[thunderous_funker]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Abbas, who masterminded the hijacking of an Italian cruise ship in 1985, was captured by U.S. special forces and is in U.S. custody in Baghdad, a U.S. official said on Tuesday.

Abbas, also known as Mohammed Abbas, is the leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, which hijacked the Achille Lauro in the eastern Mediterranean, resulting in the death of a disabled elderly American man, Leon Klinghoffer.

Abbas had spent most of the past 17 years in Iraq (news - web sites), beyond the reach of U.S. and Italian officials. He had been sentenced in Italy to five life terms in prison, and is wanted in the United States in connection with the cruise ship hijacking.

There were reports in January that Abbas was in Egypt to take part in talks to end Palestinian attacks on civilians in Israel, but Egyptian authorities denied he was in the country. "He's been captured. My understanding is he was captured during a raid on a house in the outskirts of Baghdad late last night," the U.S. official told Reuters.

"It was conducted by special forces," he said.

The capture of Abbas was first reported by CNN's national security correspondent David Ensor who said Abbas had been taken into custody by U.S. forces "in or near Baghdad."

[davesimondotcom]

Why was he in Iraq? Saddam didn't support terrorism...

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Why was he in Iraq? Saddam didn't support terrorism...

You can't be serious.

I don't remember anyone trying to claim that Saddam didn't support terrorism. I do remember people discrediting the claim that Saddam supported Al'Queda. You do realize that "terrorist" does not equate to an ideology, political faction, movement or cause right?

Everyone knew Abu Abbas was in Iraq. He's been there for 17 years.

Just like Kissinger (who is considered a war criminal by millions of people around the world) lives in the US.

[Mohammed Al-Sabah]

alot of countires supported terrorism at one point.. and yes even the US ... terrorism comes in alot of type and forms

[thunderous_funker]

Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology, faction, political cause, ethnic group, religious cult or anything else.

It is a tactic that has been used by just about everyone at one point or another.

The term is usually used as a means of ignoring the motivations of such actions which also conveniently causes many people to associate groups, factions, religions, ethnic groups, ideologies, political movements with each other even when they have absolutely nothing in common other than use of similar tactics.

This is exactly how you make 60% of Americans think that Iraqis participated in 9/11.

[Mohammed Al-Sabah]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology, faction, political cause, ethnic group, religious cult or anything else.

It is a tactic that has been used by just about everyone at one point or another.

The term is usually used as a means of ignoring the motivations of such actions which also conveniently causes many people to associate groups, factions, religions, ethnic groups, ideologies, political movements with each other even when they have absolutely nothing in common other than use of similar tactics.

This is exactly how you make 60% of Americans think that Iraqis participated in 9/11.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

This is exactly how you make 60% of Americans think that Iraqis participated in 9/11.

I don't care whether or not Iraq participated in 9/11. They were dangerous irrespective of that, and had been dangerous for many, many years. Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were only two big name terrorist celebrities -- I'm sure there are plenty of others.

With the right media backing, you can make Americans believe whatever you want them to believe. For example: CNN had copious knowledge of human rights violations and terrorism and refused to tell about it, allowing Americans to get a biased view of what was really going on and what this guy was about.

But this is a pointless discussion: you opposed war for ANY REASON, right? If Al Jazeera covered dumptruck loads full of dead babies streaming from downtown Baghdad, it wouldn't be enough, right?

Or maybe it's any war backed by G.W. Bush? Maybe any idea that Bush subscribes to is, by default, bad or evil?

Just because you don't agree with a war doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy afoot to explain those of us who do, TF. I think I've heard that somewhere before.

[Zimphire]

Last time I checked, we weren't on a track to get the 9/11 guys, but were on a war against terrorism. And I think it's safe to say, these guys are indeed terrorists. Anything to make a conspiracy over, bash the US and Bush, to feed the whiney left.

[Mars_Attacks]

I wonder how much courage it took to shove a handicapped man in his wheelchair overboard.

With all the antisemitism here, I bet he's considered a hero.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology, faction, political cause, ethnic group, religious cult or anything else.

