actually the us has been supplying the saudis with high tech weapons
for decades,
High tech weapons are not inherently WMD. The traditional understanding of
WMD encompasses nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemical weapons.
Fighter planes, which are most useful in defense, are not
actually the us has been supplying the saudis with high tech weapons
for decades,
High tech weapons are not inherently WMD. The traditional
understanding of WMD encompasses nuclear weapons, biological weapons
and chemical weapons.
Fighter planes, which are most useful in defense, are not WMD.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of jon louis mann
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:51 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: US support of Saudi, non-support of Iraq
end quote
sorry, dan, that is a right wing myth!~) do you
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
Some excerpts from this very long piece:
A meeting of prominent Saudis occurs in a Paris hotel. Among the
attendees is the head of Saudi intelligence, Turki bin Faisal, and Khalid
bin Mahfouz. They meet with a representative of al Qaeda
) The primary grievance of Osama bin Laden was the permanent placement of
US troops in Saudi Arabia - a strategic necessity so long as Saudi Arabia
continued to supply the plurality of the world's oil and so long as Saddam
Hussein remained in power on Saudi Arabia's border. Eliminating Saddam
Hussein
There are a couple plausible interpretations of his
comment:
D) Bush was speaking realistically, but talks about
winning the war as election day double speak.
Damon.
=
Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qui desiderat pacem,
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
JDG wrote:
It was a clear misspeak and retracted immediately. I am
sure that you
have never misspoken... just like you would never question
the patriotism
of *your* political opponents.
It was not a misstatement, he was speaking his mind and in
fact
think the war on terror is analogous. The way the Bushie hawks are
doing it simply won't get results.
There are too many touchy areas going ignored with the Bush policy.
North Korea is a powderkeg. China continues rattling sabers. Pakistan's
just waiting for the first domino to topple. Saudi
Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa
In my mind, that's exactly what Cheney just did.
While you're 100% correct about Cheney (IMO), I think the above
discussion is in reference to Bush's statement that we won't win
the
war. (Taken to mean we won't win in the battle in Iraq.)
Yeah, I realized
At 09:36 AM 9/12/2004 -0700 Damon Agretto wrote:
There are a couple plausible interpretations of his
comment:
D) Bush was speaking realistically, but talks about
winning the war as election day double speak.
Option D doesn't even come close to explaining why Bush has described the
war as
Option D doesn't even come close to explaining why
Bush has described the
war as winnable just about every other day since
9/11.
Why on earth would he do anything other than describe
the war as winnable? How many votes do you think he
would get if every time he talked about the subject he
JDG wrote:
Lastly, in regards to Saudi Arabia - I agree with you that Saudi Arabia
is a real problam. I think, however, that it would have been suicidal
to
American interests to apply pressure to the Saudi regime so long as
Saddam Hussein remained in power. Quite simply, one Party
JDG wrote:
It was a clear misspeak and retracted immediately. I am sure that you
have never misspoken... just like you would never question the patriotism
of *your* political opponents.
It was not a misstatement, he was speaking his mind and in fact agree with
his logic (and not with Kerry's.)
At 12:45 AM 9/11/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Maybe if they nuked NYC _and_ DC?
That's a low blow. :-(
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:09:32 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:45 AM 9/11/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Maybe if they nuked NYC _and_ DC?
That's a low blow. :-(
Sorry. I see what you mean, but that's not how I meant it. Those are
just the two most likely targets, IMO.
--
Doug
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Maybe if they nuked NYC _and_ DC?
That's a low blow. :-(
Sorry. I see what you mean, but that's not how I meant it. Those are
just the two most likely targets, IMO.
If I were a muslim nuclear terrorist, I would nuke _Las Vegas_. Much
less civilian victims, and
At 12:54 AM 9/11/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
It was not a misstatement, he was speaking his mind and in fact agree with
his logic (and not with Kerry's.) Furthermore, he did not immediately
retract the statement, he did so the next day.
