accuse the other side of. If the Muslims aren't smart enough to stop waging war against Europe and the United States they will provoke more and more violent reaction until one side or the other gives in. I guarantee you it won't be the west, although the fight may be extremely destructive. Study some history and theory for a change instead of all the propaganda BS that is floating around.
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) (09/26/86)
In article <15804@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes: > >Those following events in the Middle East will recognize > >that France's troubles stem from its perceived policies and role in > >Lebanon, and are intimately connected to its colonial legacy (Many > >in Lebanon blame France for its nurturing and institutionalizing the > >sectarian political system which is the source of Lebanon's civil > >strife.) If you want to look for an explanation of the targets, > >frequency and intensity of terrorist acts, it helps to study the > >local conditions under which terrorism sprouts. > > Hence, it is France's own fault that it is being bombed, and the > solution is for France to be nicer to the Muslims. Right? All sarcasm aside, in essence, yes, Mr. Tedrick. Your points in the following paragraph are well taken, but the fact is that historically, France *HAS* been deeply involved in colonial activities in the Mid-East. This history pre-disposes people from the affected areas toward negative views of the French. Whether or not the French are legitimately holding any given terrorist prisoner, it remains true that they are holding such prisoners, and it would appear that the recent attacks in France are directly related to this. I do not justify nor condone the attacks, I merely observe that one *POSSIBLE* way for France to insure the cessation of this particular string of attacks is to release the prisoner in question (I sincerely hope they do *NOT* do so!). Mr. Hijab's comments have been taken somewhat out of context by you. I believe that in a paragraph preceding the one you have included in your posting, he pointed out that the current wave of terrorist attacks was not related to the French refusal of airspace prvileges during the Reagan attack on Libya. This was in response to a posting by someone else suggesting this was the case. Mr. Hijab's posting was calm, reasonable and to the point. Whether you agree with the further analysis of Mid-East politics he made or not doesn't invalidate his right to make them or disseminate them. I might also point out that reading antiquated textbooks is not really a very reasonable approach to dealing with current political problems. > > I seriously advise you to read Clausewitz, Lidell-Hart, or > J.F.C. Fuller if you believe that. War is war whatever excuses > you make for one side and whatever bad things you accuse the > other side of. If the Muslims aren't smart enough to stop waging > war against Europe and the United States they will provoke more > and more violent reaction until one side or the other gives in. > I guarantee you it won't be the west, although the fight may > be extremely destructive. Study some history and theory for a > change instead of all the propaganda BS that is floating around. Try studying some for yourself. The peoples of the Mid-East, many of them, were tortured and degraded for decades (even centuries) by white European peoples. To disregard this fact as a factor in the current political situation there is foolish and irresponsible. -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (09/26/86)
In article <1034@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: >> >> I seriously advise you to read Clausewitz, Lidell-Hart, or >> J.F.C. Fuller if you believe that. > > I might also point out that reading antiquated textbooks is not really > a very reasonable approach to dealing with current political problems. Study political theory? Learn from history? Mr. Keller has no need for such things; he knows what's right! Let's just thank God he's not running this country, so that we don't have to pay for his ignorance. -- David desJardins
phgun@beryl.berkeley.edu (Himawan Gunadhi) (09/26/86)
I just want to point out that according to the papers I read (the SF Chronicle), the terrorists responsible for the recent bombings are *Maronite Christians* who oppose the Gemayel regime. Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, the prisoner who is the primary focus of their demands is certainly a Maronite and so are his 2 brothers who are the prime French suspects. --Himawan Gunadhi phgun@beryl.berkeley.edu
ashcroft@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Dazed and Confused) (09/26/86)
In a sense it is France's own fault. Their attitude in the past has been very relaxed when it comes to terrorism - they basically left them alone in the hope that the terrorists would leave France alone. This irritated a lot of the other Europeans esp. the W. Germans who wanted help dealing with the Baader Meinhof, and the Spanish who didn't like the way that Basque ETA terrorists got sanctuary of sorts in Southern France. Consequently the French have not developed their anti-terror tactics to the same degree as say, the British or the Germans. Allegedly the French had to ask to use the German computer files as they had none of their own - the Germans were shocked to say the least. So now the French are really getting it. Apparently there is not much sympathy in other European capitals for the difficulty the Surete is having. Had they not wimped out before they would be having less difficulty now.
