Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!yale!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Terrorism Inc.
Message-ID: <7800583@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Oct-85 21:37:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800583
Posted: Sat Oct 19 21:37:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 07:10:23 EDT
References: <449@mhuxm.UUCP>
Lines: 33
Nf-ID: #R:mhuxm:-44900:inmet:7800583:000:1451
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Oct 19 21:37:00 1985


> /* Written 10:46 am  Oct 18, 1985 by ray@rochester in inmet:net.politics */
> > 
> > Another fine example of French friendliness to the U.S.
> > and Israel.  You eliminate Egypt, Italy, et al as the
> > refueler and you absolutely positively know Israel's
> > equipment quantities and presto...Uncle Sam did it !
> > 
> > I think that is called inference, deduction, or circumstantial
> > evidence but not just plain evidence.
> > 
> > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
> 
> I fully agree with you.  Your supposed to be considered innocent till proven
> guilty.  The US cannot be implicated in the raid on Tunis without due process
> of law.  And considering the 'ify' evidence, I think the US has nothing to 
> worry about.

I *partially* agree with both of you. I am reasonably sure USA *didn't*
do it, because the consequences of disclosure would be very
grave for US interests, the probability of it very large (everything
leaks), and the benefits non-existent.

However, I do not agree that personal, or  editorial,  judgements
on  public  issues are subject to the same rules as a criminal
trial. One judges by the preponderance of evidence. Le  Monde  is
entitled  to  its  opinion,  and  I  to mine that (in view of the
above) Le Monde's opinion must be politically motivated.  As  for
technical conclusions about refueling possibilities, experts should
discuss that. But the Israelis did many surprising tricks in  the
past.

		Jan Wasilewsky