The Arab League is made up of almost every Arabic country - with the exception of Iran and Turkey, if you would call that an Arab country. Iran's secret service, and the country of Iran, are probably as economically distant from the US as one could get. Yasser Araft and the PLO recieved the majority of funding from five or 6 Arab countries. Their links to the US and US business associations are fairly obvious, but find me one country in the world that does not have links - directly or indirectly - to the US. I doubt its possible.
Arab nations are not involved in the TLC, and aside from a few correspondents on the ground, contribute little to the CFR. These are not Coca-Cola and Johnson and Johnson agents. They are representative of much of the public sentiment in Arab communities.
Read the fatwas of Muslim priests and clerics - Sunni and Shiia, left-wing, moderate, and conservative, at the start of Iraq War 2. They all call for a defensive jihad against the US-led invaders. Bin Laden has been claiming this point since 1996. Ayatollah Khomeini fomented it in 1980.
That was an incorrect paraphrase. What he said was "two religions should not exist on the Arabian peninsula". Essnetially, conquer it all for Islam and drive out anyone else. Refer to earlier writings in the Quran about militarily dealing with Christians and Jews.
No. However, the US has a long history of funding shady ass dictators for shitty reasons. Had our South American allies not turned guns on their own people, we would be facing bin Ladens from down South. And the fact that they had ties to the US government at one or another point in time is, once again, applicable to most foreign dictators and many world players.
America "funds" and "has ties to" a vast majority of the governments in the world. The players we tend to back tend to be who we can fight with through proxy. In some cases, the US funds both sides of a war, much like American corporations giving to Republicans and Democrats.
Are you suggesting, then, that even Arab popular media is run by the US Government? How long has this been going on for? Does the US pay the clerics who advocate nuclear war against it? Al-Jazira? Al-Ansar? If your answers are YES to all these questions, you are equally insane.
US ineptitude in Middle Eastern public relations policy alone attests to the fact that our elected officials are far too ignorant on the Middle East to implement any sort of "counter-counter-counter US" media monopoly in order to influence Arab public opinion.
The US implants in Iraq are a unique situation. Only in Iraq, a country completely decimated at this point and highly susceptible to US suggestion (we have troops stationed there in large scale) could this happen. In fact, if the US implanted stories about "how good" Iraq is going, doesn't this undermine your "We start Middle Eastern chaos" theory? What is it H, do we cause Arab mass media through mind control to teach everyone to hate us, or love us?
I knew about John Birch because my eighth grade teacher was in the John Birch society and she used to give me a ride home. This was where I got exposed to Illuminati and globalist theories. I googled because I had forgotten both the name of the book I read and who else the whole Birch thing was connected to.
Arbusto was a drop in the bucket. A whopping total of 50,000 dollars of bin Laden money was invested in Texas Oil. Osama bin Laden himself was worth 9 million dollars (conservative estimate) in 1982, at the time of Arbusto's beginning. Pointing to a 50k venture capital investment as proof of something when the bin Laden family has an investment portfolio of potentially billions (including margin and leverage buying) seems quite hopeful, actually.
The Carlyle group is actually a pretty well-known story. They're a giant group of war profiteers, largely from the US and foreign governments who use their contacts to speculate on wars and the defense industry. Some say that the Carlyle group starts wars. How one could view the Carlyle group is a sort of chicken-egg conundrum; Are wars started to benefit the Carlyle group, or does the Carlyle group benefit from wars? It's a matter of perspective. It's something that could be viewed from either lens.
The bin Laden - Carlyle connection is minimal. The bin Laden family is a huge investment entity. In addition, after 9/11, the bin Laden family was bought out from their stake in Carlyle. When you talk about international finance, there are hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to even get your foot in the door. It's a small world at that point. The significance of Arbusto and Carlyle in terms of September 11th is simply reactionary finger-pointing because of an infamous last name.
When you talk about people with billions to invest, they probably don't even know where 50k is going. In addition, the bin Laden stake in Carlyle was sold after September 11th, before they could even profit from Afghanistan and Iraq.
I didn't mention the Carlyle group because of a lack of significance to the dicussion.
