For Acharya's Main Website, go to
TruthBeKnown.com

TBK News Table of Contents

Bookmark and Share
Join the TBK Mailing List!
Enter your name and email address below to receive news and cutting edge commentary from Acharya!

Name:
Email:
Subscribe  Unsubscribe 

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Ron Paul and the Reason Why

I have liked congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul for a number of years now. On several salient issues, I concur with his intelligent and thoughtful insights. After hearing about the recent brouhaha regarding him, I was at first puzzled by Paul's remarks concerning 9/11, until I took his advice and spent some time "listening" to Osama Bin Laden by reading the latter's purported 9/11 "confession."

First of all, let's review Ron Paul's comments at the second Republican presidential debate. When asked about about whether or not the terrorist attacks on the U.S. had "altered his view" of the aggressive American foreign policy, Paul responded:
"Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."

Paul was then quizzed by Fox News's Wendell Goler, who asked, "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?"

Paul answered:

"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now, since that time, killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."

Without getting into the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, some of which are meant to absolve foreign involvement and blame the "American government," let us look at the purported speech of Bin Laden's that was released on October 29, 2004, in which he clearly accepts responsibility for 9/11 - and states that the attacks will continue, essentially because the "enemy" has not learned his lesson.

Since I am very concerned about continued attacks on American soil as well as the aftermath of such decimation - to wit, America being "bled" into bankruptcy and subsequently overtaken - I do believe we need to heed Ron Paul's advice and pay close attention to what Bin Laden is saying, if there's any chance that by doing so we can avoid such attacks. In other words, we ignore Bin Laden's words at our own peril, as he is clearly spelling out his intentions.

If this 2004 speech is authentic and is accurately translated, it is evident that Bin Laden is not an uneducated hick but, rather, an intelligent person who is very much aware of numerous aspects of politics. His observations regarding the Bush dynasty seem to be uncannily accurate - few people outside of the extreme Right would not recognize the self-interests of the Washingtonian powermongers in the policy towards Iraq. Bin Laden is probably correct in surmising that Bush is after complete control of Iraqi oil - after all, Bush is an oil man.

From the perspective of a savvy person in Iraq, it would certainly seem that the aggression against that nation had much to do with financial gain, rather than the outward humanitarian appearance of being concerned for the Iraqi people - or the fallacious excuse of looking for "weapons of mass destruction." Knowing this fact, one could easily make the case that the American government, et al., had absolutely no altruistic reasons for making a move on Iraq - and this fact could understandably cause some people to become upset if not irate. Factor in other policies around the world, and we can understand precisely what Ron Paul is saying.

I do not believe Ron Paul is at all claiming that "we invited the attack." First of all, who's "we?" It's too bad Paul used that language in describing U.S. foreign policy, because "we" certainly didn't have anything to do with it. The U.S. government did, but I for one did not vote for those characters, and I do not include myself in the "we" bit of their policies. In any event, Paul is not saying "we invited it." He's saying, as far as I can tell, "If you want to know why these people did what they did, take a close look at what they're saying is the reason they did what they did."

In other words, they're saying "we invited it." There's a subtle but important difference. If one reads the speech by Osama Bin Laden - again, assuming it's authentic and accurately translated - he clearly spells out the reasons why the Twin Towers were attacked: Because of previous aggressions in predominantly Arab and/or Muslim countries that have killed thousands of men, women and especially children. That's what Bin Laden said was the motive for the attacks, not "because they hate our freedoms." Here are some pertinent excerpts from the Bin Laden speech of 2004:
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children—also in Iraq—as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?
Accordingly, in his mind Bin Laden's continuous aggressions against Western agencies over the past several years have been in retaliation for the destruction of Arab and/or Muslim peoples and interests by the selfsame Western agencies. The reason for the 9/11 attacks given by Bin Laden is that the assaults which left so many people dead were "unbearable oppressions." When he describes the situation in this manner, with graphic images of the mass killing of children, we can understand the impetus for the assault on American interests. While I do not know the facts he bases his allegations on concerning "Bush Sr." being responsible for "millions" of deaths or the "greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known" - by not only warfare but also starvation, perhaps? - if such allegations are true, the angry reaction would be understandable. Certainly, the previous aggressions in Iraq left some pretty hideous developments, including the results of depleted uranium that almost no one is discussing.

Now, back to Ron Paul and his advice: Point well taken, Congressman Paul, and once again you've proved yourself a highly intelligent man entirely worthy of consideration to lead the American nation. In listening to what the "enemy" is saying about his reasons for aggression, we can learn how to avoid further attacks and to prevent his stated intention from becoming reality. What is this stated intention? To quote Bin Laden:
"So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah."
Perhaps we can prevent this frightening decimation not by kowtowing or capitulating to counter-aggressions but by applying a more sane and less destructive policy towards other nations. Regardless of whether or not the move into Iraq can be ethically supported, the fact is that it has been handled very badly all around. If the American nation is so sophisticated, surely there is a better and more intelligent way to conduct itself than pounding the crap out of poor people half way around the world.

Maybe Ron Paul has the answer to this sad quandary - at this juncture in history, with such an atrocious mess on our hands, I for one am more than willing to listen to his seemingly sane voice of reason. And to gladly vote for Paul if we are lucky enough to have him make it that far.

33 comments:

Devin MacGregor said...

Bin Laden has said many things over the years.

The invasion of Lebanon by the IDF he leaves out why the IDF did so. What Bin Laden leaves out is muslim aggression in Lebanon against other muslims to include arab on arab agression and killings. He leaves out terrorist cells who operated out of lebanon and across into Israel, the prime reason they went in. He leaves out Syrian and Iranian involvement in the bloodshed against the Lebanese in destroying its christian govt to replace it is another islamic state which caused it to do into a civil war. He also does not mention the US brokering deals to end hostilities and putting pressure on Israel to pull out. Reagan evactuated the PLO out of Beirut who had been operating in southern lebanon. We lost several hundred marines in Lebanon as well to a terrorist act.

Bin Laden is certainly not a hick. He is a rich boy who has chosen to make himself out to be some modern day robin hood and man of the people by choosing to live in a cave.

Bin Laden in the 90s declared war on us. This is primarily because we support Israel overall and this includes food. It is as well because his govt, Saudi Arabia chose to allow the US military to base in Saudi Arabia instead of allowing his "freedom fighters" all several thousand of them to defend Saudi against Saddam single handedly. Instead he got pissed at the Saud family allowing "jews and christians" his reference to US troops on what he deems and many muslims deem as holy land and plotted to get us and our dog toto too.

Bin Laden also stated that one of the things we can do is convert to Islam and stop our decadent ways. New York is refered to as New Rome. So a hatred towards our freedoms? Umm yeah. Our form of democracy leads to women wearing pants and he does not want women to wear pants.

He is in firm belief that his band of merry men single handedly defeated the Soviet Union and caused their economic collapse. The US was next on his list. He wanted to draw us to Afghanistan and do the same to us.

So he sniped at us. We were as well in Somalia. He set up bases in neighboring countries. His plan was to make Somalia our Afghanistan as that country was to the Soviet Union. Instead we pulled out. Bin Laden expected us to stay and fight like the Soviets. He called us a paper tiger. He said if we bleed we run. So he would have to bring the fight to us. He began a series of operations against us. This lead to 9/11, the second bombing of the WTC. We simply ignored him for a decade because we were more concerned with a stain on a blue dress. We also ignored the rise of terrorist cells in the 80s because Reagan was more concerned with communism although being warned that this would be a problem in the future.

Bin Laden did not expect the Iraq invasion to happen.

If we are going to toot Ron Paul's horn we need to discuss Bin Laden in more detail and NOT pretend that if we run away he will simply leave us alone. Remember we are supposed to convert to Islam as well. Bin Laden is not a moderate. That means you walking several feet behind men, wearing hot ass all black clothing that cover you from head to toe, and you because a no class citizen. He very much lives in the extremist view of two worlds. The world of war and the world of islam. He is a pan arabist who wants the return of the old arab empire that spanned from Spain to Budapest. One of his instructors in college was a palestinian arab and this is where he gets his radicalness from.

For such a bleeding heart that Bin Laden has for the Palestinian why has he NEVER taken his construction company and gone to the West Bank and built those people schools, hospitals, roads, etc. Instead he goes to Afghanistan and builds bunkers, fortifications, etc.

Bin Laden also does not mention that his band of merry men want to take over an oil country so they can raise the price of oil to 150 or more a barrel. We can all day long state the the war in iraq was about oil but look around us? We use oil for almost everything. We the People are being hypocrites. We can blame Bush and hate Bush all we want to but it would have been cheaper to just pay Saddam for the oil. Most of Iraqi's oil industry was destroyed during Saddam's war with Iran back in the 80s. Saddam never built it back up. The UN sanctions placed against Iraq which initially caused hardships against women and children to which the US and the UK took huge flak over (those deaths of children he was talking about)spawned the Oil for Food program. Bin Laden conveniently leaves out the fact that Saddam through some European powers (Hello France, see Oil for Food Scandal the UN has brushed under the carpet) syphoned money from that program in the tune of billions of dollars which was go for food, milk for those babies, and medicines. So WHO killed those babies? Certainly not Saddam who rebuilt his palaces and didnt use revenue for food and medicine. Oh no, it is our fault.

For such a bleeding heart he has why did he not fight Saddam's regime and stop the daily killings of muslims both Kurd and Shiites. Hmmm, I guess him being a Sunni has nothing to do with that. Did he rush down and help liberate the Kuwaitis who were being murdered by Saddam? NO. As for the bombing of Iraq for 10 years no we did not carpet bomb the place. After the Kurd and Shiite uprisings we developed two no fly zones sanctioned by the UN. We kept bombing air defense facilities that were targetting our planes in the no fly zone that Saddam kept rebuilding when oddly he did not have any money do do so, see milk money. We also bombed weapons facilities.

Bin Laden has also stressed distain for his own govt for not taking its military and destroying Israel. We btw supply the Sauds with arms. What do they do with it? Try to prevent the far more right wing radicals (Bin Laden's buddies) from taking over the country that would make the Iranian revolution look like a picnic.

I have no disagreement on no WMD showing up but again Saddam never fully came clean on himself not having any. If he had stopped dorking with weapon inspections from the start we would have been out of there and this would have been in the 90s long before Bush ever took office. But he could not allow himself to be seen as weak since his mode of rule was terror so as much as many want to make Bush out to be evil incarnate Saddam has a lot to blame for any war. The conditions of the cease fire back in 91 were based on his full compliance with weapons inspections.

What Bin Laden does not state is his own people are killing other Iraqis. They are destroying infrastructures and preventing the rebuilding and repair of said infrastructures. So who is actually killing other Iraqis right now? Certainly only us and not other Iraqis, remnants of Saddam followers, and sectarian violence to include al queda. I am in no disagreement that post irag war was not planned better as well as it could have been but we as well are rained with negative reports as well and so only believe that all is bad and nothing good over there.

We can talk of conspiracies of the US wanting to control the oil all we want but the world benefits by getting more of Iraq oil into the world market because it lowers the price of oil. And not until we get off our asses and march on washington demanding we get off of oil we again are simply being hypocrites. The Iraqi people themselves are better off without Saddam. Bin Laden and the remnants of the Ba'ath party are the problem in Iraq. Not us. Bin Laden is a hypocrite in that his own people kill women and children and enact all forms of terror against anyone wanting Iraq or Afghanistan to move towards a stable environment. It is simply a matter of convenience on his part to call it some form of puppet govt and it plays right into our irrationality of leaning far too much sometimes in hating our own govt and playing our own partisanship. So yes Bin Laden is smart in that and as events change he will change what ever speech he makes to match the politics he wants to deploy at that moment.

If we had never gone into Afghanistan and Iraq Bin Laden would have attacked other US targets within the US. I do not like George Bush but the issues transcend him. We fail to understand that Coke, Levis, and Nike to name a few all beseige those muslims worlds and bring our culture to them to which the more conservative of the bunch do not want. They as well see that as a form of oppression.

Reagan is correct in the irrationality of middle eastern politics.

Rene said...

Your analysis of Ron Paul's argument (all conspiracy aside) is pretty astute. I have found nothing yet with which to see deception in this man. Avoiding the question of who could actually be responsible for the 911 or other terrorist attacks was very wise of Ron Paul (I suspect, but can not know that he may have doubts about it). Taking the status quo claim that it was Bin Ladin and Muslim/Arab terrorists and using that argument to use against the use of force in those countries supported by the mainstream has won him great support just by using this rational position against the "Warmongers".

My main concern is how one person, even if they are backed by an overwhelmingly popular support of people can change anything about a corrupt system that they will find themselves in. I don't see how, without a wholesale cleaning out of career politicians and an infusion of new non-insiders on the populist bandwagon that someone like Ron Paul and others would need. I am almost thinking he would need his own army and security detail loyal only to the people's Constitution to survive and manage any meaningful change in gov't. In effect, I mean a real coupe-de-tat by the people themselves. I don't see that Ron Paul has that kind of support around him to my knowledge.

As I have said in other places, America (and the world) are dealing with long organised criminals throughout the body-politic, who would not think twice about eliminating any potential threat. My optimism for Ron Paul's success is not very high at this time (though if I were an American I would vote for him also). The road ahead for him or any that might go all the way will be set with roadblocks and dangerous threats to their very lives.

We shall see just how much of a threat he might become, if he has any chance at all. Somehow, I think it won't matter if he has the overwhelming support of the majority of the people. Those who really govern as they please have their ducks all lined up and may not consider him or anyone outside their circles a serious threat at all because the game is rigged. Not a pleasant thought at all to consider more of the same old-same old. I seriously can not see real change with out a complete overturning (revolution) of the cronies serving the powers-that-be.

Anonymous said...

I really liked your article, and I completely agree with you about Ron Paul. I've been a fan of Ron Paul for many years after coming across one of his speeches on the internet, and wondering to myself "WOW, who is this guy?". I then tracked down more of his writings and speeches, and found myself agreeing with nearly everything the man says.
I've been a "decline to state" voter for my entire voting life. This year, I'm registering republican so that I can vote for Paul.

jspice said...

I like your thoughts on religion, but I think you miss some points on politics. I don't mean to sound harsh, but things can get pretty subtle in this argument. Yes, Bush is an oil man, but even he could recognize the many billions of nearly free barrels of oil for sale in Canada called the oil sands. You can buy Suncor (~300,000 barrels of production today, 50+ years of reserves) for essentially $1 (shrinking every day) per barrel of reserves. After doing some basic arithmetic, you'll see that it would be much cheaper to buy all Canadian Oil Sands related companies rather than invade Iraq. Besides, it isn't really needed: NAFTA guarantees US access to Canadian oil production. Similar comments posted about Mormonism/Australia and Uranium ore reveal similar lack of familiarity with economics. I don't mean to sound super critical but even you said something about looking deeper than the Encyclopedia Britannica for answers.

Gospoddy said...

Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in US politics. I am from the UK and the contrast is made sharper still in hearing what he is saying to all the others. However, he knows there is a lot more to the events of 9/11 than can be put into the mainstream (on a soundbite basis). The "reasons" New York was attacked according to what is published by the CIA that Bin Laden has spoken is a good starting place. All the while not forgetting that Bin Laden is a long time 'asset' of the CIA. If I could load a photo here you'd see a Young Osama holding his rifle with the P.N.A.C neo-Con Zbigniew Brzezinski... too see it visit>
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/010607_qaida_bilderberg.html
thank you for this interesting Blog.

Gospoddy said...

My previous post was incorrect. Zbigniew Brzezinski is not a member of PNAC or a neo-Con... however it's all the same at heart (the left/right bait and switch dance)... he is in fact of The Trilateral Commission(with David Rockefeller etc) the Jones Report is still worth a view.

Anonymous said...

When this speech from bin Laden came out a few years ago, I read the whole thing and was stunned. Clearly this man is extremely intelligent and totally aware of American politics and events. I had previously been aware of the suffering in Iraq that followed the first Gulf War; millions of people died as a result of a destroyed infrastructure that included unclean drinking water. But to read bin Laden refer to that was a shock to me, and it really made me start thinking about the importance of reading *both* sides of a story, not just the one handed out by our government in the form of propaganda.

The following was also from the same speech, and it really got me wondering, having lived in Florida during the messed up 2000 election. bin Laden said:

"At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits [by Bush Sr. during his presidency] would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty."


Clearly this man has been carefully analyzing American politics and is totally aware of what's going on here. He is no dummy, not by any means. This does not mean I condone what he did in 2001; rather, after reading this speech a few years ago I came to the conclusion that we need to consider what he's saying if we really want to prevent future attacks on us.

Acharya S said...

I wasn't aware that Ron Paul and Osama Bin Laden were the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Acharya S said...

"I came to the conclusion that we need to consider what he's saying if we really want to prevent future attacks on us."

I agree.

Acharya S said...

FYI to everyone regarding the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I've been aware of Alex Jones's work for several years now. I received John Kaminski's book on 9/11 when it was just published. I am well aware of Steven Jones's arguments and of David Griffin's book. I have also read several "con" arguments against the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I started investigating the conspiracy theories since the very beginning. I can't spend so much time on them as other things, so I would not consider myself an "expert" by any stretch.

What is clearly known is that Osama Bin Laden worked with the U.S. government/CIA, and is probably well connected to the financial "brotherhood" that backs many conflicts worldwide. I don't subscribe to the theory that "the government" created 9/11. If any "outsiders" were involved - and it is quite likely they were, all things considered - they are part of what could be described as "international industrialists" and "third-party weapons manufacturers," et al. Of course, this does not mean that Bush and Cheney & Co. are not part of that fraternity.

