View Full Version : Osama's Family on 9/11
Anyone here know why our Government had Osama's family safely flown out of the country on that dreadful day when ALL other flights couldn't get off the ground? Even folks in our own government couldn't fly anywhere yet we escort this bastard's family out?
Wouldn't we have been better served to have them escorted to the nearest interrogation office instead?
Anyone have any links to this (from credible sources) and why this was the case?
*note: No, I'm not turning "Lib" - just trying to find out what's up w/ this story... seems as if it had been "swept under the rug"....
theHawk
05-17-2007, 12:26 PM
I remember when that happened they said it was to protect them from retaliation attacks from ignorant people. Because the bin Laden family is a big and powerful famliy that runs a construction company, and long before 9/11 they renounced what Osama had been doing as a terrorist and he was long since disowned from the family. I guess Bush thought he was doing the right thing.
Dilloduck
05-17-2007, 12:30 PM
Americans don't hold family members hostage.
gabosaurus
05-17-2007, 12:41 PM
Excellent point, cp!! I have wondered about that for years.
Normally, when a crime has been committed, authorities question their next of kin. Instead, the Bushies rounded up all the bin Laden family and flew them out of the country. For which they were lauded in the Saudi state media.
A member of the Pentagon at the time has stated that the Saudi Royal Family demanded that the bin Laden family be flown out of the country to "avoid retribution." At that time, no one had officially pinned the crime on bin Laden. So how did the Saudis know, unless they were directly connected to it.
Americans don't hold family members hostage.
Is this why the American government rounded up entire "suspect" families in the weeks following Sept. 11 and held them for questioning?
I think it is fairly odd that we took hundreds of "people of interest" into custody, but let all of a terrorist's family leave the country, at our expense.
I guess the Arabs don't know him as "Bandar Bush" for nothing.
I dunno.. just seems odd that we'd fly his family out - when even our own ppl couldn't fly out that day and at least not even question them...
Also seems odd that after 6 years we still have no clue on the whereabouts of Osama - either dead or alive.....
Seems wierd too that Clinton had the chance to kill him in Torra Borra and said "no"....
WTH?
Dilloduck
05-17-2007, 02:50 PM
Excellent point, cp!! I have wondered about that for years.
Normally, when a crime has been committed, authorities question their next of kin. Instead, the Bushies rounded up all the bin Laden family and flew them out of the country. For which they were lauded in the Saudi state media.
A member of the Pentagon at the time has stated that the Saudi Royal Family demanded that the bin Laden family be flown out of the country to "avoid retribution." At that time, no one had officially pinned the crime on bin Laden. So how did the Saudis know, unless they were directly connected to it.
Is this why the American government rounded up entire "suspect" families in the weeks following Sept. 11 and held them for questioning?
I think it is fairly odd that we took hundreds of "people of interest" into custody, but let all of a terrorist's family leave the country, at our expense.
I guess the Arabs don't know him as "Bandar Bush" for nothing.
Since this wasn't your "normal" crime so you can throw you bullshit hypothesis out the window. Osama was the "black sheep" of the bin laden family and had been booted out of country after country. Anyone who had read his declaration of war on the US "knew" who was behind the New York massacre the second it happened.
Questioning people is a far cry from holding people hostages. Knowing the Saudi family has been nothing but an asset in the WOT.
Go back to your moonbat cave, girl. The daylight has fried you brain.
Yeah Dillo - my point here isn't to get the rabid likes of gabby and the hard-left ilk to start tossing out silly conspiracry crap, but to have an honest, intellectual look at the reasons behind it...
Even if he was "kicked out of this family" - I still think, under the light of the worst attack on American Soil EVER, they still needed to be questioned...
Dilloduck
05-17-2007, 03:02 PM
Yeah Dillo - my point here isn't to get the rabid likes of gabby and the hard-left ilk to start tossing out silly conspiracry crap, but to have an honest, intellectual look at the reasons behind it...
Even if he was "kicked out of this family" - I still think, under the light of the worst attack on American Soil EVER, they still needed to be questioned...
-CP---We knew the answers----Osamas' evil aspirations were a secret to no one. Additionally if the Bin Laden family was to be interreogated ANYWHERE , what better place to do it in the secrecy of Saudi Arabia ? I bet the Sauds had a few questions they wanted to ask themselves too since Osama is damned and determined to overthrow them.
krisy
05-17-2007, 03:12 PM
Is it possible that they had allready been watching Bin Laden's family,with the intent of hearing something between him and then, and knew they were clean of any wrongdoing? Before 9-11 that is.
