goddard@rochester.UUCP (04/18/86)
Britain is now paying the price for US support in the Falklands War: so far one bomb at Heathrow, three dead in the Lebanon, and one more kidnapped there. When the next request for support comes, will Margaret Thatcher act in the interests of the British people and the rest of the world and resist US pressure ? Judging by her record, the outlook is not good. There's a simple approach to eradicating terrorism in the middle east: bomb them into submission. There would not be many people left there when that was completed, but who cares, we only want the oil anyway. The only humane and practical way to deal with the problem is to address the root cause: Arab nationalism in general and the plight of the Palestinians in particular. If outside powers got out of the action, except perhaps to guarentee the DEFENCE of Israel (not including annexed and occupied territory), then maybe the voice of moderation in Israel, which has been stifled until now, could be heard and acted upon. Power politics being what it is, this will not happen, and so we can look forward to more rounds of retail terrorism (PLO, etc) and wholesale terrorism (US, UK, etc). Once again the only benificiaries will be the arms trafficers and their politician puppets. When will we ever learn ?
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (04/19/86)
In article <157@unido.UUCP> ab@unido.UUCP University of Dortmund . ... (Andreas Bormann) writes: >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >... the death of children and innocent people. >.. similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who >are not responsible for their leaders' politics. >I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. Define [Khaddafi=Kadafi=Qaddafi=Cadafih=Gadaffi]. .. the_manic-depressive_from_Libya The power Kadafi has, comes in no small part from his macho image as a European and Western people basher. His leadership is as much from "wolf pack" or mob psychology (sickology?) as it is from his innovativeness and support of causes meriting concern. One plane load of bombs were apparently released by a crashing U. S. bomber, and there was no intention to bash the people of Libya.. only the ones involved in the "sick activities" of DELIBERATE civilian terrorism. Mr. K would have no leadership without the acceptance of his extreme "junk yard dog" fanaticism by a good number of the people of Libya, and that includes an acceptance of the variety of penalties imposed by courageous governments whose peoples are victims of his stupidity. "Play around long enough and get layed around". We Americans are fully aware and have the greatest sympathy for the "innocents" of madness, but madness unchecked can lead to a holocaust. The Americans and the Europeans by this time are not stopping the semitic people of the M.E from solving the problems caused by their stupid policies of "official state religions" and going after us only diffuses the energy that must be focused to weld a solution among themselves. Mr. K is the worst kind of parasite that bleeds that concern and desire and diffuses the power it could bring to solving the real problem by spilling the blood of others whose governments he thinks should do the job for him. Things don't work that way, it takes blood guts and dedication of mind and body applied directly within that community to forge their Peace and Freedom, Sanctity and Prosperity for their following generations. After all we lost a good part of our young male population doing the same thing . . a couple of times. All semitics should face up to the task and cut loose the switchers and egomaniacs within thier midst. (Listening Tel Aviv, Tehran?). Thank you for your comment, Herr Dortmund.
boyter@westpt.UUCP (Cpt Brian Boyter) (04/19/86)
In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: > >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. In article <720@ark.UUCP> Peter Hommel of the Netherlands writes: > I think R. Reagan has done the right thing. Let's look at the facts: Numero uno: We tried ignoring Qaddafi... but he didn't go away. Numero two-o: Why is he bombing a disco in Germany?? A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... that only leaves one thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his brother under the rubble in Berlin??? ------------------------------------------------------ (( )) Cpt Brian Boyter (( )) US Military Academy (( )) West Point, NY 10996 ||| UUCP: philabs!westpt!boyter ||| MA: (914)938-3233 >|||< Muammar... Where are you??? _______________________________________________________
ralph@qtecmuc.UUCP (04/19/86)
******************** FLAME ON *********************************
Re: Opinion of Mr. Hommel
("Rommel" would be the better name)
You think Mr. Reagan did the right thing. I think,
with thinking you have your difficulties ! You would like a
World War III ?
In your opinion, it's ok to destroy a whole country just cause of
a (whether proved or not) criminal delict of a member of this state.
Allright, a dutchman kills somebody in NY. The USA is allowed to
make an air aid on Amsterdam. Fine.
ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE.
ralph (%qtecmuc@unido)martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (04/19/86)
In article <170@westpt.UUCP> boyter@westpt.UUCP (Cpt Brian Boyter) writes: >In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: >> >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >> >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > >In article <720@ark.UUCP> Peter Hommel of the Netherlands writes: >> I think R. Reagan has done the right thing. > >Let's look at the facts: >Numero uno: We tried ignoring Qaddafi... but he didn't go away. >Numero two-o: Why is he bombing a disco in Germany?? > >A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, >peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi >is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only >leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have >exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... that only leaves one >thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his >brother under the rubble in Berlin??? > I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 million who died in WWII might have lived. Es ueberrascht mich nicht, dasz ein Deutscher Sympathie fuer einen antisemitischen Verrueckten ausdrueckt, der die Welt ueberwaeltigen will (dem gruenen Buch nach) und der Terror um seiner politischen Objektiven willen benuetzt. Andreas Borman, Sie haben eine Stelle in der SA besessen. Wenn Frankreich und Groszbrittanien Hitler und Deutschland so in den 30s bestraft haette, wie Reagan Ihren Freund Gaddafi und Libien bestraft hat, haetten 40 Millionen, die im WWII gestorben sind, gelebt. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (04/20/86)
>A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, >peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi >is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only >leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have >exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... that only leaves one >thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his >brother under the rubble in Berlin??? >Cpt Brian Boyter (( )) >US Military Academy (( )) >West Point, NY 10996 ||| >UUCP: philabs!westpt!boyter ||| >MA: (914)938-3233 >|||< > Muammar... > Where are you??? I suffer no such illusions. Some people put nuclear mushroom clouds in their signatures. I do however see with my own eyes that this wonderful violence that people are so proud of having inflicted on Libya seems not to have done much to accomplish its stated goal. Am I too critical? What can I expect! We bomb them to stop terrorism and then it increases the terrorism...Mr Shein, you expect too much! It is such an easy answer, let's nuke 'em. But it doesn't work, can't you see that with your own two eyes? Didn't we learn this in VietNam? We dropped uncountable TONS of bombs, threw our military might against a populace and in the end lost (oh, I see, we didn't have our 'heart' in it? well, we sure dropped enough tonnage, I think that's just a poor apology for an outright failure, face it, we lost fair and square.) So what -should- we do? Well, maybe we should all paint ourselves blue and dance naked in the streets, looks like it will do about as much good as what we are doing now, it'd be more fun also. I have little doubt in my mind that Qaddaffi (Gaddafi, Khaddaffi, Khadafi) is a lunatic, but I think we give this lunatic far too much credit, I mean, think of it, we credit him with being behind 20 years or more of calculated, world-wide terrorism...boy are we in trouble! I remember we figured in VietNam if we could just kill Ho Chi Minh the war would just come to an end. Well, Ho dropped dead anyhow and it didn't help a bit, no one ever bothered to explain that one though. When are we going to see through the paradox of our own propaganda. We are a democracy, we believe in the will of the people. When a 'people' believe in something we don't like...well...then it must not be the people...must be some lunatic at the helm, the lone gunman theory of international politics. I think we gotta either deal with the issues or be ready to dabble in genocide. This current policy is clearly getting us nowhere. How about the hard road, there's a lot of real unhappy people out there, some of them are so desperate they'll do some really crazy things to prove their point, like throw bombs (you figure out which side I am speaking about). Some of them might even have some real gripes but, out of frustration, will follow a madman. -Barry Shein, Boston University
robert@megaron.UUCP (04/20/86)
> In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of > children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses > similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who > are not responsible for their leaders' politics. It was especially ironic that many of us Americans mailed our federal income tax in the morning and found out that night that we, in a financial sense, had supported these actions. I dedicated my lectures Wednesday to the memory of these people, but it was decided by higher ups that politics have no place in computer-science class rooms. I did have many positive reactions from students about how it was nice to know that they were not alone and that someone had the courage, in these days of censorship, political repression, and Rambohood in the USA, to make a statement. R. Drabek, Univ. of Arizona
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (04/20/86)
>Britain is now paying the price for US support in the Falklands War: so >far one bomb at Heathrow, three dead in the Lebanon, and one more kidnapped >there. When the next request for support comes, will Margaret Thatcher >act in the interests of the British people and the rest of the world and >resist US pressure ? Judging by her record, the outlook is not good. Wait a minute, giving in to terrorism is acting "in the interests of the British people"? I would think that it would be in the interests of the British (and for that matter all) people to not encourage terrorism, and giving in is one sure way to encourage its continued use. Do you really think terrorists who are shown that terrorism is effective will stop using terrorism? >There's a simple approach to eradicating terrorism in the middle east: bomb >them into submission. There would not be many people left there when that >was completed, but who cares, we only want the oil anyway. Unfortunately this is an argument by caricature. The bombing was not aimed at Libyans in general, but at Kadaffi. >The only humane and practical way to deal with the problem is to address >the root cause: Arab nationalism in general and the plight of the >Palestinians in particular. The "root cause" is the refusal of most of the Arab states in question to recoginze that Israel has a right to exist. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
ins_ammm@jhunix.UUCP (Mazen Moein Mokhtar) (04/20/86)
In article <2570@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) writes: >>There's a simple approach to eradicating terrorism in the middle east: bomb >>them into submission. There would not be many people left there when that >>was completed, but who cares, we only want the oil anyway. >Unfortunately this is an argument by caricature. The bombing was not aimed >at Libyans in general, but at Kadaffi. Unfortunately, the president of the U. S. A. has said to the media on more than one accasion that the goal was not to kill Qadhafi. (Washington Post, most issues since last Monday). It does not require a genius to know that Qadhafi would not be in his home when it was bombed. The residence was in the middle of the city of Tripoly. Result : 15 month old adopted daughter of Qadhafi is killed 3 year old real son of Qadhafi in serious condition in hospital 4 year old real son of Qadhafi in serious condition in hospital Several civilian deaths Qadhafi intact, with more incentive to attack innocent Americans It is very unfortunate that the American government found it O. K. to kill foreign civilians in order to fight terrorism. It is a victory for terrorism. One does not punish a murderer by bombing his house and killing his children and claiming that the aim of bombing his house was not to kill him (and that it was known that only his children were in the house). One may fight fire with fire but may not fight murder with murder. Mazen MOKHTAR ---------------
hommel@ark.UUCP (04/20/86)
What a fool I am to put my opinion onto the net.
I could have known a reaction like this would come.
Typically by people whose brain isn't bigger
than a peanut. I bet you're still sucking your thumb.
NO,NO don't flame again.
--
Peter Hommel
hommel@vu44.UUCP (...!{decvax,seismo,philabs}!mcvax!vu44!hommel)fox@daemen.uucp (Merlin) (04/21/86)
In article <157@unido.UUCP>, ab@unido.UUCP (Andreas Bormann) writes: > After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of > children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses > similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who > are not responsible for their leaders' politics. You forget one thing, Mr. Regan has VERY good reasons for the air raid on Libya, namely self-defense. What reasons does Kadaffy have for terrorist attacks, which are usually directed directly at civilians. We went after military targets, but there are always civilian causalties. Kadaffi really doesn't care about civilian deaths, in fact they usually help him by getting media coverage. As for the similiar methods, $%^*@&!!!, we did not use car bombs, bombs in airports, submachine guns in public places, and we did not attack libya to get attention we did it to protect ourselves. I for one would like to travel abroad without having to worry about being blown to hell in some airport, anywhere! I don't understand why people don't realize that Mommar Kaddafy is a mad-man and that he won't go away if we ignore him. He will continue to do the things he has done in the past. David Fox UUCP : decvax!sunybcs!daemen!fox inhp4!kitty!daemen!fox
res@ihlpl.UUCP (Rich Strebendt @ AT&T Information Systems - Indian Hill West; formerly) (04/21/86)
> After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of > children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses > similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who In response to: > are not responsible for their leaders' politics. > > I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. I vehemently DISAGREE !! I am pleased and proud that we finally have a President who has the guts to stand up to a petty bully like Kaddafi and to deliver a slap to his wrist to make him realize that he goes too far. Look back at recent history and YOU tell ME who is "directly responsible for the the death of children and innocent people." Back during the Carter administration Kaddafi was ASKED to not support the killing of innocents by terrorists. The brutal murders of innocent men, women, and children continued. Early in his first term in office Reagan TOLD Kaddafi to stop exporting terrorism. Innocent people standing in line at several airports were machine-gunned and grenaded. Recently Reagan waved a fist (the Navy) under Kaddafi's nose and WARNED him to stop. An American man and a Turkish woman died in a German disco. Several people, including a baby, were blown out the side of an airliner. You tell me, who has been cold-bloodedly murdering children (machine-gunning school buses), blowing out the brains of an old man in a wheel chair and dumping him from a cruise ship, and blowing innocent civilians up in midair for the past several years? Of course, it is Kaddafi, through the terrorists that he has encouraged, trained, and exported for several years. I was angered when I learned that the planes involved in the slap on Kaddafi's wrist were not allowed to over-fly France or Spain, adding around 2500 extra kilometers to their flight, thereby greatly increasing the hazard to these aircraft and their crews. I am even more angered that the people of Europe do not have the guts to stand up to this petty tyrant in Libya, and are willing to accept the deaths of innocents as a blood-price for their own uninvolvement. But, what the hell, it is only Americans and Jews who are being killed, and a few others caught in the crossfire, so why should a German or a Spaniard, or a Frenchman give a damn? These are not really people, with loved ones and families who have been machine-gunned, and what European really gives a fuck about an old American tourist in a wheel chair whose brains were blown out for the amusement of a Kaddafi-trained assasin? As an American, and as a human being who is sick of reading in the papers of yet another senseless death at the hands of terrorists, I FULLY BACK my President in the actions he took. I know that I could not have exercised the restraint in limiting the strike as he did. If Kaddafi "retaliates" by killing more innocent people -- be it in Germany, Italy, Greece, France, the United Kingdom, or the United States -- I would GLADLY hear that Reagan graduated from slapping Kaddafi on the wrist to LEVELING the city of Tripoli. I am saddened that the free people of Europe think so little of their freedom and so little of the lives of innocents that they are unwilling to step down on that nasty little worm in Libya and free the world of that sick murderer. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!iwsl6!res
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (04/21/86)
> After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of > children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses > similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who > are not responsible for their leaders' politics. > > I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. > Andreas Bormann ------ There are all too many, unfortunately. Mr. Bormann fails to distinguish between terrorism and defense against terrorism. Are you saying that nations cannot defend themselves against aggression because innocent people may be killed? I can understand those who say the raids are counter-prodctive and a mistake. Only time will tell. But I am INFURIATED by those such as Mr. Bormann who call such a response terrorism. The U. S. has sat back and taken it from Kaddafy in blood for long enough. If only the raid jolts the Europeans out of their lethargy and inaction, they will have a positive effect. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
jor_d015@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (04/21/86)
>>>There's a simple approach to eradicating terrorism in the middle east: bomb >>>them into submission. There would not be many people left there when that >>>was completed, but who cares, we only want the oil anyway. >>Unfortunately this is an argument by caricature. The bombing was not aimed >>at Libyans in general, but at Kadaffi. >Unfortunately, the president of the U. S. A. has said to the media on >more than one accasion that the goal was not to kill Qadhafi. What's he going to do, publicly announce to the world that he intended to kill Khadaffy? That would be an extremely stupid move. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (04/21/86)
> > In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: >> >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >> >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > > In article <720@ark.UUCP> Peter Hommel of the Netherlands writes: >> I think R. Reagan has done the right thing. > > Let's look at the facts: > Numero uno: We tried ignoring Qaddafi... but he didn't go away. > Numero two-o: Why is he bombing a disco in Germany?? > > A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, > peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi > is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only > leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have > exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... Bull. What economic sanctions has the U.S. taken against Libya? Have we made the import of Libyan goods illegal? Have we impounded Libyan funds in U.S. banks? The fact is that the U.S. goverment has made almost no attempt at peaceful ways of punishing Libya. Bombing raids make for bigger headlines. They also kill a lot of civilians. Don't try to say that civilian deaths are mistakes. They are the types of "mistakes" that inevitably happen during military actions (such as "surgical strikes"). > that only leaves one > thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his > brother under the rubble in Berlin??? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > (( )) > Cpt Brian Boyter (( )) > US Military Academy (( )) > West Point, NY 10996 ||| > UUCP: philabs!westpt!boyter ||| > MA: (914)938-3233 >|||< > Muammar... > Where are you??? > _______________________________________________________ Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (04/21/86)
> > I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic > lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who > used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas > Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain > had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 > million who died in WWII might have lived. > > Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami I will try to avoid terms like "addle-brained idiot" and "disgusting pig". I will merely point out that Andreas Borman expressed no sympathy whatever for Moammar Qadaffi in his original posting. He merely said that Reagan's actions make him as much a terrorist as Qadaffi. You may disagree with his opinion, but it in no way makes him a Nazi. Furthermore, the situation in Libya is *not comparable* to that in Nazi Germany. It's true that both cases have maniacal dictators who hate Jews, but that's where the resemblance ends. I think Mr. Ajami owes Mr. Borman an apology. I doubt that it will come. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (04/21/86)
I am pretty disgusted with the TV coverage of the aftermath of the raid
on Libya. They spend 99%+ of their time showing Libyan supplied footage
and inteviewing people who would obviously be opposed to the raid, such
as relative of current hostages. It seems that, other than the initial
press conference by the Secretaries of Defense and State, even the most
obvious arguments in favor of the administration, such as the argument
that we differ from the Libyans in that our raid tried to avoid civilian
casualties while the terrorism run the the Libyans tried to maximize
civiliam casulaties, get zero air time. I think that one could
reasonably be opposed to such slanted coverage regardless of whether you
thought the US raid was, on balance, a good idea or not. It is not even
that I would mind slanted coverage, it is the essentially total shut out
of any pro US administration views ...
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deewdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) (04/21/86)
In article <157@unido.UUCP> ab@unido.UUCP (Andreas Bormann) writes: >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. >In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of >children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses >similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who >are not responsible for their leaders' politics. > Terrorism? Maybe, but the real question is what would you recommend we do with Libya? Continuing to ignore him seems alittle silly and the Western Europeans rejected the call for economic sanctions. Should the US have stayed out of WWII because of the certainty that children and innocent people would be killed? I fear that because so many have waited so long to do something about terrorism many more innocent people will die before it is over.
bep@drutx.UUCP (PuryearB) (04/21/86)
I was not glad to see President Reagan bomb Libya, but I would have to say that
I support him. It would seem to me that if you read history, when the world has
ignored aggression it did not go away. If Europe had had the backbone to stand
up to Hilter in the early days I dont think world war two would have happen.
While I realise that this isn't the start of world war three (I hope) I dont
think that Gadaffi will just go away if we ignore him. Europe has shown in the
past that they will not do anything until some one actuality invades, and even
then they will runaround for months without doing anything. If Europe had joined
with America in doing some sort of economic sanctions things might not have
gotten so bad. When I think about this I do see some good out of it. I hope
that America sees what type of friends we have in Europe and might re-think out
why we try to play the world polceman. I would just love to see us pull evey
troop we have in Europe back. I think its time for us to worry about out
borders and the hell with Europe. It would be interesting to see how many protest
groups would be out burning our flag if we pulled out! I think that if we pulled
out of the rest of the world and just worred about what we have problems with,
we could get rid of our national debt and make America a much better place to
live. While I am on my soap box I would like to see the United Nations move from
America to the USSR or some other great country, then we could drop what we pay
in to that fund also. I guess I am tired of the rest of the world thinking that
we are suppose to be some type of moral leader. We are no better or worse than
any other country and have no reason to get involved in their problems. If the
leaders of this country would worry about out problems instead of trying to save
the world I think we would be in a lot better shape. The world at large might not
but that is not our problem. No other country with the one exception on England
is willing to help us and I dont see any reason why we should should be the savior
of the world.
For those who wish to flame me on this flame on because I doubt if its going to
change the way I think.
Bentz E. Puryear
My opinions are just my own for better or worse.
--
Bentz Puryear (303)538-1746 (drutx!bep)
11900 North Pecos Street Rm. 31G22
Denver, Colorado 80234shar@ihlpg.UUCP (Blanton) (04/21/86)
> After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of > children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses > similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who > are not responsible for their leaders' politics. > > I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. > > Andreas Bormann > University of Dortmund [UniDo] > West Germany > > Uucp: ab@unido.uucp > Path: {USA}!seismo!{mcvax}!unido!ab > {Europe}!{cernvax,diku,enea,ircam,mcvax,prlb2,tuvie,ukc}!unido!ab > Bitnet: ab@unido.bitnet (== ab@ddoinf6.bitnet) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** I agree that it was wrong for our government to do what they did. I can't agree that it was an act of state terrorism though. I sincerely hope that the government has learned a valuable lesson from this and that it will not be repeated. Sharon Blanton
timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) (04/21/86)
In article <157@unido.UUCP> ab@unido.UUCP writes: > > Andreas comments on the death of innocent bystanders in Libya... > and why he condemns the United States for our actions. > >I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. > > Andreas Bormann > University of Dortmund [UniDo] > West Germany > For the innocent people who were killed in the bombing no appology or other action will bring them back. Nor will the same bring back the ones killed by the terrorists bomb. It's true that non of the Tripoli people would have been hurt if we had not attacked. But we did, just as the Libyan have attacked us. I for one think Reagan had justification to make the raid on Libya. I do not think it an act of terrorism. It was reprisal for previous actions done by the Libyan state. I do not think a tit for tat is appropriate, but the EUROPEAN communtity would not support an economic sanction of Libya, so what else could the United States do to tell the world we have a problem? I think that now the world has at least acknowedged the fact Libya has been responsible for alot of the current terrorist activities, something just might get done to solve, or at least alleviate the problem. Another thing I find of interest is that France and Italy both allowed free movement of known terrorists in exchange for no activity on their souvreign ground. Finally, I also think that if the shoe were on the other foot (ala Hitler or Musselini (sp?)), the Europeans might have a different attitude, at least the history books I've read said the general public did appreciate the help the USA and England provided to the European continent. Who knows though, to read the current news from around the world, one would think that we should have let Hitler take all of Europe. At least we knew for sure his intentions, and knew who we could count on when things got warm for us. Thanks, and have a nice day. (ps. I have reletives in W. Germany, Nurnberg to be exact, and I do not want a large war to break out Europe any more than any European). -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 tektronix!tekigm2!timothym @@ 'Who said that?' PO Box 3500 d/s C1-937 Vancouver, WA. 98665
tomczak@harvard.UUCP (04/21/86)
In article <858@ihlpl.UUCP> res@ihlpl.UUCP (Rich Strebendt @ AT&T Information Systems - Indian Hill West; formerly) writes: > >I am pleased and proud that we finally have a President who has the >guts to stand up to a petty bully like Kaddafi and to deliver a slap to >his wrist to make him realize that he goes too far. Look back at recent >history and YOU tell ME who is "directly responsible for the the death >of children and innocent people." People like yourself who think violence is the only answer. That glorify vengeance as a rightful virtue in this world. > >Back during the Carter administration Kaddafi was ASKED to not support >the killing of innocents by terrorists. The brutal murders of innocent >men, women, and children continued. > >Early in his first term in office Reagan TOLD Kaddafi to stop exporting >terrorism. Innocent people standing in line at several airports were >machine-gunned and grenaded. > >Recently Reagan waved a fist (the Navy) under Kaddafi's nose and WARNED >him to stop. An American man and a Turkish woman died in a German >disco. Several people, including a baby, were blown out the side of an >airliner. And don't forget the attempt to economically strangle Kaddafi. All good reasons why I, very reluctantly, accept the raid on Libya as a necessary, if desparate act. I am not a supporter of Reagan or his thinking. He scares me because he seems too eager to use the military to bargain. Something HAD to be done, assuming the facts as most of us seem to agree are accurate (that Kaddafi is, in fact, supporting, training and encouraging terrorism around the world). I can't think of any other options, but I wish I had the confidence that Reagan was really interested in finding other, nonviolent options. >I was angered when I learned that the planes involved in the slap on >Kaddafi's wrist were not allowed to over-fly France or Spain, adding >around 2500 extra kilometers to their flight, thereby greatly >increasing the hazard to these aircraft and their crews. I am even >more angered that the people of Europe do not have the guts to stand up >to this petty tyrant in Libya, and are willing to accept the deaths of >innocents as a blood-price for their own uninvolvement. I think you're being unfair. WWII was fought on their soil. They know the terrors of war in a way that most (nah, all!) living Americans can't appreciate. Americans fighting in WWII were pissed off because of Pearl Harbor, the main reason we finally got involved. How do you imagine Europeans felt while the Axis powers overran their own coutries? Okay, they're scared, it's entirely possible they have more at stake. Perhaps you'd like to get involved in the 'glory of war'. To me, war becomes a painful necessity because we, as human beings are too stupid and scared to really talk to each other and understand that helping someone else helps yourself. (I realize that I'm vastly oversimplifying but this is already longer than it should be). >But, what the hell, it is only Americans and Jews who are being killed, >and a few others caught in the crossfire, so why should a German or a >Spaniard, or a Frenchman give a damn? These are not really people, >with loved ones and families who have been machine-gunned, and what >European really gives a fuck about an old American tourist in a wheel >chair whose brains were blown out for the amusement of a >Kaddafi-trained assasin? So you care about him because he's an American? How 'bout 'cause he's a human being? Plain and simple? This kind of nationalism is what fuels the fires of war. Somewhere in Kaddafi's twisted excuse for a brain, there probably some similar process keeping him demented. >I am saddened that the free people of Europe think so little of their >freedom and so little of the lives of innocents that they are unwilling >to step down on that nasty little worm in Libya and free the world of >that sick murderer. > > Rich Strebendt I am saddened that you seem to think that violence is a natural necessity for freedom. Violence begets violence. Isn't this what history has taught us? Please do not misunderstand me! I don't condemn Reagan's raid on Libya. But neither will I rejoice at the continuation of violence. Killing ANYbody is, in my mind, a criminal act. Whether it be done by Kaddafi, out of necessity by Reagan and all you pure-red-blooded-America- love-it-or-leave-it patriots, by law when referred to as 'capitol punishment' or any other excuse that can be made. I recognize it as a desparate act committed by someone (or group of someones) who don't, can't, or won't see any other options. -- +-------------------------------------+ | Bill Tomczak | | uucp: harvard!tomczak | | arpa: tomczak@harvard.harvard.edu | +-------------------------------------+
osmigo1@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ron Morgan) (04/21/86)
Dave, your post makes no sense at all. Khadafy has been murdering people for 15 years now, at an escalating rate. He furnishes arms to the Sandanistas. He backs the IRA. Abu Nidal is on his payroll. At the time of our attack, he had a massive strike against the U.S. planned on a worldwide scale. The point is, we HAD to do SOMETHING. If we had let him go through with his plans, hundreds, maybe even thousands of Americans would have been killed, with more to come. So WHAT if a few Libyan civvies were killed. We didn't go over there for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of killing civilians, unlike Khadafy, who targets only the most helpless (such as mild-mannered old librarians, two-week old babies, and people buying tickets in airplane terminals), and then laughs over their corpses and says "more to come." We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really immaterial. That situation could not be tolerated, PERIOD. Get real. Ron Morgan
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (04/21/86)
> In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: > > >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > > >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > > Let's look at the facts: > Numero uno: We tried ignoring Qaddafi... but he didn't go away. > Numero two-o: Why is he bombing a disco in Germany?? > > A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, > peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi > is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only > leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have > exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... that only leaves one > thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his > brother under the rubble in Berlin??? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > (( )) > Cpt Brian Boyter (( )) > US Military Academy (( )) > West Point, NY 10996 ||| > UUCP: philabs!westpt!boyter ||| > MA: (914)938-3233 >|||< > Muammar... > Where are you??? > _______________________________________________________ Glad to see the Point on the net, with it's fine history (at times). Gives us all a chance to chat about the latest issue of the Journal of the US Army War College, or whatever. The mushroom cloud is an interesting extension of the ``Nuke Iran'' mentality evidenced during the Carter administration. Such ways of approaching foreign policy has a long history in the US military, General Custer's war of terrorism against terrorism is an obvious and early example. Maybe that's a bad example -- Custer's efforts eventually bore fruit. Are you aware of concrete evidence that Libya planned the disco bombing? The British Parliament might be interested, if you do. Since you seem so interested in supporting an undeclared war, perhaps you should go re-read your copy of _On Strategy_ by Col. Harry G. Summers. This insightful analysis of the Vietnam War from the US military's standpoint points to some dangers of this approach to foreign policy. It's used as a text at the US Army War College. At the Point, also? Cheers, jeff myers ``...I reply that since war is not an occupation by which a man [or woman] can at all times make an honorable living, it ought not to be followed as a business by anyone but a prince or a governor of a commonwealth; and if he is a wise man, he will not allow any of his subjects or citizens to make that his only profession -- indeed, no good man ever did, for surely no one can be called a good man who, in order to support himself, takes up a profession that obliges him at all times to be rapacious, fraudulent, and cruel, as of course must be all of those -- no matter what their rank -- who make a trade of war.'' Niccolo Machiavelli, *The Art of War*, 1521
ins_argr@jhunix.UUCP (Robert G Roberds) (04/21/86)
> After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of > children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses > similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who > are not responsible for their leaders' politics. > > I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. > > Andreas Bormann > University of Dortmund [UniDo] > West Germany > I rather believe that in the United States and the net most people will see that this country was pushed into this act. Some facts: 1) Col. Gadaffi attacks Americans and Europeans for no possible reason, knowing full well that they had nothing to do with his paranoid ``grievances''. 2) The US attacked military and governmental tagrets in Libya only when it had concrete evidence of Libyan complicity in the murder of an American and a Turkish woman; and dozens of GERMANS, Mr. Bormann, were injured as well. 3) Libya is an outlaw nation which promotes acts which should be repugnant to any civilized human being. Libya WITHOUT PROVOCATION, as a matter of policy, murders Westerners and flaunts its successes. By no means is Libya the only nation involved in state terrorism, but it is the nation most likely to be affected by retaliation. Syria, for instance, is stronger militarily and less outcast from the world community. 4) I personally feel disgusted at incessant European complaints over American policy, when it was hundreds of thousands of Americans who died to liberate that continent from the darkest tyranny of this or any other century. Sorry for taking this space on this net, but I had to say this. Note: I am not even conservative, I consider myself liberal as a matter of fact. I do NOT feel, however, that the US is indebted to forever sit silent while lawless pseudo nations (jamahiriyah indeed, Colonel) murder and maim just for the sheer joy of it. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If this gets into the hands of the Russians, it's curtains for the free world. -The Church of the SubGenius - - - - - - - - - - Robert G. Roberds@The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs \ BITNET: INS_ARGR@JHUVMS ihnp4!whuxcc > !jhunix!ins_argr G47I3650@JHUVM allegra!hopkins / CSNET: ins_argr@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_argr%jhunix.BITNET@wiscvm.WISC.EDU
rmarti@sun.UUCP (04/21/86)
In article 1829@ihlpg.UUCP, Bill Tanenbaum writes: > ... But I am INFURIATED by those such as Mr. Bormann who call such > a response terrorism ... > ... If only the raid jolts the Europeans out of their lethargy and > inaction, they will have a positive effect. It doesn't matter what you call it, the fact remains that American planes bombed innocent civilians. How long does it take you to understand that this is NOT the way to deal with terrorism? How long does it take you to understand that this kind of utterly inconsiderate operation is counterproductive, not only as far as terrorism is concerned, but, more importantly, as far as the picture of the United States in the world is concerned? Yes, you are abslutely right that the raid jolts the Europeans out of their lethargy: Never since the Vietnam war have anti-US demonstrations in Europe been so big as they are right now! But then again, Americans -- well, at least the 70% who voted for Reagan and the 77% who support Reagan's actions against Libya -- don't really care so much about what the rest of the world thinks of them: Dissenters are just a bunch of terrorists, communists, wimps, and/or a**holes anyway! If necessary, America can always sponsor some "freedom fighters" (what a euphemism!) to topple unfavorable regimes, or -- if the former is not a viable option -- just drop a couple of bombs on them to bring them back in line with The American Way of seeing things. You think these statements are ridiculous? Well, lets see: Remember the Bay of Pigs invasion 25 years ago? Vietnam? The toppling of Allende in Chile 1973, maybe? Or what about Nicaragua? Maybe Reagan's remark about ruling out the Soviets by nuking them away will do? Or do you remember former Secretary of State Alexander Haig's comments about the possibility of a nuclear war confined to Europe? (He was in office at that time.) It'll be interesting to see how you will explain all of the above points away, as I have no doubt you will. The problem is that words will not be able to convince me, only past and future actions of the Reagan administration will convince me one way or another. --Bob Marti
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (04/22/86)
In article <224@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic >> lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who >> used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas >> Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain >> had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 >> million who died in WWII might have lived. >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami >I will try to avoid terms like "addle-brained idiot" and "disgusting pig". >I will merely point out that Andreas Borman expressed no sympathy whatever >for Moammar Qadaffi in his original posting. He merely said that Reagan's >actions make him as much a terrorist as Qadaffi. You may disagree with his >opinion, but it in no way makes him a Nazi. Furthermore, the situation in >Libya is *not comparable* to that in Nazi Germany. It's true that both cases >have maniacal dictators who hate Jews, but that's where the resemblance ends. >I think Mr. Ajami owes Mr. Borman an apology. I doubt that it will come. I admit to a poor choice of words. I should have said I am not surprised that a German is unable to make an ethical distinction between terrorism and response to terrorism. By calling Reagan's act state terrorism, he makes it impossible for any nation to respond to aggressive terrorist action through the use of force because innocent people might die. Well, then perhaps we should just invite Gadhafi to come over and take over. Anyway the image of Reagan terrorizing and murdering children and innocent people cannot help but evoke revulsion towards Reagan and make Gadhafi seem more sympathetic in contradistinction. By the way Ajami is my mother's family name, use either Martillo or Martillo Ajami in replies. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (04/22/86)
In article <4742@ut-sally.UUCP>, nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > In article <629@utastro.UUCP>, ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes: > > I would think that a proportionate > > and reasonable mode of retaliation would have been a campaign of > > assasinations aimed at the groups promoting terrorism, including > > Quadaffi. > > That's exactly what the raid aimed at -- they didn't drop a bomb within > 150 yards of his tent, and manage to kill one of his children and wound > two others, by accident. They were after the man himself. > > If you really like assasination as a policy, we already have it. Personally > I don't like it, in any form. > Well Ed, I have no doubt that we can argue about this in person, but as long as this is on the net I have a few more thoughts to broadcast. 1) I don't see anything immoral about trying to kill people who are guilty of murder, can be expected to murder again, and whose extradition or capture is absurdly unlikely. Whether or not this constitutes sound policy is a pragmatic question. In this case, Qadaffi is probably not a good target since his assasination would have uncertain, and possibly disastrous results. Those of his underlingswho are directly involved in this business are likely targets. 2) It is immoral to bomb civilian areas for the purpose of killing these people for the same reason that it is immoral to fire randomly into a crowd containing a fleeing murderer. 3) Obviously, bombing Qadaffi's family compound is immoral for the above reason, regardless of whether or not it actually kills innocent people. (as it clearly did.) 4) Bombing military bases in Libya in retaliation for terrorism is morally ambiguous, since the military may or may not be particularly involved in the terrorism. It is clear that the action is disproportionate. 5) After believing that the US had exhausted all efforts to get reasonable cooperation from our European allies, I was astounded to read that the US economic boycott specifically *excluded* the major oil companies. Taxes on these companies provide Libya with about a quarter of its budget. The US has *no* significant trade with Libya when one excludes these companies. This has led me to view the European refusal to cooperate with sanctions with more sympathy. How can we expect them to demolish their trade with Libya when we don't? -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (04/22/86)
In article <1200001@ztivax.UUCP> david@ztivax.UUCP writes: >/* Written 10:27 pm Apr 16, 1986 by ab@unido in ztivax:net.general */ >/* ---------- "Air raid on Libya" ---------- */ >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. >In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of >children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses >similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who >are not responsible for their leaders' politics. > >I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. > > Andreas Bormann > University of Dortmund [UniDo] > West Germany > >Well, I doubt that you will find people in America who share your >views, because the brainwashing there is getting rather complete. In fact, you will find a great many people in the United States who share this view. But these same people are compelled to ask why the European community doesn't seem to be combating terrorism effectively. >I wonder if the coverage on European news stations even made it to the >US. It certainly was not on the US propaganda stations here (W. >Germany). There was basically no coverage on either the Voice Of >America (well, only to say that the White House had recieved >congratulations from its allies on the sucessful action against >Libya!!!) or on the Armed Forced Radio (there was a thirty second >report saying an attack had been made on Libya, that two missiles >fired on a LORAN station in the Med boith fell harmlessly into the >sea, AND THAT WAS IT!!!) The television coverage in the United States was indeed quite bloody, just as bloody, in fact, as the coverage of all the recent terrorist raids throughout the world. >People in the US should wake up and see what is happening there. >Raygun is getting ready to start a very big war. And the US populace >do not have the faintest idea of what is going on. The people of the United States are very aware of what is happening there, and we are also very aware of our limitations in dealing with the problem on our own. Perhaps it is you who should wake up. The big war you refer to has been going on in the middle east for thousands of years. We didn't start it, and we don't seem to be able to stop it. >Raygun has demonstrated that he is an imperialist bent on conquering >the world, not on spreading the American Dream of Peace, Liberty, and >the Pursuit of Happiness. Examples: > >Chile: A coup rigged by the CIA (Bush is ex CIA director), installing > a military dictatorship. Good in CIA's eyes, because they buy > US arms. President reagan had nothing to do with the coup in Chile. >Nicaragua: No evidence that terrorists supported by Raygun support > concepts of US consitution. So why does Raygun back terrorists? President Reagan holds that the Contras fighting in Nicaragua are not terrorists. Once again, there are many people in the United States who disagree with this view. There are also a great many who support it. >Manila: Marcos is a perfect example of people Raygun likes. Unless I miss my guess, President Marcos is now addressing himself as Mr. Marcos, and the Phillipines are doing nicely without him. >Afghanistan: Send arms to Afghanis, let the people nearby in Cambodia > starve. Do we have to do it all? Send help. We need it and will gladly accept it. >Angola: Popular government, dealing in good faith with US businesses > (just like Libya used to), Raygun is now backing anti-government > terrorists. Everybody deals in good faith with US businesses, just as they all deal in good faith with Soviet businesses, and German businesses. >Libya: The only DEMOCRACY in the entire middle east. The only leader > in the middle east who is both a JEW AND AN ARAB. No interest > in this potentially important country for spreading good in > Middle East. Please elaborate on how Lybian democracy works, and explain what Mr. Gadaffi's goals are. If he is trying to spread good in the middle east, we need to know how he intends to do this, so that we can help him. >The only thing consistent with the way Raygun chooses who is on his >side and who is the Enemy is by who they by weapons from. If the buy >fromthe US, then they are OK by him. If they don't, he will ack >terrorists to overthrow the government, or he will embark on state >terrorism to murder innocent people, as he has done this week in >Libya. As I've stated, there are many people in the United States who disagree with the attack on Lybia. There are very few people in the US who believe the US chooses its allies according to who they buy arms from. Such people are themselves terribly uninformed. > >And for all of this, Raygun is very popular. Goes to show how far the >brainwashing has progressed. Just look at the popular movies in the >US to see the general attitude. Rambo, Rocky, Phantom Commando, etc., >etc., etc. "Kill those guys, they are the Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!" I must've missed Phantom Commando. Sounds like a real winner. However, your last paragraph makes a good point. I am indeed at a loss to explain President Reagan's popularity. But don't worry. If we can all hold out for two more years, we'll elect a new President. Maybe we'll find a better one; maybe we won't. We'll try. Until then, Ronald Reagan will be the President of the United States. I hope that gives Mr. Gadaffi pause. martin smith
dpb@cbosgd.UUCP (Dain II Ironfoot) (04/22/86)
In article <223@rtech.UUCP>, jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: > > > > > > In article <720@ark.UUCP> Peter Hommel of the Netherlands writes: > > > > A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, > > peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi > > is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only > > leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have > > exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... > > Bull. What economic sanctions has the U.S. taken against Libya? In 1981 we took economic sanctions against Libya, because two Su-22's attacked two of our F-14's in, (surprise) the Gulf of Sidra(Sirte?). Their planes were destroyed. Economic Sanctions have been in effect ever since. They were stepped up after the Rome and Vienna airports massacre. > > > that only leaves one > > thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his > > brother under the rubble in Berlin??? > > > > Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on > Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when > his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. > -- Do you really think that the Russians are willing to kill themselves over Libya????? Maybe East Germany, or Hungary but not Libya.
mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) (04/22/86)
Summary: In <157@unido.UUCP> ab@unido.UUCP (Andreas Bormann) writes: >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. >In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of >children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses >similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who >are not responsible for their leaders' politics. > There is evidence to suggest that much of the damage to civilian areas is due to the Libyans aiming their anti-aircraft fire straight up. This caused shells that did not hit US planes to fall back and damage civilian areas. Those Libyans seem to have really terrible aim. Of course, I am not suggesting that the US did not cause damage to civilian areas in a more direct means, but the probability exists that much of this type of damage was caused by the Libyans. -- < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark D. Freeman mdf@osu-eddie.uucp StrongPoint Systems, Inc. mdf@osu-eddie.arpa Guest account at The Ohio State University ...!cbosgd!osu-eddie!mdf mdf@Ohio-State.EDU "Are you in charge here?" "No, but I'm full of ideas!" -- Dr. Who < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (04/22/86)
> In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: > > >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > > >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > > I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic > lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who > used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas > Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain > had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 > million who died in WWII might have lived. > > Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami A question: does anyone know a worse slime than Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami? Martillo, I am against cencorship, but I promise you $20 if you shut up. (The price is open to negotiation.) Piotr Berman
ar563303@sjuvax.UUCP (rowley) (04/22/86)
In article <4600001@qtecmuc.UUCP> ralph@qtecmuc.UUCP writes: >You think Mr. Reagan did the right thing. I think, >with thinking you have your difficulties ! You would like a >World War III ? I see no reason to assume that WWIII would be a direct result of Reagan's actions. In fact, the USSR had pulled some of their personnel and all of their naval vessels out of Libya. Looks like an attempt at avoidance to me... >In your opinion, it's ok to destroy a whole country just cause of >a (whether proved or not) criminal delict of a member of this state. >Allright, a dutchman kills somebody in NY. The USA is allowed to >make an air aid on Amsterdam. Fine. I think that your comparison is faulty at best. The issue had nothing to do with a crime committed by an average citizen, but instead a pre- meditated policy of criminal, terroristic acts aided and abetted by a nation and its government. Such actions DO make Reagan's response a called-for action. However, why hasn't Reagan ordered strikes against Iran and Syria, which have been in the business longer and have killed more American civilians than Qadaffi's underlings. Iran should have been hit HARD right after the hostages were released way back when; the reason be- hind the lack of action is that Reagan's cronies do business with both Iran and Syria... Keep 'em flyin' Tony Rowley -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Anthony J. Rowley St. Joseph's University Philadelphia, PA USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- { bpa | burdvax | allegra | astrovax } !sjuvax!ar563303 _______________________________________________________________________________
cramer@kontron.UUCP (04/22/86)
> > > > In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: > >> >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > >> >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > > > > In article <720@ark.UUCP> Peter Hommel of the Netherlands writes: > >> I think R. Reagan has done the right thing. > > > > Let's look at the facts: > > Numero uno: We tried ignoring Qaddafi... but he didn't go away. > > Numero two-o: Why is he bombing a disco in Germany?? > > > > A lot of naive people think that the world is full of normal, moral, > > peace-loving persons... this is a good generalization but Qaddafi > > is an obvious exception.... when reason and logic fail, that only > > leaves power.... either economic or military... we the USA have > > exhusted our economic influence on Libya.... > > Bull. What economic sanctions has the U.S. taken against Libya? Have we > made the import of Libyan goods illegal? Have we impounded Libyan funds in > U.S. banks? The fact is that the U.S. goverment has made almost no attempt > at peaceful ways of punishing Libya. Bombing raids make for bigger headlines. I don't think you read the newspapers much, Mr. Lichtman. About two years ago the U.S. did set economic sanctions against Libya. Unfortunately, they don't do much good as long as Europe is unwilling to go along. > They also kill a lot of civilians. Don't try to say that civilian deaths > are mistakes. They are the types of "mistakes" that inevitably happen during > military actions (such as "surgical strikes"). > Building military targets in proximity to civilian housing is the fault of the Libyans -- if a criminal took a hostage and tried to kill you behind that cover, would you feel responsible if in defending yourself you killed the hostage? Of course not -- the criminal put the hostage at risk, and the criminal is responsible for the death. > > that only leaves one > > thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his > > brother under the rubble in Berlin??? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > (( )) > > Cpt Brian Boyter (( )) > > US Military Academy (( )) > > West Point, NY 10996 ||| > > UUCP: philabs!westpt!boyter ||| > > MA: (914)938-3233 >|||< > > Muammar... > > Where are you??? > > _______________________________________________________ > > Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on > Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when > his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) The "mushroom cloud" is a standard part of Boyter's signature -- perhaps he neglected to add a :-) Let's all remember that collective unwillingness to take actions against Mussolini and Hitler in the 1930s made World War II happen. Military against in 1936 when Hitler remilitarized the Ruhr would probably have brought Hitler's government down. Hand-wringing and polite requests are taken as signs of weakness by the truly evil.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (04/22/86)
> > > > I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic > > lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who > > used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas > > Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain > > had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 > > million who died in WWII might have lived. > > > > Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > > I will try to avoid terms like "addle-brained idiot" and "disgusting pig". > I will merely point out that Andreas Borman expressed no sympathy whatever > for Moammar Qadaffi in his original posting. He merely said that Reagan's > actions make him as much a terrorist as Qadaffi. You may disagree with his > opinion, but it in no way makes him a Nazi. Furthermore, the situation in > Libya is *not comparable* to that in Nazi Germany. It's true that both cases > have maniacal dictators who hate Jews, but that's where the resemblance ends. > > I think Mr. Ajami owes Mr. Borman an apology. I doubt that it will come. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) That's not where the resemblance ends. 1. Just like the 1930s, a lot of people professed pacifism as a solution to the problem of a maniac -- and because of the collective unwillingness to take action, the maniac is emboldened. 2. Just like the 1930s, many people in this country are making excuses for the maniac's actions. (See the recent net.politics posting in which someone claimed that Kaddaffi is only a problem to his own people -- demonstrably false, and not dissimilar to the sentiments of those Americans who felt that Hitler's wasn't our problem.) 3. Just like Germany's situation, there are some aggrieved parties who are getting the shaft (Germany in the 1930s because of the Treaty of Versailles, Palestinians today because of Israel), and a maniac taking advantage of that legitimate concern for his crazy purposes.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/22/86)
In article <1200001@ztivax.UUCP> david@ztivax.UUCP writes: > >Well, I doubt that you will find people in America who share your >views, because the brainwashing there is getting rather complete. I >wonder if the coverage on European news stations even made it to the >US. It certainly was not on the US propaganda stations here (W. >Germany). There was basically no coverage on either the Voice Of >America (well, only to say that the White House had recieved >congratulations from its allies on the sucessful action against >Libya!!!) or on the Armed Forced Radio (there was a thirty second >report saying an attack had been made on Libya, that two missiles >fired on a LORAN station in the Med boith fell harmlessly into the >sea, AND THAT WAS IT!!!) This is an unfair judgement of the US media. I don't live in the USA, but I have access to all U.S. media. Things like VOR and Armed Forces Radio are state propaganda arms that are essentially unlistened to on the North American Continent. Listening to them just makes me glad I don't live in a country with only state controlled media. U.S. networks spent their entire news programs covering every angle of the raids, including coverage of the destroyed houses and killed children. They had long additional programs every night, delaying other programming. U.S. media have made and toppled presidents. In my opinion the fact that two networks moved their anchor to Manilla for a few days toppled Marcos. He tried election violations that may be the order of the day in many countries, but are simply impossible with any form of free press. There are many bad things you can say about the US media, but they are still among the best in the world, and they are certainly not controlled by the President. Mr. Reagan's record on foreign policy has much to criticise, but his attack on Libya is quite far down on the list. > >And for all of this, Raygun is very popular. Goes to show how far the >brainwashing has progressed. Just look at the popular movies in the >US to see the general attitude. Rambo, Rocky, Phantom Commando, etc., >etc., etc. "Kill those guys, they are the Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!" Plus academy award winners like "The Killing Fields", "Missing", "The Year of Living Dangerously" and many others. Many of these films may not have been made in Hollywood, but there were popular in the USA. All in all, Americans would rather see a film about a teenager who goes back in time to meet his parents than a film about Sylvester Stallone shooting the Viet Cong. > >When these things happen, it makes me very glad i no longer live in >the USA. > -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
thain@magic.UUCP (04/22/86)
In article <3542@sun.uucp>, rmarti@sun.uucp (Bob Marti) writes: > In article 1829@ihlpg.UUCP, Bill Tanenbaum writes: > > ... But I am INFURIATED by those such as Mr. Bormann who call such > > a response terrorism ... > > ... If only the raid jolts the Europeans out of their lethargy and > > inaction, they will have a positive effect. > > It doesn't matter what you call it, the fact remains that American planes > bombed innocent civilians. How long does it take you to understand that > this is NOT the way to deal with terrorism? How long does it take you > to understand that this kind of utterly inconsiderate operation is > counterproductive, not only as far as terrorism is concerned, but, > more importantly, as far as the picture of the United States in the > world is concerned? Yes, you are abslutely right that the raid jolts > the Europeans out of their lethargy: Never since the Vietnam war have > anti-US demonstrations in Europe been so big as they are right now! I'm afraid that I disagree with your point, Mr. Marti, for some very good and sound reasons. Terrorism is not a controlable force, terrorists fully expect to die for whatever fanatical cause they espouse. They are fully aware of the consenquences of their actions, and the possible reprisals which might follow. They are determined to use violence and intimidation and death as a way to achieve their final goal(s). Terrorism is not a problem for the US, or Europe, or Russia, but a world wide problem which must be countered and countered swiftly every time it rears it's ugly head. Since life is meaningless to terrorists, ( I believe my point is well documented with the recent acts perpertrated against the world's citizens), the lives of their victems are also meaningless. As cruel and as heartless as that sounds, it is a reality. Terrorists kill hostages. Terrorists expect to die. Hence, terrorist victems which are returned safley are not the norm, but the exception. Terrorism unfortunatly has become a facet of life in the world. To capitulate to terrorism by negotation only weakens the position of the government in question. Unreasonable force, execessive acts of violence are meat and potatoes to the terrorists diet. They are prepared to give an "eye for and eye", and have done so. We must be prepared to do the same. Or suffer more dead and maimed as a result. We are at war with terrorism, have been since the 1970's. It is a war we well would wish to avoid, but it is a war. To treat it as anything less is to deny the place of the fallen so far. If we relax our persecution of terrorism, they indeed have died in vain. > But then again, Americans -- well, at least the 70% who voted for Reagan > and the 77% who support Reagan's actions against Libya -- don't really > care so much about what the rest of the world thinks of them: I care what the world thinks, and I imagine most Americans do. I am sickened that the war against terrorism had to esclate, but I realize the necessity for such actions. I feel for the Lybian people. But I remember the worry that I had when my wife to be was in Europe on tour, and the Athens Airport had become a war zone. I was glad she had the sense to post a few notes, to let me know how she was doing. ( We wern't engaged at that time, although we'd known each other for years). No one should have to fear to travel abroad. Terrorism denies freedom, freedom of movment, freedom from fear, freedom in some cases of *life*. The European Nations already played this scenerio out, about 50 years ago when Hitler terrorized the European Nations into a standstill. Neither France nor England lifted a finger, rather they followed the will of the people to find a peaceful alternative. But sometimes such an alternative is good only in the short run. The then Prime Minister Lord Chamberlin, of England, was positive that in a few years Hitler would fade and pale, and no further problems would be forthcomming. We all have history as a grim reminder of such indecision. I for one would hate to see the Europeans make the same mistake again. > Dissenters are just a bunch of terrorists, communists, wimps, and/or > a**holes anyway! If necessary, America can always sponsor some > "freedom fighters" (what a euphemism!) to topple unfavorable regimes, > or -- if the former is not a viable option -- just drop a couple of > bombs on them to bring them back in line with The American Way of > seeing things. I would suggest you follow up with some reading on terrorism, and Mr. Khadafy (sp) in particular. It isn't a case of realigning his thinking to the "American Way", but to a humanitarian way of thinking. Mr. Khadafy has openly called for "Jihad", which is a Holy War, pitting Moslems against everyone else. He has said many times that he wishes the *extermination* of the Jewish state of Israel. This is not a man one can reason with, this is a madman. If the technology to do so was in his hands, I seriously believe he would use nuclear weapons. To most Americans and Europeans, Khadafy is a buffoon, who will just go away if left alone. But we have a lesson only 50 years old to remind us that such thinking could be naive. > > You think these statements are ridiculous? Well, lets see: Remember the > Bay of Pigs invasion 25 years ago? Vietnam? The toppling of Allende in > Chile 1973, maybe? Or what about Nicaragua? Maybe Reagan's remark about > ruling out the Soviets by nuking them away will do? Or do you remember > former Secretary of State Alexander Haig's comments about the possibility > of a nuclear war confined to Europe? (He was in office at that time.) I don't take any comments you've made as ridiculous, but muddying the issues with past ambiguities dosen't help. We are trying to work inside the framework that we've set up, i.e. negoitation. But this particular alternative hasn't worked. As I stated before, terrorists fully expect to *die*, an alternative abhorrent to most civilized peoples. We don't understand this, hence when it becomes a reality we ignore it, or attempt solutions via peaceful means. I support this line of thinking with all my heart. But bullies are bullies, and sometimes stern measures must be taken to insure the saftey of all concerned. We can't arrest Khadafy for his crimes, he is above traditional and accepted means of formal punishment. Hence, we are left with the only alternative possible, physical violence. > It'll be interesting to see how you will explain all of the above points > away, as I have no doubt you will. The problem is that words will not > be able to convince me, only past and future actions of the Reagan > administration will convince me one way or another. > --Bob Marti It's a shame you feel this way, because words are the only way you'll be able to voice your displeasure to the administration before 1988. I would urge strongly that you write your congressman and let him know how you feel. I have, and I have also given my reluctant support to the current administration with regards to this topic, ( terrorism and ways to combat it.). I can see no peaceful alternative to terrorism, because we are not dealing with people who wish to compromise, we are dealing with people who consider lives expendable, whether those lives are innocent or not doesn't matter. In their eyes, there are no innocents. Pax, Glenn thain@src.DEC.COM (The opinions expressed are my own, colored by my experiences and education, and in no way should be mistaken for anyone else's, unless they wish them to be.)
balough@hope.UUCP (04/22/86)
> Well, I doubt that you will find people in America who share your > views, because the brainwashing there is getting rather complete. I Yep, We are even starting to believe that we can trust our allies. :] And that our non allied counties are really interested in peace. :] > wonder if the coverage on European news stations even made it to the > US. It certainly was not on the US propaganda stations here (W. > Germany). There was basically no coverage on either the Voice Of > America (well, only to say that the White House had recieved > congratulations from its allies on the sucessful action against > Libya!!!) Gee, and here in the US we were told that our allies all refuted our actions against Libya and said they would not back US hostility. > or on the Armed Forced Radio (there was a thirty second > report saying an attack had been made on Libya, that two missiles > fired on a LORAN station in the Med both fell harmlessly into the > sea, AND THAT WAS IT!!!) > People in the US should wake up and see what is happening there. > Raygun is getting ready to start a very big war. And the US populace > do not have the faintest idea of what is going on. > Raygun has demonstrated that he is an imperialist bent on conquering > the world, not on spreading the American Dream of Peace, Liberty, and > the Pursuit of Happiness. Examples: > > Chile: A coup rigged by the CIA (Bush is ex CIA director), installing > a military dictatorship. Good in CIA's eyes, because they buy > US arms. > Nicaragua: No evidence that terrorists supported by Raygun support > concepts of US consitution. So why does Raygun back terrorists? Your right. There was no evidence that the populace didn't like Hitler so why did we meddle in that matter either? :] > Manila: Marcos is a perfect example of people Raygun likes. Yes. Reagan liked him so much, he sent air force jets to take the guy to Hawaii to start his retirement, and to think, in our History class, they told us all the old world leaders retired in Southern California. :] > Afghanistan: Send arms to Afghanis, let the people nearby in Cambodia > starve. American populace try to send food to starving Cambodians, rebells intercept most all of supplies sent. We should keep sending them though, so we can feed the bellies of the rebells and give them medication to keep them strong. :] > Angola: Popular government, dealing in good faith with US businesses > (just like Libya used to), Raygun is now backing anti-government > terrorists. > Libya: The only DEMOCRACY in the entire middle east. The only leader > in the middle east who is both a JEW AND AN ARAB. No interest in > this potentially important country for spreading good in Middle East. Who's good? Your west german idea of political hegonomy? > The only thing consistent with the way Raygun chooses who is on his > side and who is the Enemy is by who they buy weapons from. If the buy > from the US, then they are OK by him. If they don't, he will ask > terrorists to overthrow the government, or he will embark on state > terrorism to murder innocent people, as he has done this week in Libya. The goal was not to injure innocent civilians but to show Libya that we do not take kindly to their acts of state terrorism and therefore we will retalliate swiftly and concisely, ( targets were (SUPPOSED) meeting places for the intelligence in Libya), if further events occur involving civialian casualties or injuries. > And for all of this, Raygun is very popular. Goes to show how far the > brainwashing has progressed. Just look at the popular movies in the > US to see the general attitude. Rambo, Rocky, Phantom Commando, etc., > etc., etc. "Kill those guys, they are the Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!" For the real American View, Go see STAR TREK III, The Search For Spock, We consider ourselves like Admiral James T. Kirk, on the dying planet "GENESIS" he offers to save the "Klingon Bastard" but aforesaid refuses a chance to live under "federation rule" and would rather die and take the Admiral with him. The Admiral has had enough of this, since the Klingon has already had Kirk's son killed, so he sends the Klingon falling to his death, But it was not before giving him a chance to live. Reagan feals he has given "terrorist bastards" too many chances, No more Mr. Nice Guy. > When these things happen, it makes me very glad i no longer live in the USA. Your right, Huntington Beach, Ca., is a nice place to visit, but we wouldn't want you to live there! :] Besides, Garden Grove, Costa Mesa, or Newport Beach, on the whole, have much better housing, and closer stores of convenience. > David E. Smyth Another David Smith? The phone books here are full of them. :] > Heimgartenstrasse 14 > Munich, West Germany > ex: Huntington Beach California, Milco International Inc. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PRO AMERICAN PROPOGANDA *** :] -balough at the University of California, in Riverside. ex: Huntington Beach, Ca. But who cares? :]
corwin@hope.UUCP (04/23/86)
Just a comment: Back about 40-50 years ago, it was safe for americans to travel abroad. At the time, (at least as far as I remember from High School history classes,) The united states had a forign policy known as 'Jingoism', followed by isolationism. Basicaly, people did not go out and kill or hold hostage random american travelers. We then went into our periodic left shift, and had a rather wimpy forign policy. Now, the same people who were marching at UC Berkeley for Peace or Free Love, or Pot, or whatever are now teaching there, and the majority of students are now pretty conservative. The government is now starting to reflect this shift. The US is begining to get tough again, and in about 5-10 years, americans will probably be safe traveling abroad. Those of you who don't like guns, and are afraid of hand guns, and support all the right liberal causes, do not despare, the US will probably shift left again next generation or so. Personaly, I hope that it will take a long while. I doubt it though, my guess is less than 20 years. -cory "Think of it as evolution in action." of
zappe@cad.UUCP (Hans P. Zappe) (04/23/86)
In article <289@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) writes: > >In article <157@unido.UUCP> Andreas Borman of West Germany writes: > >> >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > >> >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > > I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic > lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who > used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas > Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain > had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 > million who died in WWII might have lived. > Plus an attempt at repeating the same in mangled German ... > Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami *I* am not surprised that Mr. Martillo has begun to malign another ethnic/cultural/religious/take-your-pick group. First we preach the destruction of Islam, now all Germans are Nazis. It must be easy to see the world in such distinct black and white: all Muslims are murderous lunatics who eat their young, all Germans are anti-semitic aryan supremacists, all Russians are godless androids, WHO'S NEXT ? The only stereotype we can safely ignore, it appears, is that all people at MIT have their head screwed on right. The SA, for your information, was hardly a place for people who even considered criticising the government or the military, it was a unit perfectly suited for narrow-minded individuals who could be brought to a deep, irrational hatred of an ethnic group. The less questions, the better. The less thinking, the better. The blacker and whiter, the better. THAT, not the questioning of motives and actions, is what facilitates facism and barbarism.
jgd@uwmcsd1.UUCP (John G Dobnick) (04/23/86)
[The line eater is a SAM 5] In article <891@harvard.UUCP>, Bill Tomczak writes: [rehash of Lybia raid and reactions thereto omitted for brevity] > I recognize it [the US raid] as a desparate act > committed by someone (or group of someones) who don't, can't, or won't > see any other options. Sorry to pick on your particular article Bill, but it was handy. My question to those engaged in this debate about the US "punishment" visited upon Lybia is this: If the US raid on Lybia was an act committed by those who don't, won't or can't see other options, what, pray tell, *ARE* those other options? I would like to see a list of untried options that would *work*. It seems to me that the US *has* tried diplomatic (and other non-violent) means to bring about an abatement of the terrorism emanating from the Middle East. Success seems less than outstanding for a large number of reasons, including apparent lack of cooperation by US allies in Europe and the refractory attitudes of the terrorists themselves. It *is* a shame that force has been resorted to; a peaceful solution is to be preferred. So, how about it, netters? To those of you pouring out kilebytes of criticism (and, may I dare say, anti-Reagan and anti-US invective), how about supplying some *answers*? Some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism will be welcomed. If you *know* the US government is wrong, then tell us what the *right* solution is! (Only realistic, practical solutions need apply. Idealistic, theoretical, "ivory tower", "pie in the sky" solutions may stay home. This is, after all, the *real* world we are talking about.) -- -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee UUCP: ...ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jgd INTERNET: uwvax!uwmacc!uwmcsd1!jgd@rsch.wisc.edu
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (04/23/86)
In article <224@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic >>... >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > >I will try to avoid terms like "addle-brained idiot" and "disgusting pig". >I will merely point out that Andreas Borman expressed no sympathy whatever >for Moammar Qadaffi in his original posting. He merely said that Reagan's >... > >I think Mr. Ajami owes Mr. Borman an apology. I doubt that it will come. You are correct, Jeff. Yakim "CarloS" Martillo has expressed his violent hatred before on this net, and so it is not surprising that he smears as rapidly and as fanatically as possible anyone who disagrees with him. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (04/23/86)
In article <2109@yale.ARPA> ksmith@yale-cheops.UUCP (Keith A. Smith) writes: > >I suspect that Reagan was mislead as to the liklihood of civilian casulties >by generals and the like who have always over-rated the accuracy of aerial >bombing. > The undisiplined and massive firing of SAMs and other antiaircraft weapons by the Libyans on numerous occasions when no attack was taking place resulted in more civilian casualties than were caused by the Ammerican bombs directed at terrorist and air defense instal- lations. Of course, I'll bet the they passed a few casulties off as having happened during the primary attack. The bombs dropped during the WWII against military targets were more than an order of magnitude more destructive of civilians than in this attack even including 16 tons of explosive (eight block buster size bombs) that were dumped or shaken loose by military hits on the crashing F111. Death of civilians is always counter productive, as we all know, and American policy and technology would be happiest if ONLY military targets and NOT A SINGLE CIVIlIAN would be affected by defensive counter-attacks. A 1% Hitler is capable of murdering sixty thousand people. Americans have great patience but when they are pushed too far they will leap frog to do what's necessary to bring the problem to a head and extract a solution. When one compares this attack with the "eye for and eye" attacks of the Israeli's against their semitic "brothers", it looks like an Easter Sunday Communion Picnic. Family fights always seem to be the worst kind. The European Israeli's who have survived the holocaust have done so at a price. Their genetic makeup is geared for survival under stress. They may not ever compromise because of the competitive edge they have in extreme stress. That adds more danger. In the words of Lindin LeRouch, "Cadet Khadafi is obviously an agent of the Israeli influence :-), in the sense that he is bringing the United States in, as a target of hostility in order to diffuse energy needed to weld a solution to the underlying problem of semitic peoples. That is of course the exploitation of a fevent religoius beliefs by cyn- ical political types to create monolithic State Religions with internal religious caste systems. If they don't knock that crap off soon, another generation of very creative people are going to be lost to meaningless misery or weapons making, and a fitful coexistence. > >Of the postings I've seen on this net about the Soviet response to the >kidnappng of four of their diplomats in Beirut are true (or even if they >are not true), this seems to me to be a better way to fight terrorism. The US - CIA and DIA have the closest correspondence to the Russian (kgb), but, Congress has limited the CIA's ability to respond in such a manner. That wasn't always the case and the United States wasn't always the push over it is recently. The Libyan response is one step in the right direction. What the hell maybe perhaps the CIA wouldn't take advantage of having a more free hand to "recover" Western political kidnap victims. Hey you Brits! ... Where is James Bond anyway? Why? Americans? We love underdogs and terrorist Revolutionaries, even though sometimes it's a bit misguided, it gives more balance to the con- flict. The theory is that the side most deserving will fight the hardest and win. They support the IRA the Israeli's , some of them even support young Cadet Khadafi. They could be much more sympathetic with the Palestinians if they wouldn't be so gutless and would no longer pull the chicken shit, bushwhacking or kidnapping westerners on travel or service assignments.
chapman@calder.berkeley.edu (Brent Chapman) (04/23/86)
In article <891@harvard.UUCP> tomczak@harvard.UUCP (Bill tomczak) writes: >... WWII was fought on their soil. They know >the terrors of war in a way that most (nah, all!) living Americans can't >appreciate. I suppose you don't view Vietnam as haveing been particularly terrifying? Somehow, I think there's quite a few people who'd disagree with you there. Brent Chapman chapman@pavepaws.berkeley.edu ucbvax!pavepaws!chapman
david@comp.lancs.ac.uk (David Coffield) (04/23/86)
In article <2578@jhunix.UUCP> ins_argr@jhunix.UUCP writes: >4) I personally feel disgusted at incessant European complaints >over American policy, when it was hundreds of thousands of >Americans who died to liberate that continent from the darkest >tyranny of this or any other century. Well, I don't see what this has to do with Libya and I normally wouldn't join in a "debate" such as this since it's not up to me to propose the rights and wrongs of the situation but, the only comment I have to the above statement is that it took you long enough to join in. -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!david ARPA: david%lancs.comp@ucl.cs JANET: david@uk.ac.lancs.comp Post: Department of Computing Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4599 University of Lancaster, Project: LAN Management Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK
jam@comp.lancs.ac.uk (John A. Mariani) (04/23/86)
This discussion is beyond my intellectual capabilities, I'll admit, but .. In article <2578@jhunix.UUCP> ins_argr@jhunix.UUCP writes: >> After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >> I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. >> In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of >> children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses >> similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who >> are not responsible for their leaders' politics. >> >> I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. >> >> Andreas Bormann >> University of Dortmund [UniDo] >> West Germany >2) The US attacked military and governmental tagrets in Libya >only when it had concrete evidence of Libyan complicity in the murder >of an American and a Turkish woman; and dozens of GERMANS, Mr. >Bormann, were injured as well. Where the hell did Mr. Bormann mention the nationality of ANYBODY! He only talks about PEOPLE; and that could be, fundamentally, what the "european" protests are all about. That fundamental law that states killing people is a no-no -- sorry to simplify that cosmic rule, but maybe that is the only way some people will understand it. There are always alternatives. >4) I personally feel disgusted at incessant European complaints >over American policy, when it was hundreds of thousands of >Americans who died to liberate that continent from the darkest >tyranny of this or any other century. I personally feel disgusted at the above statement. I hope I don't need to explain why. As for some of the other "dark side" of American postings, we need look no further than mushroom cloud sign-offs and accusations of nazism levelled at Mr. Bormann, whose innocent statement leads off this posting; maybe you should READ it this time. Besides, the USA had to save Europe; they need somewhere to fight WW III. Signing off from Airstrip One ... -- "You see me now a veteran of a thousand psychic wars...." UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!jam DARPA: jam%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, JANET: jam@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4467 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK.
suhina@kodak.UUCP (04/23/86)
> We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on > the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really > immaterial. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^ Sounds like one hell of a democracy we are promoting for those non-people. Brian Suhina ...!rochester!kodak!suhina
dougf@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Douglas Fowley) (04/23/86)
> >We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on >the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really >immaterial. That situation could not be tolerated, PERIOD. Get real. > >Ron Morgan Well I'm sure if the good old US of A feels that the opinion of the Nicaraguan people is not as important as the USA's fear of anything left of extreme right, then what the hell has anyone in Europe got to say about US actions. Would it matter? Could Britain have stopped the use of its US military bases (if we had somone here that would try to)? And as for the US involvement with the IRA, why not try sort that out first. Maybe the US can try some of its military exercices on its own mainland for a change. Hope I have the right to voice my opinion against the good old USA. from the largest USA aircraft carrier GREAT BRITAIN...