I have carefully chosen my words here and in my blog to be as accurate as is possible. My concerns regarding what Bin Laden himself has said still stand, because millions of Muslims worldwide have likely been paying to them, as is evident from their lack of condemnation for 9/11. British imams are PRAISING the "magnificent 19," referring to the hijackers, and clearly supporting the notion that it WAS these individuals attacking the U.S. in the name of Allah and Islam. These imams may well be aware of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but they are using them to incite the rank-and-file Muslims. And THAT'S the real danger - and the reason we have to pay attention to what the "enemy" is saying. It is not whether or not WE believe what he or they are saying but what the masses - numbering close to 2 BILLION people - believe they are saying.

johndaly said...

Acharya:
Great posting on Ron Paul. I agree almost entirely.
The only exception would be believing bin Laden's aims one hundred percent. I believe our presence in Iraq is only a recuriting tool for Islamic terrorists.
However, even if we left the Middle East and we weaned ourselves off Arab crude, bin Laden and his ilk would find some reason to condemn and attack us. Bin Laden wants to control the world with Islam; after pushing us out, he would need another religious quest to fulfill his megalomania.
Unfortunately, as you and Congressman Paul have pointed out, American ignorance and arrogance have given bin Laden and others the excuse to start their unholy, totalitarian crusade. And worse, bin Laden has fired up and inspired the neo-cons who are, too many times, in lock-step philosophically with al Qaeda and some of the others.
John Daly
www.johndaly.tv

Acharya S said...

Oh, believe me, John, I agree with your assessment of Bin Laden and his cronies, whoever they may be. My post was in NO WAY a defense or rationalization for anything he or others have done. Few people are more ardent than I in attempting to prevent an Islamic takeover of the world.

Mostly what I want to convey here is that we MUST listen to what the "enemy" is saying, or we will be at their mercy. Moreover, it is clear that MILLIONS of "moderate" Muslims are ALSO paying close attention to what Bin Laden and others are saying, such that THEY feel justification for his acts - that's definitely one reason why "moderate" Muslims have not been very vocal in condemning Bin Laden.

As concerns the American war machine that continues to step into this doo-doo, well, I can't stomach any of the atrocities committed on either side.

I often feel like I'm an alien on the planet of the apes.

Devin MacGregor said...

I do not disagree that we should know what Bin Laden and others say but at the same time we need to understand he is not a humanitarian. His brand of Islam is that of the Taliban. They employ the same tactics the north vietnamese did in Viet Nam. That is anyone who receives aid from the US is retaliated against in the most severe ways.

The US is far from being any dictatorship regardless of the patriot act.

It is true that the CIA did funnel money into Afghan "freedom fighters". It did so through Pakistani sources who passed the funds out. Bin Laden is not an afghan. He is an arab. The arabs who went to afghan were funded by Bin Laden who petitioned rich arabs in the gulf region. Bib Laden himself as said he never received money from the US. I have only ever seen one source that has any link of Bin Laden to direct contact with the CIA and that is even sketchy. It is a pakistani officer who says he got security training. To someone not in the military nor never have been that might sound super 007 like but for someone who has been that training could just be a bunch of nothing but bum rushing some building and then walking the perimeter to make sure no "bad guys" are in the AO. Could it be possible the arab "freedom fighters" did get funds? Yes it is possible but that hardly implicates the CIA as Bin Laden being their "asset".

As we read Bin Laden we must also remember he is a politician. He is not elected by anyone but he is a politician none the less. In the Gulf War during Bush Sr we also must be aware that we had a coalition with arab countries that we would reinstate the Kuwaiti monarchy as well as we would not overthrow Saddam. The stipulation was that our arab allies at that time did not want a western power overthrowing an arab power. In fact our forces pulled away from Kuwait City so that arab forces could move into the city and say it was liberated by arab forces.

What I find funny in reading what people say of the CIA is that on one had they will dismiss information and say they have no idea what they are talking about and then on another make them sound like James Bond 007. It seems to be a matter of convenience for them.

The thing with Bin Laden is no different than JFK conspiracy theorists who refuse to believe that Oswald acted alone. Instead we would rather brow beat our own country and those on the outside brow beat the US while ignoring any responsibility by Bin Laden. He is seen as a hero by many in the region because he gave up his money (supposedly) by living in a cave and he is battling a world power. All the while it is ignored of the brutality that his people and those he supports thrust upon the people they claim they care about. Yet he was never in Iraq or Kuwait fighting Saddam or the Kuwaiti Monachy. He has never gone to the West Bank and fought the IDF. Bib Laden is smart. He has a degree in civil engineering. He father got rich off construction. This is what the Bin Laden family did. When his Dad was killed in a helicopter accident he inherited a lot of money. Bin Laden is the Rush Limbaugh of the muslim world.

It is simply a matter of convenience because they know we have bleeding hearts.

Btw the things I have stated come from years of reading them in private media sources.

If the Taliban and Al Queda would cease fighting in Afghanistan then Afghanistan could rebuild and be a stable country not under oppression.

If Al Queda, Saddam Ba'ath loyalists, and the sectarian violence in Iraq were to cease then the Iraqis could finish rebuilding their country. They would finally have peace and not be killed on a daily basis by a dictator's regime. For the smarty pants out there that is refering to Saddam and his Ba'ath party.

Again much of Iraq's oil industry was destroyed with his war with Iran and Saddam never rebuilt it. 95% of Iraq's revenue comes from oil.

Anonymous said...

Acharya: I do agree with Ron Paul's perspective of "flipping the script" in a way. The US never looks at their behavior in other countries because this government has this sort of teflon attitude about foreign policy. In reading Bin Laden's so called confession speech, I'm skeptical of it being an accurate translation. I live in Michigan near one of the largest Arab-American communities in the US and the Arab newspaper editors stated that none of the Bin Laden tapes have been accurately translated. The Detroit New would run small stories about the tape translations because the Arab American community leaders approach them as soon as one appears. This was their way of not allowing an inflamed situation to get worst. On researching the authenticity of the tapes I pulled up a number of resources from sources outside of the US: Proof Or A Fake? World Divided Over Bin Laden Tape: http://www.rense.com/general18/tape.htm-date 12-14-01, German Media: bin Laden 'Smoking Gun'Tape Translation Inaccurate: http://www.rense.com/general18/inac.htm- 1-1-02. In fact Rense.com has dozens of article from various resources stating the translation is inaccurate. I am one who believes our government has not come clean with this country on 911. Bin Laden was wanted by our government for many years prior to 911 so why didn't they grab him when they had the chance in 2001 in Dubai: Bin Laden Met With CIA In July...And Walked Away - Connect The Dots- http://www.rense.com/general16/bin.htm. I don't know how complicit our government is in this but with recent revelations of what happened at Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the USS Liberty with recent information provided by men who survived the attack who are now speaking, it was no accident but an actual attack. Secretary Rusk during the investigations said clearly it was an attack so it's not even a stretch to consider our government knows more about 911 than they are saying. I think Ron Paul is trying to tell us something without saying it. Are we listening?

Neophyte said...

Acharya says:

These imams may well be aware of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but they are using them to incite the rank-and-file Muslims. And THAT'S the real danger - and the reason we have to pay attention to what the "enemy" is saying. It is not whether or not WE believe what he or they are saying but what the masses - numbering close to 2 BILLION people - believe they are saying.

Myself:
And this is really the central point. We are living out a time of a global cyclical Greek tragedy where bloody offense provokes like bloody retribution, and the retributions kaleidescope at an ever increasing pace.

I am surprised no one as yet has mentioned that other parties, great vested interests identified by outgoing Pres. Eisenhower, stand to gain much by the careening and insatiable deployment of profitably manufactured armaments and affiliated services to accommodate the vicious cycle. Acharya and Rene have come close to doing so. Wealthy interests will unflaggingly exploit disputes between the most irrational 1st millenium superstitions, if there is profit to be made. We also live in an age of seemingly unending curious coincidences (some reviewed by Keith Olbermann last night). Among the most curious was the foundation of and substantial enhancements to D.C. "think tanks" such as the Project for a New American Century within months after it became apparent that the Soviet imperial empire would be in ruins. PNAC identified the Muslim bulwarks of Iraq and Iran to be eventual targets for military assault, almost immediately. When Pres. GHW Bush in 1990 sought support for "Desert Storm", he never informed anyone of his intention to plant a permanent base on a religious "sanctified homeland", which must have been understood to be a provocation by any State Dept. stooge.

As for Osama Bin Laden, we must take into consideration conflicting information before we sing accolades to Rep. Paul's references. CNN reported OBL's denial of involvement in the 9/11 assaults on 9/17/01.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
Of course, this is in contradiction to the many subsequent releases of audio and video tapes of multiple confession. But everyone should appreciate that any queries about FBI investigation into 9/11 will certainly reveal that OBL has never been identified as suspect in the crimes of that day.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060610&articleId=2623
The timing of the OBL video on 10/29/04 is one of the many coincidences that permeate the public affairs of our time.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/291004binladenappears.htm

Could Bin Laden be completely blameless in the conflict of terrorism? No matter what, absolutely not. He has been implicated by the FBI in the bombings of the African embassies and the USS Cole docked in Yemen in
2000. No doubt he was emboldened to provoke the west after heady victories in Afghanistan against the "infidel" USSR. Possibly by 2004 he had come to feel secure in a concealment by corrupt elements in the ISI and enjoys his celebrity as Sunni bogeyman to collaborate in an 'October Surprise'.

He (or the handlers who engineer his image) is a big player in our global game of "chicken". Many in the "brotherhood" stand to gain from Huntington's grand "clash of the civilizations". Who will capitulate first in the great cycle of provocations and entrenchments that pits the ever increasingly outraged Muslims against a hungry and fire powered global elite backed by fearful apocalyptic wretches absorbed in their own superstitions?

Does Rep. Ron Paul have the intellect and fortitude to create a substantive intervention and break a ubiquitous cycle bound in tragedy before world-wide financial ruin or mutual genocides culminate in a new dark age? Next to his debating compatriots he is a beacon of understanding and reason. But the remainder are transparent phonies with apparent motives (some ulterior) to feed the "brotherhood" machine that perpetuates the cycle.

Outside of the preceding context of comparison, let's take a closer look.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
his voting record:
-Against stem cell research.
-Against abortion.
-Against equal marriage rights.
-Supports banning gays from adopting.
-Supports use of government money to support religious schools.
-Supports a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ENCOURAGING SCHOOL PRAYER
-Does not support Amber Alert.
-Against Network Neutrality
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul312.html
From a statement by Americans United for Separation of Church and State
"Bad Bills On The Hill: Church-State Wall Under Fire In New Congress
January 22nd 2007"
...
"The so-called "We the People Act," introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), claims that the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have made decisions on "religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion" that have "wrested from State and local governments" the final say over these issues.

H.R. 300's impetus is clearly to gut the ability of federal courts to overturn legislation or government actions that violate church-state separation and other constitutional protections. The measure states that all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, "shall not adjudicate" cases involving religious liberty and other social issues."
...

Now, despite how I identify myself, I am no stranger to "realpolitik".
He would not be a Rep. in a Presidential debate if he did not pander to his very socially conservative and unlibertarian constituency in Texas with its own very dogmatic theistic temperament and eyebrow-raising notions of constitutional order. But the intense affinities of his political past cause me to react with a note of leery caution before I can have high confidence that this individual is the one we can place some hope in to break the cycle that ultimately could propound a theocracy for our kids and grand kids.

Acharya S said...

Thanks, Neo, for your intelligent and thoughtful reply. I appreciate your input regarding Ron Paul. I knew that we diverged on several issues, but I didn't know he was that right-wing.

