Author
|
Topic: RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested) (Read 9976 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« on: 2003-12-15 14:33:37 » |
 |
Dr Sebby
> Sent: 15 December 2003 0835
<snip>
> ...it will be interesting to see if he has any info on bin laden.
> politics aside...just as a curiosity
</snip>
[Blunderov]
Judging by what Michael Moore has to say, it is possible that Bush
already knows far more about Osama and the bin Laden clan than Saddam
will ever be able to tell him.
Best Regards
<q>
Dude, Where's my Country? Michael Moore, Penguin Books.
Question #1: Is it true that the bin Ladens have had business relations
with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?
Mr. Bush, in 1977, when your father told you it was time to get a real
job, he set you up with your first oil company, something you called
"Arbusto" (Spanish for "shrub"). A year later, you received financing
from a man named James A. Bath. He was an old buddy of yours from your
days (the ones when you weren't AWOL) in the Texas Air National Guard.
He had been hired by Salem bin Laden-Osama's brother-to invest the bin
Ladens' money in various Texas ventures. Some $50,000-or 5% of control
of Arbusto-came from Mr. Bath.
Was he acting on behalf of the bin Ladens?
Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have
known the bin Ladens for a long time. What exactly is the extent of this
relationship, Mr. Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply
on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden first started
coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a
house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.
The bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Their
huge construction firm virtually built the country, from the roads and
power plants, to the skyscrapers and government buildings. They built
some of the airstrips America used in your dad's Gulf War, and they
renovated the holy sites at Mecca and Medina. Billionaires many times
over, they soon began investing in other ventures around the world,
including in the United States. They have extensive business dealings
with Citigroup, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the
Fremont Group-a spin-off of energy giant Bechtel. According to The New
Yorker, the bin Laden family also owns a part of Microsoft and the
airline and defense giant Boeing. They have donated $2 million to your
alma mater, Harvard University, $300,000 more to Tufts University, and
tens of thousands more to the Middle East Policy Counc1l, a think tank
headed by a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman. In
addition to the property they own in Texas, they also have real estate
in Florida and Massachusetts. In short, they have their hands deep in
our pants.
Unfortunately, as you know, Mr. Bush, Salem bin Laden died in a plane
crash in Texas in 1988 (his father, Mohammad, also died in a plane crash
in 1967). Salem's brothers-there are around 50 of them, including
Osama-continued to run the family companies and investments.
After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a
company known as the Carlyle Group. One of the investors in the Carlyle
Group was none other than the bin Laden family. The bin Ladens put a
minimum of $2 million into the Carlyle Group.
Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the
Carlyle Group. The same year you left the soon-to-be-bankrupt CaterAir,
you became governor and quickly oversaw the University of Texas-a state
institution-make an investment of $10 million in the Carlyle Group. The
bin Laden family had also gotten on the Carlyle gravy train in 1994.
The Carlyle Group is one of the nation's largest defense contractors,
among their many other lines of work. They don't actually build weapons
themselves. Rather, they buy up failing defense companies, turn them
around by making them profitable, and then sell them for huge sums of
money.
The people who run the Carlyle Group are a Who's Who of past movers and
shakers, everyone from Ronald Reagan's defense secretary, Frank
Carlucci, to your dad's secretary of state, James Baker, to former
British Prime Minister John Major. Carlucci, the head of Carlyle, also
happens to sit on the board of directors of the Middle East Policy
Council along with a representative of the bin Laden family business.
After September 11, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal both
ran stories pointing out this strange coincidence. Your first response,
Mr. Bush, was to ignore it, hoping, I guess, that the story would just
go away. Your father and his buddies at Carlyle did not renounce the bin
Laden investment. Your army of pundits went into spin control. They
said, we can't paint these bin Ladens with the same brush we use for
Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! They
hate and despise what he has done! These are the good bin Ladens.
And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of those "good"
bin Ladens-including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers-with
Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September
11. It has been reported in The New Yorker that not only has the family
not cut ties to Osama, but they have continued to fund him as they have
been doing for years. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden
had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least
$30million), and the bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and
his group, al Qaeda, well funded.
Mr. Bush, weeks went by after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon,
yet your father and his friends at the Carlyle Group refused to buckle
in their support for the bin Laden empire.
Finally, nearly two months after the attacks, with more and more people
questioning the propriety of the Bush family being in bed with the bin
Ladens, your father and the Carlyle Group were pressured into giving the
bin Ladens their millions back and asked them to leave the company as
investors.
Why did this take so long?
To make matters worse, it turned out that one of bin Laden's
brothers-Shafiq-was actually at a Carlyle Group business conference in
Washington, D.C., the morning of September 11. The day before, at the
same conference, your father and Shafiq had been chatting it up with all
the other ex-government Carlyle bigwigs.
Mr. Bush, what is going on here?
You've gotten a free ride from the media, though they know everything I
have just written to be the truth (and, in fact, I have taken it from
the very same mainstream news sources they work for). They seem
unwilling or afraid to ask you a simple question: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
In case you don't understand just how bizarre the media's silence is
regarding the Bush-bin Laden connections, let me draw an analogy to how
the press or Congress may have handled something like this if the same
shoe had been on the Clinton foot. If, after the terrorist attack on the
Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it was revealed that President Bill
Clinton and his family had financial dealings with Timothy McVeigh's
family, what do you think your Republican Party and the media would have
done with that one? Do you think at least a couple of questions might
have been asked, like, "What is THAT all about?" Be honest, you know the
answer. They would have asked more than a couple of questions. They
would have skinned Clinton alive and thrown what was left of his carcass
in Gitmo.
<...snip>
Question #3: Who attacked the United States on September 11 -a guy on
dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friends, Saudi Arabia?
I'm sorry, Mr. Bush, but something doesn't make sense.
You got us all repeating by rote that it was Osama bin Laden who was
responsible for the attack on the United States on September 11. Even I
was doing it. But then I started hearing strange stories about Osama's
kidneys.
It turns out that there have been reports on Osama's health problems for
years. For example, In 2000 The Associated Press reported, a Western
intelligence official said Osama is suffering from kidney and liver
disease. Bin Laden has kidney failure and' his liver is going,' the
official said. . . . He said bin Laden's followers were trying to find a
kidney dialysis machine for their ailing leader.
