1
   

One less terrorist

 
 
Fedral
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 08:32 am
One less terrorist[/u]
Oliver North
March 12, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- It started on my 42nd birthday -- Monday, Oct. 7, 1985. No sooner had I arrived at my office in the White House that morning, than the senior watch officer in the Situation Room called. No hard intelligence was available yet, but something was amiss in the Mediterranean. What we did know was that it was an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, and it was about 30 miles from Port Said, Egypt where four Palestinian terrorists had embarked carrying grenades, guns and ammunition. Years before Sept. 11, most passenger cruise ships didn't have the security procedures they do today.

Urban legends to the contrary, more of my time in Ronald Reagan's White House was spent on counterterrorism than on any other issue. This particular incident was about to keep me and other members of the counterterrorism task force awake and working around the clock for the next several days. For the terrorist who planned the attack, the ultimate conclusion came this week, when Abul Abbas, a.k.a. Mohammed Abbas, died in American custody after being captured in Baghdad 11 months earlier by U.S. Special Forces.

The original goal of the hijackers was to attack Israeli interests after docking at the Israeli port of Ashdod. But their cover was blown by a cabin steward on board, and they resorted to taking over the ship, demanding the release of 50 Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails. To demonstrate their brutality, they murdered an American and later bragged about it. Leon Klinghoffer, who was confined to a wheelchair, was shot in the head and dumped into the sea.

After being denied asylum in Syria, the ship returned to Egypt. Charlie Allen, the CIA's expert on terrorism at the time, noticed that Abul Abbas -- the head of the Palestine Liberation Front, a terrorist organization, and a member of the PLO executive committee -- had been granted diplomatic clearance into Egypt. Abbas was a key ally of PLO leader Yasser Arafat and had a history of brutal, though poorly executed, attacks on Israeli citizens.

Abbas was dispatched to Egypt by Arafat to play the role of a "neutral peacemaker." Apparently, the terrorists on board the Achille Lauro didn't get the memo explaining the ruse that Abbas would pose as a neutral party, because when he came on the radio to "negotiate" with them, they greeted him with the words, "Commander, we are happy to hear your voice."

Back at the White House, we drafted a strong personal message for President Reagan to send to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, asking him to turn the terrorists over to us -- or at least to the Italians, as we learned that Arafat and Abbas had struck a deal with Mubarak that if the terrorists surrendered to the Egyptians they would be given safe passage out of the country.

While that information was true, it was the timing of their exit that was in question. In the Situation Room on Thursday morning, I found a cable informing us that the Egyptians allowed the four terrorists to leave the country. Mubarak claimed ignorance to the validity of the report, the terrorists' whereabouts and the murder of Klinghoffer.

After checking with numerous sources in Washington and around the world, we learned that not only were the terrorists still in Egypt, but that they would be flying out that night, with the help of the Egyptians, and Abul Abbas would be on the plane with them.

We devised a plan for F-14 Tomcats flying off the Sixth Fleet's USS Saratoga to intercept the plane and force it down at a base in Sigonella, Sicily, so we could take the terrorists into custody and fly them back to the United States to stand trial. A team of Special Operations Forces had been dispatched overseas days earlier, believing that they would have to board the Achille Lauro and take out the terrorists on the ship.

It was a difficult, dangerous mission, but Navy pilots and Special Ops Forces executed it to the letter. The problem began when the Italian national police involved themselves and demanded custody of Abbas and his terrorists. Since a shoot-out with the Italians would have been a political disaster, we had to entrust them with custody of Abbas and his henchmen. Abbas was separated from the others and eventually was put on a plane in Rome where he made his way to Yugoslavia to Tunisia to Damascus to Baghdad.

In the years that he was given safe haven in Iraq, Abbas was believed to be a key conduit between Saddam Hussein and Palestinian terrorists whose families were rewarded by Saddam based on the number of Israelis they were able to murder.

While I was in Iraq as an embedded correspondent for Fox News, U.S. Special Forces found Abul Abbas in Baghdad and took him into custody, proving what Ronald Reagan said 18 years earlier: "You can run, but you can't hide." Abbas and Abu Nidal, who was found dead in Iraq, were just two of numerous terrorists who were granted safe haven by Saddam.

While it is unfortunate that Abbas avoided having to stand trial and answer for his crimes, the American public can take comfort in the fact that he was in American custody, and there is one less terrorist in the world today.


Where oh where is Oliver North?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,147 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 09:34 am
One terrorist dead.
Regrettably, Ollie North
Still remains at large.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 09:37 am
Wasn't Ollie North indicted for his role in providing weapons to terrorists?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 09:46 am
Freedom fighters, EBrown, freedom fighters . . . and anyway, Judge Silberstien set his conviction aside, like a good Republican dupe . . .
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 10:00 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Wasn't Ollie North indicted for his role in providing weapons to terrorists?


Not really ebrown, he was charged with providing weapons to the Iranians (allegedly in exchange for the release of the hostages they held) and funnelling the money to assist the Contra's with equipment that was barred by Congressional decision.

For a better rundown, check here
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 10:36 am
Fedral,

What is your definition for the word "terrorist"?

