Arugmentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote:
> Now you've made an outrageous statement and the burdon of proof falls
> on you.  That claim blows away any "conspiracy theory" that Jeff ever
> made.

I'll admit that all of the evidence is circumstantial, but it is
compelling and beyond coincidence.

Binladin Construction has made millions on the build-up of U.S. forces in
the Middle East and reconstruction of the U.S. embassies bombed in Afica
(supposedly by Osama Bin Laden).  Now, before you tell me that Osama is no
longer affiliated with that part of his family (and the spelling
difference is just one of interpretation into the latin alphabet, his
brother still heads the company), note that Binladin Construction built
the "billion dollar caves" in Afghanistan as well.

In 1996, the Sudan offered to extradite Bin Laden to the United
States.  And while he was on the FBI's dreaded "Most Wanted" list, the
U.S. declined the extradition.  The Sudan then informed the United States
that Bin Laden was planning on going to Afghanistan where he would be
sheltered and unattainable, the U.S. responded "Let him."

Remember the "put options" placed against United and American Airlines in
the weeks before the September 11th attacks?  The news media reported that
if we can find out who placed these options, we would know who was
responsible for the attacks.  Yet, there was never a follow-up in the
U.S. press.  Here's a clip from a story in the UK Independent:

<quote src="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=99402">
Further details of the futures trades that netted such huge gains in the
wake of the hijackings have been disclosed. To the embarrassment of
investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to buy many of the
"put" options - where a trader, in effect, bets on a share price fall - on
United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by "Buzzy" Krongard, now
executive director of the CIA.
</quote>

Krongard still holds significant profit-sharing in that company and
personally profited tens of thousands of dollars on the attacks.

The Secret Service made no attempt to move President Bush from his
publicly advertised appearance at a grade school in Florida, even though
it was known before he left his hotel that several airplanes had lost
transponder contact and were assumed hijacked.  This is contrary to policy
that protects the President from having his location attacked by a suicide
bomber in a commercial airliner (a heavily researched scenario).  
Instead, he made the appearance and stayed even after he was notified of
(and made no comment on) the first plane striking the World Trade Center.

Also note that the apperance WAS heavily publicized and the grade school
is just fifteen minutes' drive from an international airport, yet no
attempt was made to hijack a plane there.

There are 14 airbases with military fighters at the ready within 10
minutes flight-time from Washington, D.C. and New York, NY.  Yet, with
four planes missing, no military jets entered the area for about thirty
minutes... after all the attacks there were to succeed had succeeded.

We discussed right here on this list the duplicitous and false diplomacy
that led to the build-up of U.S. troops in the Middle East in the early
1990s contrary to UN resolutions to demilitarize the region.

When Afghanistan asked for proof that a person suspected to be within
their borders was responsible for the attacks, the U.S. refused to provide
any and went on to claim that even REQUESTING such proof was a "stalling
tactic".  The Taliban leadership of Afghanistan even went so far as to
suggest turning Bin Laden and his leaders over to an international court
for trial and the U.S. refused.  Ignoring the fact that those are tactics
of a totalitarian state that fears public scrutiny, you can see that
cooperation between The Taliban on the United States was avoided
intentionally in order to prevent actually aprehending Bin Laden.

The Bush and Bin Laden families have a rich corporate tradition of
cooperation going back decades.  And today, they use each other as
boogeymen to motivate their most unquestioningly loyal followers into
dying for their profits.

> >Neither has any interest in destroying the other.
> 
> Then why do they say that they are willing to die to kill Israeli's?  

They're willing to let their people die to kill Israelis... Mutual terror.

Just as Bush is willing to send U.S. troops to die to kill arabs.

> Why does Arafat and Hussein praise the suicide bombers.

First, I don't recall Arafat ever praising suicide bombers.

BUT... if you look at the brutality initiated by the Israelis against
arabs in Gaza and the West Bank, you'd have a bit more sympathy for
Arafat's situation.

And as for Hussein, the first thing to note as that he, much like Bin
Laden, is in power because of direct CIA influence.  Also, it has been
estimated that the "sanctions" against Iraq have killed more people than
all weapons of mass destruction ever used to date.  No doubt that Hussein
is a bad person, but he has been cornered and about the only thing he
could do at this point is commit suicide.  Every action by Hussein since
1991 has been one of desperation and potentially a last gasp.

And do we not praise those who have fallen in battle?

> Why does Hussein give money to families of the suicide bombers?

What's a military pension for a U.S. soldier killed in action?

> Why do Arabs chant and hold signs that say "Death to Israel"?

Um, because Israel is a destructive and belligerent force in the region?

> >US foreign policy since the 1960s has been a wholly destructive force for
> >everyone but the wealthiest three or five percent of the population.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by this.

OK... My claim is that every major act by the State Department in the past
forty years has been to further the goals of the wealthy, regardless of
its impact on freedom, peace or justice.  How's that?

> >Did you learn nothing from the Iran/Contra affair?
> 
> That Reagan signs thing without reading them?  He wasn't that good of
> an actor.  Bedtime for Bonzo?  That Admiral Pointdexter has no morals
> at all? That Oliver North was such a dedicated Marine that he would
> follow any order he was given and take the fall if ordered to?

That the US blatantly ignores international law?  That the U.S. and Israel
are the sole voices of anti-democratic power in the UN?

The World Court found that the U.S. was acting illegally (in violation of
international law and valid treaties) in Nicauragua and found that
restitution was due to the Sandanista government for those actions as well
as an immediate withdrawal of troops and support.  The U.S. simply ignored
the ruling and Congress gave 100 million dollars to the illegal effort.

The U.N. then called for a vote to resolve that all nations abide by
international law.  This seems somewhat inoccuous.  The vote was 94-3 in
favor.  The three dissenting nations were the United States and Israel and
El Salvador.  The New York Times chose to ignore that vote and run a
story, instead, on overly high UN salaries.  In November of 1987, one year
later, a vote was called again the UN generally assembly to require
immediate adherence to the World Court decision.  This time, only Israel
and the United States voted against it.

During that same session, the UN then voted 154-1 with no abstentions for
a ban on a build-up of weapons on space, a vote 135-1 banning the
development of new weapons of mass destruction, and 143-2 calling for a
comprehensive test-ban treaty.  In each case, the United States was the
sole dissent, except for the test-ban vote where the U.S. was joined by
France.



-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org