It is a tactic that has been used by just about everyone at one point or another.

The term is usually used as a means of ignoring the motivations of such actions which also conveniently causes many people to associate groups, factions, religions, ethnic groups, ideologies, political movements with each other even when they have absolutely nothing in common other than use of similar tactics.

This is exactly how you make 60% of Americans think that Iraqis participated in 9/11.

I don't really follow this argument at all. You are responding as if this is spin. But this news isn't spin, it is simple fact. This man was a notorious terrorist who hijacked an Italian cruise liner, and killed an elderly, wheelchair-bound Jewish American. He escaped, and was harbored by Saddam. Now he has been captured by the coalition.

Maybe you think that most Americans are so dumb that they think that all terrorism is one organization? I don't think that is the case. Most people, it seems to me, are smart enough to know that we have been suffering terrorist attacks for decades. The murder of Leon Klinghoffer was in 1985. I hadn't forgotten it, and it is notorious enough that I don't think many others would have either. Nobody is going to confuse this with the 9/11 attacks.

One thing this might do, however, is to remind us how feckless the response of the civilized world has been to terrorism. It also might serve as a warning both to terrorists, and the regimes that support them. There is no statute of limitations on murder. We will get you in the end.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
One thing this might do, however, is to remind us how feckless the response of the civilized world has been to terrorism. It also might serve as a warning both to terrorists, and the regimes that support them. There is no statute of limitations on murder. We will get you in the end.

IIRC the main source of income of the IRA was from donations made by US citizens. With the tacit knowledge of the US government.

The exact death-toll of the Irish bombings escapes me at the moment...

[Timo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't really follow this argument at all. You are responding as if this is spin. But this news isn't spin, it is simple fact. This man was a notorious terrorist who hijacked an Italian cruise liner, and killed an elderly, wheelchair-bound Jewish American. He escaped, and was harbored by Saddam. Now he has been captured by the coalition.

I'm happy he was captured, but more and more confused as the details emerge. The "simple fact" of his terror is now underpinned with all kinds of mixed messages. According to NPR:
1. He's been convicted in absentia in Italy, but (again, according to NPR) Italy hasn't made any serious efforts at extradition;
2. The PLO claims he should be released because the Oslo Peace Accords specifically exclude the conviction of Palestinian officials before 1993;
3. There are no charges currently against him from the U.S., so there's no basis for extraditing him here. Of course, new charges could be brought up.

The NPR commentator suggested that, in the end, he might be turned over to Italy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
IIRC the main source of income of the IRA was from donations made by US citizens. With the tacit knowledge of the US government.

The exact death-toll of the Irish bombings escapes me at the moment...

I hope you aren't implying that I support the donation of money to IRA terrorists, are you? Not every American supports the actions of every other American. I personally think that giving money to charities when you know some of that money will be used for arms to terrorists is horrible.

But there is also a distinction that you have to be aware of. The money that came from Irish Americans were private donations. That's not the same thing as state sponsorship. What we are talking about here is state sponsorship. Iraq gave a wanted international terrorist safe harbor for 17 years. If the US gave safe harbor to wanted members of the IRA, you might be looking at a direct comparison. But that isn't the case.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I hope you aren't implying that I support the donation of money to IRA terrorists, are you? Not every American supports the actions of every other American.

I would never suggest that you of all people would support the donation of money to terrorists.

I just thought that you were getting a tad self righteous, saying:

It also might serve as a warning both to terrorists, and the regimes that support them. There is no statute of limitations on murder. We will get you in the end.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Timo:
2. The PLO claims he should be released because the Oslo Peace Accords specifically exclude the conviction of Palestinian officials before 1993;

Yes, I saw that. I'm not sure what the legal status of the Oslo Accords are at this moment. It seems like maybe the Intefida and hostilities by Israel in response violates them to the point where they might be considered void. Anyway, I'd say there is no chance whatever of the US releasing him to Arafat.

