Bush/Usama

[shutupandshave]

I was having a chat with a colleague about some of the stuff that is said on these boards. He's India, and lived in India all his life (except for the past couple of years)... the conversation actually begun with I asked for an explanation about the Pakistan/India problems that have occurred in the past. After explaining them from his point of view (which is basically that some guy 50 years ago killed a tonne of people, and there was a bit of a row afterwards, but for the most part, there's no real hatred at all), we started talking about Bin Laden.

He said to me that it is common knowledge over there that Bush and Bin Laden were friends for a while. Bush, he says, owns a LOT of different companies and a few years ago a started a business venture with Osama, now whether this business venture went sour (as some suggest) or they're still in business (as others suggest) it does raise a few interesting questions...
such as:
Why the hell did Bush go and attack Osama's sworn enemy (Hussein) in response to Osama attacking the US...
Why the hell did the US government supposedly give the Taliban 43 million dollars in May 2001...if it new they were terrorists.
Why did the US not attack the Kurds (who were the people harbouring AL-Q) and instead attacked the person that was killing the US's apparent enemies.


Here is a quote from "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 father of Osama bin Laden. The father of bin Laden named Houston investment broker James R. Bath as his business representative in Texas, right after George W. Bush's father became CIA director in 1976. By 1977, Bath invested $50,000 into junior's first business, Arbusto Energy, while Osama bin Laden would soon become a CIA asset. George W. Bush's FBI director Robert Mueller was part of the Justice Department's 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)."
Wait, so Bush Snr was in charge at the same time that Bin Laden was a CIA asset... So Bush Snr was paying Bin Laden's wages... then Bush Snr went and attacked (after saying he wouldn't) Hussein... Bin Laden's enemy.

Okay - anyone have any explanation for this.
I NEVER knew that Bush Snr was the head of the CIA whilst it was bank-rolling Bin Laden...

Now whilst reading later, I found a website that said explicitly that the 43 million went directly to the people via aid organisations, and not to the Taliban (which is a good thing)...so being a website that seemed reasonable I decided to read a couple more articles.
The first states that the US has privatised all the state industries in Iraq, and given the jobs to US companies.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/20604/

My boss is coming, so I will post this now.

[MVB]

The Bush-Osama joint venture myth is just that; it's kind of like saying that you and I are close personal friends who've known each other all our lives off the connection we have by posting on the TLSC boards. It's like the Kevin Bacon game with world leaders (oh well he does this which is connected to this which is related to this which is done by this guy, therefore they are close personal associates). Call me closed-minded on this one, because no evidence I've seen on it has been in any way from valid sources or using valid strings of logic (one or the other always off).

Bin Laden was not a CIA asset in the way you think; they considered him to be working for American goals by interfering with the USSR, so they referred to him as an "asset," and that usually means being used ... the CIA would have referred to Stalin as an asset during World War II; that doesn't mean they were paying his bills; it means his actions were in line with their own at the time. Certainly, similar logic to this argument could state that Americans got what they deserved from the USSR, and should have ... what? .... allowed Germany to win and let the USSR die, b/c then they would have had no Cold War? Bin Laden is not as bad an enemy as the USSR was. He's bad alright, but that's just the way it is; we traded lesser evils. Now we're dealing with the lesser evil. If you think about it, it's a slowly downward-recycling spiral. We traded Hitler and Germany for the lesser USSR. We traded the lesser USSR for splinter cells and terrorist groups that we used against them during the Cold War. What will we trade down for next? We'll see, but it's likely to be slightly less dangerous than the previous threat.

Bush NEVER said he wouldn't attack Hussein. Without knowing the world's opinion on things, a US gov't rep said they had no official stance on the Kuwait-issue; this likely implies they hadn't developed one yet. Well, when Hussein went off and attacked, they developed a stance; tough nookies for the dumbass Iraqis and what they did. I do not believe some of the BS implying the Kuwaitis deserved it.

As for Saddam and Osama being sworn enemies; total bs ...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

That's all for now; by the way, I think your friend -- while I'm sure he's smart and a good fella -- might be inaccurate in some of his assumptions and what-not.

I am good friends with a Pakistani woman who moved here not very long ago, and grew up in Pakistan. She is of the opinion that Pakistani-Indian animosity is centuries-old, and has flared up time and again after various events (perhaps like that 50,000 people killed thing you mention). So, I think there are more sides to the story than the one your friend presents.

