Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decwrl.DEC.COM Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-bach!mahoney From: mahoney@bach.DEC Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Abu Nidal and Libya -- barking up the wrong tree Message-ID: <524@decwrl.DEC.COM> Date: Fri, 17-Jan-86 18:42:14 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.524 Posted: Fri Jan 17 18:42:14 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Jan-86 01:43:41 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 152 ---------------------Reply to mail dated 15-JAN-1986 19:09--------------------- >Posted by: decwrl!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!oaf >Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA >Keywords: Coward, liar, genocide, scapegoat, idiot, Chomsky >Summary: Eduardo Krell wins > > > The brave commandoes who heroically attacked filthy Israeli spies >(and their American running-dog lackeys) in Roma and Wien airports did >NOT owe allegiance to the glorious Libyan People's Republic (and its >illustrious research bureau) but to the great cause of the Palestinian >people in its historic struggle with the Zionist entity and its American >master, the great Shaitan, of which more later. [Translation: It was a >dark and stormy night.] > True, Libya may have helped with a leetle misdirection [passports >lifted from Tunisian spies last summer], but the point of departure was >Lebanon, and the guiding force and source of arms was SYRIA. It sorta >stands to reason, no? Nothing happens in Lebanon except at Syrian >sufferance. Also, the US and Israeli intelligence services report that >that's where the blame - er, credit - resides. Aint that what we pays >them for? > ------------------------------ > > So why doesn't the US attack Syria? Two reasons: > 1. We are scared to death of the USSR, because Reagan unwisely >chose to invest more in strategic weapons (of which there are already >plenty) and less in conventional deterrence. For this, the Soviet moles >in the cabinet and defense department can take well-deserved credit. >WITH GOOD REASON -- in anything short of nuclear confrontation, they can >crunch us, and they know we know it. Syria is closely allied with the >USSR, and an attack on her can be expected to call down a heavy Soviet >response. > 2. The Syrians are playing Americans against themselves, on the one >hand supporting heroic Palestinians in their angelic defense of homeland >and dignity (coincidentally being the Soviet cat's paw), on the other >"trying to convince" armed factions in Lebanon to release some 6 or so >American citizens held in custody. Dimwit that he is, Reagan is utterly >incapable of finding his way out of that trap. Assad is a chess player, >and has hamstrung the entire US state department. The US doesn't stand >a chance, except maybe upsetting the chessboard. [Pass the fried >continent when you're finished with it.] > ------------------------------ > > So why doesn't Israel attack Syria? Several reasons: > 1. They are scared to death of the USSR, because Reagan unwisely >chose to invest more in ... (you know the rest), so the US can't >counterbalance a Soviet response to their moving on Syria. [chorus] > 2. It's too late - since Israel invaded Lebanon and squooshed the >Syrian/Soviet SAM system the latter have rebuilt with a vengeance. But >the Lebanon invasion was such a pyrrhic victory militarily, and utter >defeat politically, that the Israelis been unwilling to try preventive >raids on Syria's growing air-defense system. Syria is now so strong >that the only way to hit them and make it vala la pena is a full-scale >invasion. Serious stuff - where's the excuse? Anyway, it won't happen. >The Soviets can't be bluffed again. Thanks, Ronnie! > 3. As mentioned above, Assad is a chess player. He can be counted >on to keep a clear head. Israel has a chance of convincing him that >some form of coexistence is the way to go; if it does so, Assad will >cheerfully go for a de facto peace, even given a de jure state of >confrontation. Note that Assad is doesn't hesitate to kill off Islamic >fundamentalists (Hama 1981) or Palestinians (Lebanon 1975-86). For >an example of similar "friendly" neighbors, check out King Hussein of >Jordan. For a more limited example, check out king Fahd of Saudi Arabia >- he knows how to kill Moslem fundamentalists too. Nice thing about >dictatorial governments: If they're well-managed, they make pretty >solid neighbors or even allies, something our bleeding-heart liberal >contributors don't understand. (Of course, it's a high-Q circuit - if >poorly managed they're prone to catastrophic failure, unlike >parliamentary demokrakies. Example: Iran.) > 4. If you believe Noam Chomsky, Israel WANTS her opponents to be >fanatical terrorists - that buys political leverage for her [genocidal? >theocratic? terroristic? nuclear-crazy? foolish? cute? slave to >American dictates?] policies at home and abroad. Why cut off the flow >of wonderful homicidal maniacs and lose that great source of internal >public acquiescence, that great excuse for American military aid, that >terrific supply of popular sympathy in Europe and among the dirt farmers >of Tibet? After all, Israel is dedicated to world domination, being >ready to sacrifice every drop of its citizens' blood to re-establish old >testicle biblical dominance - what's a few civilians more or less, as >long as their deaths serve the murderous political programme? [I SAID >"if you believe Noam Chomsky." Sheesh!] > ------------------------------ > > So what's gonna happen? > The Israelis will go home and lick their wounds - they can't do >anything. If you believe Noam Chomsky, they're happy. By the way, I >sell toll bridges, in case someone needs an investment opportunity. > Syria and the USSR will grow ever bolder, secure in the knowledge >that they can do whatever they want. The US is in full-scale retreat -- >we will not interfere. > Khaddafi, if he doesn't die of laughter, will grow rich and happy in >the public attention, the renewed support from the Arab world (with his >hit squads, what Arab leader would dare oppose him?) and the increased >Soviet armamentation. Then one fine day the KGB will cut his head off >and install someone a bit more reliable instead. So he'll get his, but >you'll have to crawl to Gorbachev to get it done. > The US is going to scream and yell (at Libya -- that's safe: Not at >Syria or the USSR) and everybody except the terminally brain-softened >American public will realize we've been kicked in the butt and can't do >a thing to get revenge. Well, maybe not _direct_ revenge: See below. > ============================== > REVENGE: we'll invade Nicaragua -- no way Reagan is going to let >that defeat stay at the top of the headlines. Count on its happening >within a month. Good thing too - it'll let the gummint declare yet >another state of emergency (Remember the one we called last time, when >the Nicaraguans were about to invade Dubuque and we forestalled them by >embargoing their bananas?) and this time go to war, clean all the >commies and faggots out of public life and throw them in preventive >detention where they belong. As Edwin Meese sez, you probably won't be >arrested if you're not guilty - why bother with that greasy >constitutional rights stuff? > Remember last time? 241 marines get creamed via an appalling >security failure, and suddenly we have the successful invasion of >Grenada to cheer about. Betcha forgot all about those kids in Beirut, >right? Betcha also understand exactly why they were there too. > ============================== > > Latitudinarian Lobster and the other pinkoes on the net, tell your >buddies to get their tails out of Managua NOW, before our brave boys in >green ship them home in pine boxes. I'd say your lead time can be >counted in days, weeks at the outside. > ------------------------------ > > Aftermath > > Israel loses, the US loses, the Syrians and Soviets win. _Totally_. >Next time, they'll be bolder. Better invest in pain-killers, kiddies - >our chins can expect a pounding over the next few months. > The Europeans are being trained to do exactly what the Soviets and >(certain) Arabs tell them to. In future, like well-behaved doggies, >they can be expected to show more and more facility at begging, shaking >hands, and rolling over and playing dead. (Between beatings - the >instructional methodology of choice.) > As go the Palestinians, does anyone dream they'd get a fair shake >from Syria? From the USSR? What do they care who wins the >countryconquering game? They'll always be the ones getting stomped, and >we will never be short of "terrorists." Mr. Aouriri, I hope you're >happy... By the way, you guys who scream about death to baby-killers >gotta be taught to suck eggs. The world is not that simple. But if >you're really up for getting your violent rocks off, enlist now (the >marines offer the most mobility in the shortest time, for my money >anyway) and kill a Central American Commie or two. Hope that helps... > > Thanks for reading this far. Feel free to argue any of the points >above. Net.politics has been too damn quiet recently. >-- > >Oded Feingold MIT AI Lab. 545 Tech Square Cambridge, Mass. 02139 >OAF%OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA {harvard, ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mitvax!oaf 617-253-8598