More "Oil" found in Iraq

[Don Rearic]

Last Updated: Wednesday, 16 April, 2003, 01:44 GMT 02:44 UK

Fugitive hijacker 'held in Baghdad'

Abu Abbas was convicted in absentia

The United States says its special forces in the Iraqi capital Baghdad have captured Abu Abbas, the leader of Palestinian hijackers who seized an Italian cruise ship in the Mediterranean in 1985. An elderly American tourist in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, was killed during the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, and his body thrown into the sea.

Abbas eluded capture at the time but was convicted in absentia by a court in Italy for masterminding the attack.

The BBC's Ian Pannell, in Washington, says the US will regard his capture as an important victory in the war on terrorism, as well as something of a vindication of the charge that the regime of Saddam Hussein was connected to terrorist groups.

Abbas and the group he led, a faction of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), have been based in Iraq for the past 17 years.

US Central Command said special forces, backed by US infantry, captured him on Monday night. A number of his associates were also said to have been detained during raids at several sites in the city.

A spokesman said that it was not clear whether Abbas would be extradited for trial, but added that "justice would be served".

Abu Abbas, also known as Mohammed Abbas, had been mentioned by President George W Bush as an example of the kind of figure given refuge by the former regime of Saddam Hussein.

Last week, US marines found bomb-making equipment at a 20-building complex east of Baghdad, which the Americans say was a PLF training camp. Chemicals, gas masks and AK-47s were also found at the complex.

Egyptian deal

Four PLF members, including Abbas, carried out the 1985 attack on the Achille Lauro in an attempt to secure the release of 50 Palestinian prisoners being held in Israel.

The ship was seized while sailing between the Egyptian cities of Alexandria and Port Said.

After a two day stand-off, Egypt gave free passage to the hijackers in exchange for the rest of the hostages - many of them Americans.

But the plane carrying the hijackers to Tunisia was intercepted by US Navy jets and forced to land in Italy.

Abbas's co-conspirators were sentenced to long prison terms, but he himself was freed by the Italian authorities, who said they had insufficient evidence to detain him.

However, he was later convicted in absentia of masterminding the hijacking and received five life sentences.

Now in his early sixties, Abbas has reportedly spent much of the past 17 years in Iraq.

In 1996, he apologised for Mr Klinghoffer's death, describing the killing as a mistake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 951615.stm

See there? It's all about the oil.

[Gene DeMambro]

This needs to make up for the "dry wells" BUsh has sunk so far...

Tests rule out suspect bio-labs

Banned weapons: where are they?

Gene

[Don Rearic]

I guess it would mean more to you if you truly cared about terrorism, Gene. Perhaps if it were someone you cared about, you would care. Being a liberal means you never have to address your own nonsense I reckon.

[Gene DeMambro]

Being a liberal means you never have to address your own nonsense I reckon.

Much more interesting dealing with yours.

Gene

[Kevin Mackie]

..with tongue firmly planted in cheek....

We going to have to let him go, Don. I pulled this off an news story..

Abbas repeatedly apologized for the slaying, saying his fighters had meant to attack Israel and only seized the ship after its crew discovered the terrorists' weapons.

"The killing of the passenger was a mistake. ... We are sorry," he said.

He's sorry. All is forgiven.

So, you see, Hussain was not harboring a terrorist, the man was a "freedom fighter" unduely persecuted for a simpkle mistake. His gun went off accidentally, point blank into 69 YO Leon Klinghoffer's chest and head when Leon tried to subdue the armed liberators by running them over with his deadly wheelchair.

And furthermore, didn't Bill Clinton effectively grant him a pardon,(what? Clinton pardoning more terrorists???), when he signed the Oslo peace accord with Israel and the PLO? I'll have to look for a reference that I read about that. There is one way to keep him, though, just get Bill to say he never had peace relations with Israel or the PLO. (what? Bill Clinton lie?? Never under oath, though...Oh...oopps...nevermind)

..extracts tongue from cheek..

[Don Rearic]

Gene,

You don't have to address my nonsense because I don't post nonsense. I don't see you posting anything of substance and then me coming behind you and blowing out one liners.

Moderator?

Don

[Panther]

(Paraphrased)

From Rule #4) posters are generally given a lot of latitude and it is expected that to a certain degree posters will don their asbestos suits and thicker martial arts skin. However, always keep in mind that personal insults, threats, derogatory comments, non-public information, invasion of privacy, etc directed at another poster are not acceptable.

From Rule #5) posts on this forum are not required to be "Politically Correct"

From Rule #8) I expect everyone to be able to make reasonable articulable points for their positions in the discussion or debate.