Just a thought
-CP---We knew the answers----Osamas' evil aspirations were a secret to no one. Additionally if the Bin Laden family was to be interreogated ANYWHERE , what better place to do it in the secrecy of Saudi Arabia ? I bet the Sauds had a few questions they wanted to ask themselves too since Osama is damned and determined to overthrow them.
You're using asumptions here bud.... We still don't know the answers regarding OBL's family....
It's the principle of the matter IMO..
Dilloduck
05-17-2007, 03:47 PM
You're using asumptions here bud.... We still don't know the answers regarding OBL's family....
It's the principle of the matter IMO..
Only to dispute the assumptions that Bush was somehow privy to some special info or was in anyway protecting criminals.
I dunno.. just seems odd that we'd fly his family out - when even our own ppl couldn't fly out that day and at least not even question them...
That is a good question, along with the other questions floating around. Maybe the release of the CIA papers will tell us something.
Seems wierd too that Clinton had the chance to kill him in Torra Borra and said "no"....
WTH?
Um.......that was Bush.
nevadamedic
05-17-2007, 11:23 PM
That is a good question, along with the other questions floating around. Maybe the release of the CIA papers will tell us something.
Um.......that was Bush.
They should have been detained, they had to know something about where he would go and who's helping him, if not they would have made good leverage.
gabosaurus
05-17-2007, 11:50 PM
-CP---We knew the answers----Osamas' evil aspirations were a secret to no one. Additionally if the Bin Laden family was to be interreogated ANYWHERE , what better place to do it in the secrecy of Saudi Arabia ? I bet the Sauds had a few questions they wanted to ask themselves too since Osama is damned and determined to overthrow them.
Dillo, you have been drinking WAY too much Bush propaganda Kool-Aid. If Osama's "evil aspirations" were not a secret, how did he manage to pull off an attack on American soil? (Well, beside the fact that the Bushies totally ignored his threats, including an August memo that warned against commercial airliners being used as weapons).
The Saudis questioned no one. The bin Laden family are prominent members of Saudi society. Saudi Arabia hosts and financially assists more known terrorist cells than any other country in the world. The 9-11 Commission Report was reduced to a mockery after the Saudi government demanded the removal of over 200 pages that implicated Saudi citizens.
Dillo, you have been drinking WAY too much Bush propaganda Kool-Aid. If Osama's "evil aspirations" were not a secret, how did he manage to pull off an attack on American soil? (Well, beside the fact that the Bushies totally ignored his threats, including an August memo that warned against commercial airliners being used as weapons).
The Saudis questioned no one. The bin Laden family are prominent members of Saudi society. Saudi Arabia hosts and financially assists more known terrorist cells than any other country in the world. The 9-11 Commission Report was reduced to a mockery after the Saudi government demanded the removal of over 200 pages that implicated Saudi citizens.
Stop being a partisan hack.... Bush has done more to thwart Osama than Clinton ever did - hell, Clinton HAD the chance to have him killed but denied it...
Additionally, the Saudi's offered Osama to him but he declined...
Stop dragging your political views into this...
That is a good question, along with the other questions floating around. Maybe the release of the CIA papers will tell us something.
Um.......that was Bush.
No.. that was under Clinton's watch....
theHawk
05-18-2007, 10:32 AM
If Osama's "evil aspirations" were not a secret, how did he manage to pull off an attack on American soil? (Well, beside the fact that the Bushies totally ignored his threats, including an August memo that warned against commercial airliners being used as weapons).
You're lying.
The August 6th memo did not warn of commerical airliners being used as weapons. It mentioned that back in 1998 Bin Laden wanted to hijack an airliner to release the Blind Shiek, not to use it as a weapon.
Gabby, learn to read basic English.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
The 9-11 Commission Report was reduced to a mockery after the Saudi government demanded the removal of over 200 pages that implicated Saudi citizens.
The entire 9/11 Commision report was a mockery, its sole purpose was to clear Clinton and the Saudis of any wrongdoing or mistakes.
gabosaurus
05-18-2007, 10:59 AM
OK, I forgot everything was Clinton's fault. My mistake. :cheers2:
gabosaurus
05-18-2007, 11:10 AM
The August 6th memo did not warn of commerical airliners being used as weapons. It mentioned that back in 1998 Bin Laden wanted to hijack an airliner to release the Blind Shiek, not to use it as a weapon.