After September 11, these reports escalated. I was watching Hardball
witb Chris Matthews one night on MSNBC, and one of the guests-a Taliban
expert-said, ". . . Osama bin Laden appears to need dialysis treatment
for his kidney problem, so he's got to be close to some dialysis. He
really can't travel far. Did he just say "dialysis"? The world's biggest
monster, the most sinister, evil man on all of planet Earth-and he can't
even piss in a pot without help? I don't know about you, but if I'm told
to be seriously frightened by an evildoer, especially the top evildoer,
I want that evildoer to have all his bodily functions working at 110
percent! I want him strong, scary, and omnipresent-and the possessor of
two working kidneys. How am I supposed to be supporting all these
Homeland Security measures when the lead bad guy is flat out on a table
somewhere hooked up to a kidney machine?
Suddenly, I don't know who or what to trust. I started to ask other
questions. How could a guy sitting In a cave in Afghanistan, hooked up
to dialysis, have directed and overseen the actions of nineteen
terrorists for two years in the United States and then plotted so
perfectly the hijacking of four planes and then guaranteed that three of
them would end up precisely on their targets? How did Osama do this? I
mean, I can't get this computer to stop crashing every time I type the
word "gingivitis." I can't get a cell signal from here to Queens! And
he's supposed to have pulled off all of September 11 from his little
cave, 10,000 miles away? What was he doing, then, when we started the
bombing over there? Was he running from cave to cave in Afghanistan with
his tubes and dialysis machine trailing behind him? Or, um, maybe there
was a dialysis machine in every third cave in Afghanistan. Yeah, that's
it! A real modern country, Afghanistan! It has about fifteen miles of
railroad track. And lots of dialysis machines, I guess.
None of this is to say that Osama isn't a baddie or even that he didn't
have something to do with the attacks. But it seems that maybe a few
journalists might want to ask a few commonsense questions, like how
could he have really pulled this off while his skin was turning green
and he was living in a country with no Kinko's, no FedEx, no ATMs. How
did he organize, communicate, control and supervise this kind of massive
attack? With two cans and a string?
Yet, we're told by you to believe it. The headlines blared it the first
day and they blare it the same way now two years later: "Terrorists
Attack United States." Terrorists. I have wondered about this word for
some time, so, George, let me ask you a question: If fifteen of the
nineteen hijackers had been North Korean, and they killed 3,000 people,
do you think the headline the next day might read, "NORTH KOREA ATTACKS
UNITED STATES"?
Of course it would. Or if it had been fifteen Iranians or fifteen
Libyans or fifteen Cubans, I think the conventional wisdom would have
been, "IRAN (or LIBYA or CUBA) ATTACKS AMERICA!"
Yet, when it comes to September 11, have you ever seen the headline,
have you ever heard a newscaster, has one of your appointees ever
uttered these words: "Saudi Arabia attacked the United States"?
Of course you haven't. And so the question must-must-be asked: WHY NOT?
Why, when Congress releases its own investigation into September 11,
you, Mr. Bush, censor out twenty-eight pages that deal with the Saudis'
role in the attack? What is behind your apparent refusal to look at the
one country that seems to be producing the "terrorists" that have killed
our citizens?
I would like to throw out a possibility here: What if September 11 was
not a "terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the
United States? What if the nineteen were well-trained soldiers, the
elite of the elite, unquestioning in their duty to obey their
commander's orders? That they lived in this country for nearly two years
and were not discovered-that takes a certain amount of discipline, the
discipline of a soldier, not the erratic behavior of some wild-eyed
terrorist.
George, apparently you were a pilot once-how hard is it to hit a
five-story building at more than 500 miles an hour? The Pentagon is only
five stories high. At 500 miles an hour, had the pilots been off by just
a hair, they'd have been in the river. You do not get this skilled at
learning how to fly jumbo lets by being taught on a video game machine
at some dipshit flight training school in Arizona. You learn to do this
in the air force. Someone's air force. The Saudi Air Force?
What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed
on to a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of
either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi
royal family? The House of Saud, according to Robert Baer's book, is
full of them, and the royal family-and the country-is in incredible
turmoil. There is much dissension over how things are being run, and
with the king incapacitated by a stroke he suffered in 1995, his
brothers and numerous sons have been in a serious power struggle. Some
favor cutting off all ties to the West.
Some want the country to go the more fundamentalist route. After all,
this was Osama's originally stated goal. His first beef wasn't with
America; it was with the way Saudi Arabia was being run-by Muslims who
weren't true Muslims. There are now thousands of princes in the royal
family, and many observers have commented that Saudi Arabia is on the
brink of civil war, or perhaps a people's revolution. You can only
behead so many of your citizens and then, before long, they lose their
heads and go crazy and overthrow your ass. That is what is on the "To
Do" list for many Saudi citizens these days, and the royals are circling
the wagons.
A 1999 article in the political journal Foreign Affairs pretty much
spelled out why: "Like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia would like to leave bin
Laden in Afghanistan. His arrest and trial in the United States could be
highly embarrassing, exposing his continuing relationship with
sympathetic members of the ruling elites and intelligence services of
both countries.""
So, did certain factions within the Saudi royal family execute the
attack on September 11? Were these pilots trained by the Saudis? One
thing we do know: Nearly all the hijackers were Saudis and they were
apparently able to enter the United States legally, thanks, In part, to
the special arrangement set up by our State Department and the Saudi
government that allowed Saudis to get quickie visas without going
through the normal vetting process.
Mr. Bush, why have the Saudis received red-carpet treatment? Sure, we
need their oil. And, yes, they received the same kissy~face welcome from
all the presidents before you.
But why have you blocked attempts to dig deeper into the Saudi
connections? Why do you refuse to say, "Saudi Arabia attacked the United
States!"?
Mr. Bush, does this have anything to do with your family's close
personal relationship with the ruling family of Saudi Arabia? 1 would
like to think that's not possible. But what is your explanation? That it
was just some nut in a cave (who just happened to be on dialysis)? And,
after you couldn't find this nut, why did you try to convince us that
Saddam Hussein had something to do with September 11 and al Qaeda, when
you were specifically told by your intelligence people that there was no
connection?
Why are you so busy protecting the Saudis when you should be protecting
us?
Question #4: Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the
U.S. in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the bin Laden
family and then fly them out of the country without a proper
investigation by the FBI?
