Elaborating on Michael's statement below, and strongly supporting it, I
offer the following :

- In 1974 in Germany (then the Federal Republic), members of the Group
Baader-Meinhoff were arrested while the SPD and Chancellor Willy Brandt were
in power. This was a Socialist government.
- In 1986 in France, members of Action Directe were arrested while the PS
and Prime Minister Laurent Fabius were in power. This was a Socialist
government.

How the heck can anyone view the Socialists as soft on terror ? They were as
hard on terror as any past, present or future government I know of.

Oh, for the record, I've NEVER voted for, or supported, a Socialist
government. I just wanted to offer FACTS.

As a teenager, I witnessed firsthand on the TV news most of the terrorist
mayhem of the 70s. It probably struck me as deeply as seeing Vietnam body
bags on TV struck Americans of the same age.

Christian
European resident

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]De la
> part de Michael Baier
> Envoyé : mercredi 17 mars 2004 23:23
> À : [log in to unmask]
> Objet : Re: [HP3000-L] OT: More Raw Meat
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:52:04 -0500, Brice Yokem
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Mr Gates -
> >
> >--------------
> >
> >Question, how can being against Mr. Bush's re-selection be
> construed as
> >'supporting terrorists'?
> >
> >--------------
> >
> >Because the alternative is seen as being soft on terrorism.
> >
>
> How do you know that? Where comes your knowledge from?
> In Europe we had terrorist for centuries and all parties
> worked hard and in
> the same manner to catch them.
> That happened in France    (Action direct)
> Germany (Baader-Meinhof and Red-Army-Fraction)
> Italy  (red brigades)
>
> So please, how do you know that democrats or socialists are
> soft on terror?
> Didn't these country support the US in Afghanistan and still do?
>
>
>
> >--------------
> >
> >Dude, I just don't like the way the guy and his staff are running the
> >country.  Blame whom you want, but before, Mr. Bush took
> over, I wasn't
> >doing half bad.  Since---It's a struggle to keep the lights
> on.  Whether or
> >not that is Mr. Bush's fault, I want to see what somebody
> else can do.
> >
> >--------------
> >
> >Can you say 'NAFTA'?  This started long before 'W' took
> office, and had
> >bi-partisan support.
> >
> >--------------
> >
> >I also did not agree with the war in Iraq.  I still think it
> was the wrong
> >thing for America to do, in spite of any advertised
> appreciation of our
> >action by the Iraqi citizens.   There are many ruthless
> despots in the
> >world, I do NOT happen to think it's the U.S. Army's job to
> act as dictator
> >exterminators.
> >
> >--------------
> >
> >I am not entirely satisfied with the job he is doing either, but even
> >less satisfied withthe alternative.
> >
> >* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> >* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *