Salem Bin Laden and George W. Bush

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
NM

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by AceOfBase]




posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
Don't beleive it because it was reported as having been mentioned in an interview! Do the interviewing yourself.

I won't waste my time interviewing these Bin Laden flunkies for the very reason stated by "Da Truth" (right on man, and thanks for the support) ...they aren't likely to tell you the truth for the fear for their own lives.


Waste your time?

Do you know anything about the Corporate world? I am talking about professionals here. People who for the most part, could care less about who they are working with as long as the checks come in. These are not people with vested interest's in the companies they work with. They are contracted out.

Bush SR was who I was refering to as the former CIA head. Bush Jr ran a baseball team before getting into politics.......

And again, where is the proof? You keep seeming to forget to answer my question. Actual cold hard proof?

I'm waiting.....



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The CIA is rife with corruption and is in cahoots with the global elite to pull off the grand deception....So why would anyone trust the head or former head of such a dispicable lot of murderers ...drug runners...etc etc etc

if you want to see the connections of the illumnati ...vatican....masons....cia...military industrial complex etc...etc...etc go to www.revelationwebsite.co.uk



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Isn't if funny how the people who seem to scream the loudest for "proof, proof" never provide any of their own end, and never except yours when you give it to them.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
"The Bin Laden Corporation is huge"--
I don't give a rip if some of the filthy rich Bin Laden scum want to second Bush's official line about Osama...wouldn't be worth my time to investigate that. What were they going to say other than what their business ties (and wealth pipeline to the top of the American Empire) force them to say??


That is perhaps the most sefl-righteous, uninformed, ignorant, arrogant statement I have read in years.....

You question my objectivity????? and then you won't even do a little research into a certain aspect of a story because you have already made up your mind without at least actually looking into the facts?????

That is not learning, that is ignorance.

re-read my first sentence.




[Edited on 16-4-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
There's definitely something fishy about their ties. Unless, of course, I put my rose-tinted shades on.


Coincidences only raise question. Proof? Good luck.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bangin
There's definitely something fishy about their ties. Unless, of course, I put my rose-tinted shades on.


Coincidences only raise question. Proof? Good luck.


But to make up your mind about a subject without even looking into it is embracing ignorance, not denying it.

..



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
But to make up your mind about a subject without even looking into it is embracing ignorance, not denying it.


I completely agree.

The connection certainly raises a few questions, but, either way, I doubt we'll ever get any real answers.

The world is a stage, enjoy the show!



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
FF: I can (and do) out-research you any day of the week, with half my brain tied behind my back! Have you actually interviewed people involved in 911?? I've talked to two of the widows (of the plane crash victims) twice. I've spoken to relatives of the purported hijackers in Lebanon. I've interviewed Lou Cacchioli twice (People Magazine, 9-20-01, pg 34) who was the fireman who claimed to have heard bombs going off in the buildings well BEFORE they came down. Etc., etc...

I've written a book on 9/11, been on 18 DIFFEREENT nationwide radio programs talking about my research on 9/11. I've produced 2 two-hour long videos on 9/11 and they're all over the country now.

Tell me, where do you get off saying I don't do research?? I've got a closet full of 9/11 research and over 100 hours of taped news coverage (starting twenty minutes after the first strike.)

I'm listening....



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
FF: I can (and do) out-research you any day of the week, with half my brain tied behind my back! Have you actually interviewed people involved in 911?? I've talked to two of the widows (of the plane crash victims) twice. I've spoken to relatives of the purported hijackers in Lebanon. I've interviewed Lou Cacchioli twice (People Magazine, 9-20-01, pg 34) who was the fireman who claimed to have heard bombs going off in the buildings well BEFORE they came down. Etc., etc...

I've written a book on 9/11, been on 18 DIFFEREENT nationwide radio programs talking about my research on 9/11. I've produced 2 two-hour long videos on 9/11 and they're all over the country now.

Tell me, where do you get off saying I don't do research?? I've got a closet full of 9/11 research and over 100 hours of taped news coverage (starting twenty minutes after the first strike.)

I'm listening....


