How Bush Saved Saudi Friends

[Olivier]

two threads of mine have been edited of late, apparently by a moderator




the titles that have been altered are

"the real cause of the death of Arafat"

as been changed to
"Politicizing the Yasser Arafat's cause of death; or, what we don't know can hurt you.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122881&postcount=70

I do not see what the added insinuation means... or what value added it brings





Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved

to

Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved, Satan unavailable for comment
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122938&postcount=126
I had not into of putting any satanic reference in the discussion

Overall, the objective of this person is harassment.
Arbitrary harassment because he does not share my opinions. Why leave intact threads which are either pure provocation of plain false and modify titles respecting forum rule? Why choose to distord the name of the threads I started?

let's see one example on naming a thread :

France: we will use the UN-mandate to continue the occupation of the Ivory Coast => this is plain lie, no french declaration was made about "occupating ivory coast".

and guess what, the guy who created the thread has been promoted moderator ! Now he can toy with what I say in total impunity...

Now If you want to see delirant threads titles just browse the forum..



Now what should I do ?
- I have first protested to the forum owner (newsguy), who answered that moderators are fully allowed change thread titles. This practice is discretionary and completely arbitrary. Any moderator can change a thread name to what he wants. Just because he feels like it.

Ok, now what do I do ? I can either
=========================
solution #1 - accept that the thread I start have a title perverting what the idea I defend.

solution #2 - stop posting and conceide victory to the harasser. This will also overjoy all here that do not share my opinions.


Now although it is certainly not good to give in to harassment, I have choose solution #2. As I wrote to the forum owner "you might as well have the guts to ask me to leave politely and I certainly would not insist".
But the idea that someone can pull strings and make me say what I do not want to say, just because he finds it fun is completely disgusting to me.

I do not know for you, maybe some of you find it fantastic to read a forum like this, but for me this is more than just hindering freedom of expression, this is plain pervert.

So bye all !


Overall I hope I have contributed adding value to the forum and interest to the reader.
I tried to start threads worthy of real debate and to documents my posts as well as I could! I tried not to answer provocation by avoiding the most aggressive of hateful posters.

On the statistic side, I started no less than 113 threads and wrote 1250 posts, which means I easily dedicated two hundred hours to the forum.

these are some of the threads I am the most proud of , Bush is elected, what can we expect in the next years?
• Good news for the Saudis and the iranians: Crude prices hit 21 year high
• Fight against Global warming : Kyoto Protocol becomes international treaty.
• teaching democracy (it's a picture !)
• If America were Iraq, What Would It be Like?
• Another legend down the drain : Iraq's Disappearing Elections (this one is likely to make a comeback)
• a no-win war against 1.3 billion Muslims
• Israel Has Long Spied on U.S alleges Counterpunch (I think this thread title has been manipulated as well)
• Moore's anti-Bush film wins top Cannes award
• Arab-Israeli Retaliation Tragic, Unhelpful
• Europe must not define itself against America
• about the dangers of blurring the lines between humanitarians workers and armies
• French troops deployed on Sudan border
• Military Draft in the US?
• Reaction in France on Sharon calling french jews to "leave immediately
• Torture by US forces is Iraq is not just isolated incidents (that thread is probably the one with the longuest debate : 481 posts)
• How can the damage of the torture photos be repaired? (with now a variant with the shooting of an unarmed wounded insurged in a mosque)
• Are we de-Baathifying or re-Baathifying this week? (that one was not a success, by it was fun)
• Rebirth at Ground Zero (don’t start optimistics threads here : no success)
• Real politics starting inside iraq? (ditto)
• U.S. Drops Effort to Gain Immunity for Its Troops
• 9/11 panel says there was ‘‘no credible evidence’’ that Saddam had ties with al-Qaida
• Big demonstration in Paris today against anti-Semitism
• europe grows : Israelis rush on europeans passport
• hostilities ending in Falluja? (lucky I put an interrogation mark on that one.. that was started in june)
• France to expel Muslim cleric over abuse

And it makes me extremely sad to realize all these titles can be perverted anytime…



…. So I have decided, that I prefer to remove some of my posts than to have what I mean manipulated against my will, it’s a bit sad, but it seems reasonable to withdraw from a debate when the debate turns out to be a fake. And of course I do not approve of the hatred shown by the people who manipulate this forum to their ends.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Once again, our French pet is slightly behind the times. From "Chapter 10: Wartime", from the 9/11 Commision's final report (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5488276/):

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.

