Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!magic!thain From: thain@magic.UUCP Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya Message-ID: <425@magic.DEC.COM> Date: Tue, 22-Apr-86 15:42:48 EST Article-I.D.: magic.425 Posted: Tue Apr 22 15:42:48 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 24-Apr-86 05:38:56 EST References: <3542@sun.uucp> Distribution: net Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Lines: 129 Xref: watmath net.followup:5951 net.politics:15233 In article <3542@sun.uucp>, rmarti@sun.uucp (Bob Marti) writes: > In article 1829@ihlpg.UUCP, Bill Tanenbaum writes: > > ... But I am INFURIATED by those such as Mr. Bormann who call such > > a response terrorism ... > > ... If only the raid jolts the Europeans out of their lethargy and > > inaction, they will have a positive effect. > > It doesn't matter what you call it, the fact remains that American planes > bombed innocent civilians. How long does it take you to understand that > this is NOT the way to deal with terrorism? How long does it take you > to understand that this kind of utterly inconsiderate operation is > counterproductive, not only as far as terrorism is concerned, but, > more importantly, as far as the picture of the United States in the > world is concerned? Yes, you are abslutely right that the raid jolts > the Europeans out of their lethargy: Never since the Vietnam war have > anti-US demonstrations in Europe been so big as they are right now! I'm afraid that I disagree with your point, Mr. Marti, for some very good and sound reasons. Terrorism is not a controlable force, terrorists fully expect to die for whatever fanatical cause they espouse. They are fully aware of the consenquences of their actions, and the possible reprisals which might follow. They are determined to use violence and intimidation and death as a way to achieve their final goal(s). Terrorism is not a problem for the US, or Europe, or Russia, but a world wide problem which must be countered and countered swiftly every time it rears it's ugly head. Since life is meaningless to terrorists, ( I believe my point is well documented with the recent acts perpertrated against the world's citizens), the lives of their victems are also meaningless. As cruel and as heartless as that sounds, it is a reality. Terrorists kill hostages. Terrorists expect to die. Hence, terrorist victems which are returned safley are not the norm, but the exception. Terrorism unfortunatly has become a facet of life in the world. To capitulate to terrorism by negotation only weakens the position of the government in question. Unreasonable force, execessive acts of violence are meat and potatoes to the terrorists diet. They are prepared to give an "eye for and eye", and have done so. We must be prepared to do the same. Or suffer more dead and maimed as a result. We are at war with terrorism, have been since the 1970's. It is a war we well would wish to avoid, but it is a war. To treat it as anything less is to deny the place of the fallen so far. If we relax our persecution of terrorism, they indeed have died in vain. > But then again, Americans -- well, at least the 70% who voted for Reagan > and the 77% who support Reagan's actions against Libya -- don't really > care so much about what the rest of the world thinks of them: I care what the world thinks, and I imagine most Americans do. I am sickened that the war against terrorism had to esclate, but I realize the necessity for such actions. I feel for the Lybian people. But I remember the worry that I had when my wife to be was in Europe on tour, and the Athens Airport had become a war zone. I was glad she had the sense to post a few notes, to let me know how she was doing. ( We wern't engaged at that time, although we'd known each other for years). No one should have to fear to travel abroad. Terrorism denies freedom, freedom of movment, freedom from fear, freedom in some cases of *life*. The European Nations already played this scenerio out, about 50 years ago when Hitler terrorized the European Nations into a standstill. Neither France nor England lifted a finger, rather they followed the will of the people to find a peaceful alternative. But sometimes such an alternative is good only in the short run. The then Prime Minister Lord Chamberlin, of England, was positive that in a few years Hitler would fade and pale, and no further problems would be forthcomming. We all have history as a grim reminder of such indecision. I for one would hate to see the Europeans make the same mistake again. > Dissenters are just a bunch of terrorists, communists, wimps, and/or > a**holes anyway! If necessary, America can always sponsor some > "freedom fighters" (what a euphemism!) to topple unfavorable regimes, > or -- if the former is not a viable option -- just drop a couple of > bombs on them to bring them back in line with The American Way of > seeing things. I would suggest you follow up with some reading on terrorism, and Mr. Khadafy (sp) in particular. It isn't a case of realigning his thinking to the "American Way", but to a humanitarian way of thinking. Mr. Khadafy has openly called for "Jihad", which is a Holy War, pitting Moslems against everyone else. He has said many times that he wishes the *extermination* of the Jewish state of Israel. This is not a man one can reason with, this is a madman. If the technology to do so was in his hands, I seriously believe he would use nuclear weapons. To most Americans and Europeans, Khadafy is a buffoon, who will just go away if left alone. But we have a lesson only 50 years old to remind us that such thinking could be naive. > > You think these statements are ridiculous? Well, lets see: Remember the > Bay of Pigs invasion 25 years ago? Vietnam? The toppling of Allende in > Chile 1973, maybe? Or what about Nicaragua? Maybe Reagan's remark about > ruling out the Soviets by nuking them away will do? Or do you remember > former Secretary of State Alexander Haig's comments about the possibility > of a nuclear war confined to Europe? (He was in office at that time.) I don't take any comments you've made as ridiculous, but muddying the issues with past ambiguities dosen't help. We are trying to work inside the framework that we've set up, i.e. negoitation. But this particular alternative hasn't worked. As I stated before, terrorists fully expect to *die*, an alternative abhorrent to most civilized peoples. We don't understand this, hence when it becomes a reality we ignore it, or attempt solutions via peaceful means. I support this line of thinking with all my heart. But bullies are bullies, and sometimes stern measures must be taken to insure the saftey of all concerned. We can't arrest Khadafy for his crimes, he is above traditional and accepted means of formal punishment. Hence, we are left with the only alternative possible, physical violence. > It'll be interesting to see how you will explain all of the above points > away, as I have no doubt you will. The problem is that words will not > be able to convince me, only past and future actions of the Reagan > administration will convince me one way or another. > --Bob Marti It's a shame you feel this way, because words are the only way you'll be able to voice your displeasure to the administration before 1988. I would urge strongly that you write your congressman and let him know how you feel. I have, and I have also given my reluctant support to the current administration with regards to this topic, ( terrorism and ways to combat it.). I can see no peaceful alternative to terrorism, because we are not dealing with people who wish to compromise, we are dealing with people who consider lives expendable, whether those lives are innocent or not doesn't matter. In their eyes, there are no innocents. Pax, Glenn thain@src.DEC.COM (The opinions expressed are my own, colored by my experiences and education, and in no way should be mistaken for anyone else's, unless they wish them to be.)