Mr. Bush, not that this is personal or anything, but 1 was stranded in
Los Angeles on the morning of September 11. I scrambled to find a rental
car, and then drove 3,000 miles to get back home-all because traveling
by air was forbidden in the days following the attack. Yet, members of
the bin Laden family were allowed to fly in private jets, crisscrossing
America as they prepared to leave the country-can you explain that to
me?
Private jets, under the supervision of the Saudi government and with
your approval-were allowed to fly around the skies of America and pick
up twenty-four members of the bin Laden family and take them first to a
"secret assembly point in Texas." They then flew to Washington, D.C.,
and then on to Boston. Finally, on September 18, they were all flown to
Paris, out of the reach of any U.S. officials. They never went through
any serious interrogation, other than a few questions that the FBI asked
them and a request to check each of their passports before leaving. One
FBI agent I spoke to told me that the FBI was "furious" that they were
not allowed to keep the bin Ladens in the country to conduct a real
investigation-the kind police like to do when they are trying to track
down a murderer. Usually, the police like to talk to the family members
of the suspect to learn what they know, who they know, how they might
help capture the fugitive.
None of the normal procedures were followed.
This is mind-boggling. Here you have two dozen bin Ladens on American
soil, Mr. Bush, and you come up with some lame excuse that you were
worried about "their safety." Might it have been possible that at least
one of the twenty-four bin Ladens would have possibly known something?
Or maybe just one of them could have been "convinced" to help track
Osama down?
Nope. None of that. So while thousands were stranded and could not fly,
if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass
murderer in U.S. history, you got a free tip to gay Paree! of course,
the bin Ladens have been your business associates. Why wouldn't you do a
little favor for some old family friends? But, to use the Clinton
analogy again, imagine, in the hours after the Oklahoma City bombing,
Bill Clinton suddenly started worrying about the "safety" of the McVeigh
family up in Buffalo-and then arranged a free trip for them out of the
country. What would you and the Republicans have said about that?
Suddenly, a stain on a blue dress probably wouldn't have been the top
priority for a witch hunt, would it?
With all that was happening in the days after September 11, how did you
find the time to even begin thinking about protecting people named bin
Laden? I'm amazed at your ability to multi-task.
As if bin Ladens Over America ("Air Laden?") wasn't enough, The Tampa
Tribune reported that the authorities also found the time to help even
more Saudis. Apparently, another Saudi jet, this one a private Lear jet
(arranged by a private hangar owned by defense contractor Raytheon,
which also happens to be a hefty GOP donor), was allowed to fly from
Tampa on September 13 (during the air-travel lockdown) to Lexington,
Kentucky, to drop off some members of the Saudi royal family to be with
other Saudi royals who had been in Kentucky looking at horses. Two
bodyguards for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers were hired to travel along on
the flight and they told their story to the Tribune about how the pilot
revealed to them upon returning to Tampa that he had still another run
to make to Louisiana."
Why, Mr. Bush, was this allowed to happen?
A frightened nation struggled to get through those days after September
11. Yet, in the sky above us, the bin Ladens and Saudi royals jetted
home.
I think we deserve an explanation.
</q>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.74
Rate metahuman
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #1 on: 2003-12-15 16:34:05 » |
|
Michael Moore lies so much to make a buck that it would be stupid of anyone to pass him off as a credible source of information.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #2 on: 2003-12-15 18:16:36 » |
|
metahuman
> Sent: 15 December 2003 2334
> Michael Moore lies so much to make a buck that it would be stupid of
> anyone to pass him off as a credible source of information.
[Blunderov]
I see. Perhaps you would care to point out the lies in the section of
his book that I posted?
I should mention that my post omitted the copious footnotes that were
supplied by Michael Moore in the original. Footnotes that mostly cite
mainstream American media of, presumably, good repute.
I suppose it is possible that Moore has cobbled together a massive
conspiracy to fabricate news items that reflect poorly on the Bushes.
His cabal, if this is true, would seem to include, inter alia, The
Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, The Boston Globe,
The London Times, The Tampa Tribune, The BBC World Service, The
Telegraph (Online) The Omaha World Herald and The Houston Chronicle but
this doesn't seem very probable, at least not to me.
In fact the effort to which he has gone to make it clear that he is not
just simply spouting his own unsubstantiated opinions is nothing short
of exemplary.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
ElvenSage
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 288
Reputation: 7.51
Rate ElvenSage
Think for yourself, question authority.
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #3 on: 2003-12-16 00:49:43 » |
|
Regardless... it's one of those things that really make you wonder. 
|
Safe from the pain and truth and choice and other poison devils
See.. they don't give a fuck about you, like i do.
Just stay with me, safe and ignorant,
Go back to sleep
Go Back to sleep
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.74
Rate metahuman
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #4 on: 2003-12-16 03:50:06 » |
|
[Blunderov]
I see. Perhaps you would care to point out the lies in the section of
his book that I posted?
I should mention that my post omitted the copious footnotes that were
supplied by Michael Moore in the original. Footnotes that mostly cite
mainstream American media of, presumably, good repute.
I suppose it is possible that Moore has cobbled together a massive
conspiracy to fabricate news items that reflect poorly on the Bushes.
His cabal, if this is true, would seem to include, inter alia, The
Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, The Boston Globe,
The London Times, The Tampa Tribune, The BBC World Service, The
Telegraph (Online) The Omaha World Herald and The Houston Chronicle but
this doesn't seem very probable, at least not to me.
In fact the effort to which he has gone to make it clear that he is not
just simply spouting his own unsubstantiated opinions is nothing short
of exemplary.
[metahuman]
Copious defensive pro-Moore bullshit. Someone call the clean-up crew!
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." -- Lord Bertrand Russell.
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing." -- Lord Bertrand Russell.
|
|
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.74
Rate metahuman
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #5 on: 2003-12-16 05:11:47 » |
|
Furthermore...
