The Goat Pen

AlabamAlum wrote:I believe that has been debunked, JD.

Which part and by whom?

As of 2012, NBC News confirms that the initial reports were true and the FBI report that no Saudis left until air travel was reopened was patently false: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news ... 911-exodus

A 9/11 Commission analysis and FBI documents, however, show that the FBI’s inquiry into the Tampa flight had relied on a lone source, a Lexington police officer whose name is also redacted in the released documents. He had merely “hemmed and hawed” when an FBI agent doubted his belief that the Saudis had traveled by air – then suggested the men had in reality traveled by car. The police officer, however, had no first-hand knowledge of the event. The FBI did not at the time interview Grossi or Perez, the security escorts who had flown with the Saudis from Tampa. It interviewed Perez only years later and has never interviewed Grossi.

An FBI departmental memo dated 2003, meanwhile, shows why the bureau was reluctant to believe there had been a flight from Tampa. Having failed to check aviation records that would have shown when exactly the men had flown, it believed “such a flight on 9/13/2001 would have been in violation of the Federal Aviation Administration’s flight ban.”

As early as four days after the flight, however, the bureau had had good reason to realize that the flight had occurred. Other FBI documents, obtained by the public interest group Judicial Watch, make clear that one of the bureau’s own agents in Lexington had the information as early as Sept. 17. That fact, it seems, was filed and forgotten.

As for the bin Ladens investing in Bush-related companies, that's public record. The Arbusto connection was the subject of an investor lawsuit in the 80s. The Carlyle Group connection was reported in the fiinancial section of the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/26/busin ... group.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 [2001 - 6 weeks after 9/11] — The Saudi family of Osama bin Laden is severing its financial ties with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm known for its connections to influential Washington political figures, executives who have been briefed on the decision said today.

That the Saudis flew while there was a flight ban. They flew, but not until 9/13.

From your article:

Lt. Mark Barnard of the Lexington Police Department, who worked liaison at the Kentucky end, would later tell the 9/11 Commission that the prince seemed to him just “like a kid who was scared,” escorted the young Saudi and his companions to his uncle Prince Ahmed’s hotel, and the two princes and twelve companions left three days later aboard a chartered Boeing 727 en route to Saudi Arabia.

Two years after 9/11, in a Vanity Fair story titled “Saving the Saudis,” author Craig Unger raised numerous questions about the role the FBI had played in facilitating that and various other flights involved in the panicky Saudi exodus from the United States. The article obscured the facts on the travel from Tampa, unfortunately, with a claim that the flight had been allowed to take place “when U.S. citizens were still restricted from flying.” In fact, as the FAA record makes clear, the flight took place several hours after the FAA had opened airspace to charter flights.

In the wake of the Vanity Fair story, when U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and John Kyl raised questions, the FBI prepared a 40-page response for the senators and the White House addressing all Saudi travel out of the U.S. after 9/11. What it reported on the Tampa-Lexington flight, however, was not true.

Instead of just noting that the FAA record showed the travel occurred after U.S. airspace was reopened, the FBI said Sultan and his three companions “had arrived in Lexington from Tampa by car.”"

The Snopes on the ordeal: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

Further, I think it likely that if the Saudis had knowldge of the attack that they would have left before 9/11 instead of scurrying to leave on 9/13.

Being a Democrat did not always mean being a delusional lady part. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson were all Democrats, but they still had the ability to look at the Evil Empires of their day (Nazism, Communism), recognize that evil for what is was, call it by its real name, and fight it with the corrective goodness of the United States.

Today's Democrats are so morally confused they can't even bring themselves to utter the words "Islamic terrorism," as if Southern Baptists and Buddhists do the same thing. Take above conversation: The blood is still wet on the pavement in Paris and the liberals here bizaarly insist on blaming it on Bush - who hasn't been president for 7 years - not the terrorists. Rubio accurately described this new Democrat gynecological phenomenon when he said it would be like Roosevelt refusing to call Nazism evil because only a few Germans worked at Aushwitz. Spot on.

My analogy: it would be like Lincoln refusing to call the Confederacy evil because only a small minority of Southerners owned slaves.

And then responding to Ft. Sumter by only lobbing a few artillery shells over the Potomac and sending 50 Union special forces to fight it. Yes, they might have been able to assassinate Stonewall Jackson, and that would feel good to the northern public for awhile, but that wouldn't have solved the problem.

All "good friends" of the West?


Wellll then, let's make friends w/them like we did Iraq...give'em nukes.

I agree with the point that the Saudis are a huge part of the problem, and the Bushes sucked up to them because they were also business partners. As long as the billions were flowing in to Halliburton, all was forgiven. President Hillary will do the same thing; just replace Halliburton for the Clinton Global Initiative.

"Today's Democrats are so morally confused they can't even bring themselves to utter the words "Islamic terrorism," as if Southern Baptists and Buddhists do the same thing."