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (09/27/86)
In article <1034@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: >In article <15804@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes: >> >Those following events in the Middle East will recognize >> >that France's troubles stem from its perceived policies and role in >> >Lebanon, and are intimately connected to its colonial legacy (Many >> >in Lebanon blame France for its nurturing and institutionalizing the >> >sectarian political system which is the source of Lebanon's civil >> >strife.) If you want to look for an explanation of the targets, >> >frequency and intensity of terrorist acts, it helps to study the >> >local conditions under which terrorism sprouts. >> Hence, it is France's own fault that it is being bombed, and the >> solution is for France to be nicer to the Muslims. Right? > All sarcasm aside, in essence, yes, Mr. Tedrick. Your points in the > following paragraph are well taken, but the fact is that historically, > France *HAS* been deeply involved in colonial activities in the Mid-East. > This history pre-disposes people from the affected areas toward negative > views of the French. This paragraph indicates serious misreading of history. The French did not colonize a free people but rather supplanted imperialists who were if anything far worse than the French in their treatment of native subjects. Muslims object to the history of French colonization because Islamic doctrine considers Islamic subjugation of non-Muslims the natural order and non-Muslim domination of Muslims a sin against God. Muslims do not object to imperialism or colonialism per se. They only object because Muslims were not conquering Westerners. In fact, the French early in their subjugation of these regions did commit some crimes but only against the local non-Muslim population (e.g. encouraged Muslims to commit a pogrom against Syrian Jews by means of blood-libel). Later the French realized that Muslims were basically intractable in refusing to deal with non-Muslims on terms of mutual respect and equality. Consequently, they made use of the local Christian population as agents. However, to use the Christians as agents, they had to force the Muslims to treat Christians as equals rather than dhimmis (slaves). This crime caused Muslim enmity against the French (in Lebanon -- the Maghreb was slightly different). > Whether or not the French are legitimately holding any given terrorist > prisoner, it remains true that they are holding such prisoners, and it > would appear that the recent attacks in France are directly related to > this. I do not justify nor condone the attacks, I merely observe that > one *POSSIBLE* way for France to insure the cessation of this particular > string of attacks is to release the prisoner in question (I sincerely > hope they do *NOT* do so!). > Mr. Hijab's comments have been taken somewhat out of context by you. > I believe that in a paragraph preceding the one you have included in > your posting, he pointed out that the current wave of terrorist attacks > was not related to the French refusal of airspace prvileges during the > Reagan attack on Libya. This was in response to a posting by someone > else suggesting this was the case. Mr. Hijab's posting was calm, > reasonable and to the point. Whether you agree with the further analysis > of Mid-East politics he made or not doesn't invalidate his right to > make them or disseminate them. > I might also point out that reading antiquated textbooks is not really > a very reasonable approach to dealing with current political problems. Yes, I might suggest you learn something about true Islamic culture and society and stopped reading 60s style leftists apologies for howling Islamic savagery. >> I seriously advise you to read Clausewitz, Lidell-Hart, or >> J.F.C. Fuller if you believe that. War is war whatever excuses >> you make for one side and whatever bad things you accuse the >> other side of. If the Muslims aren't smart enough to stop waging >> war against Europe and the United States they will provoke more >> and more violent reaction until one side or the other gives in. >> I guarantee you it won't be the west, although the fight may >> be extremely destructive. Study some history and theory for a >> change instead of all the propaganda BS that is floating around. > > Try studying some for yourself. The peoples of the Mid-East, many of them, > were tortured and degraded for decades (even centuries) by white European > peoples. To disregard this fact as a factor in the current political > situation there is foolish and irresponsible. European domination existed in most of the Maghreb, Mashreq, Yaman, and Levant for hardly more than a century. If anything torture and barbarism decreased during European domination and has tended to increase to pre-European standards ever since the Europeans. It is equally foolish and irresponsible to ignore the basic nature of Islamic society and culture and the basic requirements of Islam in Muslim/non-Muslim interaction. I do not want to absolve France of responsibility for the insanity in the Middle East but the Muslim inhabitants of the Middle East must begin to accept most of the blame themselves because they are there and can do something about it. In a similar situation the Chinese looked into themselves and were willing to consider a critique of their own society. The Chinese perhaps mistakenly even considered totalistic rejectionism of the whole corpus of Chinese civilization. In the Muslim countries hardly anyone considers the possibility that some of the blame lies with Muslims themselves and their culture and those who do tend to get their brains blown out.