I'm not sure about the Italians. Didn't they release him once already? As I recall, the US forced his plane down in Sicily, but then the Italian government released him. As for US charges, I don't know what there is at the moment, but there are US statutes relating to the murder of Americans in hijackings. There is no statute of limitations on murder, so I think an indictment is possible.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
I wonder how much courage it took to shove a handicapped man in his wheelchair overboard.

With all the antisemitism here, I bet he's considered a hero.

\\ I must have been reading a different board.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
IIRC the main source of income of the IRA was from donations made by US citizens. With the tacit knowledge of the US government.

"Tacit knowledge"? What does that mean? Tacit - done or made in silence. I take it that you are implying that the funding of the IRA had some kind of unspoken support from the US government. Do you have some kind of proof of this? Why would the US government want to do such a thing? I understand why Irish-Americans might be so inclined but I can't think of any reason for the government to be like-minded. There's simply no upside.

[Timo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, I saw that. I'm not sure what the legal status of the Oslo Accords are at this moment. It seems like maybe the Intefida and hostilities by Israel in response violates them to the point where they might be considered void. Anyway, I'd say there is no chance whatever of the US releasing him to Arafat.

You're right in that it doesn't much matter. I can't see any scenario where the PLO gets him either. But on to the main point, justice:

I'm not sure about the Italians. Didn't they release him once already? As I recall, the US forced his plane down in Sicily, but then the Italian government released him. As for US charges, I don't know what there is at the moment, but there are US statutes relating to the murder of Americans in hijackings. There is no statute of limitations on murder, so I think an indictment is possible.

What I heard or thought I heard on NPR is such charges had been dropped. Now of course charges can be reinstated, but what's the motive for dropping murder charges?

Also, apparantly his presence has been tolerated in Gaza. From CNN:

Israel allowed him in to cast his vote at a meeting of the Palestinian National Council last month and has turned a blind eye to his presence since then.

What's going on? Dealin' with the devil? Full wacky link here.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
"Tacit knowledge"? What does that mean? Tacit - done or made in silence. I take it that you are implying that the funding of the IRA had some kind of unspoken support from the US government.

What I do claim is that the government knew about the funds raised in favour of the IRA. There's no conspiracy there, it was public knowledge. The fundraising did not happen in secret.

If not stopping the financial support for a known and active terrorist organization by its citizens equals support for their actions is a difficult decision.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
What I do claim is that the government knew about the funds raised in favour of the IRA. There's no conspiracy there, it was public knowledge. The fundraising did not happen in secret.

If not stopping the financial support for a known and active terrorist organization by its citizens equals support for their actions is a difficult decision.

The existence of organized crime is no secret too but that doesn't mean the government suports the mafia.

[thunderous_funker]

Some of you are completely insane, totally mired in a world of your own creation or borderline illiterate.

finboy-- I don't know how you thought I was making any statement at all about the justification of the war on Iraq. I don't even see how it's a related topic.

I posted Abbas capture because it's good news. The man is a criminal and a murderer.

I responded to some half-arse comment about Iraq and terrorism by pointing out that slapping the blanket term "terrorist" on people tends to blind others to the complexities of the various factions and ideologies that are at war with each other around the world. I think it's overly manipulative at worst and grossly misleading at best to simply throw the word around and lead people to think they are all somehow interconnected or that they share goals or causes. They don't. If the war on terrorism is going have any chance at success, maybe we should be concerned that Americans don't seem to understand who the enemy is or what they are even fighting for.

I've also never claimed to a pacifist (still not sure how this is even related to anything in this thread) and I certainly don't think that war is never necesssary. Again, how the hell is this topical??

You should stop responding to my name rather than my posts and you should probably bother to read them instead of assuming that you know my thoughts and ideas on any subject simply because you think you know my political leanings. It's surprising how often you are completely wrong in your assumptions about me.

Simey--How is anything I posted here a suggestion that Abbas' capture is "spin"??????? What thread are you reading???

I'm simply frustrated that when news of a Palestinian terrorist of the 70's is posted that people start talking like "terrorists" are all part of the same club and capturing Abbas means anything to our current concerns.

