steve@crcmar.crc.uucp (Steve Ardron) (02/16/88)
Sorry for the length of this posting, but there was just to much garbage that had to be corrected. In article <792@athos.rutgers.edu>, maffray@athos.rutgers.edu (Frederic Maffray) writes: > > -The German Minister of Foreign Affairs (Genscher) has routine talks with > his Iranian opposite number (Velayati). > -Greece's Prime Minister Papandreou is Qaddafi's best friend. Maybe Papandreou likes Khadaffi? Greece doesn't suffer at the hands of terrorism, so why stand against something that isn't a problem? > -Spain recognized Israel only a few years ago. Maybe that's because Israel was one of the worst terrorist states in history. When England was giving Palestine to the Israelis as a homeland, they intended to divide it between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In order to prevent the Palestinians from being overwhelmed, they limited the number of people of any nations who could enter. This touched off some of the worst terrorism in history, so England simply said f**k-it, it's not our problem, and let the U.N. handle it (and botch it immensely). Just because a nation doesn't recognize Israel doesn't mean it is evil or weak, more the opposite. > -In London, after a policewoman was killed from a window of the Libyan > 'embassy' in 1984, the killer was safely reconducted to the border by the > British police. This was a touchy situation because they couldn't prove that he did it, you can't just go around locking people up without evidence of some kind. > All this, of course, is "standing firm against terrorism." All this was an example of misusing facts horribly to argue a point they don't relate to. > Do you have such faith in an average-size country like France that she > should resist more than all others combined? I don't feal France is a cowardly nation, and just because somebody else did is no reason to blindly attack other countries. > However, when France is the ONLY WEST EUROPEAN COUNTRY which sends troops > in Lebanon in 1983 and when 60 of them get killed in a suicide-truck bombing > (simultaneously with 240 Americans); If you are including Brittain as a Western European nation, which is implied by the rest of your article, they were there too. Don't make false or misleading statements! There were just as many Brittish as there were French, it just happens that the Brittish are better trained and more experienced in handling terrorism, since they have been victims of one of the bloodiest and drawn out terrorist wars in history (one that Americans denigrate England over because they don't bother learning the facts, just like France) so no Brittish were killed, despite attempts against them. (something said about the French fighting Libya, unlike anybody else) > Chad against Qaddafi; Don't make it out as if it's some good Samaritan act or something! The reason the French fight Libya is because it's in their interest, since Chad is a puppet of France. It's not as if it's "Oh, lets go save another innocent country from that raving Loonie, with no gain for ourselves". > Disgusting. Yes, it is. > It's much easier indeed to be like all other European countries who > carefully avoid to get directly involved in the Middle East. > Let French and American and Israeli idiots die in Lebanon, while Royal ^^^^^^ Exactly! The only reason Americans died is because they were stupid! (I'm refering ot marines, not civilians, many other countries have lost civilians) Their Goddamned weapons weren't even loaded! and their security measures were ludicrous. I'm not sure what happened when the French died, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something similar. > Dutch Shell and British Petroleum yum all the Saudi oil. Most Brittish oil comes from the North Sea, besides, the Saudis are American and other Western nations' allies. I've allready said how the Brittish were in Lebanon too, so I won't say it again. > Tell me, when did the British last fight against Qaddafi in Africa? Why the hell should they?! > When were Dutch citizens last abducted in Beirut? > What does Italy do against terrorists who frequently murder Libyan opponents > in Rome? > When did West Germany last cut diplomatic relations with Iran? etc. Brittain cut relations with Libya, but why should West Germany cut relations with Iran? I don't see the connection. > France's terrorism problem is directly proportional to her involvement in > the Middle East. > Qaddafi hates us because he is surrounded by former French colonies which > receive unfailing French support. > Syria hates us because we still have a shade of influence in Lebanon. > Iran hates us because we sell our best weaponry to Iraq. Everybody sells their best weaponry to Iraq, France just sells it to everybody else, too. > America, France and Israel bear the brunt of anti-Western terrorism. > That should logically entail some sympathy from the American public. On the > contrary, the American press prefers to fuel this political despise of the > French which is so convenient when a scape-goat is needed. Sickening. > > As for Israel. France has been Israel's best military friend for 20 years What about when the Mossad stole the plans for the Mirage jet because the French were asking to much? > (and these were the first and most important for Israel's stabilization). > And what happened? Remember Suez. When Nasser nationalized the Suez canal, > this most important waterway to European and Israeli interests, a joint > British-French-Israeli military operation took place. And who condemned it? > None other than the US. (Incidentally, this certainly supported the opinion > of some people like De Gaulle who thought that America's commitment to the > defense of West European interests was far from 100 %.) The only result of > our friendship with Israel was to be once again called imperialists, > bellicists, nationalists, arrogant, etc. > > So let the _U_S_ now enjoy the fun of being everybody's enemy in the Middle > East... A chacun son tour. [To everyone his turn] > > [And in the 1973 oil crisis, France was hit just like anybody else in the > world. That determined Giscard to boost the French nuclear program.] > > Well, I recognize there is a problem with the French indeed. > When they do it they are called nationalists. > When they don't do it they are coward. > When they let others do it they are called supine. > There's always something wrong with them. Just like the Jews. > > Fred. You make some good points, Fred, unfortunately it is buried in all the bull sh*t. Why not just stick to your point? France carries its share as much as the U.S. carries its. Don't start spouting stuff in misleading or out-right wrong ways, people will think you're a twit or something. Stevie.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/19/88)