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (09/28/86)
In article <1343@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> phgun@beryl.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Himawan Gunadhi) writes: >I just want to point out that according to the papers I read >(the SF Chronicle), the terrorists responsible for the recent >bombings are *Maronite Christians* who oppose the >Gemayel regime. Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, the prisoner >who is the primary focus of their demands is certainly a >Maronite and so are his 2 brothers who are the prime French >suspects. Fanatic identification of marginal ethnic groups with oppressors is far from unusual in the world especially when there are lots of Western intellectuals around to warp minds. Georges Ibrahim Abdallah's mentality has some similarity with outlook of Rosa Luxemburg who was able in the early 20th to deny that there was any especially Jewish suffering in Poland or Eastern Europe. Cecil Hourani is an interesting case. He started out as an Christian Arab Nationalist and spokesman for the Palestinian cause. However, after associating with Muslim fanatics for 20-30 years, he became a Lebanese Nationalist and admirer of the Bashir Gemayel approach to dealing with Islam. Nowadays Hourani expresses a great deal of sympathy with Zionism. Give him five years and he will become a major non-Jewish Zionist spokesman.
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/28/86)
[tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP ] >If the Muslims aren't smart enough to stop waging war against Eu- >rope and the United States they will provoke more and more >violent reaction until one side or the other gives in. I guaran- >tee you it won't be the west, although the fight may be extremely >destructive. Well, Tom, you've been right before - before the Libyan raid which you more or less predicted. I, for one, am listening to you now. Jan Wasilewsky
lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) (09/30/86)
In article <1034@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: > Try studying some for yourself. The peoples of the Mid-East, many of them, > were tortured and degraded for decades (even centuries) by white European > peoples. To disregard this fact as a factor in the current political > situation there is foolish and irresponsible. > Colonization of the Middle East by white Europeans did not take place until after the defeat of the Ottomans in WW One. (Unless you were referring to the long-vanished Crusader kingdoms). North Africa was essentially free of European control (Egypt excepted) until the middle of the 19th Century. Arguments over colonial influence in Algeria caused a major pre-WWI crisis. If you mean that the white European peoples considered their societies to be more advanced in some sense than the Middle Eastern societies, this is correct, but I don't think it is that important a factor. andy
jrw@princeton.UUCP (Jeffrey Westbrook) (09/30/86)
In article <15804@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: > >. . . War is war whatever excuses >you make for one side and whatever bad things you accuse the >other side of. If the Muslims aren't smart enough to stop waging >war against Europe and the United States they will provoke more >and more violent reaction until one side or the other gives in. >I guarantee you it won't be the west, although the fight may >be extremely destructive. Terrorism is not war. It is not even remotely like war. The West could destroy all of Moslem Beirut, but as long as a few people with a grievance and a bomb existed, there would be terrorism. The Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982 to crush the PLO, but there are still PLO terrorist activities going on in Israel and Europe. Terrorism cannot be wiped out by acts of violent revenge. It requires political solutions. At least the French, by maintaining a peace-keeping force in Beirut, are trying to aid the political process. J Westbrook
dobo@cavell.UUCP (09/30/86)
In article <1208@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: > ..... >Abdallah's mentality has some similarity with outlook of Rosa >Luxemburg who was able in the early 20th to deny that there was any ^^^^^^^^^^ >especially Jewish suffering in Poland or Eastern Europe. She died in 1919. Also, there hardly was a Poland when she died. (The suffering was there, though)
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (10/02/86)
>Terrorism is not war. False. >It is not even remotely like war. False. >The Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982 to crush the PLO, but there are >still PLO terrorist activities going on in Israel and Europe. The Israelis made the classical mistake of halting the attack when the enemy was on his knees and ready to be annihilated. Thus they threw away the fruits of victory. It would have been more to their advantage never to have invaded at all then to halt pursuit at the moment when destruction of the enemy was at hand. >Terrorism cannot be wiped out by acts of >violent revenge. It requires political solutions. False. As long as the terrorists perceive an advantage in terrorist activity they are likely to pursue terrorism. What is needed is to create sufficient negative incentives so that the terrorists believe that terrorism is not to their advantage. This includes security and reprisal measures, as well as propaganda. >At least the French, by maintaining a peace-keeping force in Beirut, >are trying to aid the political process. What happened to the American "peace-keeping" force in Lebanon?
