Why?

[Schizoid Man]

This is what Muammar Gadafy told the Daily Mirror in January 2003 about his
support of the IRA:
"The ultimate objective of supporting an armed struggle is to bring a
problem to a conclusion, a peaceful conclusion. So when I saw that the
British and the Irish were talking to each other [leading to the Good Friday
agreement], that there was a chance to solve the problem by peaceful means,
then there was no longer justification for giving support for armed action."

The sheer inantiy of this statement wants to make me heave. Did he ever
consider for a nanosecond that if he didn't plough the IRA with weapons and
arm them to the teeth, then those so-called talks by peaceful would have
happened a lot sooner?

This is what Tony Blair said about him today: "if a country is prepared to
put the past behind us ... then we should offer the hand of partnership
....[and a] normal relationship".

So does that mean that if Osama comes and apologizes tomorrow and asks that
bygones be bygones, we'll offer him the hand of partnership too?

It is remarkable that the White House repudiated Sharon for the targeted
assassination of Yassin, yet along with the British have been hunting and
trying to kill OBL for the last two years?

Gadafy was a terrorist. Just because he goes and apologizes doesn't wipe the
slate clean.

This just proves that there are no true conservatives here, just idealogues.
Whatever Bush says is gospel. I hope that won't be the case with this man.

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: "Schizoid Man"

>This is what Muammar Gadafy told the Daily Mirror in January 2003 about his
>support of the IRA:
>"The ultimate objective of supporting an armed struggle is to bring a
>problem to a conclusion, a peaceful conclusion. So when I saw that the
>British and the Irish were talking to each other [leading to the Good Friday
>agreement], that there was a chance to solve the problem by peaceful means,
>then there was no longer justification for giving support for armed action."
>
>The sheer inantiy of this statement wants to make me heave. Did he ever
>consider for a nanosecond that if he didn't plough the IRA with weapons and
>arm them to the teeth, then those so-called talks by peaceful would have
>happened a lot sooner?
>
>This is what Tony Blair said about him today: "if a country is prepared to
>put the past behind us ... then we should offer the hand of partnership
>...[and a] normal relationship".
>
>So does that mean that if Osama comes and apologizes tomorrow and asks that
>bygones be bygones, we'll offer him the hand of partnership too?
>
>It is remarkable that the White House repudiated Sharon for the targeted
>assassination of Yassin, yet along with the British have been hunting and
>trying to kill OBL for the last two years?
>
>Gadafy was a terrorist. Just because he goes and apologizes doesn't wipe the
>slate clean.
>
>This just proves that there are no true conservatives here, just idealogues.
>Whatever Bush says is gospel. I hope that won't be the case with this man.
>
>
>
Gadafy is a head of state. OBL is not.

OBL has only death to non-Muslims as his goal. One might reasonably assume
that Gadafy has some interest in his country and its people being free to
pursue their own goals.


>
>

[Schizoid Man]

"Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message

> Gadafy is a head of state. OBL is not.

Oh, so that means just because Gadafy happens to be President of Libya as
well as a terrorist, he is kosher. Perhaps, OBL should stand for elections
in Afghanistan.

> OBL has only death to non-Muslims as his goal. One might reasonably
assume
> that Gadafy has some interest in his country and its people being free to
> pursue their own goals.

Whether he sees dollar signs for Libyan oil, or freedom for his people,
there is no doubt that he is a terrorist. The families of the victims of Pam
Am 103 are no different from the families of victims of 9/11. Both terrorist
attacks were committed unprovoked against defenceless, innocent civilians.

Now, it seems to be the United States and the United Kingdom, who like their
Spanish brethren (or so said Dennis Hastert) are appeasing terrorists.

Realpolitik comes full circle again.

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: "Schizoid Man"

>"Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message
>
>> Gadafy is a head of state. OBL is not.

>Oh, so that means just because Gadafy happens to be President of Libya as
>well as a terrorist, he is kosher. Perhaps, OBL should stand for elections
>in Afghanistan.

It means there is more at stake than with OBL. OBL is a private terrorist.

>> OBL has only death to non-Muslims as his goal. One might reasonably
>assume
>> that Gadafy has some interest in his country and its people being free to
>> pursue their own goals.

>Whether he sees dollar signs for Libyan oil, or freedom for his people,
>there is no doubt that he is a terrorist.

I agree.

>no doubt that he is a terrorist. The families of the victims of Pam
>Am 103 are no different from the families of victims of 9/11. Both terrorist
>attacks were committed unprovoked against defenceless, innocent civilians.

I didn't say I like it, I was only offering possibilities for his treatment.
OPersonally I wouldn't cry if we or the UK took him out, but I'm sure it bother
Dormer and Lionel.

>Now, it seems to be the United States and the United Kingdom, who like their
>Spanish brethren (or so said Dennis Hastert) are appeasing terrorists.
>
>Realpolitik comes full circle again.
>

I sure you know that I'm no fan of the way diplomacy is carried out most of the
time.

If I ruled the world I would only do business with those who held to a standard
of rational behavior and treatment of the citizens.