"Guinnog65" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Guinnog65" wrote in message
...
"Philippic" wrote in message
...
I'll jump ahead and point out that Libya
just signed an agreement with Germany to pay reparations for that
bombing
(www.iht.com/articles/537276.html ), so it is quite clear they were
responsible.

An action like this is not proof of *anything*, dip****: Gaddaffi is
even
paying through the nose for *Lockerbie*, and he had *nothing to do with
it*...

Gaddaffi is happy to jump through such ludicrous hoops because he needs
to
see Libya allowed to rejoin the 'world community'. I confidently
predict
that the next six months will see him cheerfully and expensively
confess to
having blown up the Hindenburg; murdered Jimmy Hoffa; and fathered the
Andrews Sisters.

LOL.

Please don't be nasty to poor Kevin (I assume you were talking to him,
not me). He is only trying to understand a world more complex than he
would like it to be.

Behind his bluster he can be one of the most knowledgable contributors
to this forum. Sadly he does not do debate very well, as he prefers
telling people things.

Not much to debate; *you* have yet to claim that Libya was NOT involved
in the Berlin bombing that they have now acknowledged, have you? No, you
just improperly classified the US retaliatory action as a "terrorist"
act. Which tells us that you really do not understand the meaning of the
term "terrorism". Look it up and educate yourself.

As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or
property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or
any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social
objectives".

"Unlawful". The US attack has never been so defined.

This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are
illegal and involve the use of force.

See above.

(2) The actions are intended to
intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of
political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)
www.mema.domestic-preparedness.net/glossary.html

It might also be interesting to consider the saying 'One man's terrorist
is another man's freedom fighter'

Then you have a strange perception of reality. You don't like that the
attack was conducted, fine--but don't try and label it a "terrorist act".


By the defiinition above, the US retaliation against Libya was terrorism
as it was illegal.

You have not shown that. The UN charter and international law recognizes the
right of a state to act against another militarily when provocation exists.
Iraq has 'fessed up to being behind the disco bombing, just as the US and
Germany had claimed for many years.


Of course that then brings in what definition one uses for
'illegal'. As the closest we have at the moment to a world government is
the UN (for all its imperfections), perhaps we should agree that
'UN-sanctioned' counts as legal.

LOL! Hardly. membership in the UN does not remove a nation's right to
respond to attacks against it, its citizens, or its interests. Try again.

Brooks

Certainly, the alternative POV, that one's own country's
actions are never by definition illegal (which seems to be your
definition; correct me if I am wrong) seems somewhat flawed.

Which makes not just the 1986 attack but the current occupation of Iraq
both totally illegal.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Like I said in another post, these things are
complicated.