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (10/02/86)
In article <15883@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >>The Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982 to crush the PLO, but there are >>still PLO terrorist activities going on in Israel and Europe. > >The Israelis made the classical mistake of halting the attack when >the enemy was on his knees and ready to be annihilated. Thus they >threw away the fruits of victory. It would have been more to their >advantage never to have invaded at all then to halt pursuit at the >moment when destruction of the enemy was at hand. > How are they supposed to "annihilate" the Palestinian people by invading Lebanon? Should they try to solve their problems through genocide? >>Terrorism cannot be wiped out by acts of >>violent revenge. It requires political solutions. > >False. As long as the terrorists perceive an advantage in terrorist >activity they are likely to pursue terrorism. What is needed is to >create sufficient negative incentives so that the terrorists believe >that terrorism is not to their advantage. This includes security >and reprisal measures, as well as propaganda. What? Terrorist attacks are generally the desperate acts of desperate people. Violent reprisals are NOT going to prevent anyone from carrying out a suicide bomb attack. Most terrorists consider themselves at war. They are fewer in number, and better protected, than civilian populations. They can always strike back against any reprisals. > >>At least the French, by maintaining a peace-keeping force in Beirut, >>are trying to aid the political process. > >What happened to the American "peace-keeping" force in Lebanon? A lot of them got killed, at the cost of one terrorist who couldn't care less about what Reagan does to Libya as a reprisal. Think about it. The power of the terrorist is that they can exist, and attack from, within our society. They use violence to accomplish political goals. The only way to stop them is to resolve the political situation, lock them up or kill them. You don't kill a half dozen people within a large city by bombing it and giving justification to their political grievances. Bruce Kirby ----------------------- I mean...you want to know if I'm moral enough to join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages, after being a litterbug? - A. Guthrie ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
ashcroft@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Dazed and Confused) (10/02/86)
In article <15883@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: > >What happened to the American "peace-keeping" force in Lebanon? > They were withdrawn. Reagan blinked *HARD* Just like he has blinked over the Daniloff affair. Reagan is tough only as long as it looks good on TV. If the Iranian Crisis had happened during this administration it is clear that Reagan would have done anything the Ayatollah wanted just to get the situation finished as soon as possible and out of the TV limelight so he could replace it with a saccharine sweet display of "American-ness" - such as awarding a medal to Frank Sinatra. Actually if Carter had done this he might have been re-elected - of course the US foriegn policy credibility would have been shot but 6 years later it has been trashed anyway so I guess it wouldn't have made any difference.