It doesn't matter how much research you do. (and I use the term "research" loosely with you)

It is the fact that you showed you will make up your mind about something without using factual data or ignore data that you don't agree with. ie. "a waste of my time." That is a very deeply FLAWED investigative stance.

I don't care how many people you have talked to or how many other things you have done. You are not a reliable investigator.

Have fun with your 007 wannabe, scared of the govt bogeyman, bunk research.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
FF: I'll make you a deal. You stay off my threads and I promise NEVER to go on one of yours, O.K.?

What? No similar research efforts to offer? Just more personal attacks, huh? A pretty lame effort at discrediting someone I would say. I bet you won't find anyone to say your winning this argument (except maybe one other who usually follows you around and seconds your nonsense all day...)



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
FF: I'll make you a deal. You stay off my threads and I promise NEVER to go on one of yours, O.K.?

What? No similar research efforts to offer? Just more personal attacks, huh? A pretty lame effort at discrediting someone I would say. I bet you won't find anyone to say your winning this argument (except maybe one other who usually follows you around and seconds your nonsense all day...)


No. Unlike you, I don't go around claiming to have evidence. I make my deductions from facts, not bogeyman bunk. Big difference.

BUNK+BUNK=MORE BUNK

You can't back up you claims because your investigation technique is garbage. That is not a personal attack, that is a fact that is reflected by your bunk investigations which lead to pure bunk and deeply flawed results.

And I also noticed you did not defend the fact that you choose which data to ignore and which data to use. ie. only the data that supports your ideas.
That is because you cannot defend your techniques.

You would be laughed out of any court .
Pathetic.

Case closed.



DENY BUNK!! .......and really bad investigation techniques.


.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
"...really bad investigation techniques"...are still far superior to yours, which is "no investigative techniques at all" and your m.o. which is "just shoot the messenger and ask questions later," and "offer no counter-points or evidence of similar investigative work," and "resort to name-calling and cheap shot posts when you have nothing contructive to counter with."

What about my offer?? I see you're still stalking me and posting here, so I guess you've turned it down, huh??



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
"...really bad investigation techniques"...are still far superior to yours, which is "no investigative techniques at all" and your m.o. which is "just shoot the messenger and ask questions later," and "offer no counter-points or evidence of similar investigative work," and "resort to name-calling and cheap shot posts when you have nothing contructive to counter with."

What about my offer?? I see you're still stalking me and posting here, so I guess you've turned it down, huh??



Superior to what? The fact that you pick and choose your evidence? That invalidates your ENTIRE investigative process. I will not believe anything that comes from a person who does not know a thing about basic investigation. I do not claim to be an expert, but I know that you must investigate ALL of the facts as opposed to choosing only what supports your opinions.

I tried to point you in some directions to check out(bin Laden family) but you said it would be a waste of your time...... there you go....choosing what facts you want to look at.

You cannot defend your techniques because they are garbage. Any detective or judge would pass on your evidence because your methods are flawed which means your evidence is unreliable. But of course you would then tell me that "they were in on it."

As I said, you are not the real deal, you are an amateur who would be laughed out of court. Deal with it.

I do investigate just for myself, albiet not nearly the same volume as you, but I adhere to factual deductions. Not some "pick and choose" method to support my claim, but actual deductions derived from raw data.

Stalking you? You are giving yourself more credit than you deserve. You should change your name to Mega-paranoid.

What training do you have? Where are your credentials? I am a rank amateur at this stuff and will admit that. You seem to try to pass yourself as an expert of some kind. ie. Your 'work."


You are a hack and your work is hack quality.


..



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Never said I was an expert...but on the topic of 9/11, yes I have done my homework, something you admit (finally) to not even having done. Why don't you interview Salem bin Laden's former staff (if they can even be found.) It was your idea wasn't it?? ..and you live a lot closer to Texas than I do.

You think of "investigative techniques" and then whine because I won't carry them out FOR YOU?!?

...case closed.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
Never said I was an expert...but on the topic of 9/11, yes I have done my homework, something you admit (finally) to not even having done. Why don't you interview Salem bin Laden's former staff (if they can even be found.) It was your idea wasn't it?? ..and you live a lot closer to Texas than I do.