In article <613@crcmar.crc.uucp> steve@crcmar.crc.uucp (Steve Ardron) writes: > >> -In London, after a policewoman was killed from a window of the Libyan >> 'embassy' in 1984, the killer was safely reconducted to the border by the >> British police. > >This was a touchy situation because they couldn't prove that he did it, you >can't just go around locking people up without evidence of some kind. He had a diplomatic passport, no ? -- "Each morning when I wake up to rise, I'm living in a dreamland" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, rutgers!marque, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richard
gazit@ganelon.usc.edu (Salit) (02/20/88)
In article <613@crcmar.crc.uucp> steve@crcmar.crc.uucp (Steve Ardron) writes: > This touched off some of >the worst terrorism in history, so England simply said f**k-it, it's not >our problem, and let the U.N. handle it (and botch it immensely). Just For general education, England voted AGAINST the partition program. After the UN excepted the program, England made its best to leave a hell behind. The Legion that was part of the British forces, and under a British command was left behind to secure the British interests. (In 1948 Britsh interests = long and bloody war). >> As for Israel. France has been Israel's best military friend for 20 years >What about when the Mossad stole the plans for the Mirage jet because the >French were asking to much? In 1967 France canceled an agreement to sell 50 Mirage jets to Israel. The agreement was with payment in advance (in U.S. dollars). More than a year after they broke the agreement they returned the money in francs (sp?). In the meantime the franc lost 10% of its value. They deducte from the return the expenses to maintain these 50 jets in the meantime. And do you want to know what poor France made with extra 50 jets? They sold 130 Mirage jets to Libya which is in war with Israel. Israel was left no source of spare parts to maintain the Israeli airforce. Afterward the Mossad proved to France that playing dirty games with Israel is not too wise. I have to say that used car dealer is much more honest than France. > Stevie. Stevie, If you don't know what you are talking about, why do you talk? Hillel Gazit gazit%ganelon.usc.edu@oberon.usc.edu
jbrown@jplpub1.jpl.nasa.gov (Jordan Brown) (02/20/88)
>>> -In London, after a policewoman was killed from a window of the Libyan >>> 'embassy' in 1984, the killer was safely reconducted to the border by the >>> British police. >>This was a touchy situation because they couldn't prove that he did it, you >>can't just go around locking people up without evidence of some kind. >He had a diplomatic passport, no ? A Libyan diplomatic passport: Certain proof of guilt! :-) Actually, escorting somebody to the English border is a pretty reasonable way of dealing with them... Remember that England is an island... :-)
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (02/21/88)
In article <2642@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: }In article <613@crcmar.crc.uucp} steve@crcmar.crc.uucp (Steve Ardron) writes: }}} -In London, after a policewoman was killed from a window of the Libyan }}} 'embassy' in 1984, the killer was safely reconducted to the border by the }}} British police. }}This was a touchy situation because they couldn't prove that he did it, you }}can't just go around locking people up without evidence of some kind. }He had a diplomatic passport, no ? I don't think so. The key point for the British was that their people were being held hostage by Libya. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
lazarus@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU (02/27/88)
In article <3097@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >In article <2642@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >}He had a diplomatic passport, no ? >I don't think so. The key point for the British was that their people >were being held hostage by Libya. Yes, he did. And furthermore, there was no way to enter the embassy to compel his surrender [anti-Soviet refugees in our embassy, Mike?], or the forcibly interrogate witnesses inside the embassy. (Look it up, Mike....) The British granted diplomatic immunity to the officials in the Libyan Embassy even though Ghaddafi labelled it a 'People's Bureau', not an embassy. After this incident the embassy was closed. andy
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) (02/27/88)