Many disturbing things there, including the fact that he does not support the Amber Alert. If it weren't for the Amber Alert, my abducted son may not have been returned to me as quickly as he was!

And so on through the list.

PlanB247 said...

while I agree with pretty much all the analysis here, it's certainly not enough for me to even consider Ron Paul as a presidential candidate due to his racist history.

Alcibiades said...

I may have missed it, but I don't see any reference to the excellent account by Lawrence Wright "The Looming Tower" which traces the history of the movement and people that culminated in 9/11.

It is unfortunate that in an era of sound bites that a random statement of intelligence should give such a lift to a right wing ideologue. While I agree its important to listen to what our enemies say, its only a part of the picture. While much of what Hitler's intentions were could be found in "Mein Kampf" it wasn't the whole picture.

The problem of Islamism is a complex one which isn't going to resolved for a long while. In my view paying too much attention to the proximal causes of attack diverts attention from the underlying causes, which are, as they always are, rooted in human passion and human need. The spread of Islamism is the result of a failed culture, one which failed to adapt to the modern world precisely because it was successful in maintaining moderately stable medieval and post medieval ones. The trend of backwardness in societies dominated by Islam is noticeable back to the 18th century when the Turks were repulsed from Europe. They have suffered ever greater loss of ability and repeated humiliation by the West driven by the rise of the enlightenment and the unleashing of human ability which are the proudest achievements our our American society, at least until recently.

The cohesion of such primitive, religiously organized societies comes not just from the religion itself, but from the perception, however foolish that it promotes "the good". The only way to break the dogmatic stranglehold on these societies is by making them successful, at first economically, and later, as the freedom the economic activity leads to, modernity will ultimately follow.

George Bush was not wrong in thinking that bringing democracy to the Middle East was a good course. He, and his idealogue friends and advisors simply had no clue how to bring it about, nor that doing so quickly by unilateral military action was precisely the wrong approach. Its outcome was predictable. What we've done is re-enforced the humiliation of the Arab culture, showing them they just can't stand up to the modern world. They have no out for their egos. When backed into a corner by reality you look to magic, or God to bail you out, so the idiotic logic that their "catastrophies", one of whose anniversaries happened 40 years ago today, is the result of insufficient piety, rather than seeing that it was their own blindness, rigidity, bigotry, and incompetence that, not only led to their devastating humiliation, but in part created the problem in the first place (not excusing the bad acts of some zionists either).

We have big problems and we need someone with the intellect, balance and thoughtfulness to lead us. The course we're on is certainly the wrong one.

Scot Allen said...

Ron Paul is no Pat Buchanan. He’s no Pat Robertson. No David Duke. He most definitely is a white man, with all the baggage you would expect. There’s some white male privilege to be sure. Some bigotry, perhaps? Insert Texas joke here…

He is also the best of the Republican candidates. How sad is that?! Paul may be the only right-winger that isn’t bought and paid for. I have little faith in our capitalist system and our supposed duty to vote every few years for another rich person to lead us, but I am strongly considering registering as a Republican and voting for Paul, if only to stick it to Rudy Giuliani and McCain. Then in Fall 2008, I’ll vote my conscience (Kucinich). Either way, it seems, we may get a leader that panders to the lowest religious denominator.

If Paul’s recent statements can be taken at face value, I get the impression that he wants the government out of our lives entirely. I kind of like that; I know I am capable of looking after myself and my friends and neighbors without the help of a nanny state. I get the strange feeling that 2008 may be the year that we finally decide what kind of system we really deserve.

Acharya, thanks for the recent posts! Your books have changed my life for the better in so many ways! This world seems truly screwed up, but I keep enjoying this planet and life too much to give up hope. If I have a weak spot, it’s that I expect our politicians to show the same level of critical thought and love. We need to insist that they meet or exceed our expectations. Or, sadly, maybe they already do…

People of good character, unite!

DaninPA said...

I think Paul's stances on things like abortion, Amber Alert, gay marriage, etc. are more that the Federal Government shouldn't meddle with states' right to determine their involvement on such issues, rather than opposition to the concepts.

In other words, he may not be AGAINST people's right to such things, rather he thinks it is not up to the Federal Government to force states to go along if they do not wish to.

As distasteful as it is to me personally, this view is supported by the Constitution, therefore should be federal policy.

Dan

xtimla said...

there arent any attacks on america, have you driven along highway 5 into los angeles , all those juicey ripe targets sitting there , well no one blows anything up. and the immagration continues unabated , ewhy? because they want it to. you better read the protocols of zion, and they are happening right now, it was zionistic free masonistic and moloch worshipping who do all this. how did those building s fall so nicely, it takes weeks to prepare the buildings so dont be dense arachnya.

Acharya S said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Acharya S said...

I frankly don't have any idea what you're illiterately babbling about.

PlanB247 said...

More on why Ron Paul is not a viable electoral option.

Rene said...

Plan B sure loves to take his opinion from those Racist Jewish left-wing rags who pretend to be anti-racist. I know them well! Nizkor..lol! Oh, I know I will be called an "anti"-semite...it's standard practice for these and other professional criminals. They must accuse someone of something bad, because their confederates have been exposed over and over again for the worst kind of perversions they just love to smear others with.

Just for the record Plan B...I am anti-Judaic/Talmudic, Anti-Christian (eek! I am one of the anit-Christs..how awful! lol!), anti-Muslim, anti-communist/socialist, anti-Nazi and Zio-Nazi (red, pink or brown)....well, lets just say I have a whole lot of "anti's". You're welcome to call me all of them. The best your type can do is to slander, smear, distort and outright lie too!

Rob said...