SITES
MooreLies.com // Truth & Justice in reporting on Michael Moore
http://www.moorelies.com/
Bowling For Truth
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
MooreWatch.com
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/
MooreExposed.com
http://www.mooreexposed.com/
A little post-editing by Mike (pun intended)
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_08_31_archive.html#10624779059990811
A copy of Michael Moore's letter to President Bush
http://www.sangraal.com/Discussion/000000c8.htm
ARTICLES
Bowling for Fictitious 'Documentaries': Michael Moore is a Liar
http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscmoore.htm
Michael Moore, Humbug
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html
Sidenote: "Weapons of mass destruction" can be literally defined as anything that can destroy a massive number of targets. Let's see there's M-16s, cigarettes... etc. Also, I have a lot of friends who work in the defense industry. One of my uncles works at Lockheed Martin. My father has been an executive defense contractor for over 30 years for many of the huge firms in the news. I've heard all about the defense industry since I was a wee child. Michael Moore is an uneducated--perhaps miseducated--idiot with very little knowledge about nearly everything he speaks against. However, he's very good at fabricating stories and infecting others with his stupidity.
Liar, Liar, Liberal writers
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087591
Sidenote: Keep in mind that the "personalities" listed in this article are entertainers. It's just people like you (and sometimes themselves) that take them seriously. "Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones." -- Lord Bertrand Russell.
Bill Maher's Interview with "Mickey"
http://www.wga.org/craft/interviews/moore.html
SOUNDBYTES
Michael Moore booed at Oscars
http://people.ku.edu/~bag/mooreoscars.mp3
[Transcript: Michael Moore]
Thank you very much. [applause]
[sigh] On, uh, behalf of our producers Kathleen Glenn and Michael Donovan—from Canada—um, I’d like to thank the Academy for this. I’ve invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, [applause] and we would like to…they are here…they are here in solidarity with me, because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction, and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. [laughter, mixed cheers and boos] We…we live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it’s the fictition of duct tape, [boos and catcalls increase] or the fictition of orange alerts. [boos continue] We are against this war, Mr. Bush…shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. [boos increase, music raises] And anytime you’ve got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
Sidenote: Moore says we live in a fictitious world. This is abstractly true. People and people in the Media have turned reality into a reality show. It seems to be one big game for these "personalities."
OP-EDS (Eh... you'll find a lot of these...)
Shame on You, Mr. Moore! Shame on You!
http://ian.thekirks.org/mr_moore.htm
Is there Truth in Moore's Truth?
http://magic-city-news.com/article_34.shtml
Michael Moore's Columbine Gutterballs
http://www.gunowners.org/opmoore01.htm
A Kuro5hin pro-Moore op-ed provided for the fun of using a Ven diagram
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607
Sidenote: This is one reason I think Kuro5hin is a waste of time and money. Oh, and you're not "1337" just because you replace a letter with a number that looks similar to a letter. That's called illiteracy. Jeez, on that thread... well, that's a lot of bullshit to read. The writer of the op-ed also gets plenty wrong. For example, when you show an irrelevant photo while discussing something else (e.g., showing Lockheed Martin and discussing WMD (for those of you not familiar with the real terms)), you are making a statement. Even if you don't come out and directly make an accusation, you're still inferring a connection. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. Creatives in the design industry would agree.
Michael Moore attacks Salon
http://www.salon.com/july97/moore970703.html
Truth about Bowling for Columbine
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Unmoored from reality
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233
There's a reason why it's called the "Academy"
http://www.tsra.com/Bowling2.htm
LINKS
Larry Elder's links to Moore frauds
http://www.larryelder.com/michael.html
Sidenote: I think it's funny that Larry Elder would link to FrontPageMag.com which is openly racist and pro-white. I think it's Horowitz's site. It's not that "open" anymore, I guess. It was way back when I first found a link to a slideshow about Israel/Palestine piecing together its peace process.
Okay, I'm done flipping through the Internet looking for Mickey's critics...
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.36
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #6 on: 2003-12-16 09:41:14 » |
|
Hey Blunderlov,
I don't really get Moore's points.
He asks if the Bush family and Osama bin Laden's family have some links with
Bush. If they do, so what? If would be virtually impossible to avoid Saudi
money if you dealt with the non-Israeli middle east over the last 25 years.
This looks like a simple smear attempt by Moore and is as such basing his
implied arguments on a fallacy fallacious.
The central question in my opinion, is not about Bush and Bin Laden, but
about a multi-decade refusal by various American administrations to face up
to the nasty horror that is Saudi Arabia? In her new book - Modern Jihad -
Loretta Napoleoni shows how every post-war US administration has squashed
attempts to investigate the Saudis. I expect this will be a fascinating
story when it emerges.
The Bin laden on dialysis story is a feint. He planned and financed the
operation before he was sent to (probably die) in his Afghan cave. See
Operation Holy Tuesday for an in-depth look at the run up to 9/11 and
Osama's involvement:
http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/archives/020958.html
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 15 December 2003 19:34
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
Dr Sebby
> Sent: 15 December 2003 0835
<snip>
> ...it will be interesting to see if he has any info on bin laden.
> politics aside...just as a curiosity
</snip>
[Blunderov]
Judging by what Michael Moore has to say, it is possible that Bush already
knows far more about Osama and the bin Laden clan than Saddam will ever be
able to tell him.
Best Regards
<q>
Dude, Where's my Country? Michael Moore, Penguin Books.
Question #1: Is it true that the bin Ladens have had business relations with
you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?
Mr. Bush, in 1977, when your father told you it was time to get a real job,
he set you up with your first oil company, something you called "Arbusto"
(Spanish for "shrub"). A year later, you received financing from a man named
James A. Bath. He was an old buddy of yours from your days (the ones when
you weren't AWOL) in the Texas Air National Guard.
He had been hired by Salem bin Laden-Osama's brother-to invest the bin
Ladens' money in various Texas ventures. Some $50,000-or 5% of control of
Arbusto-came from Mr. Bath.
Was he acting on behalf of the bin Ladens?
Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have
known the bin Ladens for a long time. What exactly is the extent of this
relationship, Mr. Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again,
off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden first started coming to Texas
in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin
Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.
The bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Their
huge construction firm virtually built the country, from the roads and power
plants, to the skyscrapers and government buildings. They built some of the
airstrips America used in your dad's Gulf War, and they renovated the holy
sites at Mecca and Medina. Billionaires many times over, they soon began
investing in other ventures around the world, including in the United
States. They have extensive business dealings with Citigroup, General
Electric, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the Fremont Group-a spin-off of
energy giant Bechtel. According to The New Yorker, the bin Laden family also
owns a part of Microsoft and the airline and defense giant Boeing. They have
donated $2 million to your alma mater, Harvard University, $300,000 more to
Tufts University, and tens of thousands more to the Middle East Policy
Counc1l, a think tank headed by a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia,
Charles Freeman. In addition to the property they own in Texas, they also
have real estate in Florida and Massachusetts. In short, they have their
hands deep in our pants.