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.” 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.

Third,we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights. 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. 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. 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.

Someone will have to wake up Ollie to the facts because I'm on his ignore list. :o

[Kev]

Once again, our French pet is slightly behind the times. From "Chapter 10: Wartime", from the 9/11 Commision's final report:

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.

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.” 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.

Third,we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights. 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. 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. 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.

Someone will have to wake up Ollie to the facts because I'm on his ignore list.



Consider him partially awake................if at all out of his coma yet.

[Olivier]

Someone will have to wake up Ollie to the facts because I'm on his ignore list.
1/ the elements given do no pertain to the whole case, especially the deep-rooted link between bush and the ben laden
2/ if bush is so innocent (didn't meet Bandar, didn't help the saudi's plane take off) he can file a lawsuit anytime. As I see he doesn't dare.
Strange isn't it? You've this terrible documentary showing, it's just plain false, but bush doesn't deny anything....




this poster is on my ignore list because he's unable to behave in a normal, civilized manner on a discussion forum. He claims I'm an animal and he, probably, some kind of übermench....

Once again, our French pet.

[Semsem]

Olive this is such ooooold news. And who cares if a few harmless Saudis got out of the country in VIP style.

[MichaelC]

oliver had to go out and hunt down this discredited source in order to make a point in another thread. He'd been asked to provide a source for an accusation he had made and not having any, he rushed off and grabbed this one, apparently not taking the time to consider the implications. He then posted it as a thread and, in the other thread, referred back to this thread.

Just goes to show what happens to those who speak of things they know nothing about.

[Oh Jerusalem]

1/ the elements given do no pertain to the whole case, especially the deep-rooted link between bush and the ben laden
2/ if bush is so innocent (didn't meet Bandar, didn't help the saudi's plane take off) he can file a lawsuit anytime. As I see he doesn't dare.
Strange isn't it? You've this terrible documentary showing, it's just plain false, but bush doesn't deny anything....
Maybe because Bush can't be bothered with insignificant little conspiracy crackpots.

hint............. hint..............

this poster is on my ignore list
And proud of it! :D

because he's unable to behave in a normal, civilized manner on a discussion forum. He claims I'm an animal and he, probably, some kind of übermench....
Still got a frog stuck in your throat?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Olive this is such ooooold news. And who cares if a few harmless Saudis got out of the country in VIP style.
But they didn't and that's the point.

[Oh Jerusalem]

1/ the elements given do no pertain to the whole case
Yes they do. Quite clearly.

especially the deep-rooted link between bush and the ben laden

Do you hear the logic here, folks?

Let's use this lie as a stepping stone to another conspiration theory.

[Canajew]

but aside from the asinine simpleton that is is Olivier, and beside the fact that this article is a fiction, when will Bush et al finally abandon their support for the Saudi royal family and their efforts to spread the word of Wahabbi jihad-genocide around the world.

I know the US is dependent on Saudi oil, but Bush has not initiated or implemented any plans, policies, incentives or anything else to lessen this dependence, either now or in the future. The time has been ripe for some time now to begin offering incentives to both research and adopt newer technologies and aletrnative fuel sources. Obviuously can't shift everything today, but he is only prolonging things.

And I am not sure why. Because the whole US oil conspiracy thing makes no sense. If Bush is only interested in $$ for the oil companies, his best bet would be to cut off Arab terror-oil (i.e. no more blood for oil) and allow prices to rise.

In all seriousness, noting that the above left-wing wingnut ocnspiracy theory is stupid, more likely he is concerned with the wider economy and the risks of another oil price shock. But if that is true, then wouldn't the correct policy be to reduce dependence on oil in the economy and reduce dependence on foreign oil ASAP?

I doubt that the democrats would take a harder line with the Saudis and their twisted leaders and population, but I can't figure out why neither party will do anything about this (though I do know the state department, stupidly counter-productive as always, has significant influence in this).