sdu@homxb.UUCP (S.USISKIN) (10/03/86)
>>>Terrorism cannot be wiped out by acts of >>>violent revenge. It requires political solutions. >> >>False. As long as the terrorists perceive an advantage in terrorist >>activity they are likely to pursue terrorism. What is needed is to >>create sufficient negative incentives so that the terrorists believe >>that terrorism is not to their advantage. This includes security >>and reprisal measures, as well as propaganda. >What? Terrorist attacks are generally the desperate acts of desperate >people. Violent reprisals are NOT going to prevent anyone from carrying >out a suicide bomb attack. Most terrorists consider themselves at war. >They are fewer in number, and better protected, than civilian populations. >They can always strike back against any reprisals. Actually, no terrorist acts alone. Of course reprisals are not going to stop the one desperate terrorist from wreaking havoc, maybe with a gun... but he has to have lots of help if he is planning to get 12 tons of dynamite. The reprisals are meant to stop the background support, making it uncomfortable for anyone to aide a terrorist. For example, when the Isrealis catch a terrorist, they bulldoze his family's home. People then fear for their family, even if they don't fear for themselves. Not that I think reprisals really do any good, but thats the theory behind it. Actually, I think reprisals, even if they work, are on morally shaky ground. Its like sinking down to their level. Suzanne U. The usual disclaimer.
hijab@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU (Raif Hijab) (10/05/86)
I truly appreciate Suzanne U.'s remark about the shaky moral ground for Israel's actions in the occupied territories. Still I have to question why a people opposing a brutal occupation are terrorists, when World War II fighters in the French Resistance were considered heroes. The double standard makes me sick.
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (10/05/86)
In article <1068@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU> hijab@cad.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >Summary:Of terrorists and Freedom Fighters >In article <2001@homxb.UUCP> sdu@homxb.UUCP (S.USISKIN) writes: >>For example, when the Isrealis catch a terrorist, they >>bulldoze his family's home. People then fear for their family, >>even if they don't fear for themselves. >>Not that I think reprisals really do any good, but thats the theory >>behind it. Actually, I think reprisals, even if they work, are on >>morally shaky ground. Its like sinking down to their level. >I truly appreciate Suzanne U.'s remark about the shaky moral ground >for Israel's actions in the occupied territories. Still I have to >question why a people opposing a brutal occupation are terrorists, >when World War II fighters in the French Resistance were considered >heroes. The double standard makes me sick. The moral ground is not shaky at all. Muslims have the obligation from the Qur'an to humiliate and degrade dhimmis. Often Muslims have fulfilled this obligation by committing attrocities against dhimmis. Fundamently, Muslims can never conceive that attrocities committed against non-Muslims (in this case Israeli Jews) are wrong. Therefore, Muslims will never cease these acts unless the government of the State of Israel makes it quite clear that the 'umma will suffer far more severely. Once the 'umma realizes collectively that it will suffer, the 'umma will prevent individuals from carrying out the usual Islamic attrocities. The logic is the same as attacking German cities when German armies invade the Soviet Union. Obviously, the citizens in the cities were not part of the invasion force (although they might eventually serve in the army), but they are part of the nation which the army represents. Punishing the citizenry is a way of making the German nation pay for the acts of the German army when it commits aggression on behalf of the nation. In general, many of Israel's problems arise from not punishing the Islamic 'umma enough for terrorist Islamic attrocities which individual Muslims commit as expressions of the will of the Muslim 'umma. The Muslim resistance in the land of Israel is not analogous to French freedom fighters but rather to the KKK at the end of reconstruction. The Muslims are former oppressors for Israeli Jews who explicitly state in Arabic at least that they intend to become current oppressors. The French underground specifically attacked German military targets and rarely bothered civilians. Muslim terrorists almost invariably attack civilian targets and usually kill infants (as at Ma`alot), old cripples (as at the Achille Lauro) or unarmed worshippers (as at the Synogogue in Istambul). It is symptomatic of Raif Hijab's warped Islamic mentality that he would want to equate such disgusting Islamic behavior with the French resistance. It is interesting that no `alim (as far as I know) condemned the attack in Istambul and in fact there was at least one fetwa from al-Ajar that such murder was permissible and probably mustahab because neither Jews nor any other non-Muslims today are able to claim dhimma. If Hijab knows of any `alim who even criticized the attack if only on the grounds that it makes Islam look bad, I invite him to enlighten me. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (10/06/86)