Unfortunately, as you know, Mr. Bush, Salem bin Laden died in a plane crash
in Texas in 1988 (his father, Mohammad, also died in a plane crash in 1967).
Salem's brothers-there are around 50 of them, including Osama-continued to
run the family companies and investments.
After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a
company known as the Carlyle Group. One of the investors in the Carlyle
Group was none other than the bin Laden family. The bin Ladens put a minimum
of $2 million into the Carlyle Group.
Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the
Carlyle Group. The same year you left the soon-to-be-bankrupt CaterAir, you
became governor and quickly oversaw the University of Texas-a state
institution-make an investment of $10 million in the Carlyle Group. The bin
Laden family had also gotten on the Carlyle gravy train in 1994.
The Carlyle Group is one of the nation's largest defense contractors, among
their many other lines of work. They don't actually build weapons
themselves. Rather, they buy up failing defense companies, turn them around
by making them profitable, and then sell them for huge sums of money.
The people who run the Carlyle Group are a Who's Who of past movers and
shakers, everyone from Ronald Reagan's defense secretary, Frank Carlucci, to
your dad's secretary of state, James Baker, to former British Prime Minister
John Major. Carlucci, the head of Carlyle, also happens to sit on the board
of directors of the Middle East Policy Council along with a representative
of the bin Laden family business.
After September 11, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal both ran
stories pointing out this strange coincidence. Your first response, Mr.
Bush, was to ignore it, hoping, I guess, that the story would just go away.
Your father and his buddies at Carlyle did not renounce the bin Laden
investment. Your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't
paint these bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have
disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! They hate and despise what
he has done! These are the good bin Ladens.
And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of those "good"
bin Ladens-including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers-with Osama at
his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It has
been reported in The New Yorker that not only has the family not cut ties to
Osama, but they have continued to fund him as they have been doing for
years. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his
family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30million), and the
bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al Qaeda,
well funded.
Mr. Bush, weeks went by after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, yet
your father and his friends at the Carlyle Group refused to buckle in their
support for the bin Laden empire.
Finally, nearly two months after the attacks, with more and more people
questioning the propriety of the Bush family being in bed with the bin
Ladens, your father and the Carlyle Group were pressured into giving the bin
Ladens their millions back and asked them to leave the company as investors.
Why did this take so long?
To make matters worse, it turned out that one of bin Laden's
brothers-Shafiq-was actually at a Carlyle Group business conference in
Washington, D.C., the morning of September 11. The day before, at the same
conference, your father and Shafiq had been chatting it up with all the
other ex-government Carlyle bigwigs.
Mr. Bush, what is going on here?
You've gotten a free ride from the media, though they know everything I have
just written to be the truth (and, in fact, I have taken it from the very
same mainstream news sources they work for). They seem unwilling or afraid
to ask you a simple question: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
In case you don't understand just how bizarre the media's silence is
regarding the Bush-bin Laden connections, let me draw an analogy to how the
press or Congress may have handled something like this if the same shoe had
been on the Clinton foot. If, after the terrorist attack on the Federal
Building in Oklahoma City, it was revealed that President Bill Clinton and
his family had financial dealings with Timothy McVeigh's family, what do you
think your Republican Party and the media would have done with that one? Do
you think at least a couple of questions might have been asked, like, "What
is THAT all about?" Be honest, you know the answer. They would have asked
more than a couple of questions. They would have skinned Clinton alive and
thrown what was left of his carcass in Gitmo.
<...snip>
Question #3: Who attacked the United States on September 11 -a guy on
dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friends, Saudi Arabia?
I'm sorry, Mr. Bush, but something doesn't make sense.
You got us all repeating by rote that it was Osama bin Laden who was
responsible for the attack on the United States on September 11. Even I was
doing it. But then I started hearing strange stories about Osama's kidneys.
It turns out that there have been reports on Osama's health problems for
years. For example, In 2000 The Associated Press reported, a Western
intelligence official said Osama is suffering from kidney and liver disease.
Bin Laden has kidney failure and' his liver is going,' the official said. .
. . He said bin Laden's followers were trying to find a kidney dialysis
machine for their ailing leader.
After September 11, these reports escalated. I was watching Hardball witb
Chris Matthews one night on MSNBC, and one of the guests-a Taliban
expert-said, ". . . Osama bin Laden appears to need dialysis treatment for
his kidney problem, so he's got to be close to some dialysis. He really
can't travel far. Did he just say "dialysis"? The world's biggest monster,
the most sinister, evil man on all of planet Earth-and he can't even piss in
a pot without help? I don't know about you, but if I'm told to be seriously
frightened by an evildoer, especially the top evildoer, I want that evildoer
to have all his bodily functions working at 110 percent! I want him strong,
scary, and omnipresent-and the possessor of two working kidneys. How am I
supposed to be supporting all these Homeland Security measures when the lead
bad guy is flat out on a table somewhere hooked up to a kidney machine?
Suddenly, I don't know who or what to trust. I started to ask other
questions. How could a guy sitting In a cave in Afghanistan, hooked up to
dialysis, have directed and overseen the actions of nineteen terrorists for
two years in the United States and then plotted so perfectly the hijacking
of four planes and then guaranteed that three of them would end up precisely
on their targets? How did Osama do this? I mean, I can't get this computer
to stop crashing every time I type the word "gingivitis." I can't get a cell
signal from here to Queens! And he's supposed to have pulled off all of
September 11 from his little cave, 10,000 miles away? What was he doing,
then, when we started the bombing over there? Was he running from cave to
cave in Afghanistan with his tubes and dialysis machine trailing behind him?
Or, um, maybe there was a dialysis machine in every third cave in
Afghanistan. Yeah, that's it! A real modern country, Afghanistan! It has
about fifteen miles of railroad track. And lots of dialysis machines, I
guess.
None of this is to say that Osama isn't a baddie or even that he didn't have
something to do with the attacks. But it seems that maybe a few journalists
might want to ask a few commonsense questions, like how could he have really
pulled this off while his skin was turning green and he was living in a
country with no Kinko's, no FedEx, no ATMs. How did he organize,
communicate, control and supervise this kind of massive attack? With two
cans and a string?