It is the Saudis, after all, that are mostly to blame for the propaganda that has been spread in US mosques, as well as mosques in the rest of the western world. they fund them, they build them, they dictate the ideology. They are doing all they can to create the largest subversive population that they can. They have funded terrorism for years. They produce mountains of anti-semetic and anti-American garbage.

The US should treat Saudi Arabia like it does Iran, Syria and other terror sponsoring corrupt oppresive dictatorships. The Europeans on this site are completely correct when they point out how inconsistent and irrational it is to have the US govenrment lend support to such a regime. It IS hypocracy, it IS counter-productive in the war on Islamofacism, and it IS morally wrong.

the Europeans may not be right in their policy perscriptions, and they may not be right in their understanding of the incentives at play, but those that criticize the US realtionship with the Saudis are 100% correct, in my opinion, even if for some of them (i.e. Olivier) they are right for entirely the wrong reasons.

By the way, anyone note how since Olivier announced he saw Farenheight 911 he has been spewing the falsehoods from that film as if they were gospel? seeing propaganda at work among the simple folk is fascinating, if downright scary. For those on the left who are more intelligent (and I would count both takeo and North in that category, even though we disagree on pretty much everything), critical thinking is still applied. But for those like Olivier, there is nothing that even remotely approaches rational thought. What is inconsistent is simply not perceived or processed. Of course this happens on the right as well with simple follwoers of Rush Limbaugh or the dork in the bowtie on Crossfire, but it really scares me that the bulk of public opinion on either side of an issue anywhere are essentially ignorant simpletons.

[cerulean]

A perennial problem in US politics is the influence of lobbyists. In the case of the State Department, people retire from their positions and take up positions paid for, one way or another, by countries like Saudi Arabia.

But let's look at this. During WWII, rationing (of oil, gas, food, etc.) was introduced so that the war effort would not be compromised. Given we are in an undeclared WWIV (depending if you see the Cold War as WWIII) is it really that extreme a step to introduce some sort of rationing of oil or something so as to reduce dependence on Saudi oil? I hate the idea that of every dollar of gas purchased at the pump, some percentage is going to support terrorists. I know rationing probably wouldn't fly, but I don't know what would. Lenin said something like "The capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them." It seems the US is doing the same thing.

[Olivier]

more about the "flight story" and the report



Scrutinizing the Saudi Connection
By GERALD POSNER

Published: July 27, 2004

(..)


The report fails, however, to note that when the flights occurred, airspace was open only to a limited number of commercial - not private - planes. And it attributes incorrect positions maintained for months by the federal government, particularly the F.B.I., to a "misunderstanding" between federal and local law enforcement.

Moreover, the report makes no effort to determine whether the question of the special repatriation of high-ranking Saudis from the United States was discussed on the same day as the first flight in a private meeting - no aides permitted - between President Bush and the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. The ambassador has denied that the subject was discussed in his conversation with the president. But did the commission ask the president about it when it had the opportunity to question him? If so, there is no indication in the report.

The report makes no mention that one of the Saudis on the flight that left Kentucky for Saudi Arabia was Prince Ahmed bin Salman. Nephew to King Fahd, Prince Ahmed was later mentioned to American interrogators in March 2002 by none other than Abu Zubaydah, a top Qaeda official captured that same month. The connection, if any, between a top operative of Al Qaeda and a leading member of the royal family has remained unresolved despite Saudi denials. Prince Ahmed cannot be asked: he died in 2002, at the age of 43, from complications from stomach surgery in a Riyadh hospital.


(..)

the rest of the editorial gives other interesting points, shall I put more of this?

[David_in_NYC]

You've lauded elsewhere the same guy who gave the order to permit the Saudi flights - Richard Clarke.

So which is it? Clarke a hero or a villain? Or is it hero-when-bashing-Bush, villain-when-not?

[scattergood]

Olivier:

Scrutinizing the Saudi Connection
By GERALD POSNER

Published: July 27, 2004

(..)


The report fails, however, to note that when the flights occurred, airspace was open only to a limited number of commercial - not private - planes. And it attributes incorrect positions maintained for months by the federal government, particularly the F.B.I., to a "misunderstanding" between federal and local law enforcement.

