another one bites the dust

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
168
63
Bowling Green Ky
--a biggie this time--remeber the guy that hi-jacked our plane--picked out navy guy from passengers and shot him in the head as he threw him of plane--

MAJOR BLOW

Moughniyah was the most senior member of Hezbollah to be killed since its previous secretary-general, Abbas Mussawi, died in a 1992 Israeli helicopter ambush in southern Lebanon.

Moughniyah, 45, had long been on a list of foreigners Israel wanted to kill or capture and had been top of Washington's wanted list before al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden emerged as an enemy of the United States.

He was implicated in the 1983 bombings of the U.S. embassy and U.S. Marine and French peacekeeping barracks in Beirut, which killed over 350 people, as well as the kidnapping of Westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s.

Israel accuses Moughniyah of planning the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and of involvement in a 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in the Argentine capital that killed 28.

The United States indicted him for his role in planning and participating in the 1985 hijacking of a U.S. TWA airliner and the killing of an American passenger. Washington welcomed Moughniyah's death.

Several Palestinian and Lebanese allies of Hezbollah called on the group to avenge Moughniyah's death. Hezbollah has only said its conflict with Israel was "a very long one."

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the group that has a strong political and military force in Lebanon, will address the crowd at the funeral via a video link.

Moughniyah's coffin, draped in a Hezbollah flag and flanked by four men in uniform, was laid in a hall where his family and the group's leaders received condolences for a second day.

Moughniyah is thought to have been commander of Islamic Jihad, a shadowy pro-Iranian group which emerged in Lebanon in the early 1980s and was believed to be linked to Hezbollah.

The group claimed many kidnappings and bombings but disappeared after the release of the last Western hostages in Lebanon shortly after the end of the civil war in 1990.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I forgot about this guy. Reagan wanted him bad. It does show how bad are intel can be. 83 to 08 25 years to get job done.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
sorry,dtb...i didn`t read this thread before entering my post on the issue.....

good job....this needs to be known....this guy was a heavy hitter...one of the fathers of the modern terrorist movement...it was a huge get..... :thumb:

i`m sure spytheweb is in mourning...
 
Last edited:

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
I talked about this guy in your clinton terror pardons thread yesterday.... we would have had this guy long ago if Saudi Arabia didn't save his ass .... I don't know why you can't find that story. or maybe you just don't like that story.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I know that telling the whole story is important to Wayne, especially when it comes to the Saudi's and any Clinton angle. So, here is the article that is important to note in dealing with taking credit for bagging a terrorist. I guess he wasn't threatening any Saudi oil interests, eh, so helping us out was not that big a deal when it wasn't in their own interests...

Despite Clinton Pleas, Saudis Let Terrorist Go

Mugniyah Was Spotted On a Commercial Flight Bound for Saudi Arabia


By BRIAN ROSS
Feb. 13, 2008

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah refused a personal plea from President Bill Clinton to help capture Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mugniyah in 1996, according to former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, now an ABC News consultant.

Clarke says the CIA learned that Mugniyah, wanted for a string of terror attacks, had boarded a commercial flight in Khartoum that was scheduled to stop in Riyadh.

"We appealed to the Saudis to grab him when the plane landed, and they refused," Clarke said in an interview broadcast Wednesday on ABC "World News With Charles Gibson."

After the initial refusal, Clarke said, U.S. officials went to the then-crown prince, now king.

"We raised the level of appeals all the way through Bill Clinton who was on the phone at three in the morning appealing to the highest level in Saudi Arabia to grab him," Clarke said.

"Instead, the Saudis refused to let the plane land and it continued on to Damascus," Clarke said.


Calls to the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C., for comment were not immediately returned.

The near-capture in 1996 was one of several times the U.S. had "actionable intelligence" on the whereabouts of Mugniyah but were unable to catch him.

Former CIA intelligence officer Bob Baer, now a contributing editor for TIME.com, says he had repeated offers from "people in Lebanon who said they could place a bomb in his car," but the offer was declined.

