Oliver's Proof. [Archive]

RandFan

21st June 2007, 08:30 PM

Proof of what I have no idea but it does prove a conspiracy of some sort...

Well, then be honest and explain these points to yourself:

Why were the Bin Ladens flown out?
When ended the Bin-Laden connections to the Bush family? (Did it end?)
Why are the Saudi connections blackened within the 9/11 investigations?
When ended the Saudi-Al Qaida connection? (Did it ever?)
Why is there no investigation concerning Saudi-Arabia?
How influential is the Saudi Money/Lobby within the US-System? (Speculative)

I will change my mind if you're able to give me some logical, factual explanations - so far I wasn't able to find positive answers.

Even if citing an old documentary isn't very critical at all - this Canadian "Hit-Piece" sums it up pretty well and raises the same questions I wasn't able to debunk yet concerning the Saudis: (They also failed)

-9169904580025714112 Good luck folks, I'm afraid that Oliver has you over a barrel though. His questions are very compelling...

pomeroo

21st June 2007, 08:32 PM

Proof of what I have no idea but it does prove a conspiracy of some sort...

Good luck folks, I'm afraid that Oliver has you over a barrel though. His questions are very compelling...

Damn, this guy is good!

Oliver

21st June 2007, 08:41 PM

Proof of what I have no idea but it does prove a conspiracy of some sort...

Good luck folks, I'm afraid that Oliver has you over a barrel though. His questions are very compelling...

Well, honestly: Since I'm here at JREF I was able to debunk every Conspiracy Theory so far. But this one is still unanswered. So it isn't the idea that this proves a conspiracy that bothers me, it's the fact that no one is able or willing (Media/Government) to disproof a conspiracy.

WildCat

21st June 2007, 08:46 PM

AZCat

21st June 2007, 08:48 PM

Maybe the bin Ladens were flown out because their friends the Bushes didn't want to see them lynched by an angry mob for a horrific act that they had no part in?

Oliver

21st June 2007, 08:49 PM

Let me get this straight: You think we should do something (imprison? execute? what?) to the bin Ladin family because of what Osama did?

Strawman: Please try to answer the Questions instead distracting the issue, thank you.

JimBenArm

21st June 2007, 08:55 PM

Strawman: Please try to answer the Questions instead distracting the issue, thank you.
No, I think the question is, what does this have to do with anything? It was his family, which had disowned him years ago. Not Osama his own self. So, if they got flown out on frikken Air Force One, what difference does it make? They didn't have any more to do with the events than your family did!

RandFan

21st June 2007, 08:57 PM

Gravy

21st June 2007, 08:57 PM

WildCat

21st June 2007, 08:57 PM

Strawman: Please try to answer the Questions instead distracting the issue, thank you.
You're right - all of your questions are straw men. Unless you can explain why you think the bin Ladin family (who long ago disowned Osama) should be suspect. Is this how it works in Germany? If Hans commits a crime, his whole family gets arrested?

Slayhamlet

21st June 2007, 09:00 PM

I'm confused. What's the conspiracy that this is supposed to prove (or suggest)?

gumboot

21st June 2007, 09:01 PM

Oliver

21st June 2007, 09:03 PM

No, I think the question is, what does this have to do with anything? It was his family, which had disowned him years ago. Not Osama his own self. So, if they got flown out on frikken Air Force One, what difference does it make? They didn't have any more to do with the events than your family did!

In this case it wouldn't have been necessary to blacken all connections to Saudi-Arabia within the U.S. Congressional Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Inquiry_into_Intelligence_Community_Activiti es_before_and_after_the_Terrorist_Attacks_of_Septe mber_11%2C_2001) and the 9/11 Commission Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report) and there would have been a public investigation.

No one so far is able or willing to shed some light into these connections. Even most Truthers don't care about it - but personally it bothers me to find the last pieces regarding 9/11.

Maybe you have 30 minutes left to watch the old, candian 9/11 docu that also raises these unanswered questions.

RandFan

21st June 2007, 09:03 PM

I'm confused. What's the conspiracy that this is supposed to prove (or suggest)?Good luck.

WildCat

21st June 2007, 09:04 PM

I'm confused. What's the conspiracy that this is supposed to prove (or suggest)?
I think Oliver is saying that since several of the 9/11 hijackers once lived in Germany the US should have invaded Germany, or something equally illogical...

WildCat

21st June 2007, 09:07 PM

In this case it wouldn't have been necessary to blacken all connections to Saudi-Arabia within the U.S. Congressional Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Inquiry_into_Intelligence_Community_Activiti es_before_and_after_the_Terrorist_Attacks_of_Septe mber_11%2C_2001) and the 9/11 Commission Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report) and there would have been a public investigation.
Really? Is that the only possible reason those parts were blacked out?

RandFan

21st June 2007, 09:07 PM

...but personally it bothers me to find the last pieces regarding 9/11.What the hell does this mean? Do you reject most of the other CT BS and are just latching on to this one? Or do you accept the other CT BS but feel know one else has given this one any attention.

Please to clarify?

RandFan

21st June 2007, 09:09 PM

Really? Is that the only possible reason those parts were blacked out?Redaction is typical in such situations. Oliver is arguing from ignorance. It could be sinister but that there is redaction proves nothing. If it did then nearly every document turned over as a result of the freedom of information act is proof of a conspiracy.

Brainache

21st June 2007, 09:10 PM

Oliver

21st June 2007, 09:11 PM

There is no connection between Al Qaeda and the Saudi government. Indeed, the Saudi Government is one of the primary enemies of Al Qaeda, for inviting Americans into the land of the two holy cities, instead of accepting Osama bin Laden's offer of the protection of his Mujahideen fighters.

-Gumboot

The "official" version is that Al Qaida bribed the Saudis to avoid an attack from AQ. That was not only confirmed by french investigator and terror expert Jean-Charles Brisard (http://www.senate.gov/%7Ebanking/_files/brisard.pdf), but also... :

The Golden Chain list of wealthy Saudi sponsors is an internal Al-Qaida document seized by the Bosnian police during searches in the offices of Benevolence International Foundation in Sarajevo in March 2002. Our team was granted access to this document, among others, following an order of the Supreme Court of Bosnia Herzegovina ordering the US government to release this material.

The Golden Chain lists the top 20 Saudi financial sponsors of Al-Qaida. It includes 6 bankers and 12 businessmen, among which there are 2 former ministers.

According to our estimates, their cumulative corporate net worth totals more than $85 billion dollars, or 42% of the Saudi annual GNP and equivalent to the annual GNP of Venezuela.

They include former leading Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz, businessman Saleh Abdullah Kamel, the Bin Laden family, and several bankers representing the three largest Saudi banks (National Commercial Bank, Riyadh Bank and Al Rajhi Bank).

Oliver

21st June 2007, 09:14 PM

What the hell does this mean? Do you reject most of the other CT BS and are just latching on to this one? Or do you accept the other CT BS but feel know one else has given this one any attention.

Please to clarify?

Well, it's unsolved. So yes, I would love to find the answers to these unsolved questions because it bothers me that I miss the missing link concerning 9/11.

Thunder

21st June 2007, 09:15 PM

The Bin Laden family being flown out of the country when the American people were grounded is not a conspiracy theory. Its a fact. Many people have suggested that these people did not get a thorough questioning by the authorities. I dont think there is anything wrong with asking why they didnt get a more thorough questioning, who made the decision to allow them to fly out. We know that Bush had dealings with the Bin Laden family in the past and this smacks of preferential treatment for family friends during a national crisis.

WildCat

21st June 2007, 09:16 PM

Was the ban on flights still in place when the plane load of Saudis and Bin Ladens left the US?
No, it had ended 4 days earlier.

RandFan

21st June 2007, 09:17 PM

Well, it's unsolved. So yes, I would love to find the answers to these unsolved questions because it bothers me that I miss the missing link concerning 9/11.This did not answer my questions?

Do you believe that there are a lot of other unsolved questions as evidenced in this forum?

WildCat

21st June 2007, 09:20 PM

The Bin Laden family being flown out of the country when the American people were grounded is not a conspiracy theory. Its a fact.
No, it's not a fact.

Many people have suggested that these people did not get a thorough questioning by the authorities.
The FBI did question them.

I dont think there is anything wrong with asking why they didnt get a more thorough questioning, who made the decision to allow them to fly out.
It was Richard Clarke.

We know that Bush had dealings with the Bin Laden family in the past and this smacks of preferential treatment for family friends during a national crisis.
They didn't. A close friend of mine flew back to Chicago from NYC the first day flights resumed, before the bin Ladin's left.

beachnut

21st June 2007, 09:21 PM

Well, honestly: Since I'm here at JREF I was able to debunk every Conspiracy Theory so far. But this one is still unanswered. So it isn't the idea that this proves a conspiracy that bothers me, it's the fact that no one is able or willing (Media/Government) to disproof a conspiracy.

Saudi? When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia for Desert Storm, some Saudi shot at one of our Air Force buses. The next day the guy was put to death. If you have some Terrorist, and the Saudis think they did it, they will be dispatched that day, or in the morning.

When ended the Saudi-Al Qaida connection? (Did it ever?)

UBL and his family are two different things. I am sure if you had a killer in your family, you may have some idea what the family has to put up with. And UBL's father, did he ever marry UBL's mom?

I think if you want some terrorist brought to justice, just let them get caught by Saudi Arabia. I am not sure what you are asking for, the Saudis who left the United States were not under suspicion of doing anything about 9/11. And If I was guilty of some terrorism against the United States, I would not want to go to Saudi Arabia. Not me. They hit women with sticks who show too much ankle. Why would you want to be a terrorist where they make sure you get to heaven the next day?

Oliver

21st June 2007, 09:24 PM

This did not answer my questions?

Do you believe that there are a lot of other unsolved questions as evidenced in this forum?

Sure, there are a lot of open questions, especially from Truthers - but I think they're irrelevant concerning the bigger picture concerning the relations between the US, Al Qaida and Saudi Arabia.

RandFan

21st June 2007, 09:29 PM

Sure, there are a lot of open questions, especially from Truthers - but I think they're irrelevant concerning the bigger picture concerning the relations between the US, Al Qaida and Saudi Arabia.I think you are talking in circles. What did you mean by "last pieces"?

Was Bush behind 9/11?

WildCat

21st June 2007, 09:29 PM

Sure, there are a lot of open questions, especially from Truthers - but I think they're irrelevant concerning the bigger picture concerning the relations between the US, Al Qaida and Saudi Arabia.
When are you going to fill us in on this "bigger picture"?

stilicho

21st June 2007, 09:31 PM

Oliver: You might want to begin with reading. Ahmed Rashid's Taliban is a pretty good start. Conventional history and political science traces Arab influence to those (often Saudis) disenchanted with the status quo and finding fertile ground among displaced peoples in the area surrounding Afghanistan.

There are also numerous studies (likely available in your local college library) detailing the rift caused by Wahhabism among (especially) young Arabs of all nationalities. There is presently, as you know from reading newspapers, a strong conflict in Pakistan between Wahhabi-inspired youth and those who feel that Islam and modernism are not incompatible.

To a certain extent, I agree with gumboot, but the "bases in Saudi Arabia" is far simpler an explanation than is needed to explain an entire generation of disenchantment boiling under the surface in the Arab world. It has spread to non-Arab countries, too, and part of the posturing of Iranian leaders is to "prove" their adherence to the fundamentals of Islam. Turkey is also not immune.

Most of the conspiracy theories here focus only on al-Qaeda, 9/11, and Osama Bin Laden, as though these are the only examples of Islamic extremism that have ever existed. Militant Islam stretches easily from the Philippines to Norway.

firecoins

21st June 2007, 09:34 PM

Is this how it works in Germany? If Hans commits a crime, his whole family gets arrested?
Yes!

Brian
Jew

Oliver

21st June 2007, 09:34 PM

For those who don't know about this unsolved 9/11-Mystery, please review the summing within the documentary in the initial post of RandFan and google the "Golden Chain List":

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Golden+Chain+list%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

I will go to bed now after spending the whole night in JREF/Politics.

gumboot

21st June 2007, 09:39 PM

The "official" version is that Al Qaida bribed the Saudis to avoid an attack from AQ. That was not only confirmed by french investigator and terror expert Jean-Charles Brisard (http://www.senate.gov/%7Ebanking/_files/brisard.pdf), but also... :

You mean the Saudis bribed Al Qaeda?

I didn't say Saudi Arabians didn't support Al Qaeda. Obviously they do. Many of them are Saudi Arabians. I said the Saudi Arabian government didn't support Al Qaeda. Do you have any evidence that the Saudi Arabian government has ever funded Al Qaeda?

-Gumboot

PhantomWolf

21st June 2007, 09:43 PM

Why were the Bin Ladens flown out?

They weren't "flown out," they left. They left because of the worry about a backlash to them and other Saudi's and anti-muslem attacks.

When ended the Bin-Laden connections to the Bush family? (Did it end?)

Why does it matter, the Bin Laden family is a huge group of people. Just because one or two have a bend against the US, why should those that don't and have never done anything suffer?

Why are the Saudi connections blackened within the 9/11 investigations?

How do you mean blackened?

When ended the Saudi-Al Qaida connection? (Did it ever?)

What Saudi-Al Qaeda connection? If you mean people in Saudi that support them, it probably hasn't, much to the Saudi authorities shagrin. If you mean an offical connection, there never has been one. OBL attempted to set one up in 1991 after Iraq invaded Kuwait and was soundly rejected. Since then they have been enemies and over the past 7-8 years at war.

Why is there no investigation concerning Saudi-Arabia?

What evidence is there that anyone of authority in Saudi was involved?

How influential is the Saudi Money/Lobby within the US-System? (Speculative)

As you point out it is speculative and probably unanswerable without specilised knowledge.

gumboot

21st June 2007, 09:45 PM

The Bin Laden family being flown out of the country when the American people were grounded is not a conspiracy theory. Its a fact.

No it's not. Commercial airlines began resuming flights on Thursday 13th September. (Although a lot of airlines chose not to resume flights immediately).

-Gumboot

PhantomWolf

21st June 2007, 09:49 PM

Caper

21st June 2007, 09:58 PM

I love this site... Great stuff. But Oliver does make a point about the Saudi's.... no conspiracy involved or anything... But I believe there was some controversy with border crossings (I think)... I think citizens of some dozen or so countries had to present a valid passort and I don't think Saudi Arabia was on the list right away... I may be mistaken, but it was something along those lines.

PhantomWolf

21st June 2007, 10:00 PM

As far as I know everyone entering the US has to present a valid passport, I know I did, and I'm in a Visa Waver country.

gumboot

21st June 2007, 10:15 PM

gumboot

21st June 2007, 10:17 PM

Some Saudi Nationals were flown on FBI planes, with FBI agents, while the no-fly order was in place, but to do so they had to have permission and that was granted. No Saudis left the country, and no Bin Ladens flew anywhere during the no fly ban. The Bin Ladens left either 4 or 5 days after the ban was lifted.

It's also worth pointing out (again) that the Saudis in question were travelling on diplomatic passports, and that it would be illegal for the USA to hold them without permission from the Saudi government.

One of the problems of corrupt governments such as Saudi Arabia is they'll give diplomatic passports to friends and family that don't really warrant them.

-Gumboot

Slayhamlet

21st June 2007, 10:22 PM

Was the ban on flights still in place when the plane load of Saudis and Bin Ladens left the US?

Given that the Bush family are in the oil business, is it unusual that they should have business dealings with Saudi Arabia?

Are there other Texas oil families that have similar ties to Arab big business?

I'm in no position to answer Oliver's questions with anything but more questions and speculation, so here goes:

The world of international trade/diplomacy is a murky one and governments and corporations often have to deal with whoever is in power in foreign countries. It would be pointless for the Bush Admin. to try to broker deals in Saudi Arabia without dealing with the royal family. Also don't forget that the Bin Ladens run one of the biggest construction companies in Saudi, should they deal with only small businesses, or US owned businesses?

You can argue that they should keep their sticky fingers out of the ME altogether, but it's a bit late for that unfortunately.

/My two Aussie cents.

IIRC, the connection of the Bush family to the bin Ladin family is from two dealings:

1. Through a company GWB owned from 1977 to 1990 called Arbusto Energy, into which Salem bin Laden (the head of the Bin Laden family at the time and the eldest of Osama's 50+ siblings) invested some of his holdings from the Saudi Binladin Group, a powerful construction conglomerate in the Middle East.

2. Through the Carlyle Group, which Bush Senior had some advisory role in and had business dealings with (I'm not sure if he is still invested in them.) The Saudi Binladin Group also had investments in the Carlyle Group until shortly after 9/11 when they broke the relationship (I think partly from public criticism). It is not surprising that the families of billionaires have or had investments in the Carlyle Group. George Soros, for example, was at one time an investor as well.

Osama himself never had any economic interest in the Carlyle Group. I suspect his ideology had something to do with that. Moreover his family officially disowned him sometime in the early 90's after the Saudi government revoked his citizenship for criticizing them.

Slayhamlet

21st June 2007, 10:29 PM

PhantomWolf

21st June 2007, 10:38 PM

LashL

21st June 2007, 10:48 PM

As far as I can recall, even before 9/11 you had to present valid ID for domestic flights. I doubt anyone can (or could) get into the USA from a foreign country without a passport (with the exception of illegal immigrants :p). I'd guarantee it, in fact. Could you even cross the Canada/US border without ID?

-Gumboot

Canadians could, prior to 9/11 (and still can to date), cross into the U.S. by road or by sea without a passport if you have other sufficient identification (e.g. drivers licence and birth certificate, among other things). There has been a press on for the past few years to make road crossing between our two countries require passports, but it has been decided (within the past few days) that those measures will not occur until at least 2008.

For air travel, no passport was required for Canadians to travel to the U.S. until a few months ago - January, 2007.

Slayhamlet

21st June 2007, 10:51 PM

While I can't say for sure pre-9/11. When I was over in 2005, I didn't have too and I flew Domestic LA, Denver, Omaha and back.

Really? I've always had to.

Maybe I'm just suspicious looking...

Hokulele

21st June 2007, 10:57 PM

As far as I can recall, even before 9/11 you had to present valid ID for domestic flights. I doubt anyone can (or could) get into the USA from a foreign country without a passport (with the exception of illegal immigrants :p). I'd guarantee it, in fact. Could you even cross the Canada/US border without ID?

-Gumboot

As LashL and a few others have mentioned, prior to 9/11/01, you could fly between the US and several countries (not just Canada) with any valid, government-issued photo ID, such as a driver's license. Within the US, you had to present some form of ID to check-in luggage, but not otherwise. For example, there were self-serve check-in kiosks scattered throughout several airports, and many times you did not have to present ID at all, as you needed either a credit card, airline frequent flier card, or knowledge of your reservations to use the kiosk. On-line check-in prior to airport arrival was not available at the time.

Currently, flights in/out of the US require a passport regardless of origin/destination. Non-flight travel is different, although I have heard that cruise lines with international destinations are now requiring passports. Can someone verify this?

jhunter1163

21st June 2007, 11:07 PM

LashL

21st June 2007, 11:43 PM

At that time, you could. I crossed that border by road many, many times pre-9/11 and was never, and I mean NEVER, asked for ID. I haven't crossed since 9/11 but acquaintances of mine who have say you can't get in so easily now.

I cross the border regularly by road and prior to 9/11, it was rare for anyone to actually check my I.D. - rather, they would ask a series of questions and they were, apparently, satisfied with my answers.