In article <1068@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU> hijab@cad.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >In article <2001@homxb.UUCP> sdu@homxb.UUCP (S.USISKIN) writes: >>For example, when the Isrealis catch a terrorist, they >>bulldoze his family's home. People then fear for their family, >>even if they don't fear for themselves. >>Not that I think reprisals really do any good, but thats the theory >>behind it. Actually, I think reprisals, even if they work, are on >>morally shaky ground. Its like sinking down to their level. > >I truly appreciate Suzanne U.'s remark about the shaky moral ground >for Israel's actions in the occupied territories. Still I have to >question why a people opposing a brutal occupation are terrorists, >when World War II fighters in the French Resistance were considered >heroes. The double standard makes me sick. In many ways, the resistance were terrorists. The germans certainly looked at them that way. Generally, the only difference between 'freedom fighters' and 'terrorists' is whether you agree or disagree with what they are fighting for. The standard definiton for terrorism is that it is some action designed to produce terror (a nice recursive definition.) This usually means that civilians are attacked. In other words, the PLO, the IRA, the ANC, the Contras and the US air force are all 'terrorist' organizations. The ALL believe that the violence they use is justified and necessary, and see themselves acting in self-defense while their opponents are the terrorists. Bruce Kirby ----------------------- I mean...you want to know if I'm moral enough to join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages, after being a litterbug? - A. Guthrie ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/06/86)
[brkirby@watdragon.UUCP ] >What? Terrorist attacks are generally the desperate acts of >desperate people. Hardly - the attacks require planning, training and financing. They are ordered by smug and powerful people like Assad or Khomeini - not desperate at all. >Violent reprisals are NOT going to prevent anyone from carrying >out a suicide bomb attack. A few - very few - of the actual terrorists are suicidal. Most aren't - and the people who pull the strings are nothing of the sort. Disincentives applied to them have a good chance to work - though of course you won't hear them admit it. Jan Wasilewsky
baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (10/06/86)
In article <117200172@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP ] >>If the Muslims aren't smart enough to stop waging war against Eu- >>rope and the United States they will provoke more and more >>violent reaction until one side or the other gives in. I guaran- >>tee you it won't be the west, although the fight may be extremely >>destructive. > >Well, Tom, you've been right before - before the Libyan raid which >you more or less predicted. I, for one, am listening to you now. > > Jan Wasilewsky And I, for one, am wondering just what "the Muslims" have to do with all this. Paris is being attacked by Lebanese Maronite Catholics. Have you guys been out drinking with Martillo or something? Baba
gadfly@ihlpa.UUCP (Gadfly) (10/06/86)
-- > I truly appreciate Suzanne U.'s remark about the shaky moral ground > for Israel's actions in the occupied territories. Still I have to > question why a people opposing a brutal occupation are terrorists, > when World War II fighters in the French Resistance were considered > heroes. The double standard makes me sick. Double standard??? Even if there were a parallel between occupied France and the mid-East situation, the French underground was not in the habit of kidnapping, shooting, or blowing up innocent civilians. They spent most of their venom--and ammo--on Nazis and collaborators. A true "people opposing a brutal occupation" will concentrate on harrassing the occupiers. And thus is the lie exposed. *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 06 Oct 86 [15 Vendemiaire An CXCV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-8042 ** ** ** ** ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly *** *** <== NOTE NEW ADDRESS!