"What is clearly known is that Osama Bin Laden worked with the U.S. government/CIA,"

That is simply inaccurate. Bin Laden never worked with the CIA. The CIA never directly worked with any of the Afghan muhajideen, the CIA gave money and weapons to the Pakistani ISI who then gave them to the militias that would one day become the Taliban. Bin Laden's funding and training came not from Pakistan but from his own pocket and from contributions from rich individuals in the Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden's group wasn't directly involved in the fighting against the USSR either, it ran training camps, medical services, construction, funneling money and guns to the front, bringing in new recruits, etc. There is no credible serious connection (at the time, the 80s) between Bin Laden's group and the militias that became the Taliban, and no connection, serious or otherwise, between Bin Laden's group and the CIA, or Bin Laden's group and the ISI.

What Ron Paul is doing is giving people a simple way out. We provoked Bin Laden, we just have to stop provoking him and he will stop. Ron Paul is lying when he says this and he knows he is lying when he says this. He knows that Bin Laden's motivation comes not from the file labeled "Blowback" but rather the imaginary Red Phone Osama has to Allah.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, number 2 of al-Qaeda, was a student and one of the personal proteges of Sayyid Qutb. Qutb's ideology basically boils down to this:

1. Islam is superior and will one day be the only religion on earth, and the earth will be ruled by Islamic law.
2. Muslims are geopolitically weak because they are not living under Islamic law.
3. The fault of this lies with Muslims themselves and with the non-Muslims states whose decadent ways (Qutb visited the US in the early 1950s, yes, the 1950s, and said that Americans of THE 1950s were perverts and all that) have infected Muslims and led Muslims astray from Islam.
4. Islamic law must be restored in Muslim countries by both conversion and physical coercion, which Qutb correctly referred to as jihad.
5. Islamic law must then be spread by the same means to non-Muslim countries.

The insane ramblings of people like neophyte are barely worth replying to save to say that Occam's razor cuts all your silly theories pretty much to shreds, all these ridiculous convoluted plots and ploys to keep a mysterious cabal in power when it would be much simpler to do so without having to resort to the uncertainties of war. For example, invading Iraq to get control of oil. What nonsense. If control of oil was the goal, why not make friends with Saddam again? It would have been much cheaper to just lift sanctions, enter into some sweet agreements with him, and get the oil pumping. We could have built Iraq into a counterweight to Iran again real fast, with buddy Saddam in charge. But no, we invaded the country. What gives?

Rene said...

rob: Your mouth is open wide and it's attracting flies. I think one of them sewage suction trucks is called for. Of course Bin Ladin didn't "directly" work with the "CIA". Perhaps you would like to tell a certain "special forces" Col. that he was not operating under the direction of the NSA/CIA when he was training Mujahadeen back in the 80s! It is typical of your kind to bad mouth others as you present NO evidence of the opinion you give when countering theirs. Basically, you are a shrill for Murphy and Goldstein. I hope the information below drives you nuts! ha ha ha!
-----------------------------

bin Laden

There are direct historical links between Osama bin Laden's business interests and those of the Bush family. On September 15 I received the following message from FTW subscriber, Professor John Metzger of Michigan State University:

"We should revisit the history of BCCI, a bank used by the legendary Palestinian terrorist known as Abu Nidal. BCCI was closely tied to American and Pakistan intelligence. Its clients included the Afghan rebels, and the brother of Osama bin Laden, Salem. Salem bin Laden named Houston investment broker James R. Bath as his business representative in Texas, right after George W. BushÕs father became CIA director in 1976. By 1977, Bath invested $50,000 into juniorÕs first business, Arbusto Energy, while Osama bin Laden would soon become a CIA asset. George W. BushÕs FBI director Robert Mueller was part of the Justice DepartmentÕs questionable investigation of BCCI. (On BCCI, the bin Ladens, and the Bushes, see the books, The Outlaw Bank, A Full Service Bank, and Fortunate Son)." Further details of the business and financial relationships between the Bush and bin Laden family are found in Peter Brewton's 1992 book The Mafia, CIA and George Bush. BCCI, incidentally, was founded by a Pakistani.

Economics Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa has just completed a detailed history of bin Laden's career detailing his secret funding and logistical support to terrorist organizations beginning from his early CIA-supported roots in the 1980s as a "freedom fighter" through to the present day. Chossudovsky's compelling and well documented article, Who Is Osama Bin Laden? dated Sept 12, 2001 can be found on the Internet at: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html.

Bin Laden's role has not just been as a practitioner of terrorist acts but as a trainer and supplier of terrorist organizations around the world. Included in bin Laden's coterie are terrorist groups linked to the Balkans, Albania, the KLA (a U.S. ally), and rebel groups leading the insurrection against Russia in Chechnya.

As FTW described in 1998, and as confirmed by Chossudovsky, the key to understanding U.S. support of bin Laden is to grasp that he has always been controlled by a cutout, the Pakistani government and its intelligence service the ISI. In this manner there has been virtually no direct contact between bin Laden and the CIA. This has served the dual purpose of maintaining his apparent "purity" with his followers and providing plausible deniability for the CIA. The whole underlying pretext for this relationship evaporated with the Taliban's destruction of the opium crop in February.

Chossudovsky writes:

"The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. In this regard [Professor] Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, 'the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 per sent of the U.S. demandÉ

"With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates, the production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-99 -- coinciding with the build up of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet republics -- reached a record high of 4600 metric tons. Powerful business syndicates in the former Soviet Union allied with organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes.

"The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic "jihad" out of PakistanÉ"

"É The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In the last few months there is evidence that Mujhideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of the KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into MacedoniaÉ

"É With regard to Chechnya, the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored camps in Afghanistan and PakistanÉ In this regard, the involvement of Pakistan's ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war.

"Russia's main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington's perfunctory condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the Chechen war are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin."

The oil and drug connections were the subject of FTW's story, The Bush-Cheney drug Empire in October, 2000. That story is online at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/bush-cheney-drugs.html. Both Bush and Cheney are oil men.

George Bush, Sr. was Vice President and, by virtue of executive Order 12333, in charge of all U.S. intelligence and narcotics operations from 1981 through 1989. As President from 1989 through 1993, he continued and expanded his control in these areas. Thus, it was Bush (the elder) who directly nourished and nurtured bin Laden's evolution.