Since 9/11, I have crossed the border numerous times by road. Most of the time, they have asked for and looked at my I.D. (which I always have ready and on offer before they even ask for it) but on a couple of occasions, they haven't even glanced at it. That might have something to do with the circumstances (two or three chicks in a slick car going over to spend the weekend making donations to the local casino.... we don't look very threatening to national security :) )

That said, when I had occasion to cross the border in a rented Pacifica full of boxes (documents that I was bringing south of the border for a few weeks worth of depositions and couldn't trust them to an airline), they asked a lot more questions, and checked my I.D. and I saw that as a good thing.

Also, since 9/11, when flying into the U.S., they have always asked for and checked my I.D. and they have been vigorous about baggage scrutiny and check-in.

LashL

22nd June 2007, 12:15 AM

<snip>For example, there were self-serve check-in kiosks scattered throughout several airports, and many times you did not have to present ID at all, as you needed either a credit card, airline frequent flier card, or knowledge of your reservations to use the kiosk.

Indeed. Those are pretty much a thing of the past now, though, at least for international flights. There are still self-serve check-in options on domestic flights here in Canada where you can check your luggage for domestic flights (not for international flights) but you still have to go through security, x-ray, etc., for any carry-on luggage. (Yeah, I made the mistake of packing a pair of scissors on a flight from Toronto to Vancouver and learned that lesson the hard way. I had the option of either surrendering the scissors or packing them into my checked luggage - which I had already checked in via the self-serve kiosk. Needless to say, I told them to keep the darned scissors. Grrr.)

<snip>Non-flight travel is different, although I have heard that cruise lines with international destinations are now requiring passports. Can someone verify this?

Yes, you are quite right that the rules are different for non-air (sea and land) travel as opposed to air travel, but I do not know the details about how the rules currently apply to international sea travel (because I am not one for lengthy cruises and prefer to travel by water only on speedboats or short trips). This drives my beau crazy because he loves sailing and yachting amd cruises, but I don't share that particular passion.

I'm sure that someone here will know the answer, though.

PhantomWolf

22nd June 2007, 12:18 AM

Really? I've always had to.

Maybe I'm just suspicious looking...

Well perhaps I should say that I don't recall having too. I know I had to show it in Auckland and Sydney on the way over (yeah I'm mad I flew Auckland, Sydney, LA, it was cheaper than Auckland-LA direct :eye-poppi) I also had on arrival in LA and then again in LA for the international flight back to Sydney, but I don't even recall if it was in my hand luggage from LA to Denver, I think it most likely was, but don't recall, but I don't remeber having to show it, and I know that I didn't while transfering through Denver (both ways). I'm pretty sure I didn't have to in Omaha either, though I can check with Dawn and see if she remembers. I do know that they checked my suitcases, and did a rather though check on me in LA at security, but otherwise.....

stilicho

22nd June 2007, 12:39 AM

gumboot

22nd June 2007, 12:42 AM

Thanks everyone for your detailed responses re: domestic and international travel to/from/within the USA.

-Gumboot

Corsair 115

22nd June 2007, 12:42 AM

Even if citing an old documentary isn't very critical at all - this Canadian "Hit-Piece" sums it up pretty well and raises the same questions I wasn't able to debunk yet concerning the Saudis...First off, the program in question, The Fifth Estate, is not a "hit piece" but is an investigative news program that's been running on CBC for several decades. The program was aired perhaps a year or two ago, and I recall watching at least some of it when it was originally aired.

From what I recall, it by no means supports conspiracy, but it does point out some of the unusual events of the day, along with little tidbits of info I hadn't heard about previously (such as the President's motorcade at one of his stops that day heading in the wrong direction to get to an airport).

For air travel, no passport was required for Canadians to travel to the U.S. until a few months ago - January, 2007.I can confirm that, as I flew into the U.S. at least once a year for a number of years prior to 9/11. All I had to show at Customs beforehand was a driver's license and a birth certificate. The funny thing is that on the earliest occasions the driver's license I had at the time was an out-of-province one and did not have a photo on it. I still got onto the flight without much issue (must be my unassuming, honest-looking face I guess).

portlandatheist

22nd June 2007, 12:56 AM

Richard Clarke talks about the Exodus of the Bin Laden's and his direct involvement with it extensively in the movie "Fahrenhype 911". It will answer your questions on the who, how, what, and why should you care to watch it.

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 09:08 AM

You seem to have things backwards. Why should the media or government spend their time debunking conspiracy theories that are based on speculation?

Well, why did the Canadian Documentary raise these questions?

It's because there is a proven link but everything concerning the Saudi-Connection was covered. But nevertheless - it is a big part of 9/11 in many aspects. That's why I wonder that no one in here is interested to include this important part of 9/11 - as if it doesn't exist or as if it's completely irrelevant. :confused:

Slayhamlet

22nd June 2007, 09:11 AM

Well, why did the Canadian Documentary raise these questions?

It's because there is a proven link but everything concerning the Saudi-Connection was covered. But nevertheless - it is a big part of 9/11 in many aspects. That's why I wonder that no one in here is interested to include this important part of 9/11 - as if it doesn't exist or as if it's completely irrelevant. :confused:

Where's the proven link?

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 09:37 AM

Where's the proven link?

The Hijackers link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

The financial ties between Saudis and Al Qaida:
http://www.senate.gov/%7Ebanking/_files/brisard.pdf

The "official" US-explanation lying about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3815179.stm

The covered parts within the U.S. Congressional Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Inquiry_into_Intelligence_Community_Activiti es_before_and_after_the_Terrorist_Attacks_of_Septe mber_11%2C_2001) and the 9/11 Commission Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report):
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
(Please include watching the canadian docu concerning the Saudi-Links)

-9169904580025714112

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 10:24 AM

Oliver, is everybody who does business with the Saudis automatically involved in 9/11?

If so, I'm afraid just about everyone in the world is guilty.

gumboot

22nd June 2007, 10:31 AM

The Hijackers link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

The financial ties between Saudis and Al Qaida:
http://www.senate.gov/%7Ebanking/_files/brisard.pdf

What's the link? Mind to quote it? I see no evidence in either of those links that the Saudi government is connected to, or supports Al Qaeda.

-Gumboot

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 10:36 AM

Maybe Oliver wants the US to bomb Saudi Arabia. But that would be far, far worst than the Iraq mess.

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 10:52 AM

What's the link? Mind to quote it? I see no evidence in either of those links that the Saudi government is connected to, or supports Al Qaeda.

-Gumboot

Andrew - we're not talking about some bums from a saudi-arabian slum. Were talking about people who have strong connections to the Saudi-Government. So even if I still research all the links to the Saudi Government, please avoid to portray them as some random people until you know what you're talking about, please.

Undesired Walrus

22nd June 2007, 10:53 AM

The question is, If Bin Laden and Bush had buisness agreements before 9/11:

So what?

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 10:56 AM

Maybe Oliver wants the US to bomb Saudi Arabia. But that would be far, far worst than the Iraq mess.

BS, Goury. I'm talking about the logical step to publish and openly investigate this link. THIS IS HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS. Quite the contrary happened: The links were covered up and the commission report even denies any links.

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 10:56 AM

What's the link? Mind to quote it? I see no evidence in either of those links that the Saudi government is connected to, or supports Al Qaeda.

-Gumboot

The Brisard PDF says nothing about the Bin Laden family nor the Saudi royal family being involved.

It constantly uses the term Saudi Arabia, which is misleading, as it does not refer to the Saudi government, but "Saudi Arabia" as a whole, like one would say "America".

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 10:59 AM

BS, Goury. I'm talking about the logical step to publish and openly investigate this link. THIS IS HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS. Quite the contrary happened: The links were covered up and the commission report even denies any links.

Not true.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Monograph.pdf

They do recognize "Saudi" funding.

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 11:01 AM

The question is, If Bin Laden and Bush had buisness agreements before 9/11:

So what?

No no, there is no "if". They had.
Anyway - I bother about the backgrounds no one really knows. That's when Truthers will point them out with good reasons - and you're not able to refuse them.

Or to say it differently: IF! the government would start a false flag like 9/11, who would be able to discover this?

I tell you what I see in here: No one in here would be able to see the difference - because the lack of tracing all parts of 9/11.

And no - I don't believe in Conspiracy Theories anymore as long they are Conspiracy THEORIES.

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 11:06 AM

What's wrong Oliver? Does that mean that you recognize that there is a terror threat now?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83712
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83402

:confused:

ConspiRaider

22nd June 2007, 11:08 AM

The question is, If Bin Laden and Bush had buisness agreements before 9/11:

So what?
You are joking, correct? Are you actually going to try and convince anyone here that close business ties between the Bush Family and the Bin Laden Family foster no ramifications as to the 9/11 events? Especially since 15 of the 19 hijackers originated in Saudi Arabia? Especially since Osama bin Laden claims responsibility for the events, and evidence supports it? Especially since OIL is involved - something the Bush Family and Saudi Arabia have in common?

It matters, big time.

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 11:14 AM

You are joking, correct? Are you actually going to try and convince anyone here that close business ties between the Bush Family and the Bin Laden Family foster no ramifications as to the 9/11 events?

You prove it.

Especially since 15 of the 19 hijackers originated in Saudi Arabia?

What does this have to do with the bin Laden family? Saudi Arabia is a very big country.

Especially since OIL is involved - something the Bush Family and Saudi Arabia have in common?

Wow. Saudi Arabia, the entire country you mean? Because Saudi Arabia has oil then Bush is guilty for 9/11? :boggled:

Wow.

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 11:17 AM

Not true.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Monograph.pdf

They do recognize "Saudi" funding.

Yes, they do recognize them: I'm reffering to the blackened entries in Pages 172 to 177:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

Did you see and understood the Canadian Documentary?

ConspiRaider

22nd June 2007, 11:18 AM

You prove it.

What does this have to do with the bin Laden family? Saudi Arabia is a very big country.

Wow. Saudi Arabia, the entire country you mean? Because Saudi Arabia has oil then Bush is guilty for 9/11? :boggled:

Wow.
Why are you demonstrating your idiocy by making idiotic statements? How do you go from a business relationship between the Bushes and the bin Ladens, to saying Bush is guilty of 9/11?

Are you in the right forum? Check out Dylan's...

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 11:22 AM

Why are you demonstrating your idiocy by making idiotic statements? How do you go from a business relationship between the Bushes and the bin Ladens, to saying Bush is guilty of 9/11?

No, you said it:

Are you actually going to try and convince anyone here that close business ties between the Bush Family and the Bin Laden Family foster no ramifications as to the 9/11 events?

:confused:

ETA: What gives, Conspi?

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 11:25 AM

What's wrong Oliver? Does that mean that you recognize that there is a terror threat now?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83712
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83402

:confused:

Of course there are terrorists - but since the holes are plugged, I see no reason to believe the Hype anymore because it's gullible to do so.

gumboot

22nd June 2007, 11:30 AM

Andrew - we're not talking about some bums from a saudi-arabian slum. Were talking about people who have strong connections to the Saudi-Government. So even if I still research all the links to the Saudi Government, please avoid to portray them as some random people until you know what you're talking about, please.

No, we're talking about important people in private Saudi companies providing donations to a charity fund that Al Qaeda then misused and acquired funds from.

You, again, have provided no evidence whatsoever that the Saudi government has ever knowingly funded or supported Al Qaeda. It is you who don't know what you're talking about.

-Gumboot

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 11:30 AM

You prove it.

What does this have to do with the bin Laden family? Saudi Arabia is a very big country.

Wow. Saudi Arabia, the entire country you mean? Because Saudi Arabia has oil then Bush is guilty for 9/11? :boggled:

Wow.

It's sad to say this, Goury: Your blind trust in a working system was the failure that lead to the genocide here in Germany. And no, this is no direct comparsion - it's a lack in your self-criticism because a lack of understanding holes within the system.

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 11:32 AM

It's sad to say this, Goury: Your blind trust in a working system was the failure that lead to the genocide here in Germany. And no, this is no direct comparsion - it's a lack in your self-criticism because a lack of understanding holes within the system.

You haven't proven anything yet, far from it, so why should I trust your hype about this "failing system"?

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 11:37 AM

You haven't proven anything yet, far from it, so why should I trust your hype about this "failing system"?

1. Geneva Conventions
2. Habeas corpus

Any Ideas what this is about?

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 11:38 AM

1. Geneva Conventions
2. Habeas corpus

Any Ideas what this is about?

Certainly nothing concerning this thread.

ConspiRaider

22nd June 2007, 11:39 AM

No, you said it:

:confused:
Your lack of sophistication is showing. You're trying to look at the 9/11 events in pure black and white, but it does not work that way. What do you think: 9/11 is solved? Is that what you think?

You'd be very wrong to think that. This 9/11 event did not happen in a vacuum.

Even if, at the very least, coverups occurred that were motivated by the embarrassment that would come from the revelation of close business and personal ties between the Bushes and bin Ladens: That has ramifications. And it is also going to foster speculation as to what occurred prior to the attacks.

You are aware of the tremendous status Prince Bandar had with the Bush Administration, aren't you?

This is tongue-in-cheek, but it will get you started:
http://www.whitehouse.org/ask/bandar.asp

It's painfully obvious that excess favoritism from the Bush Administration is extended to the Saudis. You are aware, aren't you, that Prince Bandar was informed of the decision to attack Iraq before the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was? That Bandar was shown information specifically marked as not to be shown to foreigners? Why this overt favoritism?

This is a helluva lot more difficult to get a grasp upon than say, for example, eliminating the stupid notion that space beam weapons brought down the WTC. This is where all those shades of gray layers exist within 9/11. So don't be equating my statements with that of mouth-breathing conspiracy theorists.

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 11:42 AM

No, we're talking about important people in private Saudi companies providing donations to a charity fund that Al Qaeda then misused and acquired funds from.

You, again, have provided no evidence whatsoever that the Saudi government has ever knowingly funded or supported Al Qaeda. It is you who don't know what you're talking about.

-Gumboot

Well, where are your investigational reports concerning the Non-Saudi-Government connections?

But I will add the connections as soon I found all the information I need - which is a pretty hard task thanks to the cover-up. Until then, I wont play a truther speculating about things without facts - but on the other hand, you can't refuse the cover-up, can you, Andrew?

gumboot

22nd June 2007, 11:42 AM

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 11:44 AM

Certainly nothing concerning this thread.

You're right - not concerning the thread but concerning your last question... :boggled:
Well - to get to a shared level: Did you see the Canadian CBC-Documentary or not?

gumboot

22nd June 2007, 11:45 AM

Well, where are your investigational reports concerning the Non-Saudi-Government connections?

What? :confused:

But I will add the connections as soon I found all the information I need - which is a pretty hard task thanks to the cover-up. Until then, I wont play a truther speculating about things without facts

That's precisely what you are doing in this thread.

- but on the other hand, you can't refuse the cover-up, can you, Andrew?

It's Gumboot. Not Andrew. I can't refuse the cover up? What is that supposed to mean?

-Gumboot

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 11:47 AM

Your lack of sophistication is showing.

You seem to be the one making large assumption based on circumstantial evidence.

Bush family has ties with the Bin Laden family? Yes.

Bush family is interested in Saudi oil? Yes.

You'll have to find better than that to involve them in any way, shape or form in the 9/11 attacks.

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 11:58 AM

What? :confused:

That's precisely what you are doing in this thread.

It's Gumboot. Not Andrew. I can't refuse the cover up? What is that supposed to mean?

-Gumboot

I meant: Where are the official investigations into the Saudi connections?

And concerning "cover up": There was no official, public investigation. None - not at all. Nada, nothing. A cover up.

Please review pages 172 to 177:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

Maybe you watch this old, canadian mass media documentary, too - since I have problems to translate:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-9169904580025714112&autoplay=1

Hans

22nd June 2007, 12:01 PM

If Hans commits a crime, his whole family gets arrested?

I deny everything...but am willing to make a deal

gumboot

22nd June 2007, 12:06 PM

I meant: Where are the official investigations into the Saudi connections?

And concerning "cover up": There was no official, public investigation. None - not at all. Nada, nothing. A cover up.

Please don't spout CT garbage. The FBI conducted the largest criminal investigation in human history. NIST and FEMA conducted investigations. The NTSB, CIA, and a myriad of other US Government agencies assisted. The 9/11 Commission Report conducted a thorough investigation of the background to the attacks, and concluded that there was no evidence of Saudi backing.

Just because you think there were Saudi connections does not mean there were.

9/11 was carried out by Osama Bin Laden and his followers. No one else.

-Gumboot

ConspiRaider

22nd June 2007, 12:11 PM

You seem to be the one making large assumption based on circumstantial evidence.

Bush family has ties with the Bin Laden family? Yes.

Bush family is interested in Saudi oil? Yes.

You'll have to find better than that to involve them in any way, shape or form in the 9/11 attacks.
Wrong.

Strictly speaking - Bush is involved in the 9/11 attacks. It was during his administration that they occurred. With an 8-month leadup to the attacks, after he took office.

The word "involved" is very very very general. You're assuming - incorrectly - that when I say "involved", I actually mean he planned it. Complete pile of garbage. The Bush Administration - based on everything I know up to this point - absolutely did not plan 9/11.

However: There was an 8-month leadup to the event, after he took the oath. It's not like he took the oath and the next day, next week, even next month - the attacks occurred. No - it was just about 8 months hence. And for me: That's enough lead time to have possibly headed them off. Please read carefully! I said possibly. I did not say definitively. Perhaps the best efforts at prevention would have failed. Who knows?

But this is true: Until an event such as 9/11 occurs - with its planning, and coordination, and timing, and financing, and reliance on lack of vigilance, and hope against exposure by chance (such as in Watergate, which was blown by the discovery of a piece of tape across a door jamb) - there is the possibility that the operation will be snuffed out.

That's where the gray areas of 9/11 exist. And they should be thoughtfully discussed. Because we do not know everything, and we are going to have to postulate and speculate.

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 12:16 PM

I deny everything...but am willing to make a deal

*LOL* Hans from Dubai - that's hilarious concerning the issue. :D

chipmunk stew

22nd June 2007, 12:20 PM

Maybe you watch this old, canadian mass media documentary, too - since I have problems to translate:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-9169904580025714112&autoplay=1
At what point does the interesting part begin? So far, they've shown Michael Ruppert and Thierry Meyssan's old, boring debunked stuff.

Elizabeth I

22nd June 2007, 12:20 PM

Well, where are your investigational reports concerning the Non-Saudi-Government connections?

But I will add the connections as soon I found all the information I need - which is a pretty hard task thanks to the cover-up. Until then, I wont play a truther speculating about things without facts - but on the other hand, you can't refuse the cover-up, can you, Andrew?

WHAT COVER-UP?

Excuse my yelling, but what cover-up exactly are you talking about?

Would you please answer in a form that clearly shows what you think are the causes and what the effects that were covered up? For example:

1. Because -A- happened, I think it shows that -B- is true.

2. If -B- is true, it explains -C-.

3. If -C- is true, we know why -D- happened.

...and so on.

Pardalis

22nd June 2007, 12:22 PM

Strictly speaking - Bush is involved in the 9/11 attacks. It was during his administration that they occurred. With an 8-month leadup to the attacks, after he took office.

The word "involved" is very very very general.

You seem to have a very broad definition of the word, but now that I know that you do, I will keep that in mind next time.

I for one don't think just because Bush was president of the US on 9/11 makes him involved in the attacks.

You're assuming - incorrectly - that when I say "involved", I actually mean he planned it.

I didn't assume that at all. You said:

Are you actually going to try and convince anyone here that close business ties between the Bush Family and the Bin Laden Family foster no ramifications as to the 9/11 events?

OK, so you used the word "ramifications, I used the word "involved".

What I interpret from this post is that you implied some kind of direct or indirect involvement of the Bush administration into these events. I never said you were a twoofer, of course you're not. :)

When I said the word "guilty", I might have oversimplified and characterized your comment, I apologize.

That's where the gray areas of 9/11 exist. And they should be thoughtfully discussed.

Sure, I can go with that.