Disagree with each other all you want... be gruff and uncultured about it if you wish... be passionate... But cut the crap.

Here's my take on this...

Don started a thread with an article about the capture of a terrorist in Baghdad. Gene replied with a comment and links to news accounts that are critical of the current administration. Don responded (in essence) that he felt the important point was that a terrorist had been captured and that fact might mean more to someone who had lost a loved one to a terrorist. In that response, Don made a comment about "liberals" which may or may not have been a general comment, but which appeared to possibly be directed at Gene. I have been reading and I let that comment stand because it wasn't obvious to me that it was actually a direct attack. It stands on its own as a personal feeling and comment towards a political persuasion or belief system. Gene obviously felt that comment was a direct insult to him. That is one way to read it... Gene responded by quoting that comment and then making a direct reference to Don. Kevin posted a follow-up to the original topic of the thread before Don came back with the observation that, in his opinion, basically Gene was violating rule #8 and he was unhappy with the {derogatory} comment from Gene that was directed towards him.

Anyone disagree with that? PM me...

So... Before I tell you what I want, I'll give you the opportunity to clean this little tif up on your own.

Gene, I'd also suggest that you can start another thread specifically about the subject matter you've posted. In that new thread, people can discuss that specific subject and in this one, people can discuss the "harboring terrorist" issues that were originally raised. The reply was fairly tangential to the topic of this thread and opens up a whole different subject/perspective for discussion. In another thread, it can be treated on its own without getting in the way of, what I think, is the subject of this thread. (IE: the terrorist issues)

Fair enough?

Now here is a general comment that comes to mind...

A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.
- Robert Frost

[Gene DeMambro]

Anyone disagree with that? PM me...

Done.

what I think, is the subject of this thread. (IE: the terrorist issues)

...or could the subject of this thread be that the war in Iraq is not about oil, but other, articulated purposes put forth by Pres. Bush, PM Blair, et. al., such as NBC weapons?

then me coming behind you and blowing out one liners.

Ah, but less can be more....

Gene

[IJ]

I'd be interested in seeing if there's any evidence that the "liberals" HAVE in fact voted that this man should be set free and not be punished for being a terrorist and murderer. If there isn't, then much of this doesn't apply (except that liberals have then been tried and convicted here of crimes not committed); if there is, there's formal proof I (and probably others so labeled here) am/are not liberal.

"I guess it would mean more to you if you truly cared about terrorism, Gene. Perhaps if it were someone you cared about, you would care. Being a liberal means you never have to address your own nonsense I reckon."

Do we see any proof that Gene doesn't care about terrorism? Because without it this is about as groundless as saying that Don doesn't care about those Iraqi children that had their heads caved in or limbs torn off by allied airstrikes. (I am unaware of any evidence that EITHER is the case). Suppose we invade India and Paraguay on a hunch and nab a terrorist on each adventure, and suppose we strip search 100,000 Americans without warrants and find a terrorist... shall we then say to anyone who questioned the commission or specifics of these acts (or even simply raised a related issue) that they don't care about terrorism? Sometimes with all the false accusations being made these days that take advantage of war for political gain (that trying to win an election against an incumbent in wartime is unpatriotic) or the propagandizing legislation (labeling a piece of legislation some like a patriot act to label all that might oppose it unpatriotic before any discussion or analysis can even begin) it wouldn't seem that beyond reason.

Anyway, we are then after the smoke and mirrors are removed back to the original assertion of the thread which appears to be that the fact that a terrorist has been nabbed means that oil had nothing to do with the war. This is probably the better of the two silly binary options presented by more opinionated groups on either side of this issue: that the war was either all about oil or that the war had nothing to do with oil. However, as individuals we're not taking a multiple choice test and we are left free to decide how much each factor weighed in the overall decision and how appropriate we think that weighting is.

[Don Rearic]

Gene,

I would be lying if I said that I did not feel that way about you, that you are a liberal and that being one means you never have to admit you were wrong or sorry. But it was a generalized comment about the vast majority of liberals taken as a whole political ideology or movement.

However, I think that is a really thin claim that anyone is being insulted here. You have obviously espoused "liberal beliefs," no? Am I wrong? Would it be more proper to call you a "Conservative" or a "Libertarian" as we have come to know those terms in this country (they are different in Europe)?

For example, would it be an "insult" to call Rosie O'Donnell a "Gungrabber?" She obviously wants guns to be controlled which in the liberal definition is...taking them away from people. I would think that if you were to call her that to her face, she would smile as she would smile at being called a "liberal."