You people can go back to talking about the IRA or the mafia now.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
\\ I must have been reading a different board.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=155560

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=155560

I think you mean anti-Israeli. The term semitic can include peoples past and present: Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
I think you mean anti-Israeli. The term semitic can include peoples past and present: Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.

an�ti-Sem�ite (nt-smt, nt-)
n.
One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
What I do claim is that the government knew about the funds raised in favour of the IRA. There's no conspiracy there, it was public knowledge. The fundraising did not happen in secret.

If not stopping the financial support for a known and active terrorist organization by its citizens equals support for their actions is a difficult decision.

As far as I know, there wasn't anything that the federal government could have done at the time under existing law. The charities were all set up with plausible deniability, and privacy laws set up in the wake of domestic spying scandals in the 1970s would have prevented more in-depth investigation. It wasn't just the IRA that benefitted from that. Charities that contributed to groups like Hezbollah did as well. Even Bin Laden raised funds in the US.

Of course, we could be conspiratorial and point out that one of the main authors of the privacy laws that made surveillance of terrorist-sponsoring charities impossible was one Mr. Kennedy. But I'm sure he would be the first to condemn Irish Republicans.

Leaving that aside, what you might consider ironic is your biggest friend here is Mr. Ashcroft and the USA Patriot Act. That act makes the kind of plausible deniability fundraising we are talking about much easier to prosecute.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
The existence of organized crime is no secret too but that doesn't mean the government suports the mafia.

You're being difficult on purpose, aren't you? The difference is that the mafia isn't tolerated, right? At least it wasn't last time I looked.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
an�ti-Sem�ite (nt-smt, nt-)
n.
One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

...and if you read the thread to which you linked, you'll notice many pointed out that Israel does not automatically mean "Jew", and this is correct. Hence criticsm of Israel does not automatically equal an attack on those of Jewish faith. I don't agree with Israeli policy all the time, so am I an anti-Semite? What a laugh. Bringing religion into the discussion is disingenuous, so can it.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You're being difficult on purpose, aren't you?

I'm being difficult because your assumptions are faulty.

The difference is that the mafia isn't tolerated, right? At least it wasn't last time I looked.

Somebody raises money to send to Ireland there's only so much that can be done about it within the law. There are similar problems when dealing with the Mafia. To a certain extent we do have to tolerate the Mafia.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
...and if you read the thread to which you linked, you'll notice many pointed out that Israel does not automatically mean "Jew", and this is correct. Hence criticsm of Israel does not automatically equal an attack on those of Jewish faith. I don't agree with Israeli policy all the time, so am I an anti-Semite? What a laugh. Bringing religion into the discussion is disingenuous, so can it.

I never claimed just because you are against what Israel was doing made you a anti-semite.

But yeah sure nothing anti-semitic was said.

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
It's just another sign of the inevitable collapse of the Abrahamic religions. Like it or not, they are really obsolete and ill disposed to counsel the moral quandaries of modern global society.

Now you are at 0-2 want to go on?

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Now you are at 0-2 want to go on?

Glad you think that- I know it's important to you. I promise to let you have the last word after this post, and you can put whatever score on it that suits your forum ego. Read my post above. I noted what others said, that Israeli does not equal Jew, and that I agree with this. Thanks for Axo1ot1's quote, but I don't interpret it as discrimination, prejudice or hostility. If someone tells me Christianity is obsolete, I certainly don't feel like I'm the victim of said behavior. We simply have different beliefs. Perhaps that is what you are uncomfortable with? So no, I still don't see the anti-Semitism, but be my guest to feel indignant.

[Zimphire]

Doesn't matter what you feel the def in. The dictionary obviously knows a tad bit better than your "opinion"

And yes, his comments were anti-semitic.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Doesn't matter what you feel the def in. The dictionary obviously knows a tad bit better than your "opinion"

huh? Where in the dictionary does it say that anti-semite equals anti-Israeli?

And yes, his comments were anti-semitic.

Your opinion. See previous post.

(ok, now you can have the last word. What's the score by the way? Are you winning yet? )