Because we do not know everything, and we are going to have to postulate and speculate.

I'm not a big fan of that, to be honest. It can go so many ways.

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 12:23 PM

Please don't spout CT garbage. The FBI conducted the largest criminal investigation in human history. NIST and FEMA conducted investigations. The NTSB, CIA, and a myriad of other US Government agencies assisted. The 9/11 Commission Report conducted a thorough investigation of the background to the attacks, and concluded that there was no evidence of Saudi backing.

Just because you think there were Saudi connections does not mean there were.

9/11 was carried out by Osama Bin Laden and his followers. No one else.

-Gumboot

While I agree that I also think that Osama and Friends made the planing - why did the Canadian production, the German Spiegel-Newspaper and the french Intelligence provide more evidence than the US was able (willing) to provide. What are they hiding beside the big mess of lies and connections which the public shouldn't know.

You know the Mess, Andrew. How do you explain this pile of S**t?

I don't accept this "Everything is fine - the US is right, go on - there's nothing to see here"-argument anymore.

Corsair 115

22nd June 2007, 12:26 PM

At what point does the interesting part begin? So far, they've shown Michael Ruppert and Thierry Meyssan's old, boring debunked stuff.If it is indeed the same episode I recall watching, it does not support the conspiracy theory but rather simply raises the claims that various CT-minded folks have raised. The latter part I watched mostly just recounted the events of the day and highlighted the various unusual events of the day. Which is hardly conspiratorial in itself, since a day such as 9/11 is bound to be full of unusual events.

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 12:27 PM

WHAT COVER-UP?

Excuse my yelling, but what cover-up exactly are you talking about?

Would you please answer in a form that clearly shows what you think are the causes and what the effects that were covered up? For example:

1. Because -A- happened, I think it shows that -B- is true.

2. If -B- is true, it explains -C-.

3. If -C- is true, we know why -D- happened.

...and so on.

I don't mind that you yelled - but I mind that you missed the video we're talking about - which can answer your question much better than me - because it's in your language without my problem to translate it properly. :(

Elizabeth I

22nd June 2007, 12:33 PM

I don't mind that you yelled - but I mind that you missed the video we're talking about - which can answer your question much better than me - because it's in your language without my problem to translate it properly. :(

The video says whatever it says. It obviously made you believe - or disbelieve - something. What I want to know is what and why.

R.Mackey

22nd June 2007, 12:33 PM

I'm with the Queen. I've read this whole thread, and I just don't get it. Oliver, somebody, please explain to me in simple terms:

1. What the "connection" is between W and Al-Qaeda.
2. What "cover-up" you're talking about.

I'm well aware of dealings between W and powerful figures in Saudi Arabia, and I'm also familiar with the breadth and wealth of the greater bin Laden family. I don't see what's so surprising here.

Help me out, here.

chipmunk stew

22nd June 2007, 12:39 PM

If it is indeed the same episode I recall watching, it does not support the conspiracy theory but rather simply raises the claims that various CT-minded folks have raised. The latter part I watched mostly just recounted the events of the day and highlighted the various unusual events of the day. Which is hardly conspiratorial in itself, since a day such as 9/11 is bound to be full of unusual events.

I don't mind that you yelled - but I mind that you missed the video we're talking about - which can answer your question much better than me - because it's in your language without my problem to translate it properly. :(
I really am not interested in watching the whole documentary. Can you please give a time marker where they start talking about the Saudi stuff?

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 12:41 PM

The video says whatever it says. It obviously made you believe - or disbelieve - something. What I want to know is what and why.

The only thing I believe from this documentary is: They raise questions that bother me - because the official Investigations ignored (covered-up) these questions and no "Debunker" so far was able to debunk the questions which point to a Saudi-US-Connection concerning Al Qaida AND the Iraq war.

So I don't have a "final conclusion" - but a big hole in all aspects of 9/11. That bothers me to understand the whole Issue. :mad:

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 12:46 PM

I really am not interested in watching the whole documentary. Can you please give a time marker where they start talking about the Saudi stuff?

Well, the "Saudi-Stuff" starts about 00:10:00. But the documentary is no truther-stuff anyway - so it's interesting and far more investigated from the Canadian broadcaster CBC than every "Loose-Change"-type of "documentary".

Gord_in_Toronto

22nd June 2007, 12:49 PM

Canadians could, prior to 9/11 (and still can to date), cross into the U.S. by road or by sea without a passport if you have other sufficient identification (e.g. drivers licence and birth certificate, among other things). There has been a press on for the past few years to make road crossing between our two countries require passports, but it has been decided (within the past few days) that those measures will not occur until at least 2008.

For air travel, no passport was required for Canadians to travel to the U.S. until a few months ago - January, 2007.

Actually, until fairly recently (post 11/9, I would guess) you did not need to provide ID to cross into the US from Canada (and, I presume, visa-versa) if you were traveling by car or bus. The Customs Officer / Imigration Officer just stuck his head in the car and asked where you were going and if you were all Canadian residents. On return; it was "Anything to declare? Were do you live?"

My failing memory tells me that this was true even for air flight at one time but was tightened up some years ago.

ConspiRaider

22nd June 2007, 12:52 PM

<snipped>...

What I interpret from this post is that you implied some kind of direct or indirect involvement of the Bush administration into these events. I never said you were a twoofer, of course you're not. :)

Hey P -

This is a helluva way of communicating, at times. It's very lacking in some respects. So please excuse me if I've been abrupt and arse-like in our comms.

My speculation on "involvement" extends to - possibly - a false sense of security from the Bush Administration. Overconfidence that a 9/11 event would not occur. Which led to a lack of vigilance and action.

I've worked in the U.S. Government for roughly 10 years. No longer, of course. I was recruited by the CIA after my 5-years active naval service. They found me in college, wanted me to come in for an interview for a position, probably in crypto. I worked with shipboard crypto, I was honorably discharged - and I had an up-to-date top secret clearance. So it's really just economics and efficiency to go after recently discharged vets. A lot of their prelim work has already been done. Loyalty to the USA pretty much established and all that (of course my loyalty to the USA hasn't flagged one iota since my military days. This is a helluva terrific country).

Anyway I did not go to work for the CIA, but I did work for the Veterans Administration a bit, and was involved as a Defense Department contractor.

The bigger the bureaucracy, the more politics and CYA occur. And the greater a chance a situation can get out of hand. Such as:

In my Navy days I was on a submarine tender. Subs pulled up alongside and were serviced, repaired and replenished by us. Well, the NIS (Naval Investigative Service) decided they wanted some drug scalps. So they got a hold of a sailor, got him for drug use, then pressured him for names. They scared him into turning over the names of all his buddies who did drugs. Well - he started giving them names of guys who had nothing to do with drugs. And what happened? The NIS busted them all. No evidence, no nothing other than this guy's coerced word. Even worse - they made their snitch stay aboard for months, where he had to have an armed escort everywhere he went. Including the can. The entire ship was covered with grafitti, promising death to the snitch. I felt really sorry for the guy. He looked like a scared rabbit, all the time. Of course, no news reports of this were ever made. But stuff like that happens all the time.

Back to 9/11. One thing that has always bothered me is Bush's brain lock in that classroom in Florida. For me - it exonerates him from any direct involvement. But still. When I see that and try to read what is actually going on in his head, you know what I get? Astonishment. Maybe as in: "But we were assured - guaranteed - by our connections with the Saudis and the bin Ladens that this could never happen!"

That is just speculation on my part. Could be wrong. I've been wrong before, will be again. But perhaps because of the closeness between the Bushes and the Saudis / bin Ladens - Bush and friends gave too much weight to personal assurances from them that OBL could be dissuaded from ever attacking the USA.

Corsair 115

22nd June 2007, 01:01 PM

Well, the "Saudi-Stuff" starts about 00:10:00. But the documentary is no truther-stuff anyway - so it's interesting and far more investigated from the Canadian broadcaster CBC than every "Loose-Change"-type of "documentary".I'm going to try one last time to get the terminology correct here.

The program being referred to is an episode of the investigative news program entitled the fifth estate (yes, the official title does not use capital letter to begin each word). It airs on the CBC and CBC Newsworld television networks. It's a program similar to CBS' 60 Minutes or PBS' Frontline.

Just as someone wouldn't refer to a story broadcast on 60 Minutes as a "CBS documentary" neither should someone refer to the program being discussed as a "CBC documentary." It's an episode of the CBC program the fifth estate. I'd post the link to the show's home page but it seems the individual show pages at the CBC main web site are all down at the moment.

Also, considering that the fifth estate is copyrighted, I would think the CBC might not take kindly to the entire program being available on YouTube...

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 01:03 PM

At what point does the interesting part begin? So far, they've shown Michael Ruppert and Thierry Meyssan's old, boring debunked stuff.

You're right - Meyssan and Rupert are debunked issues in contrast to the un-debunked Saudi issues raised in this Docu.

Oliver

22nd June 2007, 01:07 PM

I'm going to try one last time to get the terminology correct here.

The program being referred to is an episode of the investigative news program entitled the fifth estate (yes, the official title does not use capital letter to begin each word). It airs on the CBC and CBC Newsworld television networks. It's a program similar to CBS' 60 Minutes or PBS' Frontline.

Just as someone wouldn't refer to a story broadcast on 60 Minutes as a "CBS documentary" neither should someone refer to the program being discussed as a "CBC documentary." It's an episode of the CBC program the fifth estate. I'd post the link to the show's home page but it seems the individual show pages at the CBC main web site are all down at the moment.

Also, considering that the fifth estate is copyrighted, I would think the CBC might not take kindly to the entire program being available on YouTube...

I know what you mean, Corsair. It doesn't matter >>who<< raised the questions - to me it matters why no one is able to answer them - or why there is a cover-up to answer them.

But just out of curiosity - who the heck is the girl with the evil grin in you avatar? :confused:

Undesired Walrus

22nd June 2007, 03:21 PM

What does this have to do with the bin Laden family? Saudi Arabia is a very big country.

Not to mention the most Islamist country of the Middle East.

Conspiraider, so what? Money flows between all types of people, and none of it changes the ideological position of Bin Laden and Al Qeada, a man who's family had billions before Bush Jr was out of nappies.

We all know that Bush is a spoilt rich kid, and we know the same about Bin Laden.

Of course there is no black and white in comparison to 9/11, and Pardalis isn't saying anything of the sort. This is simply a benign issue that attempts to paint Bush in black.

If he was trading nuclear weapons, I may see this differently. But it is money. Every rich family has an interest in money. And a lot of that comes from the oil and rich families in Saudi Arabia.

ConspiRaider

22nd June 2007, 04:02 PM

Not to mention the most Islamist country of the Middle East.

Conspiraider, so what? Money flows between all types of people, and none of it changes the ideological position of Bin Laden and Al Qeada, a man who's family had billions before Bush Jr was out of nappies.

We all know that Bush is a spoilt rich kid, and we know the same about Bin Laden.

Of course there is no black and white in comparison to 9/11, and Pardalis isn't saying anything of the sort. This is simply a benign issue that attempts to paint Bush in black.

If he was trading nuclear weapons, I may see this differently. But it is money. Every rich family has an interest in money. And a lot of that comes from the oil and rich families in Saudi Arabia.
Are you an American? Do you live in the United States?

Are you a U.S. Republican, or a U.S. right winger?

You're not one of these "Bush is being guided by God" freaks, are you?

I'm trying to figure why you would see this as "simply a benign" issue.

It is absolutely reasonable - in fact it is expected - to try and discover the dynamics in place prior to 9/11. Science-based skepticism can assist in determining some of that. But not even close to all of it. Because it is possible that the coziness existent between the Bush Family and the Saudis / bin Ladens unexpectedly contributed to the success of the attacks.

The undeniable facts are that saboteurs worked for months within our system to get flight training, they were financed at least partially by banks in the United Arab Emirates, they returned unused money to those banks just before the attacks, they hit the country on the planet having the most funded and advanced intelligence / military institutions, and the assumed mastermind is still free after nearly 6 years. Three fourths of the hijackers were Saudis, or originated from that country. We are now engaged, with tens of thousands of troops, in battle, with 2 countries in the region - but NOT Saudi Arabia. No end in sight for either. And we're paying twice as much for gasoline as we did on September 10th, 2001.

Add to that, the issue with the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. It was used right through the Iraq invasion - with about 10,000 U.S. troops on hand - and then was quietly handed over to the Saudis in late April, 2003. Essentially all U.S. troops out of there by the end of August, 2003.

That had always been a sore point with the master criminal OBL: The base, and the U.S. presence. Was this appeasement to him?

No - this is not "simply a benign" issue. Not a bit of it.

Undesired Walrus

22nd June 2007, 04:13 PM

Are you a U.S. Republican, or a U.S. right winger?

Don't worry, I'm far from that. :)

The simple fact of the matter is that Bin Laden's ideological viewpoint on the world is hardly shaped by any money flow from a rich Texan family. In terms of trading cash with a known terrorist's family, sure, bad, but in the large scale of Bush's blunders and horrific decisions in the last few years (IMHO), I find it a rather benign issue.

The guy would have done it anyway, so I dont see what the big hang-up is.

Texas

22nd June 2007, 05:36 PM

Just out of curiosity, how close are these ties between Bush family interests and Bin Laden family interests? It is my understanding that if you want any infrastructure of substance built in Saudi Arabia, you pretty much have no choice but to get the Bin Laden Group to do it. Does anyone have evidence that any relationship between the Bush's and Bin Laden extended beyond this? Does anyone have any evidence that Osama Bin Laden was actively involved in the Bin Laden Group at the time? Does anyone have any evidence that George W Bush Jr was actively involved in his family company interests at the time?

-Gumboot

There were no business dealings in Saudi Arabia by the Bush Family. The 2 companies that GW ran were Arbusto and Harken Energy. Both companies focused solely on Texas and Gulf Coast oil exploration and production. Harken has recently expanded into South and Central America but has never been involved in the Middle East. The so called Bin Laden connection came about when one of the original investors, James R. Bath, invested $50,000 dollars into Arbusto from Bath's client the half brother of Osama Bin Laden. The half brother died in an airplane crash in Texas in 1988. There were no further ties of any kind to the Bin Laden organization.

RandFan

22nd June 2007, 05:40 PM

I don't accept this "Everything is fine - the US is right, go on - there's nothing to see here"-argument anymore.Really? Odd since no one is making it. It seems that you are perfectly happy with the straw man.

RandFan

22nd June 2007, 05:44 PM

And no - I don't believe in Conspiracy Theories anymore as long they are Conspiracy THEORIES.

con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry: What Oliver says that it is.

Not really Oliver. You don't really get to run around announcing all other theories debunked but your own pet theory legitimate.

BS

Oliver, I can find little to no difference between you and all of the other whack jobs with their pet theories.

RandFan

22nd June 2007, 05:53 PM

Are you an American? Do you live in the United States?

Are you a U.S. Republican, or a U.S. right winger?

You're not one of these "Bush is being guided by God" freaks, are you?

I'm trying to figure why you would see this as "simply a benign" issue. Fine. Don't argue from ignorance.

It is absolutely reasonable - in fact it is expected - to try and discover the dynamics in place prior to 9/11.So long as you stick to logic, reason and facts. Have it at.

Science-based skepticism can assist in determining some of that. But not even close to all of it. Because it is possible that the coziness existent between the Bush Family and the Saudis / bin Ladens unexpectedly contributed to the success of the attacks. And it's possible that god was clever enough to conceal his/her existence. Please avoid arguing from ignorance. Stick to logic, reason and facts.

The undeniable facts are that saboteurs worked for months within our system to get flight training, they were financed at least partially by banks in the United Arab Emirates, they returned unused money to those banks just before the attacks, they hit the country on the planet having the most funded and advanced intelligence / military institutions, and the assumed mastermind is still free after nearly 6 years. Three fourths of the hijackers were Saudis, or originated from that country. We are now engaged, with tens of thousands of troops, in battle, with 2 countries in the region - but NOT Saudi Arabia. No end in sight for either. And we're paying twice as much for gasoline as we did on September 10th, 2001. Uh, oh... I think I feel a connect the dots, Oswald didn't act alone (see Tri Lateral Commission/IRS/Jews) line comming....

Add to that, the issue with the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. It was used right through the Iraq invasion - with about 10,000 U.S. troops on hand - and then was quietly handed over to the Saudis in late April, 2003. Essentially all U.S. troops out of there by the end of August, 2003. Yeah, now you are veering into conspiracy theory. Connecting the dots, magic bullet, grassy knoll territory.

That had always been a sore point with the master criminal OBL: The base, and the U.S. presence. Was this appeasement to him?? Yes, true to form, the conclusion of all the disparate dots is an ominous question.

Hey, Conspi, Dylan Avery became famous with his "connect the dot's" theories. You could do the same.

No - this is not "simply a benign" issue. Not a bit of it. I don't know if it is benign or not. I know that to date no one has provided anything other than conspiracy theory and your's is no better or worse than many of the other theories floating around.

chucksheen

22nd June 2007, 06:40 PM

[1] You seem to have things backwards.

[2] Why should the media

[3] or government spend their time

[4] debunking

[5] conspiracy theories

[6] that are based on speculation?

[1] IMO, You seem to have things backwards.

[2] Media=watchdogs but not anymore without the Fairness Doctrine and the Telecommunications Act which were axed (by design).

[3] This reminds me of the Whitehouse before they finally (14 months) went along with Kissinger and then a dependant investigation rife with conflict of interest. That didn't stop them from spending OUR time. The govt by the people, for the people stonewalled us (by design).

[4] Debunking is a reaction and response to a desperate and monumental need for disclosure and truth. Speaking of debunking, I'm currently reading 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking'. Great book so far. Check Amazon for reviews and rank.

[5] They shouldn't have left out theories. They should have considered all theories instead of drawing preconceived conclusions (by design). The OCT (official conspiracy theory) and all other theories deserve equal weight in an open, honest, independent investigation.

[6] The word "speculate" comes from the Latin word speculatus, which is the past participle of speculari , meaning to look ahead, to spy, and to examine. I prefer to shine light on all thoeries and evidence and speculation helps not hinders. The terms 'speculation' and 'conspiracy theory' are misused and propagandized so that people say things like "I'm not into conspiracy theories." when in fact they aren't into learning that the official story is a conspiracy theories and they aren't even into that.

- - - - - -

When do the scales tip for you?

0 50 100
[ - - - - - -incompetence - - - - - -| - - - - - - design - - - - - - - ]

zedek3147
The "debunkers" motto:

If you give me mountains of evidence that go beyond sheer coincidence and travel into the realm of monumental odds AGAINST the official story, I will change the subject or throw a Scarecrow at your head"

KBMs wife=Bin Ladens sis
KBM=BCCI=Bush
Carlysle=Bin Laden=Bush

41 seconds experpt from recent archived footage compilation called '9/11 Explosive Reality'. Note the explosions (IMO explosives [other vids and pics, different angles]) on both sides of the tower.

youtube(dot)com/v/fWi1fmxCGAw

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment." - Sherlock Holmes

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” - Sherlock Holmes

stateofgrace

22nd June 2007, 06:57 PM

I take you are here to impress you pals over at LCF,Chuckseed. I'm sorry I didn't actually see you contribute to the topic in hand; maybe you could do so with your next post.

Texas

22nd June 2007, 07:20 PM

[1] IMO, You seem to have things backwards.

[2] Media=watchdogs but not anymore without the Fairness Doctrine and the Telecommunications Act which were axed (by design).

[3] This reminds me of the Whitehouse before they finally (14 months) went along with Kissinger and then a dependant investigation rife with conflict of interest. That didn't stop them from spending OUR time. The govt by the people, for the people stonewalled us (by design).