Yet, we're told by you to believe it. The headlines blared it the first day
and they blare it the same way now two years later: "Terrorists Attack
United States." Terrorists. I have wondered about this word for some time,
so, George, let me ask you a question: If fifteen of the nineteen hijackers
had been North Korean, and they killed 3,000 people, do you think the
headline the next day might read, "NORTH KOREA ATTACKS UNITED STATES"?
Of course it would. Or if it had been fifteen Iranians or fifteen Libyans or
fifteen Cubans, I think the conventional wisdom would have been, "IRAN (or
LIBYA or CUBA) ATTACKS AMERICA!"
Yet, when it comes to September 11, have you ever seen the headline, have
you ever heard a newscaster, has one of your appointees ever uttered these
words: "Saudi Arabia attacked the United States"?
Of course you haven't. And so the question must-must-be asked: WHY NOT?
Why, when Congress releases its own investigation into September 11, you,
Mr. Bush, censor out twenty-eight pages that deal with the Saudis'
role in the attack? What is behind your apparent refusal to look at the one
country that seems to be producing the "terrorists" that have killed our
citizens?
I would like to throw out a possibility here: What if September 11 was not a
"terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the United States?
What if the nineteen were well-trained soldiers, the elite of the elite,
unquestioning in their duty to obey their commander's orders? That they
lived in this country for nearly two years and were not discovered-that
takes a certain amount of discipline, the discipline of a soldier, not the
erratic behavior of some wild-eyed terrorist.
George, apparently you were a pilot once-how hard is it to hit a five-story
building at more than 500 miles an hour? The Pentagon is only five stories
high. At 500 miles an hour, had the pilots been off by just a hair, they'd
have been in the river. You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly
jumbo lets by being taught on a video game machine at some dipshit flight
training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's
air force. The Saudi Air Force?
What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to
a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of either the
Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family?
The House of Saud, according to Robert Baer's book, is full of them, and the
royal family-and the country-is in incredible turmoil. There is much
dissension over how things are being run, and with the king incapacitated by
a stroke he suffered in 1995, his brothers and numerous sons have been in a
serious power struggle. Some favor cutting off all ties to the West.
Some want the country to go the more fundamentalist route. After all, this
was Osama's originally stated goal. His first beef wasn't with America; it
was with the way Saudi Arabia was being run-by Muslims who weren't true
Muslims. There are now thousands of princes in the royal family, and many
observers have commented that Saudi Arabia is on the brink of civil war, or
perhaps a people's revolution. You can only behead so many of your citizens
and then, before long, they lose their heads and go crazy and overthrow your
ass. That is what is on the "To Do" list for many Saudi citizens these days,
and the royals are circling the wagons.
A 1999 article in the political journal Foreign Affairs pretty much spelled
out why: "Like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia would like to leave bin Laden in
Afghanistan. His arrest and trial in the United States could be highly
embarrassing, exposing his continuing relationship with sympathetic members
of the ruling elites and intelligence services of both countries.""
So, did certain factions within the Saudi royal family execute the attack on
September 11? Were these pilots trained by the Saudis? One thing we do know:
Nearly all the hijackers were Saudis and they were apparently able to enter
the United States legally, thanks, In part, to the special arrangement set
up by our State Department and the Saudi government that allowed Saudis to
get quickie visas without going through the normal vetting process.
Mr. Bush, why have the Saudis received red-carpet treatment? Sure, we need
their oil. And, yes, they received the same kissy~face welcome from all the
presidents before you.
But why have you blocked attempts to dig deeper into the Saudi connections?
Why do you refuse to say, "Saudi Arabia attacked the United States!"?
Mr. Bush, does this have anything to do with your family's close personal
relationship with the ruling family of Saudi Arabia? 1 would like to think
that's not possible. But what is your explanation? That it was just some nut
in a cave (who just happened to be on dialysis)? And, after you couldn't
find this nut, why did you try to convince us that Saddam Hussein had
something to do with September 11 and al Qaeda, when you were specifically
told by your intelligence people that there was no connection?
Why are you so busy protecting the Saudis when you should be protecting us?
Question #4: Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the U.S. in
the days after September 11 and pick up members of the bin Laden family and
then fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI?
Mr. Bush, not that this is personal or anything, but 1 was stranded in Los
Angeles on the morning of September 11. I scrambled to find a rental car,
and then drove 3,000 miles to get back home-all because traveling by air was
forbidden in the days following the attack. Yet, members of the bin Laden
family were allowed to fly in private jets, crisscrossing America as they
prepared to leave the country-can you explain that to me?
Private jets, under the supervision of the Saudi government and with your
approval-were allowed to fly around the skies of America and pick up
twenty-four members of the bin Laden family and take them first to a "secret
assembly point in Texas." They then flew to Washington, D.C., and then on to
Boston. Finally, on September 18, they were all flown to Paris, out of the
reach of any U.S. officials. They never went through any serious
interrogation, other than a few questions that the FBI asked them and a
request to check each of their passports before leaving. One FBI agent I
spoke to told me that the FBI was "furious" that they were not allowed to
keep the bin Ladens in the country to conduct a real investigation-the kind
police like to do when they are trying to track down a murderer. Usually,
the police like to talk to the family members of the suspect to learn what
they know, who they know, how they might help capture the fugitive.
None of the normal procedures were followed.
This is mind-boggling. Here you have two dozen bin Ladens on American soil,
Mr. Bush, and you come up with some lame excuse that you were worried about
"their safety." Might it have been possible that at least one of the
twenty-four bin Ladens would have possibly known something?
Or maybe just one of them could have been "convinced" to help track Osama
down?
Nope. None of that. So while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if
you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in
U.S. history, you got a free tip to gay Paree! of course, the bin Ladens
have been your business associates. Why wouldn't you do a little favor for
some old family friends? But, to use the Clinton analogy again, imagine, in
the hours after the Oklahoma City bombing, Bill Clinton suddenly started
worrying about the "safety" of the McVeigh family up in Buffalo-and then
arranged a free trip for them out of the country. What would you and the
Republicans have said about that?
Suddenly, a stain on a blue dress probably wouldn't have been the top
priority for a witch hunt, would it?
