Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!hplabs!pyramid!octopus!harvax!garth!baba
From: baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Frenchmen getting bombed, why them?
Message-ID: <370@garth.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 00:44:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: garth.370
Posted: Wed Sep 24 00:44:34 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:34:34 EDT
References: <7206@sri-spam.ARPA>
Reply-To: baba@garth.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS)
Organization: The Institute of Impure Science
Lines: 21
Keywords: Libya, Britain, U.S.

In article <7206@sri-spam.ARPA> robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes:
>
>    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.
>
>    Could it be that appeasement is not the answer?

I've seen this line of argument in newspaper editorials recently
as well.  It is based on the assumption that International Terrorism
is some kind of monolithic entity with its corporate headquarters in
Tripoli.  There is no evidence that this is the case, and plenty that
it is not.  The bombings in France have been claimed by Lebanese groups
with grudges dating from the French mandate in the Levant.  Why should
they care what assistance the French gave or denied to Reagan's bombing
of Libyans in retaliation for the acts of Palestinians?

						Baba