I would not be insulted if you referred to me as a "Conservative" or a "Libertarian." I'm actually somewhere between the two, but I would not be insulted by it nor would I claim that it was foul to call me that because that is what I am. I would be lying if I claimed insult at being called that.

So, where is the "insult?"

The point about never having to admit you were wrong or apologizing for being wrong is clearly evident in the thread. "Liberals" as a whole have been decrying this war as not being about terrorism when it clearly is and on many different levels. That is what I was trying to say but you don't like any sort of "victory" for a President that you are politically opposed to, therefore, you are going to come in and more or less just be a smartass about it. This is not the only thread you have done this in Gene, I'm not just using this thread as a basis for my opinion.

Now that I said, "smartass," is that now going to become a fabricated "insult" as well after you came into another topic and simply posted "Bull" after something I wrote? You seem to be itching for that fight Gene.

All I am asking for is this Gene, if you are going to take the time to hit reply to topic and then type something and hit submit, write something intelligent instead of something snotty.

[Don Rearic]

I'd be interested in seeing if there's any evidence that the "liberals" HAVE in fact voted that this man should be set free and not be punished for being a terrorist and murderer. If there isn't, then much of this doesn't apply (except that liberals have then been tried and convicted here of crimes not committed); if there is, there's formal proof I (and probably others so labeled here) am/are not liberal.

I never said a thing about anyone here wanting this man released. I am talking about everyone who is a "liberal" wishing to belittle the Administration for doing what they promised to do. Let's try to stay on topic and not invent things as we go along, shall we?

"Liberals" have said this war was about oil and not terrorism, savvy? So, we bust a terrorist who has been wanted for a very long time and someone more or less comes in and says, "So?"

That's because you cannot please a zealot.

Do we see any proof that Gene doesn't care about terrorism? Because without it this is about as groundless as saying that Don doesn't care about those Iraqi children that had their heads caved in or limbs torn off by allied airstrikes. (I am unaware of any evidence that EITHER is the case).

Gene has shown a propensity to be flippant on points I make, as I stated above. And he was flippant in this thread. What does Gene want to do about terrorism? Obviously the Iraq Conflict is out, shall we try asking politely that all the bad men stop doing bad things? More sanctions? Containment? None of that works. So, yeah, personally, I don't think that Gene really cares about terrorism until it comes up and bites him on the ass. It's just an observation because he apparently does not want to do anything about it.

Since you brought it up, Ian, I do care about the children of Iraq and every other innocent person who was injured. What you don't seem to comprehend is that a certain number of them were going to be kidnapped, tortured or killed by that Regime anyway and we put an end to that. That ***** Ian, but that is REALITY.

Suppose we invade India and Paraguay on a hunch and nab a terrorist on each adventure...

I would say that we are protecting ourselves if that is what in fact happened.

...and suppose we strip search 100,000 Americans without warrants and find a terrorist...

Where does one hide a terrorist that can be found during a strip search?

...shall we then say to anyone who questioned the commission or specifics of these acts (or even simply raised a related issue) that they don't care about terrorism?

Did Gene question anything or did Gene simply come in and urinate on a thread? Not literally, you know what I mean.

Sometimes with all the false accusations being made these days that take advantage of war for political gain (that trying to win an election against an incumbent in wartime is unpatriotic)

Well it CAN be a cheap shot and it CAN be unpatriotic if you are firing broadsides at someone who is trying to actually do something about terrorists instead of kissing their ass and having another "meeting" which does nothing...

...or the propagandizing legislation (labeling a piece of legislation some like a patriot act to label all that might oppose it unpatriotic before any discussion or analysis can even begin) it wouldn't seem that beyond reason.

You want to see me be critical of Bush?

I don't like the Patriot Act, I think the mere name of it is sh*tty and insulting, it insults the intelligence of any thinking person even hearing it. It does not matter if it is "Patriot," or "Patriot II" or "Patriot IV," it ***** and it's not going to do a damned thing to combat terrorism.

Anyway, we are then after the smoke and mirrors are removed back to the original assertion of the thread which appears to be that the fact that a terrorist has been nabbed means that oil had nothing to do with the war.

See what I mean? OIL OIL OIL, well, Bush said it was a war on terrorism and I remember liberals saying that Saddam was just doing his own thing, he ain't harboring any terrorists, what does invading Iraq have to do with a war on terrorism?

We got a terrorist, we have shut down some terrorist training camps.

