Air raid on Libya
p...@prometheus.uucp
(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.
Cpt Brian Boyter
> >After watching the TV pictures of the american air raid against Libya
In article <7...@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???
_______________________________________________________
ra...@qtecmuc.uucp
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)
Yakim Martillo
>In article <1...@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 <7...@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
rob...@megaron.uucp
> 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
hom...@ark.uucp
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
hom...@vu44.UUCP (...!{decvax,seismo,philabs}!mcvax!vu44!hommel)
Jeff Lichtman
> In article <1...@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 <7...@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 Lichtman
> 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.
>
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.
Donald Eastlake
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!dee
Tex
>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.
>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.
Blanton
> 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.
>
>
> University of Dortmund [UniDo]
> West Germany
>
> Uucp: a...@unido.uucp
> Path: {USA}!seismo!{mcvax}!unido!ab
> {Europe}!{cernvax,diku,enea,ircam,mcvax,prlb2,tuvie,ukc}!unido!ab
> Bitnet: a...@unido.bitnet (== a...@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
Timothy D Margeson
>
> 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
>
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
Ron Morgan
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
Jeff Myers
> > >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.
>
> 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
Yakim Martillo
>> 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.
Ethan Vishniac
> In article <6...@utastro.UUCP>, et...@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
et...@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Marty Smith
>/* 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.
>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.
>
>
> Andreas Bormann
> University of Dortmund [UniDo]
> West Germany
>
>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
Dain II Ironfoot
> >
> >
> > In article <7...@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?
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???
> >
>
> 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.
> --
over Libya????? Maybe East Germany, or Hungary but not Libya.
Mark D. Freeman
In <1...@unido.UUCP> a...@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 m...@osu-eddie.uucp
StrongPoint Systems, Inc. m...@osu-eddie.arpa
Guest account at The Ohio State University ...!cbosgd!osu-eddie!mdf
m...@Ohio-State.EDU
"Are you in charge here?" "No, but I'm full of ideas!" -- Dr. Who
< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
ber...@psuvax1.uucp
> > >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.
>
> 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.
>
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
rowley
>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
_______________________________________________________________________________
cra...@kontron.uucp
> > In article <1...@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 <7...@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.
cra...@kontron.uucp
> > 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 Templeton
>
>Well, I doubt that you will find people in America who share your
>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
Hans P. Zappe
> >In article <1...@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.
>
> 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.
Matthew P. Wiener
>> 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
Paul M Koloc
>
>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.
Matthew P. Wiener
>I am pretty disgusted with the TV coverage of the aftermath of the raid
>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 ...
I think all the media is interested in is making money. If it's more
fascinating to the public to show ranting and raving Libyans, as opposed
to a boring interview with G Schultz, then that's what's going to get
shown on TV. As it is, most of the footage angers most Americans, and
does not convince them that Reagan is a loonie.
If you were correct, the media will carefully avoid showing any more
results of terrorist attacks on Americans.
suh...@kodak.uucp
> the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really
> ^^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like one hell of a democracy we are promoting for those non-people.
Brian Suhina ...!rochester!kodak!suhina
Douglas Fowley
>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...
Kim Fabricius Storm
>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
and...@stc.uucp
| 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 <32...@ut-ngp.UUCP> osm...@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.
|
| 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. <and...@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
hom...@ark.uucp
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)
hom...@vu44.UUCP (...!mcvax!vu44!hommel)
d...@datlog.uucp
>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.
Raif Hijab
> 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.
Paul M Koloc
>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
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.
Ian Crorie
>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: i...@uk.ac.hw.cs
Heriot-Watt University ARPA: i...@cs.hw.ac.uk
Dept of C.S. UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!idc
-------------
tos%...@psc70.uucp
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.uucp
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.
idc@brahma
cdri...@uokvax.uucp
/* Written 1:32 am Apr 21, 1986 by je...@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.
g-rh...@cca.uucp
>
>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.uucp
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.
Geoff Arnold
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!geoff
Geoff Arnold
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.
cdrigney@uokvax
Paul M Koloc
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; p...@prometheus.UUCP | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
Yakim Martillo
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.