jgd@uwmcsd1.UUCP (John G Dobnick) (04/23/86)
In article <3542@sun.uucp> Bob Marti writes: > It doesn't matter what you call it, the fact remains that American planes > bombed innocent civilians. How long does it take you to understand that > this is NOT the way to deal with terrorism? How long does it take you > to understand that this kind of utterly inconsiderate operation is > counterproductive, not only as far as terrorism is concerned, but, > more importantly, as far as the picture of the United States in the > world is concerned? OK. You say the air raid is the wrong approach to deal with terrorism. So, I ask YOU... What is the CORRECT approach? We are all anxious to be enlightened by your obviously superior wisdom on this subject. (Who knows, you might even be a hero and save some lives.) -- -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee UUCP: ...ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jgd INTERNET: uwvax!uwmacc!uwmcsd1!jgd@rsch.wisc.edu
fdc@cstvax.UUCP (04/23/86)
In article <891@harvard.UUCP> tomczak@harvard.UUCP (Bill tomczak) writes: >How do you imagine >Europeans felt while the Axis powers overran their own coutries? Okay, >they're scared, it's entirely possible they have more at stake. I doubt that fear is the prime motive of most Europeans who feel that the bombing was not too smart. Maybe they feel that throwing rocks at a hornet's nest isn't the most effective way of dealing with the problem. I realise that no effective action has been taken on this side of the Atlantic, but that is no justification for counterproductive indulgence. As for fearfullness, today we hear that those well known trademark holders, AT&T, have canceled their participation (as largest exhibitor) at the British Electronics Week show due to start in London in 3 days. Embarassed European AT&T spokespeople are explaining that head-office does not want to expose their personel to the rampant terrorism over here. Sounds like some US executives have spinal problems. We are also hearing of people switching from European to domestic vacations for fear of terrorism. I suspect that the chances of being murdered in Miami or gobbled by a grizzly in Yellowstone are higher than those of meeting a crazed Libyan in Europe. -- Frank Cringle, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh UUCP: <UK>!ukc!{hwcs,kcl-cs,ucl-cs,edcaad}!cstvax!fdc JANET: fdc@UK.AC.ed.cstvax or fdc@UK.AC.ed.ecsvax
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (04/23/86)
This isn't really a flame, inspite of bep's invitation at the end, but I would like to both comment on the bombing, and reply to his comments. In article <141@drutx.UUCP> bep@drutx.UUCP (PuryearB) writes: >I was not glad to see President Reagan bomb Libya, but I would have to say that >I support him. I suppose I support him too, but I don't think it was a good idea for two reasons: 1) It assumes that Qaddaffi is the *only* reason for the anti-American (and anti- other countries too) terrorism. I think that this is a gross over-simplification (which politicians of every stripe are prone to - particularly w.r.t. public relations to their people). Certainly, the Americans (and other countries) may have very valid evidence that Libya/Qaddaffi are in support of, provides support to, and cheer-leads terrorist actions. But, nowhere can I see any justification in the suggestion that if Libya/Qaddaffi stopped supporting terrorism that there would be much difference. The causes that these terrorists are fighting for have nothing to do with Libya (they are related to Israel as a state, and foreign intervention in Lebanon to name a few). The bombings of Libya had no impact whatsover on these root causes. Thus, without Qaddaffi, the terrorism would still continue. Maybe a little less intensity, maybe with harder-to-obtain weapons, maybe with another cheer-leader, but it would *still* continue. Heck, most of the terrorist actions aren't done by Libyans! The solution to terrorism lies in a different direction. Which direction? I wish I knew that answer - one thing I can be certain of is that it includes negotiation and flexibility. The other thing I'm certain of is that the Palestinian issue (or any other Middle-east cause) will NEVER BE SOLVED purely by military action (not even if you genocide *every* Palestinian). There has to be some compromise and flexibility - I see very little on either side (with the notable exception of the Camp David Accord - Jimmy Carter for President again!) 2) Why, in the face of repeated examples to the contrary, do people continue to believe that retaliation (even if Qaddaffi was the *sole* perpetrator/instigator) would help any? While the Americans were in Lebanon, they incurred continuous *minor* attacks until they decided to retaliate by having the USS New Jersey fire its 18 inchers into the supposed "terrorist" strong-holds. What was the result? 300+ US dead in the bombing of the barracks to name just one response. An eye-for-an-eye (and especially the 10:1 doctrine which some Middle-East countries are so fond of) doesn't make things better, it makes things *WORSE*! All it results in is continuous escalation on both sides. What next? Air India all over again, except that this time it's Pan Am? Then what? US troops invade Libya? This is one scenario I hope we stay out of! I'm not going to do any flying on US airlines til further notice! [Which'll play merry hell with corporate travel arrangements] >It would seem to me that if you read history, when the world has >ignored aggression it did not go away. If Europe had had the backbone to stand >up to Hilter in the early days I dont think world war two would have happen. Certainly, ignoring aggression had something to do with WWII. But, surely you don't think a Rambo Reagan style bombing raid on Berlin in the late 30's would have avoided WWII do you? On the contrary, it would have simply started the war earlier. In retrospect, the only thing that Europe could have done that had any chance of avoiding WWII (if you ignore assassination attempts in the very early 30's, before people realized how dangerous Hitler would be), would have been to send troops into Czeckloslovakia (I always have trouble spelling that - sorry) on the invitation of that country *before* Hitler invaded it. And, at that point Europe wasn't ready for a military confrontation. They still weren't ready when they finally drew the line and followed through on Poland ("If you invade Poland, a state of war will exist between ..."), but they managed to hold on and develop their strength until they could effectively combat Germany (with assistance of course from the US later on). Surely you aren't suggesting that only the US stood up to Hitler are you? > Europe has shown in the >past that they will not do anything until some one actuality invades, and even >then they will runaround for months without doing anything. I'd hardly call what happened "running around". On the day war was declared England instituted attacks on Germany and Italy to the best of its ability at the time (Hamburg or Berlin I think (ineffective PR-type raid) and Taranto (moderately successful Italian Navy strike)). France and England were virtually incapable of mounting anything bigger than annoyance strikes at the time. There is no way that they could have done anything significant to prevent the invasion of France. The only thing that they could have done was fire most of their generals - then maybe the invasion wouldn't have succeeded. But they did start gearing up as fast as they could. It took longer for the US to respond militarily to Pearl Harbor (could be wrong - how soon was the Doolittle raid?), or Hitler's declaration of war on the US. >If Europe had joined >with America in doing some sort of economic sanctions things might not have >gotten so bad. When I think about this I do see some good out of it. I hope Maybe. I doubt it however. Sanctions haven't had much effect on the USSR w.r.t. Afghanistan... >I hope that America sees what type of friends we have in Europe and might >re-think out why we try to play the world polceman. I would just love to >see us pull evey troop we have in Europe back. I really wish Americans would realize that they really *do* have good friends in the rest of the world. The backbone of basic support for the US in Canada, Europe and the rest of the world (eg: Japan) is really staggering. Why do you think that they ask your support when needed? Why do you think many European countries are installing US nuclear weapons in spite of grave doubts as to whether it's a good idea or not? Why do you think that NATO, NORAD, and SEATO still exist? Why do you think that the Canadian Ambassador risked everything to hide Americans during the Iranian crisis? I remember quite well the reaction of the US to that - an outpouring of thanks, and *surprise* that anybody would risk anything for Americans. [How soon people forget...] There shouldn't be any surprise - most of the rest of the world *is* more or less on your side. Unfortunately, US media usually only publishes the down-side, and in its parochialism, prevents US citizens from seeing what foreign attitudes towards the US are really like. All you see is the raised fists in Libya, not how Americans are received (in general) throughout the world. [Have you ever done much foreign travelling?] Further, this parochialism leads towards the US applying simplistic (and oriented towards popularity with the US citizenry) solutions in the rest of the world. In Nicarauga, and Libya, at least, the US is *not* acting like a policeman (which would be "I'm in trouble - please help"), but more like a vigilante ("I know what's best for you") - the shift in American attitudes exemplified by the "Rambo" movies is scaring the hell out of me (and probably almost every non-American - I could just see it, a air-raid on Ottawa because our lumber exports might be hurting your lumber industry - that rates only half a smiley face!). Please, please, don't take your marbles and go home - stay around and work in concert with the rest of the world. Isolationism doesn't work. Vigilantism doesn't work either. Halfways reasonable and flexible diplomacy does! Unfortunately, the US has shown very little of that since Reagan took office. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) (04/23/86)
In article <225@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> Chile: A coup rigged by the CIA (Bush is ex CIA director), installing >> a military dictatorship. Good in CIA's eyes, because they buy >> US arms. > >This happened under Nixon, not Reagan. Remember? > A good point. However, it would be a bit naive to ignore the long term policies of the Republican party as a whole, extended over several administrations. Joel Rives Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!" << Buckaroo Banzai >>
ice@trwrba.UUCP (04/23/86)
In article <2098@psuvax1.UUCP> systaff@psuvax1.UUCP (systems root) writes: >> >> Well, I doubt that you will find people in America who share your >> views, because the brainwashing there is getting rather complete. I >> >> Libya: The only DEMOCRACY in the entire middle east. The only leader >> in the middle east who is both a JEW AND AN ARAB. No interest >> in this potentially important country for spreading good in >> Middle East. >> > >Looks like your confused about *who* is really brainwashed. > >> >> And for all of this, Raygun is very popular. Goes to show how far the >> brainwashing has progressed. Just look at the popular movies in the >> US to see the general attitude. Rambo, Rocky, Phantom Commando, etc., >> etc., etc. "Kill those guys, they are the Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!" >> > >The only one I saw was Rocky. You don't appreciate the underdog >success story? I suppose you prefer those *democracies* that choose >the movies for you - only anti-American themes. > >> When these things happen, it makes me very glad i no longer live in >> the USA. >> >> David E. Smyth >> > >Me too! > >Mark Johnson >Penn State >USA I agree. One additional point, Mr. Smyth -- Please confine your unsubstantiated opinions to an appropriate newsgroup. Net.general is NOT for the purpose of insulting an entire nation's intelligence by attempting to foist propaganda upon us under the guise of "repressed truth". Perhaps net.politics will suffer your ramblings, or maybe you could start net.politics.quacks. Next time you feel the need to vent your bile, but don't know what to do, try kicking your dog. -Doug Ice. P.S. - If you care to respond, do it by mail. No need to subject all of us to you anymore.
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (04/23/86)
Over and over again people in favor of the air raid keep saying "What else could we have done?", no matter how many times they are told, oh well, they'll probably ignore this one also: DEFUSE THE PALESTINIAN SITUATION BY CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION That is, get the PLO, Israel, Jordan and whoever else is appropriate to the bargaining table and just settle it. The US could offer to foot at least part of the resultant bill for putting the plan in action (why? why not, it's either that or replacing those F-111s and bombs etc we are using, not to mention the implicit cost of terrorism, either way it will cost the US plenty.) I am not saying that we should bear all the cost, but if they can bargain it down to a purchase order, sign it. Easy to say? Maybe, but it sure hasn't been tried with any sincerity. Now this isn't the only gripe Khaddaffi and his ilk have in the Middle East, but it is their battle cry, defuse it, for those of you who like revenge I assure you the US going in and resolving this in a positive way will make Khaddaffi 10X more furious than a few bombs, it will steal his thunder and quite possibly put the US in a positive light in the area if handled well. It is not at all clear that the bombing had any good effect, quite probably the opposite. Now we have re-assured any doubters in the area that the US gives and the world takes, people don't seem to understand that the Arab world really resents US intervention, hopefully though they would tolerate us acting as a mediator rather than dictator (in the generic sense of the word) in the area. Ok? Not so unreasonable. Please, don't immediately assume that throwing a few bombs at a Libyan airport accomplishes anything or is somehow justified, it may very well not be of any use. Without immediately yielding to your anger (Nuke Em!) think a little, be clever, state a goal (ending the terrorism) and go for it in a clever way, don't just satisfy your bloodlust (cutting off your nose to spite your face.) If you think it's only the 'liberals' who opposed the bombing, note that Cap Weinberger also opposed it, it's not that kind of issue, he also apparently could not see what good it would do as proposed but apparently Schultz won out. Of course, once the decision was made he would support his president. -Barry Shein, Boston University
faustus@cad.UUCP (Wayne A. Christopher) (04/23/86)
Although it is good to hear from people with a different perspective on these events than ours, (1) net.general is definitely not the correct place to post them, and (2) you should try to maintain a more sensible tone of writing if you expect anybody to take you seriously... (E.g, "Raygun" doesn't sound too good...) > When these things happen, it makes me very glad i no longer live in > the USA. After reading your posting I am also glad you no longer live here... > David E. Smyth > Heimgartenstrasse 14 > Munich > West Germany
ron@hpfcmt.UUCP (04/23/86)
>After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. etc > Andreas Bormann > University of Dortmund [UniDo] > West Germany Would someone PLEASE reinstitute net.flame........ or net.politics ..... I don't agree that this belonged in net.general. Ron Miller {ihnp4}hpfcla!ron
tomczak@harvard.UUCP (Bill Tomczak) (04/24/86)
>Brent Chapman >>me >>... WWII was fought on their soil. They know >>the terrors of war in a way that most (nah, all!) living Americans can't >>appreciate. > >I suppose you don't view Vietnam as haveing been particularly terrifying? >Somehow, I think there's quite a few people who'd disagree with you there. If they disagree (I suppose that includes you) it's because they still don't understand the difference. You even quoted the critical sentence "WWII was fought on their soil." Their homes. Their land. Their farms Their backyard. Unless you see Vietnam as being closer to Kansas than say Paris is to Paris? -- +-------------------------------------+ | Bill Tomczak | | uucp: harvard!tomczak | | arpa: tomczak@harvard.harvard.edu | +-------------------------------------+
blm@chinet.UUCP (Brad L. McKinley) (04/24/86)
Mr. Borman, did I miss your posting when the terrorist(s) blew up a Berlin Disco? I must have also missed your posting concerning the TWA flight that had a nasty run in with plastique explosives. And what about the Rome and Vienna airport massacres? Naturally I *ASSUME* that you were just as outspoken on the net about those incidences too. A few more miscellaneous points. You imply that your country, as well as other European countries, were doing the best you could to combat terrorism. Tell me then, why have the European countries *just now* begun to expell Libyans from those countries? For the record, Mr Borman, how much trading does your country do with Libya a year? My, isn't interesting how we can overlook certain *flaws* with governments when we have a healthy amount of trade existing between said countries. The U.S. also has the same problem (remember Iran everyone?) but that isn't right either. On the subject of casualties (civilian and otherwise), as I understand it, American aircraft were jamming all the Libyan SAMs. The Libyans, in there infinite wisdom, decided to fire the missiles straight up to intercept incoming F-111's. Fact: what goes up must come down. Where does it come down? Well probably in the area of where they were launched from. Could they possibly hit civilian areas? Yes, and it seems quite probable that some did. >> > that only leaves one >> > thing.... What would Andreas Borman be saying if it were his >> > brother under the rubble in Berlin??? Mr. Borman, I sincerely hope that your brother, nor anyone elses brother, is found beneath rubble anywhere. The *wrongful* death of anyone on the planet diminishes us all piece by piece. But we did not start this war. Indeed, we have been *very* patient with the Libyans (as weel as others) in are dealings. I am no fan of President Reagan but those people who insist upon him being trigger happy have had to wait 6 years for him to pull the trigger. I think *this time* he was justified in doing so and I support him. ----- The views expressed here a solely mine and not my employer. Brad L. McKinley -- ihnp4!chinet!blm OR ihnp4!chinet!mdr!blm -- (503) 889-4321 USMail: M D R Professional Software, Inc., 915 SW 3rd Avenue, Ontario, OR 97914 "First you say it, then you do it" -- Bill Cosby --- ----- Brad L. McKinley -- ihnp4!chinet!blm OR ihnp4!chinet!mdr!blm -- (503) 889-4321 USMail: M D R Professional Software, Inc., 915 SW 3rd Avenue, Ontario, OR 97914 "First you say it, then you do it" -- Bill Cosby
storm@diku.UUCP (Kim Fabricius Storm) (04/24/86)
In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ut-ngp.UUCP writes: >We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on >the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really >immaterial. That situation could not be tolerated, PERIOD. Get real. This is exactly the reason for the Soviet invasions in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, the Berlin Wall, the situation in Poland, etc. Do you feel that the opinion of those people are immaterial too if THEIR BIG BROTHER has a different opinion. The USA and the USSR are too intelligent to fight each other directly (we all know what that would mean), but they love to fight each other in other parts of the world, to support their military industries (test the new weapons in combat). And their voters seems to like these Rambo-manners, so why should they stop ? And about democraty: a system where the people elect their dictator. Once he (or she) is elected, they can do whatever they want - bomb another country, push the button (from the secure shelter), read the FN charther as the devil reads the bible, ... --- We start bombing in five minutes! Kim Storm
howellg@idec.UUCP (04/24/86)
In article <858@ihlpl.UUCP> res@ihlpl.UUCP writes: >As an American, and as a human being who is sick of reading in the >papers of yet another senseless death at the hands of terrorists, I >FULLY BACK my President in the actions he took. I know that I could >not have exercised the restraint in limiting the strike as he did. If >Kaddafi "retaliates" by killing more innocent people -- be it in >Germany, Italy, Greece, France, the United Kingdom, or the United >States -- I would GLADLY hear that Reagan graduated from slapping >Kaddafi on the wrist to LEVELING the city of Tripoli. > I am amazed that people still seem to think that by bombing others, even in retaliation you can persuade them to give up what are presumably deep seated opinions. You will note that I don't refer to either side in that last sentence; the reason being that the sentement applies to both sides. The terrorists won't win by bombing; neither will Raygun and his allies (be allies I mean Thatcher, not the mass of the British people who responded 60% not in favour in an opinion poll). I would have thought the lessons of WWII, when the bombing of London only served to stiffen resistance, would have been learnt by now. And do Americans really believe the Libyans will stop when you kill the children of their leader? Don't ask me what the answer is, but it's rarely military action. >I am saddened that the free people of Europe think so little of their >freedom and so little of the lives of innocents that they are unwilling >to step down on that nasty little worm in Libya and free the world of >that sick murderer. > > Rich Strebendt > ...!ihnp4!iwsl6!res Perhaps you should live in Europe for a while, you would see a different perspective. The camp that proclaims "Better dead than red" and other such things, usually lives in a country that has never been invaded, and has never been intimately involved in the middle of a war that is being fought in your garden, rather than 3000 miles away. -- Gareth Howell <howellg@idec.stc.co.uk> STC Network Systems Limited | ...!mcvax!idec!howellg UUCP Private Networks Business Centre | idec!howellg@seismo.CSS.GOV ARPA London Road Stevenage Herts | England SG1 1YB | +44 (0)438 738294 |
howellg@idec.UUCP (04/24/86)
In article <2578@jhunix.UUCP> ins_argr@jhunix.UUCP writes: >I rather believe that in the United States and the net most people will see >that this country was pushed into this act. Some facts: >1) Col. Gadaffi attacks Americans and Europeans for no possible >reason, knowing full well that they had nothing to do with his >paranoid ``grievances''. If the reason Gadaffi attacks at all is due the existence of Israel and the statelessness of the Palestinians, then The Americans and Europeans have everything to do with it since without their support, Israel wouldn't exist. >2) The US attacked military and governmental tagrets in Libya >only when it had concrete evidence of Libyan complicity in the murder >of an American and a Turkish woman; and dozens of GERMANS, Mr. >Bormann, were injured as well. 1). noone has shown any CONCRETE evidence as yet. 2). It's about time the Americans stopped fighting other peoples' battles. If the Germans wish to take action over deaths of their citizens, OK, but you (Americans) can't use that as a justification for bombing Lybia, or anywhere else for that matter. >3) Libya is an outlaw nation which promotes acts which should be >repugnant to any civilized human being. Libya WITHOUT PROVOCATION, >as a matter of policy, murders Westerners and flaunts its successes. >By no means is Libya the only nation involved in state terrorism, >but it is the nation most likely to be affected by retaliation. >Syria, for instance, is stronger militarily and less outcast from >the world community. I don't see any economic retaliation from the US. It still buys oil from Lybia, which accounts for a great deal of their income. If the US really wants to bring Lybia to its knees, stop buying oil. But I suppose that might affect Reagans popularity. >4) I personally feel disgusted at incessant European complaints >over American policy, when it was hundreds of thousands of >Americans who died to liberate that continent from the darkest >tyranny of this or any other century. > And we are very grateful for that. But don't forget that the US was very isolationist until Pearl Harbour forced it into the war, so don't try and claim that the US entered the war to protect Europe, it was to protect itself. -- Gareth Howell <howellg@idec.stc.co.uk> STC Network Systems Limited | ...!mcvax!idec!howellg UUCP Private Networks Business Centre | idec!howellg@seismo.CSS.GOV ARPA London Road Stevenage Herts | England SG1 1YB | +44 (0)438 738294 |
andrew@stc.UUCP (04/24/86)
In article <126@comp.lancs.ac.uk> gareth@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Gareth Husk) writes: | I was going to stay out of this, all I was going to do was register my | displeasure with our present government, however I finally have had | enough of the hypocrisy. | | In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: | >.... Khadafy has been murdering people | >for 15 years now, at an escalating rate. He furnishes arms to the Sandanistas. | >He backs the IRA. Abu Nidal is on his payroll... and so on... | | Khadafy is not the only one who supports the IRA. | A true-blue American organisation provides the IRA with funding to carry | on with indisciminate attacks of the civilians and armed forces of | the United Kingdom and Ireland. Yes I'm talking about that peace-loving | organisation NORAID. | | They are funding *MURDER* there is no other way to descibe it, and we | see no action by the American administration to hold NORAID responsible | for the actions of their funding in the same way that Libya is being | held responsible for the actions of Abu Nidal ( whose biggest sponsor | is Libya, followed by Iran but they are a little big to make examples of ). | | The citizens of the USA are funding terrorism within the borders of one | of its "closest allies". I think that the USA ought to clean up its act, | outlaw NORAID, and start applying the same standards to all acts of | terrorism that it claims to be working to in the bombing of Libya. | Hear, hear!! Rather than, as was reported on the news yesterday, some mealy-mouthed floccinaucinihilipilification** from the US legislature about not allowing the extradition of the murderers of policemen (Irish or British), only of murderers of civilians. --- And that from a country which regularly executes sundry criminals! ** (I've wanted to use that horrible American word for years) -- Regards, Andrew Macpherson. <andrew@tcom.stc.co.uk> {aivru,btnix,concurrent,datlog,iclbra,iclkid,idec,inset,root44,stl,ukc} !stc!andrew ``Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'' --- Salvor Hardin -- `Foundation' by Isaac Asimov
hommel@ark.UUCP (04/24/86)
I wonder why these terrorist always aim at american citizens in Europe. I can't remember any terrorist action in the U.S. themselves. It seems as if they're freeing the way for their Revolution. They've already succeeded in frightning the american toerists. Sooner or later the american soldiers will follow and finally the road is clear for the Red Army. We've reached the same point as before WWII, and who came to save a weak (and they still are) Europe? I bet they'll do it again in spite of anti-american feelings in Europe. Some people'll never learn. They fall for pictures of wounded people in Libya, without asking themselves what's really going on, what the ultimate goal of people like Gadaffi is, You all agree we must prevent him for achieving his goals, don't you? Right on Ronnie (if you can hear me) -- Peter Hommel Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands (=Holland) hommel@vu44.UUCP (...!mcvax!vu44!hommel)
soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) (04/25/86)
>I vehemently DISAGREE !! > >I am pleased and proud that we finally have a President who has the >guts to stand up to a petty bully like Kaddafi and to deliver a slap to >his wrist to make him realize that he goes too far. Look back at recent >history and YOU tell ME who is "directly responsible for the the death >of children and innocent people." But that's ALL that Reagan did. He gave Ghaddafi a slap on the wrist and NOTHING ELSE. He is as free as before to dynamite baby carriages as he was before. The bombing raid was spectacular and generated lots of publicity, and made Reagan look like he was doing something but it had no effect on the Libyan "War" effort. If Reagan were to send in an American Death Squad to take out Kjadafi, I would have a lot less of a problem since it would not involve the deaths of anonymous people who may or may not support Kadophi's program, but a bombing raid kills just as many random civilians as anything Qaddaphee could ever dream up. The only difference, is that an air strike was done by a legally recognized branch of the Government beaurocracy. >As an American, and as a human being who is sick of reading in the >papers of yet another senseless death at the hands of terrorists, I >FULLY BACK my President in the actions he took. I know that I could >not have exercised the restraint in limiting the strike as he did. If >Kaddafi "retaliates" by killing more innocent people -- be it in >Germany, Italy, Greece, France, the United Kingdom, or the United >States -- I would GLADLY hear that Reagan graduated from slapping >Kaddafi on the wrist to LEVELING the city of Tripoli. Really now. You think that everyone in Tripoli supports Kaddaffi? Or maybe you think that the city of Tripoli is an physical extension of Kaddafffi--you know, a 'hive-mind', famed of science fiction song and story. Instead of just turning Tripoli into rubble, how about reducing the entire Islamic world to bedrock. That would REALLY show the Colonal. In case you didn't get it. The previous paragraph was sarcastic. I don't have anything good to say about Quadafi, but I have a severe problem with dealing with him in methods that are GUARANTEED to kill innocents at the same time. Would destroying Washington D.C. be an appropriate method of stating your disagreement to Reagan? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Have A Nice Day, Soren Petersen "But we named you Fred, what happenned?"
zappe@cad.UUCP (Hans P. Zappe) (04/25/86)
In article <202@psc70.UUCP>, tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) writes: > ... The US used military force to > attack military forces. Just as in the case of Mr. Arafat and the way > his headquarters were always to be found in nice residential areas, it > was the Libyan government's responsibility if they placed military > activities in residential areas. ... Let's rewrite that as: The [terrorists] used military force to attack military forces. Just as in the case of [whoever] and the way his headquarters were always to be found in nice residential areas, it was the [US Army's] responsibility if they placed military [personnel] in [discoteques]. You see, that doesn't justify bombing "La Belle" in Berlin, just because it happens to be a known hangout for US soldiers, just as the above argument fails to justify attacking civilian targets, even if unintentionally. Dead civilians are dead civilians, whether or not they just happen to live next to a military target. No amount of talk or justification will bring them back to life. And of course this applies to all sides, be it Libyan children killed by errant bombs or American children sucked out of aircraft. The point is that fighting terrorism with terrorism begets terrorism. -- +========================+ ::::::::::::::::::::: Hans P. Zappe :::::::::::::::::::::::: Solid State Group -|- EECS @ UC Berkeley -|- Berkeley, California ::::::::::::::::::::: zappe@cad.berkeley.edu :::::::::::::::::::::::: +========================+
dc@datlog.UUCP (04/25/86)
In article <858@ihlpl.UUCP> res@ihlpl.UUCP writes: >> After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >> I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. >> In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of >> children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses >> similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who > >In response to: > >> are not responsible for their leaders' politics. >> >> I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. > >I vehemently DISAGREE !! > >I am pleased and proud that we finally have a President who has the >guts to stand up to a petty bully like Kaddafi and to deliver a slap to >his wrist to make him realize that he goes too far. Look back at recent >history and YOU tell ME who is "directly responsible for the the death >of children and innocent people." > >Back during the Carter administration Kaddafi was ASKED to not support >the killing of innocents by terrorists. The brutal murders of innocent >men, women, and children continued. > >Early in his first term in office Reagan TOLD Kaddafi to stop exporting >terrorism. Innocent people standing in line at several airports were >machine-gunned and grenaded. > >Recently Reagan waved a fist (the Navy) under Kaddafi's nose and WARNED >him to stop. An American man and a Turkish woman died in a German >disco. Several people, including a baby, were blown out the side of an >airliner. > >You tell me, who has been cold-bloodedly murdering children >(machine-gunning school buses), blowing out the brains of an old man in >a wheel chair and dumping him from a cruise ship, and blowing innocent >civilians up in midair for the past several years? Of course, it is >Kaddafi, through the terrorists that he has encouraged, trained, and >exported for several years. > >I was angered when I learned that the planes involved in the slap on >Kaddafi's wrist were not allowed to over-fly France or Spain, adding >around 2500 extra kilometers to their flight, thereby greatly >increasing the hazard to these aircraft and their crews. I am even >more angered that the people of Europe do not have the guts to stand up >to this petty tyrant in Libya, and are willing to accept the deaths of >innocents as a blood-price for their own uninvolvement. > >But, what the hell, it is only Americans and Jews who are being killed, >and a few others caught in the crossfire, so why should a German or a >Spaniard, or a Frenchman give a damn? These are not really people, >with loved ones and families who have been machine-gunned, and what >European really gives a fuck about an old American tourist in a wheel >chair whose brains were blown out for the amusement of a >Kaddafi-trained assasin? > >As an American, and as a human being who is sick of reading in the >papers of yet another senseless death at the hands of terrorists, I >FULLY BACK my President in the actions he took. I know that I could >not have exercised the restraint in limiting the strike as he did. If >Kaddafi "retaliates" by killing more innocent people -- be it in >Germany, Italy, Greece, France, the United Kingdom, or the United >States -- I would GLADLY hear that Reagan graduated from slapping >Kaddafi on the wrist to LEVELING the city of Tripoli. > >I am saddened that the free people of Europe think so little of their >freedom and so little of the lives of innocents that they are unwilling >to step down on that nasty little worm in Libya and free the world of >that sick murderer. > > Rich Strebendt > ...!ihnp4!iwsl6!res I am sick and tired of the occaisonally brainwashed attitude of some of the US readership of the net. Quadaffi may be the most vociferous exponent of Islamic terrorism but he is neither the prime instigator or financier of international terrorism. If the US (read Raygun) is particularly concerned in stopping terrorism then I suggest he turns his attentions to Syria, Iran and Iraq. Also I think it is morally indefensible to answer terrorism with high-finance, high-technology state terrorism. I wish the UK had followed France's brave example in not accepting the US's jingoistic attitude to the Middle East problem. Bye, David C. NOTE: these are my views alone!!!!! PS : For brainwashed - read blinkered , narrow visioned, imperialistic etc....
manas@lifia.UUCP (04/25/86)
According to 'Le Monde' and 'Le canard enchaine' The American Bombers F111 did fly over parts of France and Spain, without beeing allowed by French and Spanish governments... KC10 and KC135 were the only ones to avoid France and Spain ... So why asking for a useless autorization ? Moreover, when US 'asked' France, they refused to disclose the precise aim of their raid ... President Ronald Reagan said >We start the bombing in 5 minutes >It is a joke .... Was the raid, a joke too ? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pourquoi tant de violence gratuite ??? Parce que c'est gratuit ... Arnaud Manas UUCP: manas@lifia - Pacush blues - manas@imag POST: LIFIA Domaine universitaire BP68 38402 St Martin d'heres France
dc@datlog.UUCP (04/25/86)
In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on >the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really >immaterial. That situation could not be tolerated, PERIOD. Get real. > >Ron Morgan Yet more arrogance from the US of A , home of the free!!!!!!! Isn't it up to the Nicaraguan's what government they have. Any response to this that the Sandinistas are not democratic I suggest the respondent read net.politics concerning the Ortega regime's 67% support in Nicaragua, perhaps howver that is not democratic enough :-) (slightly forced smile here). Dave C. Note : These are may vies alone.
soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) (04/26/86)
In article <891@harvard.UUCP> tomczak@harvard.UUCP (Bill tomczak) writes: >I am not a supporter of Reagan or his thinking. He >scares me because he seems too eager to use the military to bargain. >Something HAD to be done. . . It bothers me that this attitude, that Khadaffi is running roughshod over us, so we just have to do something, is being used as an excuse to do what seems to me to do something flashy just so we can congratulate ourselves upon being decisive. Instead of being orgasmic over the fact that we used our BIG STICK for a change, could the supporters of the action (of which I may or may not be one) please explain just what worthwhile was accomplished that made the cost--moral and material--justifiable. The bombing raid did not do anything to disrupt the Libyan terrorist industry. It did nothing to weaken Khadaffi's resolve to continue as he had before. It did not succeed in killing Khadaffi, and would have been immoral even if it had (the firing a crowd to kill a murderer syndrome mentioned in someone elses posting). What good did it do? I don't believe that it is right to engage in actions that will result in the deaths of innocents just so that American closet Rambos can "feel good about themselves", and I am somewhat at a loss to see just what else it did. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Have A Nice Day, Soren Petersen "But we named you Fred, what happenned?"
