Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:7386 misc.legal:3936 alt.flame:1666 Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!crcmar!steve From: steve@crcmar.crc.uucp (Steve Ardron) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.flame Subject: Re: Historical and Geographic inaccuracies. Message-ID: <613@crcmar.crc.uucp> Date: 16 Feb 88 20:36:01 GMT Article-I.D.: crcmar.613 Posted: Tue Feb 16 15:36:01 1988 References: <2445@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <6385@oberon.USC.EDU> <995@stratus.UUCP> <792@athos.rutgers.edu> Organization: CRC, Ottawa CANADA Lines: 147 Summary: Britt bashing Sorry for the length of this posting, but there was just to much garbage that had to be corrected. In article <792@athos.rutgers.edu>, maffray@athos.rutgers.edu (Frederic Maffray) writes: > > -The German Minister of Foreign Affairs (Genscher) has routine talks with > his Iranian opposite number (Velayati). > -Greece's Prime Minister Papandreou is Qaddafi's best friend. Maybe Papandreou likes Khadaffi? Greece doesn't suffer at the hands of terrorism, so why stand against something that isn't a problem? > -Spain recognized Israel only a few years ago. Maybe that's because Israel was one of the worst terrorist states in history. When England was giving Palestine to the Israelis as a homeland, they intended to divide it between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In order to prevent the Palestinians from being overwhelmed, they limited the number of people of any nations who could enter. This touched off some of the worst terrorism in history, so England simply said f**k-it, it's not our problem, and let the U.N. handle it (and botch it immensely). Just because a nation doesn't recognize Israel doesn't mean it is evil or weak, more the opposite. > -In London, after a policewoman was killed from a window of the Libyan > 'embassy' in 1984, the killer was safely reconducted to the border by the > British police. This was a touchy situation because they couldn't prove that he did it, you can't just go around locking people up without evidence of some kind. > All this, of course, is "standing firm against terrorism." All this was an example of misusing facts horribly to argue a point they don't relate to. > Do you have such faith in an average-size country like France that she > should resist more than all others combined? I don't feal France is a cowardly nation, and just because somebody else did is no reason to blindly attack other countries. > However, when France is the ONLY WEST EUROPEAN COUNTRY which sends troops > in Lebanon in 1983 and when 60 of them get killed in a suicide-truck bombing > (simultaneously with 240 Americans); If you are including Brittain as a Western European nation, which is implied by the rest of your article, they were there too. Don't make false or misleading statements! There were just as many Brittish as there were French, it just happens that the Brittish are better trained and more experienced in handling terrorism, since they have been victims of one of the bloodiest and drawn out terrorist wars in history (one that Americans denigrate England over because they don't bother learning the facts, just like France) so no Brittish were killed, despite attempts against them. (something said about the French fighting Libya, unlike anybody else) > Chad against Qaddafi; Don't make it out as if it's some good Samaritan act or something! The reason the French fight Libya is because it's in their interest, since Chad is a puppet of France. It's not as if it's "Oh, lets go save another innocent country from that raving Loonie, with no gain for ourselves". > Disgusting. Yes, it is. > It's much easier indeed to be like all other European countries who > carefully avoid to get directly involved in the Middle East. > Let French and American and Israeli idiots die in Lebanon, while Royal ^^^^^^ Exactly! The only reason Americans died is because they were stupid! (I'm refering ot marines, not civilians, many other countries have lost civilians) Their Goddamned weapons weren't even loaded! and their security measures were ludicrous. I'm not sure what happened when the French died, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something similar. > Dutch Shell and British Petroleum yum all the Saudi oil. Most Brittish oil comes from the North Sea, besides, the Saudis are American and other Western nations' allies. I've allready said how the Brittish were in Lebanon too, so I won't say it again. > Tell me, when did the British last fight against Qaddafi in Africa? Why the hell should they?! > When were Dutch citizens last abducted in Beirut? > What does Italy do against terrorists who frequently murder Libyan opponents > in Rome? > When did West Germany last cut diplomatic relations with Iran? etc. Brittain cut relations with Libya, but why should West Germany cut relations with Iran? I don't see the connection. > France's terrorism problem is directly proportional to her involvement in > the Middle East. > Qaddafi hates us because he is surrounded by former French colonies which > receive unfailing French support. > Syria hates us because we still have a shade of influence in Lebanon. > Iran hates us because we sell our best weaponry to Iraq. Everybody sells their best weaponry to Iraq, France just sells it to everybody else, too. > America, France and Israel bear the brunt of anti-Western terrorism. > That should logically entail some sympathy from the American public. On the > contrary, the American press prefers to fuel this political despise of the > French which is so convenient when a scape-goat is needed. Sickening. > > As for Israel. France has been Israel's best military friend for 20 years What about when the Mossad stole the plans for the Mirage jet because the French were asking to much? > (and these were the first and most important for Israel's stabilization). > And what happened? Remember Suez. When Nasser nationalized the Suez canal, > this most important waterway to European and Israeli interests, a joint > British-French-Israeli military operation took place. And who condemned it? > None other than the US. (Incidentally, this certainly supported the opinion > of some people like De Gaulle who thought that America's commitment to the > defense of West European interests was far from 100 %.) The only result of > our friendship with Israel was to be once again called imperialists, > bellicists, nationalists, arrogant, etc. > > So let the _U_S_ now enjoy the fun of being everybody's enemy in the Middle > East... A chacun son tour. [To everyone his turn] > > [And in the 1973 oil crisis, France was hit just like anybody else in the > world. That determined Giscard to boost the French nuclear program.] > > Well, I recognize there is a problem with the French indeed. > When they do it they are called nationalists. > When they don't do it they are coward. > When they let others do it they are called supine. > There's always something wrong with them. Just like the Jews. > > Fred. You make some good points, Fred, unfortunately it is buried in all the bull sh*t. Why not just stick to your point? France carries its share as much as the U.S. carries its. Don't start spouting stuff in misleading or out-right wrong ways, people will think you're a twit or something. Stevie.