Mike Williams
financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher
should bomb New York?
Mike Williams
fr...@hpfclp.uucp
/***** hpfclp:net.general / fritz / 9:36 am Apr 23, 1986*/
>> I hope that on the net and in America are some people who share my views.
> Well, I doubt that you will find people in America who share your
> views, because the brainwashing there is getting rather complete.
Unfortunately, it is true that the majority of Americans seem to support
Reagan in this action. One only has to watch the local stations with their
"man on the street" polls to see that. However, don't assume that every
person in the US has been "brainwashed" into the Rambo mindset.
I have yet to talk to a single person who thought the attack was a good
idea. Granted, most of the people I talked to were well-educated and
may have understood the ramifications better than the average citizen.
These are also mostly people who think Reagan is a bonzo movie cowboy
with absolutely no idea of what he is doing to our country and the world.
Reagan's agressive tactics (in Libya, in Grenada, with the Soviets, you
name it) AND his irresponsible fiscal policies scare the bejeebers out of
many of us!
And don't assume that the "American propaganda" is all tilted towards
Reagan. As little as I watch TV, I still saw several shows (e.g. Nightline)
that asked some very hard-hitting questions as to why in blazes we did such
a crazy thing, what the rest of the world thinks of us, how it will affect
our standing in the world community, how it will affect the safety of
Americans AND others, etc.
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).
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.
I don't want the US to be perceived as some kind of international bully
(at least, any more than it already is, *sigh*). I don't want the people
of the world to think of America the way intelligent Americans (as opposed
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.)
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.
Gary Fritz
Ft Collins, CO
{ihnp4,hplabs}!hpfcla!fritz
The above are my own opinions, and in no way represent the views of
my employer or anybody else who might object.
Anders Andersson
>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: and...@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)
Anders Andersson
>Isn't it up to the Nicaraguan's what government they have. Any response to thi
>net.politics concerning the Ortega regime's 67% support in Nicaragua, perhaps
>howver that is not democratic enough :-) (slightly forced smile here).
Neither can I see how this support for Ortega will change into demands for
any *real* democracy (i.e. what's missing today), as long as the country is
under constant threat from contras.
The US government seems to be very glad to spend money on establishing
democracy in Nicaragua. Why not turn around when there is time left? Put
those millions of dollars in health care and educational programs *in*
Sandinista-land instead, and soon there won't be any need for communism.
As things are now, Ortega is simply forced to rely on Soviet assistance.
Exactly what did Isaac Newton say about putting pressure on a stone?
Joseph S. D. Yao
>this list is the only place where real international political
>discussion can take place.
quel dommage -- what a pity. can't you all create a mod.politics
for "correct" political discussion ("correct" in all those repressive
countries where some opinions must be repressed) and leave this
newsgroup alone?
Note that I'm not totally uninvolved in politics -- I just think
net.general and net.followup are among the totally wrong places
for it.
By the way, Mr. Buck, thank you for pointing out to all the flamers
on the net that Mr. Crone's US-centric position on Nicaragua is not
the only one, nor is it T H E US position, as all responders seem
to have assumed. I'm not sure that your reverse figures are accurate
either -- but free speech and free will give us the opportunity to
err, eh?
--
Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
Clayton Cramer
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
Ian W Moor
>for 15 years now, at an escalating rate. He furnishes arms to the Sandanistas.
>He backs the IRA.
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.
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.
Dain II Ironfoot
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?
cramer@kontron
> >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
cramer@kontron
> 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
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
|
| 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 d...@bu-cs.CSNET (d...@bucsa.bu.edu)
Boston University d...@buenga.BITNET
Distributed Systems Group ...harvard!bu-cs!dml
iwm@ivax
>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 ?
>the American mainland. The opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, etc., is really
>immaterial.
pete@valid
> 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)
Frank Adams
>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
> 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.
Scott R. Anderson
In article <7...@kontron.UUCP> cra...@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> 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).
>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.
Once upon a time Chicago's elections would have made Nicaragua's look
squeaky-clean. And the rest of the US has had its share of questionable
elections.