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (04/26/86)
In article <1200001@ztivax.UUCP> david@ztivax.UUCP writes: >/* Written 10:27 pm Apr 16, 1986 by ab@unido in ztivax:net.general */ >/* ---------- "Air raid on Libya" ---------- */ >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > ... > Andreas Bormann (david@ztivax really starts here ...) >Well, I doubt that you will find people in America who share your >views, because the brainwashing there is getting rather complete. This statement appears to be only here to annoy folks in the US. Unless David is also brainwashed, or hasn't been reading the net, he should know full well that there are folks of all persuasions not only in the US but all over. Ad hominem arguments (although often used in this medium, unfortunately) are totally meaningless. I don't like the use of net.general to discuss this -- net.politics seems more correct -- nevertheless here is my say. By now we've had folks both inside and outside the US both praise, denounce, and grudgingly accept the raids in Libya. As a fairly non-violent person, I was shocked and horrified by the thought that we had responded to violence with the violence of bombs, in Libya. I also, being what I am, did not respond with what's been called a "knee-jerk" reaction of condemnation, but tried to see why it was done, and what I could have done otherwise. The problem? From what we hear, the US intelligence services, in their assigned function of gathering information bearing on the well-being of the United States, had determined that Qaddafi had planned to massively increase the terrorism that he allegedly backs. [This terrorism, incidentally, has been referred to by knowledgable people world-wide as an ongoing war where the only victims are the innocent.] This information was shared with Western European governments, who agreed that something had to be done, but could not agree what. Few if any accepted the concept of an economic blockade of Libya, because they all had economic interests there. What to do? I certainly don't know. Bombing is such a non-specific operation -- yes, if all goes right, and if we know for certain that only the places and people engaged in this "war" against the US are hit, and if indeed we have the right to do it, then it will stop the terrorism. For now. But (a) those are three big if's (and are being hotly disputed by us right here), and (b) it is true that violence begets violence until the world is sick of it. Specific retribution -- assasinations, as some have suggested -- would stop only the publicly identified members of the terrorist group (e.g., M.Q.); would put US operatives more specifically in danger (somebody has to do it); and, most important, are a violation of moral, international, and US law. Negotiation has failed. How could it succeed, when one of the stated goals of one group is to wipe out a nation which, however it started, exists now? That is what has to happen for Palestinians to re-occupy that land which is now Palestine. [I understand that the Palestinians were asked to stay in Israel, but were told by the predecessors of today's terrorists to leave their land, since the terrorists would have it back soon. I may be wrong on this point.] There does not seem to be an easy solution to this. (For an optimistic -- and perhaps possible -- solution to this, read James Gunn's new book, _Crisis!_.) There is probably some validity to labelling the bomb strikes "terrorism." Besides destroying the terrorist encampments, one goal of this operation seems to have been to frighten the people of Libya and undermining Qaddafi's power base. This is, in fact, terrorism. Terrorism is deplorable, yes. It makes it only a little less deplorable that the US bombs were said to be aimed at real military targets, and the terrorism said to be headed by Qaddafi is deliberately aimed at innocent people. One more comment: the television accounts of the raids had to have been filmed by Libyan state communications personnel, as the tours of the foreign journalists were days later, and were conducted strictly by same. They would, of course, show the full horror of the violence done. Violence is never pretty. By the same token, they would not show anything to give any cause for the raids, such as smoldering munitions factories. All of you who have by now decided that I am a pig-headed rabid US patriot or a flaming Commie liberal, please lower your flame- throwers. You are both wrong. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
galenr@shark.UUCP (Galen Redfield) (04/26/86)
In article <419@aero.ARPA> foy@aerospace.UUCP (Richard Foy) writes: >Twenty percent of the people that called The White House after the attack >were opposed. Two Senators publicly criticised the attack. I agree with >Bormans view. I'm underwhelmed. >Nature or God gave us a great big brain. We seem to use it very well in >building very complex weapons. We have very little time in learning to >use it in finding human ways of living with human beings who differ with >us. While we think, the bomb in the airplane goes off. >Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA >The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of >hard knocks. Thus they are my own. So, Richard, why don't you knock on that great big brain of yours and tell the rest of us how we can find a way to live with Khadafi, since all that is wrong is that he differs with us. Please. Warm regards, Galen.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (04/26/86)
In article <126@comp.lancs.ac.uk> gareth@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Gareth Husk) writes: >Khadafy is not the only one who supports the IRA. >A true-blue American organisation provides the IRA with funding to carry ^^^^ >on with indisciminate attacks of the civilians and armed forces of >the United Kingdom and Ireland. Yes I'm talking about that peace-loving >organisation NORAID. > > They are funding *MURDER* . ... . I've never heard of such an organization but I'm sure it wouldn't be true blue.. more likely some shade of GREEN.. Why should the the United States have to clean out terrorist at home, too. I mean can't you British come up with "James Bond" or something. And if you want to hit this murderous bunch of ninety year old Irish "sons of the great potato famine" and their grandchildren's misguided donations from their piggy banks, then by all means give them a whack. We'll even let you use the College Park Airfield although you'll be limited to those Harrier things that take off straight up because of the short runways. Hopefully their headquarters will be within fuel range because my hang glider doesn't have "tanker capacity" for inflight refueling. We have tornados that cause more havoc wreakage and death than any attack you could muster so I doubt if it would even be detected as much out of the ordinary. The peak season is just starting. :-) Bye the way, when are you Brits going to give the Irish in the northern section thier independence?? Gee whatever happened to the Celtic empire?? Remember: You can't oppress an armed population, and all of us Yanks have guns.
steiny@scc (04/26/86)
** Part of the discussion about the bombing of Lybia seems to suggest that Germans feel differently than United Statesians. I am a fifth generation Californian and I think it was idiotic to bomb Lybia. Further, polls of Northern California show that the vast majority of people around here agree with me. I work at Hewlett-Packard, which I think is a fairly consertive sample of Silicon Valley and everyone I talk with is 100% opposed to the bombing. I have a low opinion of the United States Military, having grown up near a military base. My wife is Jewish and she thinks the bombing raid was stupid too. Neither of us like Qadaffi, but we consider that irrelevant. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
hijab%cad@cad.UUCP (04/26/86)
In article <901@harvard.UUCP>, greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes: > As for the statement "one cannot cure international terrorism with this > policy of bombing foreign cities", there was a persuasive article in Time > a few weeks ago by the Israeli ambassador to the UN explaining why and how > we should retaliate against international terrorism. > -- > gregregreg It would be amusing, if it were not so tragic, that the state that inflicted more terror than any in the Middle East - namely Israel - should now educate us in the art of suppressing terrorism. The state that has killed 20,000 in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon, killed at least as many in air attacks on South Lebanon in the preceding decade -displacing nearly half a million South Lebanese from their homes and continues to inflict misery with its regular forays into South Lebanon and inhumane treatment of Palestinians under occupation, has no right to preach to the world. Of course what we are facing here is a classic case of European/Western racism. The lives of Palestinian, Lebanese and other "non-civilized" groups do not merit the same concern as the lives of Americans, English, etc. Israel's cleverly constructed message tells the West, "We are a civilized people, like you. You've got to side with us against those savages." I have referred before to the fact that Israel has a long history of terrorism. An example of such terrorism is referred to in Noam Chomsky's book, "The Fateful Triangle," (South End Press, Boston, 1983), In the light of American beliefs about the history of terrorism, it should perhaps be observed that along with acts of piracy such as these, Israel has also resorted to hijacking of airplanes, and may indeed have initiated this practice. In December 1954, a Syrian civillian airliner was captured by Israeli military aircraft to obtain hostages for exchange with Israeli soldiers who had been captured by Syria.
tos%psc70@psc70.UUCP (04/27/86)
This article (by "Tex"?) dismisses as "silly" that we might have from the start more or less ignored Qaddafi, instead of building hi up as has occurred. It should be noted that France has had far more Arab terrorism directed against it and has suffered far more casualties as a result (I do notcount the Marines in Lebanon as victims of "terrorism"); yet France followed the policy of essentially ignoring Qaddafi, i.e. not treating him or Libya as a special case to be singled out. I realize this does not mean that France is necessarily right and we are wrong, but surely it at least suggests that from the viewpoint of millions of other human beings that kind of policy is not "silly." Indeed, they consider the American obsession with having to hit back and vindicate one's national macho as at least counte- productive, if not also immature and hence silly. Tom Schlesinger Plymouth State College Plymouth, N.H. 03264 decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
tos%psc70@psc70.UUCP (04/27/86)
The thesis that collateral damage in Tripoli may have been caused by Libyan missiles falling back after failing to reach their targets has been exposed as totally implausible... to persons acquainted with munitions it was absurd from the start. The damage to those buildings in Tripoli was clearly caused by bombs, and fairly heavy ones at that, which are designed to burst their way into a structure in good part by their weight before the fuse detonates the payload of explosives. The missiles fired at aircraft are relatively light and have fuses and explosive charges designed to attack the extremely vulnerable thin skins of aircraft. Thus even if they did fall back to earth (which in terms of trajectories would still make them unlikely to land in Tripoli) they would not cause the kind of building damage which was shown. Tom Schlesinger Plymouth State College Plymouth, N.H. 03264 decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
idc@brahma (04/27/86)
In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (Ron Morgan) writes: >to come. So WHAT if a few Libyan civvies were killed. We didn't go over there >for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of killing civilians, unlike Khadafy, who targets >only the most helpless (such as mild-mannered old librarians, two-week old >babies, and people buying tickets in airplane terminals), and then laughs over >their corpses and says "more to come." Why is it that enemies have to be turned into the personification of evil? I suppose it makes them easier to hate and then we can justify *any* action against them. Next time around in this game of retaliation he'll be reported biting the heads off infants no doubt. I like the 'justification by specific purpose' arguement. 'Not our fault some jews died, our SPECIFIC PURPOSE was just to keep Germany for the germans.' Well that's all right then. >We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on >the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really >immaterial. That situation could not be tolerated, PERIOD. Get real. Well at least it's refreshing to see someone being honest about US involvment in South America for a change. The "etc." presumably covers international law, common sense and respect for democracy. Get real and take cover. -- ------------- -Ian Crorie JANET: idc@uk.ac.hw.cs Heriot-Watt University ARPA: idc@cs.hw.ac.uk Dept of C.S. UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!idc -------------
g-rh%cca@cca.UUCP (04/27/86)
In article <> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > >Certainly, ignoring aggression had something to do with WWII. But, surely >you don't think a Rambo Reagan style bombing raid on Berlin in the late 30's >would have avoided WWII do you? On the contrary, it would have simply started >the war earlier. In retrospect, the only thing that Europe could have done >that had any chance of avoiding WWII (if you ignore assassination attempts >in the very early 30's, before people realized how dangerous Hitler would be), >would have been to send troops into Czeckloslovakia (I always have trouble >spelling that - sorry) on the invitation of that country *before* Hitler >invaded it. And, at that point Europe wasn't ready for a military >confrontation. They still weren't ready when they finally drew the line >and followed through on Poland ("If you invade Poland, a state of war will >exist between ..."), but they managed to hold on and develop their >strength until they could effectively combat Germany (with assistance of >course from the US later on). > Historical Correction: The earlier aggressive actions by Germany prior to WWII could have been stopped simply by telling Germany NO. In particular: (a) Germany was disarmed prior to Hitler's ascent to office. Hitler rearmed in violation of the treaty of Versaille. At that point it would have been simple to keep Germany from rearming. (b) When the German troops went into the Saar they went in with standing orders to retreat immediately if there was objection on the part of the Allies. (c) The occupation of the Sudetenland was forced by the Allies (peace in our time, you know.) At that time the Czech's were the military equal of Germany; however the major Czech fortifications were in the Sudetenland. The effect of the surrender of the Sudetenland was to drastically alter the balance of power between Germany and Czechoslovakia. In short, in 1935 any major European power could have stopped Hitler because Germany had no effective military power. Hitler rearmed without real opposition in spite of an announced policy of conquest and in spite of treaty agreements which the Allies had agreed to enforce. By 1939 it was too late. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
tos%psc70@psc70.UUCP (04/27/86)
This posting refers to the stopping of "aggression." So now Qaddafi is being equated with Hitler in 1939-1941, and to Stalin in 1949-1950? In Hitler's case, Germany, the central power in Europe was being rearmed to the teeth in the face of relatively sleepy (though not really disarmed like we) democracies. The US was militarily weak, unprepared, trying to be aloof. Qaddafi is a very minor Middle East desert chieftain (pop. 3 million) able to buy a lot of hardware because the Soviets gets his (or our?) oil money that way. The NATO countries and we are bristling with strength. The supposed aggression was never clearly and unambiguously directed at the US (rather than at Israel, ElAl, etc.) until we chose to make a big deal of the Gulf of Sidra, and lay down the gauntlet. To associate that by connotation with the kinds of themes usually evoked by the word aggression is really to stretch things a lot, and mostly to succomb to the desire of the Reagan bunch to get themselves out of the rhetorical corner that RR keeps painting himself into with his rather big macho mouth. Tom Schlesinger Plymouth State College Plymouth, N.H. 03264 decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
geoff@suneast.uucp (Geoff Arnold) (04/27/86)
One problem with Reagan's Libyan action is that it either stands as
an isolated incident (which is suspicious - why is the death of one
US serviceman so much more heinous than all of the other deaths at
the hands of terrorists?) or it is intended as an invitation to everyone
else to walk down the slippery slope to global anarchy. Would the
good ol' son o' the sod Ronnie approve if Maggie Thatcher decided that
the best way of solving the IRA problem (which has involved the deaths
of vastly more innocent Britons than there have been US victims of
terrorism) would be a "sugical" strike on the Shankill Road or Bogside
by a couple of dozen Harriers and Tornados? Might kill a few innocent
civilians, but we all know that accidents happen (listen to Larry Speakes
on that one). Or maybe they should take out the US bases for IRA terrorism
(those Irish-American groups who, together with Libya, fund most of it).
Collateral damage? No problem.
[I feel strongly about that - as an expatriate Englishman I remember
the IRA bombings of the '70s, with politicians, soldiers, police, women,
and children - and fifteen-month old babies - getting killed right,
left and center, and the British attempts to deal with the terrorists
(remember internment?) provoking howls of protest over here. One wonders
how intemperately Reagan would react if a U.S. Congressman got killed.
Probably nuke the first likely target.]
It's ironical, isn't it? Over the last year or so the "Great Communicater"
has presided over an absolutely disastrous slide in the world perception
of the U.S. Practically everyone believes that the biggest obstacle
to nuclear arms reductions is Reagan (or is it Weinberger? I can't
tell who's leading whom on that). A good indication of this is the fact
that last week the Soviets felt able to launch a massive series of air
strikes against the Afghan rebels, knowing that compared with the Libyan
raid it would be a non-event.
When I first perceived the strength of the popular support for Reagan's
action (media reported, but probably correctly so), my first reaction
was "How the hell can I stay here? I could never feel a part of
such an amoral society?". (My disgust reached a peak when I read George
Will in the Boston Globe, saying how he could hardly feel regret about
bombs hitting the French Embassy.) But then as a few voices of reason
emerged, including several cautious but unambigous editorials in
the Globe, I realized that I was not alone. And after all, if you look
back, practically everything that Reagan has done in foreign policy has
got initially enthusiastic popular support followed by a rapid cooling off.
(One poll reported that most people now feel that Grenada was a mistake.)
But then, when you walk out of Rambo (yuk) you leave it in the theater -
you don't analyze the geopolitical impact down the years.
A suggestion: Go out and buy Jackson Brown's latest album "Lives in the
Balance" and listen to what he says about patriotism and being American.
Says it all.
--
"To disclaim, or not to disclaim... "
<<<<<< Geoff Arnold, Sun Microsystems Inc. (East Coast Division) >>>>>>
SnailMail: One Cranberry Hill, Lexington, MA 02173; 617-863-8870 x136
UUCP: {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid,decwrl}!sun!suneast!geoffgeoff@suneast.uucp (Geoff Arnold) (04/27/86)
Before any Ulster folks complain about Shankill and Bogside references,
I can never remember which bit of Belfast/Londonderry is which. After years
of nightly bodycount reports on the news, I confess it that it all
just kinda blurred together. Which is a sad thing to have to admit.
--
"To disclaim, or not to disclaim... "
<<<<<< Geoff Arnold, Sun Microsystems Inc. (East Coast Division) >>>>>>
SnailMail: One Cranberry Hill, Lexington, MA 02173; 617-863-8870 x136
UUCP: {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid,decwrl}!sun!suneast!geoffcdrigney@uokvax (04/27/86)
/* Written 1:32 am Apr 21, 1986 by jeff@rtech.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.general */ > Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on > Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when > his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) That's nonsense, Jeff. The Soviet Union would never risk nuclear war over something as minor as Libya. It's just not worth it. The corresponding question is, of course, would the U.S. risk nuclear war over something as minor as Western Europe? Why bother? All this should be in net.politics, anyway - see you there! --Carl Rigney USENET: {ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney It is the official policy of the University of Oklahoma to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of agreement or disagreement with any opinion expressed in this article. Insert :-) as required, or use your head.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (04/27/86)
In article <206@psc70.UUCP> tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) writes: > > The thesis that collateral damage in Tripoli may have been caused >by Libyan missiles falling back after failing to reach their targets >has been exposed as totally implausible... to persons acquainted with >munitions it was absurd from the start. The damage to those >buildings in Tripoli was clearly caused by bombs, and fairly heavy >ones at that, which are designed to burst their way into a structure >in good part by their weight before the fuse detonates the payload of >explosives. The missiles fired at aircraft are relatively light and >have fuses and explosive charges designed to attack the extremely >vulnerable thin skins of aircraft. Thus even if they did fall back to >earth (which in terms of trajectories would still make them unlikely >to land in Tripoli) they would not cause the kind of building damage >which was shown. > WRONG! You're perhaps talking about WW II antiaircraft weapons, but in order to knock down heavily armored F-111's, SAM missiles have hundred pound plus explosives which are not fused. They heat seek and explode on impact or electronically in a close pass. Con- sidering relative speeds involved, a close pass would not be lethal if the explosives were less than this amount. The bombs dropped by F111's were 2000 pound bombs which were "block busters" in the WWII, but are more "brissant" to have greater underground bunker knock out capacity. These bombs level buildings over a square block. Most of the damage shown could have been easily caused by SAM's. Why was the Western Press asked to leave Libya?? It's NOT because of the expulsion of Libyan students from Western countries. The last thing a country who has an honest story to tell would do is expel the press. They apparently could NOT convince the press that spent SAM's engines were the remains of US aircraft. One of these was shown near its very large impact and detonation crater. They also got tired of the press's insistence on seeing the military and most terrorist target areas, which of course was never allowed. Be a little more careful and maybe try watching more detective shows. Your interpretation of the evidence is kind of sloppy. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
dml@bu-cs (04/28/86)
[With all due respect Barry...... (c) sam@bu-cs 1986] In article <470@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: | |Over and over again people in favor of the air raid keep saying "What |else could we have done?", no matter how many times they are told, oh |well, they'll probably ignore this one also: | |DEFUSE THE PALESTINIAN SITUATION BY CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION Yes, I agree that would be the best thing, but..... |That is, get the PLO, Israel, Jordan and whoever else is appropriate |to the bargaining table and just settle it. The US could offer to |foot at least part of the resultant bill for putting the plan in |action (why? why not, it's either that or replacing those F-111s |and bombs etc we are using, not to mention the implicit cost of |terrorism, either way it will cost the US plenty.) I am not saying |that we should bear all the cost, but if they can bargain it down |to a purchase order, sign it. If I recall, the King of Jordan tried to do just that. He failed, through the efforts of countries such a Syria and Libya. He even had the `blessings' of the US and receptiveness in Israel. The PLO has long refused to recognize or negotiate with Isreal (until recently), but now the PLO has become a very fragmented group. And face it, there are powers in that area that don't want to settle it!! They just want their `Holy War'. |Easy to say? Maybe, but it sure hasn't been tried with any sincerity. I think that the King of Jordan was quite sincer. His Arab brethren opposed his efforts. |Now this isn't the only gripe Khaddaffi and his ilk have in the Middle |East, but it is their battle cry, defuse it, for those of you who |like revenge I assure you the US going in and resolving this in a |positive way will make Khaddaffi 10X more furious than a few bombs, |it will steal his thunder and quite possibly put the US in a positive |light in the area if handled well. This I can aggree with. It would certainly take a lot of the hot air out of Khaddaffi's balloon. |It is not at all clear that the bombing had any good effect, quite |probably the opposite. Now we have re-assured any doubters in the |area that the US gives and the world takes, people don't seem to |understand that the Arab world really resents US intervention, hopefully |though they would tolerate us acting as a mediator rather than dictator |(in the generic sense of the word) in the area. | |Ok? Not so unreasonable. Please, don't immediately assume that throwing |a few bombs at a Libyan airport accomplishes anything or is somehow |justified, it may very well not be of any use. Without immediately |yielding to your anger (Nuke Em!) think a little, be clever, state a |goal (ending the terrorism) and go for it in a clever way, don't |just satisfy your bloodlust (cutting off your nose to spite your face.) Why don't you list some of the "clever" options that the United States had to use with Khaddaffi?? There were not many things to do economically. We were getting little assistance from our European Allies. Khaddaffi had even gone to the length of attacking United States Navy aircraft in International airspace (only one small African country recognizes Khaddaffi's claims to the Gulf of Sidra). |If you think it's only the 'liberals' who opposed the bombing, note |that Cap Weinberger also opposed it, it's not that kind of issue, he |also apparently could not see what good it would do as proposed but |apparently Schultz won out. Of course, once the decision was made he |would support his president. | | | -Barry Shein, Boston University David Matthew Lyle Boston University dml@bu-cs
dml@bu-cs (04/28/86)
In article <2094@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP writes: >> >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > >A question: does anyone know a worse slime than Joachim Carlo Santos >Martillo Ajami? Martillo, I am against cencorship, but I promise you >$20 if you shut up. (The price is open to negotiation.) > >Piotr Berman Personal attack should be kept out of the net. If you want to contribute something, please do, else keep it in E-mail. David Matthew Lyle Boston University dml@bu-cs.CSNET dml@buenga.BITNET
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (04/28/86)
From the Wall Street Journal, Wednesday April 9, 1986, p. 33 by Enno von Loewenstern editorial page editor of die Zeit. Bonn -- "America's claim to world domination can also be recognized in the political principles of the Potsdam agreement. The United States could agree only to a socio-political system that guaranteed it the strongest political and economic influence." This hypothesis was presented to the pupils of a Hamburg high school with the request that they find proof for it in the text of the Potsdam agreement itself. One pupil who didn't recognize a claim to world domination in this agreement received a low grade. To the charge that there might be a subtle campaign to defame the U.S. in Hamburg's schools, the education minister for the state of Hamburg, Joist Grolle, indignantly responded in the negative. But the subtle campaign existed then, and it lives on. Mr. Grolle, a member of the city-state's ruling Social Democratic Party, advised Hamburg teachers in 1985 to call America's Strategic Defense Initiative "a station on the way to a new war" when they spoke of the program in the classroom. Although the opposition Christian Democratic Party demanded his resignation for this recommendation, Mr. Grolle was supported by the Social Democrats and kept his job. And Hamburg is no isolated case. Back in 1984, Chancellor Helmut Kohl complained that West German schoolchildren learn far too little about why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded. He condemned the new-style "peace education" that equates democratic and totalitarian states and "denies the indissoluble correlation of peace with liberty." Schools in West Germany's conservative-run states generally don't indoctrinate students against the U.S. But in Social Democratic-run states like Hamburg or Bremen, peace education is promoted. An English grammar book used in some states is a good example. It deals mainly with two subjects: violence in the U.S. and injustice to the American Indians. The cover of a world history book treating the period since 1776 is adorned with a picture not of Bismarck or Lincoln, but of a peace demonstration. The same book devotes a chapter to "Imperialism of the U.S.A," in the 19th century. There is no chapter on Russian imperialism. Russia's conquests in Central Asia and East Asia during the 19th century are hardly touched on. The book also condemns Hitler's crimes with commendable severity. As for the millions murdered in the Soviet Union, though, it merely says that "numerous" people were jailed in Stalin's time and that "many" did not survive. Anti-Americanism and soft-pedaling Soviet infamies are but two symptoms. The slanting is also reflected in discussions of business. Cracks about worker oppression and profit-grubbing bosses abound. A book for seven-year-olds teaches expropriation in a nursery rhyme. "Wouldn't it be wonderful? 'Mine' and 'Yours' will be abolished! Then everyone will get what he needs..." An investigation by a group of educators chaired by a professor at the University of Cologne, Henning Guenther, in 1982 showed that about half of all West German schoolbooks teaching the German language, political science or religion criticize private property. Some 80% of German language books, 66% of books on social science, and 55% of books on religion insist that West German society is a class society with exploiters and "manipulators" and their victims. The descriptions given of labor's situation in West Germany are frightening; they speak of nine-hour work-days and hourly wages of $1.20. These are outdated by decades, but even the trade unions do not protest although the books implicitly deny their achievements. Law and justice are portrayed as protecting the rich and powerful. Squatters' actions, for instance, are justified with horror stories about exploitive landlords. The family is a special object of ridicule or defamation. Stories of child abuse abound, and children are advised to "resist," even to strike their parents. Children are taught that the family is a "field of conflict." Many religious books attack the family and praise unmarried life in communes. One book proposes that children poll friends on the ideal parent and confront their parents with the result. Such books are the work of respected publishing houses whose spokesmen admit they are distressed with some of their products but feel compelled to publish them because activist bureaucrats in some culture ministries recommend only books with such texts. That alibi prompted sociologist Helmut Schoeck to comment: "Isn't that exactly the kind of accommodation that these young pedagogues [who write these books] charge was practiced by the schoolbook publishers of Hitler's time?" Educators feel that the wave of "emancipatory" schoolbooks published in the late 1960s has been receding since 1975. But they admit that most of the "class struggle" terminology is still present. Most West German children nevertheless grow up to become as sensible as adults anywhere. But there are those who claim that there is no use working for a living because they are destined to die anyway as a result of atomic bombs or environment poisoning. And they feel that, even if they do survive, work is sinnentleert, or empty of meaning, and they will not submit to exploitation. Many violently demonstrate in West German streets, calling for a revolution, which may explain the strategy behind those schoolbooks.
ethan@utastro (04/28/86)
> > Indeed. We are also grateful (or should be) for the unthinkable numbers of > citizens of other countries who were killed or maimed in the same conflict, > not least our Soviet allies on the eastern front. > > George D M Ross, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh, Scotland And I am, not the least of which reason is that some of them were cousins. I do feel that they got the rawest deal of anyone save the victims of the concentration camps. They prevented a foreign tyrant from overrunning Russia and doing to them what their homegrown tyrant was already doing quite efficiently. -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
ethan@utastro (04/28/86)
> > Libya: The only DEMOCRACY in the entire middle east. The only leader > > in the middle east who is both a JEW AND AN ARAB. No interest > > in this potentially important country for spreading good in > > Middle East. > > I'm really confused here. For the benefit of those of us who are less well informed than you please tell me 1) the date of the last Libyan election, the candidates, the voter turnout, the amount of free press allowed during the election, and, of course, the winner. 2) in what sense the leader of Libya is a Jew? Dark skin? a keen sense of humor? an aversion to pork? A predilection for medical school? ( :-) if it's really necessary). -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
bs@faron.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) (04/28/86)
> > > > Well, I doubt that you will find people in America who share your > > views, because the brainwashing there is getting rather complete. I > > > > Libya: The only DEMOCRACY in the entire middle east. The only leader > > in the middle east who is both a JEW AND AN ARAB. No interest > > in this potentially important country for spreading good in > > Middle East. > > > > Looks like your confused about *who* is really brainwashed. > > > > > And for all of this, Raygun is very popular. Goes to show how far the > > brainwashing has progressed. Just look at the popular movies in the > > US to see the general attitude. Rambo, Rocky, Phantom Commando, etc., > > etc., etc. "Kill those guys, they are the Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!" > > > > The only one I saw was Rocky. You don't appreciate the underdog > success story? I suppose you prefer those *democracies* that choose > the movies for you - only anti-American themes. > > > When these things happen, it makes me very glad i no longer live in > > the USA. > > > > David E. Smyth > > > > Me too! > > Mark Johnson > Penn State > USA Ditto!!! Do us all a favor and stay there. Bob Silverman
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (04/28/86)
In article <470@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > >Over and over again people in favor of the air raid keep saying "What >else could we have done?", no matter how many times they are told, oh >well, they'll probably ignore this one also: > >DEFUSE THE PALESTINIAN SITUATION BY CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION > >That is, get the PLO, Israel, Jordan and whoever else is appropriate >to the bargaining table and just settle it. The US could offer to >foot at least part of the resultant bill for putting the plan in >action. . . Hell, why not invite the IRA and the governments of Eire and Ulster and the United Kingdom while we're at it. Gee, for that matter let's bring in Vietnam and Cambodia and Harlan Ellison and the producers of Twilight Zone. Let's get all these problems sorted out once and for all. If the US government won't fund this I'll be glad to contribute what I can. They can use my apartment and my ice cream maker and I'll move in with friends until peace is achieved. Why didn't any of us see this before? Why, if Barry had posted this sooner, maybe we could have had Jimmy Carter negotiate a peace between Israel and Egypt. Or better: We could have had Nixon send somebody (Kissinger, say) to try to work things out way back in the 60s! >Easy to say? Maybe, but it sure hasn't been tried with any sincerity. I'm reminded of the "Our Ugandan Correspondent" column Alan Coren used to do for PUNCH. "Idi Amin" wrote from beautiful downtown Kampala, "hub of the Universe," to suggest creating a Palestinian homeland in Northern Ireland, after transporting the IRA to the Sanai where they could set off bombs without causing damage. He painted a lovely picture of Palestinians marching up and down Falls Road singing Orange patriotic songs about the Battle of Boyne and so on. To head off potential criticism he closed by saying, "You may not think much of this idea, but who's offering anything better?" > > -Barry Shein, Boston University Oh. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
mike@erix (04/28/86)
Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher should bomb New York? Mike Williams
gareth@comp (04/28/86)
In article <233@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP writes: >> >> It *is* a shame that force has been resorted to; a peaceful solution is >> to be preferred. So, how about it, netters? To those of you pouring out >> kilebytes of criticism (and, may I dare say, anti-Reagan and anti-US invective), >> how about supplying some *answers*? Some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism will be >> welcomed. If you *know* the US government is wrong, then tell us what the >> *right* solution is! >> -- >> John G Dobnick > >Outlaw import of Libyan oil into the United States. This would have to include >Libyan oil coming from other sources, otherwise the oil companies would let >the French or the Japanese buy it, and then buy it from them. > >Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) I said it earlier but the USA appeared to be out of touch for a large chunk of last week. Outlaw NORAID an organisation that supports terrorist activities within the United Kingdom and Eire. None of this rubbish about extradition of terrorists proved to have killed civilians but not members of the police Garda, and Armed Forces. Don't I remember that the American killed in the Berlin bombing was not a civilian. Clean up your act, less hypocrisy, to attack another nation under a specious claim of self-defence, and as well to punish them for sponsoring terrorism when NORAID is openly and legally collecting money that we all know is going to be used to buys arms, explosives and pay for the training of the IRA. Hope this is constructive enough for you. Remember you don't get rid of terrorists by killing them, that makes them into martyrs all you can hope to do is make them impotent and that means permanent incarceration. Not ritual murder. Gareth Husk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The views expressed above are purely my own. -- Still hazy after all those beers. UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!gareth DARPA: gareth%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, JANET: gareth@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4586 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK. Project: Automatic Abstracting (Mission Impossible)
chip%hpclld@hpclld.UUCP (04/29/86)
Delayed by notes system ... /***** hpclld:net.followup / hpclla!chip / 2:53 pm Apr 23, 1986*/ > /***** hpclld:net.followup / harvard!tomczak / 7:55 pm Apr 21, 1986*/ > I am saddened that you seem to think that violence is a natural necessity > for freedom. Violence begets violence. Isn't this what history has > taught us? Please do not misunderstand me! I don't condemn Reagan's raid > on Libya. But neither will I rejoice at the continuation of violence. I agree with Bill that "violence begets violence", and applaud his level-headedness that refuses to rejoice at "the continuation of violence". Nevertheless, I think an equally [or perhaps more] important lesson of history is that freedom will soon be lost without the willingness to fight for it. We're talking HISTORY here, not "new age" wishful thinking. As far as I can see from history, fighting (i.e. "violence") IS, in fact a "necessity for freedom". I wish it were not that way. What about Chamberlain's "peace in our time" treaty with Hitler? HISTORY teaches us that it was a **very_bad_move**: it not only failed in its objective, the peace was soon broken anyway, but it ultimately gave the restoration of that peace a much higher cost. How much better if the real threat to peace, criminal actions on an international scale, had been dealt with sooner! This also applies to Khadafi (and all other international criminals). Better to fight him now than to wait. As to whether violence is a NATURAL necessity for freedom, the answer would depend on your view of nature, essentially a topic for net.religion. Chip Chapin -- HP Computer Language Lab (ITG/ISO/CLL) Usenet: ... {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax} !hplabs!hpclla!chip or ... {hp-lsd,hpda,hpdsd,hpfcla,hpfclp} !hpclla!chip HPMail: chip (hpclla) /HPUNIX/UX USMail: 19120 Homestead Ave, 47LH; Cupertino, CA 95014 /* ---------- */
gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (04/29/86)
I was interested to read that on April 1st, the US Navy launched
a conventionally-armed Tomahawk missile, which travelled 400 miles
to explode it's 1000 lb warhead directly over a parked airplane.
AW&ST has a photo of the plane blowing up.
Why didn't we use these to:
1. Hit the targets without losing aircraft
2. Hit the targets without hitting civilians.
These can be launched from submarines. Would we use this if another
terrorist attack pointed to Libya?
What is scary is that these could easily hit Syria, Lebanon, or Iran.
Talk about push-button war.
