I have noever tarred every Muslim on Earth as terrorists or violent. The religion that they adhere t ois IN fact violent and intolerant.JahManRed wrote:
I find it odd that you tar every Muslim on earth, unrelated to 9/11 with the same brush as the hijackers repeatedly on this forum. Savages. Violent etc.lowing wrote:
Apparently it was well known in the inner circles of world politics. I am guessing since we did not kill this family over WTC '03 or any of the other terrorists attacks Bin Laden is responsible for.
Yet rubbish actual blood ties between the head of Al Quida and his family? I don't know about the US. But here, if someone murders 2 thousand citizens the government will want to talk to the murders family to extract information. Not extract the people with the information.
---------------------------------------------
A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks1. - Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."
Yup, all Clinton's fault.
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away - But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- This is what eight years of failure lead to (nationalizing banks)
Michael Moore has been lying to you again.Dilbert_X wrote:
Just wondering why the only aircraft allowed to fly that day was flying Bin Ladens home
For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose. - But now, at the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, TIA officials have confirmed that the flight did take place and have supplied detailsHollisHurlbut wrote:
Michael Moore has been lying to you again.Dilbert_X wrote:
Just wondering why the only aircraft allowed to fly that day was flying Bin Ladens home
TVNL Comment Notice that they admit this just weeks before the new Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is released exposing this.
Look yourself and do the math.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
the Easter Bunny flew out of the US also... vacation i believe...HollisHurlbut wrote:
Michael Moore has been lying to you again.Dilbert_X wrote:
Just wondering why the only aircraft allowed to fly that day was flying Bin Ladens home
Love is the answer
In September? Thats suspicious by itself.
Fuck Israel
Try again!JahManRed wrote:
For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose. - But now, at the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, TIA officials have confirmed that the flight did take place and have supplied detailsHollisHurlbut wrote:
Michael Moore has been lying to you again.Dilbert_X wrote:
Just wondering why the only aircraft allowed to fly that day was flying Bin Ladens home
TVNL Comment Notice that they admit this just weeks before the new Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is released exposing this.
Look yourself and do the math.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_ … en_flights
Tax payers will now be paying the costs of running them as well as the massive bonuses that the demented executives will so willingly demand. It also jeopardizes the whole concept of a free market economy which is bad.Macbeth wrote:
So beside the politicians becoming a bit more powerful is there any other real reason against it?Stingray24 wrote:
This centralizes even more power to the politicians. Something that is quite detrimental to a true republic.Macbeth wrote:
Can someone explain to me in great detail how this is a bad thing? Hasn't the banks proven to be incapable of doing their jobs right on several levels?
Judging by what America are intending to do I'd say it's not only nationalization of the banks but also the entire economy. The whole "Buy American" is a short term stupidly thought out strategy that will do nobody any good. I'm a little out of the news...is there any real possibility that this will be passed?
Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2009-02-17 23:50:57)
What are the pros and cons of nationalizing the banks?
aka- why do the above commenters disagree/agree with the idea of nationalization?
edit- besides the above nonsense by Teddy Jimmy.
aka- why do the above commenters disagree/agree with the idea of nationalization?
edit- besides the above nonsense by Teddy Jimmy.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-02-17 14:21:17)
Wikipedia is to be taken over a government website? lolHollisHurlbut wrote:
Try again!JahManRed wrote:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_ … en_flights
Well, if you'd peeked at his link, you'd have noticed all it does is take you to the 9/11 Commission top page. There's nothing there on the page to which he linked that, in any way shape or form, supports his claim.AussieReaper wrote:
Wikipedia is to be taken over a government website? lol
Were he to link to the report itself and also instruct us on which page this damning confession can be found, then he'd have something.
Unfortunately, he can't:
What was that crap you were spewing?9/11 Commission Report, page 329 wrote:
Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States
Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11: (1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?
First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.24 To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.25
Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke told us, “I asked the FBI, Dale Watson ... to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me.” Clarke added, “I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House.”26
Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11,he said he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything about it. The President andVice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media.None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.27
Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.28 The Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI’s requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed.29 The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.30
The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected
to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.31
Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2009-02-18 00:08:58)
Banks need to accept their responsibility for the house crisis according to President Obama. What about the people who signed for loans they could not and never will be able to afford? Oh, those poor people are getting bailed out. This is a calculated strategy to demonize the banks so the government can nationalize them.
"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." ~ Thomas Jeffersonmax wrote:
Banks give out loans. To start and run a business you need loans. If the banks are state controlled the state also controls who gets loans.Macbeth wrote:
So beside the politicians becoming a bit more powerful is there any other real reason against it?Stingray24 wrote:
This centralizes even more power to the politicians. Something that is quite detrimental to a true republic.
Therefore nationalizing banks pretty much nationalizes the whole economy.
I am sure a lot of people on this forum think Thomas Jefferson is an idiot and his heart was never sank into the well-being of this country and this is why you don't accept the Facts of our current situation.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=121320&p=1 SEE #12.
I would rather interest collected on private loans of US currency go to fund the federal government than to some rich families in Europe. Why should the Central bank get to create the Money against your debt and then when you default or there is a run on the bank the US government is forced to print the currency and devaluate the dollar. Look at what is going on and the devaluation of the dollar because of the fucked up lending that has been happening. Not only is it fucking the US dollar and economy, but the banks and CEOs are raking in our tax dollars in bailout money so they won't even go bankrupt and lose their bussiness over it.
And why not, look at how much money PRIVATE BANK's risk on loans vs the US Government:
$0 ≤ net transaction accounts ≤ $9.3 million = 0%
$9.3 million < net transaction accounts ≤ $43.9 million = 3%
$43.9 million < net transaction accounts = 10%
Nonpersonal time deposits = 0%
Eurocurrency liabilities = 0%
The Central bank runs this country, what is happening now is the most prof you will ever get and it is obvious. Who do you think collects the interest payments on the 8 trillion dollars of debt the US is running.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
And where does the interest payments on the National debt go? http://www.devvy.com/notax.html
here is a good start:
BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Bank of America Securities LLC
Barclays Capital Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
Daiwa Securities America Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Dresdner Kleinwort Securities LLC.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Greenwich Capital Markets Inc.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
J. P. Morgan Securities Inc.
Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc.
Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
UBS Securities LLC.
Research the families that own these companies and count how few people control the Central Banks.
Andrew Jackson knew clear back in 1832:
"Thus will this provision in its practical effect deprive the Eastern as well as the Southern and Western States of the means of raising a revenue from the extension of business and great profits of this institution. It will make the American people debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due to this bank, and send across the Atlantic from two to five millions of specie every year to pay the bank dividends."
From: http://alpha.furman.edu/%7Ebenson/docs/ajveto.htm
Then our country's currency was sold to families in Europe in 1913. With that control of the US government.
"Thus will this provision in its practical effect deprive the Eastern as well as the Southern and Western States of the means of raising a revenue from the extension of business and great profits of this institution. It will make the American people debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due to this bank, and send across the Atlantic from two to five millions of specie every year to pay the bank dividends."
From: http://alpha.furman.edu/%7Ebenson/docs/ajveto.htm
Then our country's currency was sold to families in Europe in 1913. With that control of the US government.
No. Result of Carter's affordable housing and the Dems.ATG wrote:
We might have to nationalize the banks. Mother of jesus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoy-uHLSTv8
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- This is what eight years of failure lead to (nationalizing banks)