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (10/07/86)
In article <1978@ihlpa.UUCP> gadfly@ihlpa.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >> .... Still I have to >> question why a people opposing a brutal occupation are terrorists, >> when World War II fighters in the French Resistance were considered >> heroes. The double standard makes me sick. > >Double standard??? Even if there were a parallel between occupied >France and the mid-East situation, the French underground was not in >the habit of kidnapping, shooting, or blowing up innocent civilians. >They spent most of their venom--and ammo--on Nazis and collaborators. >A true "people opposing a brutal occupation" will concentrate on >harrassing the occupiers. And thus is the lie exposed. The situation in the mid-East isn't all that different from France in WWII. As far as the terrorists are concerned, they are fighting a group that has taken their homeland. They do this by striking at the armies and civilians (read - collaborators) of their enemies. Bruce Kirby ----------------------- I mean...you want to know if I'm moral enough to join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages, after being a litterbug? - A. Guthrie ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/07/86)
[baba@garth.UUCP ] >In article <117200172@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >> >>[tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP ] >>>If the Muslims aren't smart enough to stop waging war against Eu- >>>rope and the United States they will provoke more and more >>>violent reaction until one side or the other gives in. I guaran- >>>tee you it won't be the west, although the fight may be extremely >>>destructive. >> >>Well, Tom, you've been right before - before the Libyan raid which >>you more or less predicted. I, for one, am listening to you now. >And I, for one, am wondering just what "the Muslims" have to do with >all this. Paris is being attacked by Lebanese Maronite Catholics. >Have you guys been out drinking with Martillo or something? I stand corrected on two counts: one of fact (I didn't follow the newspapers at the time; were *all* the explosions by Christians?); another one of not making a reservation about Muslims collectively doing this or that. Thank you, Baba. I was only speaking of Tom's political predictions, and they concern Western reactions, not who exactly makes the explosions. I don't approve of anyone's collective responsibility, including, of course, that of Moslems. I still think that Tom was right about US reaction to Qaddafi and may be right about Europe's eventual reaction to waves of terror- ism. As for Martillo, I always read him with interest; but I wish he treated Moslems as individuals (I am sure he has had some Moslem friends). Jan Wasilewsky
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (10/07/86)
In article <117200217@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[brkirby@watdragon.UUCP ] >>What? Terrorist attacks are generally the desperate acts of >>desperate people. > >Hardly - the attacks require planning, training and financing. >They are ordered by smug and powerful people like Assad or >Khomeini - not desperate at all. > >>Violent reprisals are NOT going to prevent anyone from carrying >>out a suicide bomb attack. > >A few - very few - of the actual terrorists are suicidal. Most >aren't - and the people who pull the strings are nothing of the >sort. Disincentives applied to them have a good chance to work - >though of course you won't hear them admit it. I always find it interesting to see people explain how virtually ALL terrorist attacks are under the control of people like Assad and Khomeini, without being able to present ANY evidence to support these claims. I suppose that Khomeini is responsible for Lebanese Christians that bomb Paris? If Khaddafy is so powerful, why has he been unable to carry out his threats of revenge on the US? Just because a group of terrorists receive some support from someone, does not mean that they are controlled by that person. Unless, you also think that we should bomb Washington because it controls the Contras. Maybe we should wipe out Paris. After all, France is the ONLY country to ever explicitly admit direct responsibility for a terrorist act... Bruce Kirby ----------------------- I mean...you want to know if I'm moral enough to join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages, after being a litterbug? - A. Guthrie ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (10/08/86)
In article <375@garth.UUCP> baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: >In article <117200172@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >> >>[tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP ] >>>If the Muslims aren't smart enough to stop waging war against Eu- >>>rope and the United States they will provoke more and more >>>violent reaction until one side or the other gives in. I guaran- >>>tee you it won't be the west, although the fight may be extremely >>>destructive. >> >>Well, Tom, you've been right before - before the Libyan raid which >>you more or less predicted. I, for one, am listening to you now. >> >> Jan Wasilewsky > >And I, for one, am wondering just what "the Muslims" have to do with >all this. Paris is being attacked by Lebanese Maronite Catholics. >Have you guys been out drinking with Martillo or something? > > Baba The founders of this particular terrorist organization are Arab Christians; however, that hardly means that