With all that was happening in the days after September 11, how did you find
the time to even begin thinking about protecting people named bin Laden? I'm
amazed at your ability to multi-task.
As if bin Ladens Over America ("Air Laden?") wasn't enough, The Tampa
Tribune reported that the authorities also found the time to help even more
Saudis. Apparently, another Saudi jet, this one a private Lear jet (arranged
by a private hangar owned by defense contractor Raytheon, which also happens
to be a hefty GOP donor), was allowed to fly from Tampa on September 13
(during the air-travel lockdown) to Lexington, Kentucky, to drop off some
members of the Saudi royal family to be with other Saudi royals who had been
in Kentucky looking at horses. Two bodyguards for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
were hired to travel along on the flight and they told their story to the
Tribune about how the pilot revealed to them upon returning to Tampa that he
had still another run to make to Louisiana."
Why, Mr. Bush, was this allowed to happen?
A frightened nation struggled to get through those days after September 11.
Yet, in the sky above us, the bin Ladens and Saudi royals jetted home.
I think we deserve an explanation.
</q>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #7 on: 2003-12-16 09:40:57 » |
|
I see that these are sites full of rhetoric calling Moore stupid and a liar.
And when they do make references, they take Moore's statements, which often use sarcasm and humor, out of context.
When Moore speaks of WMD's, he's referring to weapons, such as Nukes that can be realistically deployed against the US, and are capable of wiping out whole towns or cities full of people. These are the weapons that concerned us, and are the ones that most people were led to believe by the Bush administration that we would find in Iraq.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #8 on: 2003-12-16 11:54:58 » |
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
Behalf
> Of Jonathan Davis
> Sent: 16 December 2003 1641
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam
arrested)
>
> Hey Blunderlov,
>
> I don't really get Moore's points.
>
> He asks if the Bush family and Osama bin Laden's family have some
links
> with
> Bush. If they do, so what? If would be virtually impossible to avoid
Saudi
> money if you dealt with the non-Israeli middle east over the last 25
> years.
> This looks like a simple smear attempt by Moore and is as such basing
his
> implied arguments on a fallacy fallacious.
>
> The central question in my opinion, is not about Bush and Bin Laden,
but
> about a multi-decade refusal by various American administrations to
face
> up
> to the nasty horror that is Saudi Arabia? In her new book - Modern
Jihad -
> Loretta Napoleoni shows how every post-war US administration has
squashed
> attempts to investigate the Saudis. I expect this will be a
fascinating
> story when it emerges.
>
> The Bin laden on dialysis story is a feint. He planned and financed
the
> operation before he was sent to (probably die) in his Afghan cave. See
> Operation Holy Tuesday for an in-depth look at the run up to 9/11 and
> Osama's involvement:
>
> http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/archives/020958.html
[Blunderov]
Hey Jonathan! Nice post - thoughtful. There is much in what you say
about the 'multi-decade refusal by various American administrations to
face up to the nasty horror that is Saudi Arabia' as you so well put it.
Sadly, as is pointed out by Moore, this is itself part of a larger
pattern in which the USA, lover of freedom and democracy, has
consistently supported the most atrocious dictatorships, including
Saddam, and even gone so far as to subvert and overthrow perfectly
legitimate democratic governments when expedient. Perhaps this is quite
simply the way all empires are built and maintained and the US is no
less immune to this than any previous empire. Pity.
With regard to OBL, it seems that Moore was incorrect in asserting that
the bin Ladens were evacuated during the air travel lockdown. Otherwise
I have not, so far, located any other inaccuracy in this context.
Whether OBL is dead or not remains to be seen. There have, subsequent to
9/11, been sporadic tapes allegedly starring OBL but who can tell if
they are real? Me, I thought Saddam was long dead, but apparently he
isn't.
Still, it does seem strange that the US was unable to find OBL.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.36
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #9 on: 2003-12-16 13:20:53 » |
|
Hi Blunderlov,
I strongly recommend the book I am reading now (that I quoted earlier)
Modern Jihad by Loretta Napoleoni. It is a superb, politically neutral
analysis of the economic side of terrorism. Within twenty pages she had this
reader gripped. The book is ostensibly about how terrorists finance
themselves, but it is so much more.
Here is the review from Publishers Weekly:
"No punches are pulled in this alarming study of a $1.5-trillion terrorist
economy that is as integral a part of the Western economy as banking or big
oil. So compelling is Italian economist and journalist Napoleoni's
indictment of the West for the creation and sustenance of international
terrorism that she believes this is the reason publication was nixed by her
commissioning publisher's board of directors. Napoleoni traces 50 years of
Western economic and political dominance in developing Muslim countries
backing repressive, corrupt regimes, fighting the Cold War by proxy and
blocking the legitimate economic ascendancy of millions. "As in the
Crusades," in which Napoleoni finds many modern parallels, "religion is
simply a recruitment tool; the real driving force is economics." The only
way those left behind by globalization can afford to fight back, the author
says, is with the proceeds of crime, drugs, arms, prostitution, gems,
smuggling, even slavery all fueled by the West's addictions and other
"poisonous dependencies" and laundered and reinvested by the West's own
financial industry. Interviews with former terrorists, intelligence
officials and world-class economists enliven this thoughtful and informed
analysis, but evidence of the FBI and CIA being prevented by the Clinton and
Bush administrations from fully investigating the real (Saudi) sources of
Islamist terrorism and of the real motives for the campaigns in Afghanistan
and Iraq could create a political firestorm here and abroad."
This is in no way and US bad/Them good type anti-Western screed, but rather
a superbly interesting look at terror groups, their means, methods and
masters. From French Indo-China, to the mining of Nicaraguan ports through
to Noraid, Al Quaeda and the new narco-terrorists.
The horrible truth is that the "economy of terror" is deeply entangled with
the West's economy. To destroy it might destroy us too and that is one of
the most serious conundrums we face. If we were to really succeed in the war
on terror, we would almost certainly plunge our economies into serious
recession.
I know this sounds a bit suspicious, but the evidence in this book is
superbly well presented.
Here are some reviews and a good Weblog post/summary:
Official website: http://www.modernjihad.com/index_home.html
http://www.teamnull.com/blog/archives/000635.html (good blog summary)
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/books/story/0,10595,1105765,00.html
The Saudis: Friends or Foes?
http://www.progress.org/2003/saudi01.htm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3129953/
I am sorry I am just chucking this at you, but I am rushing to organise my
trip to India. In know you will love the book, check it out if you can.