You love to whine as if anybody is equated christians or buddhists with islamic terrorists. They're not and you know it. That's only a product of your fevered, paranoid imagination. But the fact is, it's all part of the same disease. Belief in some bullshit, supernatural, extraterrestrial "being" who somehow gives a fuck about human life (or life in general) and who gives directives in regard to human behavior is the root cause of the problem of islamic terrorism.

No, christians these days don't (for the most part) take part in that, but many of them did for centuries. Burning witches, conducting crusades, conducting sadistic inquisitions, etc, etc. The list is too long to count. And it all comes from some weird need to believe in something that is completely false and unreal as if it was THE most real thing in the universe.

Yes, the disease is in a more advanced form (in these current times) in these fucked up islamic terrorists than in buddhists, but it's nothing more than the same disease that you share, just in a more virulent form. The idea that belief in some supernatural being give you (anyone) the right and the authority to do anything, much less terrorize other humans, is the root of the problem. And that root has found fertile ground in fucked up people throughout human history. Still does...

We wish you'd get a disease...

Preferably one that doesn't cause insane ramblings on message boards like the one you have now.

I'm sure Bob Jones would agree...

I wish they put you in the Inquisition's iron maiden (not the rock band).

I wish someone burned you as a witch.

(I don't really want either of those, but it's fun parodying your endless meme.)

And while you're at it, quit your mewling. You sound like the pseudo-intellectual hysterical lady in my avatar.

As I was saying...

Yeah, prof and Ted Cruz are up in arms about oprama not uttering the phrase "islamic terrorists." Funny thing - nobody ever called G.W. Bush out for never using the term "islamic terrorists". Go ahead; check for yourself. 20+ million documented words -indexed, categorized, easily referenced...nada. (Although he did say "nuclear power pants," and assorted other mangled phrases) The consensus is dubya, oprama, and all western leaders have avoided the term in order to avoid a conflict between religions. From W's own lips:

"Americans understand we fight not a religion. Ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith..ours is a campaign against evil."

more..

"There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know - that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion."

Bush was an idiot too. So what's your point?

You can't fight Islamic extremism if you're unable to say it.

Just like hedge can rant about what Christians did 600 years ago, but he refuses to acknowledge the millions murdered by the atheist Stalin, the atheist Mao, and the atheist Pot - all in our parents' lifetimes. He says these weren't even atheist regimes.

More semantic self-delusion.

EFZ

Professor Tiger wrote:Bush was an idiot too. So what's your point?

You only singled out oprama and dems for not calling out Islam. I merely pointed out that no other western leaders have either, and their reasoning. Don't get mad......and make some other silly analogy with the Civil War. heh

The Democrats' (and Bush's) inability to utter the words Islamic extremism is as laughable and worthy of mockery as AA's dogged insistence that Mike Price was never the Head Coach at Alabama. Both those assertions seem to make sense to say them. But outside those bubbles of self-delusion, both are SNL skits that almost writes themselves.

ISIL definitely wants a religious war. Some here do too. Strange bedfellows, I guess.

I haven't ranted about what christians did 600 years ago (although much of the bad stuff they did wasn't nearly as long ago as that). And how could I not acknowledge the historical facts of the mass murderous regimes of various tyrants in the 20th century? I just don't delude myself that their tyranny nor their concomitant murderousness was a product of their atheism. Quite unlike the murderousness and terrorism of religious fanatics, whose acts are not only informed by but (at least in their minds) mandated by their religious beliefs...

There is no advantage in adding the designation "Islamic" to the word terrorist. It doesnt change our targets or make our strategies more effective. It just unnecessarily adds some people to the wrong side of the "us vs them" list.

If there were a clear tactical advantage to be gained in using it, I would be for it. As it is, I do not see one. In fact, it is a potential negative. I think W and BHO were correct in avoiding it. No sense in providing those terrorist factions rhetorical ammo that they can use with a "See! Join us! The US and allies are after you, too!"

ISIL definitely wants a religious war. Some here do too. Strange bedfellows, I guess.

ISIL IS already fighting a religious war. They don't "want" one. They already have one, and they are winning it while we play word games to describe it.

I just don't delude myself that their tyranny nor their concomitant murderousness was a product of their atheism.

That explains why you delude yourself into thinking this current ongoing religious war is not Islamic. If they aren't Islamic terrorists, then what are they? Lutherans? Confucians? You know it, but you are just loathe to admit it, for some reason.

No sense in providing those terrorist factions rhetorical ammo that they can use with a "See! Join us! The US and allies are after you, too!"

The terrorists are already saying that constantly. They create that rhetorical ammo no matter what we do. And it has been working extremely well all the while we are falling all over ourselves, twisting logic and language into knots, trying to deny the obvious so as not to hurt their feelings.

What are you all afraid of?