--
-- Bob Gottlieb
UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb
Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720
Phone: (617) 263-9110
Foot: "You can't get there from here".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"torek@umich (04/29/86)
In article <629@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes: >We *could* declare war on Libya, but >it would be stupid and disproportionate. For the same reason I >think that the bombing raid on Libya was a mistake. Certainly the >intention was not to kill civilians, but only the most foolish optimist >would have expected an attempted bombing of the security apparatus >headquarters in a residential neighborhood to spare civilian lives. I agree that the bombing raid was a mistake for this reason. But how about a raid directed only at targets in non-residential areas? The main goal of the raid, "sending a signal", would be preserved, even if some tactical goals (knocking out terrorist training centers?) were not. >What can we do? Clearly diplomatic efforts were being pursued before >the bombing with no visible results. I would think that a proportionate >and reasonable mode of retaliation would have been a campaign of >assasinations aimed at the groups promoting terrorism, including >Quadaffi. Would his successor be any better? (A non-rhetorical question -- if so, I agree.) >Well, it's not the only one. The other response is to do nothing at all. It may be the best; at least if we deny the terrorists their goals: changes of policy on our part in the direction they desire. Those who recommend doing this in the name of "addressing the root causes of terrorism" certainly have a strange notion of how to discourage an activity: reward it. --Paul Torek torek@umich
jeffw%midas@midas.UUCP (04/29/86)
In article <1668@shark.UUCP> galenr@shark.UUCP (Galen Redfield) writes: >In article <419@aero.ARPA> foy@aerospace.UUCP (Richard Foy) writes: > >Nature or God gave us a great big brain. We seem to use it very well in > >building very complex weapons. We have very little time in learning to > >use it in finding human ways of living with human beings who differ with > >us. >While we think, the bomb in the airplane goes off. So what's your point (if you have one)? That thinking should be prohibited? Seems to be consistent with your comment, at any rate. Jeff Winslow
dml%bu-cs@bu-cs.UUCP (04/29/86)
In article <638@argon.idec.stc.co.uk> howellg@idec.stc.co.uk (Gareth Howell) writes: | I don't see any economic retaliation from the US. It still buys oil | from Lybia, which accounts for a great deal of their income. If the | US really wants to bring Lybia to its knees, stop buying oil. But I | suppose that might affect Reagans popularity. You are somewhat mis-informed then. According to the Boston Globe of April 28, President Reagan had banned all trade with and travel to Libya. What other economic retaliation could the US take??? -- David Matthew Lyle dml@bu-cs.CSNET (dml@bucsa.bu.edu) Boston University dml@buenga.BITNET Distributed Systems Group ...harvard!bu-cs!dml
dunbar@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP (Neil Dunbar) (04/29/86)
> I think R. Reagan has done the right thing. The western european countries are > the ones who are really responsible this could have happened. They failed > to follow the US in their boycot of Libya. It's maybe because no german > or italian or other european citizens are target to terrorist actions. > I believe an economic boycot and any other soft method > to deal with Gadaffi c.s is of no use, although these should be tried first. > People like Gadaffi understand one language only, but I doubt he will > be impressed by this attack. In any case it's regrettable Gadaffi > himself wasn't killed only innocent people. And this sure is food > for those who try to divide the US from their western european friends. > > n.b. Western europe excluding the UK, which are sometimes target too > and thus have supported the raid. > -- > Peter Hommel > Vrije Universiteit > Amsterdam, The Netherlands > hommel@vu44.UUCP (...!{decvax,seismo,philabs}!mcvax!vu44!hommel) I cannot see how you can say that the West Germans or the Italians are not subject to terrorist attack. It was not so long ago that the Baader-Meinhof were killing and bombing German police and the like every week. The Germans have shown, via GSG-9, that they are not "soft" on terrorism. ( The Bavarians in Munich were also subject to attacks by the Black September group. I group these separately, since I believe the Bavarians prefer to be called as such ). Please do not get the impression that the British people as a whole flocked to Thatcher's support for this US action. On the contrary, I believe that she has shown that she is unable to resist the will of President Reagan. I think she will come to regret her servility. Perhaps the Iron Lady is made of weaker stuff.... Neil Dunbar.
gareth@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Gareth Husk) (04/29/86)
>>After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya >>I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. >etc > >Would someone PLEASE reinstitute net.flame........ >or net.politics ..... > >I don't agree that this belonged in net.general. > >Ron Miller >{ihnp4}hpfcla!ron I'm afraid that this will carry-on in net.followup until it runs itself down, unless the powers that be decide to create net.terrorism.d. This is because Europe doesn't get net.politics, for reasons of volume and noise. -- Still hazy after all those beers. UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!gareth DARPA: gareth%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, JANET: gareth@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4586 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK. Project: Automatic Abstracting (Mission Impossible)
Unknown@hplabs.UUCP (04/29/86)
This message is empty.
andersa@kuling (04/29/86)
In article <158@unido.UUCP> ab@unido.UUCP (Andreas Bormann) writes: >I got a lot of responses to my posting. Lots of flames concerning the >posting to net.general, As long as net.politics does not exist in Europe, net.general (together with net.followup) seem to be the only (?) appropriate place for Europeans to post articles of political nature. I don't say we *should* have net.politics here also, but it's difficult to keep to the rules when they ignore the full capabilities of USENET (such as site-to-site restriction of distribution), and others keep disobeying them. We have eunet.politics for our own use, but that's inappropriate for commenting on world politics in net.general. -- Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Phone: +46 18 183170 UUCP: andersa@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)
dml%bu-cs@bu-cs.UUCP (04/29/86)
In article <126@comp.lancs.ac.uk> gareth@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Gareth Husk) writes: | | | I was going to stay out of this, all I was going to do was register my | displeasure with our present government, however I finally have had | enough of the hypocrisy. | | In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: | >.... Khadafy has been murdering people | >for 15 years now, at an escalating rate. He furnishes arms to the Sandanistas. | >He backs the IRA. Abu Nidal is on his payroll... and so on... | | Khadafy is not the only one who supports the IRA. | A true-blue American organisation provides the IRA with funding to carry | on with indisciminate attacks of the civilians and armed forces of | the United Kingdom and Ireland. Yes I'm talking about that peace-loving | organisation NORAID. | | They are funding *MURDER* there is no other way to descibe it, and we |see no action by the American administration to hold NORAID responsible |for the actions of their funding in the same way that Libya is being |held responsible for the actions of Abu Nidal ( whose biggest sponsor |is Libya, followed by Iran but they are a little big to make examples of ). | |The citizens of the USA are funding terrorism within the borders of one |of its "closest allies". I think that the USA ought to clean up its act, |outlaw NORAID, and start applying the same standards to all acts of |terrorism that it claims to be working to in the bombing of Libya. It is already illegal to ship weapons to the IRA. The US government also does not support the transfer of funds to the IRA. NORAID's publicly stated purpose is quite legal. All that is needed to stop NORAID is to prove in a court of law, that they have indeed violated the law. I'm quite sure that any federal judge would be more than willing to shut them down, given necessary proof. It is one of the side effect of the large personal freedoms guaranteed in the US, that proof must be provided to hold an organization (or person) responsible. If you have the proof to convince a judge a jury..... -- David Matthew Lyle dml@bu-cs.CSNET (dml@bucsa.bu.edu) Boston University dml@buenga.BITNET Distributed Systems Group ...harvard!bu-cs!dml
dml@bu-cs (04/29/86)
In article <1028@megaron.UUCP> robert@megaron.UUCP writes: | > In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of | > children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses | > similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who | > are not responsible for their leaders' politics. | | It was especially ironic that many of us Americans mailed our federal | income tax in the morning and found out that night that we, in a | financial sense, had supported these actions. I dedicated | my lectures Wednesday to the memory of these people, but it was | decided by higher ups that politics have no place in computer-science | class rooms. I did have many positive reactions from students | about how it was nice to know that they were not alone and that | someone had the courage, in these days of censorship, political | repression, and Rambohood in the USA, to make a statement. | | R. Drabek, Univ. of Arizona A computer science class is an inappropriate place for politics. Perhaps it might be appropriate in a Pol. Sci class. Censorship??? Political repression??? No one prevented you from expressing your political views. They just said that you couldn't do it on the universities time, inside a university facility ... during a time dedicated to the teaching of computer science. -- David Matthew Lyle dml@bu-cs.CSNET (dml@bucsa.bu.edu) Boston University dml@buenga.BITNET Distributed Systems Group ...harvard!bu-cs!dml
falk@sun (04/29/86)
> Unfortunately, it is true that the majority of Americans seem to support > Reagan in this action. ... > > But until this right-wing, aggressive, John Wayne/Rambo/kick-their-asses > attitude swings back toward a more normal outlook, and we replace Reagan with > a more sane leader, I fear America will earn itself more black marks in the > eyes of the world. Amen, this is the best reflection of my own feelings I've seen so far. > I just hope that's the worst that happens. I'll tell you one thing, for the first couple days after Reagan's attack, I was really worried. I figured that this was the time to find out if Khadaffi had an atomic bomb or not. -- -ed falk, sun microsystems
hijab@cad (04/29/86)
In article <500@bu-cs.UUCP>, dml@bu-cs.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) writes: > In article <470@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > | > |Over and over again people in favor of the air raid keep saying "What > |else could we have done?", no matter how many times they are told, oh > |well, they'll probably ignore this one also: > | > |DEFUSE THE PALESTINIAN SITUATION BY CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION > > Yes, I agree that would be the best thing, but..... > > If I recall, the King of Jordan tried to do just that. He failed, > through the efforts of countries such a Syria and Libya. He even > had the `blessings' of the US and receptiveness in Israel. The > PLO has long refused to recognize or negotiate with Isreal (until > recently), but now the PLO has become a very fragmented group. > And face it, there are powers in that area that don't want to settle > it!! They just want their `Holy War'. > If the U.S. and Israel would agree to apply the principle of non-acquisition of land by war to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, and drop their objections to the participation of the PLO and the creation of a Palestinian state, then I feel certain that at least Syria and Jordan, as well as the major PLO groups (including Arafat's Fatah and the Syrian- based Salvation Front) would be willing to enter into serious peace negotiations that would deal with a comprehensive settlement. Such a settlement would have to include Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem. That will still leave a (much diminished) rejection group. However, an agreement perceived as just would eventually be accepted in much of the Arab World. However, any attempts at limited two-party agreements, as had been done in the Camp David Egyptian-Israeli accord, or the now defunct "Jordanian Option" are bound to meet with stiff resistance by the excluded parties.
dpb@cbosgd.UUCP (Dain II Ironfoot) (04/30/86)
Ok you say we have no business doing anything in Nicaraugua (sp?) because they elected the govt. Has anyone thought that they might have changed their mind. If we have a communist party in america why not in the USSR or Nicaragua or Afghanistan?
mkr@mmm (04/30/86)
In article <338@hope.UUCP> corwin@hope.UUCP (John Kempf) writes: >Just a comment: > >Back about 40-50 years ago, it was safe for americans to travel abroad. >At the time, (at least as far as I remember from High School history >classes,) The united states had a forign policy known as 'Jingoism', Let's see... 40-50 years ago. I make that to be 1936-1946. Seems to me that the safety of Americans travelling abroad during that time period were somewhat less safe than they would be today. Well over 400,000 Americans died overseas in that time frame. --MKR "Let's bring back the safe days of World War II"
mkr@mmm (04/30/86)
In article <3194@reed.UUCP> soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) writes: > >But that's ALL that Reagan did. He gave Ghaddafi a slap on the >wrist and NOTHING ELSE. He is as free as before to dynamite baby >carriages as he was before. The bombing raid was spectacular and >generated lots of publicity, and made Reagan look like he was doing >something but it had no effect on the Libyan "War" effort. > >If Reagan were to send in an American Death Squad to take out >Kjadafi, I would have a lot less of a problem since it would not >involve the deaths of anonymous people who may or may not support >Kadophi's program, but a bombing raid kills just as many random >civilians as anything Qaddaphee could ever dream up. The only >difference, is that an air strike was done by a legally recognized >branch of the Government beaurocracy. > Let's get something straight, here. One of the goals of the raid was to make more sensible elements in Libya (moderate military leaders) sit up and say to themselves, "Hey, this Qaddaffi guy is going to get us involved in a war that we obviously cannot win. He's going to get us all killed. Let's get rid of him ourselves." That is why we gave him only a taste of our military power. More at this time would have been overkill and really would have been bad. Whether the raid will have its intended effect remains to be seen. If not, *then* perhaps we can get tougher. If, on the other hand, Reagan opts for a slow escalation, we're in trouble. As far as killing Qaddaffi goes, do you *really* think that's going to stop terrorism, or do you think maybe someone else will take his place. Remember, Muammar has not pulled any triggers himself, and he has not personally planted any bombs. If you think he is the only problem, you are grossly mistaken. Killing Qaddaffi would be a feel-good measure that would probably have little effect on the situation, other to create a powerful martyr figure to inspire a huge increase in terrorist activities. No, my friends, I hate to say it, but I think Reagan is right so far on this one (god, I *hate* agreeing with Reagan). The best way to defuse this situation is for Libyans to get rid of Qaddaffi themselves, and the best thing we can do is convince them it would be a good idea. By the way, I was amused by your various spellings of Muammar's name. If we want to grep for articles about the guy, how would we go about it? --MKR "There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." -"Dirty" Harry Callahan
mkr@mmm (04/30/86)
In article <312@daemen.uucp> fox@daemen.uucp (Merlin) writes: > As for the similiar methods, $%^*@&!!!, we did not use car bombs, bombs >in airports, submachine guns in public places, and we did not attack libya >to get attention we did it to protect ourselves. I for one would like to >travel abroad without having to worry about being blown to hell in some airport, >anywhere! > > David Fox > Aside from which, the people living next to the military targets at least have the option of *moving*, so they won't be in the strike zone. But Qaddaffi's "strike zone" is the whole western world (well, Europe and the Mideast, anyway), and *those* civilians don't have the opportunity to avoid being in a war zone. Comparing an attack on military targets to gunning down people in an airport is absurd - laughable if it weren't so sad. --MKR "There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." -"Dirty" Harry Callahan
mkr@mmm (04/30/86)
> People in the US should wake up and see what is happening there. > Raygun is getting ready to start a very big war. And the US populace > do not have the faintest idea of what is going on. > We're not quite as dumb as you seem to think. Sheeeesh! > Raygun has demonstrated that he is an imperialist bent on conquering > the world, not on spreading the American Dream of Peace, Liberty, and > the Pursuit of Happiness. Examples: > > Manila: Marcos is a perfect example of people Raygun likes. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the Reagan administration played a very important role in ousting (peacefully) Mr. Marcos. And you have the gall to call *us* dumb? I'm no fan of Reagan's, but let's not spread lies about the guy. The Philippines episode is still surprising me in that Reagan has handled it very well. > Libya: The only DEMOCRACY in the entire middle east. The only leader > in the middle east who is both a JEW AND AN ARAB. No interest > in this potentially important country for spreading good in > Middle East. > And you called *us* dumb? Are you talking about the Libya in North Africa? "Democracy??????" Qaddaffi is *Jewish*????? Hello... anybody home in there? > The only thing consistent with the way Raygun chooses who is on his > side and who is the Enemy is by who they by weapons from. If the buy > fromthe US, then they are OK by him. If they don't, he will ack > terrorists to overthrow the government, or he will embark on state > terrorism to murder innocent people, as he has done this week in > Libya. Israel buys weapons from countries other than the US, and I don't see any US-backed terrorists trying to overthrow *that* gov't. > > And for all of this, Raygun is very popular. Goes to show how far the > brainwashing has progressed. Just look at the popular movies in the > US to see the general attitude. Rambo, Rocky, Phantom Commando, etc., > etc., etc. "Kill those guys, they are the Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!" Those are *movies*, buddy. Get real. I don't know about you, but most Americans can tell the difference between reality and a movie fantasy. > > When these things happen, it makes me very glad i no longer live in > the USA. Me too. > > David E. Smyth > Heimgartenstrasse 14 > Munich > West Germany > > ex: Huntington Beach California, Milco International Inc. And *STAY OUT!* --MKR "There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." -"Dirty" Harry Callahan
cramer@kontron (04/30/86)
> In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on > >the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really > >immaterial. That situation could not be tolerated, PERIOD. Get real. > > > >Ron Morgan > > Yet more arrogance from the US of A , home of the free!!!!!!! > > Isn't it up to the Nicaraguan's what government they have. Any response to this > that the Sandinistas are not democratic I suggest the respondent read > net.politics concerning the Ortega regime's 67% support in Nicaragua, perhaps > howver that is not democratic enough :-) (slightly forced smile here). > > Dave C. They have elections in the Soviet Union as well. I suggest you read a little more about the conditions under which elections were held -- you would see the "democracy" of the Sandinista regieme is highly questionable. Clayton E. cramer
cramer@kontron (04/30/86)
> > Remember, when your OWN children are in hospital or dead after the next WW > it's Raygun (acting under mandate of the American People) that started it! > > Treval Kadaffi, of course, had nothing to do with it. This is rather like blaming Poland for starting World War II because they fought back against the Germans, instead of lying down in the middle of the road like the rest of Europe did. Clayton E. Cramer
singer@spar (04/30/86)
As far as I can see, there are two man aims in terrorism: applying pressure to get a definite end (e.g. taking hostages to get release of 'political' prisoners); and as a means of protest. To solve the problems of international terrorism, one needs to thwart the aims. The first kind of aim is easily thwarted; simply don't yield to terrorist demands - this is being and has been done successfully. The second is more difficult; one both needs to remove the need or desire for protest, and also remove the efficacy of it. Now it seems to me that bombing Libya both increases the desire for protest, and publicizes and exposes international terrorism in a way which gives it an impression of power, scale, and importance which is way out of proportion. Terrorists are now viewed (and view themselves) as major players on the international stage, to a great extent thanks to TV, newspapers, and the over-reactions of politicians. I am bitterly opposed to all forms of violence (individual acts of terrorism, and acts of war), but it also seems to me that international terrorism is not, in fact, a major problem -- measured by death rate, or successful coercion, or in any other way. So I support the earlier posting -- resolve the political tensions in the area as far as possible, become an active player in the area for peaceful solutions, try to woo countries into friendship rather than bomb them into submission, and stop aggrandizing petty terrorists. To a large extent the hatred in the area that exists for western countries is a direct result of the inept, heavy-handed and inconsiderate way they have behaved in the area in the past hundred years or so. I have no sympathy for Kadafi, but to some extent he is as much a symptom of a problem as a problem in himself, and no matter how satisfying it is to slap his hand it won't solve the problem of Libya, Iran, or Syria. To repeat an earlier posting -- Ask: Where do we want to be? How do we get there? I realize that long-term policies of this nature are hopelessly unsuccessful at aggrandizing politicians, and that policies which pay off in ten or twenty years are useless for the next election ...
dml@bu-cs (04/30/86)
In article <3212@reed.UUCP> soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) writes: | | It bothers me that this attitude, that Khadaffi is running | roughshod over us, so we just have to do something, is being used | as an excuse to do what seems to me to do something flashy just so | we can congratulate ourselves upon being decisive. | | Instead of being orgasmic over the fact that we used our BIG STICK | for a change, could the supporters of the action (of which I may or | may not be one) please explain just what worthwhile was | accomplished that made the cost--moral and material--justifiable. | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | Have A Nice Day, | Soren Petersen How about causing the European Allies to finally begin to take diplomatic and economic action against Libya?? Until the raid, there were no significant limits on Libyan diplomats(or whatever they are), except in England. -- David Matthew Lyle dml@bu-cs.CSNET (dml@bucsa.bu.edu) Boston University dml@buenga.BITNET Distributed Systems Group ...harvard!bu-cs!dml
iwm@ivax (04/30/86)
In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >Khadafy has been murdering people >for 15 years now, at an escalating rate. He furnishes arms to the Sandanistas. >He backs the IRA. The IRA gets a lot of funds and support from the irish community in the US, how do you feel about adopting the same solution as for Libya ? >We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on >the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really >immaterial. >Ron Morgan So much for democracy! Why is it ok for the US to back regimes like Turkey (on the Soviet border) but not for Nicaraguans to trade with the USSR ? (Turkey are about as hard on their dissidents as the Soviets) -- Ian W Moor UUCP: seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!iwm ARPA: iwm%icdoc@ucl Department of Computing Whereat a great and far-off voice was heard, saying, Imperial College. Poop-poop-poopy, and it was even so; and the days 180 Queensgate of Poopy Panda were long in the land. London SW7 Uk.
hijab@cad (04/30/86)
In article <383@hadron.UUCP>, jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: > Negotiation has failed. How could it succeed, when one of the stated > goals of one group is to wipe out a nation which, however it started, > exists now? That is what has to happen for Palestinians to re-occupy > that land which is now Palestine. [I understand that the Palestinians > were asked to stay in Israel, but were told by the predecessors of > today's terrorists to leave their land, since the terrorists would have > it back soon. I may be wrong on this point.] There does not seem > to be an easy solution to this. (For an optimistic -- and perhaps > possible -- solution to this, read James Gunn's new book, _Crisis!_.) > Mr. Yao. You are definitely wrong on this point. As far as history is concerned, the very least one can say is that there are clashing views of what actually happened in 1948. What you are repeating here is strictly the Israeli writing of that history. Do you find it easy to believe that close to 800,000 people would pick up and leave their homes unless they faced a direct threat to their survival? But that is a moot point. For the Palestinians to regain a homeland does not require the wiping out of their antagonists. Even the most radical Palestinian groups on the left call for a secular democratic state for Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel. Even discounting that, the Palestinians are still a decisive majority in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, which are under Israeli occupation. If Israel were to relinquish those territories, they would form the basis for building a homeland for the Palestinians in a state which could coexist with the Jewish state.
pete@valid (04/30/86)
> I would like to see a list of untried options that would *work*. It seems > to me that the US *has* tried diplomatic (and other non-violent) means to > bring about an abatement of the terrorism emanating from the Middle East. > Success seems less than outstanding for a large number of reasons, including > apparent lack of cooperation by US allies in Europe and the refractory > attitudes of the terrorists themselves. > > It *is* a shame that force has been resorted to; a peaceful solution is > to be preferred. So, how about it, netters? To those of you pouring out > kilebytes of criticism (and, may I dare say, anti-Reagan and anti-US invective), > how about supplying some *answers*? Some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism will be > welcomed. If you *know* the US government is wrong, then tell us what the > *right* solution is! > > (Only realistic, practical solutions need apply. Idealistic, theoretical, > "ivory tower", "pie in the sky" solutions may stay home. This is, after all, > the *real* world we are talking about.) > -- > John G Dobnick Bombing the shit out of a Khaddaffy's home base and killing innocent civilians in the meantime is a "realistic, practical solution"? It seems to me that hitting someone and not expecting them to hit back harder is much more "idealistic, theoretical, 'ivory tower'" and "'pie in the sky'" than any non-violent solution I could think up. Isn't our hitting Quadafie in retaliation just the same thing that he percieves himself as doing? And all the Jingoistic pro-Raygun crap that I've seen posted on the net completely disgusts me. As one German poster pointed out, *WE* don't have as much to fear since Kaddafy is half-way around the world from us. VIOLENCE NEVER STOPS VIOLENCE UNTIL EVERYONE CAPABLE OF VIOLENCE IS DEAD. Is that want we want, peace through genocide? -- -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (04/30/86)
In article <223@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP writes: >Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on >Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when >his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. The Soviet Union would in fact be delighted if the U.S. dropped an A-bomb on Libya. There is nothing they could do, and few things we could do, which would do more to alienate us from our European allies. Wavering countries all over the world would move one step closer to the Soviet camp (neutral instead of allied with us, allied with them instead of neutral). It could well be the turning point of the whole Cold War. But they would *not* respond by launching a strike against the U.S. They are no more suicidal than the next man. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
pete@valid (04/30/86)
> The problem isn't that Kadaffi & Co. differ with us -- the problem is that > they are willing to kill innocent and uninvolved people. > > Clayton E. Cramer So are Reagan & Co., and I think that that is also a problem. -- -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (04/30/86)
In article <425@magic.DEC.COM> thain@magic.UUCP writes: > I'm afraid that I disagree with your point, Mr. Marti, for some very good >and sound reasons. Terrorism is not a controlable force, terrorists fully >expect to die for whatever fanatical cause they espouse. They are fully aware >of the consenquences of their actions, and the possible reprisals which might >follow. They are determined to use violence and intimidation and death as a >way to achieve their final goal(s). This is true of some terrorists, but not most. Most have more or less the same attitude as the traditional "good soldier": willing to die for their cause if necessary, but having no great desire to do so. >Hence, terrorist victems which are returned safley are not the >norm, but the exception. But they *aren't* the exception. Most of those kidnapped by terrorists *are* returned safely. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
blake@sx7000.UUCP (Chris Blake) (04/30/86)
> After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya > I think that I have to regard this act as an act of state terrorism. > In my eyes, Mr. Reagan is directly responsible for the death of > children and innocent people. With this act, Mr Reagan uses > similar methods as Gadaffi namely killing or wounding people who > are not responsible for their leaders' politics. > > I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views. > > Andreas Bormann > University of Dortmund [UniDo] > West Germany An important difference here is that Mr Reagan's raid was specifically aimed at military and terrorist targets while Gadaxxzzy's attacks were aimed specifically at people who had NOTHING to do with anything. By the way, I also heard on the news that many civilians were harmed because the Libyans fired their anti-aircraft guns/missles straight up, and the result being that the missles then came straight down after missing their targets. Another fact I find somewhat humorous is that three hours after the raids, reporters in Tripoli ( specifically CBS ) heard machine and handgun fire in the streets. The next day the world was treated to selected views of the damage done by the raid, with a few cars being seen riddled by bullet holes. Another theory I heard as to why so much civilian damage was done ( this from the radio ) is that some of the more poorly constructed or older buildings fell down due to the vibration of the ground when bombs exploded. Getting back to whether the raid was terrorist or not, think of this analogy: If I was mad at you and and came over and blew your house to pieces, that wouldn't be terrorist, but if I was mad at you and went to the nearest airport and murdered twenty people with a machine gun, that would be. C. Blake The opinions expressed are my own, so there. -- -------------------------- Christopher L Blake -- @ Sperry's SX1100 group -- Roseville, MN -- --------------------------
colin@epistemi (04/30/86)
I'd like to make a few comments on recent attitudes. For example, In article <858@ihlpl.UUCP> res@ihlpl.UUCP writes: (on Europeans) >But, what the hell, it is only Americans and Jews who are being killed, >and a few others caught in the crossfire, so why should a German or a >Spaniard, or a Frenchman give a damn? These are not really people, I think that, out of some 900 deaths due to terrorism last year, 25 were American. Terrorist actions are invariably targeted on European cities. Do you really think the attitude here is "let them get on with it, they're aiming at Americans and it doesn't concern us"? > If >Kaddafi "retaliates" by killing more innocent people -- be it in >Germany, Italy, Greece, France, the United Kingdom, or the United >States -- I would GLADLY hear that Reagan graduated from slapping >Kaddafi on the wrist to LEVELING the city of Tripoli. > >I am saddened that the free people of Europe think so little of their >freedom and so little of the lives of innocents that they are unwilling >to step down on that nasty little worm in Libya and free the world of >that sick murderer. This kind of savagery is _really_ terrifying. Can't you see the dreadful irony contained in these paragraphs? You appear to be quite happy to slaughter thousands of innocent people in Tripoli and yet accuse Europeans of having no regard for innocent lives. Here is another sample, from: Robert G. Roberds@The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. >that this country was pushed into this act. Some facts: >1) Col. Gadaffi attacks Americans and Europeans for no possible >reason, knowing full well that they had nothing to do with his >paranoid ``grievances''. This is wilfully uninformed. Gadaffi is a small symptom of a huge problem. Arab nations and the Arab peoples feel they have many grievances, and a minority believe that the only effective way to pursue these is through violence. Few people in Europe agree with the means, but many accept that the feelings, and some of the grievances, are real. Ignoring these attitudes, or adopting a simplistic analysis, is extremely dangerous. Opinion polls in the UK show that around 70% of the people here think that President Reagan's actions were wrong for these reasons. Margaret Thatcher's also. It's quite possible, in fact, that Reagan's request has lost Mrs Thatcher the next election. Another example: Ron Morgan (Speech Communication UT Austin): >is, we HAD to do SOMETHING. If we had let him go through with his plans, >hundreds, maybe even thousands of Americans would have been killed, with more >to come. So WHAT if a few Libyan civvies were killed. We didn't go over there >for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of killing civilians, unlike Khadafy, who targets I think this is scaremongering. I have no doubt that Gadaffi intended to promote terrorism, but no evidence has been adduced to suggest that it was on this scale. The attitude that "we had to do something" does not justify doing _anything_. It is simply not true that all peaceful economic means had been tried, as a number of American netters have pointed out. An analogy is often drawn between Gadaffi and the local bully, and it's now said that the US has "slapped his wrist", and so on. This is nonsense. The US has succeeded, not in harming the bully, but in killing his daughter, which is not likely to turn his family and friends against him. There is a great deal of sympathy in Europe for the frustration felt in the US over terrorism. The US is, however, the most powerful nation on Earth, and has vast influence. It is hardly surprising that this influence should be resented in many quarters, particularly if not wielded with the utmost wisdom and care. American policy in the Middle East could hardly have been better calculated to stir up trouble. I fear the latest escapade will exacerbate the situation greatly. As members of such an influential society, particularly as educated members - as I assume netters are - it is vital that you in the US accept that great responsibilities come with great power. One of these responsibilities is to be well informed, and you really _must_ try to understand more of situations like the Middle East than is evident from recent comments. I didn't intend to be so verbose or to sound so pompous. The criticisms above are intended constructively - I can't afford to appear anti-American as the director of the Centre here in Edinburgh is American. (:-) So are many of my fellow-students (who agree, so far without exception, with the above statements). I'm also addicted to Joe Montana, William Faulkner, and Stephen Spielberg, but could you take Joan Rivers back, please? -- Colin Matheson University of Edinburgh, Centre for Cognitive Science, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9LW, Scotland. UUCP: ...!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!colin JANET: colin@uk.ac.ed.epistemi
dpb@cbosgd.UUCP (05/01/86)
In article <131@ace.UUCP>, treval@ace.UUCP (Trevor Luker) writes: > > Remember, when your OWN children are in hospital or dead after the next WW > it's Raygun (acting under mandate of the American People) that started it! > > Treval We didn't start it, Khadafy and Arafat and all terrorists started it. How can you believe that Reagan started it????!! From your logic i also assume we started WW II?????
foy@aero (05/01/86)
In article <744@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >> Nature or God gave us a great big brain. We seem to use it very well in >> building very complex weapons. We have very little time in learning to >> use it in finding human ways of living with human beings who differ with >> us. >> >> Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA > >The problem isn't that Kadaffi & Co. differ with us -- the problem is that >they are willing to kill innocent and uninvolved people. > >Clayton E. Cramer As are our leaders in Washington! Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of hard knocks. Thus they are my own.
foy@aero (05/01/86)
In article <1668@shark.UUCP> galenr@shark.UUCP (Galen Redfield) writes: > >So, Richard, why don't you knock on that great big brain of yours and tell >the rest of us how we can find a way to live with Khadafi, since all that is >wrong is that he differs with us. Please. > >Warm regards, >Galen. Several others on the net with big brains have suggested a number of non- violent actions related to terrorism in general and Khadafi in particular. My concern with our mental capability is that we don't seem to be able to really try non-violent approaches to almost anything. Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of hard knocks. Thus they are my own.
friesen@psivax (05/01/86)
In article <7300004@hpfclp> fritz@hpfclp writes: > >Now, to be honest, I don't necessarily feel that attacking Libya (especially >with a ""surgical"" strike like this) was a 100% wrong idea. I don't know >how else one gets the attention of a paranoid megalomaniac like Khaddafi. >I agree with Reagan on one point: Khaddafi is a dangerous man. He >harbors, trains, and encourages terrorists to strike around the world. >I am truly grateful he doesn't have access to nuclear weapons. However, >ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES should have been exhausted before we went in with >guns blazing -- if for no other reason than to show that we really TRIED, >so that we wouldn't have looked quite so much like trigger-happy Rambo's >(or cowboys, or state terrorists, or whatever you want to call it). > Well, it seems to me that we *did* try all other possibilities. We have tried diplomatic protests, in fact we have been trying that for years. We tried to set up a complete embargo on Libya, but our allies refused to cooperate. We have protested to the UN. We have expelled all Libyan diplomats. What else *could* we do? What else is left except military action? I certainly cannot think of anything that we have not tried. >I object to the "state terrorism" label, because at least Reagan, unlike >Khaddafi's terrorists, didn't intentionally TRY to kill innocent civilians. >The strike was very carefully planned to damage Khaddafi's headquarters, >elite guard, and military installations. They even tried to miss the >Libyan army installations that weren't fanatically loyal to Khaddafi! >I believe that much of the damage to civilian areas was caused by Libya's >stray SAM-5 missiles. (Even some of the pictures that Libya released >showed Russian writing on the wreckage of the "American" bombs and >"plane wreckage"!) And if Khaddafi didn't hide behind innocent >civilians by putting his military headquarters in the middle of a >civilian area, perhaps NO civilians would have been hurt. > Absolutely! In fact there are *very* few validated cases of US misslies or bombs hitting non-military targets. In fact civilian structures adjacent to totally demolished military sites have come out almost undamaged. Many even think that the damage to the French embassy was either due to Libyan anti-aircraft fire or to the wreck of the single US plane to be lost. In short, it was the Libyans themselves who caused almost all of the collateral damage. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
olson@batcomput (05/01/86)
In article <7300004@hpfclp> fritz@hpfclp writes: > [...] >But until this right-wing, aggressive, John Wayne/Rambo/kick-their-asses >attitude swings back toward a more normal outlook, and we replace Reagan with >a more sane leader, I fear America will earn itself more black marks in the >eyes of the world. > >I just hope that's the worst that happens. > Nice to know there is someone else reasonable out there. I just wish I could say things as well as you did. Thanks, -- Todd Olson ARPA: olson@lasspvax -- or -- olson%lasspvax.tn.cornell.edu@cu-arpa UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,...}!cornell!lasspvax!olson US Mail: Dept Physics, Clark Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-2501
brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) (05/01/86)
>Well, I doubt that you will find people in America who share your >views, because the brainwashing there is getting rather complete. I >wonder if the coverage on European news stations even made it to the >US. It certainly was not on the US propaganda stations here (W. >Germany). There was basically no coverage on either the Voice Of >America (well, only to say that the White House had recieved >congratulations from its allies on the sucessful action against >Libya!!!) or on the Armed Forced Radio (there was a thirty second Of course the government run stations are going to give the rosy view. The commercial stations are real muckrakers and probably give a more honest -well complete, anyway- view. Don't be so gullible as to believe that the government run propaganda stations represent the views of most Americans. >Raygun is getting ready to start a very big war. And the US populace Naaaa. >And for all of this, Raygun is very popular. Goes to show how far the >brainwashing has progressed. Just look at the popular movies in the >US to see the general attitude. Rambo, Rocky, Phantom Commando, etc., >etc., etc. "Kill those guys, they are the Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!" Probably less than ten percent of the population has seen any of those movies. Of those I know who have all think they are stupid and unrealistic. I understand that the Rambo and Rocky movies have been pretty popular in Europe, too. Those Europeans must be a bunch of real bloodthirsty cutthroats! >When these things happen, it makes me very glad i no longer live in >the USA. Me too. --Brian
corwin@hope (05/01/86)
> In article <338@hope.UUCP> corwin@hope.UUCP (John Kempf) writes: > >Just a comment: > > > >Back about 40-50 years ago, it was safe for americans to travel abroad. > >At the time, (at least as far as I remember from High School history > >classes,) The united states had a forign policy known as 'Jingoism', > > Let's see... 40-50 years ago. I make that to be 1936-1946. Seems > to me that the safety of Americans travelling abroad during that time > period were somewhat less safe than they would be today. Well over > 400,000 Americans died overseas in that time frame. > > --MKR > > "Let's bring back the safe days of World War II" Ok,ok, so I was off by a few decades. give me a break, I was half asleep. -cory
greg@harvard.UUCP (05/01/86)
In article <1120@erix.UUCP> mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) writes: >Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are >financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher >should bomb New York? > >Mike Williams Funding IRA terrorist is not the policy of the federal government, the state of New York, or the city of New York. No building in New York is by any stretch of the imagination a training camp or command center for the IRA terrorists. If by chance Maggie finds any person or organization responsible for organizing, supporting, or selling arms to the IRA, then she has the right to take whatever police action she feels is necessary to stop those terrorist actions. If this person or organization is in the United State, then it would probably be more appropriate for Maggie to ask the US government to take police action on her behalf; I'm sure the US government would be more than happy to comply. -- gregregreg
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/02/86)
>From: dml@bu-cs.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) >You are somewhat mis-informed then. According to the Boston Globe >of April 28, President Reagan had banned all trade with and travel >to Libya. What other economic retaliation could the US take??? Wall Street Journal, Friday April 25, pg 54: ...the State and Treasury departments also supported the Pentagon's plan to award the contract for 178 tractors for the marines to Fiat Allis which submitted the lowest of three bids. The company is the U.S. unit of Italian Fiat S.p.A., which is 13.5% owned by the Libyan Government... I dunno, maybe we all really are nuts. -Barry Shein, Boston University
cramer@kontron (05/02/86)
> I think that anyone who thinks that the bombing of > Libya was a good idea has a blinkered view of what > was achieved. Already 3 British hostages have been > murdered by Beruit terrorists, and the murder of 400 > passengers aboard an El Al plane was narrowly > avoided, all because the F1-11's were British based > planes. And just yesterday a British journalist in > Beruit was taken hostage; unconfirmed reports today > say that he to has been murdered. > And this sort of activity was going on all along. Tell me how it would be any better if the bombing raid hadn't happened. > Does the fact that Reagan has said that any country > has the right to attack countries ( killing innocent > citizens as well as military ) who engage in terrorism > suggests that Nicuragua has the right to attack CIA Langley > in Virginia because they are aiding terrorists to attack Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas bombed the Capitol in Washington, and several other government buildings in the last several years. Maybe you didn't hear about it. > targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a > democratically elected government ). How much longer Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament after he took over. > can the U.S.A. go on objecting to governments because > they are left-wing when they have supported right-wing > dictatorships for so long ( President Marcos is a good > example of someone who they kept in power ). If, as is Marcos was democratically elected as well. Double standard, anyone? > highly possible, Britain elects the Labour party at > the next election will the U.S. government give support > to terrorist organisations like the I.R.A. ? > Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a Labour Party government in England at this point can't be distinguished from a Communist government by any reasonable measure. > Thatcher must be extremely myopic if she did not > realise that letting Reagan use F1-11's based in > Britain would lead to the unnecessary deaths of many > Britons. Here in Britain she is not too popular right Kadaffi must have been prescient -- he *knew* the U.S. would bomb Libya last year, so he had that British policewoman shot. :-) > now, a poll the day after the bombing raid showed > that 65% of people in Britain were against Britain > being involved in such a provocative move. This is > the complete opposite of the views of the majority > of people in U.S.A. who are not in such a vulnerable > position as the people of Europe. > Anytime we travel to Europe, we are vunerable. There comes a point where killing those who are trying to kill you is the only solution. > By the way, I am not anti-American in any way (my > brother-in-law is in the U.S. Navy), rather, this is > view held by many people in Scotland. I would rather > have seen the U.S. retaliate ( as they surely had to > after the Berlin bombing ) in a way that would isolate > Libya rather than gaining them support in Arab states. > This have could been done by placing economic sanctions, > which I am sure the whole of Europe would have agreed > to if they had known the outcome of the bombing, on > Libya whose economy is already suffering greatly from > the fall in oil prices. > Except that just hours before the raid, the EEC *refused* to enact sanctions against Libya. That's why the bombing raid happened. > I do hope that no more lifes are lost because of this > action and that I am wrong in my assumption that > terrorist activities will increase rather than die out > because of the bombing. > Your belief that terrorism will increase, at least in the short run, is shared by the U.S. government. In spite of what the government says, the objective was to kill Kadaffi in hopes that someone more rational (not necessarily more friendly) would take his place. A *rational* enemy of the U.S. is preferable, since a *rational* leader would recognize that threatening the U.S. and provoking an incident in the Gulf of Sidra *might* get your country destroyed. > Please will people in the U.S. reply as, I am sure, > most people in Britain would like to here what your > views are on the subject. Let's try to bring an end > to all senseless killings, including those brought > about by Gadaffi's senseless utterings about the > worldwide revolution. When dealing with truly evil people (Soviet leadership), the threat of force is sometimes enough. When dealing with the truly crazy (Kadaffi, Hitler), nothing sort of destruction seems to work. Note: I'm not entirely happy about the action that was taken, and I'm willing to entertain arguments about better ways to have killed Kadaffi, and better ways to have discouraged Libya's support of terrorism. Arguments about its "immorality" are as valid as the Peace Movement of the 1930s. Clayton E. Cramer "Beyond gravity -- a new way of thinking."
