Jump to content

Daughter Was Deployed Today


Gregorius

Recommended Posts

Colonel Oliver cited assassination threats by Abu Nidal, leader of the terrorist organization Fatah Revolutionary Council, as the reason he accepted the home security system from Richard Secord in his testimony before the Senate Select Committee in 1987.

The home security system cost $16,000, not $60,000 as the email claims.

As for Osama bin Laden, in the early 1980's he was busy founding Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) with Palestianian Brotherhood founder Abdallah Azzam.

MAK recruited Arab volunteers to fight in Afghanistan and channel private and government aid to some Afghan Mujahideen factions. Osama bin Laden formed al-Qaida in 1988 after splitting off from MAK. Most terrorism experts date Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's first forays into terrorism to a bombing in Aden, Yemen in 1992.

As for Al Gore questioning Oliver North during his testimony before the Senate Select Committee, he was not a member of the committee and so did not have the opportunity to question Oliver North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

Since the silly email bothers you so much here your proof that it is indeed a joke !! Lighten up !

Oliver North Names Bin Laden

First Published November, 2001

Updated February, 2002

There is an e-mail which claims that during the 1987 Iran-Contra Hearings Oliver North named Osama bin Laden as the most dangerous terrorist in the world. He then recommended assassinating him. The e-mail message then goes on to proclaim that it is "scary" that nobody, especially our government, took him seriously and instead chose to ignore the threat. In fact, the letter implied that since they ignored this there may be other threats which the government chose to ignore since that time.

The transcripts from the hearing do indeed reflect that Oliver North was concerned with a particular terrorist and warned Congress of his concerns. However, the terrorist he mentions is Abu Nidal, a Libyan terrorist, who allegedly engineered a number of terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East. But Osama bin Laden was not mentioned at all during Oliver North's testimony before Congress.

ABCNews even aired a replay of the actual testimony in question and I was able to witness North's responses on this very topic (I will post a link to the ABCNews site so you can read their take on this as well). It just goes to show that the author of this e-mail didn't pay anymore attention at a college lecture than he did when he was 14 years old. If this is typical of a majority of college students today then perhaps there is something to be scared of after all!

In February, another version of this e-mail came out and now claims the Senator who did the questioning was Al Gore. Oliver North, in a response letter to this e-mail chain, says that the interviewer was Commttee Counsel, John Nields. Not only was it not Al Gore but it wasn't even a Senator doing the questioning. Further, Al Gore was not even on the Senate Select Committee that investigated Iran-Contra, and thus Al Gore did not interview any witnesses, including Oliver North, during the investigation.

Here is the original e-mail message in question:

November 13, MMI 11:25 a.m. CST

Friends - Read this transcription from Congressional hearings on Ollie North 15 years ago concerning Osama bin Laden. It was sent by a friend. Gene This problem should have been solved 15 yrs ago. It would have saved thousands of lives.

Read on:

You know, it's funny, I remember very vividly the Oliver North hearings, but did not recall the name of Osama bin Laden as the terrorist that North was threatened by. Has this slimeball been around that long?. It's pretty evident, in hindsight that we should have listened to OLLIE!

I was at a UNC lecture the other day where they played a video of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra deals during the Reagan administration. I was only 14 back then but was surprised by this particular clip. There was Olie in front of God and Country getting the third degree. But what he said stunned me. He was being drilled by some senator I didn't recognize who asked him;'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?' Oliver replied, 'Yes I did sir.'The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't this just a little excessive?' 'No sir,' continued Oliver. 'No. And why not?' 'Because the life of my family and I were threatened.' 'Threatened? By who.' 'By a terrorist, sir.' 'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?' 'His name is Osama bin Laden.' At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. 'Why are you so afraid of this man?' 'Because sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of.' 'And what do you recommend we do about him?' 'If it were me I would recommend an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'

The senator disagreed with this approach and that was all they showed of the clip. It's scary when you think 15 years ago the government was aware of Osama bin Laden and his potential threat to the security of the world. I guess like all great tyrants they start small but if left untended spread like the virus they truly are.

Here is the new variation as of February, 2002:

IT WAS 1987 DO YOU REMEMBER?

Here's a little tidbit of history: something some of you may remember if you were not too young at the time.

IT WAS 1987.

At a lecture the other day they played an old video of Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan administration. There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree. But what he said was stunning!!

He was being drilled by some senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

Ollie replied, "Yes I did sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't this just a little excessive?"

"No sir, " continued Ollie

. "No? And why not?" the senator asked.

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened sir."

"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir, " Ollie answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden sir." Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued.

"Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.

"Because sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of," Ollie answered.