So is there no Osama bin Laden? Does the culture of jihad and the American policies which the Muslim world absolutely detest have no effect? Do the economic policies of the IMF and World Bank have no effect?
Arab nations are not involved in the TLC, and aside from a few correspondents on the ground, contribute little to the CFR. These are not Coca-Cola and Johnson and Johnson agents. They are representative of much of the public sentiment in Arab communities.
Read the fatwas of Muslim priests and clerics - Sunni and Shiia, left-wing, moderate, and conservative, at the start of Iraq War 2. They all call for a defensive jihad against the US-led invaders. Bin Laden has been claiming this point since 1996. Ayatollah Khomeini fomented it in 1980.
That was an incorrect paraphrase. What he said was "two religions should not exist on the Arabian peninsula". Essnetially, conquer it all for Islam and drive out anyone else. Refer to earlier writings in the Quran about militarily dealing with Christians and Jews.
No. However, the US has a long history of funding shady ass dictators for shitty reasons. Had our South American allies not turned guns on their own people, we would be facing bin Ladens from down South. And the fact that they had ties to the US government at one or another point in time is, once again, applicable to most foreign dictators and many world players.
America "funds" and "has ties to" a vast majority of the governments in the world. The players we tend to back tend to be who we can fight with through proxy. In some cases, the US funds both sides of a war, much like American corporations giving to Republicans and Democrats.
Are you suggesting, then, that even Arab popular media is run by the US Government? How long has this been going on for? Does the US pay the clerics who advocate nuclear war against it? Al-Jazira? Al-Ansar? If your answers are YES to all these questions, you are equally insane.
US ineptitude in Middle Eastern public relations policy alone attests to the fact that our elected officials are far too ignorant on the Middle East to implement any sort of "counter-counter-counter US" media monopoly in order to influence Arab public opinion.
The US implants in Iraq are a unique situation. Only in Iraq, a country completely decimated at this point and highly susceptible to US suggestion (we have troops stationed there in large scale) could this happen. In fact, if the US implanted stories about "how good" Iraq is going, doesn't this undermine your "We start Middle Eastern chaos" theory? What is it H, do we cause Arab mass media through mind control to teach everyone to hate us, or love us?
I knew about John Birch because my eighth grade teacher was in the John Birch society and she used to give me a ride home. This was where I got exposed to Illuminati and globalist theories. I googled because I had forgotten both the name of the book I read and who else the whole Birch thing was connected to.
Arbusto was a drop in the bucket. A whopping total of 50,000 dollars of bin Laden money was invested in Texas Oil. Osama bin Laden himself was worth 9 million dollars (conservative estimate) in 1982, at the time of Arbusto's beginning. Pointing to a 50k venture capital investment as proof of something when the bin Laden family has an investment portfolio of potentially billions (including margin and leverage buying) seems quite hopeful, actually.
The Carlyle group is actually a pretty well-known story. They're a giant group of war profiteers, largely from the US and foreign governments who use their contacts to speculate on wars and the defense industry. Some say that the Carlyle group starts wars. How one could view the Carlyle group is a sort of chicken-egg conundrum; Are wars started to benefit the Carlyle group, or does the Carlyle group benefit from wars? It's a matter of perspective. It's something that could be viewed from either lens.
The bin Laden - Carlyle connection is minimal. The bin Laden family is a huge investment entity. In addition, after 9/11, the bin Laden family was bought out from their stake in Carlyle. When you talk about international finance, there are hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to even get your foot in the door. It's a small world at that point. The significance of Arbusto and Carlyle in terms of September 11th is simply reactionary finger-pointing because of an infamous last name.
When you talk about people with billions to invest, they probably don't even know where 50k is going. In addition, the bin Laden stake in Carlyle was sold after September 11th, before they could even profit from Afghanistan and Iraq.
I didn't mention the Carlyle group because of a lack of significance to the dicussion.
So is there no Osama bin Laden? Does the culture of jihad and the American policies which the Muslim world absolutely detest have no effect? Do the economic policies of the IMF and World Bank have no effect?
