Egyptian Bombings

[Reba]

Thank you for the info.

Why does bin Mahfouz continue to deny that his sister is married to bin Laden?

In US Senate testimony in 1998, CIA Director James Woolsey stated that bin Mahfouz's sister is a wife of Osama bin Laden, making the two brothers-in-law. Bin Mahfouz has consistently denied this. Many publications, including the Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, Fortune Magazine, the Washington Post, and USA Today, reported that the two were brothers-in-law. Each publication has since issued a retraction, sometimes after lengthy litigation.

In the libel trial against Wall Street Journal, Woolsey testified that bin Mahfouz had been misidentified. Woosley later stated "I don't know what to say other than there was some confusion, but I never meant to refer to Bin Mahfouz's sister."

This error has also been acknowledged by leading publications, such as:

Penguin Books:
11.03.2004: Re 'American Dynasty' by Kevin Phillips: " We note that Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz is not Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law and we will ensure that the necessary change to the text is made in the next reprint of the book. We regret the mistake".

The Wall Street Journal:
29.05.2002: "A May 1 (2002) Leisure & Arts story, "The Gallery: An Artist With a Taste for Scandal. . ." by Dean Yuliano, relied on Senate testimony in stating that a sister of Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker and former BCCI director, is married to Osama
bin Laden. None of Khalid bin Mahfouz's sisters is, or ever has been, married to Osama bin Laden."

The Washington Post:
03.03.2002: "A Feb 17 article about the use of gold in al Qaeda and Taliban financing reported incorrectly that a Saudi banker, Khalid Bin Mahfouz, is a brother-in-law of Osama bin Ladin."

The Sunday Independent (Eire):
08.05.2003:
"In our edition of May 18, 2003, we published an article entitled 'Moore firing both barrels at Bush'.
The article referred to Khalid Bin Mahfouz and stated that he is a brother-in-law of Osama Bin Laden. We wish to acknowledge that this was an error of fact and that Khalid Bin Mahfouz is not Osama Bin Laden's brother-in-law. Furthermore, Bin Mahfouz has absolutely no such familial relationship to Osama Bin Laden."

Sunday Express (UK):
06.07.2003:
"Neither (Sheikh Abdulrahman Bin Khalid Bin Mahfouz or Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalid Bin Mahfouz) is related in any way to Osama Bin Laden".

His name is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz and he is Bush Financier.

Do you mean that he still gives money to Bush?

Bush not interest in catching Osama .....

If Bush is not interested in catching Osama, why is he is still sending military teams to search for him?

 

[diehardbiker]

Yea, that is because NO other countries have this kind of bomb. Now plenty of countries have atomic bomb, just think about what reaction from these countries if we start to drop the bomb?

Too many copycats all over the world right now. Worth the risk? NAH!

We used the A BOMB on Japan and it worked.

 

[diehardbiker]

I personally DON'T believe terrorist was started because of Bush! The terrorist EXISTED before Bush became president. Whats more, there have been long term crisis in middle east long long long before Bush was even born! The real problem is that in the middle east is religious conflicts and their belief is that the western countries is axis of evil and shall be destroyed. They said so in their own bible!!! The problem esclated when Jewish was granted a land assisted by the United States long time ago known as Israel. This got other middle east countries pissed off about. They (middle east) wanted Israel to be wiped out. PERIOD! All because of bible teaching in extreme muslim community.
Bombing isn't new and it has happened plenty of times even before Bush's dad was president!

 

[HiBluE01]

Yes, I heard on news tv that was so terrible happening in Egypt was bombing somewhere and killing Egyptian people that happened of the terriosts.

 

[cabaca]

I personally DON'T believe terrorist was started because of Bush! The terrorist EXISTED before Bush became president. Whats more, there have been long term crisis in middle east long long long before Bush was even born! The real problem is that in the middle east is religious conflicts and their belief is that the western countries is axis of evil and shall be destroyed. They said so in their own bible!!! The problem esclated when Jewish was granted a land assisted by the United States long time ago known as Israel. This got other middle east countries pissed off about. They (middle east) wanted Israel to be wiped out. PERIOD! All because of bible teaching in extreme muslim community.
Bombing isn't new and it has happened plenty of times even before Bush's dad was president!

FYI: Their "bible" is called Koran.

 

[Reba]

I personally DON'T believe terrorist was started because of Bush! The terrorist EXISTED before Bush became president.

Very true.

 

[backerman]

Thank you for the info.
Do you mean that he still gives money to Bush?

No, was. It was in 1980s. Bush stopped doing business with him before he ran for President of the United States.

If Bush is not interested in catching Osama, why is he is still sending military teams to search for him?

He sent a small group of military to search for him and it's not enough. Bush transfor a lot of soliders from Afgan to Iraq. They let him escape into other country. If Bush could've postpone his plan for Iraq War for few months then we could've probably capture Osama bin Laden and we don't have to worry about those terrorists' attacks or beheadings in Iraq.

 

[Taylor]

Getting rid of Osama will do nothing to end terrorism in this world. The only benefit is that it will give us a moral boost capturing the guy behind 9/11 and other attacks.

 

[diehardbiker]

That is very LIKELY true!

Getting rid of Osama will do nothing to end terrorism in this world. The only benefit is that it will give us a moral boost capturing the guy behind 9/11 and other attacks.

 

[Reba]

Getting rid of Osama will do nothing to end terrorism in this world. The only benefit is that it will give us a moral boost capturing the guy behind 9/11 and other attacks.

I could use a morale boost.

 

[Reba]

No, was. It was in 1980s. Bush stopped doing business with him before he ran for President of the United States.

Thanks for the reply.

He sent a small group of military to search for him and it's not enough.

Depends. Sometimes a small elite team can accomplish things that a large general force can't. Who really knows what is happening over there?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Terrible *sigh* It's soon after 2nd bombs in London.