Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site spectrix.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!spectrix!clewis From: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Frenchmen getting bombed, why them? Message-ID: <148@spectrix.UUCP> Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 17:27:34 EDT Article-I.D.: spectrix.148 Posted: Wed Sep 24 17:27:34 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 24-Sep-86 18:45:31 EDT References: <7206@sri-spam.ARPA> Reply-To: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Spectrix Microsystems Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 88 Keywords: Libya, Britain, U.S. In article <7206@sri-spam.ARPA> robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: > > Hello there. I suppose that most people by now are aware of >the fact that France is under terrorist attack. At least 5 >bombings, diplomatic personel assasinated, etc.. > > I find it interesting to note that France refused the U.S. use >of their airspace during the attack on Libya, assumedly because they >did not want to antagonize the terrorist community. However, of the >two countries which took part in the attack, the U.S. and Britain, >neither has suffered retailiatory terrorist atacks, and in fact overall >terrorism has declined against those two countries. I hardly think that there's been enough time to determine whether this is a trend or not. Besides, in the last couple of weeks, a Pan Am aircraft was hijacked in Pakistan (note that they started off by singling out and killing an American, and it was a US aircraft), and at least two kidnappings of US citizens in Beirut. Actually, the major reason that France is being hit now is that they've been relatively lenient in giving shelter to certain varieties of the "targets" of terrorists. Eg: the ex-Prime Minister of Iran. So, in the inter-necine (sp?) rivalries of the various groups, they attack each other in France, occasionally get captured, and hence France becomes the target of the "release our buddies or else" type of terrorism (as was the Pan-Am one). In contrast, as far as I can recall, neither the US or Britain (except for IRA members) has *ever* captured a terrorist that belonged to the sort of group that would commit terrorist acts to get them back. Certainly not on their own soil. US and British forces have killed terrorists (eg: Libya (probably), the Iranian embassy takeover), but hasn't captured any members of, say, the PLO. [Well, actually, the US did, but the Italians didn't let 'em keep 'em. You would have had some interesting times if you had managed to keep Abu Nidal] Lest we forget though, there *is* a terrorist presense in Britain - the IRA. I hardly think that they're being appeased. Nor does it ever seem to get any better. I would imagine that France is easier to smuggle arms or terrorists into. Not to blame France's security forces however - unlike the US and Britain, say, France directly borders on a lot of other countries - it's impossible to impose perfect security. Lest Americans feel smug about their security (eg: Airports), it's been my experience that security at US airports is laxer than places like Toronto, Gatwick, Heathrow, French airports etc. And none of them were so wonderfully perfect either. Heck, I'm sure I could smuggle some nasties past the almost non-existant security at O'Hare. Nor do they appear to have anything likely to prevent airport massacres either. (Actually, maybe I shouldn't have said that. Then again, they must already know) Canada, the US and Britain are pretty lucky - being bordered on the most part by "friends" and/or the ocean. There is relatively little terrorism, possibly because of that fact. Certainly, the SDS, Weathermen, and FLQ had their day and were actively combatted, but the former two were nutcases and had little true support, and the latter's aims took over the government of Quebec (is that appeasement? Nope. They were democratically elected. Fortunately, they just lost). > Could it be that appeasement is not the answer? > > Robert Allen, I wouldn't exactly call it "appeasement" - "avoidance of uneccessary stirring up of the hornet's nest" yes. In fact, the opposite might be true - France has actively and strenuously fought terrorism since before the U.S. noticed that terrorism existed. The CRS (French security forces) have carried machine guns and has *used* them for decades. Look where it got them? No, in the face of *really* determined and popular terrorism nurtured in other countries, unless you can completely annihilate the whole terrorist group almost instantaneously, you're probably better off trying to figger out some other way to stop it. Heck, their demands may not even be particularly unreasonable (though, I can't think of one off the top of my head). As well, before throwing stones, how about actively combating the abortion clinic bombers, and some of the extreme right-wing bomb-throwers etc. down there? Or, for that matter, the Contras. Oh, I'm sorry, *those* terrorists are extensions of your Government's policies.... You guys only torch city blocks for communists. ;-{ (cynical/sarcastic smiley face...) [Ps: don't get me wrong, I personally feel France's foreign policies are far worse than even the US's. Fortunately they don't have such a big stick] -- Chris Lewis UUCP: {utzoo|utcs|yetti|genat|seismo}!mnetor!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955