"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.

"Well, sir, if it were up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach and that was all that was shown of the clip.

If anyone is interested, the Senator turned out to be none other than------Al Gore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the London Financial Times:

Headline - "Iraq Reveals Bomb With Potential Biological Use: By Roula Khalaf in Baghdad and Mark Turner at the United NationsPublished: February 25 2003 21:38 / Last Updated: February 26 2003 0:56

United Nations inspectors said on Tuesday Baghdad had begun to provide new information on its weapons of mass destruction, including a bomb that could contain biological agents.

Advertisement

They described the development as a sign of co-operation with their efforts to oversee disarmament, but it remained unclear whether Iraq would comply with a critical order to begin destroying proscribed missiles by the weekend."

ALSO, from FOX News:

"WASHINGTON Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps, according to U.S. intelligence.

The information about Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a "real concern" among defense personnel, senior U.S. officials tell Fox News. They're worried that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in an attack, although there is no proof that this has happened.

Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a picture of a small drone plane during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month."

So, Iraq DOES have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WOMD), DOES have means of delivering them to points in the Mid-East including Isreal, DOES likely have plans, capability and methodology curretnly unknown, to deliver WOMD to the United States.

So, tell me mdeneen and others who have insisted that Iraq has no such capability, now that the evidence is mounting that Iraq has such weapons and capability, are you ready to change your tune?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mdeneen---Your reasoned and intelligent analysis is as casting pearls before swine. Fact is that some people seem to be genetically destined to be servile and follow the leader. I see all these brave men who want war with Saddam, fine as long as we have Regulars to do the actual fighting, no? Just like Indian fighting in the 19th Century.

Personally I'm more worried about the Kickapoo and Pottawattamie coming back to Illinois and lifting my hair than I am about Saddam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an article from today's Wall Street Journal:

(Here is a link to the actual articleclick here.)

AT WAR

You Can't 'Contain' Saddam

Cold War doctrine doesn't apply in the age of terror.

BY JOHN HOWARD

CANBERRA, Australia--Critics of U.S. policy on Iraq have lately begun to employ the term "containment" to describe an alternative approach. That alternative essentially is to muddle along with endless further U.N. resolutions, which Iraq either ignores or partially obeys under intense pressure, with inspectors given "more time" to disarm Iraq.

It's not surprising that containment has been invoked. It's had a good diplomatic history--quite illustrious really. It described the West's successful response to the Soviet Union's expansionism after World War II and stretching into the 1950s. We all know that in the end the Soviet Union imploded. The liberal democratic values of the West won the ideological contest, and the U.S. has emerged as the one superpower. With a track record like that, why wouldn't America's opponents over Iraq want to annex "containment" to their cause?

It is, however, a false historical comparison. Worse, it completely misstates the character of the threat which the world now faces.

Moscow was "contained" because of the possession of atomic/nuclear weapons by both the West and the Soviets. The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction guaranteed the maintenance of the status quo delivered by containment, until the internal implosion of the old Soviet empire. The view, validly held, was that because both sides had weapons of mass destruction, the potential human cost of military action by the West and the Soviet Union at the time of Hungary in 1956, or Czechoslovakia in 1968, would have been infinitely greater than the human cost (bad though it was) in leaving dictatorial Soviet-backed regimes in power there.

Then, the potential cost of doing something was greater than the cost of doing nothing. Now, in the case of Iraq, the potential cost of doing nothing is clearly much greater than the cost of doing something.

If Iraq isn't effectively disarmed, not only could she use her chemical and biological weapons against her own people again and also other countries, but other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can join the weapons of mass destruction league. Proliferation of chemical, biological and, indeed, nuclear weapons will multiply the likelihood of terrorist groups laying hands on such arms. The consequences for mankind would be horrific.

In other words doing nothing about Iraq, potentially, is much more costly than using force, if necessary, to ensure the disarmament of Iraq.

Incidentally, in the very short term, the failure of the U.N. to deal effectively with Iraq will have consequences for the world's dealings with North Korea. Can it seriously be suggested that the Security Council can discipline North Korea if it fails to discipline Iraq?

Not one person wants war. We all abhor it. Those who marched a week ago in the cities of the world do not have a mortgage on detestation of military conflict or of human suffering. They do not exclusively occupy the moral high ground. Have they seriously addressed the human suffering that could flow from the world's failure to deal once and for all with Iraq's 12-year-long defiance of the community of nations?

Are they morally comfortable with the suffering Saddam Hussein continues to inflict on Iraqi children through his corruption of the U.N.'s "oil for food" program? What do they say of the torture and arbitrary executions that are a part of everyday life in Iraq?