You think of "investigative techniques" and then whine because I won't carry them out FOR YOU?!?

...case closed.


No. I have done some homework, just not the amount you have. The facts are plain to see. Not some unsubstaintiated bunk claims derived from bunk investigative techniques. Which coincidentally, shoot down any claims you provide.

I have searched on some of your claims and they are opinions. NO PROOF.

I fail to see how you can back up your claims when you cannot process data, even on a basic level.

On a side note: Before my grandfather became 2nd to commisioner of NYPD(ie. Chief), he was chief of detectives NYPD for years. I know what a REAL investigator is, not some "hack."

PS if it is not a "waste" of your time, do a google and you can find interviews with former Bin Laden Group employees.

..



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
Come on, you must suspend disbelief to extreme limits to think that there isn't something extremely fishy about the Bush-Bin Laden connections.


Actually not really, as said before, it's huge family... think about it this way - Bin Laden is almost like a Johnson or Smith, it just seems foreign to your ears - it's a fairly common name in KSA.

Plus, the reason (U)Osama is so well off and well funded is his family was rich and he got to take part in that wealth. It's not really that big a coincidence. You can't drink water in the KSA that hasn't been stored in a Bin Laden Storage Tank (they pretty much have a monopoly on that business in the KSA) but that doesn't mean that Osama had a thing to do with it.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bonkedproducer
Plus, the reason (U)Osama is so well off and well funded is his family was rich and he got to take part in that wealth. It's not really that big a coincidence. You can't drink water in the KSA that hasn't been stored in a Bin Laden Storage Tank (they pretty much have a monopoly on that business in the KSA) but that doesn't mean that Osama had a thing to do with it.


Thankyou very much.

Osama was worth millions of dollars from the inheritance he received after his father died. The family is huge. Gigantic by western standards. Osama was disowned by the Bin Ladens as the family religious nut.

The Bin Laden group is one of the world's biggest construction empires.
They also have first contract rights for any construction for all Muslim holy sites. (Osama's father renovated Mecca and many other holy sites)

.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
FF says: Give me a controlled-media spin and I'll make it mine. Give me a big lie and I'll make it bigger.

No family is huge enough to avoid the basic contention of this thread, being that it is highly unlikely that two men who were so closely interconnected as Osama and our President would later become arch-antagonists on the world stage as a purely random occurence. It simply denies logic, but your welcome to accept it if you like...

I suppose it is also just random occurence that 7 out of 9 of our most recent Presidents have been members of a tight-knit secret society of 150 American males dedicated to world government known as the Trilateral Commission. I'd run the probabilites of that one for you two, but why bother. You so desperately want to believe and spread the BIG LIES, so have at it..

[Edited on 20-4-2004 by mepatriot]



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
No family is huge enough to avoid the basic contention of this thread, being that is highly unlikely that two men who were so closely interconnected as Osama and our President would later become arch-antagonists on the world stage as a purely random occurence. It simply denies logic, but your welcome to accept it if you like...


Nice to see you too!

Bush did business with Bin Laden family member Salem, not Osama. Osama was no longer part of the family business at that point. And also at that point, Osama was fighting the Soviets with the US's blessing. He was Not calling up the Bush family to set up Arbusto deals and check the stockmarket while dodging Soviet bullets from his cave in the mountains....


Not Osama, but one of his 57 siblings was doing business with Bush. (Salem) Just because people are related, does not mean that they are in on the same deals or even doing business together at all.

All Osama cared about was his own religious/political agenda. Osama was more concerned with just getting the support to fight the Soviets rather than where it came from. Bullets are bullets, regardless of who supplies them or who makes them. He did not care if the supplies came from France, China or the US..... just as long as he got them.

Just because he got tech/supply support doesn't mean he liked the US. "Your enemy is my enemy." (The Soviet Union)

It seems you don't have any idea how big the family is..... or how big the Bin Laden Group is. They are much like the Rockefellers or the DuPonts of our country. Huge and wealthy, but with polygamy encouraged.






.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join