"I tracked this guy for 15 years, and he was the best," Baer said. "He used elementary precautions but they were very effective," Baer added.

Known as the Fox, Mugniyah changed his facial appearance and put on 30 to 40 pounds as he successfully eluded repeated efforts by the CIA and Israel to track him down.

His death Tuesday was blamed on Israel's Mossad by Hezbollah television, an allegation denied by the Israeli prime minister's office.
 

shamrock

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 12, 2001
8,320
336
83
Boston, MA
:nono: Chad, ahhhh is that the same King Abdullah that Bush was just visiting & dining and vacationing with couple weeks ago
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
168
63
Bowling Green Ky
I talked about this guy in your clinton terror pardons thread yesterday.... we would have had this guy long ago if Saudi Arabia didn't save his ass .... I don't know why you can't find that story. or maybe you just don't like that story.

You are correct --he was saved twice once by Saudi's and once by france.

He was in route to Saudi on plane and we were going to pick him up--and Saudi's refused to let plane land

The fench had him in custody and did prsisoner swap deal.

On telling whole story Chad--I just copied the article--but since you mentioned it--is quite apparent relations with saudi's under Bill was quite diff than now--you only have to look at terrorist scorecard killed in Saudi--would you like a refresher--doubt if Bill would have had much progress with Pakistan either-since they were supporting Taliban under him--add Lybyia-Yemen to list also--;)
 
Last edited:

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
not one of you guys gets the fact that the saudis are a necessary evil.....

why is that?......

what if chavez keeps to his ridiculous promise that he`ll stop oil exports to the u.s.?.....he`d be cutting his own throat...but,he`s highly unpredictable......

how important do you think the saudi`s and the kuwaiti`s will be then?.....
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Wayne, I don't think there's a person on the planet that doesn't think the Saudi's are much closer to this administration - one person in particular ;) - than the Clintons are or ever would be. So, you can have that point...:mj07:

And, I don't need the scorecard that shows how aggressive the Saudis have been in their own country at stopping terrorists that have attacked or planned attacks on their own oil interests. I agree with you, that they can stop terrorists if they want to, or more specifically, when it benefits them in their own country.

Too bad they couldn't help us with the Saudi terrorists that attacked our country. That would have been admirable. They probably would have done something had they been attacking, um, say, Saudi Arabia, eh?
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
hey GW................what if we were.......energy independent.....like Brazil........and Iceland.....that would suck not to keep funding terrorists with oil money........but we have been bought and sold.......by the oil companies........................................................................btw..................................................can you tell us..................why you are so enamored with..........................periods when you express yourself...........................must have been a bitch..............when............you.............were..............in.....................school.............................
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
what if chavez keeps to his ridiculous promise that he`ll stop oil exports to the u.s.?.....he`d be cutting his own throat...but,he`s highly unpredictable......

how important do you think the saudi`s and the kuwaiti`s will be then?.....

Man, great point. The administration will probably have to call back in the oil company execs and have them craft a new oil policy that will reward them with more tax breaks and tax credits - for the good of our country.

Hey, Wease, maybe before Rove hit on the Fox gig, he helped out Hugo for a while? Hey, it could happen...
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
This is not the thread to bring this up, but do any of you dimwits understand how much oil is in Anwar? The most optimistic estimates amount to 7 months for the US. But you nitwits think that drilling there would make us energy independent. The United States has enough intellectual power and fortitude to become energy independent, but most have bought into a multi-national corporate agenda that has nothing to do with our best interests. Just keep waving the flag and planting the bumper stickers. It's a war on terror.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
There is no way the US could ever figure out a way to stop burning fossil fuel to power our country.............in the.......gw......style..............

MAYBE IT's THE FOSSILs WHO ARE FUELING OUR COUNTRY?