Nicaragua may not be perfect, but then we aren't either. We've had
two hundred years of practice, and absentee ballots can still appear
out of thin air :-).
As they say in Chicago, vote early and often!
--
*
* *
* * * * Scott Anderson
* * ** ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra
* * * * * * * *
* * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
gr...@harvard.uucp
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
cramer@kontron
> 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."
lad...@kestrel.uucp
> 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
ba...@parcvax.uucp
"All Things considered" (or was it "Morning Edition) I heard that
suddenly translators were being corrected: "Oh, no, we didn't mean
'liquidate American influence', liquidate means kill; we meant
'remove'." The news story said that apparently khadaffi's coalition
(and I thought he ruled by himself!) was trying to tone him down.
On the other hand, days after I heard that, I heard that terrorism was
being increased, perhaps testing Reagan to see if he will follow
through on his commitment to militarily oppose terrorism.
Whether or not it was the right thing to do, one thing is certain: the
raid will be worse than useless if not followed up. We've already
shown our willingness to use military force against terrorism (or,
we've already lowered ourselves to the terrorists level); to change
our tactics now would say, "well, we didn't REALLY mean it", which
prompts sneers from the terrorists, and won't convince anyone who
thought the bombing raid was a horrible thing.
- rene
--
Rene P S (nee Steiner) Bane
bane@parcvax
Piotr Berman
> >>
> >> 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
> d...@bu-cs.CSNET
> d...@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
Mike Woods
>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
I hope the Russians don't decide to do the same thing in Europe!
Mike.
--
UK JANET: mi...@uk.ac.rl.vd
UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!mike
Jim Robinson
In article <1...@suneast.uucp> ge...@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
Yakim Martillo
>> In article <20...@psuvax1.UUCP> ber...@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
>> d...@bu-cs.CSNET
>> d...@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.
D.A.Goodman
>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
D.A.Goodman
>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.
Greg
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
Philip Todd
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
Jeff Winslow
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.
Raif Hijab
>
> 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.)
> 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.)
Frank Adams
>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
>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.
Raif Hijab
>
> 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.
Neil Calton
>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: n...@uk.ac.rl.vd
USS Great Britain or N.B.M....@uk.ac.rl
Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5740
"Wearing badges is not enough, in days like these."
Neil Calton
>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.
u...@unido.uucp
Martillo Ajami) writes:
|In article <21...@psuvax1.UUCP> ber...@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes:
|>> In article <20...@psuvax1.UUCP> ber...@psuvax1.UUCP writes:
|
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: u...@unido.uucp, u...@unido.bitnet
Clayton Cramer
> 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
Clayton Cramer
> 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
Clayton Cramer
> >Isn't it up to the Nicaraguan's what government they have. Any response to thi
> >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).
>
> any *real* democracy (i.e. what's missing today), as long as the country is
> under constant threat from contras.
>
> The US government seems to be very glad to spend money on establishing
> democracy in Nicaragua. Why not turn around when there is time left? Put
> those millions of dollars in health care and educational programs *in*
> Sandinista-land instead, and soon there won't be any need for communism.
> As things are now, Ortega is simply forced to rely on Soviet assistance.
>
You seem to have the sequence backward. The US government WAS very
helpful to the Sandinistas immediately after they took power -- it was
because of the totalitarian tendencies of the Sandinistas that our
government stopped helping them, and started helping the contras.
> Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden
Doesn't anyone in Europe READ?
Clayton E. Cramer
Will Martin
>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? :-)
Bob Gottlieb
> 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!"
Jim Robinson
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
Gene Ward Smith
>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 Ngai
>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!ph...@decwrl.dec.com
Clayton Cramer
> >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
br...@sequent.uucp
>financed by money collected in the USA. Does this mean that Thatcher
>should bomb New York?
They probably wouldn't notice, anyway.
ma...@ism780c.uucp
>In article <2...@cad.UUCP> hi...@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.
>--
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
Svante Lindahl
>
>In article <32...@ut-ngp.UUCP> osm...@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).
Raif Hijab
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.
Andrew Fleming
Yes I can read , write and form my own views on what America
does in the name of its so-called freedom
Andy