Dramatic Confirmation From Indian Government

The web site of the Indian Embassy in Washington contains dramatic confirmation for these positions. On September 4, 2000, B. Raman, Director of India's Institute for Topical Studies wrote an open letter to the U.S. Congress entitled Pakistan's Noriega's. That eight-page article exposed the depth of Pakistani government involvement in the drug trade. It may be viewed at:

www.indianembassy.org/int_media/
saag_september_04_2000.html.

The letter said, in part:

"For more than a decade, the people of India have been living in a state of half-war and half-peace due to the depredations of a large number of terrorists, outrageously called jehadists, who have been trained, armed and funded and infiltrated into the State of Jammu & Kashmir and other parts of India by Pakistan in order to make the people of India and its security forces bleed in the name of religion.

"More people belonging to different religions -- Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and others -- have been killed in India by these mercenary-terrorists sponsored by the State of Pakistan than by any other terrorist groups anywhere else in the worldÉ"

"ÉMany other States have suffered and have been suffering due to the depredations of terrorists, made in and exported from Pakistan and the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan -- [these include] Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Central Asian Republics, the Chechnya and Dagestan areas of Russia, the Xinjiang province of China, Bangladesh, the Arakan area of Burma and the southern Philippines..."

"After his [1993] removal, [as official head of Pakistani intelligence, trusted advisor to Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf] Lt. Gen. Nasir traveled to Somalia, Chechnya, Dagestan, the Central Asian Republics, ÉChina, and the Southern Philippines as a preacherÉ and helped Islamic organizations, including the group which killed U.S. troopsÉ in Somalia."

"ÉIt was he, who, during his tenure as the DG [Director General] of the ISIÉ has entered into an agreement with the LTTE of Sri Lanka [which secured] LTTE's assistance in smuggling Afghanistan produced heroin in its ships to West Europe, the USA and CanadaÉ"

"ÉAnother reason for the ISI's helping the LTTE, despite its anti-Muslim policies, was to use it for smuggling heroin to West Europe, the U.S. and Canada. During Zia-ul-Haq's regime in the 1980s, heroin had become a major source of extra revenue not only for the State of Pakistan, especially the ISI and Pakistan's nuclear and missile establishment, but also to many senior officers of the Pakistan Army, including [Musharraf et al]É"

"The way Mr. Sharif before October 1999 and Gen. Musharraf since then have been using the heroin money to prevent the Pakistani economy from collapsing has not received due attention in the U.S. ..."

"If one goes purely by economic indicators, Pakistan's must be in as bad a shape as that of Russia, or even worse, since Russia has been in receipt of Western and IMF assistanceÉ"

"Where does the money come from? From the smuggling of heroin to West Europe, the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. Government might have stopped economic assistanceÉ from the taxpayers' money. But why should the Noriegas of Pakistan be worried when they get billions of dollars from the heroin sale in the U.S.?É "

Vice President Dick Cheney's recent comment that the CIA needs to get in bed with "unsavory characters" is a joke. That's a bed that the CIA has never left. And it's a marriage vow that President Bush has just reaffirmed for all the world to see.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is the biggest loser of them all! Well, maybe the second biggest next to Dennis Kucinich!

You actually wrote a post on that loser? Terrible political instincts!

Acharya S said...

Hmmm, I was just thinking the same thing about someone who would vote for George Bush.

xtiml said...

it was mossad in conjunction with various elements of our government, the established political arena is allreadyand hads been taiinted, they control it, who is they? the same people who killed the kennedys, king et al, even john lennon was killed by the same cabal , the bushes are linked to it all the cabal. lol.and israeli influence and manipulation of our government stinks and any one who makes a move against them is killed, all the dead bilogists in high level germ research were killed in very unusal ways and in a shor tspace of time,. doi you belive aids was a natural mutation from monkey doodoo virus? well it wadsnt , it was enginneered here in usa, speread in africa with small pox and here through homosexual hepatitis B vacciine it is all traceable.they have no intention of leaving iraq, war on terra, and israeli snipers are sniping us , damn I hate this shit.such a pity coulda been a nice world, maybe next time but not in this time or paridagram. watch mama earth blow her stack, i think within a 100 years.

xtiml said...

it was mossad in conjunction with various elements of our government, the established political arena is allreadyand hads been taiinted, they control it, who is they? the same people who killed the kennedys, king et al, even john lennon was killed by the same cabal , the bushes are linked to it all the cabal. lol.and israeli influence and manipulation of our government stinks and any one who makes a move against them is killed, all the dead bilogists in high level germ research were killed in very unusal ways and in a shor tspace of time,. doi you belive aids was a natural mutation from monkey doodoo virus? well it wadsnt , it was enginneered here in usa, speread in africa with small pox and here through homosexual hepatitis B vacciine it is all traceable.they have no intention of leaving iraq, war on terra, and israeli snipers are sniping us , damn I hate this shit.such a pity coulda been a nice world, maybe next time but not in this time or paridagram. watch mama earth blow her stack, i think within a 100 years.

Anonymous said...

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/09/ron-paul-enron-blackout/

Ron Paul is John Birch aally with 100% support of their issues in Congress. He has friends in the radical right fringe like David Duke. He is Christian Theocrat. In brief, this 9 term incumbnt is "A Man of the People."

Anonymous said...

The government clearly put out a fake Bin Laden Confession tape in 2001. What makes you think they didn't fake the 2004 confession tape(and decide to do a decent job at it).

Shortly after 9-11, a Pakistani newspaper interviewed Bin Laden(supposedly), and Bin Laden denied having anything to do with it.

The Bin Ladens and the Bush were very close business partners. Extremely close. And Bin Laden was a CIA asset, and may still be taking orders from the CIA.

Acharya is right, that there is an elite group of businessmen that hold a great deal of power, perhaps more than our own government, but Bush and Cheany ARE businessmen.

9-11 was an inside job!