In article <2642@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <613@crcmar.crc.uucp> steve@crcmar.crc.uucp (Steve Ardron) writes: >> >>> -In London, after a policewoman was killed from a window of the Libyan >>> 'embassy' in 1984, the killer was safely reconducted to the border by the >>> British police. >> >>This was a touchy situation because they couldn't prove that he did it, you >>can't just go around locking people up without evidence of some kind. > >He had a diplomatic passport, no ? If I recall correctly the original quote is too simple to describe the situation and the other points are irrelevant. After the policewoman was shot the embassy was surrounded by police and the British government demanded that either the perpetrator be surrendered, or that officials be allowed in to investigate the matter. And were perfectly prepared to sit there waiting for whomever came out. Nobody was quite sure *who* did it. The Libyans said "no way", surrounded the British embassy in Libya and made various threats (up to and including full-scale massacres). So, after a couple of days of this the British Government ordered the Libyans to close their embassy down in London and sent *everybody* out of the country. The Libyans of course did the same thing... To do anything further would have greatly endangered British lives in Libya. Regardless of diplomatic immunity - it's unclear whether the perpetrator had any. -- Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc, yunexus}!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (02/28/88)
In article <8802261821.AA01476@jiff> jiff!lazarus (Andrew J Lazarus) writes: >In article <3097@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >>In article <2642@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >And furthermore, there was no way to enter the embassy to >compel his surrender [anti-Soviet refugees in our embassy, Mike?], >or the forcibly interrogate witnesses inside the embassy. >(Look it up, Mike....) >The British granted diplomatic immunity to the officials in the >Libyan Embassy even though Ghaddafi labelled it a 'People's Bureau', >not an embassy. After this incident the embassy was closed. >andy Hey. I never suggested that the British should have stormed the Embassy or that they should have arrested that guy. What they should have done is they should have told Quadaffi "There are two possible explanations for what happened. The first is that this was a lone madman acting without your permission. In that case you will obviously waive diplomatic immunity and let us prosecute him. The alternative is that he was carrying out the policy of the Libyan government. We will assume that that is the case if you do not let us prosecute him. If it is the Libyan government's policy to kill British policemen then it will become the British govenment's policy to destroy some important Libyan assets in Libya. You have been warned." Considering what the British did to Argentina I think Quadaffi would have played ball if Thatcher had given him a face-saving out. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) (03/05/88)
In article <3310@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: | Hey. I never suggested that the British should have stormed the | Embassy or that they should have arrested that guy. What they should | have done is they should have told Quadaffi "There are two possible | explanations for what happened. The first is that this was a lone | madman acting without your permission. In that case you will obviously | waive diplomatic immunity and let us prosecute him. The alternative is | that he was carrying out the policy of the Libyan government. We will | assume that that is the case if you do not let us prosecute him. If it | is the Libyan government's policy to kill British policemen then it | will become the British govenment's policy to destroy some important | Libyan assets in Libya. You have been warned." If I recall correctly this is more or less what they DID do. Quadaffi's response was to claim that the whole thing was a put-on designed to embarrass the Libyan people and threatened to kill British civilians in addition to the embassy staff in Tripoli unless the British completely backed down. Considering the situation, closing the embassy was the best compromise possible. Considering how Britain usually responds to these things, if Libya *wasn't* holding British citizens (de-facto) hostage, they might very well have done something considerably more spectacular. | Considering what the British did to Argentina I think Quadaffi would | have played ball if Thatcher had given him a face-saving out. Considering the difficulties that Chad and France are having with Libya it is unlikely that Britain would be able to mount any sort of successful response in Libya that wouldn't immediately result in the death of British citizens. Quadaffi is a stubborn bugger and controls his country phenomenally well. The Falklands are *islands* - Argentina had a fair bit of difficulty assisting their own forces there (Britain of course had EXTREME difficulty). If Britain had attacked the Argentinian mainland, it would probably have been a completely different story. Also remember, in the Falklands Britain attacked a territory that Argentina claimed, but had virtually no Argentinian citizens. Once the rabble-rousing wore off, the Argentinian troops weren't too terribly thrilled about being there. Contrast that with a direct attack on the homeland of the Libyans. The Libyans would have fought back hard no matter what they *really* think of Quadaffi. No matter how bad Gaultieri was/is, at least he's not an out-and-out fruitcake like Quadaffi and wouldn't be likely to order the massacre of innocent bystanders. As a last thought, consider this, what did your country do militarily about the Iranian US embassy seizure? Not much (one aborted attempt). [At least Canada's covert but non-military action did rescue a couple Americans] The US ran an enormous risk when they attacked Libya, considering the numbers of US civilians working in the Libyan oilfields. And frankly, when push comes to shove, the US wields a far bigger stick than Britain (just a little more rotten too perhaps). -- Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc, yunexus}!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (03/11/88)