[4] Debunking is a reaction and response to a desperate and monumental need for disclosure and truth. Speaking of debunking, I'm currently reading 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking'. Great book so far. Check Amazon for reviews and rank.

[5] They shouldn't have left out theories. They should have considered all theories instead of drawing preconceived conclusions (by design). The OCT (official conspiracy theory) and all other theories deserve equal weight in an open, honest, independent investigation.

[6] The word "speculate" comes from the Latin word speculatus, which is the past participle of speculari , meaning to look ahead, to spy, and to examine. I prefer to shine light on all thoeries and evidence and speculation helps not hinders. The terms 'speculation' and 'conspiracy theory' are misused and propagandized so that people say things like "I'm not into conspiracy theories." when in fact they aren't into learning that the official story is a conspiracy theories and they aren't even into that.

- - - - - -

When do the scales tip for you?

0 50 100
[ - - - - - -incompetence - - - - - -| - - - - - - design - - - - - - - ]

KBMs wife=Bin Ladens sis
KBM=BCCI=Bush
Carlysle=Bin Laden=Bush

41 seconds experpt from recent archived footage compilation called '9/11 Explosive Reality'. Note the explosions (IMO explosives [other vids and pics, different angles]) on both sides of the tower.

youtube(dot)com/v/fWi1fmxCGAw

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment." - Sherlock Holmes

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” - Sherlock Holmes

In US Senate testimony in 1998, CIA Director James Woolsey stated that bin Mahfouz's sister is a wife of Osama bin Laden, making the two brothers-in-law. Bin Mahfouz has consistently denied this. Many publications, including the Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, Fortune Magazine, the Washington Post, and USA Today, reported that the two were brothers-in-law. Each publication has since issued a retraction, sometimes after lengthy litigation.

In the libel trial against Wall Street Journal, Woolsey testified that bin Mahfouz had been misidentified. Woolsey later stated, "I don't know what to say other than there was some confusion, but I never meant to refer to Bin Mahfouz's sister."[6]

LashL

22nd June 2007, 07:21 PM

Actually, until fairly recently (post 11/9, I would guess) you did not need to provide ID to cross into the US from Canada (and, I presume, visa-versa) if you were traveling by car or bus. The Customs Officer / Imigration Officer just stuck his head in the car and asked where you were going and if you were all Canadian residents. On return; it was "Anything to declare? Were do you live?"

My failing memory tells me that this was true even for air flight at one time but was tightened up some years ago.

Yes, as I said here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2710780&postcount=48), it was most often the case - particularly pre-9/11 - that I was never even asked for any form of I.D. while entering the U.S. by road. Of course, those manning the border crossings have always been entitled to ask for I.D. and once in a while they did (like when I was with a group of friends, most of us underage, trying to cross to get to the bars that were open later across the border ;) ), but most often, it was simply, "Citizenship?" "Where are you going?" "Purpose of your trip?" "How long are you staying?"

Coming home (again, by road), I don't think I've ever been asked to produce my I.D. except for perhaps a couple of times very, very shortly after 9/11 when everyone was in hyper-alert mode. Prior to that, the questions were usually (and once again are) "Citizenship?" "How long have you been in the United States?" "Anything to declare?" (Although in recent years, it seems they've added to the repertoire to ask such searing questions as, "Did you buy or receive anything while you were there?" "Value of the goods you're bringing back?" and "Any alcohol or tobacco?"

Like you, I recall a time when you didn't even need to show I.D. to board domestic flights, and didn't require photo I.D. to board flights between Canada and the U.S., but that's going back quite a few (perhaps ~15-20?) years ;)

WildCat

22nd June 2007, 07:28 PM

I take you are here to impress you pals over at LCF,Chuckseed. I'm sorry I didn't actually see you contribute to the topic in hand; maybe you could do so with your next post.
Hey, it took him a year to get the courage up for this post after his last humiliating foray here. Looks like he was so nervous he forgot to post his universalseed links!

Calcas

22nd June 2007, 08:12 PM

Like you, I recall a time when you didn't even need to show I.D. to board domestic flights, and didn't require photo I.D. to board flights between Canada and the U.S., but that's going back quite a few (perhaps ~15-20?) years ;)

Never been to Canada.

But, in the 90's I flew to Mexico on vacation at least a dozen times. We were told to bring a birth certificate but a passport wasn't necessary. I don't recall a single time when customs in LA even asked for the birth certificate.

P.S. Oliver, I hardly knew ya...

gumboot

22nd June 2007, 08:25 PM

You know the Mess, Andrew. How do you explain this pile of S**t?

Please stop using my actual name. If you refer to my by my real name publicly on this board again I will report you. I have already asked once.

-Gumboot

RandFan

22nd June 2007, 08:25 PM

P.S. Oliver, I hardly knew ya... I know, amazing.

gumboot

22nd June 2007, 08:32 PM

Are you an American? Do you live in the United States?

Are you a U.S. Republican, or a U.S. right winger?

You're not one of these "Bush is being guided by God" freaks, are you?

I'm trying to figure why you would see this as "simply a benign" issue.

It is absolutely reasonable - in fact it is expected - to try and discover the dynamics in place prior to 9/11. Science-based skepticism can assist in determining some of that. But not even close to all of it. Because it is possible that the coziness existent between the Bush Family and the Saudis / bin Ladens unexpectedly contributed to the success of the attacks.

The undeniable facts are that saboteurs worked for months within our system to get flight training, they were financed at least partially by banks in the United Arab Emirates, they returned unused money to those banks just before the attacks, they hit the country on the planet having the most funded and advanced intelligence / military institutions, and the assumed mastermind is still free after nearly 6 years. Three fourths of the hijackers were Saudis, or originated from that country. We are now engaged, with tens of thousands of troops, in battle, with 2 countries in the region - but NOT Saudi Arabia. No end in sight for either. And we're paying twice as much for gasoline as we did on September 10th, 2001.

Add to that, the issue with the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. It was used right through the Iraq invasion - with about 10,000 U.S. troops on hand - and then was quietly handed over to the Saudis in late April, 2003. Essentially all U.S. troops out of there by the end of August, 2003.

That had always been a sore point with the master criminal OBL: The base, and the U.S. presence. Was this appeasement to him?

No - this is not "simply a benign" issue. Not a bit of it.

Perhaps you can explain how a link between the Bush and Bin Laden families (which incidentally, no one has offered up any evidence for yet) could have possibly contributed to the execution of the 9/11 attacks?

Because I read your post clearly, and I hear what you're saying, but I see nothing whatsoever in there that suggests what you're alleging is a possibility.

Oliver has been asked this countless times on this thread, but thus far has refused to provide any answers. Oliver hates America. Everyone knows this. I don't think this is anything more than some more Yank-Bashing from our German friend.

I'm guessing you probably don't hate America. So perhaps you can give us the answer to the following question:

1. Assuming hypothetical ties between George Bush and the Bin Laden family, how do you think these potentially could have contributed directly or indirectly to the execution of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks?

Please try to answer without breaking into a rant about "war in Iraq" or any other political garbage that has nothing to do with the attacks themselves.

-Gumboot

Corsair 115

22nd June 2007, 08:50 PM

I really am not interested in watching the whole documentary. Can you please give a time marker where they start talking about the Saudi stuff?I would if I knew them. As I mentioned, I only saw part of the program when it originally aired, and I don't feel like watching it online. My recollection is that it in no way supports conspiracy, but it does highlight the some of the coincidences involved in 9/11. However, since life is filled with coincidences, those in and of themselves are hardly proof of conspiracy.

I know what you mean, Corsair. It doesn't matter >>who<< raised the questions - to me it matters why no one is able to answer them - or why there is a cover-up to answer them. Uh, I'm not sure you do. My post was intended as a bit of a admonishment to you to get you to use the proper terminology. I'm more than willing to make allowances for those from other nations who are not familiar with Canadian television programming, but if I do post the accurate terminology, I would hope it would be used. :)

But just out of curiosity - who the heck is the girl with the evil grin in you avatar?That would be Canadian actress Gabrielle Miller, currently one of the stars of the CTV sitcom Corner Gas, as well as appearing in CTV's comedy/drama Robson Arms. She's also done a number of guest starring roles in various U.S. television shows and TV movies.

[2] Media=watchdogs but not anymore without the Fairness Doctrine and the Telecommunications Act which were axed (by design).This presupposes that Americans are incapable of getting their news from sources outside the United States. But in this age of the internet, that shouldn't be an issue at all. I'll even get you started.

Here are the links to the web sites of the four major newspaper dailies on newstands in Toronto:

The Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/)
The Toronto Sun (http://www.torontosun.com)
The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/)
The National Post (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/index.html)

Of course, these will focus on issues in or affecting Canada first and foremost, but you'll find plenty of international news coverage in them as well. Additionally, these four newspapers each come from a different part of the political spectrum here.

If television news is more your thing, try these:

CTV (http://www.ctv.ca/news)
CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/)
Global (http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/index.html)

I'll let the residents of other locales and nations post up their relevant links.

Hokulele

22nd June 2007, 08:50 PM

Yes, as I said here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2710780&postcount=48), it was most often the case - particularly pre-9/11 - that I was never even asked for any form of I.D. while entering the U.S. by road. Of course, those manning the border crossings have always been entitled to ask for I.D. and once in a while they did (like when I was with a group of friends, most of us underage, trying to cross to get to the bars that were open later across the border ;) ), but most often, it was simply, "Citizenship?" "Where are you going?" "Purpose of your trip?" "How long are you staying?"

Coming home (again, by road), I don't think I've ever been asked to produce my I.D. except for perhaps a couple of times very, very shortly after 9/11 when everyone was in hyper-alert mode. Prior to that, the questions were usually (and once again are) "Citizenship?" "How long have you been in the United States?" "Anything to declare?" (Although in recent years, it seems they've added to the repertoire to ask such searing questions as, "Did you buy or receive anything while you were there?" "Value of the goods you're bringing back?" and "Any alcohol or tobacco?"

Like you, I recall a time when you didn't even need to show I.D. to board domestic flights, and didn't require photo I.D. to board flights between Canada and the U.S., but that's going back quite a few (perhaps ~15-20?) years ;)

Thanks for the non-flight clarification. I don't have that much experience crossing the border by land, salt water being bad for my car and all. ;) I can confirm that you could fly between Canada, the U.S., and certain Mexican destinations without an ID way back when.

<snip>

Please try to answer without breaking into a rant about "war in Iraq" or any other political garbage that has nothing to do with the attacks themselves.

-Gumboot

I generally avoid political discussions and the Politics forum here, but I just wanted to mention one point. Many people in the U.S. are motivated by a dislike of an individual or party platform plank rather than a strong sense of party loyalty. I have seen this in the posts by Perry Logan, pomeroo, and ConspiRaider most recently. I believe pomeroo even stated explicitly that he was more motivated by a dislike/distrust of those in the Democratic party at the national level than by any deep sense of conservatism.

To give you some sense of perspective, I had started a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2669836#post2669836) in Politics trying to explain to Oliver that much of American politics happen at a local level, although most of the noise is generated higher up. Of course, that thread degenerated into general poo-flinging fairly quickly (sigh), but I think the premise still stands. Maybe someday there can be a reasonable discussion of politics on an internet forum, but I won't hold my breath. :)

gumboot

22nd June 2007, 08:55 PM

To give you some sense of perspective, I had started a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2669836#post2669836) in Politics trying to explain to Oliver that much of American politics happen at a local level, although most of the noise is generated higher up. Of course, that thread degenerated into general poo-flinging fairly quickly (sigh), but I think the premise still stands. Maybe someday there can be a reasonable discussion of politics on an internet forum, but I won't hold my breath. :)

That's why I very seldom post in the politics subforum, and usually when I do it's in a non-serious way. I think it's kind of sad that people can't discuss slightly political-linked topics without getting "all political" about it.

-Gumboot

AZCat

22nd June 2007, 08:55 PM

Maybe someday there can be a reasonable discussion of politics on an internet forum, but I won't hold my breath. :) (emphasis mine)

You didn't need the qualifier, in my opinion.;)

Hokulele

22nd June 2007, 08:58 PM

(emphasis mine)

You didn't need the qualifier, in my opinion.;)

Some of those with Multiple Personality Disorder can probably manage. :p

Texas

22nd June 2007, 09:18 PM

Perhaps you can explain how a link between the Bush and Bin Laden families (which incidentally, no one has offered up any evidence for yet) could have possibly contributed to the execution of the 9/11 attacks?

Because I read your post clearly, and I hear what you're saying, but I see nothing whatsoever in there that suggests what you're alleging is a possibility.

Oliver has been asked this countless times on this thread, but thus far has refused to provide any answers. Oliver hates America. Everyone knows this. I don't think this is anything more than some more Yank-Bashing from our German friend.

I'm guessing you probably don't hate America. So perhaps you can give us the answer to the following question:

Please try to answer without breaking into a rant about "war in Iraq" or any other political garbage that has nothing to do with the attacks themselves.

-Gumboot

There really is no link between GW Bush beyond that of a small investment in Arbusto made by one of the original Arbusto investors named John R Bath. Bath was a money manager for the half brother of Osama and he invested 50K into Arbusto on his behalf. That was the extent of the connection. Salim Bin Laden also bought a small airport in Texas and had many investments in Texas companies. He was killed in a plane crash in 1988 and that was the end of it.

AZCat

22nd June 2007, 09:26 PM

There really is no link between GW Bush beyond that of a small investment in Arbusto made by one of the original Arbusto investors named John R Bath. Bath was a money manager for the half brother of Osama and he invested 50K into Arbusto on his behalf. That was the extent of the connection. Salim Bin Laden also bought a small airport in Texas and had many investments in Texas companies. He was killed in a plane crash in 1988 and that was the end of it.

Not "John R. Bath", but James R. Bath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Bath).

Texas

22nd June 2007, 09:28 PM

[QUOTE=AZCat;2713111]Not "John R. Bath", but [QUOTE]

Thanks for the correction.

AZCat

22nd June 2007, 09:31 PM

[quote=AZCat;2713111]Not "John R. Bath", but [quote]

Thanks for the correction.

No sweat. I just figured the "googlers" among us would need the right spelling.

Texas

22nd June 2007, 09:37 PM

[quote=Texas;2713115][quote=AZCat;2713111]Not "John R. Bath", but

No sweat. I just figured the "googlers" among us would need the right spelling.

What I find amusing about this supposed Bin Laden/Saudi connection is the fact that Arbusto and MANY other independent oil companies in Texas were put out of business by the Saudi in the 70's and 80's in Texas. It is also worth noting that in 1977 the Middle East OPEC countries had black listed, world wide, firms that had Jewish members on their Boards. Bush had at least one Jew on his board and maybe more. I was working for an engineering and construction company in that time frame that was owned by a Jew and we couldn't even bid on their projects. We ended up with essentially one petrochemical contract in the Virgin Islands.

LashL

22nd June 2007, 09:40 PM

Never been to Canada.

You don't know what you're missing. :)

But, in the 90's I flew to Mexico on vacation at least a dozen times. We were told to bring a birth certificate but a passport wasn't necessary. I don't recall a single time when customs in LA even asked for the birth certificate.

Even as recently as last year (February 2006), Canadians could still fly from Canada to Mexico without a passport. I haven't checked since then but in February of last year, a friend who came with me on vacation to Mexico did not have a passport but used a birth certificate and photo I.D. (heath card), and that was sufficient.

AZCat

22nd June 2007, 09:44 PM

What I find amusing about this supposed Bin Laden/Saudi connection is the fact that Arbusto and MANY other independent oil companies in Texas were put out of business by the Saudi in the 70's and 80's in Texas. It is also worth noting that in 1977 the Middle East OPEC countries had black listed, world wide, firms that had Jewish members on their Boards. Bush had at least one Jew on his board and maybe more. I was working for an engineering and construction company in that time frame that was owned by a Jew and we couldn't even bid on their projects. We ended up with essentially one petrochemical contract in the Virgin Islands.

Shhh! Not so loud - you'll wake the local Nazis and they'll be all over this thread like white on rice.

My grandfather was a lawyer for a Kansas City company that was trying to get Middle Eastern petro-projects during that period and they got shut out also. I don't know if they had any Jews on the board.

Brainache

22nd June 2007, 09:50 PM

So, what do we have here?

1) A chartered flight for rich Arabs leaves the US shortly after the ban on flights was lifted.

2)According to new guy Texas (welcome!) the links between Bush and Bin Laden are tenuous at best.

3) Some pages apparently concerning Saudi Arabia have been excised from the 9/11 commission report.

4) A Canadian current affairs program said that some questions need answering.

5) Travel between the US and Canada pre-911 was easy without ID.

6) ChuckSheen hates JREFers.

7) Oliver likes to bash Americans.

8) Conspiraider likes to bash Republicans.

9) Someone somewhere is guilty of something.

LashL

22nd June 2007, 09:53 PM

Thanks for the non-flight clarification. I don't have that much experience crossing the border by land, salt water being bad for my car and all. ;)

:D

Texas

22nd June 2007, 09:55 PM

Shhh! Not so loud - you'll wake the local Nazis and they'll be all over this thread like white on rice.

My grandfather was a lawyer for a Kansas City company that was trying to get Middle Eastern petro-projects during that period and they got shut out also. I don't know if they had any Jews on the board.

It could have only been that the company had done work in Israel or had financial connections. I lived 10 years in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait. My company used Bin Laden construction on many Saudi Job sites because that was one of the requirements for doing business over there. I guess I should be added to the suspect list.

Texas

22nd June 2007, 09:58 PM

LashL

22nd June 2007, 10:01 PM

It could have only been that the company had done work in Israel or had financial connections. I lived 10 years in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait. My company used Bin Laden construction on many Saudi Job sites because that was one of the requirements for doing business over there. I guess I should be added to the suspect list.

Never mind the suspect list; that qualifies you for fast tracking of your NWO membership application and Official Shill paycheques - I'll PM you with the contact info for the appropriate HR group and recruiting agent in your area. Just forward the info you posted above to the recruiting agent and, I assure you, you're in. Welcome aboard ;)

Texas

22nd June 2007, 10:02 PM

Never mind the suspect list, that qualifies you for fast tracking of your NWO membership application and Official Shill paycheques - I'll PM you with the contact info for the appropriate HR group and recruiting agent in your area, and you're in ;)
Hot dang. I need the money!

LashL

22nd June 2007, 10:05 PM

Hot dang. I need the money!

Hey, with your qualifications, the NWO will be delighted to have you! You'll be earning extra bonuses (sorry, I can't tell you how just yet) in no time!

Texas

22nd June 2007, 10:11 PM

Hey, with your qualifications, the NWO will be delighted to have you! You'll be earning extra bonuses (sorry, I can't tell you how just yet) in no time!
Well I don't know how to dustify steel or light thermite. Will that hurt me?

AZCat

22nd June 2007, 10:17 PM

I just noticed this I would bet the company was JF Pritchard and if so then yes it had a Jewish connection.

I don't think it was, but it's been a long time since I've talked with him about it. I'll try to remember to ask when I go to visit back home sometime this summer. I did go to school with a number of people who eventually went to work for Black & Veatch (current owners of JF Pritchard).

On Edit: It was Farmland Industries. Thanks, Mom.

LashL

22nd June 2007, 10:19 PM

Well I don't know how to dustify steel or light thermite. Will that hurt me?

No, not at all. Other members have already taken care of those particular issues and we might not need to revisit them for years, so you've plenty of time to learn, if required. In any event, our NWO overlords recognize the individual talents of each of our members and do not expect you to be able to emulate all of the talents of the other members. They will find a nice little niche for you, I'm sure ;)

RandFan

22nd June 2007, 10:23 PM

Texas

22nd June 2007, 10:24 PM

I don't think it was, but it's been a long time since I've talked with him about it. I'll try to remember to ask when I go to visit back home sometime this summer. I did go to school with a number of people who eventually went to work for Black & Veatch (current owners of JF Pritchard). Now that is a surprise. I would have thought Pritchard would be the top dog in that merger.

Texas

22nd June 2007, 10:28 PM

No, not at all. Other members have already taken care of those particular issues and we might not need to revisit them for years, so you've plenty of time to learn, if required. In any event, our NWO overlords recognize the individual talents of each of our members and do not expect you to be able to emulate all of the talents of the other members. They will find a nice little niche for you, I'm sure ;) Well I have read this site for over a month and even though long ago and far away I was an engineer I stopped doing that in 1966 and went into management. I just saw this thread and since I do have a lot of experience in business relationships in the energy industry I finally saw an opportunity to contribute. I can't wait for the Cheney/Halliburton connection to come up. That I have intimate knowledge of.

AZCat

22nd June 2007, 10:30 PM

Now that is a surprise. I would have thought Pritchard would be the top dog in that merger.

According to the Black & Veatch web site (http://www.bv.com/about_us/history.aspx), they acquired Pritchard in 1985. This would have been long before any of my peers went to work for them.

Texas

22nd June 2007, 10:35 PM

According to the Black & Veatch web site (http://www.bv.com/about_us/history.aspx), they acquired Pritchard in 1985. This would have been long before any of my peers went to work for them.
Pritchard was the last place I worked as an engineer before going into mangement. I loved the location on the Plaza and living in KC.

AZCat

22nd June 2007, 10:42 PM

Pritchard was the last place I worked as an engineer before going into mangement. I loved the location on the Plaza and living in KC.

Kansas City is nice. There's a member here who lives there (JimBenArm if I remember correctly). My grandparents lived in Prairie Village until recently, and I was born at the KU Med Center (my dad was interning there) back in 1975. If I ever move back to the midwest it will probably be to Kansas City (plus that's where I'd have a better chance getting a job).

Texas

22nd June 2007, 10:50 PM

Kansas City is nice. There's a member here who lives there (JimBenArm if I remember correctly). My grandparents lived in Prairie Village until recently, and I was born at the KU Med Center (my dad was interning there) back in 1975. If I ever move back to the Midwest it will probably be to Kansas City (plus that's where I'd have a better chance getting a job). Kansas City MO. is really a lot like Chicago in that it is far from being "heartland" in the sense that Wichita Kansas, where I was reared is "heartland". I have lived in Houston for 30 years but I sometimes really miss KC, especially the food.

AZCat

22nd June 2007, 10:55 PM

Kansas City MO. is really a lot like Chicago in that it is far from being "heartland" in the sense that Wichita Kansas, where I was reared is "heartland". I have lived in Houston for 30 years but I sometimes really miss KC, especially the food.

You're not my cousin's husband, are you? (I'm only half-way joking) If your name is "Kevin" I"m going to s*** my pants.

SezMe

22nd June 2007, 11:35 PM

I can hardly wait for Texas' reply to see if AZCat gets a huge skid mark in his shorts.

Brainache

23rd June 2007, 05:18 AM

That's about it. Nicely done.

I would add:

10) Oliver not quite the debunker we once thought he was.

I'm worried now and not just for AZCat's undies.

I thought everyone would point out tons of details that I'd missed. Looks like I got the main points, but where in all this is the bit where Bushco acted differently from any other administration?

Surely there is a node of pure evil here somewhere, why else would there be people asking questions?

No smoke without fire...(um, drunken irony smiley goes here)

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 06:07 AM

Perhaps you can explain how a link between the Bush and Bin Laden families (which incidentally, no one has offered up any evidence for yet) could have possibly contributed to the execution of the 9/11 attacks?

Because I read your post clearly, and I hear what you're saying, but I see nothing whatsoever in there that suggests what you're alleging is a possibility.

Oliver has been asked this countless times on this thread, but thus far has refused to provide any answers. Oliver hates America. Everyone knows this. I don't think this is anything more than some more Yank-Bashing from our German friend.

I'm guessing you probably don't hate America. So perhaps you can give us the answer to the following question:

Please try to answer without breaking into a rant about "war in Iraq" or any other political garbage that has nothing to do with the attacks themselves.

-Gumboot

Well, I have no conspiracy for you guys in here. I just want to know all Backgrounds concerning the connections, especially all the covered Names - which means there is more to this issue as we're allowed to know.

Anyway, nobody cares - So why should I reply to a thread that wasn't started by me because I knew the dishonesty from some people in CT in researching all aspects of 9/11 in the first place? I'm in my Holidays.

And no - I don't hate America. Just their mo-fu-'n political mess since 9/11 and it's foreign-"but please don't fight back or we will whine"-policies.

Sorry for thinking more skeptical than a Lemming and it's commission bible. :boggled: :rolleyes: Oh wait, no reason to apologize - I was raised in a non-patriotic democracy.

I'm out of this thread.

Brainache

23rd June 2007, 06:18 AM

Well, I have no conspiracy for you guys in here. I just want to know all Backgrounds concerning the connections, especially all the covered Names - which means there is more to this issue as we're allowed to know.

Anyway, nobody cares - So why should I reply to a thread that wasn't started by me because I knew the dishonesty from some people in CT in researching all aspects of 9/11 in the first place? I'm in my Holidays.

And no - I don't hate America. Just their mo-fu-'n political mess since 9/11 and it's foreign-"but please don't fight back or we will whine"-policies.

Sorry for thinking more skeptical than a Lemming and it's commission bible. :boggled: :rolleyes: Oh wait, no reason to apologize - I was raised in a non-patriotic democracy.

I'm out of this thread.

But Oliver, why do you think it is possible to answer every single question?

Governments always have some secrets. It doesn't always mean that they are hiding evil deeds. Sometimes it does, but not always.

If Bushco had Saudi friends and those Saudi friends wanted to go home quickly after 9/11, why not let them?

If Bushco knew that these people were involved in the attacks and decided to let them go anyway, do you really think that we would know about it?

They would have clammed up tighter than a fish's bum and we would not have any records of any flight at all.

gumboot

23rd June 2007, 06:29 AM

It is my understanding that the FBI talked to these people before they leaved, and concluded they had no connection to, or information about, the attacks.

FBI agents are good at determining this sort of thing very quickly. They have to be. Authorities can't just hold people indefinitely in the USA (or couldn't before 9/11!).

I honestly can't see what the scandal is here. Has the government ever denied these flights took place? Not that I'm aware of.

-Gumboot

Civilized Worm

23rd June 2007, 08:04 AM

Typical CT logic, if someone is involved with something then so is their entire family. This reeks of the Chertoff nonsense.

Sure the Bin Laden family thing could possibly have been handled better, but it's not going to keep me awake at night.

Undesired Walrus

23rd June 2007, 10:16 AM

The problem with these issues is that it is yet another Michael-middle-school-politics-Moore issue that does absolutely no good to the world apart from reinforce people's opinions that Bush is a bad guy. It serves absolutely no other purpose. If it had been investigated at the time, then sure, I would regard it an important issue then.

But time has passed, and with it, the state of the world. It's not good enough to go into the next few years simply being against Bush.

chipmunk stew

23rd June 2007, 12:40 PM

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment." - Sherlock Holmes

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” - Sherlock Holmes
You realize, don't you, that Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character?

chipmunk stew

23rd June 2007, 12:48 PM

Well, I have no conspiracy for you guys in here. I just want to know all Backgrounds concerning the connections, especially all the covered Names - which means there is more to this issue as we're allowed to know.
I'm just curious, Oliver: In Germany, what are the open records laws like?

edit: nvm--I found it:
German FOIA (PDF) (http://aitel.hist.no/%7Ewalterk/wkeim/files/FOIA_Germany_Final_June05_clear.pdf)
Sec. 3 Protection of special public interests

There is no right of access to information

1. if the disclosure of the information can have a detrimental effect ona) international relations;

b) military or other sensitive security interests of the German Armed Forces;

c) internal or external security interests;

d) control or monitoring duties of financial, anti-trust or regulatory authorities;

e) matters of external financial control;

f) measures to prevent prohibited foreign trade;

g) an ongoing legal proceeding, the right of a person to a fair proceeding or the carrying out of criminal, administrative or disciplinary investigations;
2. if the disclosure of the information could jeopardize public safety;

3. if and as long asa) the required confidentiality of international negotiations or

b) agencies’ consultations could be impaired;
4. if the information is subject to secrecy or confidentiality regulated by law or by the General Administrative Regulation on the Material and Organizational Protection of Classified Information, or is subject to a professional or special official secret;

5. in regard to temporarily acquired information of another public office that shall not be part of the concerned agency’s own operations;

6. if the disclosure of the information would be likely to impair the fiscal interests of the federal government when involved in economic transactions or the economic interests of the institutions of social insurance;

7. in the case of information gathered or supplied on a confidential basis, to the extent that the third party’s interest in confidential treatment continues at the time the application for access to the information is made; and

8. in regard to intelligence services and agencies and other public offices of the federal government to the extent that they perform duties within the meaning of Sec. 10 (3) of the German Security Screening Act (“Sicherheitsüberprüfungsgesetz”).
Looks like there are many reasons for refusing to release information or for releasing only a redacted version.

BTW, this German law was passed in 2005 (http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-information-act?cat=biz-fin)...

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 12:53 PM

I'm just curious, Oliver: In Germany, what are the open records laws like?

I probably could answer this question if you explain what an "open records law" is. My translator never heard the term. :blush:

chipmunk stew

23rd June 2007, 01:08 PM

I probably could answer this question if you explain what an "open records law" is. My translator never heard the term. :blush:
In the US it's called the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

I'm not sure what the name of the law is in Germany, but check out my edit in my previous post. I found a translated draft of a law that was passed in 2005.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 01:15 PM

In the US it's called the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

I'm not sure what the name of the law is in Germany, but check out my edit in my previous post. I found a translated draft of a law that was passed in 2005.

Maybe Childlike know the answer because I never heard of a similar law here in germany - probably because there is no such overwhelming secrecy that lead to such a law. But besides that, if something in the US is declared as national security issue, the FOIA is worth nothing but a nice feeling that everything is fine. Funny, isn't it?

chipmunk stew

23rd June 2007, 01:25 PM

Childlike Empress

23rd June 2007, 01:30 PM

Maybe Childlike know the answer because I never heard of a similar law here in germany - probably because there is no such overwhelming secrecy that lead to such a law. But besides that, if something in the US is declared as national security issue, the FOIA is worth nothing but a nice feeling that everything is fine. Funny, isn't it?

Yeah, look at Stew's edit. He is right that it has more exceptions than the FOIA. And before 2005, there was no such (federal) law in Germany. It's called the "Informationsfreiheitsgesetz", for details look here (http://chaosradio.ccc.de/cr109.html).

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 01:33 PM

I'm just curious, Oliver: In Germany, what are the open records laws like?

edit: nvm--I found it:
German FOIA (PDF) (http://aitel.hist.no/%7Ewalterk/wkeim/files/FOIA_Germany_Final_June05_clear.pdf)
Looks like there are many reasons for refusing to release information or for releasing only a redacted version.

BTW, this German law was passed in 2005 (http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-information-act?cat=biz-fin)...So, redaction isn't per se proof of anything nefarious.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 01:38 PM

Yeah, look at Stew's edit. He is right that it has more exceptions than the FOIA. And before 2005, there was no such (federal) law in Germany. It's called the "Informationsfreiheitsgesetz", for details look here (http://chaosradio.ccc.de/cr109.html).

Well, I heard the laws name but I didn't know what it was about, thank you for pointing it out, Childlike. But the Question is - did we ever needed it so far? I don't remind any case I would consider to use this law. Well, besides the request why german politicians and politics are that boring. :D

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 01:42 PM

Well, I heard the laws name but I didn't know what it was about, thank you for pointing it out, Childlike. But the Question is - did we ever needed it so far? I don't remind any case I would consider to use this law. Well, besides the request why german politicians and politics are that boring. :DI'm not certain whether to take you seriously. Are you honestly suggesting that there would never be a need for such a law due to something inherent about German people or the German government or is this all tongue in cheek?

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 01:53 PM

I'm not certain whether to take you seriously. Are you honestly suggesting that there would never be a need for such a law due to something inherent about German people or the German government or is this all tongue in cheek?

Since Hitlers invasion of the government? No, I don't remind one single case that would have endangered the democracy or any case of cover up that made it necessary. German politics is boring as hell, I can tell you.

The most spectacular issues I remind in the last view years are the Biometric Data in identifications and the Telecommunication Act - while in the US they rock and pass laws to spy on everyone, invade countries or re-define habeas corpus. It's more interesting to watch turtle-races than to listen to the daily political babbling over here.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 02:01 PM

Since Hitlers invasion of the government? No, I don't remind one single case that would have endangered the democracy or any case of cover up that made it necessary. German politics is boring as hell, I can tell you.

The most spectacular issues I remind in the last view years are the Biometric Data in identifications and the Telecommunication Act - while in the US they rock and pass laws to spy on everyone, invade countries or re-define habeas corpus. It's more interesting to watch turtle-races than to listen to the daily political babbling over here.Really? No corruption (http://cnbceb.com/2007/04/01/how-corrupt-is-germany/)? No Graft?

“Germany is sinking farther down the corruption list,” says Transparency International in Berlin. Its report states that Germany has slipped down to 20th place in the ranking of 91 countries, after falling from 14th to 17th last year. This steady downward trend reflects irregularities in party financing, graft in government offices, corruption proceedings against civil servants and top people in well-known public institutions, shenanigans in the awarding of construction contracts, dubious bank transactions related to contributions, and favors accepted by top politicians.

As someone else in another thread noted "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Perhaps your boredom is bred from willful ignorance.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 02:07 PM

Really? No corruption (http://cnbceb.com/2007/04/01/how-corrupt-is-germany/)? No Graft?

As someone else in another thread noted "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Perhaps your boredom is bred from willful ignorance.

I heard about it - but I see no danger for the democratic system, even if it's sad that we have such scandals. But as I said - that's boring stuff to me because the politicians here don't have the guts to cast the stones around as much and provocative as in the States. Turtle-Races. :D

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 02:13 PM

BTW, I forgot to cite my last quote. My appologies. Here is another quote from the same linnk.

“Baksheesh Mentality” in Germany (http://www.worldpress.org/1001cover7.htm)
We Germans have been accustomed in the past, not without considerable smugness and even arrogance, to look down on the “baksheesh mentality” in other countries. However, the large number of press accounts about bribery cases, and the cases filed by the police and the public prosecutors, prove that there are no grounds for such complacency.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 02:20 PM

BTW, I forgot to cite my last quote. My appologies. Here is another quote from the same linnk.

Well, if I was a typical US-JREF'er, I would probably say: "Who is this guy and what does that proof? He's just a democrat or liberal anyway."

Randfan, you know what? You're a germany hater. :D

But anyway: I really don't remind anything that was covered up and never made it to the light of the day again - even without a FIOA-like act here. But I would be happy to have some examples. Maybe "Chaos" and "Childlike" are able to help me out because german politics is indeed boring as hell. I'm sure both of them will confirm that.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 02:24 PM

I heard about it - but I see no danger for the democratic system...:rolleyes: Wow, I had just posted a response perfect to your apathetic quote.

“Baksheesh Mentality” in Germany (http://www.worldpress.org/1001cover7.htm)
We Germans have been accustomed in the past, not without considerable smugness and even arrogance, to look down on the “baksheesh mentality” in other countries. However, the large number of press accounts about bribery cases, and the cases filed by the police and the public prosecutors, prove that there are no grounds for such complacency. Somehow I suspect that you will remain complacent.

I'm not complacent about America. I'm active in politics and I care even though my country is listed 8th in standard of living (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Top_thirty_countries_.28HD I_range_from_0.965_down_to_0.885.29) (German is 21st) and tied for *16th in corruption (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1412217.stm) (Germany is 20th).

*Lower number for the corruption index is better.

But hey, I've got an idea for you Oliver. Stick your head in the sand and ignore your countries problems. The plight of your citizens is unimportant (boring).

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 02:31 PM

But anyway: I really don't remind anything that was covered up and never made it to the light of the day again Me neither. I don't think anyone does. I'm not sure how that would even be possible. BTW, your English is quite good so this isn't a personal attack but it is "remember" and not "remind".

- even without a FIOA-like act here. But I would be happy to have some examples. Maybe "Chaos" and "Childlike" are able to help me out because german politics is indeed boring as hell. I'm sure both of them will confirm that.What exactly would that prove?

You say you don't care. Is it possible that it is boring because you don't care? Is American politics exciting because it fits your bigotry?

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 02:40 PM

:rolleyes: Wow, I had just posted a response perfect to your apathetic quote.

Somehow I suspect that you will remain complacent.

I'm not complacent about America. I'm active in politics and I care even though my country is listed 8th in standard of living (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Top_thirty_countries_.28HD I_range_from_0.965_down_to_0.885.29) (German is 21st) and tied for *16th in corruption (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1412217.stm) (Germany is 20th).

*Lower number for the corruption index is better.

But hey, I've got an idea for you Oliver. Stick your head in the sand and ignore your countries problems. The plight of your citizens is unimportant (boring).

I really can't believe that the former Berlusconi/Italy government is below the US and Germany. Are you sure this chart is based on facts? I mean it seriously. :confused:

Well, charts don't say anything. I can post charts about violence or poverty in western countries to disproof your charts.

It's not about a Chart-War. Please feel free to cite some examples in which the democratic system (&laws) were altered or Gonzales-, Plame-, Watergate-, Iran contra and so on scandals.

Here: Compare them on your own - the german scandals are ridiculous and boring in comparison because the list of US-Scandals is endless:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_political_scandals

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 02:43 PM

Me neither. I don't think anyone does. I'm not sure how that would even be possible. BTW, your English is quite good so this isn't a personal attack but it is "remember" and not "remind".

What exactly would that prove?

You say you don't care. Is it possible that it is boring because you don't care? Is American politics exciting because it fits your bigotry?

I care if I feel pissed about something that would affect my freedoms. But there are no such cases besides the Biometric Data that was pushed after 9/11. But I think that was a hype over here, too.

So "I don't remind" doesn't mean the same and this phrase doesn't exist this way?

Spins

23rd June 2007, 02:55 PM

Since Hitlers invasion of the government? No, I don't remind one single case that would have endangered the democracy or any case of cover up that made it necessary. German politics is boring as hell, I can tell you.

The most spectacular issues I remind in the last view years are the Biometric Data in identifications and the Telecommunication Act - while in the US they rock and pass laws to spy on everyone, invade countries or re-define habeas corpus. It's more interesting to watch turtle-races than to listen to the daily political babbling over here.This reminds me of the test were a person is shown a picture of two faces, one black and one white, and they immediately have to say which one is more trustworthy. White people almost always point to the white face and black people almost always point to the black face.

In this case Oliver believes the Sun shines out of the German governments arse but the American government is untrustworthy. :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/610098.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/610098.stm)

Anyways I remember this being a pretty bad scandal involving the CDU party in Germany, was even linked to arms deals in Saudi Arabia IIRC. Links to 9/11 maybe? j/k ;)

chipmunk stew

23rd June 2007, 03:03 PM

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 03:11 PM

This reminds me of the test were a person is shown a picture of two faces, one black and one white, and they immediately have to say which one is more trustworthy. White people almost always point to the white face and black people almost always point to the black face.

In this case Oliver believes the Sun shines out of the German governments arse but the American government is untrustworthy. :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/610098.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/610098.stm)

Anyways I remember this being a pretty bad scandal involving the CDU party in Germany, was even linked to arms deals in Saudi Arabia IIRC. Links to 9/11 maybe? j/k ;)

You made a bad comparison. We simply don't have such a large scale of scandals - and especially no big cover-ups and therefore no big hearings. I would love to have some political actions here from time to time - but in general they are boring.

Anyway : That money is part of political decisions is nothing new to me, that's the case all over the world in every system - but again: There is no such system here like in the US that endorses financial support like Campaign_finance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance) from lobbies to gain political control "to make friends". In Germany that would be illegal by federal law.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 03:13 PM

More on Germany's Informationsfreiheitsgesetz (http://www.freedominfo.org/news/20070620b.htm)

It appears as though the German federal government has more secrets than you'd like to think, Oliver. Perhaps you should file some requests for information yourself. Maybe about those Saudi arms deals... ;)

You can be sure that I will do so if my rights are in danger or Germany casts the stones around by military interventions. Promised.

chipmunk stew

23rd June 2007, 03:15 PM

This reminds me of the test were a person is shown a picture of two faces, one black and one white, and they immediately have to say which one is more trustworthy. White people almost always point to the white face and black people almost always point to the black face.

In this case Oliver believes the Sun shines out of the German governments arse but the American government is untrustworthy. :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/610098.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/610098.stm)

Anyways I remember this being a pretty bad scandal involving the CDU party in Germany, was even linked to arms deals in Saudi Arabia IIRC. Links to 9/11 maybe? j/k ;)
Joschka Fischer got into hot water over a scandal involving visa loopholes that allowed in organized criminals, human traffickers, and prostitution rings:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,343108,00.html

Did Fischer ignore warning signs? What did he know, and when did he know it? There was an investigation into these questions. Did the documents in the investigation reach the public domain? If so, were they released in full? Or were they redacted?

chipmunk stew

23rd June 2007, 03:19 PM

You can be sure that I will do so if my rights are in danger or Germany casts the stones around by military interventions. Promised.
Could the al Qaeda Hamburg cell that played such a big role in 9/11 have been detected and stopped? Wouldn't you like to know?

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 03:27 PM

Joschka Fischer got into hot water over a scandal involving visa loopholes that allowed in organized criminals, human traffickers, and prostitution rings:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,343108,00.html

Did Fischer ignore warning signs? What did he know, and when did he know it? There was an investigation into these questions. Did the documents in the investigation reach the public domain? If so, were they released in full? Or were they redacted?

Well, how many people died because of Fisher? These thing don't bother me very much because it doesn't affect the western worlds reputation or people die because probable, personal vendettas - or made up lies about WMD's.

It's pretty natural that someone like me is pissed if there is unjustness somewhere in the world. Now Iraq is the most annoying issue to me - and I would react the same way if Germany or any other country was the leading country in such a case.

By that I mean that the current government is a bunch of criminals from my point of view - and my understanding of justness. It's not even about democracy itself, which also looks like a farce in America in contrary to other western countries, it's simply unjustness. The US isn't some Banana-Republic from what I saw until 9/11. Now I'm not that sure anymore - because of US-politics after 9/11.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 03:30 PM

Could the al Qaeda Hamburg cell that played such a big role in 9/11 have been detected and stopped? Wouldn't you like to know?

Of course I want to know. The Bundesnachrichtendienst recorded and traced the Hijackers. So did the international intelligence. The CIA didn't care about it very much after Germany gave several warnings.

But besides that: How the Heck were the Hijackers able to leave Germany and enter the US? I can't imagine how this was possible. Were they all crazy??? :confused:

chipmunk stew

23rd June 2007, 03:42 PM

Well, how many people died because of Fisher? These thing don't bother me very much because it doesn't affect the western worlds reputation or people die because probable, personal vendettas - or made up lies about WMD's.
Careful, you're smudging the line between 9/11 and Iraq.

Human trafficking doesn't bother you very much? Organized crime doesn't bother you very much? Not enough people die from these activities to keep you from being bored?

The scandal did threaten Germany's reputation within the EU, and there were questions about whether the visa policy violated EU laws.

It's pretty natural that someone like me is pissed if there is unjustness somewhere in the world. Now Iraq is the most annoying issue to me - and I would react the same way if Germany or any other country was the leading country in such a case.

By that I mean that the current government is a bunch of criminals from my point of view - and my understanding of justness. It's not even about democracy itself, which also looks like a farce in America in contrary to other western countries, it's simply unjustness. The US isn't some Banana-Republic from what I saw until 9/11. Now I'm not that sure anymore - because of US-politics after 9/11.
Careful, you're smudging the line between 9/11 and Iraq again.

Now, concerning those Bush-Bin Laden links: any evidence yet?

Spins

23rd June 2007, 03:46 PM

But besides that: How the Heck were the Hijackers able to leave Germany and enter the US? I can't imagine how this was possible. Were they all crazy??? :confused:Probably the same arrogance that the "truthers" still suffer from that "19 hijackers armed with box-cutters lead by a man in a cave" couldn't pull something like 9/11 off. That and the fact that the FBI and NSA had probably been receiving hundreds and hundreds of warnings of terrorist activity in the months running up to 9/11, hindsight's a wonderful thing.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 03:59 PM

Careful, you're smudging the line between 9/11 and Iraq.

Well, that's exactly what started my criticism of the current Administration. Blurring the lines and fooling you and your fellow citizens. You can't accept such a thing with a fair and balanced view, can you?

Human trafficking doesn't bother you very much? Organized crime doesn't bother you very much? Not enough people die from these activities to keep you from being bored?

The scandal did threaten Germany's reputation within the EU, and there were questions about whether the visa policy violated EU laws.

Of course I think this isn't fair or democratic. But we're talking about thousands of victims and million>>>s<<< of refugees here. Besides regional stability and terrorism that came after invasions. That's the scandal. I'm sure you know that, too. The case I'm complaining about is far more bigger than some ridiculous scandals that happen every day in every part of the World. And no, I don't support that, no matter what country is involved.

Careful, you're smudging the line between 9/11 and Iraq again.

Now, concerning those Bush-Bin Laden links: any evidence yet?

You mean Bush Family - Bin Laden Family, or Bush Junior and Osama?

Anyway: What do you know about why the CIA and NSA ignored several warnings, what do you know why they didn't inform the FBI immediately?

What do you know about the Fact that the "Hamburger" were able to travel without any tracing? (That was negligent from German and US-Intelligence - but why??? Idiots within these agencies???)

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 04:05 PM

Probably the same arrogance that the "truthers" still suffer from that "19 hijackers armed with box-cutters lead by a man in a cave" couldn't pull something like 9/11 off. That and the fact that the FBI and NSA had probably been receiving hundreds and hundreds of warnings of terrorist activity in the months running up to 9/11, hindsight's a wonderful thing.

No, that's not the question. Terrorist-Lists where in place before 9/11 all over the world. Why are they able to travel so undetected after everyone was watching them anyway.

The German Verfassungsschutz said they didn't know exactly what they were about - otherwise they would have watched them. I say "BS!". I can't believe the intelligence were such a bunch of fools - especially because flying planes into buildings was a strategy that was known long before 9/11 finally happend.

Some people at least were sleeping - and that's no excuse. It's a scandal on it's own - also un-debunked as far I know.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 04:41 PM

I really can't believe that the former Berlusconi/Italy government is below the US and Germany. Are you sure this chart is based on facts? I mean it seriously. :confused: No, it's based on perception. Now, before you criticize this fact answer us this question, what did you base your opinion on? Hmmmm...?

Because the CPI is derived from 14 different surveys that garner the perceptions of both residents and expatriates, both business people, academia and risk analysts, the index provides a snapshot of the views of decision-makers, who take key decisions on investment and trade. The CPI builds public awareness of the corruption issue, and it adds to pressure on governments to directly address the issue and the damaged image of their nation that low rankings in the CPI reflect. Here's the point, whose "perception" should we trust? Yours or those involved in the index.

Well, charts don't say anything. I can post charts about violence or poverty in western countries to disproof your charts.Misses the point.

It's not about a Chart-War. Please feel free to cite some examples in which the democratic system (&laws) were altered or Gonzales-, Plame-, Watergate-, Iran contra and so on scandals. {sigh}

Boy, did you ever miss that point. Oliver, this is really simple. Please pay attention. You have a perception about America that is biased and bigoted. You rely on anecdote and your criteria to measure America. It's BS. Pure BS. It's your perception and your criteria. It doesn't mean anything. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Here: Compare them on your own - the german scandals are ridiculous and boring in comparison because the list of US-Scandals is endless:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_political_scandals Yes, this is really scientific. You miss the point Oliver. You always have.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 04:43 PM

I care if I feel pissed about something that would affect my freedoms. But there are no such cases besides the Biometric Data that was pushed after 9/11. But I think that was a hype over here, too. How would you even know? No one cares.

So "I don't remind" doesn't mean the same and this phrase doesn't exist this way?A rose is a rose. Yes, I'm just trying to give you the correct usage. "I don't remind" is incorect.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 04:48 PM

Well, that's exactly what started my criticism of the current Administration. Blurring the lines and fooling you and your fellow citizens. You can't accept such a thing with a fair and balanced view, can you?Like FOX news your view is neither fair nor balanced. I have started threads critical of my administration for Abu Ghraib, Patriot Act, freedom of speech issues, etc.. I have participated in many threads started by non-Americans critical of my country. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. You seem to only focus on anecdote and seem to never shine a skeptical light on your own world view.

The point is that you are NOT fair and balanced. You typically view American policy in the worst possible light. You paint America in stark contrast and it would seem, reading your posts, that America is a hell hole when in fact America has a high standard of living and relatively low corruption rates.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 05:05 PM

No, it's based on perception. Now, before you criticize this fact answer us this question, what did you base your opinion on? Hmmmm...?

Here's the point, whose "perception" should we trust? Yours or those involved in the index.

Misses the point.

{sigh}

Boy, did you ever miss that point. Oliver, this is really simple. Please pay attention. You have a perception about America that is biased and bigoted. You rely on anecdote and your criteria to measure America. It's BS. Pure BS. It's your perception and your criteria. It doesn't mean anything. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Here: Compare them on your own - the german scandals are ridiculous and boring in comparison because the list of US-Scandals is endless:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States"] Yes, this is really scientific. You miss the point Oliver. You always have.

You don't get it, do you? I'm pissed about Iraq and pissed because foreign policies that lead to things like 9/11. No, this didn't happened yet because german foreign policies. Yes, that's what happened because US-foreign policies.

THAT'S my agenda.

I have no Idea what "The US has one of highest standards of living"-Poll proves concerning my complaints. Nothing - but nice that you posted it for a reason I really have a hard time to grasp.

The same goes to a corruption poll that didn't include what I am talking about. I can't find the "Most violent countries" chart that was posted in Politics some Weeks ago but you may review this United Nations report and the thread about it in JREF/Politics (you posted in):

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67937
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 05:15 PM

How would you even know? No one cares.

A rose is a rose. Yes, I'm just trying to give you the correct usage. "I don't remind" is incorect.

Well, the german media cared and educated about this. That's exactly what I expected from the media here. How many sources did publish anything about the Patriat Act before it was passed over night. :boggled:

I didn't know that this phrase doesn't exist - but I try to keep this in mind and avoid this mistranslation in the future. :)

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 05:17 PM

You don't get it, do you? I'm pissed about Iraq and pissed because foreign policies that lead to things like 9/11. No, this didn't happened yet because german foreign policies. Yes, that's what happened because US-foreign policies.

THAT'S my agenda. If you were fair in your critiques I would say cool. You are not which is why Houkulele has tried to get you to expand your horizons and demonstrate why your view of Americans is so myopic.

I have no Idea what "The US has one of highest standards of living"-Poll proves concerning my complaints. Nothing - but nice that you posted it for a reason I really have a hard time to grasp. To counter your constant barrage of negative views of America. We are actually a pretty decent country. If we were the corrupt underbelly that you paint us out to be then we would be more like Darfur or Cuba or North Korea or Vietnam or any of the other countries lacking in freedom. The fact is we DO have freedom and that has led to our economic stability. We are NOT the caricature you paint. This leaves a question, why are your caricatures of us so stark? Why don't your posts reveal critical thinking but instead only reveal criticism.

If you would be fair and balanced I would have no problems with your criticisms. Hell, I have joined others many times to criticize my nation on many occasions in this forum. It's just that you are not. Plain and simple. You are not.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 05:19 PM

Like FOX news your view is neither fair nor balanced. I have started threads critical of my administration for Abu Ghraib, Patriot Act, freedom of speech issues, etc.. I have participated in many threads started by non-Americans critical of my country. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. You seem to only focus on anecdote and seem to never shine a skeptical light on your own world view.

The point is that you are NOT fair and balanced. You typically view American policy in the worst possible light. You paint America in stark contrast and it would seem, reading your posts, that America is a hell hole when in fact America has a high standard of living and relatively low corruption rates.

Okay - let me try it this way:

Who started the Iraq war?
Why was it justified?
Who passed information that wasn't true at no point in time around 9/11?
Who gave the impression that 9/11 and Saddam were the same issue?

Just an "America-hating" hint: It wasn't Germany.

If it would have been Germany, I wouldn't post in here.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 05:25 PM

If you were fair in your critiques I would say cool. You are not which is why Houkulele has tried to get you to expand your horizons and demonstrate why your view of Americans is so myopic.

To counter your constant barrage of negative views of America. We are actually a pretty decent country. If we were the corrupt underbelly that you paint us out to be then we would be more like Darfur or Cuba or North Korea or Vietnam or any of the other countries lacking in freedom. The fact is we DO have freedom and that has led to our economic stability. We are NOT the caricature you paint. This leaves a question, why are your caricatures of us so stark? Why don't your posts reveal critical thinking but instead only reveal criticism.

If you would be fair and balanced I would have no problems with your criticisms. Hell, I have joined others many times to criticize my nation on many occasions in this forum. It's just that you are not. Plain and simple. You are not.

1. It's not about Americans - they are fooled, too - but don't understand or really care. It's about the administration from 9.11.2001 until now. I don't care who was in office during this time. I give a truck about Dems and Reps.

2. You aren't a decent country anymore. That's no critizism - far more it's a "Wake UP!"-Call. There is no freedom in your and my understanding without a democracy that is MAINLY for "We, the people". This isn't the case since 9/11. It's "We, the Hawks". :boggled:

Texas

23rd June 2007, 05:30 PM

You don't get it, do you? I'm pissed about Iraq and pissed because foreign policies that lead to things like 9/11. No, this didn't happened yet because german foreign policies. Yes, that's what happened because US-foreign policies.

THAT'S my agenda.

Tell me. Do you give the US cold war foreign policies any credit for the fact that you now have a unified Germany? During the cold war many in Europe believed then as it does now that the US was the real "Evil Empire" and that the Soviet Union was misunderstood. West Germany at the time was a hot bed of anti-Americanism and continually protested the US bases there. Now when the US even mentions closing those bases the German government, both right and left, start worrying about economic impacts.

It is easy for the rest of the world to hate US foreign policy simply because the US has the only credible military component to its policy. I would like nothing better than for Europe to say to us that they no longer need our bases there and as a taxpayer I can save some money by not funding them. I know this is the CT sub-forum and this belongs in the Politics forum but I couldn't let your post pass without comment. Whether you or I like it or not, the US is the worlds policeman simply because we are the only country with the means to project the force necessary when needed. It is very easy to snipe from the sidelines but if you want a say in US foreign policy then you need to have a credible alternative.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 05:36 PM

Okay - let me try it this way:

1.) Who started the Iraq war?
2.) Why was it justified?
3.) Who passed information that wasn't true at no point in time around 9/11?
4.) Who gave the impression that 9/11 and Saddam were the same issue?

5a.) Just an "America-hating" hint: It wasn't Germany.

5b.)If it would have been Germany, I wouldn't post in here.I've answered these questions before. I'll answer them again but I doubt that the answers will have any effect. But you can't blame me for trying.

For those who are intellectually honest this is not an easy question to answer. You must go back to Saddam invading Kuwait. America appealed to Saddam to leave Kuwait but he was defiant. America leading a coalition of other nations evicted Saddam. Saddam, through his representatives agreed to a number of concessions including removal of his WMD. For 12 years Saddam obfuscated and played games. America sought for and failed to achieve a resolution from the UN to act even though the UN had promised action. America, with a handful of other nations, fearing Saddam would at some point in the future be a threat to the region 1invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam.
2Justification hinged in large part on WMD. As is typical of so many who forgo critical thinking Bush saw what he wanted to see and accepted any and all evidence that pointed to WMD. This was not the only justification but it was a key.
You will have to give me more, what are you talking about? There was different levels of quality of information. You have the benefit of hindsight. Bush should have known better. The media should have done a better job. Americans should have done a better job.
I think Bush and many in the administration wanted it to be true. Like you they only accepted what they wanted to hear.
(a & b) Entirely irrelevant.Oops, forgot my notes.

1.) This was a mistake.
2.) Clearly a mistake.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 05:44 PM

Tell me. Do you give the US cold war foreign policies any credit for the fact that you now have a unified Germany? During the cold war many in Europe believed then as it does now that the US was the real "Evil Empire" and that the Soviet Union was misunderstood. West Germany at the time was a hot bed of anti-Americanism and continually protested the US bases there. Now when the US even mentions closing those bases the German government, both right and left, start worrying about economic impacts.

It is easy for the rest of the world to hate US foreign policy simply because the US has the only credible military component to its policy. I would like nothing better than for Europe to say to us that they no longer need our bases there and as a taxpayer I can save some money by not funding them. I know this is the CT sub-forum and this belongs in the Politics forum but I couldn't let your post pass without comment. Whether you or I like it or not, the US is the worlds policeman simply because we are the only country with the means to project the force necessary when needed. It is very easy to snipe from the sidelines but if you want a say in US foreign policy then you need to have a credible alternative.

Of course I'm thankful that America ended a period in my countries history that never should have taken place in the first place.

I don't know if the Cold War was necessary the way it happened - but American bases in Germany was some kind of insurance, no question about it. And no - the US wasn't the "Evil" country in the western world during this time - not compared to the Russians.

About the Unification: That was in my opinion a result of the financial collapse of a system that didn't work - far less based on any efforts for a unification like it's portrayed. The "Russians" were happy to get rid of the GDR from financial point of view, weren't they?

I also don't think that people really hate America since Iraq - it's more like: "What the heck happened to the country we trusted in". Especially militarely: Iraq was and is the evidence that Justice isn't a priority in the US anymore. That's a scary thought for all the partners - and a pretty understandable reaction, isn't it?

The credible alternative is to stop playing the military card whenever people are getting lazy of diplomatics. The limit of tolerance is very low in the US - and the current administration pushed it to a new low: "Preemptive Wars."

Think about it: You don't judge someone before he committed a crime. That's not what our western way of life is about. No matter if you consider my or your view - we grew up in similar social, moral and fair&balanced systems.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 05:46 PM

1. It's not about Americans - they are fooled, too - but don't understand or really care. It's about the administration from 9.11.2001 until now. I don't care who was in office during this time. I give a truck about Dems and Reps. I really have no idea what this means. People have marched and protested. It looks like you are poisoning the well. Is that what you are doing? Trying to restrict the discussion?

People organized. People marched. People spoke up. People criticized Bush and congress moved from Republican control to Democrat control. Bush's poll numbers are in the toilet.

2. You aren't a decent country anymore.This, more than anything else illustrates your bigotry. Your hatred towards America.

BS

You haven't a clue. You consume your poisoned propaganda with glee. You have no scientific data. You have no objective basis. You simply read your propaganda and form opinions without any skepticism or objectivity.

You are a Truther. In every sense of the word.

That's no criticism - far more it's a "Wake UP!"-Call. There is no freedom in your and my understanding without a democracy that is MAINLY for "We, the people". This isn't the case since 9/11. It's "We, the Hawks". :boggled:Get over yourself. You are a sad little person who hasn't a clue. I live in America. I can call Bush an idiot. I can speak out. I can vote and people are queuing up to get in to my country so I don't need you with your patronizing bigotry and pathological hatred of America to tell me about America.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 05:55 PM

I've answered these questions before. I'll answer them again but I doubt that the answers will have any effect. But you can't blame me for trying.

1. For those who are intellectually honest this is not an easy question to answer. You must go back to Saddam invading Kuwait. America appealed to Saddam to leave Kuwait but he was defiant. America leading a coalition of other nations evicted Saddam. Saddam, through his representatives agreed to a number of concessions including removal of his WMD. For 12 years Saddam obfuscated and played games. America sought for and failed to achieve a resolution from the UN to act even though the UN had promised action. America, with a handful of other nations, fearing Saddam would at some point in the future be a threat to the region 1invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam.

It is very easy. The intelligence said "No!, no evidence" - the government said: "Then find something, no matter what".

THEY KNEW!!! THAT THERE IS NO WMD THREAT, don't you understand? You still don't get this fact???? 2 inspectors went public and also knew that. YES, the inspectors who were involved in the WMD-Inspections, Hans Blix and another guy I forgot his name.

The nuclear facilities were bombed in the "first" gulf-war. Completely.

During the Kurds-Attacks: The US KNEW - Rumsfeld visited Bagdad and said: "Well, we don't care." After 9/11, Rumsfeld stated the opposite. :boggled::rolleyes::mad:

2.Justification hinged in large part on WMD. As is typical of so many who forgo critical thinking Bush saw what he wanted to see and accepted any and all evidence that pointed to WMD. This was not the only justification but it was a key.

No. Bush was told that there is no evidence. THEN! he chose to see them nevertheless.

3. You will have to give me more, what are you talking about? There was different levels of quality of information. You have the benefit of hindsight. Bush should have known better. The media should have done a better job. Americans should have done a better job.

No. Bush KNEW better. Americans weren't able to do something. It was the governments (non-leading) job and the medias.

4. I think Bush and many in the administration wanted it to be true. Like you they only accepted what they wanted to hear.

Again. BS. They knew and Tenet told them exactly that: "Sorry, there is no WMD threat".

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 05:58 PM

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 06:00 PM

It is very easy. The intelligence said "No!, no evidence" - the government said: "Then find something, no matter what".

THEY KNEW!!! THAT THERE IS NO WMD THREAD. You still don't get this fact???? 2 inspectors went punblic and also knew that. YES, the inspectors who were involved in the WMD-Inspections, Hans Blix and another guy I forgot his name.

The nuclear facilities were bombed in the "first" gulf-war. Completely.

During the Kurds-Attacks: The US KNEW - Rumsfeld visited Bagdad and said: "Well, we don't care." After 9/11, Rumsfeld stated the opposite. :boggled::rolleyes::mad:No. Not true.

No. Bush was told that there is no evidence. THEN! he chose to see them nevertheless.No, he was told conflicting evidence.

No. Bush KNEW better. Americans weren't able to do something. It was the governments (non-leading) job and the medias.No, you only assert that this is so.

Again. BS. They knew and Tenet told them exactly that: "Sorry, there is no WMD threat".No.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 06:01 PM

:) Oh, and Oliver, you are now moving the goal posts.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 06:10 PM

One more thing Oliver, I suspect that you have a nagging little feeling in the back of your mind that you are, to a large degree, wrong about America. Which is why you haven't the cajones to take Hokulele up on her challenge.

A Challenge for Oliver: This is America (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84158)

You don't want to take her challenge because in the back of your mind you know that she just might prove you wrong and that would shatter your precious world view about America. So you would rather rely on limited information from your friends and sources that tell you what you want to hear.

Look, RandFan. I like you and your Avatar - and I have nothing against any usual, American citizens because People are People - Humans are Humans. It'S just as simple as that. We are all Humans and basically we work and act in the same way.

But that doesn't mean that Governments are representatives of their citizens. Sometimes Governments don't care about citizens until they're elected. That's what happened after 9/11. The people wanted to see blood in revenge - the government didn't care, had their own plans and told the public that we're hunting the responsible persons.

All of that was a lie.

That has nothing to do with American Citizens - it wasn't the "averages Joe's" fault that it happened this way.

I will read this thread and also reply - but since I didn't do so, I think that people in all western countries live similar lives. I have no misunderstanding of public live - and no big criticism beside really stupid ideologies like the creationism and religious pushing in general because people can be used this way by stating "We are with God - the others are Evildoers". That's BS. And a dangerous one for any christian who follows these Propaganda-Remarks.

That's why I wasn't interested in this particular thread so far - I think I know the "average Joe" - no matter if in Europe or America.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 06:18 PM

No. Not true.

No, he was told conflicting evidence.

No, you only assert that this is so.

No.

Please start here:

"In an interview with London's Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian) newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media" [8] (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/12/blix.interview.cnna/)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

And to listen and watch his personal words:
fkjSCGjsDqg

Rumsfeld and the Kurds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13558-2003Dec18&notFound=true

Please be fair and review these links for a start - before replying on the fly.

Texas

23rd June 2007, 06:24 PM

Of course I'm thankful that America ended a period in my countries history that never should have taken place in the first place.

I don't know if the Cold War was necessary the way it happened - but American bases in Germany was some kind of insurance, no question about it. And no - the US wasn't the "Evil" country in the western world during this time - not compared to the Russians.

About the Unification: That was in my opinion a result of the financial collapse of a system that didn't work - far less based on any efforts for a unification like it's portrayed. The "Russians" were happy to get rid of the GDR from financial point of view, weren't they?

I also don't think that people really hate America since Iraq - it's more like: "What the heck happened to the country we trusted in". Especially militarely: Iraq was and is the evidence that Justice isn't a priority in the US anymore. That's a scary thought for all the partners - and a pretty understandable reaction, isn't it?

The credible alternative is to stop playing the military card whenever people are getting lazy of diplomatics. The limit of tolerance is very low in the US - and the current administration pushed it to a new low: "Preemptive Wars."

Think about it: You don't judge someone before he committed a crime. That's not what our western way of life is about. No matter if you consider my or your view - we grew up in similar social, moral and fair&balanced systems.
Well being new here I don't want to break any rules about posting in the wrong forum but I will risk it one last time. I don't know how old you are but if you think that the left in Europe were glad that the US was opposing the Soviet Union then you cannot have lived during that time or you are completely misinformed.

As to Iraq, EVERY intelligence service in the entire world was convinced that Saddam had WMD of some type and the desire to expand it. The US was in effect already at war with Iraq but was in a cease fire with Iraq lighting up our planes patrolling the no fly zone. Saddam was pushing to get the sanctions lifted and was close to getting enough support to do so. Had that happened then he would have restarted his WMD programs at his leisure.
Bush spent 3 months after being given congressional support for military action trying to persuade the UN to enforce existing resolutions through tougher sanction enforcement and a united UN stance against the lifting of sanctions. All the while, UN delegates from France, Germany and Russia were working to undermine such efforts. I later became clear that many of them from the Secretary General on down were hip deep in the oil for food scandal.

Even though the Bush administration had only been in place 8 months before 911 it has taken almost all the blame for missing warning signals based on intelligence far less reliable than the decades of worldwide intelligence on Iraq. If Bush had ignored the fact that we had a major Middle Eastern country, with a proven history of invading its neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, a history of known possession of WMD and its use, the Kurds, and a history of giving sanctuary for known terrorists from organisations such as Hamas and the PLO he would have been accused of criminal negligence, at a minimum, had he not taken the action he did.

It was obvious from the start that, given financial ties between Hussein , France, Germany, and Russia that getting UN support for anything beyond ever weakening sanctions on Iraq was impossible. As President it was his duty as well as that of the US Congress to act on the intelligence it had and to take the only route left to ensure that Iraq would no longer have the ability to threaten beyond its borders. Had it been up to me we would have just gone in, killed Hussein and his son, decimated its army left it to the people to form their own government with the warning that we would do it again should they decide to pick up where the former leaders left off. We didn't but it is because the US government, unlike me, still prays that the Middle East will progress from the 8th century mindset that is a dire threat to the 21st century rest of the world. I lived in the Middle East for 10 years so I have some feeling for what drives it and the problems the more moderate leaders face when balancing their desire for a more open society against the dangers to them from the radicals that are increasing at an alarming rate. To say this phenomenon is due to US or Western foreign policy is just silly. The radicalisation of Islam is literally centuries old and needs no external stimuli to feed it.

Texas

23rd June 2007, 06:50 PM

Please start here:

"
Rumsfeld and the Kurds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13558-2003Dec18&notFound=true

Please be fair and review these links for a start - before replying on the fly.
Yes Rumsfeld met with Hussein. So what? You do know that it was Germany that sold Hussein the bulk of his chemical weapon precursors don't you?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html
I will agree that the US along with many European governments played both sides of fence during the Iran/Iraq war so as to keep the balance of power in the region. That was the geopolitical protocol of the times since everything was looked at through the lens of the cold war. Every Western nation's foreign policy during that time was linked to the over all context of cold war realities.
To try to call it hypocritical for the US to "back" Hussein then and overthrow him later without the cold war context is dishonest at best.

Lyte Trip

23rd June 2007, 06:53 PM

See what we have to deal with Oliver.

Sucks doesn't it?

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 07:33 PM

Yes Rumsfeld met with Hussein. So what? You do know that it was Germany that sold Hussein the bulk of his chemical weapon precursors don't you?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html
I will agree that the US along with many European governments played both sides of fence during the Iran/Iraq war so as to keep the balance of power in the region. That was the geopolitical protocol of the times since everything was looked at through the lens of the cold war. Every Western nation's foreign policy during that time was linked to the over all context of cold war realities.
To try to call it hypocritical for the US to "back" Hussein then and overthrow him later without the cold war context is dishonest at best.

Well, first of all - and like or hate it: Germany isn't in Iraq nor started it based on half-truths/lies. And no, Germany also didn't support the war - at no point, even if I know that chemicals were sold from German companies.

Now Rumsfeld: Rummy and therefore the Government at the time knew that Saddam "our friend" Hussein was using chemicals against the Kurds. At this time it was widely accepted. After 9/11 in the warm-up to go to war, he and the President said: "You know what? This evil guy Saddam killed innocent people - unbelievable, isn't it? Let's get rid of such an evil Person!".

Now this statement alone is a double-moral standard - but it's getting even better because even if Rummmy/Bush Sen. knew about Saddams WMD use against the Kurds, the US provided the necessary ingredients to make them (Keep in mind: >After< they knew what they're used for):

"The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."Full source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

Hokulele

23rd June 2007, 07:35 PM

That's why I wasn't interested in this particular thread so far - I think I know the "average Joe" - no matter if in Europe or America.

That wasn't the point of the thread.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 07:39 PM

Please start here:

"In an interview with London's Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian) newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media" [8] (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/12/blix.interview.cnna/)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

And to listen and watch his personal words:
fkjSCGjsDqg

Rumsfeld and the Kurds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13558-2003Dec18&notFound=true

Please be fair and review these links for a start - before replying on the fly.I have reviewed all of this information. I have been debating and discussing this issue here since before the invasion.

Yes, these are opinions and they are opinions of the experts. There was conflicting evidence. Saddam did not comply.

I've conceded that there was no WMD.
I've conceded that Bush had sufficent evidence to come to a conclusion that there was no WMD.That does NOT prove that Bush knew that there was no WMD. You are arguing post hoc.

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 07:53 PM

Look, RandFan. I like you and your Avatar - and I have nothing against any usual, American citizens because People are People - Humans are Humans. It'S just as simple as that. We are all Humans and basically we work and act in the same way.

But that doesn't mean that Governments are representatives of their citizens. Sometimes Governments don't care about citizens until they're elected. That's what happened after 9/11. The people wanted to see blood in revenge - the government didn't care, had their own plans and told the public that we're hunting the responsible persons.Oversimplification. You only see what you want to see.

All of that was a lie.No, it was all part and parcel of the reasons America invaded Iraq. You can't read Bush's mind. You can only speculate like the rest of us. The difference between folks like me who accept that the President made poor choices and didn't use critical thinking and folks like you who only see the most ominous motives is that we are not Truthers.

That has nothing to do with American Citizens - it wasn't the "averages Joe's" fault that it happened this way.As I said before, when you talk about out government you talk about us. However that's not even the point.

I will read this thread and also reply - but since I didn't do so, I think that people in all western countries live similar lives. I have no misunderstanding of public live - and no big criticism beside really stupid ideologies like the creationism and religious pushing in general because people can be used this way by stating "We are with God - the others are Evildoers". That's BS. And a dangerous one for any christian who follows these Propaganda-Remarks.

That's why I wasn't interested in this particular thread so far - I think I know the "average Joe" - no matter if in Europe or America. Yes, America has it's problems and there are many of us who are speaking out and availing ourselves of our rights. That we have problems is NOT a reason to conclude that we are not a decent country. We are.

Oliver, your stance doesn't help anything. Asside from the fact that it is heavy handed and wrong headed it is polemic. It solves nothing, it advances nothing, it's a waste of time and energy.

Critisize but by all means get the facts right. Stop focusing only on propaganda that fits your world view.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 07:55 PM

I have reviewed all of this information. I have been debating and discussing this issue here since before the invasion.

Yes, these are opinions and they are opinions of the experts. There was conflicting evidence. Saddam did not comply.
I've conceded that there was no WMD.
I've conceded that Bush had sufficent evidence to come to a conclusion that there was no WMD.That does NOT prove that Bush knew that there was no WMD. You are arguing post hoc.

Blix, the head of the WMD-Inspectors knew that very well and after he said so, a smear campaign was started against him to discredit him.

Also Ambassador Wilson knew that concerning the African yellow cake. The response to his honest words was the "Plame Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame)" that finally lead to the "Scooter" Libby conviction.

There were other people who knew it, too - including people within the intelligence, but I have to find the sources again. But right now it's 4 o'clock
in the morning and I will try to find them again tomorrow because I'm tired as hell right now.

Texas

23rd June 2007, 08:03 PM

Well, first of all - and like or hate it: Germany isn't in Iraq nor started it based on half-truths/lies. And no, Germany also didn't support the war - at no point, even if I know that chemicals were sold from German companies.

Now Rumsfeld: Rummy and therefore the Government at the time knew that Saddam "our friend" Hussein was using chemicals against the Kurds. At this time it was widely accepted. After 9/11 in the warm-up to go to war, he and the President said: "You know what? This evil guy Saddam killed innocent people - unbelievable, isn't it? Let's get rid of such an evil Person!".

Now this statement alone is a double-moral standard - but it's getting even better because even if Rummmy/Bush Sen. knew about Saddams WMD use against the Kurds, the US provided the necessary ingredients to make them (Keep in mind: >After< they knew what they're used for):

Full source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=trueYou didn't read the link I gave you did you? Germany was far more involved in actual Chem warfare technology transfer than any other country allied with Iraq. Now I know you are what you accuse Americans of i.e. "my country can do no wrong" but I can't change your mind on that.

Yes America, along with the Western World had a VERY amoral geopolitical outlook simply because of the threat of a hot war with the Soviet Union. Despots and dictators got away with a lot of horrible internal human rights violations simply because they were nominally allied with the West against The Soviet Union. There is really no concept of "Moral foreign policy" anyway. Every country, Germany included has, at its core, the amoral concept that its policy be based on its own national interest above any other imperatives.

I will leave this one last thought with you. The Middle East is now on the verge of a nuclear arms race. If Iran is successful with its goal of a "Persian Bomb" the Arab States will immediately feel the pressure to develop their own. oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and possibly Jordan may either independently or with pooled resources begin their own programs. Germany, France and especially Russia will be more than happy to provide their vast nuclear engineering technology to provide the infrastructure just as they were more than happy to provide it to Iraq. The only oil rich nation that may have some trouble is Iraq since we presently there. You as a peace loving citizen of the world should pray or hope for the following: That Iran is somehow persuaded or forced to abandon its plans for a nuclear weapons, that the effort to transform Iraq into a functioning and peaceful country is successful, and to hoe/pray that Islam has its own "reformation" to lift it from its present slide into fanaticism into its loudly declared "Religion of Peace" self-identity. I personally have little hope of any of that ever happening and there will, at some point come actual WAR in that region. By that I mean total war, no holds barred.

You as a citizen of Germany should take the advice you are giving Americans and focus on protesting your government's role past, present and future to transferring dual use technology to countries that use it to develop WMD.

Oliver

23rd June 2007, 08:19 PM

You didn't read the link I gave you did you? Germany was far more involved in actual Chem warfare technology transfer than any other country allied with Iraq. Now I know you are what you accuse Americans of i.e. "my country can do no wrong" but I can't change your mind on that.

Yes America, along with the Western World had a VERY amoral geopolitical outlook simply because of the threat of a hot war with the Soviet Union. Despots and dictators got away with a lot of horrible internal human rights violations simply because they were nominally allied with the West against The Soviet Union. There is really no concept of "Moral foreign policy" anyway. Every country, Germany included has, at its core, the amoral concept that its policy be based on its own national interest above any other imperatives.

I will leave this one last thought with you. The Middle East is now on the verge of a nuclear arms race. If Iran is successful with its goal of a "Persian Bomb" the Arab States will immediately feel the pressure to develop their own. oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and possibly Jordan may either independently or with pooled resources begin their own programs. Germany, France and especially Russia will be more than happy to provide their vast nuclear engineering technology to provide the infrastructure just as they were more than happy to provide it to Iraq. The only oil rich nation that may have some trouble is Iraq since we presently there. You as a peace loving citizen of the world should pray or hope for the following: That Iran is somehow persuaded or forced to abandon its plans for a nuclear weapons, that the effort to transform Iraq into a functioning and peaceful country is successful, and to hoe/pray that Islam has its own "reformation" to lift it from its present slide into fanaticism into its loudly declared "Religion of Peace" self-identity. I personally have little hope of any of that ever happening and there will, at some point come actual WAR in that region. By that I mean total war, no holds barred.

You as a citizen of Germany should take the advice you are giving Americans and focus on protesting your government's role past, present and future to transferring dual use technology to countries that use it to develop WMD.

I will answer your whole post tomorrow but right now I will say this before I go to bed: I have no problem to rant about Germany because I don't know what patriotism is. You understand?

I know the chemicals-connection between German firms and Iraq - I know the scandal and I 'm completely opposed to this involvement back in the eighties - which, by the way, was plugged by the Government after it became public.

Anyway: I'm pissed by the war and everything that lead to the war. Saddam was no threat and that was a known fact back on 9/11.

You may also review the PBS-Documentaries concerning the start-up to the Iraq war - until I find the sources confirming my point again tomorrow - I really need some sleep first (German time - 4:22 am):

The Dark Side:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

Karl Rove - the Architect:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/view/

Rumsfeld's war:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/

gumboot

23rd June 2007, 08:22 PM

Well, I heard the laws name but I didn't know what it was about, thank you for pointing it out, Childlike. But the Question is - did we ever needed it so far? I don't remind any case I would consider to use this law. Well, besides the request why german politicians and politics are that boring. :D

It's somewhat amusing that you consistently harp on about the USA and the naughty laws they're passing, and yet when you're own country passes a law stating that you have NO RIGHT TO INFORMATION you don't even notice.

Maybe you should take more interest in your own country and leave Americans to run their country as they see fit.

-Gumboot

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 08:23 PM

Blix, the head of the WMD-Inspectors knew that very well and after he said so, a smear campaign was started against him to discredit him.This is a spurious claim. Blix couldn't know for certainty anything. After 12 years of obfuscation Blix at best could have a good idea.

This is the kind of thing that takes away your credibility. To continue to demand to facts that are not in evidence.

Also Ambassador Wilson knew that concerning the African yellow cake. The response to his honest words was the "Plame Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame)" that finally lead to the "Scooter" Libby conviction.

There were other people who knew it, too - including people within the intelligence, but I have to find the sources again. But right now it's 4 o'clock

in the morning and I will try to find them again tomorrow because I'm tired as hell right now. One more time. I'm familiar with all of that. I'm really, really not new to this. There was conflicting info. I concede that the intelligence pointed to no WMD. Pointing to and proving for a fact are two different things.

AND THIS IS ALL IRELEVANT TO THE THREAD!

RandFan

23rd June 2007, 08:27 PM

I will answer your whole post tomorrow but right now I will say this before I go to bed: I have no problem to rant about Germany because I don't know what patriotism is. You understand?The ad hominem and false innuendo roll off of your tongue with such prevaricating ease.

I have started threads critical of America and George Bush. Many of the people you debate with regularly do.

Thing is, you seem to never demonstrate objectivity in your criticism.

gumboot

23rd June 2007, 08:39 PM

Now this statement alone is a double-moral standard - but it's getting even better because even if Rummmy/Bush Sen. knew about Saddams WMD use against the Kurds, the US provided the necessary ingredients to make them (Keep in mind: >After< they knew what they're used for):

That's total garbage. The Halabja gas attack used mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX. The United States only ever provided biological samples to Iraq, not precursors to chemical weapons. I wonder who did supply precursors to these chemicals?

As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade.

The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.

Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.

The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.

Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.

India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.

Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.

Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons.

Looks like the USA is one of the few countries that isn't guilty by association for the slaughter of the Kurds. One would think, given their history (and their present, at the time - the Berlin Wall was still up), that Germans would have been a bit more vocally against their country supplying chemical weapons to a murdering psychopath.

-Gumboot

JimBenArm

23rd June 2007, 08:47 PM

Kansas City is nice. There's a member here who lives there (JimBenArm if I remember correctly). My grandparents lived in Prairie Village until recently, and I was born at the KU Med Center (my dad was interning there) back in 1975. If I ever move back to the midwest it will probably be to Kansas City (plus that's where I'd have a better chance getting a job).
Yep, that's me. Guess what? I work for Black & Veatch as well.:D Knew a guy in our department from Pritchard. Unfortunately, he got laid off about 5 years ago.
I work not too far from the Plaza, down Ward Parkway. I don't work at the big building on Lamar, thank goodness!

Texas

23rd June 2007, 08:54 PM

That's total garbage. The Halabja gas attack used mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX. The United States only ever provided biological samples to Iraq, not precursors to chemical weapons. I wonder who did supply precursors to these chemicals?

Looks like the USA is one of the few countries that isn't guilty by association for the slaughter of the Kurds. One would think, given their history (and their present, at the time - the Berlin Wall was still up), that Germans would have been a bit more vocally against their country supplying chemical weapons to a murdering psychopath.

-Gumboot
I also wonder why it is now conventional wisdom that Saddam had "come to Jesus" on WMD. Saddam had 3 months lead time to move or destroy any stockpile he may have had before the invasion. Far from rushing to war with Iraq, Bush spent 3 months just trying to get the UN to grow a spine and actually live up to its charter. Blix would NEVER categorically say one way or the other whether Hussein was in compliance, in fact he stated on 2 occasions that there were stockpiles of Anthrax that had not been accounted for. One report is here: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Corsair 115

23rd June 2007, 09:08 PM

2. You aren't a decent country anymore. That's no critizism - far more it's a "Wake UP!"-Call. There is no freedom in your and my understanding without a democracy that is MAINLY for "We, the people". This isn't the case since 9/11. It's "We, the Hawks". :boggled:Uh, you are aware the U.S. will be going to the polls in 2008 to elect a new president, right? You don't think there'd be at least some differences in foreign and domestic policy between a Republican and a Democrat in the White House? Also, unless you've got some proof the 2008 presidental elections have been suspended and Bush will be staying in office for a third term, your assertions of "no freedom" in the U.S. are pure hyperbole.

Brainache

23rd June 2007, 10:39 PM

See what we have to deal with Oliver.

Sucks doesn't it?

You mean you have to deal with people who don't automatically swallow every bit of speculation you throw around? People who prefer facts and evidence over paranoid rants?

I can see why you would find that annoying.

BTW, I don't think what Oliver is saying is anything like the ridiculous drivel that you push Lyte.

Pardalis

23rd June 2007, 11:12 PM

The Dark Side:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

Karl Rove - the Architect:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/view/

Rumsfeld's war:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/

PBS (http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/) is an American media enterprise, and yet you claim the US media is "controlled", biased and uninformed... :rolleyes:

Elizabeth I

23rd June 2007, 11:15 PM

Again. BS. They knew and Tenet told them exactly that: "Sorry, there is no WMD threat".
Um, excuse me, but wasn't Tenet the "It's a slam-dunk, Mr. President" guy? The one who fell on his sword to save the administration? Which news do you read, Oliver?

And while we're at it, I have asked you before: you seem to think the U.S. should do...something...but you never say what. You just rave (repeatedly) about what a monster America is. See if you can understand this (excuse me for shouting again, but you have that effect): WE DO NOT HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT. We elect someone and we are stuck with him [her] for four years - eight if he [she] gets re-elected. Impeachment and removal from office was purposely made a long and difficult process by the framers of the constitution so that the president would not have to deal with frivolous attempts at impeding his [her] administration by the opposition party. Armed rebellion seems to me to be a bad idea. If the Dems really wanted to shut down the action in Iraq, I think they could, but [as I think I tried to explain to you before] they aren't willing to spend the political capital it would take.

So exactly what, Oliver, would you like to see happen? Or do you just want to complain?

WildCat

24th June 2007, 09:44 AM

That's total garbage. The Halabja gas attack used mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX. The United States only ever provided biological samples to Iraq, not precursors to chemical weapons. I wonder who did supply precursors to these chemicals?

Looks like the USA is one of the few countries that isn't guilty by association for the slaughter of the Kurds. One would think, given their history (and their present, at the time - the Berlin Wall was still up), that Germans would have been a bit more vocally against their country supplying chemical weapons to a murdering psychopath.

-Gumboot
I've pointed this out to Oliver before. It seems Oliver simply doesn't see that which conflicts with the way he wants to see things, facts and evidence be damned.

And the FACT, Oliver, is that Germany and other European countries were far more involved in supplying chemical weapons to Iraq than the US ever was. And it's European countries supplying nuclear technology to Iran right now. Deal with it.

Childlike Empress

24th June 2007, 04:37 PM

Maybe "Chaos" and "Childlike" are able to help me out because german politics is indeed boring as hell. I'm sure both of them will confirm that.Stick your head in the sand and ignore your countries problems. The plight of your citizens is unimportant (boring).

I think RandFan has a point here, Oliver. I don't agree that german politics are boring at all. On the one hand you are complaining about how the americans are brainwashed by their media and the spin fed to it by their government and on the other hand you expect to get the delicate issues of german politics delivered by the "tagesschau"? That doesn't fit and indeed smells a bit like bigotry (even if i think i know that's not the (deliberate) case).

We have alternative media here too, perhaps you should start paying attention. Three suggestions right out of my head:

www.nachdenkseiten.de
www.spiegelfechter.com
www.bundestrojaner.de

And read the book "Der Deutschland-Clan" by Jürgen Roth. It's very topical right now because of the developing organized crime scandal with involvement of high ranking politicians in Sachsen (http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/:Skandal-Sachsen-Staatsanw%E4lte-Sex/591002.html?id=591002l).

Oliver

24th June 2007, 05:53 PM

I think RandFan has a point here, Oliver. I don't agree that german politics are boring at all. On the one hand you are complaining about how the americans are brainwashed by their media and the spin fed to it by their government and on the other hand you expect to get the delicate issues of german politics delivered by the "tagesschau"? That doesn't fit and indeed smells a bit like bigotry (even if i think i know that's not the (deliberate) case).

We have alternative media here too, perhaps you should start paying attention. Three suggestions right out of my head:

www.nachdenkseiten.de (http://www.nachdenkseiten.de)
www.spiegelfechter.com (http://www.spiegelfechter.com)
www.bundestrojaner.de (http://www.bundestrojaner.de)

And read the book "Der Deutschland-Clan" by Jürgen Roth. It's very topical right now because of the developing organized crime scandal with involvement of high ranking politicians in Sachsen (http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/:Skandal-Sachsen-Staatsanw%E4lte-Sex/591002.html?id=591002l).

Yes, german politics bores me and because the wide-spread political parties, they all care more or less about the same issues. There is no such opposition like between the Dems and Reps in the US. They don't even rant about each other to amuse the average masses.

Anyway - I don't see any partial Media-Coverage like in the US. I don't see patriotic coverage like "Evildoers". But I would be glad if someone points them out for me because since I am a citizen in Germany, I may not see them from within.

And just out of curiosity: Do you think that the US-Media is as independent as the German Media - and if so: Why - or why not?

I will review your links - but I don't see the flaws in the current, german Media. But as I asked you for: Give me some examples to rethink my positions.

Calcas

24th June 2007, 05:56 PM

This thread is at the point where it should be moved (or split) to "politics."

Oliver

24th June 2007, 06:00 PM

PBS (http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/) is an American media enterprise, and yet you claim the US media is "controlled", biased and uninformed... :rolleyes:

Yes, Goury - I see the difference from outside.
Anyway - the documentaries came up in the aftermath and weren't aired nation-wide. So no, I don't think every Media is biased - the mainstream was after 9/11 - not critical enough to criticize the Government within this hard time, wrong?

But out of curiosity: What criticism did the candian Media air so far? So far, you refused to address the CBC.

Oliver

24th June 2007, 06:02 PM

This thread is at the point where it should be moved (or split) to "politics."

It already is a split from politics. I have no Idea why Randfan started the split in here.

Undesired Walrus

24th June 2007, 06:05 PM

See what we have to deal with Oliver.

Sucks doesn't it?

Like a moth to a lamp. :rolleyes:

Oliver, when us Brits made the Niger Uranium blunder, do you honestly think we were fibbing? More to the point, do you think the Americans knew as well? Serious question, hope you answer.

As much as I detest the man, John Bolton spoke an element of truth in a Paxman interview about the Niger problem: "That was your British problem".

Oliver

24th June 2007, 06:07 PM

I've pointed this out to Oliver before. It seems Oliver simply doesn't see that which conflicts with the way he wants to see things, facts and evidence be damned.

And the FACT, Oliver, is that Germany and other European countries were far more involved in supplying chemical weapons to Iraq than the US ever was. And it's European countries supplying nuclear technology to Iran right now. Deal with it.

I know about the German firms that shipped ingredients that were used in the Kurds-Attacks. And I don't appreciate that fact. But these holes were plugged and the truth wasn't distorted. In the US it was - that's my point.

But let me repeat it: The Germans didn't invade Iraq or supported the war because lousy evidence - but they shipped ingredients that were part of Saddam's attacks against the Kurds and the German Government CONFIRMED that! (End of story - case closed, isn't it and if, why? There is no cover-up about it)

Oliver

24th June 2007, 06:11 PM

Like a moth to a lamp. :rolleyes:

Oliver, when us Brits made the Niger Uranium blunder, do you honestly think we were fibbing? More to the point, do you think the Americans knew as well? Serious question, hope you answer.

As much as I detest the man, John Bolton spoke an element of truth in a Paxman interview about the Niger problem: "That was your British problem".

Honestly - I didn't investigate the British involvement yet because they didn't start the war based on lousy facts - but here's Wikipedia's entry about the Niger issue:

"The Niger uranium forgeries refers to >>>falsified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgery)<<< classified documents initially revealed by Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sismi).""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery

gumboot

24th June 2007, 06:17 PM

And just out of curiosity: Do you think that the US-Media is as independent as the German Media - and if so: Why - or why not?

I will review your links - but I don't see the flaws in the current, german Media. But as I asked you for: Give me some examples to rethink my positions.

According to the Worldwide Press Freedom Index (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639) Germany ranks at 23rd, while the USA is 53rd.

It has this to say about the United States:

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.

-Gumboot

Undesired Walrus

24th June 2007, 06:19 PM

I care if I feel pissed about something that would affect my freedoms.

So what? Eye scanning? ID cards? Why do people obsess so much about this ridiculous idea of 'freedom-grabbing' governments? In my country, and I presume yours too, I can speak my mind in public, I can watch foreign TV, I can go to the doctors and be cured of my illness, I can walk down the street with a clear set of hopes about the achievements I wish to persue in the future. Achievements that are attainable in a free, live-and-let-live society.

Getting hysterical about having your thumb print on records, or a couple of bored low-level goverment employees getting a giggle out of your email is not only benign, it does a diservice to the millions of oppressed people the world over who have no hopes, no dreams and are forced to live in a mess.

The smoking ban is pissing me off a bit, but I remind myself I could be living in a Burmese village that is burnt to the ground and my children raped as a sanctioned form of torture.

Eye scans? So what?

Oliver

24th June 2007, 06:28 PM

Um, excuse me, but wasn't Tenet the "It's a slam-dunk, Mr. President" guy? The one who fell on his sword to save the administration? Which news do you read, Oliver?

And while we're at it, I have asked you before: you seem to think the U.S. should do...something...but you never say what. You just rave (repeatedly) about what a monster America is. See if you can understand this (excuse me for shouting again, but you have that effect): WE DO NOT HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT. We elect someone and we are stuck with him [her] for four years - eight if he [she] gets re-elected. Impeachment and removal from office was purposely made a long and difficult process by the framers of the constitution so that the president would not have to deal with frivolous attempts at impeding his [her] administration by the opposition party. Armed rebellion seems to me to be a bad idea. If the Dems really wanted to shut down the action in Iraq, I think they could, but [as I think I tried to explain to you before] they aren't willing to spend the political capital it would take.

So exactly what, Oliver, would you like to see happen? Or do you just want to complain?

No, after publishing his Book, Tenet refuses that the "Slam Dunk" was meant the way it was portrayed by the administration:

His full statement about the "Slam Dunk" is this:

Tenet: 'Slam Dunk' Misused (CBS News)
hmH4LolvDrw

I have no solutions concerning errors in the past besides a more diplomatic course concerning foreign policies.

And no - America is no monster. American politics showed that freedom, democracy and justness aren't what I thought they are from official point of view. To me all of this is a lie - while American citizens believe that their government still represents these high values. That's not true from what I saw because the leading parties have to faces:

1. What they tell you.
2. What their real intentions are.

Two different shoes.

Oliver

24th June 2007, 06:35 PM

According to the Worldwide Press Freedom Index (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639) Germany ranks at 23rd, while the USA is 53rd.

It has this to say about the United States:

-Gumboot

I don't believe this index - simply because missing examples.

So what you're saying is that there was no patriotism in the US-Mainstream-Media after 9/11? Which was contrary to the NZ coverage?

Oliver

24th June 2007, 07:17 PM

So what? Eye scanning? ID cards? Why do people obsess so much about this ridiculous idea of 'freedom-grabbing' governments? In my country, and I presume yours too, I can speak my mind in public, I can watch foreign TV, I can go to the doctors and be cured of my illness, I can walk down the street with a clear set of hopes about the achievements I wish to persue in the future. Achievements that are attainable in a free, live-and-let-live society.

Getting hysterical about having your thumb print on records, or a couple of bored low-level goverment employees getting a giggle out of your email is not only benign, it does a diservice to the millions of oppressed people the world over who have no hopes, no dreams and are forced to live in a mess.

The smoking ban is pissing me off a bit, but I remind myself I could be living in a Burmese village that is burnt to the ground and my children raped as a sanctioned form of torture.

Eye scans? So what?

First of all: In my country I can even say *****, ***, **** ***, **** - if I feel this way about someone. That's no profanity if I honestly think this way.

In the US there are these things:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html
"The Washington Post discovered that under authority granted by the U.S. Patriot Act, the FBI has been issuing what are known as “national Security letters” that allow the bureau to spy on U.S. residents."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/
"9/11 has indelibly altered America in ways that people are now starting to earnestly question: not only perpetual orange alerts, barricades and body frisks at the airport, but greater government scrutiny of people's records and electronic surveillance of their communications. The watershed, officials tell FRONTLINE, was the government's shift after 9/11 to a strategy of pre-emption (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/preemption/) at home -- not just prosecuting terrorists for breaking the law, but trying to find and stop them before they strike."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/War_on_Terror/Civil_Rights/page.do?id=1108209&n1=3&n2=821&n3=838
Amnesty International is concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act:
Creates a broad definition of "domestic terrorism" that may have a chilling effect on the U.S. and international rights to free expression and association.
The law defines "domestic terrorism" as acts committed in the United States "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws," if the U.S. government determines that they "appear to be intended" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Such ambiguous language allows for loose interpretation that might violate civil liberties and international human rights.
Allows non-citizens to be detained without charge and held indefinitely once charged.
This is permissible if the U.S. government certifies that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe a person's action threatens national security. This runs counter to U.S. and international rights to due process and could also lead to violations of rights in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which guarantee that governments be notified if their nationals are detained.
Infringes on the right to privacy and removes many types of judicial review over intelligence activities.
The USA PATRIOT Act permits the government to scrutinize peoples' reading habits by monitoring public library and bookstore records, without notifying the suspect. It also allows for "sneak and peak" tactics such as physical search of property and computers, wiretapping and monitoring of email, and access to financial and educational records, without providing notification. These activities contradict the right to be free from arbitrary interference with individuals' privacy, as protected in the U.S. Constitution and the ICCPR.Anyway: I think this will change in 2008/January 2009.

gumboot

24th June 2007, 07:41 PM

I don't believe this index - simply because missing examples.

Did you read it?

The Index covers 168 nations. Others were not included for lack of data about them.

How does the lack of data on other nations invalidate the scores given to nations for which there was sufficient date?

There's widely accepted to be 193 sovereign states that constitute being a "country". So only 25 didn't make the list. Not a bad effort.

So what you're saying is that there was no patriotism in the US-Mainstream-Media after 9/11? Which was contrary to the NZ coverage?

Why on earth would you think I was saying this? I've never made any mention of this whatsoever.

-Gumboot

Oliver

24th June 2007, 08:56 PM

Did you read it?

How does the lack of data on other nations invalidate the scores given to nations for which there was sufficient date?

There's widely accepted to be 193 sovereign states that constitute being a "country". So only 25 didn't make the list. Not a bad effort.

Why on earth would you think I was saying this? I've never made any mention of this whatsoever.

-Gumboot

I've read the explanation on what they've based this index. But nevertheless - I miss examples why germany should have flaws in his media - or biased media. That's not the case since the "Spiegel-Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_scandal)" after which the highest court enabled ground-breaking laws concerning critical coverage against the government as part of a free press that isn't restricted and can't be prosecuted based on coverages concerning political issues.

gumboot

24th June 2007, 09:37 PM

I've read the explanation on what they've based this index. But nevertheless - I miss examples why germany should have flaws in his media - or biased media. That's not the case since the "Spiegel-Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_scandal)" after which the highest court enabled ground-breaking laws concerning critical coverage against the government as part of a free press that isn't restricted and can't be prosecuted based on coverages concerning political issues.

Germany did pretty well, ranking 23rd. The questions were answered by the media in Germany. They would presumably know what they are talking about. Perhaps the problem is you're ignorant of the situation in Germany.

You obviously didn't actually read the site I linked you to. From their regional assessment of Europe:

Germany fell to 23rd place after a series of incidents, including admission by the state intelligence service of its illegal surveillance of the media for more than a decade, prosecution of two journalists of the magazine Cicero for “aiding to betray state secrets”, death threats to a cartoonist on the newspaper Tagesspiegel and problems of access to data since passage of a freedom of information act (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz).

-Gumboot