Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Originally Posted by Namaste

A kind and loving dialogue will be the only way it will be solved with a genuine agenda of helping others

We are not dealing with people who think like that. If you want to understand just how irrational the terrorist mind (specifically Al Qaeda) is, read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter to America.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

I invite you to also read my other posts in this thread so you can understand another perspective on what the war is about.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are not dealing with people who think like that. If you want to understand just how irrational the terrorist mind (specifically Al Qaeda) is, read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter to America.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

I invite you to also read my other posts in this thread so you can understand another perspective on what the war is about.

A fairly wrong one. Why havent you ever answered or looked into the Sibel Edmonds case? She and at least a dozen other FBI agents and intelligence whistlblowers claim that the highest ranks in the FBI are aiding the terrorists through all sorts of criminal activity, including money laundering.

Youtube: FBI whistleblowers get silenced.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

A fairly wrong one. Why havent you ever answered or looked into the Sibel Edmonds case? She and at least a dozen other FBI agents and intelligence whistlblowers claim that the highest ranks in the FBI are aiding the terrorists through all sorts of criminal activity, including money laundering.

Youtube: FBI whistleblowers get silenced.

I talked about that in one of my former dead horse conversations with Mystic in one of the 9/11 threads. How does the claim about corruption with a few individuals in a domestic investigation agency prove that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with anti-terrorism strategy? How does it prove that the Hussein regime was not a threat and did not violate our ceasefire on terrorism grounds for 12 years? How does it prove the irrelevance of democracy?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I talked about that in one of my former dead horse conversations with Mystic in one of the 9/11 threads. How does the claim about corruption with a few individuals in a domestic investigation agency prove that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with anti-terrorism strategy? How does it prove that the Hussein regime was not a threat and did not violate our ceasefire on terrorism grounds for 12 years? How does it prove the irrelevance of democracy?

missing the point. the FBI agents who were corrupt occupied very high offices, and are still being protected by the highest offices by executive order only.

if Sibel Edmonds is correct, agents within the FBI, protected by the highest authorities, aided the 9/11 hijackers.

Riggs Bank, ran by none other than Bush's uncle, was also found guilty of money laundering to two of the 9/11 hijackers. further investigation of the corruption of this terrorist-supporting bank has of course been blocked by president bush by executive order

see shadows in a cave

Lol there is no way terrorism will be solved with blowing up terrorists and Bin Laden and making martyrs out of them. Killing others just breeds more hatred and more terrorism, like it or not. Lets get realistic about this!

If we killed half of Bin Laden's network it would just make him and his followers more determined to persue their agenda to avenge the loss of their friends.

Everyone deep down has love at their core and is looking for peace. I imagine bin laden is too looking for peace in his own convoluted way, even though he does have a deeply troubled mind.

Careful not to get indoctrinated by our governments into thinking that murdering and killing people is the way forward. The more terrorists we kill the more we ourselves become just like the terrorists! Dialogue and compromise and working together will be the only way forward.

Check out the example of northern ireland Universal Look whats been accomplished with talks and dialogue and some compromise on both sides even when the hatred amongst the sides was deeply ingrained. Ian Paisley talking and laughing with Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguiness was unthinkable a few years ago but they put their grievances aside for the best for all even though people like Paisley was in great pain from the loss of family members killed by the other side. I now admire him for being the bigger person as he must have forgiven them now at least to a degree.

Understand that everyone is a person who is worthwhile and worthy of love even though they may have a different point of view. Is Bush or Blair any more sane than Osama, are they any less Killers, they certainly have ordered the deaths of a hell of a lot more people than Osama ever has managed!

I doubt I would persuade you on my point of view but with a lot more love, understanding and forgiveness in the world there would be a lot more progress towards peace

I doubt a real substainable argument could be put together to suggest that Bush and Blair were any more moral than Bin Laden. How many people did Bush order to the electric chair in his time as governer of Texas and how many people have died in Iraq including solidiers (note: they are people too with loved ones as well) its an obscene and disgusting number of deaths attributed to the orders of insanely powerful leaders. Bush and Blair are disgusting examples of humankind.

Is it any more moral to kill for oil and money than for an extremist religious view?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

missing the point. the FBI agents who were corrupt occupied very high offices, and are still being protected by the highest offices by executive order only.

if Sibel Edmonds is correct, agents within the FBI, protected by the highest authorities, aided the 9/11 hijackers.

Riggs Bank, ran by none other than Bush's uncle, was also found guilty of money laundering to two of the 9/11 hijackers. further investigation of the corruption of this terrorist-supporting bank has of course been blocked by president bush by executive order

see shadows in a cave

Why do you want to resurrect our 9/11 debate in a thread about why terrorism exists? You do admit that there are foreign terrorists out there who seek and plot to kill innocent Americans, don't you? I was telling Namaste about the rationale for the war in Iraq, and this thread is about why terrorism exists. This is not another 9/11 alien conspiracy thread about what the queers are doing to the soil.

Originally Posted by Namaste

Lol there is no way terrorism will be solved with blowing up terrorists and Bin Laden and making martyrs out of them. Killing others just breeds more hatred and more terrorism, like it or not. Lets get realistic about this!

Our strategy is way more complex than that. Taking down the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan was not about just "blowing up terrorists". It was about taking away a great deal of high level terrorist backing. Governments are far more powerful than any other organizations or gangs. Taking out terrorist governments is extremely good strategy. I think our doing that has a lot to do with why there have been no more domestic terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11/01. Also, part of the goal is to kill as many as we can who have even the potential you are talking about. Lots and lots of other things are involved in the strategy. It is not all about creating a terrorist (and potential terrorist) vacuum, but I think that is an effective part of the strategy.

Originally Posted by Namaste

Everyone deep down has love at their core and is looking for peace. I imagine bin laden is too looking for peace in his own convoluted way, even though he does have a deeply troubled mind.

I am a million light years from agreeing with you on that. Bin Laden is all about his own power, not a search for some perverted form of peace. He just uses that kind of talk as a means for recruitment.

I have learned several unfortunate things about life. There is no Santa Claus, there is no God, most marriages end up sucking, and there are far too many people out there who have no good in them at all. We evolved from wild animals, and the wild animal is still in a huge chunk of humanity. Too many people in this world put power above EVERYTHING else, and they would walk all over you if you showed them love.

Originally Posted by Namaste

I doubt a real substainable argument could be put together to suggest that Bush and Blair were any more moral than Bin Laden. How many people did Bush order to the electric chair in his time as governer of Texas and how many people have died in Iraq including solidiers (note: they are people too with loved ones as well) its an obscene and disgusting number of deaths attributed to the orders of insanely powerful leaders. Bush and Blair are disgusting examples of humankind.

How many of those killings involved Bush and Blair's targetting of the innocent for religious fanatical purposes? War sucks, but sometimes it is necessary because not fighting would lead to far greater tragedy. However, Islamofascist terrorism is irrational and unjustififed.

Originally Posted by Namaste

Is it any more moral to kill for oil and money than for an extremist religious view?

Did you read what I wrote about the rationale for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Even if you claim there is an oil conpiracy, which you cannot prove, you cannot deny that there is a level of legitimacy to the reasons I gave for the need for the wars.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

missing the point. the FBI agents who were corrupt occupied very high offices, and are still being protected by the highest offices by executive order only.

if Sibel Edmonds is correct, agents within the FBI, protected by the highest authorities, aided the 9/11 hijackers.

Riggs Bank, ran by none other than Bush's uncle, was also found guilty of money laundering to two of the 9/11 hijackers. further investigation of the corruption of this terrorist-supporting bank has of course been blocked by president bush by executive order

see shadows in a cave

the point is that most terrorism is staged. False flag events are being used and have been used for a long time. This is a fact.

That the terrorists who attacked the U.S. couldnt have done it without support withing the U.S. govt is a fact.

That neither you nor any intelligence agency could prove that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, or that Iraq was either, is also fact.

so lets see, your argument seems to be:

1. There are SOME terrorists willing to commit random suicide attacks, and even though they have never been established in Iraq, we should stay and spend billions of U.S. dollars on a war in Iraq.

genious. what astounding reasoning. did i miss something?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

the point is that most terrorism is staged. False flag events are being used and have been used for a long time. This is a fact.

That the terrorists who attacked the U.S. couldnt have done it without support withing the U.S. govt is a fact.

That neither you nor any intelligence agency could prove that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, or that Iraq was either, is also fact.

You know by now that I think your position on that is insane. Explain to me a plausible story of a government inside 9/11 job and then explain how that would prove that "most" of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe of recent years have been "false flag" operations, and we will have something new to talk about.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

1. There are SOME terrorists willing to commit random suicide attacks, and even though they have never been established in Iraq, we should stay and spend billions of U.S. dollars on a war in Iraq.

genious. what astounding reasoning. did i miss something?

Did you miss something? Yes. The falsehood of your point. The Hussein regime suppported terrorist organizations, was a terrorist organization itself, and used WMD's in a terrorist attack. They also violated our ceasefire for 12 years and were reported by six governments to have stockpiles of WMD's. Plus, terrorists from all over the world are being sucked into our vacuum in Iraq and getting killed. You must have missed that.

Do I need to repeat any of that again?

From Universal Mind
The Hussein regime suppported terrorist organizations, was a terrorist organization itself, and used WMD's in a terrorist attack. They also violated our ceasefire for 12 years and were reported by six governments to have stockpiles of WMD's. Plus, terrorists from all over the world are being sucked into our vacuum in Iraq and getting killed.

Applying the label of 'terrorist organization' to the Hussein regime for its transgressions demands applying it to regimes who are guilty of similar transgressions, which has not been done. Not applying the label equally creates understandable doubt that terrorism is what is being fought.

Several governments did support the assertions of the US, others did not. We can't, however, ignore our intelligence failures because other nations committed the same errors, especially when there were significant economic and political interests involved to distort intelligence. Those who are responsible for those failures should be held accountable.

The vast majority of terrorism in Iraq is Iraqis fighting Iraqis. Call them what you will, but they are certainly not a global terror network like Al Qaeda. From the perspective of that terrorist organization, the vacuum in Iraq does accomplish what you have stated, drawing a foreign enemy into death like a moth to a flame. Killing Iraqi terrorists is our aim in Iraq, but sapping the strength of the US is the aim of Al Qaeda. Only in the optimistic projection of a distant democracy is Al Qaeda thwarted, but its goals are currently being met with disturbing regularity, while the only effort necessary is to loudly denounce the US from afar.

If we refuse to see past the vanquished Hussein regime, we may find ourselves blinded to our present quandary. Saddam was evil, certainly, but so is Al Qaeda, as is the Saudi regime, the North Korean regime, and the Iranian regime. Pakistan may soon join them, with nuclear weapons in tow. If we do not adapt to our current quandary, those other evils will continue to strengthen and threaten not only our country but the nation we are trying to build.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

. Plus, terrorists from all over the world are being sucked into our vacuum in Iraq and getting killed. You must have missed that.

I still can't believe that you believe that. Like they don't have an unlimited supply to draw on. Terrorists from all over the world, flocking to Iraq, where all the American-killing action is...yea, right.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CSHQn63pal0&feature=related

here is why terrorism exists... it's all a hoax!

problem reaction solution

order out of chaos

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Applying the label of 'terrorist organization' to the Hussein regime for its transgressions demands applying it to regimes who are guilty of similar transgressions, which has not been done. Not applying the label equally creates understandable doubt that terrorism is what is being fought.

It should be applied to all of them.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Several governments did support the assertions of the US, others did not. We can't, however, ignore our intelligence failures because other nations committed the same errors, especially when there were significant economic and political interests involved to distort intelligence. Those who are responsible for those failures should be held accountable.

It was not about simply joining a band wagon. The U.S., five other governments, and the U.N. did their own intelligence gathering and all came to the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The vast majority of terrorism in Iraq is Iraqis fighting Iraqis. Call them what you will, but they are certainly not a global terror network like Al Qaeda. From the perspective of that terrorist organization, the vacuum in Iraq does accomplish what you have stated, drawing a foreign enemy into death like a moth to a flame. Killing Iraqi terrorists is our aim in Iraq, but sapping the strength of the US is the aim of Al Qaeda. Only in the optimistic projection of a distant democracy is Al Qaeda thwarted, but its goals are currently being met with disturbing regularity, while the only effort necessary is to loudly denounce the US from afar.

Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are being sucked into the vacuum. A lot of the other fighting is what happens when an oppressed nation suddenly starts adapting to democracy. Our country is still running relatively just fine even though we are engaged in war.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

If we refuse to see past the vanquished Hussein regime, we may find ourselves blinded to our present quandary. Saddam was evil, certainly, but so is Al Qaeda, as is the Saudi regime, the North Korean regime, and the Iranian regime. Pakistan may soon join them, with nuclear weapons in tow. If we do not adapt to our current quandary, those other evils will continue to strengthen and threaten not only our country but the nation we are trying to build.

The Iraq list of factors was longer than the lists for those other countries. I think some of the ones you named might be getting vistited by us in upcoming years.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I still can't believe that you believe that. Like they don't have an unlimited supply to draw on. Terrorists from all over the world, flocking to Iraq, where all the American-killing action is...yea, right.

They are not coming from all over the Islamofascist world? Uh, yeah they are.

There are not an infinite number of people in the world. The stream of idiots willing to go to Iraq and get themselves killed so they can bang virgins cannot keep coming forever.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They are not coming from all over the Islamofascist world? Uh, yeah they are.

There are not an infinite number of people in the world. The stream of idiots willing to go to Iraq and get themselves killed so they can bang virgins cannot keep coming forever.

So, we've got to keep this vaccuum sucking them up indefinitely? Or at some point will they be all cleaned up and we can quit?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There are not an infinite number of people in the world. The stream of idiots willing to go to Iraq and get themselves killed so they can bang virgins cannot keep coming forever.

Unfortunately, that's just not true.

...at all. I'd figure you to know better than that, by now, UM.

The "stream of idiots" that you are talking about spans more than a single generation. It is an ideology that we are fighting, not a generation. As long as the teachings of radical Islam can be passed from father/mother to son/daughter, then, yes, that finite stream that you are talking about is, definitely, indefinite.

That has been my main argument against this "military policy toward Islamic extremists", since the beginning. Our military (and obviously many Americans) looks at this as if we are fighting an established military - as if there is an accounted-for number of troops and, once we get them all out of the way, it will be all over.

That's not the reality of this situation.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

So, we've got to keep this vaccuum sucking them up indefinitely? Or at some point will they be all cleaned up and we can quit?

They will be down to much lower level, and we will cease to fight because all of the other goals of the war will have been met. Remember, the war is not about any one thing.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Unfortunately, that's just not true.

...at all. I'd figure you to know better than that, by now, UM.

The "stream of idiots" that you are talking about spans more than a single generation. It is an ideology that we are fighting, not a generation. As long as the teachings of radical Islam can be passed from father/mother to son/daughter, then, yes, that finite stream that you are talking about is, definitely, indefinite.

That has been my main argument against this "military policy toward Islamic extremists", since the beginning. Our military (and obviously many Americans) looks at this as if we are fighting an established military - as if there is an accounted-for number of troops and, once we get them all out of the way, it will be all over.

That's not the reality of this situation.

When the mainstream of the remaining generation is in elementary school, we will have accomplished our ultimate goal in our part of the fight. The idea is that Iraq and Afghanistan will be strong democracies by then, and their socioeconomic situations and influences on the surrounding areas will have taken care of a great deal of the problems that breed terrorism. Hopefully, the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan in the future will move in and clean up the surrounding countries that are still garbage so we don't have to. That is how we fight the ideology and the stream of idiots that subscribe to it. So it just is true... at all. I figured you would know that by now.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So it just is true... at all. I figured you would know that by now.

Ugh. I dunno why I would have expected any more than the "No, You shut up!" response from you.

Anyway. Right. Like racism in America has been "completely stamped out, because the generations have evolved?" You act as though ideologies don't transcend geographical boundaries; as if there aren't radical Islamist cells in many different parts of the world; as if the fight would end after a victory in Iraq. I was going off of your final statement, which I still don't see to be true. I think you give their passion too little credit, in that it couldn't possibly endure passed even a mainstream paradigm shift (assuming such a thing would even happen). The only point that I was arguing was your point that that stream of individuals willing to lay down everything for that cause was finite. I believe that is no more plausible than saying that Christianity could be wiped out by some foreign entity coming in and trying abolish Christianity by military force.

Do you honestly think that Islamic extremism will just stop? That, eventually, these people will either die out (since, to use your words "
There are not an infinite number of people in the world. The stream of idiots willing to go to Iraq and get themselves killed so they can bang virgins cannot keep coming forever"), or they will just decide that they're religion doesn't mean enough to them to keep fighting, and give up? That, even when the mainstream of the next generation is in kindergarten, they will not continue to recruit on a level sufficient enough to keep their revolution alive? That the entire radical Islamist movement is making their way, even now, to Iraq to fight, erasing themselves from the rest of the world? Sorry, despite your rhetoric, I see no evidence that this is true.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ugh. I dunno why I would have expected any more than the "No, You shut up!" response from you.

Oh, you must have read my entire post. That short quote was all I said, and you even paraphrased it correctly. Now let's try to have this discussion without insulting each other personally or even talking about each other at all, moderator.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Anyway. Right. Like racism in America has been "completely stamped out, because the generations have evolved?" You act as though ideologies don't transcend geographical boundaries; as if there aren't radical Islamist cells in many different parts of the world; as if the fight would end after a victory in Iraq. I was going off of your final statement, which I still don't see to be true. I think you give their passion too little credit, in that it couldn't possibly endure passed even a mainstream paradigm shift (assuming such a thing would even happen). The only point that I was arguing was your point that that stream of individuals willing to lay down everything for that cause was finite. I believe that is no more plausible than saying that Christianity could be wiped out by some foreign entity coming in and trying abolish Christianity by military force.

I didn't say it could be completely stamped out. Read again. I said it could be taken down to a much lower level, just like racism in America has been taken down to a level where it does not require that the National Guard escort black people to their college classes, black people are required to sit in the backs of buses, interracial couples are guaranteed to be violently attacked if they hold hands in public, and there are separate bathrooms for blacks. I also said that the idea is that Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually be at a point where they can handle the remaining and much smaller levels themselves. That sort of thing can happen when you are dealing with a finite supply of terrorists and a diminishing terrorist breeding social climate.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, you must have read my entire post. That short quote was all I said, and you even paraphrased it correctly. Now let's try to have this discussion without insulting each other personally or even talking about each other at all, moderator.

Jesus. So personal. Sorry you felt my post to be such an attack on you, UM. The reason I paraphrased what I did was because I felt that little mockery of what I said was really childish, and unwarranted.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't say it could be completely stamped out. Read again. I said it could be taken down to a much lower level, just like racism in America has been taken down to a level where it does not require that the National Guard escort black people to their college classes, black people are required to sit in the backs of buses, interracial couples are guaranteed to be violently attacked if they hold hands in public, and there are separate bathrooms for blacks. I also said that the idea is that Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually be at a point where they can handle the remaining and much smaller levels themselves. That sort of thing can happen when you are dealing with a finite supply of terrorists and a diminishing terrorist breeding social climate.

The major difference is the hatred that these Islamic extremists employ is much deeper than that of the white supremists of the old days. How many suicide murders do you know of that took place in the KKK? How many terrorists are left? How many terrorists are left around the globe? How fast are the Iraqi's stepping up to take control of their region? How well are they doing on their benchmarks? These are all rhetorical questions, of course. If you'd like to answer them, go ahead. But, honestly, I regret getting re-involved because I doubt this conversation will take us anywhere but to where I, personally, would not like to go, judging by the above.

I do wonder, though, how you can look at the number of terrorists as finite, when a great many of the terrorists we shall face, in the future, most likely haven't even been born yet. Aside from that particular point, just forget I even said anything.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Jesus. So personal. Sorry you felt my post to be such an attack on you, UM. The reason I paraphrased what I did was because I felt that little mockery of what I said was really childish, and unwarranted.

Direct insults concerning my level of knowledge tend to stir up at least a little bit of my sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The major difference is the hatred that these Islamic extremists employ is much deeper than that of the white supremists of the old days. How many suicide murders do you know of that took place in the KKK? How many terrorists are left? How many terrorists are left around the globe? How fast are the Iraqi's stepping up to take control of their region? How well are they doing on their benchmarks? These are all rhetorical questions, of course. If you'd like to answer them, go ahead. But, honestly, I regret getting re-involved because I doubt this conversation will take us anywhere but to where I, personally, would not like to go, judging by the above.

I do wonder, though, how you can look at the number of terrorists as finite, when a great many of the terrorists we shall face, in the future, most likely haven't even been born yet. Aside from that particular point, just forget I even said anything.

No need to get upset. I just tried to steer you toward talking about the issues and not what bothers you about me personally. The latter will only bring out my sarcasm. The peace offering still stands.

The terrorists are far more hateful than the KKK (which shows just how incredibly serious of a situation we are dealing with), but that has a lot to do with the fact that so much of the Middle East now is a much worse Hell hole than Mississippi and Alabama were in the 20th century. The idea is to move toward making the Middle East not such a Hell hole by setting in motion democracies in the direction of being centers of prosperity and education that can become strong enough to reshape the rest of the Middle East. Through that process, the terrorism breeding climate clears up a great deal. In the mean time, we suck terrorist minded nut cases into our vacuum so there will be far fewer than otherwise. How much progress have we made already? The surge seems to have done a lot of good. We recently had a week of no U.S. casualties, and there are many places in Iraq that are far safer than before and where the citizens have done a lot to turn against the terrorists. It looks like good progress at this point. But it will be probably another generation before we start really seeing the kind of progress I am talking about.

Originally Posted by ranma187

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CSHQn63pal0&feature=related

here is why terrorism exists... it's all a hoax!

Russo was a great intellect who will be sorely missed.

For more proof of the current American govt's direct ties to terrorists check out the Complete Saudi Primer




"AFTER 9/11 - WHITE HOUSE ASSAILED FOR GIVING PASS TO SAUDIS: In the year following the 9/11 attacks, Fox News reported lawmakers investigating the Sept. 11 attacks believe the Administration "has not aggressively pursued the possibility that the Saudi government provided money to students who helped two of the hijackers." Congressional committees also "accused the Saudi government of not fully cooperating with American investigators" but faced a strong defense from the White House. Bush Communications Director Dan Bartlett "disputed congressional critics" saying "As anyone who knows this issue will tell you, it's very difficult to track financing of terrorist networks because most of it is done in cash."


AFTER 9/11 - CLASSIFYING INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE: In 2003, more and more evidence began to appear tying the Saudi royal family to the attacks. For instance, Newsweek reported that thousands of dollars in charitable gifts from Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, "ended up in the hands of two of the September 11 hijackers." Yet, as congressional committees prepared to release a bipartisan report on the 9/11 attacks, the Bush Administration swiftly moved to classify a section of the report which dealt with the Saudi ties to the attack. According to CBS News, that section "examined interactions between Saudi businessmen and the royal family that may have intentionally or unwittingly aided al Qaeda or the suicide hijackers." Not surprisingly, months after 9/11 Vice President Cheney went on Fox News to announce the Administration's full opposition to an independent 9/11 commission.


AFTER 9/11 - STILL PRAISING THE SAUDIS WHILE THEY REFUSE TO COOPERATE: President Bush has simultaneously repeated a mantra that "if you aid a terrorist, if you hide terrorists, you're just as guilty as the terrorists" while also going "out of his way to compliment the Saudis." While the President says the Saudis are an "important friend" to the United States, the royal family "refuses to permit United States investigators to interrogate one of bin Laden's key financial aides-Sidi Tayyib" a man who "probably knows as much as anyone else about bin Laden's intricate financial empire." Meanwhile, officials at the Treasury and Justice departments have privately expressed deep frustration over the failure of the Saudi government to impose stricter controls over their Islamic charities and turn over crucial evidence about the murky flow of money to Al Qaeda.
The decision last week by federal regulators to fine Riggs Bank $25 million for a "willful, systemic" violation of anti-money-laundering laws is raising new questions about whether the Bush administration's ties to powerful moneyed interests is unduly influencing U.S. foreign and national security policy. Riggs Bank is headed by longtime Bush family friend Joe Allbritton, employs President Bush's uncle Jonathan as a top executive, and other executives have been financial donors to the Bush campaign. The bank is at the center of a controversy, according to the Wall Street Journal, for failing to monitor "tens of millions of dollars in cash withdrawals from accounts related to the Saudi Arabian and Equatorial Guinean embassy," including "suspicious incidents involving dozens of sequentially numbered cashier's checks and international drafts written by Saudi officials, including Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan." Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) "said members of the bank's board of directors should be held to account for failing to exercise their watchdog role over Riggs's operations" and said refusal to follow money laundering laws "allows terrorists to funnel their blood money through the system."


CONNECTION – JONATHAN BUSH AND RIGGS: Jonathan Bush, President Bush's uncle, was appointed CEO of Riggs Bank's investment arm in May of 2000, just months after his nephew secured the nomination for the presidency. At the time of the appointment, Jonathan Bush had already become a major financial backer of his nephew, rising to "Bush Pioneer" status by raising more than $100,000 for his nephew in 2000. The move solidified the relationship between Jonathan Bush and Riggs, which was originally initiated in 1997 when, according to American Banker newsletter, Riggs paid Bush $5.5 million for his smaller investment firm. That transaction, according to the NYT, "deepened [Riggs's] links to the Bushes." While Riggs denies any connection between Bush and the accounts being investigated in the money laundering probe, Riggs President Timothy Lex told the Washington Times in 1997 that "there's a blurring of distinctions between banks, mutual-fund families, broker dealers and everything else across the board."


CONNECTION - ALLBRITTON-BUSH LINK: Allbritton, who said during the federal probe that he was stepping down from Riggs's board, also was close to the Bush family. As the NYT reported, he (along with Riggs client Saudi Prince Bandar) was a financial backer of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, with National Journal noting he contributed between $100,000 - $250,000 to the project. And there also appears to be a personal bond with the current President Bush: As the 2/15/01 WP noted, "When President Bush climbed out of his limousine on Inauguration Day at the corner of 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, he spotted Allbritton, waved and said, 'Hey Joe, how are you doing?'" That might have something to do with the fact that, according to the 11/7/2000 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Allbritton-owned TV station KATV in Little Rock broke 39 years of precedent and publicly endorsed Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The station, which is the biggest in the state, proceeded to air its endorsement 10 times throughout Arkansas, and refused to give equal time to Democrats "who asked for the time to present an alternative to the station's endorsement."


ACTION – LOOSENING BANKING REGS THAT COULD AFFECT RIGGS: According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon's "Age of Sacred Terror," upon taking office the Bush administration tried to halt efforts to tighten international banking laws – some of which may have affected Riggs. As he notes, the new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush administration opposed Clinton administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center."


ACTION - HIDING INFORMATION THAT COULD BE DAMAGING TO RIGGS: Newsweek reported that checks to "two Saudi students in the United States who provided assistance to two of the September 11 hijackers" may have come "from an account at Washington's Riggs Bank in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan." This, and other details, were reportedly part of the bipartisan House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the Saudi money flow after 9/11. Yet, instead of allowing the committee's final report to be published in full, "Bush administration officials, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, have adamantly refused to declassify the evidence" surrounding the transactions."

You know reading through this thread (and im aiming this at universal mind here) its no surprise that alot of the world hates America.

Meh continue with your double standards if you like and having read the utter ignorance of your posts im sure you will, but put your self in their shoes those people you hate so much are just you but acting for the other side.

Question.... if roles were reversed and it was your country invaded for a natural resource would you not pick up a gun and fight off the invaders?

See the problem with people like you, you will argue and fight against oppression without ever realizing that all your doing is forcing your opinion on them and in doing so you inflict that same oppression you hate so much

You talk about their culture having issues (which like all cultures it does) as if yours does not, need I remind you of the New Orleans disaster and the way people were treated by your government or the fact the it was the original bush who funded osama bin ladden in the first place.

All im saying here mate is open your eyes there are rights and wrongs on both sides. The way to solve this issue is understanding not war.

The perspective argument is a good one, and easily dismissed by faulty logic.

The counterargument is as follows: The perspective of those we are fighting is irrelevant in the short term. They hate us now, but someday they will love us for providing them with our form of government. Those who fight our occupation either can't see how much better their lives are now or they are simply madmen with a thirst for innocent blood.

Assumptions: Conditions have improved overall, the war effort can be sustained indefinitely, Democracy will inevitably lead to prosperity, and those who oppose the war either supported Saddam's regime or they are mentally handicapped.

Notice that several of the assumptions made cannot proven true or false. They are taken on faith and nothing more. History, like a religious text, is selectively interpreted to conform to an idea. That is what makes this debate so difficult.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Notice that several of the assumptions made cannot proven true or false. They are taken on faith and nothing more. History, like a religious text, is selectively interpreted to conform to an idea. That is what makes this debate so difficult.

That is also assuming that the people in power really have the faith in those assumptions, and not another agenda entirely, and haven't just spun it so the gullible will believe them. Added to the possibility that the assumptions are false, which is highly likely, is the possible deception behind them, actually making them irrelevant.