Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Schultz on International Terrorism
Message-ID: <2760@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 23:03:57 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2760
Posted: Thu Nov  1 23:03:57 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 21:10:28 EST
References: <508@tty3b.UUCP> <117@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 21

> I found Schultz's announcement of a US policy to fight terrorism with
> terrorism (never mind the cost to innocent civilians caught in the crossfire)
> horrifying.  What does he think that we are defending that is valuable enough
> to justify our sinking to the level of the worst of our enemies?

I think you are exaggerating the sorts of things that would constitute
"an agressive defense against terrorism". Groups like Islamic Jihad, which
are hard to identify and strike against, are the main problem, but in this
case a few things are pretty clear - the group is supported by Iran and/or
Libya, and any retaliations or threats made against these countries would
probably have the desired effect of discouraging their sponsoring of 
groups like this. A reasonable reaction to the first bombing would have been
a threat of retaliation against Iran if such acts continued, and a
demand that all military forces leave Lebanon at once (including Israel).
Now, we probably never should have been in Lebanon in the first place,
but the point is that once we are there, we should make sure that we
are not made into a punching bag for every two-bit Islamic terrorist who
has a gripe against the Lebanese government. As the saying goes, "Once
you're up the creek without a paddle, you'd better learn to swim."

	Wayne