That's only part of it.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=August_6%2C_2001%2C_President's_Da ily_Briefing_Memo
Item 10 of the "Statement of the Case" in the lawsuit filed November 26, 2003, on behalf of September 11, 2001 widow Ellen Mariani states: [16]
"As widely reported and confirmed by many American independent researchers of the facts and circumstances of '911,' Defendant GWB knew the attacks of '911' were probable and failed to act. Specifically, Special Agent Robert Wright wrote a memo on June 9, 2001, warning his superiors, Defendant DOJ/FBI of the potential of terrorists hijacking aircraft to attack the United States and two (2) months later, Defendant GWB's National Security Advisor, Defendant Condoleezza Rice, acknowledged that on August 6, 2001, (one month prior to the '911' attacks), she provided a written brief to Defendant GWB at his Texas ranch which warned 'OBL' might try to hijack U.S. aircraft."
Dilloduck
05-18-2007, 12:14 PM
That's only part of it.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=August_6%2C_2001%2C_President's_Da ily_Briefing_Memo
Tell us President Gabby--what should Bush have done, having only the information he had at that time and if this intelligence was available to the Clinton administration, why didn't THEY do anything?
Mr. P
05-18-2007, 12:59 PM
OK, I forgot everything was Clinton's fault. My mistake. :cheers2:
True, your mistake. Clinton had this in view for 8 years and did what?
Bush was in office for less than 9 months and you wanna lay 100% of the blame on him? Come on this hasn't worked for six years and it won't work in 600 years.
nevadamedic
05-18-2007, 01:19 PM
OK, I forgot everything was Clinton's fault. My mistake. :cheers2:
Sounds like you are starting to opn your eyes.
gabosaurus
05-21-2007, 07:04 PM
Read all about it. American intelligence had all sorts of information available on bin Laden and the terrorists. Clinton didn't act because he was a lame duck president. And a stupid one at that.
When Bush became president, all that intelligence was immediately made available to him. Bush set it aside because he was more interested in getting rid of Saddam.
Like it or not, Sept. 11 did not happen on Clinton's watch. It happened on Bush's watch. Bush turned a blind eye to all the intelligence reports. Therefore, Bush is to blame, because he was in charge.
Bush was totally clueless leading up to Sept. 11. He was even more clueless on Sept. 11, during which he flew around aimlessly with his thumb up his butt. On Sept. 12, Bush decided to use the attacks to his advantage. Which he has done ever since.
nevadamedic
05-21-2007, 07:41 PM
Read all about it. American intelligence had all sorts of information available on bin Laden and the terrorists. Clinton didn't act because he was a lame duck president. And a stupid one at that.
When Bush became president, all that intelligence was immediately made available to him. Bush set it aside because he was more interested in getting rid of Saddam.
Like it or not, Sept. 11 did not happen on Clinton's watch. It happened on Bush's watch. Bush turned a blind eye to all the intelligence reports. Therefore, Bush is to blame, because he was in charge.
Bush was totally clueless leading up to Sept. 11. He was even more clueless on Sept. 11, during which he flew around aimlessly with his thumb up his butt. On Sept. 12, Bush decided to use the attacks to his advantage. Which he has done ever since.
I watched a documentary on this and there were several times between 98-99 that we had a clear shot on Bin Laden or were inplace to do a snatch and grab, but Clinton refused fearing a war with the afgans.
Dilloduck
05-21-2007, 08:21 PM
Read all about it. American intelligence had all sorts of information available on bin Laden and the terrorists. Clinton didn't act because he was a lame duck president. And a stupid one at that.
When Bush became president, all that intelligence was immediately made available to him. Bush set it aside because he was more interested in getting rid of Saddam.
Like it or not, Sept. 11 did not happen on Clinton's watch. It happened on Bush's watch. Bush turned a blind eye to all the intelligence reports. Therefore, Bush is to blame, because he was in charge.
Bush was totally clueless leading up to Sept. 11. He was even more clueless on Sept. 11, during which he flew around aimlessly with his thumb up his butt. On Sept. 12, Bush decided to use the attacks to his advantage. Which he has done ever since.
A pretty good rehash of the insane liberal opinion which exonerates Clinton and blames Bush.:lame2:
nevadamedic
05-21-2007, 08:25 PM
Read all about it. American intelligence had all sorts of information available on bin Laden and the terrorists. Clinton didn't act because he was a lame duck president. And a stupid one at that.