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (05/02/86)
> In article <2094@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP writes: > >> > >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami > > > >A question: does anyone know a worse slime than Joachim Carlo Santos > >Martillo Ajami? Martillo, I am against cencorship, but I promise you > >$20 if you shut up. (The price is open to negotiation.) > > > >Piotr Berman > > Personal attack should be kept out of the net. If you want to contribute > something, please do, else keep it in E-mail. > > > David Matthew Lyle > Boston University > dml@bu-cs.CSNET > dml@buenga.BITNET I did not wrote 'Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami'. This is a signature, put under a posting in which said individual was explaining a German netter that his place is in SA. I think that it was extremally low attack by Martillo, and sadly, very characteristic for this individual. Some time ago there was a discussion whether certain individual should not be discuraged to post, since he espoused hatred to Jews and many others. Martillo on the other hand keeps ranting against muslim ('should be supressed', 'deserve to be treated like shit' etc.) and now equates a German with a Nazi. I do not know how is it in USA, but in my country it is the gravest of insults. Therefore I am appaled that while some bigots are shunned, others are condoned. Martillo should apologize to Bormann, but knowing his style of thinking I know that he will never do. I did not send E-mail to Martillo because I think that it is a valid matter for this net. How shall we accomodate hateful fanatics here? By patting them on the back and saying: nicely written, isn't it? Bigotry is the worst illness of a society, and I have some little experience of my own. Martillo is well read, intelligent and hateful. He looks everywhere and sees only reflections of his own hate. In a sence, he is explaing us what is the way a person like Kaddafi may think. I think it is important not to be nice to hateful bigots. They shouldn't be respected. Otherwise they can spread the poison. Piotr Berman
ladkin@kestrel (05/02/86)
In article <122@paisley.ac.uk>, alastair@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Alastair McAvoy) writes: > This could have been done by placing economic sanctions, > which I am sure the whole of Europe would have agreed > to if they had known the outcome of the bombing, Sanctions had been suggested by the U.S., quite forcefully I believe, and had met with a distinct lack of interest in Europe. Until now. One could draw cynical conclusions from all this. Peter Ladkin
mike@rlvd.UUCP (Mike Woods) (05/02/86)
In article <858@ihlpl.UUCP> res@ihlpl.UUCP writes: >I was angered when I learned that the planes involved in the slap on >Kaddafi's wrist were not allowed to over-fly France or Spain, adding >around 2500 extra kilometers to their flight, thereby greatly >increasing the hazard to these aircraft and their crews. I am even >more angered that the people of Europe do not have the guts to stand up >to this petty tyrant in Libya, and are willing to accept the deaths of >innocents as a blood-price for their own uninvolvement. > >But, what the hell, it is only Americans and Jews who are being killed, >and a few others caught in the crossfire, so why should a German or a >Spaniard, or a Frenchman give a damn? These are not really people, >with loved ones and families who have been machine-gunned, and what >European really gives a fuck about an old American tourist in a wheel >chair whose brains were blown out for the amusement of a >Kaddafi-trained assasin? I didn't notice quite such vehement condemnation coming from the Whitehouse when it was believed three Britains had been executed in Beirut after the bombing of Tripoli (though I think it increased slightly when it was realised one of them was American). > ...I would GLADLY hear that Reagan graduated from slapping >Kaddafi on the wrist to LEVELING the city of Tripoli. > >I am saddened that the free people of Europe think so little of their >freedom and so little of the lives of innocents that they are unwilling >to step down on that nasty little worm in Libya and free the world of >that sick murderer. Unfortunatly the American way of "freeing the World of that sick murderer" seems to include freeing the World of the population of Tripoli (which I would guess includes several hundred/thousand European ex-patriates living there). If we want people to stop murdering innocent people, shouldn't we start by stopping to murder innocents ourselves. Mike Woods. -- UK JANET: mike@uk.ac.rl.vd UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!mike
mike@rlvd.UUCP (Mike Woods) (05/02/86)
In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on >the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really >immaterial. That situation could not be tolerated, PERIOD. Get real. I hope the Russians don't decide to do the same thing in Europe! Mike. -- UK JANET: mike@uk.ac.rl.vd UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!mike
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (05/03/86)
* In article <152@suneast.uucp> geoff@suneast.uucp (Geoff Arnold) writes: >When I first perceived the strength of the popular support for Reagan's >action (media reported, but probably correctly so), my first reaction >was "How the hell can I stay here? I could never feel a part of >such an amoral society?". (My disgust reached a peak when I read George >Will in the Boston Globe, saying how he could hardly feel regret about >bombs hitting the French Embassy.) Perhaps George was remembering how France and Italy had agreed, in the 70s, to let *known* terrorists come and go at will as long as they did not carry out any of their missions on those countries' soil. Seems to me that ***that*** is the height of irresponsibility, cowardice, and selfishness. I am not sure if the US's bombing of Libya will do any good, however, I certainly find that action several orders of magnitude less distasteful and much more honest than that of France and Italy. With countries like those two it's no wonder terrorism is doing such booming business. >...................................... And after all, if you look >back, practically everything that Reagan has done in foreign policy has >got initially enthusiastic popular support followed by a rapid cooling off. >(One poll reported that most people now feel that Grenada was a mistake.) One must wonder why, since *that* military operation had the support of the Grenadians themselves. A point that the Down-with-the-US crowd always manages to conveniently overlook. J.B. Robinson
soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) (05/03/86)
In article <776@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: >> >> Just look at the popular movies in the >> US to see the general attitude. Rambo, Rocky, Phantom Commando, etc., >> etc., etc. "Kill those guys, they are the Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!" > > Those are *movies*, buddy. Get real. I don't know about you, but >most Americans can tell the difference between reality and a movie >fantasy. I don't know if I agree. I seem to remember Reagan at various times identifying with Dirty Harry and Rambo. I even remember him saying once in a previous "crisis" that "I saw "Rambo" last night and I know just what to do" (yes, this is a paraphrase but I distinctly remember him saying something to that effect). I REALLY hope he never sees "Dr. Strangelove". (:^)) Of course everyone on the net is highly intelligent and has an absolutely firm grip on reality, so of course I am in no way implying that any of them would ever confuse fiction and real life. (smiley-face optional) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Have A Nice Day, Soren Petersen "But we named you Fred, what happened?"
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (05/03/86)
In article <235@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >In article <383@hadron.UUCP>, jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: >> Negotiation has failed. How could it succeed, when one of the stated >> goals of one group is to wipe out a nation which, however it started, >> exists now? That is what has to happen for Palestinians to re-occupy >> that land which is now Palestine. ... There does not seem >> to be an easy solution to this. (For an optimistic -- and perhaps >> possible -- solution to this, read James Gunn's new book, Crisis!.) >radical Palestinian groups on the left call for a secular democratic >state for Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel. ... The part of my statement I ..'ed out I freely admitted was not based strongly on firm fact, but on sideways hearsay. But I must object to the above statement. I have heard many reasonable Semites of both families say this is possible. I have also heard Arabs boast that they will drive the Israelis into the sea, and that they will never negotiate with Israelis. And I have seen Israelis launch punitive strikes into Arab territory with less justification (to my knowledge) than Reagan in Libya (speaking of which). There is so much gratuitous hatred between the children of Israel and those of Ishmael that I think that the true representative view (hopefully) of just wanting to get along in life may never be realised. The only way it can be, perhaps, is to send the most zealous and adventurous members of both groups out to separate space colonies ... and let the meek inherit (co-existentially) the Earth. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (05/03/86)
In article <7554@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >(c) The occupation of the Sudetenland was forced by the Allies (peace >in our time, you know.) At that time the Czech's were the military >equal of Germany; however the major Czech fortifications were in the >Sudetenland. The effect of the surrender of the Sudetenland was to >drastically alter the balance of power between Germany and Czechoslovakia. A quibble - the Czech's were not really the equal of Germany at that point. However, they could very likely have held them off for a long time. If either Britain or France had been willing to support them, the Czech's were willing to defend themselves; and Germany would certainly have backed down at that point. As you note, Britain and France instead pressured Czechoslovakia to accept the German terms, after which Germany was much stronger than Czechoslovakia. An interesting side note: in 1939, Poland thought it was a great power, able to meet Germany on close to even terms. If the Polish leaders had realized what the real power relationship between the two countries was, things might have gone very differently. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (05/04/86)
In article <2119@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> In article <2094@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP writes: >> >> Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami >> >A question: does anyone know a worse slime than Joachim Carlo Santos >> >Martillo Ajami? Martillo, I am against cencorship, but I promise you >> >$20 if you shut up. (The price is open to negotiation.) >> >Piotr Berman >> Personal attack should be kept out of the net. If you want to contribute >> something, please do, else keep it in E-mail. >> David Matthew Lyle >> Boston University >> dml@bu-cs.CSNET >> dml@buenga.BITNET >I did not wrote 'Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami'. >This is a signature, put under a posting in which said individual >was explaining a German netter that his place is in SA. I happen to have studied Weimar. Bormann's attitude in his inability to make ethical distinction was quite typical of extremist attitudes in Weimar Germany and was quite common among those who joined the SA especially the leftist-leaning members like Otto and Gregor Strasser. >I think that it was extremally low attack by Martillo, and sadly, >very characteristic for this individual. Borman was trying to incite disgust at Reagan in a rather low fashion and deserved an attact to the point. >Some time ago there was a discussion whether certain individual >should not be discuraged to post, since he espoused hatred to Jews >and many others. Martillo on the other hand keeps ranting against >muslim ('should be supressed', 'deserve to be treated like shit' etc.) >and now equates a German with a Nazi. I think people who cannot distinguish between bigotry and hatred of bigotry should be discouraged from posting. >I do not know how is it in USA, but in my country it is the gravest >of insults. Therefore I am appaled that while some bigots are shunned, >others are condoned. Martillo should apologize to Bormann, but knowing >his style of thinking I know that he will never do. Just out of curiosity, to which wonderful country are you referring. BTW, I rephrased my criticism of Bormann in response to another article. >I did not send E-mail to Martillo because I think that it is a valid >matter for this net. How shall we accomodate hateful fanatics here? >By patting them on the back and saying: nicely written, isn't it? >Bigotry is the worst illness of a society, and I have some little >experience of my own. Martillo is well read, intelligent and hateful. >He looks everywhere and sees only reflections of his own hate. >In a sence, he is explaing us what is the way a person like Kaddafi >may think. I think it is important not to be nice to hateful bigots. >They shouldn't be respected. Otherwise they can spread the poison. I agree bigotry is the worst illness of a society. For this reason I attack Islamic bigotry. I guess anyone who does not agree with Berman's leftist orthodoxy is hateful. I invite Berman to study Arabic and Islam and on the basis of some knowledge convince me I am wrong. He should probably also go live in a Muslim country for long enough that the Muslims forget he is not one of the local non-Muslims. Unlike Berman, a large part of my family and my fiance grew up in Muslim countries. My attitudes are much kinder. We have a basic philosophical difference. I am not a relativist. Some practices are simply wrong. Some cultures contain too much evil to be permitted to exist. Nazism was such a culture. Others must change because of the evil they contain. South Africa and Islam represent such cultures. Either Berman tells me constructive criticism of a culture is not permissible because all have equal validity or he is telling me only criticism of specific cultures by some criterion of leftist orthodoxy is allowed. The first possibility is ethically unacceptable because then I cannot criticize apartheid. The second is Stalinist. In either case, I think Berman should rethink his position before posting any more articles to the net.
baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (05/04/86)
In article <227@alliant.UUCP> gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) writes: >I was interested to read that on April 1st, the US Navy launched >a conventionally-armed Tomahawk missile, which travelled 400 miles >to explode it's 1000 lb warhead directly over a parked airplane. >AW&ST has a photo of the plane blowing up. > >Why didn't we use these to: > 1. Hit the targets without losing aircraft > 2. Hit the targets without hitting civilians. I would imagine that the Navy would be disinclined to risk having one captured and given to the Soviets for spite. As it stands, the Ruskies may have gotten an F-111, which by all reports is the kind of plane we'd sort of *like* them to copy. Baba
karate@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Goodman) (05/04/86)
In article <289@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: >I am not surprised that a German express sympathy for an anti-Semitic >lunatic bent on world-domination (according to his Green Book) and who >used terror as means to further his political objectives. Andreas >Borman, there was a place for you in the SA. If France and Britain >had treated Hitler in the 30s as Reagan treats your friend Gaddafi, 40 >million who died in WWII might have lived. > Firstly, if France and Britain had treated Hitler the way Reagan treats our friend Gaddafi, then who started WWII? I'd rather be certain that my side are the good guys. Would the USA have joined the allies in the war if there had been any uncertainty? You poultry dragged your heels quite enough as it was. This is what is happening to USA's allies at the moment. We aren't sure that you are the good guys. Secondly, I object to your racist snobbery in the remark about the SA, please try not to be quite such a caricature, it doesn't win any sympathy for your arguments at all. In fact, I support the Americans in their attack on Libya, and was only provoked to reply at all by your exceptionally childish insult to Mr Borman, which I didn't feel was deserved. Nigel Gale, returned from beyond
karate@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Goodman) (05/04/86)
I agreed with everything said in the article except this: > >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a >Labour Party government in England at this point can't >be distinguished from a Communist government by any >reasonable measure. >... >Clayton E. Cramer > >"Beyond gravity -- a new way of thinking." Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they confess themselves.
karate@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Goodman) (05/04/86)
In article <908@harvard.UUCP> greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes: >Funding IRA terrorist is not the policy of the federal government, the >state of New York, or the city of New York. No building in New York >is by any stretch of the imagination a training camp or command center >for the IRA terrorists. > ...so the Nicaraguans are entitled to bomb only specific buildings in the USA in retaliation for American funding of the contras.
dml@bu-cs.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) (05/04/86)
In article <1120@erix.UUCP> mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) writes: | Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are | financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher | should bomb New York? | | Mike Williams No, it means she should get proof of violation of the law and take the organizations/persons to court. (an option not available to the US in Lybia) -- David Matthew Lyle dml@bu-cs.bu.edu Boston University dml@buenga.BITNET Distributed Systems Group ...harvard!bu-cs!dml
dml@bu-cs.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) (05/05/86)
In article <233@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >In article <500@bu-cs.UUCP>, dml@bu-cs.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) writes: >> In article <470@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: >> | >> |Over and over again people in favor of the air raid keep saying "What >> |else could we have done?", no matter how many times they are told, oh >> |well, they'll probably ignore this one also: >> | >> |DEFUSE THE PALESTINIAN SITUATION BY CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION >> >> Yes, I agree that would be the best thing, but..... >> >> If I recall, the King of Jordan tried to do just that. He failed, >> through the efforts of countries such a Syria and Libya. He even >> had the `blessings' of the US and receptiveness in Israel. The >> PLO has long refused to recognize or negotiate with Isreal (until >> recently), but now the PLO has become a very fragmented group. >> And face it, there are powers in that area that don't want to settle >> it!! They just want their `Holy War'. >> >If the U.S. and Israel would agree to apply the principle of non-acquisition >of land by war to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, and drop >their objections to the participation of the PLO and the creation of a >Palestinian state, then I feel certain that at least Syria and Jordan, >as well as the major PLO groups (including Arafat's Fatah and the Syrian- >based Salvation Front) would be willing to enter into serious peace >negotiations that would deal with a comprehensive settlement. If I recall, the PLO has been excluded because they refuse agree that Isreal has a right to exist. If they would accept that fact, then things might have been worked out a long time ago. -- David Matthew Lyle dml@bu-cs.bu.edu Boston University dml@buenga.BITNET Distributed Systems Group ...harvard!bu-cs!dml
greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) (05/05/86)
In article <1145@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> karate@ukc.ukc.ac.uk (NCG) writes: >In article <908@harvard.UUCP> greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes: >>Funding IRA terrorist is not the policy of the federal government, the >>state of New York, or the city of New York. No building in New York >>is by any stretch of the imagination a training camp or command center >>for the IRA terrorists. >> > >...so the Nicaraguans are entitled to bomb only specific buildings in >the USA in retaliation for American funding of the contras. This conclusion follows from two assumptions: 1) The Israeli doctrine on retaliating to international terrorism is the correct one. 2) Funding the contras is an act of international terrorism. Very few people believe both assumptions. If you believe both of these assumptions, then I guess yes, the Nicaraguans are "morally entitled" to bomb the United States. However, the Israeli doctrine assumes that the retaliating nation is more powerful than the terrorist organization under attack. Since this is not true for the US and Nicaragua, bombing the USA would be a grossly ineffective policy. It is not clear to what degree a government is "morally entitled" to follow any disastrous policy. -- gregregreg
ptodd@tekchips.UUCP (Philip Todd) (05/06/86)
In article <908@harvard.UUCP>, greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes: > In article <1120@erix.UUCP> mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) writes: > >Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are > >financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher > >should bomb New York? > > > >Mike Williams > > Funding IRA terrorist is not the policy of the federal government, the > state of New York, or the city of New York. No building in New York > is by any stretch of the imagination a training camp or command center > for the IRA terrorists. > > If by chance Maggie finds any person or organization responsible for > organizing, supporting, or selling arms to the IRA, then she has the > right to take whatever police action she feels is necessary to stop > those terrorist actions. If this person or organization is in the > United State, then it would probably be more appropriate for Maggie > to ask the US government to take police action on her behalf; I'm sure > the US government would be more than happy to comply. > -- > gregregreg Not true If my memory serves me right there are a number of known (alledged to be precise) IRA terrorists whose extradition to the UK from the USA has been blocked by courts here, on the grounds that these are political offences, or something of that kind. If you were a judge in Boston, who had to face reelection, would you send an IRA man back to the UK? Philip Todd
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/06/86)
In article <2061@cbosgd.UUCP> dpb@cbosgd.UUCP (Dain II Ironfoot) writes: > > Ok you say we have no business doing anything in Nicaraugua (sp?) > because they elected the govt. Has anyone thought that they might > have changed their mind. If we have a communist party in america > why not in the USSR or Nicaragua or Afghanistan? I give up. Why don't we have a communist party in the USSR? it's a laugh a minute out here... Jeff Winslow Note to ultra-serious politicos - I have cross-posted this to net.jokes. If you can't figure out why, please delete net.jokes from the newsgroup line before you followup. Thank you.
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/06/86)
In article <2066@cbosgd.UUCP>, dpb@cbosgd.UUCP (Dain II Ironfoot) writes: > In article <131@ace.UUCP>, treval@ace.UUCP (Trevor Luker) writes: > > > > It's Raygun (acting under mandate of the American People) > > that started it! > > We didn't start it, Khadafy and Arafat and all terrorists started > it. How can you believe that Reagan started it????!! From now on we should refer to Saint Sam, instead of Uncle Sam :-)
andersa@kuling.UUCP (Anders Andersson) (05/06/86)
[Save net.general/followup - this is clearly politics] In article <508@bu-cs.UUCP> dml@bucsd.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) writes: >How about causing the European Allies to finally begin to take >diplomatic and economic action against Libya?? Until the raid, >there were no significant limits on Libyan diplomats(or whatever >they are), except in England. Governments have to defend their actions in some way or another. Sending foreign diplomats back home is usually preceeded by accusing them for something. Recently, the Swedish government sent five Czechs back home because of their espionage activity here - it was an immediate response when that was discovered. In much the same way, if we didn't find enough reason to send home Khadaffi's "nephews" before the air raid - how would we be able to do it *afterwards*? Should the air raid be viewed as some kind of reason? Never mind what WE know is the reason, I'm worrying about how such an action would be described (and used) by HIS allies. He might very well be counting on this, which would explain part of his relative silence since the raid. As portraited in a satire song in TV the other day: "I'm an Outstanding Martyre! I'm an Outstanding Martyre! I'm..." I'm afraid I haven't had enough time myself to study the proofs showing Khadaffi's involvement in specific terrorist actions. Could someone give a summary? They would be great to use as arguments. Unfortunately, the air raid has dominated the whole thing. -- Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Phone: +46 18 183170 UUCP: andersa@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/06/86)
In article <152@suneast.uucp>, geoff@suneast.uucp (Geoff Arnold) writes: > > When I first perceived the strength of the popular support for > Reagan's action (media reported, but probably correctly so), > my first reaction was "How the hell can I stay here? I could > never feel a part of such an amoral society?". > (My disgust reached a peak when I read George Will in the Boston > Globe, saying how he could hardly feel regret about bombs hitting > the French Embassy.) > But then as a few voices of reason emerged, including several > cautious but unambigous editorials in the Globe, I realized that > I was not alone. And after all, if you look back, practically > everything that Reagan has done in foreign policy has got initially > enthusiastic popular support followed by a rapid cooling off. At a recent public lecture, Professor Dorman of Cal State Sacramento presented a theory about the media triggering public response to world events. He reported a study in which the response of Americans to a certain international action or event, as measured by polls, was preceded by as much as two weeks of intensive editorializing and op-ed articles in the 'premier media' [e.g. the New York Times and the Washington Post] which is then heavily reproduced in the secondary media [small town papers, TV, etc.]. Invariably the population at large followed the media consensus. The premier media in turn takes its cue from the U.S. government, as handed down in 'backgrounders' and appeals to heed the 'national interest'. They backtrack when a position becomes indefensible, and the American public follows suit. (Of course, national issues, about the public is better informed, are handled somewhat differently.)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (05/06/86)
In article <430@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP writes: >I remember we figured in VietNam if we could just kill Ho Chi Minh >the war would just come to an end. Well, Ho dropped dead anyhow and >it didn't help a bit, no one ever bothered to explain that one though. Funny. I paid rather a lot of attention to the Vietnamese war at the time, and this is the first time I ever heard this suggestion. It was certainly *not* the basis of American strategy. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (05/06/86)
In article <2109@yale.ARPA> ksmith@yale-cheops.UUCP (Keith A. Smith) writes: >This is not to say, however, that I in any way condone the attack. To me >it seems to have been a useless gesture, and hence a useless loss of life >on both sides, because I strongly doubt that it will have the desired >effect of detering the Libya, or anyone else, from sponsoring terrorist acts. It now appears that there was a revolt against Qaddafi (a name I can apparently spell any way I please) in the wake of the bombings; a revolt which unfortunately failed. This is best argument yet in favor of the bombings -- if the revolt had succeeded, they would certainly not have been useless. In this light, I am modifying my initial negative response to the attack, to a more neutral view. From the evidence, it appears that Qaddafi has gone over the line from being a shrewd but extremist nationalist leader to megalomania. The former would be quietly backing off now. Qaddafi seems to be pushing harder, apparently in the belief that he is beyond the reach of effective American power. He will soon learn otherwise. Unfortunately, the lesson may prove almost as expensive to us as it is to him. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/06/86)
In article <388@hadron.UUCP>, jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: > >radical Palestinian groups on the left call for a secular democratic > >state for Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel. ... > > I must object to the above statement. I have heard many reasonable > Semites of both families say this is possible. I have also heard > Arabs boast that they will drive the Israelis into the sea, and that > they will never negotiate with Israelis. Object as you will, Mr. Yao. The fact is that the PLO in its 1968 PNC meeting specifically called for a democratic Palestinian state for Jews and Arabs. In its 1974 PNC meeting it called for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, with the prospect of the pursuit of a unified democratic secular state by non-violent means. In its 1977 meeting the PNC reaffirmed the Palestinian mini-state formula, leaving open the possibility of a confederation with Jordan. In 1979 George Habash, the most prominent hardliner and leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), cast his vote for the Palestinian mini-state (in the West Bank and Gaza). At this point the PFLP, the pro-Moscow DFLP and the Palestinian Communist Party support this formula, in addition to both factions of Fatah, the largest PLO group. What this leaves is tiny groups that are mostly outside the PLO umberella, such as the Abu Nidal group. For a recitation of the full story I suggest Alan Hart's book "Arafat: Terrorist or Peacemaker?" (Sidgwick & Jackson, London 1984) > And I have seen Israelis launch punitive strikes into Arab territory > with less justification (to my knowledge) than Reagan in Libya > (speaking of which). There is so much gratuitous hatred between the > children of Israel and those of Ishmael that I think that the true > representative view (hopefully) of just wanting to get along in life > may never be realised. The only way it can be, perhaps, is to send > the most zealous and adventurous members of both groups out to > separate space colonies ... and let the meek inherit > (co-existentially) the Earth. > -- Your image of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Yao, is nothing short of fiction. The conflict is based on real grievances, not on eternal hatred. You remove the grievances, and the conflict has a chance of being reconciled.
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/06/86)
In article <2322@hcrvx2.UUCP>, jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > > Perhaps George was remembering how France and Italy had agreed, in the > 70s, to let *known* terrorists come and go at will as long as they > did not carry out any of their missions on those countries' soil. > Seems to me that ***that*** is the height of irresponsibility, > cowardice, and selfishness. So far, I have only seen rumor and inuendo regarding this story. It is possible they let *known* terrorists pass without being aware of it. It is also possible -probably more likely- that they do not necessarily see as many people as say, Israel sees, as terrorists. Israel considers the entire Palestinian Liberation Movement as terrorist; something which the rest of the world does not agree with. Unfortunately, the U.S. listens more to Israel than to any other country, including its NATO allies.
nbc@rlvd.UUCP (Neil Calton) (05/06/86)
In article <858@ihlpl.UUCP> res@ihlpl.UUCP writes: >I am pleased and proud that we finally have a President who has the >guts to stand up to a petty bully like Kaddafi and to deliver a slap to >his wrist to make him realize that he goes too far. Look back at recent >history and YOU tell ME who is "directly responsible for the the death >of children and innocent people." > Well IRA terrorists have killed 1714 people in Britain since 1969. >As an American, and as a human being who is sick of reading in the >papers of yet another senseless death at the hands of terrorists, I >FULLY BACK my President in the actions he took. I know that I could >not have exercised the restraint in limiting the strike as he did. If >Kaddafi "retaliates" by killing more innocent people -- be it in >Germany, Italy, Greece, France, the United Kingdom, or the United >States -- I would GLADLY hear that Reagan graduated from slapping >Kaddafi on the wrist to LEVELING the city of Tripoli. > Some of us would like to have our planet back when you war-mongerers have finished playing games with it. >I am saddened that the free people of Europe think so little of their >freedom and so little of the lives of innocents that they are unwilling >to step down on that nasty little worm in Libya and free the world of >that sick murderer. > It is because they value freedom and innocent lives that they deplore such irresponsible behaviour from a country we all once admired. -- Neil Calton UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!nbc Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: nbc@uk.ac.rl.vd USS Great Britain or N.B.M.CALTON@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5740 "Wearing badges is not enough, in days like these."
nbc@rlvd.UUCP (Neil Calton) (05/06/86)
In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on >the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really >immaterial. That situation could not be tolerated, PERIOD. Get real. > >Ron Morgan If this is the American idea of freedom and justice then there is little hope for the future. How are the Soviets going to take over ? Put adverts on prime-time TV ? -- Neil Calton UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!nbc Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: nbc@uk.ac.rl.vd USS Great Britain or N.B.M.CALTON@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5740 "Wearing badges is not enough, in days like these."
nbc@rlvd.UUCP (Neil Calton) (05/06/86)
In article <616@tekigm2.UUCP> timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes: >Another thing I find of interest is that France and Italy both allowed free >movement of known terrorists in exchange for no activity on their souvreign >ground. > You mean like the IRA members whom the American courts refuse to extradite to GB and are walking round free in the US. Oh, but they are political crimes, I almost forgot. -- Neil Calton UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!nbc Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: nbc@uk.ac.rl.vd USS Great Britain or N.B.M.CALTON@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5740 "Wearing badges is not enough, in days like these."
uh@unido.UUCP (05/06/86)
In article <????@mit-tril.UUCP> martillo@mit-tril.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami) writes: |In article <2119@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: |>> In article <2094@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP writes: | |I happen to have studied Weimar... But not very well!! :-) :-) :-) I think that you are with your opinions much nearer to the ideology of NS-Germany than A. Bormann!! Your simple racist attitude: |Some cultures contain too much evil to be permitted to exist. shows what type of man you are. The Nazi's in NS-Germany said exactly the same thing about the Jews and killed them. Your rough tone let me think that you would do the same to people who belong to the Islam: |South Africa and Islam represent such cultures. I think that people like YOU are as dangerous (escpecially for the freedom on the world) than Gaddafi. |Unlike Berman, a large part of my family and my fiance grew up in |Muslim countries. If they talk the same way you do, I will believe that they had bad experiences in this countries. Even in Germany today you would get very much trouble with your opinions. The winners of WWII (USA, GB, France) introduced here after the war some nice laws. In this laws is stated that people who say things like you will go into prison!!! Many hatings to all NEO-NAZI's in the USA!! Uwe Hoch Computer Science Department, University of Dortmund 4600 Dortmund 50, P.O. Box 500500, W.-Germany E-mail address: uh@unido.uucp, uh@unido.bitnet
adrienne@datacube (05/06/86)
I am willing to bet ANY amount of money
that Khaddafi has NEVER been to a Grateful Dead Concert.
Yes it is perhaps irrelevant, but it COULD have made a
difference.
