A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 21st 04, 07:19 PM
Guinnog65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield

"BombJack" wrote in message
...
You are insane.


Beats being brain dead Jack.


Ads
  #2  
Old September 21st 04, 08:30 PM
Guinnog65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #3  
Old September 21st 04, 08:47 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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




  #4  
Old September 21st 04, 09:32 PM
Guinnog65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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 [email protected],
"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?

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?

Are the CIA terrorists sometimes?

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? 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.

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.


  #5  
Old September 21st 04, 10:02 PM
Guinnog65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #6  
Old September 22nd 04, 12:15 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.




  #7  
Old September 22nd 04, 12:18 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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 [email protected],
"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





  #8  
Old September 22nd 04, 08:18 AM
Guinnog65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #9  
Old September 22nd 04, 11:21 AM
Guinnog65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:44:28 +0100, "Guinnog65"
wrote:


I had forgotten the details of the strike plans.


You have no idea of the strike plans period.


Neither, it seems, did the bold aviators and airmen on the night. They
killed civilians but failed to kill Gaddafi. They also caused damage to
several embassies in Tripoli, which was presumably not their intention. They
lost a F-111, presumed to have been downed by AAA.

Afterwards, in the short term, several Western hostages were killed. In the
longer term, Libyan support for (among other groups) the IRA continued
unabated.

Please continue to emit some more straw men and non sequiturs.


Straw men and non sequiturs I will leave up to you. You do them so well.


  #10  
Old September 22nd 04, 03:44 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 12:38 AM
Bush's guard record JDKAHN Home Built 13 October 3rd 04 09:38 PM
George W. Bush Abortion Scandal that should have been Psalm 110 Military Aviation 0 August 12th 04 09:40 AM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 04:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.