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

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

"Guinnog65" wrote in message
...
"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article E5FSc.83445$J06.45616@pd7tw2no,
"zolota" wrote:

The US did not invade Libya in 1986.

US aircraft piloted by navy fliers bombed Tripoli and the
presidential
palace, close enough.

The Navy didn't fly too many F-111s, at least not in this universe.

True but spurious. The OP didn't say anything about the F-111s which
were a USAF asset based in the UK. Plenty of Navy / MC aircraft did
take part in this act of terrorism. The OP has it right I believe.

"This act of terrorism"? You have it basackwards (about par for the
course in your case); it was a retaliatory action for the Berlin
bombing which killed US military personnel. Since you will undoubtedly
claim that Libya was not involved in that bombing, 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. You need to learn to get your
facts straight before you engage your fingers int that whole typing
thing.

Whereas you may need to type more carefully!

Are you saying then that one act of terror always justifies another? Or
does this only apply to US actions?

The bombing was not a terrorist act. Period.

Period, eh? So was it not a terrorist act because it was the US, or was it
not a terrorist act because it was a nation state acting?

Because it was a nation state acting to protect its citizens and interests.


Who do you mean by 'they'? Would you include Gaddafi's adoptive daughter
who I believe was killed in the attack?

**** happens, especially around leaders of contries employing terrorism.

OK. Thing is, this is undoubtedly the same tough-minded logic Al Quaeda
employs to justify their atrocities too. So, are they terrorists because
they are not directly acting for a nation state?

Nice try, but no, it is not the same thing, for a number of reasons.


Are the CIA terrorists sometimes?

Pretty broad--be specific with your request.


Are unilateral actions by one nation against another (like the Tripoli
bombings) always justified if the aggressor nation can point to
involvement of the attacked nation or citizens thereof in terrorism?

Yep, sure can be.

So is it a by-definition thing that the USA can never do wrong?

Didn't say that. But in this case we did not.

Because it
is a well-known fact that, for example, successive US regimes at best
turned a blind eye to US citizens' support of the IRA killing UK troops
and civilians over here. By your logic, that makes the US an acceptable
target for unilateral attacks by other countries. I would say there is
something wrong with your definitions there.

Nope. A case could have been made for the UK to attack the US over the IRA
situation--but they didn't. Try again.


Please try and get *your* facts straight before you engage your fingers
int that whole typing thing.

I do have the facts straight--the US did not carry out a "terrorist" act
when it bombed Libya. You are the guy who is confused.

Yes, it is a confusing subject. In a way, it would be simpler and easier
to take the 'my-country-right-or-wrong' stance you appear to be taking. I
would find that too simplistic though. Real life can be complex and
confusing.

LOL! Check out my comments above and you will see just how dreadfully wrong
you are.

Brooks