Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield

"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.

Brooks

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

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

"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.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"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.

Not quite.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the
exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the
Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at
any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore
international peace and security.

Note that it doesn't say 'when provocation exists'.

I don't believe that the US itself was threatened by Libya. Rather, the US
believed Libyan secret services were to blame for a bombing attack in which
one of its servicemen in Germany was killed.

Neither do I believe that the US referred this through the UN at the time
and got approval for the attack codenamed El Dorado.

If you can show me I was wrong, and that the UN gave permission at the time
for the attack, then of course I will retract the 'terrorism' charge; or
indeed if you can show me any other evidence that the attack was morally or
legally justified.

I do not believe the attack was legal; I do not even believe that
pragmatically it achieved its results. Libya continued to supply arms to
international terrorists like our own IRA for years after this, as, of
course did the US.

Iraq has 'fessed up to being behind the disco bombing, just as the US and
Germany had claimed for many years.

And they may well have been involved in it. Or, like with the Lockerbie
bombing, they may have just been 'fessing up' to something they know they
had nothing to do with so they can sell their oil again.

I should add perhaps that I do not claim to be an expert in international
law (as I can see you are not either) and I know just how grey some of these
areas can be. But I think it is important for the US to at least try to act
legally. Without a legal framework, with every country defining for itself
what its rights are, we are back to the 19th century and each country
grabbing what it can.

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

"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.

Not quite.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs

An armed attack occured--or do you think a bomb was not an "arm"? Case
closed--we were acting legally in response to that armed attack, and to
prevent further attacks.

snip


Note that it doesn't say 'when provocation exists'.

No, it says armed attack, which did occur.


I don't believe that the US itself was threatened by Libya. Rather, the US
believed Libyan secret services were to blame for a bombing attack in
which one of its servicemen in Germany was killed.

Neither do I believe that the US referred this through the UN at the time
and got approval for the attack codenamed El Dorado.

We don't have to; nor does any other member state when it is subjected to an
armed attack. The bomb was planted by Libyan agents, we had evidence of
that, and we acted in rataliation to prevent further attacks. It is really
rather simple--even you should be able to grasp it.


If you can show me I was wrong, and that the UN gave permission at the
time for the attack,

The US, nor any other state subjected to an attack on it, its citizens, or
its interests, does not have to get permission. You have this strange idea
that any action not specifically sanctioned by the UN is "illegal", and that
is not the case.

then of course I will retract the 'terrorism' charge; or
indeed if you can show me any other evidence that the attack was morally
or legally justified.

It was, and evidence has been presented--but you won't accept it because it
gets in the way of your strange ideas about the UN usurping national
responsibilities and your greater pet peeve, the US in general.

Brooks


I do not believe the attack was legal; I do not even believe that
pragmatically it achieved its results. Libya continued to supply arms to
international terrorists like our own IRA for years after this, as, of
course did the US.

Iraq has 'fessed up to being behind the disco bombing, just as the US and
Germany had claimed for many years.

And they may well have been involved in it. Or, like with the Lockerbie
bombing, they may have just been 'fessing up' to something they know they
had nothing to do with so they can sell their oil again.

I should add perhaps that I do not claim to be an expert in international
law (as I can see you are not either) and I know just how grey some of
these areas can be. But I think it is important for the US to at least try
to act legally. Without a legal framework, with every country defining for
itself what its rights are, we are back to the 19th century and each
country grabbing what it can.