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 16 December 2003 16:55
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
Behalf
> Of Jonathan Davis
> Sent: 16 December 2003 1641
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam
arrested)
>
> Hey Blunderlov,
>
> I don't really get Moore's points.
>
> He asks if the Bush family and Osama bin Laden's family have some
links
> with
> Bush. If they do, so what? If would be virtually impossible to avoid
Saudi
> money if you dealt with the non-Israeli middle east over the last 25
> years.
> This looks like a simple smear attempt by Moore and is as such basing
his
> implied arguments on a fallacy fallacious.
>
> The central question in my opinion, is not about Bush and Bin Laden,
but
> about a multi-decade refusal by various American administrations to
face
> up
> to the nasty horror that is Saudi Arabia? In her new book - Modern
Jihad -
> Loretta Napoleoni shows how every post-war US administration has
squashed
> attempts to investigate the Saudis. I expect this will be a
fascinating
> story when it emerges.
>
> The Bin laden on dialysis story is a feint. He planned and financed
the
> operation before he was sent to (probably die) in his Afghan cave. See
> Operation Holy Tuesday for an in-depth look at the run up to 9/11 and
> Osama's involvement:
>
> http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/archives/020958.html
[Blunderov]
Hey Jonathan! Nice post - thoughtful. There is much in what you say about
the 'multi-decade refusal by various American administrations to face up to
the nasty horror that is Saudi Arabia' as you so well put it.
Sadly, as is pointed out by Moore, this is itself part of a larger pattern
in which the USA, lover of freedom and democracy, has consistently supported
the most atrocious dictatorships, including Saddam, and even gone so far as
to subvert and overthrow perfectly legitimate democratic governments when
expedient. Perhaps this is quite simply the way all empires are built and
maintained and the US is no less immune to this than any previous empire.
Pity.
With regard to OBL, it seems that Moore was incorrect in asserting that the
bin Ladens were evacuated during the air travel lockdown. Otherwise I have
not, so far, located any other inaccuracy in this context.
Whether OBL is dead or not remains to be seen. There have, subsequent to
9/11, been sporadic tapes allegedly starring OBL but who can tell if they
are real? Me, I thought Saddam was long dead, but apparently he isn't.
Still, it does seem strange that the US was unable to find OBL.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #10 on: 2003-12-16 15:24:35 » |
|
Jonathan Davis
> Sent: 16 December 2003 2021
<snip>
> I am sorry I am just chucking this at you, but I am rushing to
organise my
> trip to India. In know you will love the book, check it out if you
can.
>
[Blunderov]
No need to apologise at all! It sounds like my cup of tea indeed. Enjoy
India. Send a postcard.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
DrSebby
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 456
Reputation: 8.05
Rate DrSebby
...Oh, you smell of lambs!
    
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #11 on: 2003-12-16 16:18:28 » |
|
...Jonathan...i know this may seem imposing, but if you could keep your eye
out for a shotglass (maybe at the airport?) that says "india" or some such
thing on it, denoting it's origin in someway, i would be overjoyed to
reimburse you upon your return. my mother has a shotglass collection of
this sort and so far lacks india somehow. and no, my momma aint slammin'
jacks down...she averages about 3 glasses of wine a year, but that is her
collection so there ya go;)
...if you cant swing it or forget, no worries. thanks for considering it at
least:)
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Blunderov" <squooker@mweb.co.za>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:24:35 +0200
Jonathan Davis
> Sent: 16 December 2003 2021
<snip>
> I am sorry I am just chucking this at you, but I am rushing to
organise my
> trip to India. In know you will love the book, check it out if you
can.
>
[Blunderov]
No need to apologise at all! It sounds like my cup of tea indeed. Enjoy
India. Send a postcard.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
"courage and shuffle the cards..."
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #12 on: 2003-12-16 23:16:24 » |
|
They were flown during air travel lockdown to an undisclosed location in washinton DC.
They were then flown, after the lockdown, to Paris.
So there was some travel during the lockdown, it just wasn't international.
Whatever.
We have had problems with the Middle East for a while now.
Maybe we should stop letting special-interest groups and corporate lobbyists run our country?
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.74
Rate metahuman
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #13 on: 2003-12-17 01:53:44 » |
|
[simul]
They were flown during air travel lockdown to an undisclosed location in washinton DC.
They were then flown, after the lockdown, to Paris.
So there was some travel during the lockdown, it just wasn't international.
[metahuman]
That's proven bullshit. Stupid pretender Virians. Do your research and stop believing Mickey.
|
|
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.74
Rate metahuman
|
|
RE: virus: Osama bin Laden and the Bushes (was Saddam arrested)
« Reply #14 on: 2003-12-17 02:22:58 » |
|
*****
Bush family - Bin Laden family ties. Whoopee. The bin Ladens happen to be one enormous clan. When the founder died in 1988, he left no fewer than 54 children (some say 53 -- heck, he himself may not have kept count.). Add in grandkids, in-laws, and cousins, and it must make for a heck of a big family reunion.
The founder emigrated to Saudi Arabia early in the 20th century, founded the construction firm, was hired to rebuild Mecca, and got a lock on all religious construction in a very religious country. Most of the family is western-leaning, and send their children to the U.S. for an education. Osama went in for fanaticism, was disowned by the family, and fled the country in 1992 after the Saudis ordered him arrested. (Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/family.html)
The Carlyle Group. Yep, it's one big business, reportedly worth over three billion, lots projects in the Mideast. Both Bushes were tied in with Carlyle pretty thoroughly, and Bush, Sr. in retirement would travel to Saudi Arabia to hunt up more contracts. The bin Laden family invested two million in a $1.3 billion fund run by it. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C583869%2C00.html)
The airplane. About two dozen bin Laden kids were attending school in the U.S. on 9/11. They started calling the Saudi embassy, in fear they were about to be lynched (a not unreasonable fear -- a few days later a Sikh was murdered, simply because he wore a turban.) The ambassador intervened (with White House, State, or FBI -- accounts vary. They "were driven or flown under FBI supervision" to a location in the US. As CBS reported, then "they left the country on a private charter plane when airports reopened three days after the attacks." (Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml)
****
Source: http://www.mooreexposed.com/dwmc.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