Bush has said we'll win the war on terror every day
placement of
US troops in Saudi Arabia - a strategic necessity so long as Saudi Arabia
continued to supply the plurality of the world's oil and so long as Saddam
Hussein remained in power on Saudi Arabia's border. Eliminating Saddam
Hussein would permit the US to begin to defuse this grievance.
4
cannot have it both ways -- you can't use faulty
intelligence as an excuse to support an attack based on faulty
intelligence.
3) The primary grievance of Osama bin Laden was the permanent
placement of
US troops in Saudi Arabia - a strategic necessity so long as Saudi
Arabia
continued to supply
the slightest possible threat justifies
military intervention.
3) The primary grievance of Osama bin Laden was the permanent placement of
US troops in Saudi Arabia - a strategic necessity so long as Saudi Arabia
continued to supply the plurality of the world's oil and so long as Saddam
Hussein
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
1) Following September 11th, it was clear that letting failed States
fester posed a threat to the United States.
Oh quit it. What about North Korea, Pakistan or the rapidly re-emergent
Russia? I find it baffling that those who advocate bombing the hell out
if Iraq
On Sep 10, 2004, at 3:39 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
1) Following September 11th, it was clear that letting failed States
fester posed a threat to the United States.
Oh quit it. What about North Korea, Pakistan or the rapidly
re-emergent
Russia? I find it baffling that
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:27:05 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess you didn't hear that he said the war wasn't winnable the other day.
It was a clear misspeak and retracted immediately. I am sure that you
have never misspoken... just like you would never question the patriotism
of
On Sep 6, 2004, at 3:13 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Robert wrote:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional
a young wife and two preschool-age children, I found
nothing funny about a deceitful justification for war.''
This epitomizes the character of our acting executive and illustrates why
it is so easy to believe that he is protecting his Saudi friends.
I could be taking a cheap shot but Bush
At 11:35 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
I dunno John. There are even a lot of republicans talking trash
about
Bush.
Like who?93% of Republicans claim to be voting for him.And I
know of no Republican who has
been some program in place in which a
determination was made that these Saudis were small fry, and they would
be permitted to remain for other concessions from the government of Saudi
Arabia, or again, in order to follow them as part of some ongoing
intelligence operation.I would point out
JDG wrote:
At 11:35 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
I dunno John. There are even a lot of republicans talking trash
about
Bush.
Like who?93% of Republicans claim to be voting for him.And
I
know of no
At 07:13 PM 9/7/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
Lets make a point of looking at the voter breakdown after the
election.
Sure. In the meantime, Bush is consistently polling the support of 90%+
of Republicans, which is quite good by historical standards.
JDG
of treason around so
lightly.
Lastly, in regards to Saudi Arabia - I agree with you that Saudi Arabia is
a real problam. I think, however, that it would have been suicidal to
American interests to apply pressure to the Saudi regime so long as Saddam
Hussein remained in power. Quite simply, one Party
At 10:38 PM 9/6/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Winning this war motivates every decision with regards to terrorism
alerts and counter-intelligence that is made.And anyone who thinks
otherwise
has a particularly craven view of politics.
I guess you didn't hear that he said the war
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into
that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote
Robert wrote:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into
that relationship, Sen. Bob
Robert wrote:
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into
that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released
Tuesday.
IMO
On 6 Sep 2004, at 11:13 pm, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Robert wrote:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional
William wrote:
Which enemy?
(There must be a pun about enemas in there somewhere...)
Well, the only way we're likely to get aid and comfort in the coming years
is to give the executive branch a double dose of barium up the old wazoo,
but the Saudi thing goes beyond mere politics
At 03:13 PM 9/6/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into
that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote
JDG wrote:
This is aid and comfort to the enemy, IMO.
Not that you would *ever* question the patriotism of _your_ political
opponents.
JDG - Uh huh, Maru
OK, John, justify the cover up. Please.
--
Doug
___
grounds? Grounds of being insufficiently critical of Saudi Arabia - which
sounds eerily familiar to the grounds of being insufficiently critical of
Baathist Iraq that you claimed were attacks upon Democrats' patriotism.