In article <487@spectrix.UUCP > clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) writes: >In article <3310@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU >, lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >| Hey. I never suggested that the British should have stormed the >| Embassy or that they should have arrested that guy. What they should >| have done is they should have told Quadaffi "There are two possible >| explanations for what happened. The first is that this was a lone >| madman acting without your permission. In that case you will obviously >| waive diplomatic immunity and let us prosecute him. The alternative is >| that he was carrying out the policy of the Libyan government. We will >| assume that that is the case if you do not let us prosecute him. If it >| is the Libyan government's policy to kill British policemen then it >| will become the British govenment's policy to destroy some important >| Libyan assets in Libya. You have been warned." >If I recall correctly this is more or less what they DID do. Quadaffi's >response was to claim that the whole thing was a put-on designed to embarrass >the Libyan people and threatened to kill British civilians in addition >to the embassy staff in Tripoli unless the British completely backed down. >Considering the situation, closing the embassy was the best compromise >possible. Considering how Britain usually responds to these things, if >Libya *wasn't* holding British citizens (de-facto) hostage, they might >very well have done something considerably more spectacular. You miss my point. They should never have surrounded that Embassy. They should have talked to Quadaffi privately. If that hadn't worked they should have broken relations, expelled the Libyan diplomats, and told their own people to return home or else. Then they should have attacked. >| Considering what the British did to Argentina I think Quadaffi would >| have played ball if Thatcher had given him a face-saving out. >Considering the difficulties that Chad and France are having with Libya it >is unlikely that Britain would be able to mount any sort of successful >response in Libya that wouldn't immediately result in the death of >British citizens. Quadaffi is a stubborn bugger and controls his country >phenomenally well. Yes, but I am not talking about an invasion. I am talking about bombing raids / naval bombardment. Much simpler and much easier. British citizens would have already been ordered to leave by their government. There would be an implied threat that actions taking against any who remained would be met with further death and destruction. >As a last thought, consider this, what did your country do militarily about >the Iranian US embassy seizure? Not much (one aborted attempt). [At least >Canada's covert but non-military action did rescue a couple Americans] >The US ran an enormous risk when they attacked Libya, considering the numbers >of US civilians working in the Libyan oilfields. And frankly, when push >comes to shove, the US wields a far bigger stick than Britain (just a little >more rotten too perhaps). I would agree with every statement in your last two paragraphs. We should have immediately declared war. That would have let the Iranians know we were serious. We should have handed them target lists describing what would happen if our people were hurt or killed. And a LARGE naval task force should have headed towards Iran. The rest would have been up to Allah. These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!
neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer) (03/12/88)
In article <3637@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >I would agree with every statement in your last two paragraphs. We >should have immediately declared war. That would have let the Iranians >know we were serious. We should have handed them target lists >describing what would happen if our people were hurt or killed. And a >LARGE naval task force should have headed towards Iran. Just as a footnote, Jimmy Carter was speaking here at BSU the evening before last (Wed. 3/11). He said that, in fact, that was more or less what was done. Khomeini had threatened to put the hostages on "trial" as spys and Carter said that he had communicated to Khomeini via the Swiss embassy that certain very undesirable things would happen to Iran if that were done and that even worse things would happen if the hostages were harmed. Carter commented that this communication was kept private and although he did not say much about why, I inferred that he thought it would carry more weight if it was clearly not just public posturing. I also imagine that by keeping the threats quiet, they did not come across as a "dare". -- Paul Neubauer neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!neubauer
lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) (03/12/88)
In article <2335@bsu-cs.UUCP> neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer) writes: >In article <3637@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU > lazarus@athena.mit.edu >(Michael Friedman) writes: > >I would agree with every statement in your last two paragraphs. We > >should have immediately declared war. That would have let the Iranians > >know we were serious. We should have handed them target lists > >describing what would happen if our people were hurt or killed. And a > >LARGE naval task force should have headed towards Iran. >Just as a footnote, Jimmy Carter was speaking here at BSU the evening before >last (Wed. 3/11). He said that, in fact, that was more or less what was >done. Khomeini had threatened to put the hostages on "trial" as spys and >Carter said that he had communicated to Khomeini via the Swiss embassy that >certain very undesirable things would happen to Iran if that were done and >that even worse things would happen if the hostages were harmed. Carter >commented that this communication was kept private and although he did not >say much about why, I inferred that he thought it would carry more weight if >it was clearly not just public posturing. I also imagine that by keeping >the threats quiet, they did not come across as a "dare". Yes, yes, but why be satisfied with keeping the hostages unharmed? Why not demand that they be freed? These are the official opinions Mike Friedman of my organization. So, TOUGH!!