More than that, we're sending a message to the rest of them, if they're going to act like barbarians, this is what they're going to get. Furthermore, if it is found out through hard intelligence that Syria or Iran has some terrorists there that we can target, I'm all for sending in Delta/CAG and removing them from the planet.

[Panther]

In 1998, Abu Abbas was allowed to travel to the Gaza strip, meet with Yasir Arifat & the PLO, give opinions on PLO policies and vote as a member. The Israeli's wanted to arrest Abbas for his terrorist acts (there are more than just the Achille Lauro incident), but under the direction of W.J. Clinton, the U.S. blackmailed Israel into allowing Abbas' visit and freedom.

When confronted with this fact, the official Clinton Administration response came from State Department spokesman James Rubin, who said on May 11, 1998, regarding the Abbas case: "Well, let me say that the United States strongly believes that Abu Abbas should be punished for the crimes committed aboard the Achille Lauro in 1985. Abbas was tried in absentia in Italy in 1986, found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. There are no charges pending against Abu Abbas in the United States. The statute of limitations has long since run out."

But a study by the Congressional Research Service found that, in fact, the statute of limitations had not (and has not) expired, because the statute is suspended when the suspect is a fugitive from justice. The CRS, which is the official and authoritative research division of the U.S. Congress, examined the Abbas issue and compiled a detailed 14-page report. On the question of the statute of limitations, the report concluded (p.7): "It would appear that section 3290 (of the U.S. Criminal Code) would operate to toll (meaning suspend the expiration of) the statute of limitations in Abbas' case."

The U.S. Senate passed, by a vote of 99-0, a resolution introduced by Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY), urging the Clinton administration to demand that Yasir Arafat transfer Abbas to the United States to be prosecuted for his crimes. The Clinton Administration delayed long enough for Abbas to safely return to Iraq from the meeting in Gaza.

Those are the facts and they can be verified easily. So, it would appear that the (admittedly "Liberal") Clinton Administration IS directly responsible for Abbas' freedom. Especially since Abbas was originally captured by the (admittedly "Conservative") Reagan Administration within 3 days after the end of the Achille Lauro incident. (Also easily verified.)

So... There actually is evidence that Liberals set this man free.

[Gene DeMambro]

Don,

Stop reading into my posts. You implication that I don't about terrorism or that I would care more if someone I knew was adversely impacted was uncalled for and just plain wrong. You imply supposed nonsense into my writings, by attaching meanings that just plainly aren't there. And if you were truly interested what I thought about Abu Abbas, the Achille Lauro, terrorism as a whole and the reasons and justification this war, you'd ask (see below), instead of implying meanings that are vastly incorrect. You are inventing meanings to my words, in opposition to your own stated request. If you'd like specifics, I'd be happy to provide them.

So, yeah, personally, I don't think that Gene really cares about terrorism until it comes up and bites him on the ass.

How can I put this...You're wrong on this point. Because you've never bothered to ask. And because of this, you have this wrong idea about it, and you spew your nonsense about what I think about terrorism. You whole basis for your opinion is wrong, so the rest of it falls.

Since Don did ask what I'd do about terrorism, here's my answer:

Afghanistan was a great and necessary campaign. Bush had it right when he said he'd make no distinction between terrorists and the nations who harbor them. But there was clear and convincing evidence of the threat the terrorists hiding in Afghanistan posed.

But the late NY Gov. Fiorela La Guardia had a saying. Paraphrased, that when it comes time to caress, caress, but when it comes time to smash, smash.

The key in dealing with states that harbor terrorsists is to know when to do what. Notice that Pakistan and Qatar have been caressed, and it's paid dividends thus far.

As for the terrorists themselves, when caught, they ought to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. They are noting more than murderous criminals, and ought to be treated as such. Abu Abbas (despite his apologies, Kevin) and Bin Laden included.

"Liberals" have said this war was about oil and not terrorism, savvy? So, we bust a terrorist who has been wanted for a very long time and someone more or less comes in and says, "So?"

And that someone is...? It certainly isn't me. So Pres. Bush got a "terrorist" feather in his cap. Good for him and us, and it gets one more criminal out of the way. But so far the WMD reason has been a bust, which can can be topic for another thread.

That's because you cannot please a zealot.

And those zealots are whom? And what are they so zealous about?

Did Gene question anything or did Gene simply come in and urinate on a thread? Not literally, you know what I mean.

I questioned nothing about Abu Abbas because there was nothing to question. I brought forth an ancillary point to your main point, which was sarcastically made, that it isn't about the oil.

So what is the subject of this thread:

(1) The war isn't about oil, it's about capturing terrorists
(2) The war isn't about oil, but about a whole host of reasons, including capturing terrorists, WMD and regional stability
(3) The war isn't about oil, but it's about....

