Job Discussion Forums

kev7161 · Joined: 06 Feb 2004 Posts: 5880 Location: Suzhou, China

You didn't finish the first quote. I didn't say the problem is that some people read about it first and then stop there. What I said was . . . . oh geez, why bother?

Cleopatra · Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 8:20 am Post subject:

"As far as I know - you go to the FBI, the FBI does not come to you. Unless you're a high-ranking Saudi, it would appear.

I can't think of a polite way of saying this, but that's very naive of you to say. "

Why so?

"Everyone was inconvenienced."

Now who's being naive??? Being gently questioned in a luxury airport departure lounge while your private jet waits outside is being "inconvenienced"!! I'm sure the 600 plus guys in Git Bay would be able to live with that kind of "inconvenience"!

"Keep one thing in mind, there are about 7000 princes of Saudi Arabia. I'm guessing this, but I'd be surprised if more than 1 of those Saudis had ever even met Osama"

I doubt that - remember that many of those on board were not Princes, but memmbers of the bin Laden family. True, the bin laden family is huge and Osama alone has over 50 siblings. Nor would it be the case that you would have to have personally met Osama to be able to potentially, provide the FBI with valuable information. Again, let me stress that I am not saying that anyone on that plane was guilty of anything. But that is not the way crime investigation works. You don't have to assume guilt in order to question relatives of a massive crime in detail.

I'd also like to say that while I enjoyed F 9/11, I'm no big fan of Moore, although I broadly support his political views. I agree that he distorts and manipulates, but I also feel that there are questions that need to be answered surrounding Bush's relationships with the Saudis in general, and the events of that flight in particular.

guty · Joined: 10 Apr 2003 Posts: 365 Location: on holiday

CS,
how did you manage to get the f*** word through the censor?
More personal freedoms?

justcolleen · Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 654 Location: Egypt, baby!

Lanza-Armonia · Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:17 am Post subject:

A slight divert from the subject, a lot of Ustedes are given MMoore a wrap on the knuckles with a chunky ruler.

6 months or so, largy and I watched his first movie, "Bowling For Columbine". That was a shocking statement but one bit in particular shocked me about his interview skills.

Do you remember the part when he interview that young kid (18-19?) with funny facial hair that had the 'Anarchy Cook Book'. He said he was number two on the list of who would MOST LIKEY make some sort of bomb. Mike then replied something along the lines of, "Just because you had the book, makes you a threat?". The lad replied "Oh, I've made some too" and MM asked "Just because you had the book, and made some bombs means that you will did it in the future?".

He goes on.... It sounded like he was sticking up for the guy saying the lad would never do 'such a thing'. Geeezzz.

Then his book "Stupid White Men". Now I read through this with a heart of disbeliefe but at the end of the book, he gave all the sources/resources (choose whichever's best) about where he got the information. I did not believe that a fully qualified Pilot of United Airlines of one of the big Yankee ones, only got 9,000 USD a year... Total BS. Why would any guy put himself through that? And then MM helped getting the pilots 20K a year plus bens?

Gimme a break. MM is a good story teller, illusionist and would make a great playright... nothing moore (get it?)

Now where's that ruler...........

LA

Communist Smurf · Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 330 Location: San Francisco

Cleopatra · Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 7:15 pm Post subject:

"One of the FBI's primary responsibilities is to gather intelligence about terrorism. They don't sit around waiting for people to give it to them"

That's not what I said, and I find it hard to see how you could have got the impression that I did. What I meant was that, if the FBI wishes to question somebody about a major area of national security, it is usually done at a time and a place of their choosing - not that of the interviewee.

"The guests of Gitmo (no one calls it Git Bay) lived with terrorist. "

In the first place, you can't possibly know this, since there have been no trials of anyone of the Git Bay detainees, and none have access to lawyers. Secondly, since when has "living with terrorist" been a crime sufficent to be locked away indefinately without even minimal human rights?