Moreover, the report makes no effort to determine whether the question of the special repatriation of high-ranking Saudis from the United States was discussed on the same day as the first flight in a private meeting - no aides permitted - between President Bush and the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. The ambassador has denied that the subject was discussed in his conversation with the president. But did the commission ask the president about it when it had the opportunity to question him? If so, there is no indication in the report.

The report makes no mention that one of the Saudis on the flight that left Kentucky for Saudi Arabia was Prince Ahmed bin Salman. Nephew to King Fahd, Prince Ahmed was later mentioned to American interrogators in March 2002 by none other than Abu Zubaydah, a top Qaeda official captured that same month. The connection, if any, between a top operative of Al Qaeda and a leading member of the royal family has remained unresolved despite Saudi denials. Prince Ahmed cannot be asked: he died in 2002, at the age of 43, from complications from stomach surgery in a Riyadh hospital.

more about the "flight story" and the report

Olivier, the only way to lend credence to this writer OVER the 9/11 Commission Report is to believe:

1) That the 5 Democrats who want Bush out of office are agreeing to a falsified report, which makes both the Democrats and Republicans in on the whole thing

or

2) That the Republicans are FORCING the Democrats to agree to the 9/11 report against their objections through blackmail, force, extortion, etc.

or

3) That the Democrats and Republicans are just too stupid to consider what the writer is pointing out, even though it was the Commission who had access to private documents and interviewed the witnesses directly.

or

4) The Dems and Repubs turning a blind eye becuse we cannot bear to see the faults of our own system.

So which one is it? Why would a Bi-Partisan committee agree to a report that you find so odious?

[Mil]

Posted by Canajew:


I know the US is dependent on Saudi oil, but Bush has not initiated or implemented any plans, policies, incentives or anything else to lessen this dependence, either now or in the future.


US is not dependent on Saudi oil!!!!! However, Saudi Oil production is dependend on US economic and political support. Only 13% of all oil to the US comes from ME. The largest supplier of US oil are the United States itself, Mexico, Venezuela, Russia and ME. Actually the largest buyers of oil from Saudi Arabia are Japan, China, India, and Europe.

And I am not sure why. Because the whole US oil conspiracy thing makes no sense. If Bush is only interested in $$ for the oil companies, his best bet would be to cut off Arab terror-oil (i.e. no more blood for oil) and allow prices to rise.

The need for alternatives is not a conspiracy but a money problem. Everyone, including Bush or the famed oil companies, understand that oil is just a matter of time. The problem is that the issue has to be appoached very carefully. Sudden policy changes can introduce economic consequences that would only increase oil dependence for generations.

[Mil]

Now all these Michael Moore conspiracy theories were created for uneducated morons who get all their information form X-Files.

Olivier Michael Moore implies:

1. Bush was behind or knew in advance about 9/11. True or False?

2. The war in Afganistan was about an oil pipeline. True or False?

3. The war in Iraq was about oil. True or False?

[Mediocrates]

Of course the US is dependant on OPEC oil particularly Saudi oil which constitutes about 9% of all US oil consumption. But as always the problem is more complex than that. What the Saudis have, above anything else is a highly variable productive capacity. They have the ability, more than any other to twist the faucet open or closed at will. This has little direct bearing on the supply - but instead on the COST of oil. The KSA has the ability to slide the price up or down with or without an OPEC consensus. And as we've seen in the past no OPEC nation, even the KSA really has the ability to manipulate supply directly because in the end, everyone cheats on the quotas. What the KSA can, will and does do is open and close their slack capacity and this dials in whatever price they need to set.

Now the question then becomes not "should we take steps to reduce this dependency" but instead should we have other sources that easily take up the slack in that elastic capacity of the Saudis so as to remove our RELIANCE (not dependency) on the capacities and prices they set? If the US could reduce its reliance on Saudi oil by 0.5% per year (not at the margin but 0.5% of the 9% gross or one eighteenth of the total) per year then this would set the stage for a strategic shift in the balance of power between the oil states and the US. Even if it resulted in a permanent stable higher prices it would be to our advantage to do so. The way to do this is develop predictable sources elsewhere such as the deep ocean, Africa and (non OPEC) SE Asia. This would have the effect of keeping prices lower and out of the control of the Saudis to manipulate.