Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (501149)	11/30/2003 9:38:18 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 769670

Who do you think Bin Laden was meeting with, and just whom would you say was helping Bin obtain the money needed to carry out the terrorists acts against our country? You people constantly amaze me, at your total denial of the facts. OBL is rich to begin with although I thought his fortune was more like $100m. Wonder how he's getting to the ATM to withdraw funds and move them around? news.bbc.co.uk "...Interpol has also concluded that Bin Laden's wealth is largely intact, despite attempts to block al-Qaeda's cash flows. Mr Noble estimated Bin Laden's fortune at about $300m. The money is kept mainly in cash and is spread among several countries. The Bali bombing: done in the name of al-Qaeda? ''The terrorist threat... is at least as great now as it was before 11 September. Sleeper cells are in place, unknown to the police, who are ready to act from one day to the next," Mr Noble said. This is the first time this year that a senior security official has said he thought the Islamist network was still capable of major simultaneous attacks..." ---------- Aside from OBL who is apparently no longer our prime target, who is safer now? Why isn't he the prime target any longer if he still has funds? Other major sources of funds, of course, include the Saudis. The ironies are mind-boggling.

To: sandintoes who wrote (501149)	11/30/2003 10:54:58 PM
From: Krowbar	Respond to of 769670

< Who do you think Bin Laden was meeting with, and just whom would you say was helping Bin obtain the money needed to carry out the terrorists acts against our country? You people constantly amaze me, at your total denial of the facts. > I am in denial of the facts? Is Bush also denying the facts? Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link Thursday, 18 September, 2003 US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks. The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks. news.bbc.co.uk Note that I had to find a link to his statement from the BBC, as our lapdog press apparently is to embarrassed to archive the statement, or is doing it's best to minimize it. Apparently you are among the 70%. Now just how do you suppose that so many people have it wrong like you? It couldn't be because of the constant deliberate mentioning of Saddam at the same time as 9/11 by everybody in the Bush administration and the lapdog press, could it? It couldn't be because we have a cowering press, that has been intimidated by right wingers as traitors if they question Bush's deceptions on Iraq, who helped to create the wrong impression about who was responsible for 9/11 that you and others here also hold so dear. I am in denial? Whatever floats your boat. You go on believing whatever makes you feel good, OK? Del