Adrienne
Solely my opinion I'm sure!cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/06/86)
> One problem with Reagan's Libyan action is that it either stands as > an isolated incident (which is suspicious - why is the death of one > US serviceman so much more heinous than all of the other deaths at > the hands of terrorists?) or it is intended as an invitation to everyone > else to walk down the slippery slope to global anarchy. Would the > good ol' son o' the sod Ronnie approve if Maggie Thatcher decided that > the best way of solving the IRA problem (which has involved the deaths > of vastly more innocent Britons than there have been US victims of > terrorism) would be a "sugical" strike on the Shankill Road or Bogside > by a couple of dozen Harriers and Tornados? Might kill a few innocent > civilians, but we all know that accidents happen (listen to Larry Speakes > on that one). Or maybe they should take out the US bases for IRA terrorism > (those Irish-American groups who, together with Libya, fund most of it). > Collateral damage? No problem. > Invalid analogy. The US government does not support terrorist activities by the IRA, and within the limits of our laws, attempted to prevent US gunrunning to the IRA. The Libyan government was not only supporting terrorist activities, but proud of it. > [I feel strongly about that - as an expatriate Englishman I remember > the IRA bombings of the '70s, with politicians, soldiers, police, women, > and children - and fifteen-month old babies - getting killed right, > left and center, and the British attempts to deal with the terrorists > (remember internment?) provoking howls of protest over here. One wonders > how intemperately Reagan would react if a U.S. Congressman got killed. > Probably nuke the first likely target.] > The Soviets killed a U.S. Congressman a couple of years ago, and no war resulted. Larry McDonald of Georgia. Remember? > It's ironical, isn't it? Over the last year or so the "Great Communicater" > has presided over an absolutely disastrous slide in the world perception > of the U.S. Practically everyone believes that the biggest obstacle > to nuclear arms reductions is Reagan (or is it Weinberger? I can't > tell who's leading whom on that). A good indication of this is the fact > that last week the Soviets felt able to launch a massive series of air > strikes against the Afghan rebels, knowing that compared with the Libyan > raid it would be a non-event. > Prior Soviet massive bombing raids on the Afghan rebels have been non-events as well -- because Western media aren't allowed to cover that war. > When I first perceived the strength of the popular support for Reagan's > action (media reported, but probably correctly so), my first reaction > was "How the hell can I stay here? I could never feel a part of > such an amoral society?". (My disgust reached a peak when I read George > Will in the Boston Globe, saying how he could hardly feel regret about > bombs hitting the French Embassy.) But then as a few voices of reason > emerged, including several cautious but unambigous editorials in > the Globe, I realized that I was not alone. And after all, if you look > back, practically everything that Reagan has done in foreign policy has > got initially enthusiastic popular support followed by a rapid cooling off. > (One poll reported that most people now feel that Grenada was a mistake.) Really? Which poll? I find that hard to believe. Certainly most Grenadians don't feel that it was a mistake. > <<<<<< Geoff Arnold, Sun Microsystems Inc. (East Coast Division) >>>>>> Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/06/86)
> In article <776@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > >> > >> Just look at the popular movies in the > >> US to see the general attitude. Rambo, Rocky, Phantom Commando, etc., > >> etc., etc. "Kill those guys, they are the Enemy!!!!!!!!!!!" > > > > Those are *movies*, buddy. Get real. I don't know about you, but > >most Americans can tell the difference between reality and a movie > >fantasy. > > > I don't know if I agree. I seem to remember Reagan at various > times identifying with Dirty Harry and Rambo. I even remember him > saying once in a previous "crisis" that "I saw "Rambo" last night > and I know just what to do" (yes, this is a paraphrase but I > distinctly remember him saying something to that effect). I > REALLY hope he never sees "Dr. Strangelove". (:^)) > He was making a joke. During the microphone test before one of his speeches, he said, "I know how to solve the problem in Beirut. I'm sending Rambo over immediately." or words to that effect. It was a joke. I agree some of the things he has said during microphone tests are best not said by the guy with his finger on the button, but they ARE jokes. > Have A Nice Day, > Soren Petersen Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/06/86)
> Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are > financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher > should bomb New York? > > Mike Williams False analogy. The Libyan government provides assistance to the terrorists. No part of our government assists or encourages the IRA -- quite the opposite. Clayton E. Cramer
wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (05/06/86)
In article <152@suneast.uucp> geoff@suneast.uucp (Geoff Arnold) writes: >One wonders >how intemperately Reagan would react if a U.S. Congressman got killed. That would depend on which congressman and the political party, now, wouldn't it? :-)
bruce@stc.co.uk (05/06/86)
In article <503@bu-cs.UUCP> dml@bucsd.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) writes: >In article <638@argon.idec.stc.co.uk> howellg@idec.stc.co.uk (Gareth Howell) writes: >| I don't see any economic retaliation from the US. It still buys oil >| from Lybia, which accounts for a great deal of their income. If the >| US really wants to bring Lybia to its knees, stop buying oil. But I >| suppose that might affect Reagans popularity. > >You are somewhat mis-informed then. According to the Boston Globe >of April 28, President Reagan had banned all trade with and travel >to Libya. What other economic retaliation could the US take??? It is you that is mis-informed David. According to the BBC News the USA stopped all trade with Libya apart from one minor exception. OIL!! The US Oil companies were allowed to continue working in Libya, and although I wouldn't swear to it I seem to remember the reporter saying that these companies provide Libya with 70% of its GNP! That's a pretty big exception! I can't see these sort of sanctions bringing [QG]addafi to his knees. -- Regards, Bruce Munro. <bruce@stc.UUCP> ...seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!bruce
pierre@imag.UUCP (Pierre L. LAFORGUE) (05/06/86)
In article <7300004@hpfclp> you write: >I object to the "state terrorism" label, because at least Reagan, unlike >Khaddafi's terrorists, didn't intentionally TRY to kill innocent civilians. He did not try, but he did! I cannot see a great difference between these two thesis: 1/ Khaddafi, Khomeiny, etc. : I may shot this man, woman, child, because he has the same religion than my enemy, or flies on a plane of an adverse country airline, or simply is walking in a bad place ... 2/ Reagan: I may shot this man, woman, child, because he lives in a bad place, or he is a son, neighbour, ... of Khaddafi. In fact, this is not really the problem FOR ANY OF THEM : For Khaddafi/Reagan, it is first a matter of media; they have to be well identified as valiant heralds of arab/cow-boy identities. Khaddafi was no longer accepted by the other arab countries as their hero; I'm happy they are enough mature not to change after the raid. But it seemed evident that such a raid was able to increase terrorism, and in some way to give it a moral absolution, rather than to reduce it. The only goal of Reagan appeared to be improving his popularity for interior reasons. This play is not too dangerous in fact; when there is a real danger, as in the Irak/Iran conflict, Reagan's politics are more elaborated (but rather cynical, too), if what is said about indirect arm deliveries is true. >The strike was very carefully planned to damage Khaddafi's headquarters, >elite guard, and military installations. I don't agree; if it was the real goal, a more important strike should have been necessary. But for a publicity, it was sufficient ... And it appears that even a "carefully planned" strike (by the most sophisticated army in the world) kill more innocent victims than guilty soldiers. >to rabid "anti-Commie" types) think of the USSR -- as an agressive, warlike >nation that furthers its ideologies and political/economic needs by conquest >(in Czechoslovakia, Afganistan, etc.). (I am not sure how to interpret >Russia's recent peaceful offers -- as genuine attemps to reduce the tension >in the world, or as propagandistic moves that they know Reagan will reject.) Yes Reagan is really a gift for the USSR : he is so easy to forecast. And objectively, he does not trouble too much the USSR; he is not as active (fortunately?) in Afganistan as in Lybian, because Afganistan was attributed to USSR a long time ago. For the Libyan strike, Reagan was polite enough to warn the USSR to remote their boats a moment (fortunately!). About the peaceful offers, it is possible that Gorbatchev wants sincerely to reduce his military expenses, and Reagan wants to increase his ones (maybe only because it is easier to distribute federal funds for scientific research if they are labelled 'stars war' and so on), but of course nobody can be sure, and it is not only a two men chat. As a conclusion, the disagreement is not between the USA and the Europe people, but inside each country; a lot of french people approved the raid for instance. -- Pierre Laforgue pierre@imag.UUCP or {seismo|mcvax|vmucnam|inria}!imag!pierre
gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (05/07/86)
> David Matthew Lyle < Mike Williams < Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are < financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher < should bomb New York? >No, it means she should get proof of violation of the law and take >the organizations/persons to court. (an option not available to the >US in Lybia) The problem with this is that the U.S., strangely enough in my opinion, is giving >>>Political Asylem<<< to a number of IRA individuals accused by the British of terrorism. A bill pending in Congress to reverse this is being opposed by Jesse Helms and a bunch of New England democrats (... makes strange bedfellows). -- -- Bob Gottlieb UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 Phone: (617) 263-9110 Foot: "You can't get there from here". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (05/08/86)
In article <280@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >In article <2322@hcrvx2.UUCP>, jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >> >> Perhaps George was remembering how France and Italy had agreed, in the >> 70s, to let *known* terrorists come and go at will as long as they >> did not carry out any of their missions on those countries' soil. >> Seems to me that ***that*** is the height of irresponsibility, >> cowardice, and selfishness. > >So far, I have only seen rumor and inuendo regarding this story. >It is possible they let *known* terrorists pass without being >aware of it. It is also possible -probably more likely- that >they do not necessarily see as many people as say, Israel sees, >as terrorists. Israel considers the entire Palestinian Liberation >Movement as terrorist; something which the rest of the world does >not agree with. Unfortunately, the U.S. listens more to Israel >than to any other country, including its NATO allies. So far, I have also not seen any official denials issued by either country. One possibility that noone (esp. the US) is pressing the matter is that this would be an awkward time to do so considering that the European community, including France and Italy, have finally decided to take joint action against terrorism. Wouldn't want to alienate them after finally getting them on board. Note that the policy being ascribed to France is consistent with the "France first" nationalism that exists there. Also, let us not forget that it was Italy who refused to hold on to Abu Niddas (sp?) when they had him. If there was a good reason for letting him go that I did not hear about, I would be more than willing to entertain it now. Personally, I would like to be proved wrong 'cause "with friends like that ..." J.B. Robinson
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (05/08/86)
In article <395@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian (Yakim Martillo) writes: >I happen to have studied Weimar. Bormann's attitude in his inability >to make ethical distinction was quite typical of extremist attitudes >in Weimar Germany and was quite common among those who joined the SA I happen to have studied Weimar. Martillo's attitude in his inability to make ethical distinctions was quite typical of extremist attitudes in Weimar Germany and was quite common among those who joined the SA. >Borman was trying to incite disgust at Reagan in a rather low fashion >and deserved an attact to the point. Martullo is trying to incite disgust at Bormann in a rather low fashion and deserves an attack on this point. >I think people who cannot distinguish between bigotry and hatred of >bigotry should be discouraged from posting. Ditto. >I >think Berman should rethink his position before posting any more >articles to the net. I think Martallo should rethink his position before posting any more articles to the net. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!weyl!gsmith The Josh McDowell of the Net
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (05/08/86)
In article <215@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >I have referred before to the fact that Israel has a long history of >terrorism. An example of such terrorism is referred to in Noam Chomsky's >book, "The Fateful Triangle," (South End Press, Boston, 1983), I heard that Israel once attacked a US Navy Intelligence ship, killing most of the crew. They were in the way and Israel didn't want them to watch what Israeli forces were doing. -- If a reactor melts down in Russia will they call it the America syndrome? Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (05/08/86)
In article <755@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >> I think that anyone who thinks that the bombing of >> Libya was a good idea has a blinkered view of what >> was achieved. Already 3 British hostages have been >> murdered by Beruit terrorists, and the murder of 400 >> passengers aboard an El Al plane was narrowly >> avoided, all because the F1-11's were British based >> planes. And just yesterday a British journalist in >> Beruit was taken hostage; unconfirmed reports today >> say that he to has been murdered. >> > >And this sort of activity was going on all along. Tell me how >it would be any better if the bombing raid hadn't happened. If the bombing has made the world a better, safer place to live, why are many Americans so sh*t-scared of that hotbed of murder and terrorism - Europe - that they're cancelling their holidays (sorry vacations) here? They're in more danger on the streets of New York or Los Angeles from their fellow freedom-loving, gun-toting citizens. Maybe the incidents above wouldn't have happened if the Americans didn't bomb Libya, maybe they would. Who can tell? You don't need to be smart to realise that there are a lot of crazy people who are itching to retaliate for the US bombing. It'll hardly be surprising if there are more terrorist acts and they're unlikely to occur on the shores on the US of A. Ronnie's safely cooped up in the White House - who cares if a few Europeans get blown up in Europe? It's a long, long way from the eastern seaboard... :-) [Sort of.] >> Does the fact that Reagan has said that any country >> has the right to attack countries ( killing innocent >> citizens as well as military ) who engage in terrorism >> suggests that Nicuragua has the right to attack CIA Langley >> in Virginia because they are aiding terrorists to attack > >Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas bombed the Capitol in >Washington, and several other government buildings in the last >several years. Maybe you didn't hear about it. I didn't. The perpetrators were wrong to do this and deserve to face justice for these acts. If they were Sandanista supporters (something I find a little hard to accept), the Reagan doctrine would justify their acts. After all, he decided to bomb Libya in self-defence and he's trying to wage war in Nicaragua. Furthermore, the Contras have been committing atrocities and terrorist acts just like the Libyans... He who lives by the sword.... >> targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a >> democratically elected government ). How much longer > >Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" >situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, >and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament >after he took over. This is nonsense. The elections in Nicaragua were free and fair, though there may have been isolated incidents to contradict the overall picture. The elections were open to all parties and the electorate had a secret ballot. The Reagan-backed opposition declined to contest the election, no doubt so the White House could attempt to give some credence to the opinion above. The fact that these people (the remains of the old Somoza regime) would have had little or no electoral success presumably had no bearing on their decision. >> can the U.S.A. go on objecting to governments because >> they are left-wing when they have supported right-wing >> dictatorships for so long ( President Marcos is a good >> example of someone who they kept in power ). If, as is > >Marcos was democratically elected as well. Double standard, anyone? Rubbish! Marcos was "democratically elected" by blatant systematic ballot rigging and the murder or violent intimidation of political opponents. (Remember Benino Acquino?) The Sandanistas have been at great pains to hold elections that have been as fair as possible - witness the EEC and UN observers who were invited to see the elections for themselves. The US were prepared to give the nod to Marcos as a "defender of democracy"+ until they saw he no longer had any semblance of support from the Phillipine people. _____ + Ronald Reagan, addressing the Marcoses at the White House a few years ago It seems to me that US foreign policy is and has been to prop up nasty regimes all over the world, provided these regimes support US interests, regardless of how they treat their own citizens. Examples - the Shah in Iran, South Korea, the generals in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, Marcos, Somoza and South Africa. Is this how the successors to George Washington, Lincoln and Franklin should be behaving? >...a Labour Party government in England at this point can't >be distinguished from a Communist government by any >reasonable measure. More garbage! I don't see the Labour party advocating a police state or abolishing a free press. [A press that on the whole is owned by friends and supporters of Mrs. Thatcher and is rather nasty in the way it reports on the Labour Party.] I don't see the Labour party supporting the development and deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons either. You can't even identify the United Kingdom, so I'm not surprised you fail to see the distinction between the Communists and the *British* Labour party. [I see myself as a Scot, not a Briton BTW.] >Anytime we travel to Europe, we are vunerable. There comes >a point where killing those who are trying to kill you is >the only solution. This defies common sense. Killing only begets killing. You kill me, my brother kills you, your brother kills my brother...... There's nothing better to nourish a sense of grievance as a martyr. [The IRA are quite good at that...] >Except that just hours before the raid, the EEC *refused* >to enact sanctions against Libya. That's why the bombing >raid happened. I don't think so. The bombing raid had more to do with US *domestic* policy. [Look how tough our wonderful President is.] If the EEC meeting of foreign ministers - a forum where nothing ever happens as a matter of course - had known the US were serious about military action, I'm sure there would have been a better response. The UK foreign secretary knew that the US were planning a bombing mission, but he didn't tell the other ministers. He knew of the US request to use the bases in the UK before the meeting took place. >When dealing with truly evil people (Soviet leadership), >the threat of force is sometimes enough. When dealing with >the truly crazy (Kadaffi, Hitler), nothing sort of destruction >seems to work. Can't you appreciate that the Soviets are using a similar argument about the evil United States to justify their hegemony? The main problem is to prevent the circumstances that allow the crazies to assume power in the first place. The superpowers fail to use their power and influence properly so it's hardly surprising that in places like the Middle East - or in post-WW1 Germany - there is considerable antagonism towards the states who were responsible for creating the conditions for unrest in the first place. Examples would be the British and French bringing about economic ruin in Germany after WW1, the partitioning in Ireland by Britain, and the unqualified backing by the US of Israel who in some respects are behaving like Nazi Germany - invading neighbouring states, annexing territory and oppressing the Palestinian arabs. Violence and destruction only causes violence and destruction in retaliation. After a time, the participants forget what they're fighting about, except that they're continuing to kill and be killed. >Note: I'm not entirely happy about the action that was taken, >and I'm willing to entertain arguments about better ways to >have killed Kadaffi, and better ways to have discouraged >Libya's support of terrorism. Arguments about its "immorality" >are as valid as the Peace Movement of the 1930s. Nobody has the right to kill anybody, even evil people like Gaddafi. If you say killing someone who is evil is morally OK, what's to stop someone deciding you are evil and then killing you? I find your statement above offensive. How would you feel if some Libyans started discussing on the net how to go about killing your President? Your statement about the peace movement in the 30's is specious. The "appeasers" of Hitler didn't bring about the war. War was inevitable when he came to power. The allies of WW1 didn't care about Germany until it was too late and the appeal of the myth of Nordic supremacy coupled to a convenient scapegoat - the Jews - was too great for the downtrodden and desparate Germany of the 20's and 30's. At least the US had the gumption not to make the same mistake after WW2 when they instituted the Marshall Plan. Being "soft on terrorism" is not the cause of terrorism. It is our apathy and lack of respect for the condition of other human beings that is the cause of terrorism by bringing about social and political conditions which encourage people to pick up guns and start killing. Like it or not, we are all to blame. Jim
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (05/08/86)
In article <973@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> bruce@stc.UUCP Bruce Munro (a self proclaimed substance abuser) writes: >The US Oil companies were allowed to continue working in Libya, and >these companies provide Libya with 70% of its GNP! That's a pretty >big exception! Libyan oil provides the GNP and the US Corporations have siphoned off what they could, but now they are getting out leaving the oil works in tact. Consequently, the same 70% of the GNP may grow to a slightly larger value. Sorry Bruce, if turning over the works to the Libyans would have helped it would have been done some time ago. Why do you refer to yourself as the "drunk monk"? Cheerup!
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/08/86)
> In article <227@alliant.UUCP> gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) writes: > >I was interested to read that on April 1st, the US Navy launched > >a conventionally-armed Tomahawk missile, which travelled 400 miles > >to explode it's 1000 lb warhead directly over a parked airplane. > >AW&ST has a photo of the plane blowing up. > > > >Why didn't we use these to: > > 1. Hit the targets without losing aircraft > > 2. Hit the targets without hitting civilians. > > I would imagine that the Navy would be disinclined to risk having one > captured and given to the Soviets for spite. As it stands, the Ruskies > may have gotten an F-111, which by all reports is the kind of plane we'd > sort of *like* them to copy. > > Baba What? If they want to nuke us, that's one thing, but I won't stand for having Russian copies of the F-111 falling apart in US airspace. :-) Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/08/86)
> I agreed with everything said in the article except this: > > > > >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a > >Labour Party government in England at this point can't > >be distinguished from a Communist government by any > >reasonable measure. > >... > >Clayton E. Cramer > > > >"Beyond gravity -- a new way of thinking." > > > Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that > very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no > matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they > confess themselves. Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/08/86)
> In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on > >the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really > >immaterial. That situation could not be tolerated, PERIOD. Get real. > > I hope the Russians don't decide to do the same thing in Europe! > > Mike. > They did. Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, when confronting evil, it's sometimes difficult to avoid lowering yourself to the same level. If another country is a security threat to you, you don't worry about whether the population agrees or not. Clayton E. Cramer
eric@chronon.UUCP (Eric Black) (05/08/86)
In article <765@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> In article <776@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: >> > Those are *movies*, buddy. Get real. I don't know about you, but >> >most Americans can tell the difference between reality and a movie >> >fantasy. >> >> I don't know if I agree. I seem to remember Reagan at various >> times identifying with Dirty Harry and Rambo. I even remember him >> saying once in a previous "crisis" that "I saw "Rambo" last night >> and I know just what to do" (yes, this is a paraphrase but I >> distinctly remember him saying something to that effect). I >> REALLY hope he never sees "Dr. Strangelove". (:^)) >> > >He was making a joke. During the microphone test before one of his >speeches, he said, "I know how to solve the problem in Beirut. I'm >sending Rambo over immediately." or words to that effect. It was a >joke. I agree some of the things he has said during microphone tests >are best not said by the guy with his finger on the button, but they >ARE jokes. > 'Nuther Reagan joke? So the Soviet Union is outlawed & has been bombed, and now Rambo is on his way to Beirut. Hmmm... I wish I could more confidently believe that Reagan has a firm grip on what *I* consider to be reality, and can tell the difference between a movie script and the real world... His sense of humor is perceived as rather strange by much of the world, including myself. -- Eric Black "Garbage In, Gospel Out" UUCP: {sun,pyramid,hplabs,amdcad}!chronon!eric
brian@sequent.UUCP (05/09/86)
>There is a great deal of sympathy in Europe for the frustration felt in the >US over terrorism. The US is, however, the most powerful nation on Earth, >and has vast influence. I think we are very powerful militarily, but have very little influence with any countries who are not major exporters to the US. We do not use our military might as a consistent instrument of foreign policy. We have demon- strated that we will provide massive aid to third world countries no matter how they talk about us behind our backs. About the only power we seem to wield is the ability to tamper with the foreign exchange rates and influence the economies of our trading partners. We even let Mohammar K(Q?) call the shots in the Gulf of Sidra. >It is hardly surprising that this influence should >be resented in many quarters, particularly if not wielded with the utmost >wisdom and care. The problem is that when you have so much "power" you are heavily condemned whenever you use any of it in any way. What seems like wisdom and care to some seems like stupidity and callousness to others. > One of these responsibilities is to be well informed, and you >really _must_ try to understand more of situations like the Middle East than >is evident from recent comments. It seems that many people in Europe wish those of us in the US were better informed. I think many in the US wish the Europeans were better informed. Maybe the problem isn't how informed we are, but the perceptions we generate from this information. The realities of living in the US are different than the realities of living in Europe or anywhere else. Those differences cause people in various places to form different opinions and perceptions from a given set of circumstances. It's called being human. Once you accept this you will find yourself wondering why there is so much violence in the world, not why this or that nation is so full of nuts and warmongers. --Brian
brian@sequent.UUCP (05/09/86)
>Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are >financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher >should bomb New York? They probably wouldn't notice, anyway.
mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (05/09/86)
In article <774@epistemi.UUCP> irene@epistemi.UUCP (Irene Orr) writes: >To those of you who think that Americans are being slaughtered wholesale >by international terrorists, an interesting statistic: out of 928 people >killed by international terrorist action in the year preceding the >bombing of Libya, 23 were American. > >This does not seem to me to justify any claim that the USA were "forced" >to take action, unless of course you value one American life at about 39 >other lives. > > Irene Orr > (..mcvax!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!irene) We obviously have different beliefs about how to respond to terrorism. I feel that it doesn't matter whether it is one murder or 23 murders or even 928 murders. There should be some response although the level of response may be different. I would like to know where YOU would draw the line. When it is OK to use violence in the form a a military strike. How many people must die first. One is obviously not enough, 23 isn't enough, and 928 doesn't even seem to be enough. Is 1000 the magic number? We should reach that in a couple of month's. How about 10,000. If you go back through the records far enough we probably have seen that many deaths due to worldwide terrorism. I don't know you but I would guess that the number for you, like most people, would probably be one death, if it was the right person. If someone you loved was killed by terrorists I think you would want some retribution. In the past year 928 families have experienced this. I think they deserve measurement of justice. Mike Schloss
marty@ism780c.UUCP (05/10/86)
In article <11610@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <215@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >>I have referred before to the fact that Israel has a long history of >>terrorism. An example of such terrorism is referred to in Noam Chomsky's >>book, "The Fateful Triangle," (South End Press, Boston, 1983), > >I heard that Israel once attacked a US Navy Intelligence ship, killing >most of the crew. They were in the way and Israel didn't want them to >watch what Israeli forces were doing. >-- The IDF did indeed attack the USS Liberty during the six day war. An account of the attack is presented in ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY; I believe the author's name is Ennis. He was on the bridge during the attack. 23 men were killed, most of them by a torpedo from an IDF gunboat. 71 men were injured. Isreal claimed that the attack was an accident caused when somebody mistakenly identified the Liberty as a ship belonging to Egypt. None of Isreal's arguments are believable, in my opinion, but our government accepted Isreal's explanation, and Isreal paid damages. The book gives a compelling case that the attack was deliberate, claiming that its purpose was to keep us from knowing about Isreal's surprise attack on the Golan Heights. Apparently, claims the book, the attack on the Golan Heights was delayed until the Liberty could be eliminated. The argument makes sense in light of the knowledge that then President Johnson had warned Isreal that US support would be withdrawn if it was ever determined that Isreal had initiated any of the fighting. Much more evidence is presented in the book. martin smith
mnl@cernvax.UUCP (mnl) (05/10/86)
In article <120@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes: > > . > . > [discussing bombing of Libya, terrorism, U.S. policy] > . > . > >It seems to me that US foreign policy is and has been to prop up nasty regimes >all over the world, provided these regimes support US interests, regardless of >how they treat their own citizens. Examples - the Shah in Iran, South Korea, >the generals in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, Marcos, Somoza >and South Africa. Is this how the successors to George Washington, Lincoln and ^^^^^^^ >Franklin should be behaving? > I find it interesting that you include President Lincoln in this list. After all, Lincoln is remembered primarily for leading the overthrow of a very popular government through the application of armed force. Sounds vaguely like what some recent U.S. president is trying to do. And nobody flame me about the war being fought over slavery. The Confederate states seceeded primarily for economic reasons, for example freer trade with Great Britain. And the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states-- slaves in loyal (e.g. Maryland) and neutral (e.g. Missouri and Kentucky) border states were not freed until the 16th (?????) ammendment 20 some years later. >>...a Labour Party government in England at this point can't >>be distinguished from a Communist government by any >>reasonable measure. > >More garbage! I don't see the Labour party advocating a police state or >abolishing a free press. [A press that on the whole is owned by friends >and supporters of Mrs. Thatcher and is rather nasty in the way it reports >on the Labour Party.] I don't see the Labour party supporting the development >and deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons either. You can't >even identify the United Kingdom, so I'm not surprised you fail to see the >distinction between the Communists and the *British* Labour party. [I see >myself as a Scot, not a Briton BTW.] > I'll have to admit that I don't know much about the British Labour party, but I'm very sad to see that the Soviet Union had given communism such a bad name that it is immediately identified with a police state, lack of free press, chemical weapons, etc. And I always though communism had something to do with economics :-). The above definition is going to make a lot of right-wing dictators very unhappy when they find out that they are really communists. > > [The discussion continues] > -- Mark Nelson mnl@cernvax.bitnet or ...!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!mnl "This function is occasionally useful as the arguement to a function which requires a function as an arguement." Guy Steele
irene@epistemi.UUCP (Irene Orr) (05/10/86)
To those of you who think that Americans are being slaughtered wholesale by international terrorists, an interesting statistic: out of 928 people killed by international terrorist action in the year preceding the bombing of Libya, 23 were American. This does not seem to me to justify any claim that the USA were "forced" to take action, unless of course you value one American life at about 39 other lives. Irene Orr (..mcvax!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!irene)
zap@duvan.UUCP (Svante Lindahl) (05/10/86)
In article <1291@rlvd.UUCP> mike@rlvd.UUCP (Mike Woods) writes: > >In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >>We are in Nicaragua for one reason only: to prevent a Soviet-backed regime on >>the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really >>immaterial. That situation could not be tolerated, PERIOD. Get real. > >I hope the Russians don't decide to do the same thing in Europe! They did a long time ago. Remember Checkoslowakia (sp?) 1968, Hungary 1956, Poland 1981. Just goes to show that one is as bad as the other (well not really, but opinions like osmigo1's are really scary).
zap@duvan.UUCP (Svante Lindahl) (05/10/86)
In article <774@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: >In article <3194@reed.UUCP> soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) writes: >> >> ... Ghaddafi ... >>Kjadafi .... >>Kadophi's .... >> ... Qaddaphee ... > ... Qaddaffi ... > > By the way, I was amused by your various spellings of Muammar's >name. If we want to grep for articles about the guy, how would we go >about it? Isn't it Muohammar?
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/10/86)
In article <901@harvard>, greg%harvard@harvard.UUCP writes: > As for the statement "one cannot cure international terrorism with this > policy of bombing foreign cities", there was a persuasive article in Time > a few weeks ago by the Israeli ambassador to the UN explaining why and how > we should retaliate against international terrorism. > -- > gregregreg One of the most muddled analyses to grace the pages of TIME (and there are quite a few). Leaving aside the fact that Netanyahu is a partisan defender of Israel's insane policy, do you think that this policy really works for Israel? Israel gained for itself hundreds of thousands of new enemies (other than the Palestinians) by bombing and ravaging South Lebanon. Until Israel attacked Lebanon, inspite of seven years of civil war, there was not one incident of suicide bombing. Today an isolated Israeli is much safer in a PLO training camp than in a South Lebanese village. Talk about winning friends and influencing people!
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/10/86)
In article <6100002@hpclld>, chip%hpclld@hpclld.UUCP writes: > Nevertheless, I think an equally [or perhaps more] important lesson of > history is that freedom will soon be lost without the willingness to > fight for it. We're talking HISTORY here, not "new age" wishful > thinking. As far as I can see from history, fighting (i.e. "violence") > IS, in fact a "necessity for freedom". I wish it were not that way. > ............................................. How much better if the > real threat to peace, criminal actions on an international scale, had > been dealt with sooner! This also applies to Khadafi (and all other > international criminals). Better to fight him now than to wait. Some would argue the same case for starting a war against the United States! ... My own feeling is that the United States *is* fighting for freedom: the freedom to pursue selfish policies unhindered, anywhere in the world, without regard to its impact on the 'natives'. Eqbal Ahmad, a well-known progressive political scientist, recently posed the question "What is a strategic country?" and he answered, "For the Iranians, for example, Iran is *always* strategic. When policy makers talk about strategic countries, they mean *other* peoples' countries being strategic for their (the policy makers') interests. Likewise, when Reagan speaks about fighting for freedom, he is talking about *his* freedom. From that perspective, if the freedom of other nations conflicts with this goal, it *must* be crushed.
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/10/86)
In article <2323@hcrvx2.UUCP>, jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > Note that the policy being ascribed to France is consistent with > the "France first" nationalism that exists there. Also, let us not > forget that it was Italy who refused to hold on to Abu Niddas (sp?) > when they had him. If there was a good reason for letting him go that > I did not hear about, I would be more than willing to entertain it now. Abu Abbas was freed because of two reasons: 1) The evidence of his direct involvement claimed by the U.S. was not in the hands of the Italian judiciary. 2) Abu Abbas had a diplomatic passport, which meant he could not be detained without due cause, and without antagonizing the country which issued the passport (I am not sure which one.) Abu Abbas had not committed any crimes on Italian soil. However, even if he had, Italy would still have had to release him. An example of this is the British release of the Libyan embassy official who shot the British policewoman, because he had diplomatic immunity.
jimf@ihuxf.UUCP (Fehrenbacher) (05/10/86)
> To those of you who think that Americans are being slaughtered wholesale > by international terrorists, an interesting statistic: out of 928 people > killed by international terrorist action in the year preceding the > bombing of Libya, 23 were American. > > This does not seem to me to justify any claim that the USA were "forced" > to take action, unless of course you value one American life at about 39 > other lives. > > Irene Orr > (..mcvax!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!irene) Irene, I think you're an incredible hypocrite!!! If Arab terrorists murdered "only" 23 of your neighbors, you'd feel differently. You're wearing your anti-American sentiments on your sleeve. I don't really care what the nationality of the innocents murdered by terrorists. Kaddafi must realize that he can't sponsor murder forever without consequences. I guess you prefer to just let him continue his extra- curricular activities? Are you so naive to think that a fanactic bully like Kaddafi can be reasoned with, or will stop supporting murder because he he becomes enlightened or gets religion? The fanatic terrorists use the fact that countries in the Western world have more respect for human life than they do to their advantage. They know that we don't lightly attack or kill people. The U.S. at least attempted not to kill innocent people. Do you think the terrorists consider that? I think you should wake up to the fact that there is evil in the world and if we continue to ignore it, it will swallow us up eventually. Until the attack on Libya, the terrorists were waging a one-way war. No one knows if the attack on Libya will prevent Kaddafi from sponsoring terrorism, but I learned as a child that a bully loves nothing more than a victim unwilling to fight back. And bullies DON'T grow out of it, but they do understand force. I believe if Kaddafi keeps on with his war against the world, the world should fight back. (But I guess America will have to fight for your country, much the way they had to in WW II.) By the way, I find your human-life arithmetic interesting. It's quite obvious that those 23 American lives don't mean much to you. (And I'll bet the other 905 don't either.)
ptodd@tekchips.UUCP (Philip Todd) (05/12/86)
In article <778@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > I agreed with everything said in the article except this: > > > > > > > >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a > > >Labour Party government in England at this point can't > > >be distinguished from a Communist government by any > > >reasonable measure. > > >... > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > > > > >"Beyond gravity -- a new way of thinking." > > > > > > Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that > > very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no > > matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they > > confess themselves. > > Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- > free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think > Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? > > Clayton E. Cramer So it is now considered communist to be a nuclear free zone, or to be outwith NATO. Pretty soon the definition of acommunist country will be one which is not the U.S.A. Phil Todd
ladkin@kestrel.UUCP (05/12/86)
In article <778@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: * [...] but a * Labour Party government in England at this point can't * be distinguished from a Communist government by any * reasonable measure. He backs this up with the following evidence: > Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- > free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think > Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? I guess what he means by "Communist" is different from what anyone else means by the word. Or is this merely a non-sequitur, do you think? Peter Ladkin
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (05/13/86)
In article <778@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> I agreed with everything said in the article except this: >> >> > >> >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a >> >Labour Party government in England at this point can't >> >be distinguished from a Communist government by any >> >reasonable measure. >> >> Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that >> very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no >> matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they >> confess themselves. > >Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- >free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think >Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? > >Clayton E. Cramer Unless I am mistaken the Labour Party espouses *democratic* socialism. I.e. they have no intention of suspending the democratic process that would eventually lead to their downfall (as eventually happens with *all* governments in *all* democracies) should they gain power. In this respect one could not by any stretch of the imagination place them in the same league as the communists who not only do not believe in the democratic process, as best exemplified by elections, but also are willing to commit even the vilest of acts in order to retain the power that they have so ruthlessly achieved. Just for the record I'm about as fiscally conservative as they come and thus consider the British Labour Party's policies (as well as those of our own home grown socialist party here in Canada) to be based on an inaccurate model of human behaviour. However, when I see someone advocating a view that is incorrectly held by a not insignificant percentage of Americans I feel compelled to put in my two cents worth. If Canada's socialists ever got into power (at the federal level) I would expect quite a bit of economic damage to be done. However, I do not for a minute think that rather than lose an election they'd whip out the AK-47s that some would presume are neatly stashed under their beds and commence shooting. J.B. Robinson PS In the interest of fostering a greater understanding of democratic socialism by our neighbours to the South, I am hereby offering, by the powers vested in me by no one in particular, to *give*, totally free of charge, to the USA nine tenths of all of our socialists. Since the US's population is about 9 to 10 times Canada's I would deem the division to be fair. However, with only a modicum of persuasion I'm sure I'd been willing to let go of all of them. :-)
ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (05/13/86)
In article <2182@ism780c.UUCP>, marty@ism780c.UUCP writes: > In article <11610@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > >In article <215@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: > >>I have referred before to the fact that Israel has a long history of > >>terrorism. An example of such terrorism is referred to in Noam Chomsky's > >>book, "The Fateful Triangle," (South End Press, Boston, 1983), > > > >I heard that Israel once attacked a US Navy Intelligence ship, killing > >most of the crew. They were in the way and Israel didn't want them to > >watch what Israeli forces were doing. > >-- > The IDF did indeed attack the USS Liberty during the six day war. An > account of the attack is presented in ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY; I believe the > author's name is Ennis. He was on the bridge during the attack. > The book "Puzzle Palace", which is about the National Security Agency, gives a rather graphic account of what happened to the USS Liberty. According to the book the Liberty was attacked by Phantoms, gunboats, torpedoes, napalm, armor piercing shells, and helicopter gun ships. The Israel's apparently planed to destroy the ship, not disable it. According to the book it flew an American flag until the Israelies shot it down on the third pass. -- Kenneth Ng: uucp(unreliable) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet New Jersey Institute of Technology Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center Newark, New Jersey 07102
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (05/13/86)
In article <539@bu-cs.UUCP> dml@bu-cs.UUCP (David Matthew Lyle) writes: > >In article <1120@erix.UUCP> mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) writes: >| Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are >| financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher >| should bomb New York? >| >| Mike Williams > >No, it means she should get proof of violation of the law and take >the organizations/persons to court. (an option not available to the >US in Lybia) > > > >-- > >David Matthew Lyle dml@bu-cs.bu.edu >Boston University dml@buenga.BITNET >Distributed Systems Group ...harvard!bu-cs!dml Fat lot of good THAT will do! US courts consistently free IRA terrorists from extradition on the grounds that their murders were 'political'. -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
singer@spar.UUCP (David Singer) (05/13/86)
Recently Bishop Tutu spoke in Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, at the invitation of Bishop William Swing, Episcopal Bishop of California. He tells of how he invited 'all the religious people he could think of', and realizing, half an hour before the service, that he had invited both the heads of the local Jewish and Muslim religious communities. He waited in his office; the Rabbi arrived, and minutes later, the Muslim. There was a moment of silence; he rose slowly to his feet; they stepped toward each other, embraced, and said 'God is one'. After that, the Bishop says, Tutu was almost an anticlimax.
