Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!jsdy From: jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Air raid on Libya Message-ID: <383@hadron.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Apr-86 18:22:34 EDT Article-I.D.: hadron.383 Posted: Fri Apr 25 18:22:34 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 2-May-86 07:04:09 EDT References: <157@unido.UUCP> <1200001@ztivax.UUCP> Reply-To: jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA Lines: 83 Keywords: violence, terrorism, Qaddafi, war, peace, Libya Summary: Violence begets violence. What should have been done? In article <1200001@ztivax.UUCP> david@ztivax.UUCP writes: >/* 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. > ... > Andreas Bormann (david@ztivax really starts here ...) >Well, I doubt that you will find people in America who share your >views, because the brainwashing there is getting rather complete. This statement appears to be only here to annoy folks in the US. Unless David is also brainwashed, or hasn't been reading the net, he should know full well that there are folks of all persuasions not only in the US but all over. Ad hominem arguments (although often used in this medium, unfortunately) are totally meaningless. I don't like the use of net.general to discuss this -- net.politics seems more correct -- nevertheless here is my say. By now we've had folks both inside and outside the US both praise, denounce, and grudgingly accept the raids in Libya. As a fairly non-violent person, I was shocked and horrified by the thought that we had responded to violence with the violence of bombs, in Libya. I also, being what I am, did not respond with what's been called a "knee-jerk" reaction of condemnation, but tried to see why it was done, and what I could have done otherwise. The problem? From what we hear, the US intelligence services, in their assigned function of gathering information bearing on the well-being of the United States, had determined that Qaddafi had planned to massively increase the terrorism that he allegedly backs. [This terrorism, incidentally, has been referred to by knowledgable people world-wide as an ongoing war where the only victims are the innocent.] This information was shared with Western European governments, who agreed that something had to be done, but could not agree what. Few if any accepted the concept of an economic blockade of Libya, because they all had economic interests there. What to do? I certainly don't know. Bombing is such a non-specific operation -- yes, if all goes right, and if we know for certain that only the places and people engaged in this "war" against the US are hit, and if indeed we have the right to do it, then it will stop the terrorism. For now. But (a) those are three big if's (and are being hotly disputed by us right here), and (b) it is true that violence begets violence until the world is sick of it. Specific retribution -- assasinations, as some have suggested -- would stop only the publicly identified members of the terrorist group (e.g., M.Q.); would put US operatives more specifically in danger (somebody has to do it); and, most important, are a violation of moral, international, and US law. Negotiation has failed. How could it succeed, when one of the stated goals of one group is to wipe out a nation which, however it started, exists now? That is what has to happen for Palestinians to re-occupy that land which is now Palestine. [I understand that the Palestinians were asked to stay in Israel, but were told by the predecessors of today's terrorists to leave their land, since the terrorists would have it back soon. I may be wrong on this point.] There does not seem to be an easy solution to this. (For an optimistic -- and perhaps possible -- solution to this, read James Gunn's new book, _Crisis!_.) There is probably some validity to labelling the bomb strikes "terrorism." Besides destroying the terrorist encampments, one goal of this operation seems to have been to frighten the people of Libya and undermining Qaddafi's power base. This is, in fact, terrorism. Terrorism is deplorable, yes. It makes it only a little less deplorable that the US bombs were said to be aimed at real military targets, and the terrorism said to be headed by Qaddafi is deliberately aimed at innocent people. One more comment: the television accounts of the raids had to have been filmed by Libyan state communications personnel, as the tours of the foreign journalists were days later, and were conducted strictly by same. They would, of course, show the full horror of the violence done. Violence is never pretty. By the same token, they would not show anything to give any cause for the raids, such as smoldering munitions factories. All of you who have by now decided that I am a pig-headed rabid US patriot or a flaming Commie liberal, please lower your flame- throwers. You are both wrong. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}