And, I thought, for years, that the U.S. attack on Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi sent this nutcase into seclusion. Well, not so. At least, not according to a now retired CIA spook.
Two years after we nailed some of his relatives in a bombing raid, Gadhafi...who was tipped off by another country and took cover...ordered the attack on Pan Am Flight 103.
The former CIA operative, Frank Anderson, discussed this with NBC News:
"There are two things that you can take to the bank," Anderson said. "The first one is, Pan Am 103 was perpetrated by agents of the Libyan government. And the second thing is, that could not have happened without Moammar Gadhafi's knowledge and consent. There is no question in my mind that Moammar Gadhafi authorized the bombing of Pan Am 103."
To refresh your memory, 270 people, including 190 Americans, were killed when Flight 103 was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland. The terrorist attack has remained somewhat of a mystery, though we "seem certain" that some of the low level bad guys have been nailed.
What still puzzles me is that, according to Anderson and others, we knew then that Libya was behind the attack. And, we did nothing about it. Let's face reality for a moment. In this country, the good old US of A, we need absolute proof to convict one of our own. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But, in the world of terrorism, I would think that "reasonable suspicion" (I like that) should be enough. Given our history with Gadhafi, I would think that a combination of punitive and preventative strikes against him would have been in order. Punish the bum for what he did, and prevent him from ever wanting...or being able...to do it again. Collateral damage, you say? Yep, there would be some. I think that the deaths of 270 innocent people is justification enough to warrant surgical strikes inside Libya.
If anyone thinks that this country doesn't have the wherewithall to reach out and touch pretty much any leader we want to remove, you should think again. What must be decided is how much collateral damage is acceptable. I can only think that the old philosphy that it was much better to take out one to save a thousand was a good one. We'll never know how many thousands we could have saved had we made an example of this one scum back in 1986.
Too bad we stopped short.
Too bad we haven't corrected that mistake. As of yet, anyway.
Two years after we nailed some of his relatives in a bombing raid, Gadhafi...who was tipped off by another country and took cover...ordered the attack on Pan Am Flight 103.
The former CIA operative, Frank Anderson, discussed this with NBC News:
"There are two things that you can take to the bank," Anderson said. "The first one is, Pan Am 103 was perpetrated by agents of the Libyan government. And the second thing is, that could not have happened without Moammar Gadhafi's knowledge and consent. There is no question in my mind that Moammar Gadhafi authorized the bombing of Pan Am 103."
To refresh your memory, 270 people, including 190 Americans, were killed when Flight 103 was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland. The terrorist attack has remained somewhat of a mystery, though we "seem certain" that some of the low level bad guys have been nailed.
What still puzzles me is that, according to Anderson and others, we knew then that Libya was behind the attack. And, we did nothing about it. Let's face reality for a moment. In this country, the good old US of A, we need absolute proof to convict one of our own. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But, in the world of terrorism, I would think that "reasonable suspicion" (I like that) should be enough. Given our history with Gadhafi, I would think that a combination of punitive and preventative strikes against him would have been in order. Punish the bum for what he did, and prevent him from ever wanting...or being able...to do it again. Collateral damage, you say? Yep, there would be some. I think that the deaths of 270 innocent people is justification enough to warrant surgical strikes inside Libya.
If anyone thinks that this country doesn't have the wherewithall to reach out and touch pretty much any leader we want to remove, you should think again. What must be decided is how much collateral damage is acceptable. I can only think that the old philosphy that it was much better to take out one to save a thousand was a good one. We'll never know how many thousands we could have saved had we made an example of this one scum back in 1986.
Too bad we stopped short.
Too bad we haven't corrected that mistake. As of yet, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment