Bush isn't 100% at fault and I'm not saying he is.
But he knew. Just like FDR knew. Just like LBJ knew the CIA was about to put a hit on Kennedy.
Just like Clinton knew ATF agents were called the morning of April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City before the bombing...
I mean, there are public documents proving Bush was briefed.
I mean, if the Federal Emergency Management Agency can claim on National television to Dan Rather that they were in place BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks, then um, how could Bush and all the other administration officials NOT know?
If you look at the (now public record) USA Patriot Act, you will know that our 4th, 6th and 19th Amendment rights have been taken away.
4th Amendment: The FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF ...authorities can barge into your home without a warrant; you don't even have to be suspected of being a terrorist.
Of course, authorities can do any damn thing they want. This is the government - the government of force. They've been searching people's property (which isn't private) without warrants for God knows how long.
6th Amendment: Jose Padilla ring a bell? The U.S. citizen who was arrested, thrown in jail, labeled an "enemy combatant," then three months later, FBI officials said "he's not a suspect."
Yet he's still in some prison somewhere - no lawyer, no phone call, no rights, no way out.
10th Amendment: This gem deals strictly with states' rights and people's rights. The federal government FORCES states to abide by FEDERAL law; not one state official has the guts to stand up to the federal government's dictation of orders. It could be about terrorism or Homeland Security or any of the above. States have to abide by the federal law - they have no rights.
The U.S. government wants you to BELIEVE that you're safe; YOU give the government just a few of your rights and they will "PROTECT" you. Sadly gemini, you are like many Americans who are being misled about "feeling" secure.
Less rights, "more" security.
"He who would exchange essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
What happened to talking directly about bin Laden and Bush?
I was trying to state -overall- that Bush DOESN'T have ESP, and he had no knowledge of 9/11. But you are talking about post-9/11 instances involving the government.
Here's a simple question: I'll shut up if you can just explain to me WHY exactly Bush is 100% guilty for the knowledge of 9/11. Don't say "because his family did this and this" which isn't relevant to now.
I apologize for sounding harsh, but I just want to get to the point. Now, I don't know everything about Bush/Sept. 11th, and I'm completely aware of that. I just want to know why certain persons are placing the blame, where I think, it doesn't belong.
what mr. dauben is saying is that he is tired of the government using the WTC attacks as a carte blanche for gulf of tonkin-like resolutions that oftentimes blindly enhance the ability of the government to dictate what terms we as citizens may lead our lives.
the 4th and 6th amendments are supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure as well as against unlawful government dictated arrests and charges. look at the hundreds, if not thousands, of federally requested interviews of arabic-related residents following the WTC attacks. and then look at how the federal government attempted to dissuade the use of lawyers or any legal counsel for those people. also look at the proposed TIPS programs - i would abhor living in a police-state where your neighbors can label you as guilty and you have to prove yourself innocent. way too much 1984 for me.
the 10th amendment is supposed to maintain a sense of checks and balances. bush suggested the use of executive orders when the white house "leaked" that military action would not necessarily require the consent of congress. my interpretation of this action is that 1) the white house wanted to see how the american public would react, and 2) show congress that they had better fall in line with a government branch commanding a 75% approval rating. the result: a stupid congressional resolution that gives the executive branch unnecessary latitude in dealing with military affairs. hence, the gulf of tonkin reference above. if you don't know about this, you may want to read up on your vietnam war history.
suffice it to say, the federal government is notably more powerful and invasive today than 2 years ago. this may be something that you want, which is your right. but at least recognize that we are methodically handing over large amounts of power to extremely focused areas of government that have had a history of questionable involvements and motives.
Alrighty.. I feel like I keep having to reiterate my point over and over again because it's geting lost in the jumble of words on this board.
First off Joey, you're getting off of the subject, and I'm losing your point in the main focus because you keep on branching out into different areas instead of concentrating one -one- topic at a time.
Secondly, I AGREE with a lot of what you posted. You're coming from an angle where you must think I disagree with -everything- you say,which isn't true.
"I have no problem with American oil companies dealing with other countries on oil projects. I do have a problem with the federal government using the loss of 3,000 American lives as an excuse to go after all that oil money."
Now tell me, Joey, and be specific. How EXACTLY did the American government use the attacks on 9/11 to obtain oil? It's not like the big, bad US government suddenly realized, "Hey, 9/11 wasn't so bad if we can milk some money outta these a$$holes!"
"I do have a problem with the federal government using the loss of 3,000 American lives as an excuse to strip away our 4th, 6th, and 10th Amendment rights."
Hmm, lets see if that makes sense.
The fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now who's privacy has been violated? For one, we go through searches at airports because for OUR safety. More security (cameras, for instance) is provided in cowded public areas for OUR safety. I mean, damn. I'd rather have a tiny bit of my privacy (which isn't private since you're in public anyway) violated then be attacked by some crazed, radical terrorist. Maybe you don't care about you or your family being protected at least a -little- bit more against these lunatics, but -I- do because I've personally seen the fear and chaos caused when something bad happens, and there's no security, help, etc. to help you RIGHT THEN when you need it. It simply makes us more prepared.
The sixth Amendment states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I'm almost afraid to ask how YOU think this right has been violated. If you're reffering to the court trials for the alleged terrorists, they should be pretty damn happy with what they've gotten. Take Zacarias Moussaoui for example. He supposedly aided bin Laden, and he had so many opportunities to prove himself innocent in court, but he just criticized the US government on making things up, and how they simply accused him because of his race. Now we've unlocked these underlying US terror cells, and they say the same thing. But to be FAIR and to carry out the judicial system the intended way, all of these morons get trials. It's a waste of time, energy, money, etc. Either way, America is paying the ultimate price for the mere existance of these terrorists. They commit an act, our people (and sometimes others) pay for it. Our loss there. They go on trial. American tax payers have to pay for the court appointed lawyers in order for them to receive a fair trial, even though they're guilty as anything. Our loss there. Then we either send them to prison to "live" the remainder of their lives, or they're executed. Guess who's money pays for this? Not Bush's; the American tax payers. Our loss there. So don't complain how our sixth Admendment has been stripped away, when it's just being more strongly inforced, even though it doesn't benefit the individual American.
The tenth Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The people still hold the power here, but the US government -being in a time of economic turmoil- has a lot of power. It's not hurting the economy (as far as I'm concerned) with the decisions that they make. We live in a republic/democrasy, and the PEOPLE vote for representative who share common ideas, and those representatives have a say on what direction the US heads in ecomonomically, politically, etc. It's not like we can say to the body of US citizens, "Well... we -think- he was involved in 9/11, but we aren't sure. We can take more of your money to find out, even though we have tangible evidence proving his involvement." Do you think the majority of the people would say to go ahead and have a trial, or kill the son of a b@Stard right then and there? Plus, with most of these terrorist being of Middle eastern decent, a lot of Americans discriminate against them, associating their ethnicity to terrorism itself. We aren't in a state right now where we -should- have a say in everything, and it's better having people (who are trained to deal with these situations) make those decisions for us. Be rational.
"If you ask me, I think it's highly questionable that we're 'going after bin Laden' (not anymore since Iraq hit the fan) when our own president deals with his family."
The hunt for bin Laden is dying down, because it questionable as to whether or not he is still living. Our own president is trying to basically fight two wars at one, which is ridiculous. Actually, you -could- say three, because the US feels a need to intervene in everyone's affairs. 1)the war with Afghanistan "terrorism" 2)the upcomming war with Iraq (with all this crap with Saddam, you never know what he's going to do since he'll claim to be helping, and then turn around and murder his own people) 3)the war with Israel and Palestine (it's technically not a war -yet-, but the US -is- intervening, and it won't be long until suicide bombers come to Atanta, NYC, Dallas, Chicago, LA, etc. to harm mass amounts of people)
So yes, Joey. There are some screwed up aspects of all of this, but I don't blame Bush for the crap that has happened with his family however many years ago. I understand that you're a journalist, but I don't think your opinions should be so restricted. As for the oil, I don't see any problem. We needed oil, we found a cheap way to get it, and now hell is being raised about it. I just don't see a motivation of the US collaborating with the Taliban in ANY of this. It's ridiculous.
"We came. We saw. We conquered."
Well, we're still working on the conquering part at the moment, but we'll get there.
Gemini, of course going through Central Asia is much cheaper and benefits both sides, economy-wise and politically.
It's no surprise that **** Cheney's Halliburton (huge oil services company) dealt directly with Central Asian heads of state to secure much of the oil reserves. The two major energy companies associated with the deals are none other than Enron and Unocal.
Vice President Cheney, working for the Halliburton energy company, states: "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight."
And speaking of Unocal...
It was the Taliban who MET with Unocal execs in Houston in 1997. (Bush was Gov. of Texas at the time)
John Maresca even testified before Congress stating his company's plans for building an oil pipeline in the Central Asian region.
It's no surprise that Condoleeza Rice is a former Chevron executive, having dealt with Central Asian heads of state to secure much of the oil reserves. (New Yorker Magazine)
Even U.N. officials meet with the Taliban (Boston Globe)
Is it of any note that nearly 50 of Bush's new cabinent members once worked (directly or indirectly) for Enron?
But why are we in Afghanistan? Why are American troops being fired upon daily?
Because the Taliban didn't want to negotiate? Because the Taliban harbors al-Qaeda terrorists?
There's an underlying issue at hand and it's only three letters long.
And no, it's not war, but it's the reason we're at war.
I have no problem with American oil companies dealing with other countries on oil projects.
I do have a problem with the federal government using the loss of 3,000 American lives as an excuse to go after all that oil money.
I do have a problem with the federal government using the loss of 3,000 American lives as an excuse to strip away our 4th, 6th, and 10th Amendment rights.
I do have a problem with the federal government, i.e., Bush, stopping an important investigation into a bin Laden family member's terrorist ties (Abdullah, not Osama) to protect vital oil and business interests.
If you ask me, I think it's highly questionable that we're "going after bin Laden" (not anymore since Iraq hit the fan) when our own president deals with his family.
"Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the need to deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a pipeline through Russia would cost. So financially and politically, there's a big prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Pakistan coast would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and more cheaply."
We saved money, that was the purpose. Not to collaborate with terrorism (the Taliban).
Dante :: yes, their list needs to be updated. They could also add economic sanctions against Canada. Immediately after Canada announced they were beginning to grow medicinal grade marijuana for medical purposes, the American government slapped penalites on lumber imports from Canada and stepped up the pressure to steal other valuable Canadian resources: energy and water.
It's all connected. Water, energy, oil, heroin. War is an economic business decision.
Bush signed document W-199 Eye, forcing FBI agents to back off of Abdullah bin Laden two months (July) before Sept. 11.
O'Neill was complaining about Bush's oil politics hampering the investigation into al-Qaeda terrorists (including ABL and his "charity") and threatened to "tell all" about the whole deal.
And it just so happens that O'Neill resigned because of the blatant red tape, and took a job as head of security at a security firm in one of the WTC towers; his first day on the job was none other than Sept. 11, 2001.
(Note: Greg Palast writes for the Guardian (as well as the BBC), considered the most influential newspaper in the world)
Joey, I simply stated that Bush had no prior knowledge to the upcoming events on September 11th, and I still believe that.
Your quote: “John O'Neill, the FBI agent who was tracking Abdullah bin Laden (not Osama, but Abdullah) and his terrorist organization said it was Bush's OIL politics that caused the FBI to miss their targets.”
Is there any tangible evidence proving that O’Neill is correct? If this is what he claimed to be true, wouldn’t it therefore be opinionated without present evidence? Maybe the FBI missed their targets because of their own negligence. Do you actually think they would take the responsibility for something like that? I personally believe that the majority of US governmental sects (e.g. the CIA, FBI, etc.) push the blame on other groups and/or things when they’ve goofed up simply because they’re all hypocrites. (And yes, it’s hypocritical and stereotypical of me to make this generalization, but it’s my personal opinion.)
Article excerpt: “US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.”
Hmm, their hands were tied? Who would have thought? The United States gets thousands upon thousands of terror threats a week. How could they possibly be able to decipher which threats are real from the ones fabricated to alarm the public?
Another quote from you: “So when Bush said all that stuff about harboring terrorists and funding terrorists surely couldn't have meant him too could it?”
Actually, I believe that he wasn’t referring to himself invertantly or directly, rather he was talking about the countries with leaders who support these terror cells harbor/are currently harboring terrorists. Bush did not -knowingly- aide these criminals. What would have been his motivation? September 11th has slowed down the economy, killed many people, and has put that fear into people that usually never goes away. I don’t see how it benefited him or his administration in a positive way.
You keep on mentioning the ties between the terrorists and the Bush family/administration. Like I said before, Bush is a completely different person than his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. So WHY would things that his family did however many years ago matter to what HE does? I agree that some of the decisions that were made in the past by his relatives were plain crap, and I know that those decisions affect the US now to a certain extent, but pushing the blame on Pres. Bush is not very intelligent. Again, this is MY opinion. Another one of your quotes: “Bush is also a member of Skull & Bones - you know what the initiation is? This is from former S/B members: "Satanic rituals requiring laying in a coffin, with Nazi symbols around the coffin while discussing some of your secret sexual fantasies."
Please tell me that you didn’t get this from another “independent” source, because it’s such BS. It actually makes me laugh, which is good, leading the cynical life that I do ) And
Bush is way too old to actually participate in these Satanic rituals, hehe. Oh yes, and these is that minor detail that he is a Christian. I’m sure you know what a Christian is in contrast to a Satanist. Well, I -hope so- anyway. Anyway, I -know- that members of his family (like Prescott Bush) were involved in the S/B society, and I’m aware of what initiation is, rituals, etc.
Your quote: “Oh, and one more important thing we haven't touched much on is the Carlyle Group. It's a defense contractor that Bush/bin Laden family members are making money from. Papa Shrub is becoming filthy rich from his son's defense spending bill ($300 billion).”
I agree with you, for the most part, about the Carlyle group. But I don’t agree that it’s intended for the Bush/bin Laden family members to profit from it and bask in the millions that they may or may not collect.
So here’s my main point: Bush -has- made some faults, but he is not ultimately responsible for any terrorist attacks against the United States. I think that it’s easy for people to push the blame off on his because he runs the country, but he -doesn’t- make all of the decisions by himself. He has very little power without Congress, his administration, etc. Anyway, I think the whole point of this message board was if I would or wouldn’t forgive bin Laden, and I’ve already posted my answer. But I wouldn’t forgive him because he WAS directly involved and he IS a radical religious criminal. I’m not one who wants to see him beaten to death or anything extreme like HE would most likely do, but I feel that he should face the US Court System. Meh, those are my opinions -again-. Read for yourself though, since I’m sure most everyone has differing opinions on the subject. Here are a few more links you may want to check out. They’re not necessarily what I believe, but you all can try and decipher what the truth is, anyway.
So gemini, you're saying Bush couldn't have known about the Sept. 11 attacks, even though he was BRIEFED days before and even though he BANNED pilots' guns two months before the attacks?
Still, Bush didn't know?
John O'Neill, the FBI agent who was tracking Abdullah bin Laden (not Osama, but Abdullah) and his terrorist organization said it was Bush's OIL politics that caused the FBI to miss their targets.
Yes, our cars need fuel, need oil.
So when Bush said all that stuff about harboring terrorists and funding terrorists surely couldn't have meant him too could it?
Why are CIA, FBI, NSA agents and hell, members of his own damn administration doing interviews saying "Yeah, we gave him reports of what they were talking about doing."
Bush didn't know?
Prescott Bush dealt with the Nazi's. He was also a member of Skull & Bones, a Satanic secret fraternity at Yale...yes, Satanic.
H.W. Bush gave chemical, biological strains to Saddam; also had some very interesting drug involvement with Clinton in Mena, Arkansas. He's also a member of the Trilateral Commission (look that up, it should be interesting).
Our current president started an oil company with a bin Laden, yet he stopped a very important investigation into not Osama, but Abdullah.
Bush is also a member of Skull & Bones - you know what the initiation is? This is from former S/B members: "Satanic rituals requiring laying in a coffin, with Nazi symbols around the coffin while discussing some of your secret sexual fantasies."
Bush stopped an investigation into his family's business associates. Bush started a business with Osama's brother Salem.
Bush signed the Patriot Act, shredding many Consitutional rights.
Yet he did not know of Sept. 11?
Oh, and one more important thing we haven't touched much on is the Carlyle Group.
It's a defense contractor that Bush/bin Laden family members are making money from.
Papa Shrub is becoming filthy rich from his son's defense spending bill ($300 billion).
Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890, American forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe 100 times.
The United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries' territory 216 times since independence from Britain.
Since 1945 the United States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world.
Since World War II, the United States actually dropped bombs on 23 countries. These include: China 1945-46 Korea 1950-53 China 1950-53 Guatemala 1954 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959-60 Guatemala 1960 Congo 1964 Peru 1965 Laos 1964-73 Vietnam 1961-73 Cambodia 1969-70 Guatemala 1967-69 Grenada 1983 Lebanon 1984 Libya 1986 El Salvador 1980s Nicaragua 1980s Panama 1989 Iraq 1991-1999 Sudan 1998 Afghanistan 1998 and Yugoslavia 1999.
Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20 different coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen assassinations of political heads of state.
From outside perspectives, the American government is the biggest bully on the global playground. *That* is why America is 'under attack.' Someone's always going to come around and try to knock the bully down.
You think Bin Laden is communists? I would like proof that the Taliban was a communists institution. There is a difference between a dictator and a communists government.
I would like to say that you're one of the biggest hypocrites here, Joey. -I'm- full of crap? I have documents to back up everything I've said; so if you don't appreciate what -I- have to say, you shouldn't respond with such volatile comments. If I wanted to state exactly what I thought about -most- of what you posted, I would mention the extreme amounts of BS in your point, but I'm not going to immaturely backslash against you, I will simply reinforce my point -again-.
I didn’t bring up the issue of the CIA “wanting” bin Laden, despite them training him because it was not my main focus. I was pointing something else out at the time, but I’m glad you brought it up. The CIA didn’t -knowingly- train bin Laden with the knowledge of 9/11 or other terrorist events that he was going to be involved in. If that’s what you think, then I’m repentant to say that -you’re- the unbelievably naïve one.
And yes, you are correct. Bush did stop an investigation prior to 9/11, but YOU are implying that he –knew- that there was going to be an attack on the US. That’s 100% crap. Oh yah, and that “official” document you gave a link to doesn’t exactly support what you were saying. Like I said: crap.
The bin Ladens are a -very- rich, powerful, and influential family. The US was business partners with them because of their standing with oil, which we -need-. Hello? For those of you who drive the regular gas-powered vehicle, you know we need their oil since supplies are diminishing, so why does being business partners with the family matter? We’re not enemies with the family, just Osama bin Laden; HE’S the one who was directly involved in the attacks, not his father, whom Bush ultimately established the company with. You’d know that if you weren’t so involved with your “independent” (and bias) journalism.
Again, since I allegedly “failed” to point out that the bin Laden family builds most of our military bases for the US, I’d like to restate what I just wrote. We’re not enemies with the family as a whole, just Osama’s “sect,” per say. His sons may be some of his followers. We are enemies with -them-. Do you actually think Osama pays for anything pro-US to be built? Obviously not. In 1998, he proclaimed holy war on the US. Now you tell me, since you’re so educated in this matter, do you believe that bin Laden would support a country he so terribly hates? My point exactly.
Again, many of the things you touched base on have nothing to do with what -I- was referring to. The Taliban was not all trained by the CIA. I don’t know what kind of “independent” sources you get this information from, but bin Laden established these terrorist-run training camps, not the CIA. Where do -you- think the fault lies? You propose that the CIA intentionally aided these terror cells. What would have been their motivation? I know you’re fairly intelligent, so please, take the liberty to answer that for me, seeing how I’m so incredibly ignorant of the subject at hand.
You quoted: "As a newspaper reporter myself (I write for an independent paper I might add; not a corporate-owned paper), I can tell you personally that information you DON'T add is ALSO called misinformation."
So because it was not directly related to what I was ultimately saying, it is therefore considered "misinformation?" Hah, that's more BS.
Another quote from you: "And yes, you're right. bin Laden is a terrorist, is an evil man... But you leave out very important information. You base your facts on the mainstream New York Times/Washington Post/CBS, ABC, NBC press articles/broadcasts."
There's something I agree AND disagree with. Bin Laden -is- evil (hence my relation to him with Hitler). But I do not get my facts from ABC, CNN, NY Times, NBC, broadcasts, etc. Actually, I don't gather/present information from anything US based, because it's most likely bias. I do research things, and make conclusions based on that.
I respect your opinion, like I said before, but I do disagree with a lot of your information. I may not work for a "independent" newspaper, but I'm not completely ignorant.
When I implied that something was "negative propaganda," I was trying to stress the fact that -all- propaganda is BAD. Easy enough to understand, Mr. Non-liberal?
You asked: "How old are you anyway? I'm just curious? You obviously don't know much about bin Laden, his family's links to the Bush family, or that the Taliban was bombed because they wouldn't agree to an oil pipeline deal."
Actually, I am old enough to see what the deal is, and I can infer the truth for myself, no matter how damn naive you believe me to be. I AM aware of bin Laden/Bush links, but I didn't mention -everything- in my post that I knew of them. What purpose would that have served?
Here's another one of your intelligent quotes: "And by no means am I a perfect newspaper reporter, but I have learned to report BOTH sides of the story, giving each side a fair shot"
How have you given both sides a fair shot? Re- read what you've posted. You obviously have ONE outlook on things, and you HAVE been harsh. Those aren't good qualities for journalists to have; I know THAT much, at least. Oh yah, you answer too many of your rhetorical questions as if I answered.
"I'm sure if you pull up a search on the Trading with the Enemy Act, you'll find out that our current president's GRANDFATHER (Prescott), Ford Motor Company, General Electric and some big bankers SUPPLIED money and arms before, during and even AFTER World War II to the Nazis/Hitler. Oh, you don't believe me? Go to your local library and see if they have government records. Pull up the Trading With The Enemy Act then go see how it was brought about."
Actually, I -did- agree/believe you. But I don't see why you compare Bush's grandfather (who "helped" the nazis) with Bush. Pres. Bush is a COMPLETELY different person than his grandfather. He was a child when his granfather made these decisions, but let me guess, it's your "independent" journalism that compells you to blame Bush for this too? Smart, heh.
"Yeah, you don't know crap gemini."
I suppose if your definition of "crap" is MY personal beliefs (which I am entitled to have) and what I know to be true. Just because you disagree with me, does not necessarily mean that I am wrong. Now, I am not implying that I'm right about everything I've said, but it IS how I feel. I -do- have sources to back me up. I don't pull this information out of the damned air.
if bin Laden was successful, then why did the Taliban support him?
Remember, the Taliban didn't allow women to vote, go to school, didn't allow people to watch movies, worship another way other than extreme Islam, etc.
If I'm not mistaken, the Taliban was strictly communist/dictatorish.
the CIA is a major group of traitors. Does anyone ever realize that we (U.S. taxpayers, government) train our future enemies?
Bin Laden was trainned at a different time for a different reason. He was trainned to fight off the spread of communists and was succesful.
The person we trainned to fight of communism is not the same person who orchestrated 9-11. He is two different people in the same body. He is a traitor in the highest sense of international affairs.
"First off, there IS actually knowledge/proven fact that bin Laden was involved in September 11th."
Yes, there is substantial evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9-1-1, the U.S.S. Cole, etc.
However, you FAIL to mention anything about the CIA's "asset" being TRAINED, FUNDED and even PROTECTED by the same organization who "wants him."
You fail to mention that George W. Bush STOPPED an investigation into a bin Laden brother (Abdullah) two months PRIOR to 9-1-1. This my friends, is an official government document titled W-199 eye.
You fail to mention that the Bush family and the bin Laden family (minus the "black sheep" Osama) are BUSINESS partners. This, my friends, is also public record. Our current president started an oil and energy company with Salem bin Laden in the 70s.
"2)He and his associates were already being sought by the US on charges of international terrorism, including in connection with the 1998 bombing of American embassies in Africa and last year's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. So it isn't as if the US just up and accused him of 9/11 because it was convenient for our government to do so."
This is true; there are bona-fide, brave, good-hearted CIA, FBI agents trying to hunt bin Laden ddown and charge him with acts of terrorism. But you fail to mention that agents were complaining of Bush-bin Laden oil politics hampering investigations.
You also fail to mention that the bin Laden family builds many of our military bases in the Middle East.
I'm sure you can stumble upon public documents as to what company does exactly what (airfields, etc.), but you can bet your barrel of oil that the bin Laden name is a major part of the bases.
"3)bin Laden, an immensely wealthy and private man, has been granted a safe haven by Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement, and during his time in hiding, he called for a holy -war- against the US, and also for the killing of Americans and Jews."
You fail to mention that it was OUR CIA who funded and trained the Taliban via Pakistan's ISI (their version of the CIA).
"He's called a holy war against many people, but mainly Americans, yes."
You also fail to mention that U.S. government officials, oil executives and members of the Osama-supporting Taliban met in HOUSTON in 1997 to discuss plans to build an oil pipeline.
"He is reported to be able to rally 3,000 fighters (Taliban soldiers) around him."
You fail to mention that those fighters were TRAINED and FUNDED by our CIA and the U.S. government.
"So again, -nothing- was fabricated by the American government."
You are one naive person if you actually meant that. You are nothing more than a blind sheep. Pearl Harbor was a "surprise" attack. JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and the "magic bullet." Vietnam was a real war and not a business venture to get the LBJ Administration rich. This country
Topics 
) And 