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (05/14/86)
> >> ... Ghaddafi ... > >>Kjadafi .... > >>Kadophi's .... > >> ... Qaddaphee ... > > ... Qaddaffi ... > > Muammar > > Isn't it Muohammar? His name has been twisted every which way, although I must admit that I sometimes debate which spelling to use (and Arabic is my native tongue!...) In formal Arabic the phonetic spelling is Al-Qath-Thaa-Fi [from the verb TO THROW] Bedouin spelling might be [depending on the region] El-Gad-Daa-Fi or El-Gath-Thaa-Fi or El-Jad-Daa-Fi Country folk might say El-Qath-Thaa-Fi or El-Qad-Daa-Fi City folk want to be dainty, so they say El-Ad-Daa-Fi. His first name, though, would always be Mu-'Am-Mar. By the way, Reagan's name is written in Arabic as Ree-Ghan or Ree-Jan or Ray-Ghan. But one thing I still cannot comprehend is why when I announce to a telephone operator (or sales clerk or receptionist,etc.) that my name is He-Jab H-I-J-A-B, I inevitably get the response "Sorry to keep you waiting (or whatever), Mr. Ha-Jeeb" !
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (05/14/86)
In article <2322@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > >* >In article <152@suneast.uucp> geoff@suneast.uucp (Geoff Arnold) writes: >>When I first perceived the strength of the popular support for Reagan's >>action (media reported, but probably correctly so), my first reaction >>was "How the hell can I stay here? I could never feel a part of >>such an amoral society?". (My disgust reached a peak when I read George >>Will in the Boston Globe, saying how he could hardly feel regret about >>bombs hitting the French Embassy.) > >Perhaps George was remembering how France and Italy had agreed, in the >70s, to let *known* terrorists come and go at will as long as they >did not carry out any of their missions on those countries' soil. Not unlike the US courts which have consistently refused extradition for known IRA terrorists so long as they do not bomb, murder and maim on US territory. >Seems to me that ***that*** is the height of irresponsibility, >cowardice, and selfishness. Sure does! > >I am not sure if the US's bombing of Libya will do any >good, however, I certainly find that action several >orders of magnitude less distasteful and much more honest than >that of France and Italy. With countries like those two it's no >wonder terrorism is doing such booming business. Make that 'countries like those three'... -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (05/14/86)
In article <766@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > >> Many of the weapons used by IRA terrorists come from the USA and are >> financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher >> should bomb New York? >> >> Mike Williams > >False analogy. The Libyan government provides assistance to the terrorists. >No part of our government assists or encourages the IRA -- quite the >opposite. > >Clayton E. Cramer Your government legislates, and under its legislation it protects IRA terrorists from extradition because it holds their acts of murder as 'political'. And you know damn well that it does so because of the Irish American vote. -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
philip@axis.UUCP (Philip Peake) (05/14/86)
In article <744@kontron> cramer%kontron@kontron.UUCP writes: > >The problem isn't that Kadaffi & Co. differ with us -- the problem is that >they are willing to kill innocent and uninvolved people. > >Clayton E. Cramer By dropping bombs on them from F111's ? Mr. Cramer is starting to cost us a small fortune in 'phone bills. I think that we all know which side of the fence you sit on. Freedom of speech is one thing, but it can be overdone you know!
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/15/86)
> In article <778@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a > > > >Labour Party government in England at this point can't > > > >be distinguished from a Communist government by any > > > >reasonable measure. > > > >... > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > > > > > Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that > > > very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no > > > matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they > > > confess themselves. > > > > Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- > > free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think > > Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? > > > > Clayton E. Cramer > > I've received a lot of criticism for my posting -- let me make it clear that the policies described above are a not a complete statement of the similiarities of the Labor Party and the Communists -- there are many more in the economic area, which I neglected to include. > So it is now considered communist to be a nuclear free zone, or to be > outwith NATO. > > Pretty soon the definition of acommunist country will be one which is not > the U.S.A. > > Phil Todd The idea that declaring yourself a "nuclear free zone" is going to make even ONE bit of difference whether war is fought on your soil is so incredibly naive as to be unbelievable. Since otherwise intelligent people claim to believe this nonsense, I am forced to conclude that they do so because they are attempting to create a popular support for pacifism. Totalitarians have always benefitted from pacifism -- that's why groups like CND exist. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/15/86)
> If the bombing has made the world a better, safer place to live, why are many > Americans so sh*t-scared of that hotbed of murder and terrorism - Europe - > that they're cancelling their holidays (sorry vacations) here? They're in > more danger on the streets of New York or Los Angeles from their fellow > freedom-loving, gun-toting citizens. > Expressing displeasure with the lack of courage demonstrated by the Europeans. > >> Does the fact that Reagan has said that any country > >> has the right to attack countries ( killing innocent > >> citizens as well as military ) who engage in terrorism > >> suggests that Nicuragua has the right to attack CIA Langley > >> in Virginia because they are aiding terrorists to attack > > > >Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas bombed the Capitol in > >Washington, and several other government buildings in the last > >several years. Maybe you didn't hear about it. > > >> targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a > >> democratically elected government ). How much longer > > > >Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" > >situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, > >and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament > >after he took over. > > This is nonsense. The elections in Nicaragua were free and fair, though > there may have been isolated incidents to contradict the overall picture. > The elections were open to all parties and the electorate had a secret ballot. Freedom of the press was turned on just before the election, and off just after the election. By their own admission, political use of food ration cards has been going on for a long while in Nicaragua. Sounds like a great way to encourage political opponents. > The Reagan-backed opposition declined to contest the election, no doubt so the > White House could attempt to give some credence to the opinion above. The fact > that these people (the remains of the old Somoza regime) would have had little > or no electoral success presumably had no bearing on their decision. > Because of the grossly unfair and violent tactics of the Sandinistas against opposition parties. The opposition is MOSTLY not old Somoza people -- lots of the opposition are former Sandinistas. > >> can the U.S.A. go on objecting to governments because > >> they are left-wing when they have supported right-wing > >> dictatorships for so long ( President Marcos is a good > >> example of someone who they kept in power ). If, as is > > > >Marcos was democratically elected as well. Double standard, anyone? > > Rubbish! Marcos was "democratically elected" by blatant systematic ballot > rigging and the murder or violent intimidation of political opponents. Wrong. The last election was thoroughly corrupt. Marcos originally took power in free and fair elections. You need to be better informed about the world -- maybe you would understand my position better. > >Anytime we travel to Europe, we are vunerable. There comes > >a point where killing those who are trying to kill you is > >the only solution. > > This defies common sense. Killing only begets killing. You kill me, my > brother kills you, your brother kills my brother...... There's nothing > better to nourish a sense of grievance as a martyr. [The IRA are quite > good at that...] > It defies common sense to think that ignoring brutal creeps will make them go away. > >When dealing with truly evil people (Soviet leadership), > >the threat of force is sometimes enough. When dealing with > >the truly crazy (Kadaffi, Hitler), nothing sort of destruction > >seems to work. > > Can't you appreciate that the Soviets are using a similar argument about > the evil United States to justify their hegemony? The main problem is to > prevent the circumstances that allow the crazies to assume power in the > first place. The superpowers fail to use their power and influence properly > so it's hardly surprising that in places like the Middle East - or in > post-WW1 Germany - there is considerable antagonism towards the states who > were responsible for creating the conditions for unrest in the first place. > Examples would be the British and French bringing about economic ruin in > Germany after WW1, the partitioning in Ireland by Britain, and the unqualified > backing by the US of Israel who in some respects are behaving like Nazi > Germany - invading neighbouring states, annexing territory and oppressing the > Palestinian arabs. > You seem to be arguing that there's no other difference. Shows how confused you really are. > Violence and destruction only causes violence and destruction in retaliation. > After a time, the participants forget what they're fighting about, except that > they're continuing to kill and be killed. > I guess we should have just ignored Adolph Hitler. (And the pacifists of his day said what you are saying above to protect him until war was too late to avoid.) > >Note: I'm not entirely happy about the action that was taken, > >and I'm willing to entertain arguments about better ways to > >have killed Kadaffi, and better ways to have discouraged > >Libya's support of terrorism. Arguments about its "immorality" > >are as valid as the Peace Movement of the 1930s. > > Nobody has the right to kill anybody, even evil people like Gaddafi. If you > say killing someone who is evil is morally OK, what's to stop someone deciding > you are evil and then killing you? I find your statement above offensive. How > would you feel if some Libyans started discussing on the net how to go about > killing your President? > Only if they promise to get our Congress as well. :-) > Your statement about the peace movement in the 30's is specious. The > "appeasers" of Hitler didn't bring about the war. War was inevitable when > he came to power. The allies of WW1 didn't care about Germany until it was > too late and the appeal of the myth of Nordic supremacy coupled to a convenient > scapegoat - the Jews - was too great for the downtrodden and desparate Germany > of the 20's and 30's. At least the US had the gumption not to make the same > mistake after WW2 when they instituted the Marshall Plan. > Hitler would have fallen if anyone had stood up to him in 1936 when he reoccupied the Ruhr. > Being "soft on terrorism" is not the cause of terrorism. It is our apathy and > lack of respect for the condition of other human beings that is the cause of > terrorism by bringing about social and political conditions which encourage > people to pick up guns and start killing. Like it or not, we are all to blame. > > > Jim Certainly true that there are legitimate problems and the U.S. policy of being a whore to Israel has a lot to do with it -- but targetting innocent non-combatants is ALWAYS wrong -- and killing them accidentally is something to be avoided -- when possible. Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ? Clayton E. Cramer
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (05/16/86)
In article <7584@kestrel> ladkin%kestrel@kestrel.UUCP writes: > >In article <122@paisley.ac.uk>, alastair@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Alastair McAvoy) writes: >> This could have been done by placing economic sanctions, >> which I am sure the whole of Europe would have agreed >> to if they had known the outcome of the bombing, > >Sanctions had been suggested by the U.S., quite forcefully >I believe, and had met with a distinct lack of interest in >Europe. Until now. One could draw cynical conclusions from >all this. > >Peter Ladkin Indeed, one could - including those about the knowledge of US oil companies being allowed to deal with Libya by the same Administration that ordered the bombing raid... -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (05/16/86)
In article <750@mmm> bngofor%mmm@mmm.UUCP writes: > > > ... the American retaliation was a mild version of a military >response to military (terrorist) aggression. In such cases where the >cowardly instigators (let's not forget who started all this) hide behind >women and children and other innocents, military retaliation will produce >civilian casualties. It is regrettable, but the only alternative is to >allow Gadaffi to continue his vile actions unpunished. > > --MKR > Absolute rubbish. Not one single country, and that included the US, applied a complete oil, banking, and other trade, embargo on Libya. Some countries applied no sanctions whatsoever. The whole affair is a shameful, stinking mess. -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (05/16/86)
In article <505@bu-cs> dml%bu-cs@bu-cs.UUCP writes: > > ... I'm quite sure that any federal judge would be more than >willing to shut them (NORAID) down, given necessary proof ... You may well be 'sure' but you are wrong. Try finding out why the US courts back NORAID whenever litigations take place, it might even be something to do with jurisdiction. I find this concern over legal niceties rather touching, especially when it comes with a defence of bombing Libya. -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (05/16/86)
> If Canada's socialists ever got into power (at the federal level) I > would expect quite a bit of economic damage to be done. However, I do > not for a minute think that rather than lose an election they'd > whip out the AK-47s that some would presume are neatly stashed under their > beds and commence shooting. > > J.B. Robinson > > PS In the interest of fostering a greater understanding of democratic > socialism by our neighbours to the South, I am hereby offering, > by the powers vested in me by no one in particular, to *give*, totally > free of charge, to the USA nine tenths of all of our socialists. > Since the US's population is about 9 to 10 times Canada's I would deem > the division to be fair. However, with only a modicum of persuasion > I'm sure I'd been willing to let go of all of them. :-) ---- Great! And in return we will send Canada 90% of our "Moral Majority" types. Including Ray Frank. Lets get moving on this now!-) -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
ptodd@tekchips.UUCP (Philip Todd) (05/16/86)
> > Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ? > > Clayton E. Cramer It is very revealing that CC seems to have made this a permanent part of his signature. The fact is, Clayton, that Europeans do read a far more diverse selection of news and opinion than is available here in the U.S. Your question should really be Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ Whitehouse propaganda? The answer to this is NO.
gelfand@valid.UUCP (Brooks Gelfand) (05/17/86)
> To those of you who think that Americans are being slaughtered wholesale > by international terrorists, an interesting statistic: out of 928 people > killed by international terrorist action in the year preceding the > bombing of Libya, 23 were American. > > This does not seem to me to justify any claim that the USA were "forced" > to take action, unless of course you value one American life at about 39 > other lives. > > Irene Orr > (..mcvax!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!irene) Twenty-three Americans killed by terrorists are twenty-three too many. One of the reasons that goverment exists to protect the lives of its citizens. Perhaps it is not that the United States values the lives of its citizens too highly, but that other countries do not value theirs highly enough. Brooks Gelfand
andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) (05/18/86)
In article <783@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >> If the bombing has made the world a better, safer place to live, why are many >> Americans so sh*t-scared of that hotbed of murder and terrorism - Europe - >> that they're cancelling their holidays (sorry vacations) here? They're in >> more danger on the streets of New York or Los Angeles from their fellow >> freedom-loving, gun-toting citizens. >> >Expressing displeasure with the lack of courage demonstrated by the >Europeans. > Strange I thought it was because they were scare to go to Europe because of the American action against Libya. Just a question is Britain also to be considered a nation with lack of courage ? >> >> Does the fact that Reagan has said that any country >> >> has the right to attack countries ( killing innocent >> >> citizens as well as military ) who engage in terrorism >> >> suggests that Nicuragua has the right to attack CIA Langley >> >> in Virginia because they are aiding terrorists to attack >> > >> >Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas bombed the Capitol in >> >Washington, and several other government buildings in the last >> >several years. Maybe you didn't hear about it. >> >> >> targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a >> >> democratically elected government ). How much longer >> > >> >Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" >> >situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, >> >and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament >> >after he took over. >> >> This is nonsense. The elections in Nicaragua were free and fair, though >> there may have been isolated incidents to contradict the overall picture. >> The elections were open to all parties and the electorate had a secret ballot. > >Freedom of the press was turned on just before the election, and off just >after the election. By their own admission, political use of food ration >cards has been going on for a long while in Nicaragua. Sounds like a >great way to encourage political opponents. > I haven't heard that before, do this mean our press is ineffective > >> Violence and destruction only causes violence and destruction in retaliation. >> After a time, the participants forget what they're fighting about, except that >> they're continuing to kill and be killed. >> > >I guess we should have just ignored Adolph Hitler. (And the pacifists >of his day said what you are saying above to protect him until war was >too late to avoid.) Agreed >> >Note: I'm not entirely happy about the action that was taken, >> >and I'm willing to entertain arguments about better ways to >> >have killed Kadaffi, and better ways to have discouraged >> >Libya's support of terrorism. Arguments about its "immorality" >> >are as valid as the Peace Movement of the 1930s. >> >> Nobody has the right to kill anybody, even evil people like Gaddafi. If you >> say killing someone who is evil is morally OK, what's to stop someone deciding >> you are evil and then killing you? I find your statement above offensive. How >> would you feel if some Libyans started discussing on the net how to go about >> killing your President? >> > >Only if they promise to get our Congress as well. :-) > I still think voting against them at elections is a better way of getting rid of them, but each to his own I suppose. >> Your statement about the peace movement in the 30's is specious. The >> "appeasers" of Hitler didn't bring about the war. War was inevitable when >> he came to power. The allies of WW1 didn't care about Germany until it was >> too late and the appeal of the myth of Nordic supremacy coupled to a convenient >> scapegoat - the Jews - was too great for the downtrodden and desparate Germany >> of the 20's and 30's. At least the US had the gumption not to make the same >> mistake after WW2 when they instituted the Marshall Plan. >> > >Hitler would have fallen if anyone had stood up to him in 1936 when he >reoccupied the Ruhr. > Spectulation nobody knows what would have happen !!!! >> Being "soft on terrorism" is not the cause of terrorism. It is our apathy and >> lack of respect for the condition of other human beings that is the cause of >> terrorism by bringing about social and political conditions which encourage >> people to pick up guns and start killing. Like it or not, we are all to blame. >> >> >> Jim > >Certainly true that there are legitimate problems and the U.S. policy of >being a whore to Israel has a lot to do with it -- but targetting innocent >non-combatants is ALWAYS wrong -- and killing them accidentally is something >to be avoided -- when possible. > >Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ? > >Clayton E. Cramer When you say does "Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ" do you mean read as in reading your postings or as in read history ? In either case the answer is yes I do read . One last point, if you are a typical american, I think it explains the problem in communications we appear to be having between our two peoples at the moment Are Americans paranoid ? Andrew Fleming
craig@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Craig Wylie) (05/19/86)
In article <782@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > lots and lots of stuff about Communism and Socialism and UK Labour Party ... >The idea that declaring yourself a "nuclear free zone" is going to make >even ONE bit of difference whether war is fought on your soil is so >incredibly naive as to be unbelievable. Since otherwise intelligent >people claim to believe this nonsense, I am forced to conclude that >they do so because they are attempting to create a popular support for >pacifism. > >Clayton E. Cramer Ok, firstly have you never in your life taken a symbolic stand over something ? Declaring a Nuclear free zone dosen't mean that you don't expect people to fire them at you. Nobody would be so stupid as to say ' Under statute blah, para blah blah .... It is now illegal to nuke ...... (insert your favourite nuclear free zone here)' The point is that the people who declare nuclear free zones are saying that they do not agree with the concept of nuclear war and that they will do as much as they can to try to avoid allowing nuclear associated actions within their area of influence. This can make it difficult for those groups servicing the nuclear industry, or the military, to function. > .... Totalitarians have always benefitted from pacifism -- that's >why groups like CND exist. Are you suggesting from this that CND (and others) are simply a front for a totalitarian group of some form? You may say that they are unaware of their manipulation and that they are doing it for honest and good reasons, but they are being duped. Poor silly people, imagine being so easy to manipulate. If you were paranoid like the rest of us sane people then you would know that the only way to be safe is to kill everybody who doesn't agree with you, it's obvious really. Craig. -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig| Post: University of Lancaster, DARPA: craig%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Department of Computing, JANET: craig@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4146 | LA1 4YR Project: Cosmos Distributed Operating Systems Research Group
mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/19/86)
In article <783@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >> If the bombing has made the world a better, safer place to live, why are many >> Americans so sh*t-scared of that hotbed of murder and terrorism - Europe - >> that they're cancelling their holidays (sorry vacations) here? They're in >> more danger on the streets of New York or Los Angeles from their fellow >> freedom-loving, gun-toting citizens. >> >Expressing displeasure with the lack of courage demonstrated by the >Europeans. They're also expressing the impression that the European countries cannot provide adequate security. It is not cowardice that keeps people from walking into situations where they might be murdered without cause or warning - it's intelligence. --MKR
cramer@kontron.UUCP (05/19/86)
> In article <778@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> I agreed with everything said in the article except this: > >> > >> > > >> >Not likely (because of their ties to Kaddaffi), but a > >> >Labour Party government in England at this point can't > >> >be distinguished from a Communist government by any > >> >reasonable measure. > >> > >> Don't be stupid. I voted Conservative, but I would have to admit that > >> very few members of the Labour Party can be described as Communists, no > >> matter how misguided their policies. They are 'Socialist', that much they > >> confess themselves. > > > >Didn't the last Labour Party platform include declaring Britain a nuclear- > >free zone? Removal of US bases from Britain? How long do you think > >Britain would remain in NATO if the Labour Party won the next election? > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > Unless I am mistaken the Labour Party espouses *democratic* socialism. > I.e. they have no intention of suspending the democratic process that > would eventually lead to their downfall (as eventually happens with *all* > governments in *all* democracies) should they gain power. In this respect > one could not by any stretch of the imagination place them in the > same league as the communists who not only do not believe in the > democratic process, as best exemplified by elections, but also are willing > to commit even the vilest of acts in order to retain the power > that they have so ruthlessly achieved. > I'm not persuaded that the difference between "democratic socialism" and Marxist-Leninist socialism is as dramatic as you believe it to be. For starters, Communists *have* participated in free elections before, and have even won one (sort of) in Chile. Conversely, my experiences dealing with "democratic socialists" here in California leads to me believe that their support of free speech is purely pragmatic. Consider the efforts of the various feminist groups in the U.S. to restrict pornography -- and I understand that a Labour M.P. recently attempted to get Parliament to restrict papers like the _Sun_ because of their childish fascination with bare breasts. > PS In the interest of fostering a greater understanding of democratic > socialism by our neighbours to the South, I am hereby offering, > by the powers vested in me by no one in particular, to *give*, totally > free of charge, to the USA nine tenths of all of our socialists. > Since the US's population is about 9 to 10 times Canada's I would deem > the division to be fair. However, with only a modicum of persuasion > I'm sure I'd been willing to let go of all of them. :-) OK, OK, we'll stop acid rain! There's no need for threats! Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (05/19/86)
> > > > Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ? > > > > Clayton E. Cramer > > It is very revealing that CC seems to have made this a permanent part of > his signature. > > The fact is, Clayton, that Europeans do read a far more diverse selection > of news and opinion than is available here in the U.S. > My original comment was based on the lack of knowledge about the elections in Nicaragua. And my information about those elections doesn't come from the White House -- it comes from the newspapers. Clayton E. Cramer
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (05/20/86)
In article <782@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > >... Totalitarians have always benefitted from pacifism -- that's >why groups like CND exist. > >Clayton E. Cramer And war-mongerers have always benefitted from psychotic paranoia -- that's why people like CEC exist. -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
ray@rochester.UUCP (05/20/86)
> > The fact is, Clayton, that Europeans do read a far more diverse selection > > of news and opinion than is available here in the U.S. > > Where did you read this, the NY Times? National Enquirer? Well, you can't believe everything you read, and that holds true for European readers to. In fact, you can't believe what you're reading right now, unless you want to. ray
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (05/22/86)
In article <794@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > ............... my experiences dealing >with "democratic socialists" here in California leads to me believe that >their support of free speech is purely pragmatic. Consider the efforts >of the various feminist groups in the U.S. to restrict pornography -- and >I understand that a Labour M.P. recently attempted to get Parliament >to restrict papers like the _Sun_ because of their childish fascination >with bare breasts. The so-called restriction on a "newspaper" like the Sun was to stop the pathetic bare breasted Page-3 pinups. Perhaps if Mr Cramer read the Sun - maybe that's where he gets his political analyses from - he would see how obnoxious any decent human being would find these pictures. I can't see how banning them could be considered an example of nasty socialist censorship. The Sun would still be free to continue with its rather offensive, jingoistic, right-wing stand. [The worst example was a 900-point headline "Gotcha!" above a picture of the sinking Argentinian cruiser during the Falklands war.] In any event, the bill was talked out of time in Parlaiment and has been dropped. Jim
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (05/23/86)
In article <279@valid.UUCP> gelfand@valid.UUCP writes: >Twenty-three Americans killed by terrorists are twenty-three too many. >One of the reasons that goverment exists to protect the lives of its citizens. >Perhaps it is not that the United States values the lives of its >citizens too highly, but that other countries do not value theirs >highly enough. > Now this I don't understand. If this was true, steps would have been taken to restrict the use/sale of hand guns in the USA years ago. Perhaps the lives of the sort of people (ie the rich) who are liable to be killed by terrorists outside the USA are regarded as more valuable than the lives of those (ie the poor) who live in the USA and are liable to be killed by hand guns? Anyway, one should have the same regard for life regardless of nationality. Mike Williams
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/23/86)
> >> >> targets within Nicuragua ( which, by the way, has a > >> >> democratically elected government ). How much longer > >> > > >> >Time to read. The elections were held in a "stacked deck" > >> >situtation, much like Mussolini allowed elections be held, > >> >and opposition members to be seated in the Italian Parliament > >> >after he took over. > >> > >> This is nonsense. The elections in Nicaragua were free and fair, though > >> there may have been isolated incidents to contradict the overall picture. > >> The elections were open to all parties and the electorate had a secret ballot. > > > >Freedom of the press was turned on just before the election, and off just > >after the election. By their own admission, political use of food ration > >cards has been going on for a long while in Nicaragua. Sounds like a > >great way to encourage political opponents. > > > I haven't heard that before, do this mean our press is ineffective > Probably. It seems from some of the postings that British press are giving an EXTREMELY incomplete description of what's going on in Nicaragua. > >> Your statement about the peace movement in the 30's is specious. The > >> "appeasers" of Hitler didn't bring about the war. War was inevitable when > >> he came to power. The allies of WW1 didn't care about Germany until it was > >> too late and the appeal of the myth of Nordic supremacy coupled to a convenient > >> scapegoat - the Jews - was too great for the downtrodden and desparate Germany > >> of the 20's and 30's. At least the US had the gumption not to make the same > >> mistake after WW2 when they instituted the Marshall Plan. > >> > > > >Hitler would have fallen if anyone had stood up to him in 1936 when he > >reoccupied the Ruhr. > > > Spectulation nobody knows what would have happen !!!! Actually, this claim was made by a member of the German General Staff after the war. He claimed that Germany was not prepared for war in 1936, and the decision to remilitarize the Ruhr was opposed by the General Staff for this very reason. > >Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ? > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > When you say does "Doesn't anyone in Europe ever READ" do you mean > read as in reading your postings or as in read history ? > > In either case the answer is yes I do read . > "Read history" is what I meant. Jim's postings in particular indicate utter ignorance of the 1930s. (Something I find quite common among college-educated Europeans -- much more common than among average Americans here. Perhaps the 1930s are too painful of a time, especially if you are a pacifist.) > One last point, if you are a typical american, I think it explains > the problem in communications we appear to be having between our > two peoples at the moment > > > > Are Americans paranoid ? > Andrew Fleming Paranoid? Americans have been targeted by various terrorist groups for the last few years for actions taken by our government (which we do not control, except in a very narrow sense). Groups sympathetic to the Sandinistas set off bombs in public buildings in Washington, D.C. Our supposed allies DO NOTHING about terrorism being committed in European cities that kill vast numbers of their citizens, and then get angry at us for retaliating against the source of that terrorism. There are huge fleets of Soviet ICBMs aimed at the United States, and Europe (who we are pledged to protect from the Soviet Union) claims there's no danger from the Soviets, but they are still worried about a war between the Soviet Union and the USA. (And if they aren't worried about a war between us, why the concern about the nuclear weapons in Europe.) Paranoid? Our fears sound pretty rational to me. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/23/86)
> In article <782@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > > > lots and lots of stuff about Communism and Socialism and UK Labour Party ... > > >The idea that declaring yourself a "nuclear free zone" is going to make > >even ONE bit of difference whether war is fought on your soil is so > >incredibly naive as to be unbelievable. Since otherwise intelligent > >people claim to believe this nonsense, I am forced to conclude that > >they do so because they are attempting to create a popular support for > >pacifism. > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > Ok, firstly have you never in your life taken a symbolic stand over > something ? Declaring a Nuclear free zone dosen't mean that you don't > expect people to fire them at you. Nobody would be so stupid as > to say > > ' Under statute blah, para blah blah .... > It is now illegal to nuke ...... (insert your favourite > nuclear free zone here)' > That's how the laws are written here. A number of cities that have declared themselves nuclear-free zones have made it a misdemeanor to set off a nuclear weapon within the city limits. Who's kidding whom? Symbolic stands are worthless. You can take all the symbolic stands against nuclear weapons you want. Unless you attack the underlying causes, it does NOTHING. > The point is that the people who declare nuclear free zones are saying > that they do not agree with the concept of nuclear war and that they will > do as much as they can to try to avoid allowing nuclear associated > actions within their area of influence. This can make it difficult for > those groups servicing the nuclear industry, or the military, to function. > And of course, if you make nuclear weapons go away, so will war? No. Japan was "nuclear-free zone" when the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you really think the Soviet Union would let the presence or absence of nuclear weapons affect strategic decisions? > > > .... Totalitarians have always benefitted from pacifism -- that's > >why groups like CND exist. > > Are you suggesting from this that CND (and others) are simply a front > for a totalitarian group of some form? You may say that they are unaware > of their manipulation and that they are doing it for honest and > good reasons, but they are being duped. Poor silly people, imagine > being so easy to manipulate. If you were paranoid like the rest of us > sane people then you would know that the only way to be safe is to kill > everybody who doesn't agree with you, it's obvious really. > > > Craig. I suggest that you take a look into the history of pacifist organizations in Europe and America. We had a group here called America First who were isolationists, not really pacifists, but they had roughly the same effect. After the war, it turned out that the Nazis funded the organization (without America First or its people knowing it) and manipulated it into doing what the Nazis wanted. I suspect that you should look into what happened to all the Britons and Americans who so nobly took the Oxford Pledge in the 1930s. When con- fronted with the evil of Naziism, reality took precedence. Clayton E. Cramer
hijab@cad.BERKELEY.EDU (Raif Hijab) (05/24/86)
In article <56@btnix.UUCP>, worth@btnix.UUCP writes: > > > > The book "Puzzle Palace", which is about the National Security Agency, > > gives a rather graphic account of what happened to the USS Liberty. > > According to the book the Liberty was attacked by Phantoms, gunboats, > > torpedoes, napalm, armor piercing shells, and helicopter gun ships. > > The Israel's apparently planed to destroy the ship, not disable it. > > According to the book it flew an American flag until the Israelies shot > > it down on the third pass. > > The sources I have read disagree on this account in some areas. The attack > was stated to have been performed first by 2 waves of aircraft, definitely > not phantoms (Mirages in one wave I believe) and no indication of > the use of Napalm was mentioned. From "Assault on the Liberty" by James M. Ennes Jr., "Soon the high-performance Mirage fighter-bombers that initiated the attack were joined by smaller swept-wing Dassault-Mystere jets, carrying dreaded napalm-jellied gasoline. The Mysteres, slower and more maneuverable than the Mirages, directed rockets and napalm against the bridge and the few remaining topside targets.... the Mystere pilots launched rockets from a distance, then dropped huge silvery metallic napalm canisters as they passed overhead. The jellied slop burst into furious flame on impact, coating everything, then surged through the fresh rocket holes to burn frantically among the men inside." The reference to Phantoms probably referred to *US* jets on the Sixth Fleet ship, America, which were ordered into the air to defend the Liberty, then immediately recalled, "Two nuclear-armed F-4 Phantom jets left America's catapults and headed almost straight up, afterburners roaring. Then two more became airborne..."Help is on the way!".. This short message was received by a Liberty radioman and quickly passed to nearly everyman aboard....(but) Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara (ordered):"Tell Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft back immediately".... Having recalled the ready aircraft that might have defended the ship, the administration in Washington eventually granted permission to send conventionally armed aircraft. But, incredibly, nearly every aicraft was disabled, was restricted to a nuclear mission, was reserved for some other mission (prottection of the forced, air-to-ground strikes, anti-submarine warfare, reconnaisance) or was otherwise grounded." > A third attack by gun/torpedo boats was also made and the main damage > was caused by a torpedo. The Pentagon release at the time counted six strafing runs by Israeli jets and a subsequent attack by three Israeli torpedo boats. One torpedo had killed twenty five men. The total casualty figure was 34 killed and 171 wounded. The attack caused 821 rocket and machine-gun holes in the ship. > According to the sources I have read an Israeli helicopter then > arrived and offered assistance. The reply of Liberty's captain was > unsurprisingly no. According to Ennes, "As the torpedo boats faded into the distance, helicopters could be seen approaching the ship....two large Israeli Hornet assault helicopters, each heavily loaded with armed men in battle dress. A sailor broke away from his station and ran screaming through the ship. "They've come to finish us off," he yelled. But the helicopters did not attempt to land and made no effort to communicate." (Later,) a flight of Israeli jets passed over the ship at low level ....(and) the three torpedo boats arrived with signal lamps flashing....(Earlier the center boat) opened fire on the empty life rafts (which the Liberty men had lowered into the water)....The Tahamas commander came closer in to use a bullhorn...."Do you need any help?".... Enraged, McGonagle specified to his quartermaster the particular profanity that he thought most appropriate for reply. ...that short message... was obediently relayed to the Tahamas. The torpedo boats withdrew in silence. > The Liberty was scrapped following this incident. > Nick Worth UK
jte@gondor.UUCP (Jon T. Eckhardt) (05/24/86)
In article ??? dpb@cbosgd.UUCP (Dain II Ironfoot) writes >> Oh, wonderful. Captain Boyter fantasizes about dropping atomic weapons on >> Libya. If that should happen, I guess he'll be dancing in the street when >> his flesh is burned off his bones by the Soviet Union's counter-strike. >> -- > Do you really think that the Russians are willing to kill themselves > over Libya????? Maybe East Germany, or Hungary but not Libya. A Russian Embasy person was killed by terrorists (Don't know if it was backed by Libya) after the incident they said that terrorism had gone to far. I don't think that they would put to much to risk over Libya. I think that they might want to put a different government in though, one that the Soviets had more control over. --Jon Eckhardt Pennslyvania State University psuvax1!gondor!jte All complaints will be forwarded to the management
worth@btnix.UUCP (Nick Worth) (05/26/86)
> > The book "Puzzle Palace", which is about the National Security Agency, > gives a rather graphic account of what happened to the USS Liberty. > According to the book the Liberty was attacked by Phantoms, gunboats, > torpedoes, napalm, armor piercing shells, and helicopter gun ships. > The Israel's apparently planed to destroy the ship, not disable it. > According to the book it flew an American flag until the Israelies shot > it down on the third pass. The sources I have read disagree on this account in some areas. The attack was stated to have been performed first by 2 waves of aircraft, definitely not phantoms (Mirages in one wave I believe) and no indication of the use of Napalm was mentioned. A third attack by gun/torpedo boats was also made and the main damage was caused by a torpedo. According to the sources I have read an Israeli helicopter then arrived and offered assistance. The reply of Liberty's captain was unsurprisingly no. The Liberty was scrapped following this incident. Nick Worth UK