"The significant difference between this and formerly (Osama lost his citizenship, I think, before 9/11) sharing citizenship is that this gives a higher probability of involvement in terrorist activities. "

You know perfectly well that it is not just a case of "sharing citizenship". Many of those on those planes were Bin Laden family members. And, as I've said before, I have no doubt that many if not most of the Saudis on those planes were entirely innocent. But, according to human rights organisations, the same can be said for the Git Bay detainees. It seems a bit odd that one group gets flown out on private jet after only a cursory questioning, while the other gets detained without charge for an unspecified time period.

"it was at the request of the Saudi government (for reasons involving protection), "

I didn't know the Saudi government called the shots on these issues. Of course, the Saudis have also asked for their citizens to be released from Git Bay, as have many other US allies, and their pleas have so far been largely unanswered.

Bindair Dundat · Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Posts: 1123

The Great Wall of Whiner · Joined: 29 Jan 2003 Posts: 4946 Location: Blabbing

Communist Smurf:

I actually don't understand why you wouldn't answer someone's question.

skeptic · Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 73 Location: USA

On a point that I'm sure will be future Michael Moore fodder, and, therefore, germane to this thread:

I've been off the news a bit lately, but I believe I heard a claim that the current administration raised the threat level and cited targets based on pre-9/11 intelligence.

Let me restructure:

I heard the threat level was raised, and specific targets were indicated in the NY City financial sector. The newscasts were equally divided between Scott Peterson's trial, pressing national affair that it is, and the security measures taken by our Capitalist powerhouses--as narrated by the President of the Prudential Corp. (I was duly impressed that such an important and busy personage could find the time, on such short notice at that, to conduct such a media tour.)

Later, I heard the report that the heroic Laura Bush and her lovely daughters--in defiance of this imminent terrorist strike--had made an appearance in the Prudential Plaza (I believe) where they calmly sipped coffee and showed the citizens of a breathless nation what steely and patriotic stuff they were made of (and by extension their husband/father).

Finally, I heard that the intelligence this warning was based upon was over three years old.

Too often, initial reports are amended as strident accusations get tuned down and more details emerge. I simply haven't heard any details that would discredit the report that the information was so dated. I wouldn't want to be accused of propagating spurious charges (yes I would) or slanderous innuendos (love'em), so, can anybody shed some light? I defer to our august panel of experts: BD/CS/MR/HL?

In the event that there was little real risk for the first ladies (as I suspect) I wonder how long after the royal family is reaffirmed it will be that the GOP pushes through legislation that will compensate any financial losses incurred through threats of (not incidents of) terrorism?

I wonder if this compensation will be retroactive? I can't imagine that the administration would take such a financial jab at such large, corporate, and connected potential campaign contributors without first clearing this hurdle.

But, perhaps my characterization of the Bush bevy is unfair. I confess that it may have been influenced by a subconscious comparison with the Kerry girls and their oh-so-touching story of their resuscitating father. As the tearful account of that epic battle unfolded, I confess I saw an image, superimposed in my mind's eye, of my own battered, lifeless county (so like the pitiable drowned rodent) that awaited but the restorative touch of Kerry's lips.

This is the sorry state of manipulation that permeates our political process today. The most depressing thing is that it is so effective. Now I'll hand things over to the big boys and girl.

justcolleen · Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 654 Location: Egypt, baby!

Communist Smurf · Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 330 Location: San Francisco

Cleopatra · Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2004 7:57 am Post subject:

"I agree with you. I have no doubt that many (probably all) the Saudis on those planes were entirely innocent. However, my instinct tells me, most (if not all) of the guest of Gitmo are terrorist. "

In a country where the rule of law and democracy supposedly apply, "instinct" is not enough to have hundreds of men left incommunicado and detained without trial and access to lawyers indefinately. And the use of the euphemism "guests" would be funny were it not so serious.

Communist Smurf · Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 330 Location: San Francisco

kev7161 · Joined: 06 Feb 2004 Posts: 5880 Location: Suzhou, China

I'm hoping that the posters on this thread represent a cross-section of the American public whereas a majority feel that Bush has lied, cheated, manipulated, and is still doing other morally corrupt acts while "leading" our country. If this thread is representative, then we may well have a new President in the White House come November (well, actually JANUARY when the power is transferred)! Yee-haw!

Now I'm just waiting for early to mid-October when Osama will "suddenly" be captured. Wink