Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!intelca!oliveb!hplabs!hpda!hpisoa2!hpitg!epistemi!colin@epistemi From: colin@epistemi Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Re: Air raid on Libya Message-ID: <733@epistemi> Date: Wed, 30-Apr-86 11:40:00 EDT Article-I.D.: epistemi.733 Posted: Wed Apr 30 11:40:00 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 14-May-86 22:03:43 EDT References: <720@ark> Lines: 97 I'd like to make a few comments on recent attitudes. For example, In article <858@ihlpl.UUCP> res@ihlpl.UUCP writes: (on Europeans) >But, what the hell, it is only Americans and Jews who are being killed, >and a few others caught in the crossfire, so why should a German or a >Spaniard, or a Frenchman give a damn? These are not really people, I think that, out of some 900 deaths due to terrorism last year, 25 were American. Terrorist actions are invariably targeted on European cities. Do you really think the attitude here is "let them get on with it, they're aiming at Americans and it doesn't concern us"? > If >Kaddafi "retaliates" by killing more innocent people -- be it in >Germany, Italy, Greece, France, the United Kingdom, or the United >States -- I would GLADLY hear that Reagan graduated from slapping >Kaddafi on the wrist to LEVELING the city of Tripoli. > >I am saddened that the free people of Europe think so little of their >freedom and so little of the lives of innocents that they are unwilling >to step down on that nasty little worm in Libya and free the world of >that sick murderer. This kind of savagery is _really_ terrifying. Can't you see the dreadful irony contained in these paragraphs? You appear to be quite happy to slaughter thousands of innocent people in Tripoli and yet accuse Europeans of having no regard for innocent lives. Here is another sample, from: Robert G. Roberds@The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. >that this country was pushed into this act. Some facts: >1) Col. Gadaffi attacks Americans and Europeans for no possible >reason, knowing full well that they had nothing to do with his >paranoid ``grievances''. This is wilfully uninformed. Gadaffi is a small symptom of a huge problem. Arab nations and the Arab peoples feel they have many grievances, and a minority believe that the only effective way to pursue these is through violence. Few people in Europe agree with the means, but many accept that the feelings, and some of the grievances, are real. Ignoring these attitudes, or adopting a simplistic analysis, is extremely dangerous. Opinion polls in the UK show that around 70% of the people here think that President Reagan's actions were wrong for these reasons. Margaret Thatcher's also. It's quite possible, in fact, that Reagan's request has lost Mrs Thatcher the next election. Another example: Ron Morgan (Speech Communication UT Austin): >is, we HAD to do SOMETHING. If we had let him go through with his plans, >hundreds, maybe even thousands of Americans would have been killed, with more >to come. So WHAT if a few Libyan civvies were killed. We didn't go over there >for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of killing civilians, unlike Khadafy, who targets I think this is scaremongering. I have no doubt that Gadaffi intended to promote terrorism, but no evidence has been adduced to suggest that it was on this scale. The attitude that "we had to do something" does not justify doing _anything_. It is simply not true that all peaceful economic means had been tried, as a number of American netters have pointed out. An analogy is often drawn between Gadaffi and the local bully, and it's now said that the US has "slapped his wrist", and so on. This is nonsense. The US has succeeded, not in harming the bully, but in killing his daughter, which is not likely to turn his family and friends against him. There is a great deal of sympathy in Europe for the frustration felt in the US over terrorism. The US is, however, the most powerful nation on Earth, and has vast influence. It is hardly surprising that this influence should be resented in many quarters, particularly if not wielded with the utmost wisdom and care. American policy in the Middle East could hardly have been better calculated to stir up trouble. I fear the latest escapade will exacerbate the situation greatly. As members of such an influential society, particularly as educated members - as I assume netters are - it is vital that you in the US accept that great responsibilities come with great power. One of these responsibilities is to be well informed, and you really _must_ try to understand more of situations like the Middle East than is evident from recent comments. I didn't intend to be so verbose or to sound so pompous. The criticisms above are intended constructively - I can't afford to appear anti-American as the director of the Centre here in Edinburgh is American. (:-) So are many of my fellow-students (who agree, so far without exception, with the above statements). I'm also addicted to Joe Montana, William Faulkner, and Stephen Spielberg, but could you take Joan Rivers back, please? -- Colin Matheson University of Edinburgh, Centre for Cognitive Science, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9LW, Scotland. UUCP: ...!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!colin JANET: colin@uk.ac.ed.epistemi