[shutupandshave]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Links between Saddam and Al-Q have been proven not to be true, we've already discussed this.
Whilst I am willing to read them, I would not quote too many CIA reports as fact at the moment.
As Rumself said last month "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3717024.stm
He then backtracked but made an important differentiation, saying there was hard evidence of AL-Q in Iraq (not working with Hussein - two entirely different things).
Well good god, there are al-q in the US and the UK too but I dont see us bombing ourselves. In fact the Al-Q in Iraq were in Kurdish areas (US allies), I dont see the Kurds having the shit beaten out of them.


Pakistan was part of India until about 80 years ago...so it is unlikely that animosity lasted too long before that between the two countries :p

[MVB]

The animosity is not national, from her explanation. So I doubt you know quite fully why they have animosity at all, if you think it is b/c of Pakistani vs. Indian, rather than various ethnic/territorial boundaries within the area that cause troubles.

I find the report, and CIA background, as evidence enough that Saddam and Osama were not sworn enemies; I find that statement to be silly.

[shutupandshave]

Actually they were definitely sworn enemies at one point.
The fact that the CIA also said that there were WMD in Iraq leads me to believe that the CIA evidence needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

As far as I am aware there is no concrete evidence that Saddam and Osama were in league... however there is circumstatial evidence that people from Iraq were sometimes in the same places as people from Al-Q. Didn't Donnie R once meet Hussein? Does that mean they're in league?

Incidentally I was reading through that source you posted and itseems pretty anti-everything (except Bush). "European political and media elites must have been delighted that their instinctual prejudices about the world had been confirmed in such spectacular fashion."

If the animosity is not national, then it's not pakistani/indian... it would be "muslim/Indian" or something like that. There has always been conflict between neighbouring countries, it's a fact of life. However to say that it was Pakistani/Indian is not true... as the country had only existed for 80 or so years. Pakistani's are for the most part (I believe) essentially just Muslim Indians... or at least were.

The Indians I have spoken too (and it numbers a few) have all said they hold no animosity for Pakistan or it's inhabitants.
Interesting I guess that they echo what Ummon has said in the past, that Muslims stir shit up wherever they go.

[MVB]

My friend is not a Muslim. Not all Pakistanis are.

[Justice]

There are all sorts of conspiracy theories floating about ...

the CIA made a deal with Osama, so they wouldn't catch him in exchange for X goods

the Jews were responsible for 9/11

etc.

There's really no truth in the rumors or "gossip." Just a bunch of unlikely coincidences at best.

cheers, and
-=</|awesomeparty|\>=-

[shutupandshave]

I doubt there is much truth on it, but what I found most interesting is the view of a VERY moderate Indian that didn't suspect this to be true, he "knew" it to be true, and so does every other Indian he knows. He's not left/right wing to my knowledge, and it almost wasn't a big deal to him - it was just a fact you know?

My friend is not a Muslim. Not all Pakistanis are.
I never said that all Pakistani's are Muslims, I said most are.

[JADezimar]

To who's opinoin makes him moderate though o0. To who's eyes is he moderate. I dont know the guy I dont know the background etc. So thats kinda Shaky ground there for me. But just as much I would think for you too.

Edited.

[shutupandshave]

In my opinion he is moderate, which means could be slightly to the left, or slightly to the right - it's all the same to me. In his eyes he is also considered moderate, and is so in his country.

How does his mentioning that people got killed in Pakistan 60 or so years ago make him not moderate?

If I say "jews got killed in Germany" that gives no indication to me of whether I am anything other than a Nazi.

[JADezimar]

I doubt there is much truth on it, but what I found most interesting is the view of a VERY moderate Indian that didn't suspect this to be true, he "knew" it to be true, and so does every other Indian he knows. He's not left/right wing to my knowledge, and it almost wasn't a big deal to him - it was just a fact you know?

Thats like stating all Americans no for a fact every single IRaqi wants us in Iraq.

[shutupandshave]

Which is a statement that I would also find very interesting...

[JADezimar]

Thats what Im saying to say 1 person represents everybody is a line of shit! :)

[shutupandshave]

Yes, the idea that one person can represent a whole country is shit, but I never said he did. I merely stated his views - which you said were not true.

[JADezimar]

Where did I say that Suas can you give me link ?

[shutupandshave]

To who's opinoin makes him moderate though o0. To who's eyes is he moderate. I dont know the guy I dont know the background etc. So thats kinda Shaky ground there for me. But just as much I would think for you too.
He already stated that his views were common over there - therefore he was moderate - and you said he was not.

[JADezimar]

Did I say he was not ? Maybe thats how you interpret it. I only stated its possible he is or isnt.

[shutupandshave]

Indeed you did, my apologies

[Justice]

Since when did Suas have so many posts?

That's incredible.

Well, Suas, you've got me speechless. You must really enjoy this forum.

cheers, and
-=</|awesomeparty|\>=-