You're still responding to me? Abu Nidal was killed by Iraqi security forces and I haven't seen any evidence of them supporting him. I don't consider providing food, shelter, and a little money to families of those who died while fighting Israel terrorism and plus Saddam didn't engage in this activity for very long. Saddam could've renounced terrorism, but he didn't have to renounce it, because he never sponsored or supported it. I don't think there are any Libyan connections to terrorism either. How is it that with the same exact evidence in relation to Pan Am 103, one agent was set free and the other thrown in jail when they supposedly worked together? If you examine the evidence in relation to that trial, there was lots of proof that this wasn't a Libyan operation. I'm not sure what other acts you're referring to, but if you are talking about the disco bombing in Germany, again no proof it was Libya, it could've been a disgruntled ex-employee of the club for all we know. Thus, it was pretty easy for Ghadafi to renounce terrorism, because he wasn't in the business. Saddam was contanied and he couldn't obtain wmd even if he wanted to. I saw the press conference given by the Dept. of Energy where they displayed the components of libya's so-called wmd program, all i saw were some metal pipes. I don't think that constitutes a wmd program. My comparison still stands and the reasons I provided for the shift in behavior of all sides is still valid.
Lol, yes I know you weren't an eyewitness to a confession saying as much, and then you'd probably doubt yourself. However it is widely acknowledged that Nidal started his operations in Iraq after his split from the PLO, and continued an on again off again relationship with Iraq - getting both material support and safe haven from Iraq. Luckily you aren't the arbiter of the dispute - those interested can easily confirm this themselves. How long he did it is completely irrelevant and a poor attempt to deflect from the point. I already said you didn't think it was terrorism to provide rewards for suicide bombers - you are not alone but in a significant minority on that issue. He didn't renounce terrorism. That differentiates him from Ghaddafi. The rest is your opinion. I'd say that goes to show the fairness of the trial - the evidence convincingly linked one agent and not the other. As per your usual - that a court has found the agent of Libya responsible for the crime is not 'proof' to you - again you are in the .001% minority (if you have that much support). Of course, Libya has admitted responsibility for the attack - making your position untenable if not ridiculously stupid. It could've been a disgruntled ex-employee. Wow, that's creative - lol. Maybe the butler did it. This isn't the point made. One voluntarily gave up his program and one didn't. Unless you're asserting that Saddam NEVER had a WMD program your point begs the question.
so to summarize, iraq was attacked by the US which costed thousands of lives and a trillion dollars and is in the verge of a civil war because saddam gave up his wmd programs involuntarily and because he supported abu nidal.. did abu nidal ever attack us interests?
so why? because saddam is a despot? he had wmds? to democratize iraq? did abu nidal or terrorists saddam allegedly supported attack US interests?
Worldwide news agencies carried the verdict and the admission of responsibility. Libya said as much in their letter to the UNSC.
according to UK charity laws its illegal to inquire about the families. if a person comes to a charity in gaza and says my father is dead we have no source of income we have no food we need food they have to give it. its not a 'reward for suicide bombers'. its making sure that people dont die hungry and live in a miserable dire situation. its called decency. and not punishing the family for the crime of a single member.
I don't know what this means. Sure it is. If I say "I will give X amount of money to the family of anyone who commits a suicide bombing" that is certainly supporting terrorism. There isn't anything decent about that.
or its a policy to provide money for families of men who died? thats decent. the notion that you'd discriminate against a family because of what its patriarch this is grotesque. and it means that the uk law forbids charities from inquiring about how the person died. meaning it doesn't matter if its a suicide bombing or not. UK charities CANNOT discriminate against family members of suicide bombers.
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with discrimination. ok, not sure what this has to do with the point. this is not about someone 'punishing' families of suicide bombers - this is about someone rewarding families of suicide bombers to encourage the practice.
I guess that's a no as far as you providing evidence also, what us interests did abu nidal attack? please provide some evidence other than wikipedia (although i might've missed it, but i didn't see anything there either)....there are rumors that the us govt paid off the abu nidal organization to not attack american interests it's funny how you've basically become an apologist and a defender of libya now that they're on good terms with the us this is comical....please keep it up
thanks! contrary to what you say, there seems to be proof the Gaddafi supported Abu Nidal while Saddam even orchestrated the assasination of Abu Nidal any proof that links Saddam to be involved with specific Abu Nidal operations against US?
thanks latest thread on iraq i saw was this http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=112586&highlight=iraq basically, some poster was saying that saddam was a despot so the US invaded Iraq to create a civil war for them to make their lives better.. is that the reason we're there? seems that the same logic can be applied to libya since you said Gaddafi is a despot just like Saddam.
This is Gadhaffi's daughter: You think her father does not think alike... http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=27012 Gadhafi daughter praises Iraq insurgents TRIPOLI, Libya: Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's daughter Aisha on Wednesday praised Iraqi insurgents fighting U.S.-led forces. Speaking at the opening of an international conference on violation of human rights under occupation, which was organized by her own association, Aisha Gadhafi said, "Freedom is taken by force and not granted, and the rights of people are taken by their own hands." "What is happening in Iraq cannot be ignored by any honest person ... the Iraqi land is occupied, people are dying, scientists are being assassinated and women are being raped," she said. "We salute proudly the fighters of the Iraqi resistance who were able to break the American dream," she added
CreepyFloyd, it was Libya that bombed Pan Am flight 103, it was revenge from Gadhaffi for killing his daughter in the 1986 bombings. This is well known even in Libya. (Plus 5 empty buidings were bombed, as well as a gas station (gas station that had JUST closed down a few day earlier)…very symbolic in my opinion (everything was so clervely planned…these buildings were supposed to be for “Gudhaffi’s people” as he pronounced it …these bombings basically said we know everything about you! and you won’t be able to do anything for your people. I guess he shouldn’t have nationalized the oil companies
I've heard people say it was Ahmad Jibril and the PFLP-GC...I believe even Alan Dershowitz said this and he also said that the case against the two Libyans wasn't very convincing...I just haven't see any definitive proof or evidence either way