Military action against Iraq will involve casualties. But a powerful case can be made that the potential casualties will be much greater if the world does not act effectively and now.

A peaceful outcome in the short term, which does not imperil our longer-term security and safety, appears remote at present. It could be made less remote if the world acted with greater unity. Iraq does respond to pressure. The inspectors are in Baghdad because of the American military buildup. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan have both said that. America's critics know it, too, but won't admit it. Rather, their illogical starting point is the presence in Iraq of weapons inspectors, only there because of U.S. pressure--the very pressure they have attacked!

Given past Iraqi behavior, there is a faint hope that a united expression of view from the Security Council, combined with pressure from neighboring Arab states (which carry a special responsibility), might just induce a decisive change of heart somewhere in Baghdad. But true containment of Iraq can be achieved only if the world recognizes that the challenges of today are so different from those of 50 years ago.

The nuclear balance, which through the Cold War alternately traumatized and reassured the world, has been replaced by the constant specter of weapons of mass destruction in the hands not only of more states but also terrorists operating without constraint in a borderless world. That is what is at stake in containing Iraq. The cost of doing nothing is infinitely greater than the cost of acting.

Mr. Howard is the prime minister of Australia.

Copyright © 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

Honestly the solution your proposing is exactly what has been done for the last 12 years since the golf war and it hasn't worked and never will with a lunatic like Saddam in charge of that country. He can not under any circumstances be trusted to stand by his word. The inspectors are not going to be successful just like before. They were there for what 3 or 4 years and basically found nothing and destroyed nothing although they knew the stuff was there. Don't you see that Saddam has to be forced into everything it is all the man understands ! When your dealing with a totally dishonest and Viscous Dictator there is only one way and Bush is doing just that. Why do you think the inspectors are even there (as if it does any good) ? Are show of military force and resolve. Which with the resolve of some people waning has let the loon wiggle some more room to stall and deceive !

Its really funny that back just after the World Trade towers dropped nothing was said about us invading Afghanistan is it all that different then Iraq ? I think not ! Asama Mama may not be there but the weapons old Asama and other lunatic terrorist want sure are there ! You don't see the price we could pay for not doing something about this now and getting it over with ? Also in the end this could finally send a message to all these crazy countries that we will not stand for this kind of behavior and weapons in unstable hands. If we back down on this all hell will break loose because they will all think we are weak especially people like Asama !

Craig

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even want to know what Kelly was doing at the site associated with the link he provided. Egads.

Mark, though I agree with your analysis, and have been enjoying the thread with your marvelous posts (which have saved me a multitude of keystrokes) -- I think you went over the line. Please be careful with this kind of thing. Judas Iscariot was a religious/political zealot, who had little in common with the other disciples of Christ. I'm also offended that you correlate a lack of intelligence with religious zealotry. Again, please refrain from stereotyping.

I am a religious zealot. Yet, I have no intention of dragging anyone, kicking and screaming -- into God's kingdom.

I am also Historical Amillennial from an eschatological perspective, which puts me at major odds with the Dispensational Premillennial teachings prevading the majority of churches. The doctrines associated with the latter are responsible for much of the lunacy regarding Christian political positions and the country's infatuation with Israel.

Raw Christianity as Jesus, Paul, and Co. taught -- is a far cry from much of what is out there. There are many of us just trying to live decent, quiet lives.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig----There was no outcry against invading Afghanistan because it was evident that our enemies were there. So far nobody has even demonstrated that Saddam actually is our enemy, though we're fast making him our enemy; a good example of making a prediction come true by forcing the issue.

As for Saddam's weapons and terrorists wanting to get them; well the world is full of such weapons, they're all over the place. For Christ's sake, gas (oh I'm sorry, "chemical weapons") was first used in 1915. Big deal.

I think you should read how the Mexica (Aztecs) and the Roman Republic carried on their foreign relations. They were both bloodthirsty empires that never "started" a war, oh no, they were always "forced" to go to war. In other words they always had some kind of a bullsh*t excuse for their foreign adventures. Now we're starting to look like Moctuchozuma or Cato. Carthago delenda est. I think, it's been so long since I studied Latin.

The Wall Street Journal was recently shown to be the most politically biased of all American newspapers. I read it a couple or 3 times a week and I've NEVER seen an opinion article or editorial that doesn't toe the paper's line. I believe NOTHING that the Journal has to say editorially on politics. The Chicago Tribune however has come a long way since the Colonel and has a well balanced op-ed page with both Liberal and Conservative points of view. And Molly Ivins, oh how she gets the Right-Wingers in a stew, I love that woman.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...