None of the definitions I have seen include the word "Arab".
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 10:48 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Fedral,

What is your definition for the word "terrorist"?

None of the definitions I have seen include the word "Arab".


At what point anywhere did I use either word?

If you are speaking of the author of the article that was posted, those were his words not mine....

Although I do count people who take over a cruise liner at gunpoint and shoot a wheelchair bound man, who could do them no harm, in the back of the head and pitch him in the ocean as 'terrorists'.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 12:52 pm
Agreed.

I am just wondering why you don't put the Contras, for example, in the same category.

Our friend Ollie is not the right person to be condemning those who support terrorists.

------------------
"One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter."
-R. Reagan.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 01:40 pm
Weren't the contras fighting to free their country from an unelected communist regime (sandanistas)? As a result of our support of the contras, there is a free democracy there now.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 01:49 pm
Did y'all hear about the recent bus bombings in Spain?

They think it was AlQueda because of the support Spain gave us for the war.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 01:55 pm
My question is -- ' what is your definition of "terrorist"'?

It sounds like you are saying that if you agree with a cause than its proponents are not terrorists.

You could just as easily say the Palestinians are fighting to free their country from an occupying power that they have no ability to elect. Doesn't this mean they are not terrorists?

Your subjective use of the word "terrorist" is not very satisfying.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 02:14 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Agreed.

I am just wondering why you don't put the Contras, for example, in the same category.

Our friend Ollie is not the right person to be condemning those who support terrorists.

------------------
"One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter."
-R. Reagan.


I think you were trying to read meanings into my personal views that were never intended.

I never used the word terrorist until you brought it up in asking me my definition of one.

Setana is the one who referred to the Contras as 'freedom fighters'

The reason that I posted that Oliver North sold weapons to the Iranians and used the money to fund the Contras instead of using the word terrorists was for historical accuracy in just WHERE the money went, not to judge the merits of their cause.

If you wish MY view on what defines a 'terrorist', here is my definition:

Terrorist: Individuals who, in support of their cause, conduct attacks upon civilian targets to cause death, fear and unrest to further their cause.

Guerilla: Individuals who, in support of their cause, conduct attacks upon military targets to cause death, fear and unrest to further their cause.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 02:18 pm
As you can see by my above definition, the Contras could have been considered either terrorists or guerillas depending on their targets.

Palestinians:
When they attack israeli military... guerillas
When they attack civilians... terrorists.

Achille Lauro incident... terrorists

Attack on Israeli military checkpoint... guerillas
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 02:27 pm
Fedral,

I agree with everthing you said in your last two posts.

However, the Contras often attacked civilian targets. Ergo, the Contras were terrorists.

This is why I find it ironic that Ollie, who had a large role in sponsoring terrorists, is the author of this article.

That's all I wanted to say.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 03:19 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Fedral,
I agree with everthing you said in your last two posts.
However, the Contras often attacked civilian targets. Ergo, the Contras were terrorists.
This is why I find it ironic that Ollie, who had a large role in sponsoring terrorists, is the author of this article.


The funny thing is ebrown, I DO agree with you about the irony of Mr North in writing this piece.

I am the product of multiple generations of soldiers and as such I have great respect for those who have the courage to fight 'The little war' (def:guerilla). The amount of fortitude it takes to set yourselves against forces that are better trained and better equipped than you is incredible. This applies no matter what your political views or aims. Setting yourself against the establishment and choosing to attack your enemies without resorting to indiscriminate killing of civilians is difficult but to do so elevates your cause.

On the other hand, it takes absolutely NO courage, other than a suicidal urge to destroy, to strap 30 kilos of SEMTEX to your body and blow up masses of civilians who are shopping for groceries or to shoot a old crippled man to make some sort of political point (other than we can kill an old man) or to plant bombs in several trains blow up innocent people that never did any harm to you and yours.

Just my 2 cents (pre tax)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 05:41 pm
I would imagine that the Palestinians would rather have a tank to run down houses and if civilians get in the way that is just an unfortunate consequences rather than a deliberate act to kill civilians. However I see your point with the old man in the wheelchair.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 05:48 pm
Quote:
I would imagine that the Palestinians would rather have a tank to run down houses and if civilians get in the way that is just an unfortunate consequences rather than a deliberate act to kill civilians.


Huh Revel? You lost me there. I can't quite picture a tank running down a house. They can't be that hard to catch.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 07:58 am
Quote:
They can't be that hard to catch.


Smile chuckle

I meant when they bulldoze their way through knocking down houses or in some cases bulldozing houses on purpose. Innocent people get hurt and killed in those cases yet it is all right because supposedly that wasn't their intent. There are people around when they bulldoze so they are going to get hurt or killed. Not to mention the havoc it plays on the Palestinians aspirations of self rule.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 08:40 am
Right. That's because those bulldozers keep sneaking around and jumping on people from behind bushes.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 09:45 am
I don't know about you,

but if someone knocked down my house with a bulldozer, I would be pretty upset even if they didn't kill anyone in the process.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » One less terrorist
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 01:53:23