Are you kidding me? It is 2008 and we are still on fossil fuels? If somebody tells you that is the only way to power the planet, they are an idiot, and probably voted for Bush.
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
168
63
Bowling Green Ky
Wayne, I don't think there's a person on the planet that doesn't think the Saudi's are much closer to this administration - one person in particular ;) - than the Clintons are or ever would be. So, you can have that point...:mj07:

And, I don't need the scorecard that shows how aggressive the Saudis have been in their own country at stopping terrorists that have attacked or planned attacks on their own oil interests. I agree with you, that they can stop terrorists if they want to, or more specifically, when it benefits them in their own country.

Too bad they couldn't help us with the Saudi terrorists that attacked our country. That would have been admirable. They probably would have done something had they been attacking, um, say, Saudi Arabia, eh?

Don't know Bill was equal opportunist in taking 10 mill from Saudi's for lhis library--

Have notced you always for get to comment on the --
" Bill would have had much progress with Pakistan either-since they were supporting Taliban under him--add Lybyia-Yemen to list also--"

Could we have your opinion on if you liked our positions with these countries better under Bill or Bush--you can add NK to list also.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
Man, great point. The administration will probably have to call back in the oil company execs and have them craft a new oil policy that will reward them with more tax breaks and tax credits - for the good of our country.

Hey, Wease, maybe before Rove hit on the Fox gig, he helped out Hugo for a while? Hey, it could happen...

lets watch and see how much our attitude toward the saudis changes when hillary becomes president.....

anybody want to wager on whether we cut relations with the royals?....

forget all your rhetoric,lets make a wager on it...

any takers?...
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
This is not the thread to bring this up, but do any of you dimwits understand how much oil is in Anwar? The most optimistic estimates amount to 7 months for the US. But you nitwits think that drilling there would make us energy independent. The United States has enough intellectual power and fortitude to become energy independent, but most have bought into a multi-national corporate agenda that has nothing to do with our best interests. Just keep waving the flag and planting the bumper stickers. It's a war on terror.

anwar`s one...then theres off our coast(where china`s drilling as we speak)....

how`s about we build a few more refineries so we can have some more leverage?...few of these oil producing countries refine their own product..

and what about nuclear power...since all you lefties love the european model,what`s wrong with nuclear power?.....

the democrats have hamstrung their own country at every turn...just like they`ve done with the fisa vote...

they`re despicable...

they want us to change lightbulbs?...the fat cats want to buy carbon credits?...

get real....
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
anwar`s one...then theres off our coast(where china`s drilling as we speak)....

how`s about we build a few more refineries so we can have some more leverage?...few of these oil producing countries refine their own product..

and what about nuclear power...since all you lefties love the european model,what`s wrong with nuclear power?.....

the democrats have hamstrung their own country at every turn...just like they`ve done with the fisa vote...

they`re despicable...

they want us to change lightbulbs?...the fat cats want to buy carbon credits?...

get real....

I can only come at this from my personal perspective as a left-leaner/democrat supporter (in most cases). I'm going to pass on the FISA vote thing, as I think the laws we had on the books did more than enough to take care of the people we need to monitor, and I've still yet to see one good reason why they could not have been followed - especially considering it could have been done after the fact in any case. We have laws and a constitution for a reason - checks and balances prevent abuses of power, and those that have the power simply have wanted to change that - or ignore it.

As for the power and oil situations - I think liberals and democrats do have to give a bit on those issues. I do think it is becoming an economic and security issue as we move forward - the subject is changing now. I think we have to explore drilling in areas many would prefer not to. Anwar, offshore, etc. Maybe spend some of the money we throw away in Iraq and in some foreign countries to firm up partnerships in other countries for more oil. Nuclear is a good option in many ways, but the waste problem is an issue that nobody wants to deal with.

As for the refinery situation, why don't you ask the oil companies who have directly benefitted from this administration supposedly for that very purpose from day one in the initial energy policy meetings and have not made much progress in making that happen? I hear over and over again about democratic obstructionism here, but there are countless examples of why that is not the reason it's not happening. We had a good thread on that last year in here, I think. Record profits, high gas prices, quarter after quarter, and what to show for it - other than bonuses and shareholder value?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top