all or even many of the members are Arab Christians. The organization is apparently an off-shoot of the Lebanese branch of the Syrian Socialist National Party which is apparently an off-shoot of the Arab Renaissance Party (the Ba`ath Party). This party which in two hostile incarnations is the ruling party of Syria and Iraq was initially founded by Arab (or perhaps more correctly Aramean) Christians. Most of the founders of the various Arab nationalist parties are Arab Christians or Arab Jews. The conditions for non-Muslims in Muslim countries at the turn of the century was so bad that many non-Muslims were desperately seeking a formula under which non-Muslims could live in Muslim countries without the usual Islamic oppression. They introduced the concept of a secular Arab nationalism which was eventually accepted by the Islamic elite but which rather quickly mutated into an even more brutal form of Arab Islamic Nationalism. The Christian leaders still hang around as window dressing for Western world but these parties have just become a vehicle for the expression of some form of brutal Muslim ideology. The Christians survive by being more Muslim than the Muslims which currently requires apparently bombing France and rather extreme antiSemitic expression. The Abdallah clan who founded the organization lives in a village in Syrian controlled territory and probably takes orders directly from the Syrian Secret Police. The organization is particularly convenient for the Secret Police (who are Muslims), because more mush-minded Westerners will look at this terrorism and deny that it is just another expression of Muslim brutality and contempt for non-Muslim life and Western governments will refrain from punishing Syria as it should be punished.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/09/86)
>/* Written 5:58 pm Oct 5, 1986 by brkirby@watdragon.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >In many ways, the [WWII French] >resistance were terrorists. The germans certainly looked >at them that way. Generally, the only difference between 'freedom >fighters' and 'terrorists' is whether you agree or disagree with what they >are fighting for. No -- the terrorists would like you to believe this. The resistance didn't, to my knowledge, ever deliberately attack the German wives and children of the occupying forces. Their activities were not meant to foment terror among the general population, but rather fear and ineffectiveness among the enemy combatants. >The standard definiton for terrorism is that it is some action designed to >produce terror (a nice recursive definition.) This usually means that >civilians are attacked. I suggest a new standard: the Netanyahu definition.
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (10/11/86)
>>And I, for one, am wondering just what "the Muslims" have to do with >>all this. Paris is being attacked by Lebanese Maronite Catholics. >>Have you guys been out drinking with Martillo or something? >I stand corrected on two counts: Same here. You caught me this time. Thanks! >I don't approve of anyone's collective responsibility, >including, of course, that of Moslems. Yes, we are all individuals. Why should an individual suffer because he falls in some arbitrary category, some of whose members have done harm? The individual may be completely blameless, and retaliating against a class of individuals for the acts of a minority in that class penalizes the innocent and may polarize the class. Which is what the revolutionaries want presumably. (Which is why the strategically correct repsonse to Krudaffy might have been his "termination", without harming any other Libyans. Isolating "terrorists" in that way is a classical "divide and conquer" technique, while reprisals against the population as a whole is the classical "unify potential enemies against you" mistake.) >I wish he treated Moslems as individuals (I am sure he has had >some Moslem friends). All the Moslems I know personally are very fine individuals, particularly friendly, courageous, polite and intelligent. Also, every Jewish person I know I like and admire. I wish the two groups would stop fighting each other, and instead figure out how to deal with Soviet imperialism.
gore@nucsrl.UUCP (Jacob Gore) (10/12/86)
/ From martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) / 1:46 pm Oct 5, 1986 / > dhimmis > 'umma > `alim > fetwa > mustahab > dhimma I must admit that my knowledge of languages is limited to a mere two. Could a more enlightened person (perhaps Mr. Martillo?) supply the translations for the above words? Jacob Gore Northwestern University Computer Science Research Lab ihnp4!nucsrl!gore
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/12/86)
> [Tom Tedrick] > All the Moslems I know personally are very fine individuals, > particularly friendly, courageous, polite and intelligent. > Also, every Jewish person I know I like and admire. I wish > the two groups would stop fighting each other, and instead > figure out how to deal with Soviet imperialism. --------------------- Gee, Tom, all the Russians I know personally are splendid human beings, family people, the salt of the earth. I wish we would stop fighting each other and gang up on the Martians. They have little sniveley green eyes and really ugly feelers. You can't turn your back on those Martians or they'll stab you. Let's wipe them out, first! (If there are any real Martians reading this, it's only a joke, fellas.) -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan