TheLiberalForums.com Logo.
Click here to view our online shop!
    SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:44 pm
TheLiberalForums.com Forum Index		 View unanswered posts

Liberal of the Month
Barack Obama
Barack Obama

Sponsors

Submitted Articles
What is a Liberal?
How Liberalism evolved?

 Search 


RomeForums.com Logo

HippieForums.com Logo

TheXboxBoys.com Logo

Sedo - Buy and Sell Domain Names and Websites etracker® web controlling instead of log file analysis
Are We Really Looking For Osama?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TheLiberalForums.com Forum Index -> War on Terror
Author Message
TheFrugalPlace
Congressional Page


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 16
Location: Mt. Shasta CA
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:45 am    Post subject: Are We Really Looking For Osama? Reply with quote
Anyone who has ever tried Google Earth has to wonder if in this day and age it is really impossible for the US to find a single person in the Middle East. Geez, I can see our livestock on there... They can't find him??

Anyone have thoughts on if we are really looking? I don't think we ever really have....
Back to top
bangfor1
Mayor's Aide


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 88
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:10 am    Post subject: He could be dead Reply with quote
The truth might be, after all what had taken place in the name of hunting him down, he might have died of typhoid, because there was only one mention of his name on mainstream media after this particular news surfaced.
Back to top
Professor McGardee
Congressional Page


Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 35
Location: In the Classroom
PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Or, another truth just might be that because of the business connections for decades between the bin Ladens and the Bushs, they are not really looking for him. They even destroyed the CIA unit set up to hunt him down.

Face it, it was an inside job and they tried pulled the wool over our eyes.
Back to top
bangfor1
Mayor's Aide


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 88
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:27 am    Post subject: Real connection Reply with quote
The connection is real and it might delay his capture if he is still alive, but it's difficult to say it would set him free.
Back to top
reviewer
Mayor's Aide


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 145
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do you have any actual evidence? I'm sorry, I just don't buy the conspiracy theories. Why would the Bush family support international terrorists?
Back to top
Professor McGardee
Congressional Page


Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 35
Location: In the Classroom
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
reviewer wrote:
Do you have any actual evidence? I'm sorry, I just don't buy the conspiracy theories. Why would the Bush family support international terrorists?


You're not very well read on the world events and the interconnections of activities, are you? This makes you a bigger threat to us than those perpetuating the atrocities.

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

Quote:
On the morning of September 11, 2001, George W. Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, was meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington, on Carlyle Group business. The New York Times reported that they were quickly called together by officials from the Saudi Embassy, which feared that they might become the victims of American reprisals. With approval from the F.B.I., according to a Saudi official, the bin Ladens flew by private jet from Los Angeles to Orlando, then on to Washington, D.C. and finally to Boston. Once the FAA permitted overseas flights, the jet flew to Europe.



http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0141,gray,29113,6.html

Quote:
But now Klayman and Judicial Watch are pawing in disbelief through President George W. Bush's past business connections with the Saudi-based Bin Laden family. The firm is demanding that GWB's father, the original President Bush, immediately resign from his post as a paid senior adviser to the Carlyle Group, a private Washington equity firm that according to The New York Times has essentially become the nation's 11th largest defense contractor.

Carlyle's investors include the Bin Laden family, which has disowned its terrorist son Osama; Bush Sr.; and former Bush inner guard members Nick Carlucci and James Baker. Judicial Watch says all involved stand to benefit from any increase in U.S. defense spending.

"It's mind-boggling," says Klayman. "This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal." With the recent U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan, Klayman says, the conflict of interest is now "direct."

Klayman questions why Bush the Younger is not aggressively pursuing Saudi Arabia, a country known to harbor terrorists. He points to Bush the Elder's business connections there, like the Saudi-based Bin Laden family, through Carlyle. "President Bush should not ask, but demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group," says Klayman.

Neither former president Bush—who has continued advising his son on handling the war on terrorism—nor the Carlyle Group returned calls seeking comment.

In a case of "like father, like son," President Bush also had connections to the Carlyle Group, the Voice has learned. In the years before his 1994 bid for Texas governor, Bush owned stock in and sat on the board of directors of Caterair, a service company that provided airplane food and was also a component of Carlyle. For his consulting position, Bush was paid $15,000 a year, according to a Texas insider, and a bonus $1000 for every meeting he attended—roughly $75,000 in total. Reports show Carlyle was also a major contributor to his electoral fund.

Upon hearing about the Bush-Bin Laden family connection, other Washington nonprofits have joined Judicial Watch in expressing their concern.

"Carlyle is as deeply wired into the current administration as they can possibly be," Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, told Bushwatch.org. "George Bush is getting money from private interests that have business before the government, while his son is president. And, in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that. To me, that's a jaw-dropper."


http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd01312003.html

Quote:
Kissinger's replacement, retired New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, was a "safe pair of hands," we were assured by the professional assurers in the mainstream media. The fact that he'd been out of public life for years--and that he hadn't collaborated in the deaths of tens of thousands of Cambodians, Chileans and East Timorese--certainly made him less controversial than his predecessor, although to be fair, Kissinger's expertise in mass murder surely would have given the panel some unique insights into the terrorist atrocity.

But now it seems that Kean might possess some unique insights of his own. Fortune Magazine reports this week that both Kean and Bush share an unusually well-placed business partner: one Khalid bin Mahfouz -- perhaps better known as "Osama bin Laden's bagman" or even "Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law."

Kean, like so many worthies, followed the revolving door out of public service into lucrative sweetheart deals and well-wadded sinecures on corporate boards. One of these, of course, is an oil company--pretty much a requirement for White House work these days. (Or as the sign says on the Oval Office door: "If your rigs ain't rockin', don't come a-knockin'!") Kean is a director of Amerada Hess, an oil giant married up to Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil in a venture to pump black gold in Azerbaijan. (The partnership is incorporated in a secretive offshore "tax haven," natch. You can't expect a worthy like Kean to pay taxes like some grubby wage slave.)

One of Delta's biggest backers is the aforesaid Mahfouz, a Saudi wheeler-dealer who has bankrolled some of most dubious players on the world scene: Abu Nidal, Manuel Noreiga, Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. Mahfouz was also a front for the bin Laden family, funneling their vast wealth through American cut-outs in a bid to gain power and influence in the United States.

One of those cut-outs was Mahfouz factotum James Bath, a partner in George W.'s early oil venture, Arbusto. Bath has admitted serving as a pass-through for secret Saudi money. Years later, when Bush's maladroit business skills were about to sink another of his companies, Harken Energy, the firm was saved by a $25 million investment from a Swiss bank--a subsidiary of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BBCI), partly owned by the beneficent Mahfouz.

What was BCCI? Only "one of the largest criminal enterprises in history," according to the U.S. Senate. What did BCCI do? "It engaged in pandemic bribery of officials in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas," says journalist Christopher Bryon, who first exposed the operation. "It laundered money on a global scale, intimidated witnesses and law officers, engaged in extortion and blackmail. It supplied the financing for illegal arms trafficking and global terrorism. It financed and facilitated income tax evasion, smuggling and prostitution." Sort of an early version of the Bush Regime, then.

BCCI's bipartisan corruption first permeated the Carter Administration, then came to full flower in the Reagan-Bush years. The CIA uncovered the bank's criminal activities in 1981--no great feat, considering how many of its own foreign "associates" were involved, including the head of Saudi intelligence, Kamal Adham, brother-in-law of King Faisal. But instead of stopping the drug-runners and terrorists, the agency decided to join them, using BCCI's secret channels to finance "black ops" all over the world.

When a few prosecutors finally began targeting BCCI's operations in the late Eighties, President George Herbert Walker Bush boldly moved in with a federal probe directed by Justice Department investigator Robert Mueller. The U.S. Senate later found that the probe had been unaccountably "botched"--witnesses went missing, CIA records got "lost," all sorts of bad luck. Lower-ranking prosecutors told of heavy pressure from on high to "lay off." Most of the big BCCI players went unpunished or, like Mahfouz, got off with wrist-slap fines and sanctions. Mueller, of course, wound up as head of the FBI, appointed to the post in July 2001--by George W. Bush.

In the late 1990s, U.S. authorities identified Mahfouz as a major financier of his brother-in-law's extracurricular activities. He denied it, but the spooked Saudis put him on ice, charging him with, of all things, bank fraud. He's now under "house arrest"--or rather, "palatial mansion arrest"--but still wheeling and dealing with Kean and Delta and other worthies. Indeed, one of Mahfouz's hirelings--the director of a Pakistani bank he owns--sits on the advisory board of our old friend the Carlyle Group, cheek by jowl with the firm's most celebrated shill: George Herbert Walker Bush.



See....if you aren't part of putting the peices of the puzzle together, you're part of the problem of and reason for terrorism in this world.
Back to top
reviewer
Mayor's Aide


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 145
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
*I* am ignorant, but you're using Wikipedia as a source? Your other two sources are also extremely one-sided.

Yes, the ties to the Bin Laden family - who are extremely wealthy and influential - are well known. What is also known is the Bin Laden family has distanced itself from Osama and there are no known ties, financial or otherwise, tying the Bush family to terrorism.

So, I ask again - what is your evidence?
Back to top
Professor McGardee
Congressional Page


Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 35
Location: In the Classroom
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
reviewer wrote:
*I* am ignorant, but you're using Wikipedia as a source? Your other two sources are also extremely one-sided.

Yes, the ties to the Bin Laden family - who are extremely wealthy and influential - are well known. What is also known is the Bin Laden family has distanced itself from Osama and there are no known ties, financial or otherwise, tying the Bush family to terrorism.

So, I ask again - what is your evidence?


I presented it. And it's founded. Couple it with the fact that by March 2002, Bush was saying he was not searching for bin Laden anymore because he didn't consider him a threat at about the time he was making a case to go into Iraq because of AlQaeda, and you have further from the horse's mouth proof he would not pursue the son of one of daddy's rich financial backers. Also, the CIA unit incharge of finding bin Laden was disband this year. Further evidence Bush has no intention of pursuing him.

Given the fact Osama declared war on us, seems odd that a president hasn't pursued him....unless, of course, he owes the family a "favor". Wink
Back to top
julian4239
Mayor


Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 211
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Professor McGardee wrote:
reviewer wrote:
*I* am ignorant, but you're using Wikipedia as a source? Your other two sources are also extremely one-sided.

Yes, the ties to the Bin Laden family - who are extremely wealthy and influential - are well known. What is also known is the Bin Laden family has distanced itself from Osama and there are no known ties, financial or otherwise, tying the Bush family to terrorism.

So, I ask again - what is your evidence?


I presented it. And it's founded. Couple it with the fact that by March 2002, Bush was saying he was not searching for bin Laden anymore because he didn't consider him a threat at about the time he was making a case to go into Iraq because of AlQaeda, and you have further from the horse's mouth proof he would not pursue the son of one of daddy's rich financial backers. Also, the CIA unit incharge of finding bin Laden was disband this year. Further evidence Bush has no intention of pursuing him.

Given the fact Osama declared war on us, seems odd that a president hasn't pursued him....unless, of course, he owes the family a "favor". Wink


So, by that logic, Bill Clinton should also be in this vast right wing conspiracy . He has rich friends. He received millions of dollars from the Saudi Royal Family. He stop an opportunity to kill Bin Laden. Yeah, Clinton is a bad person like George.

What a beautful thing: Guilt by Association.

Michael Moore is Master Mind. Conspiracy theorists unite! Very Happy
Back to top
reviewer
Mayor's Aide


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 145
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Professor McGardee wrote:
I presented it. And it's founded.

Exactly as stated above - guilt by association.

Therefore: if a business acquaintance of yours has a family member that murders someone, you support murder. Right?

Quote:
Couple it with the fact that by March 2002, Bush was saying he was not searching for bin Laden anymore because he didn't consider him a threat at about the time he was making a case to go into Iraq because of AlQaeda


That's not under debate. I don't agree with this action but it does not prove your case. If the police stop looking for a suspect, that does not make them support the suspect.

Again - Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence!
Back to top
deportliberals
Congressman


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Professor McGardee wrote:
reviewer wrote:
*I* am ignorant, but you're using Wikipedia as a source? Your other two sources are also extremely one-sided.

Yes, the ties to the Bin Laden family - who are extremely wealthy and influential - are well known. What is also known is the Bin Laden family has distanced itself from Osama and there are no known ties, financial or otherwise, tying the Bush family to terrorism.

So, I ask again - what is your evidence?


I presented it. And it's founded. Couple it with the fact that by March 2002, Bush was saying he was not searching for bin Laden anymore because he didn't consider him a threat at about the time he was making a case to go into Iraq because of AlQaeda, and you have further from the horse's mouth proof he would not pursue the son of one of daddy's rich financial backers. Also, the CIA unit incharge of finding bin Laden was disband this year. Further evidence Bush has no intention of pursuing him.

Given the fact Osama declared war on us, seems odd that a president hasn't pursued him....unless, of course, he owes the family a "favor". Wink


The war on islamic terror does not spin around Osama and to argue as though it does is just plain disingenuos. After 9-11, Bush sent the 10th Mountain division(10,000 combat troops) into Afghanistan to kill/capture Osama et al. By this time, we had already dispatched the Taliban and killed more than 50% of the al qeada leadership and cadre.

It is no secret to our intel that Osama resides somewhere on the Pakistan side of the Khyber Pass. Every time al qeada crosses over to the Afghanistan side, we kill the hell out of them. The only reason Osama still lives is because Pakistan will not allow our troops to get anywhere near the East side of the Khyber Pass...that's NOT George Bush's fault.

Let's stop this crap about Bush not pursuing Osama or else explain to us why Bush committed one of the most hardened divisions(10th) to that theater for the express purpose of killing al qeada. The only president I know who let Osama live after he openly had killed americans was Bill Clinton...two bombings of the Towers in 1990s, hundreds bombed to death at our African embassy and 26 U.S. sailors(USS Cole) killed by Osama.
Back to top
phil
Mayor


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 174
Location: Seattle
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Deport,

You are RIGHT again.

P Very Happy
Back to top
rockstar
Congressional Page


Joined: 02 Jun 2007
Posts: 10
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
if osama were dead it wouldn't make a difference or not because he obviosly isn't just hanging around in a city somewhere and going and buying fruit everyday. if he is alive he is in hiding and will probably be the rest of his life. whether we find one man and kill him or not i don't really thinks it makes a huge difference
Back to top
goldeneye
Congressional Page


Joined: 02 Jun 2007
Posts: 10
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Maybe Osama is already dead, maybe Bush plans to do something with arabian lands, maybe Osama hides underground Wink
Back to top
Anonymous Mind
Mayor's Aide


Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 56
Location: US
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Killing a leader always does something. If we killed common foot soldiers, than no, but kill Osama would not only discourage them ,it would thow them of balance and cause uproar. When Abe, JFK, and the other presidents that were assasinated there was an unbalance, except not a severe one beacuse of the way this gov is made, not one single branch of power can do aything witout the approval of atleast another one.

And i doubt that Bush is allaied with Osama, America likes to do Biuisness whenever it can, but there isn't much buisness to be done with Al Quade.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TheLiberalForums.com Forum Index -> War on Terror All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Sponsors
Political News
RSS to JavaScript


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group