Which is it, so I can clearly articulate my response to prevent people from wrongly infering anything from my answers.

But, for God's sake Don, stop saying I don't care about terrorism.

Gene

[Gene DeMambro]

Don,

Stop reading into my posts. Your implication that I don't care about terrorism or that I would care more if someone I knew was adversely impacted was uncalled for and just plain wrong. You imply supposed nonsense into my writings, by attaching meanings that just plainly aren't there. And if you were truly interested what I thought about Abu Abbas, the Achille Lauro, terrorism as a whole and the reasons and justification for this war, you'd ask (see below), instead of implying meanings that are vastly incorrect. You are inventing meanings to my words, in opposition to your own stated request. If you'd like specifics, I'd be happy to provide them.

So, yeah, personally, I don't think that Gene really cares about terrorism until it comes up and bites him on the ass.

How can I put this...You're wrong on this point. Because you've never bothered to ask. And because of this, you have this wrong idea about it, and you spew your nonsense about what I think about terrorism. Your whole basis for your opinion is wrong, so the rest of it falls.

Since Don did ask what I'd do about terrorism, here's my answer:

Afghanistan was a great and necessary campaign. Bush had it right when he said he'd make no distinction between terrorists and the nations who harbor them. But there was clear and convincing evidence of the threat the terrorists hiding in Afghanistan posed, but I'm not convinced about the threat Iraq poses (which can be a topic for another thread). For years the US State Department has published a list of staes that promote terrorism, but no one has done anything about-both Republican and Democratic administrations.

But the late NY Gov. La Guardia had a saying. Paraphrased, it said that when it comes time to caress, caress; but when it comes time to smash, smash.

The key in dealing with states that harbor terrorsists is to know when to do what. Notice that Pakistan and Qatar have been caressed, and it's paid dividends thus far.

As for the terrorists themselves, when caught, they ought to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. They are nothing more than murderous criminals, and ought to be treated as such. Abu Abbas (despite his apologies, Kevin) and Bin Laden included.

"Liberals" have said this war was about oil and not terrorism, savvy? So, we bust a terrorist who has been wanted for a very long time and someone more or less comes in and says, "So?"

And that someone is...? It certainly isn't me. So Pres. Bush got a "terrorist" feather in his cap. Good for him and us, and it gets one more criminal out of the way. And I hope we got more of the murderous bastards.

But so far the WMD reason has been a bust, which can can be topic for another thread.

That's because you cannot please a zealot.

And those zealots are whom? And what are they so zealous about?

Did Gene question anything or did Gene simply come in and urinate on a thread? Not literally, you know what I mean.

I questioned nothing about Abu Abbas because there was nothing to question. I brought forth an ancillary point to your main point, which was sarcastically made, that it isn't about the oil.

So what is the subject of this thread:

(1) The war isn't about oil, it's about capturing terrorists
(2) The war isn't about oil, but about a whole host of reasons, including capturing terrorists, WMD and regional stability
(3) The war isn't about oil, but it's about....

Which is it, so I can clearly articulate my response to prevent people from wrongly infering anything from my answers.

But, for God's sake Don, stop saying I don't care about terrorism.

Gene

[Don Rearic]

Gene,

I'm not going to go back point by point because it is going to turn into a much larger fight. You have exhibited a deliberately flippant attitude as of late when I would post something of substance.

Now, Gene, is that a fair statement or not? Because I'm sure there are others who have noticed it and I'm sick of it. The reason I started drawing conclusions about what your words mean is because your words were that of a snot-nose, condescending troll. I don't have to ask your opinion on terrorism when I post something about terrorism and you come into the thread with that arrogance and start bodyslamming what I wrote about.

Quite frankly, I don't even care if this IS about OIL anymore because it is quite obvious that the terrorist vermin of one entire country are being eradicated. And if you don't think that is a damned good thing, I don't know what else to tell you.

Before you get "wounded" because I "insulted" you by just referring to your words or attitude as being that of a "snot-nose, condescending troll," remember that I am speaking directly at the goofy habit you have of dumping in a thread...in a Forum called, "Tough Issues" when you usually don't discuss anything but instead feel completely justified to snipe.

You are known by your words Gene. Don't complain when you don't cast illumination on them and people draw their own conclusions about that which you have said. You had every appearance of not giving a damn about terrorism. At least as long as a Republican was the one doing the ass kicking. I am glad that you now have cast that illumination and now...perhaps...we can have a meaningful exchange.