You cannot have it both ways. Or at least you can't have it both ways
slight on the
patriotism of Democratic Politicians.
Well, now you have accused President Bush, a Republican, of treason.
of
actively working on behalf of the enemies of America. And on what
grounds? Grounds of being insufficiently critical of Saudi Arabia -
which sounds eerily familiar
JDG wrote:
President Bush knows that this country is at war. He specifically
gambled his entire Presidency on attacking Iraq because he deeply
felt it was the right and necessary thing to do. You may disagree
with the accuracy of his judgement on this, but you certainly cannot
doubt his
At 10:32 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
JDG wrote:
President Bush knows that this country is at war. He specifically
gambled his entire Presidency on attacking Iraq because he deeply
felt it was the right and necessary thing to do. You may disagree
with the accuracy of his
From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Democrats have such a craven view of politics that they
believe that the Republicans could place the nation on a
terrorism alert in order to
deflate their opponents' poll numbers. Now, we find that Democrats
believe that the Republicans would
Behalf Of JDG
This is aid and comfort to the enemy, IMO.
Not that you would *ever* question the patriotism of _your_
political
opponents.
I think there is just a *little* bit of difference in scope between
questioning someone's patriotism because they criticized the
President and this
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
I dunno John. There are even a lot of republicans talking trash
about
Bush.
Like who?93% of Republicans claim to be voting for him.And I
know of no Republican who has called Bush a *traitor* - the single
most heinous
Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of JDG
This is aid and comfort to the enemy, IMO.
Not that you would *ever* question the patriotism of _your_
political
opponents.
I think there is just a *little* bit of difference in scope between
questioning someone's patriotism because they criticized the
that he is protecting his Saudi friends.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
the film describes financial connections between the Bush
family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go
back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in
the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States
immediately after the 2001
At 04:47 PM 4/3/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
The Saudi's are reforming?
I posted examples of this recently in response to a message from Dr. Brin.
Perhaps the most salient example was that 2003 is called by Saudi citizens
The Year of the Petition, due to the novelty of that democratic
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/ITeamInsider.html
The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has recently transmitted a secret proposal
to the Bush administration, using one of his own sons, Prince Abdul Aziz bin
Abdullah as an emissary, rather than officials from the Saudi Embassy
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30149
An 8th-grade textbook also explains why Jews and Christians were cursed
by Allah and turned into apes and pigs. Quoting Surat Al-Maida, Verse 60,
the lesson explains that Jews and Christians have sinned by accepting
polytheism and
Russell Chapman wrote:
On a completely different track, why is Pravda
published (electronically at least) in English,
Russian and Portugese?
No offence, Alberto, but isn't Portugese a fair
way down the list in terms of international
languages?
Not if you consider European
In a message dated 10/17/2002 6:45:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pravda must be again in the True Path of Virtue,
back to the Old Communist Days, when it was the
sponsor of Freedom and Liberty in a world
oppressed by imperialism. Brazil is going to lead
the
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/15/38180.html
Interesting article, but the thing that stood out for me was this:
PRAVDA.Ru has recently reported about the intention of the Saudi government
to pay Russia four billion dollars for the development of an ABM system of
the fifth generation
Robert Seeberger wrote:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/brinsattic/vwp?.dir=/.src=gr.dnm=10-0
9-02-pod.gif.view=t.done=http%3a//photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/brinsattic
/lst%3f%26.dir=/%26.src=gr%26.view=t
...and for those who hate line-wrap on URLs:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/brinsattic/vwp?.dir=/.src=gr.dnm=10-0
9-02-pod.gif.view=t.done=http%3a//photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/brinsattic
/lst%3f%26.dir=/%26.src=gr%26.view=t
xponent
Bugs Maru
rob
___
This guy has some interesting things to say about saudi arabian funding
of terrorism:
http://www.kahanetzadak.com/articles/jloftus.html
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s556021.htm
http://www.john-loftus.com/
___
http
57 matches
Mail list logo