When Bush became president, all that intelligence was immediately made available to him. Bush set it aside because he was more interested in getting rid of Saddam.
Like it or not, Sept. 11 did not happen on Clinton's watch. It happened on Bush's watch. Bush turned a blind eye to all the intelligence reports. Therefore, Bush is to blame, because he was in charge.
Bush was totally clueless leading up to Sept. 11. He was even more clueless on Sept. 11, during which he flew around aimlessly with his thumb up his butt. On Sept. 12, Bush decided to use the attacks to his advantage. Which he has done ever since.
If that was really the case he would have gone into Iraq IMMEDIATLY when he took office, did he? No. Like usual you have no clue.
nevadamedic
05-21-2007, 08:26 PM
A pretty good rehash of the insane liberal opinion which exonerates Clinton and blames Bush.:lame2:
:clap:
I watched a documentary on this and there were several times between 98-99 that we had a clear shot on Bin Laden or were inplace to do a snatch and grab, but Clinton refused fearing a war with the afgans.
You do know that one country can not go into another country and indiscrimantly kill people, right?
manu1959
05-21-2007, 10:52 PM
You do know that one country can not go into another country and indiscrimantly kill people, right?
you mean like the al queda crowd or the palestinian crowd?
A pretty good rehash of the insane liberal opinion which exonerates Clinton and blames Bush.:lame2:
I don't think that was so much an exoneration as it was an explanation. This administration did not go cold into the White House. They were briefed on all terrorist activity. Like it or not, the cold hard facts are that Bush didn't take the time, or take seriously his daily intelligence briefings. I'm sure he does now though.:salute:
you mean like the al queda crowd or the palestinian crowd?
........or the Israli crowd or the Lebanon crowd.......see those start wars. I suppose if Clinton wanted a retaliation war, then he could do what Nevada suggested.
nevadamedic
05-21-2007, 11:16 PM
You do know that one country can not go into another country and indiscrimantly kill people, right?
Unless someone in that country is wanted for crimes committed agains't another country. In this case Bin Laden was wanted by our Government, we should have killed him or grabbed him when we were set up to.
Unless someone in that country is wanted for crimes committed agains't another country. In this case Bin Laden was wanted by our Government, we should have killed him or grabbed him when we were set up to.
Oh yes, I agree! At Tora Bora when we were at war in Afghanistan......but then there wasn't enough men. You know Rumsfailed's "war strategy" of going to war with the army you have (not enough) instead of the army you want........man that must have been demoralizing to the troops, wouldn't you think?
I mean both the statement and the act of not having enough men to actuall kill the man you went after that caused 911 allowing him to go back into hiding for all this time......planning only God knows what.
nevadamedic
05-22-2007, 12:29 AM
Oh yes, I agree! At Tora Bora when we were at war in Afghanistan......but then there wasn't enough men. You know Rumsfailed's "war strategy" of going to war with the army you have (not enough) instead of the army you want........man that must have been demoralizing to the troops, wouldn't you think?
I mean both the statement and the act of not having enough men to actuall kill the man you went after that caused 911 allowing him to go back into hiding for all this time......planning only God knows what.
You never know, we could have Bin Laden. Admitting that we captured him would be suicide, we would be hit with terror attacks on a daily basis until we set him free. Also I dont think it was actually Saddam who was killed. That guy had 10-15 body doubles who he had surgically altered to look like him. He would be to useful to us to have killed. That guy has information on everyone we want including his long time friend, Bin Laden. How hard would it be to execute one of his body doubles and make it look like it was him, and make the world think it was him? I wouldn't put it past our Government, hell it's something I would do if I were in that position.
You never know, we could have Bin Laden. Admitting that we captured him would be suicide, we would be hit with terror attacks on a daily basis until we set him free. Also I dont think it was actually Saddam who was killed. That guy had 10-15 body doubles who he had surgically altered to look like him. He would be to useful to us to have killed. That guy has information on everyone we want including his long time friend, Bin Laden. How hard would it be to execute one of his body doubles and make it look like it was him, and make the world think it was him? I wouldn't put it past our Government, hell it's something I would do if I were in that position.
:tinfoil: :tinfoil: Yeah, and I could have both of them hiding in my garage.....but nice change of subject.
nevadamedic
05-22-2007, 01:49 AM
:tinfoil: :tinfoil: Yeah, and I could have both of them hiding in my garage.....but nice change of subject.
Really, can I come see them? :) I didn't mean to change the subject. This has been a situation that has been mis-managed since the late 70's.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.