 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: meself Date: 14 Jan 17 - 02:45 PM Serious question, for those more knowledgeable of history than I am: are there any instances of those who had previous careers as entrepreneurial capitalists becoming successful presidents/prime-ministers/emperors/chiefs of nations? Successful in the sense of doing a half-decent job of things for their nations .... (I got thinking about this because I had someone say to me yesterday, "It'll be good to get a BUSINESSMAN in there!" I can't remember what it was we were talking about ... !) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jack Campin Date: 14 Jan 17 - 03:10 PM The most influential businessman-turned-statesman of recent decades was probably Osama bin Laden. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: cnd Date: 14 Jan 17 - 06:38 PM Lots of early presidents (and some later ones too) were plantation owners and/or farmers, so that's sort of like running a business, but I didn't look too deeply into those. Most recently, both the Bushes were businessmen (H. and H.W. in oil, and H. in baseball). Warren Harding published and revitalized very successfully The Marion Star newspaper Truman and a friend had ran a haberdasher under the name Truman & Jacobson, which was initially successful but failed after the Great Depression Woodrow Wilson set up his own law firm in Atlanta Ga but quit after less than a year. Those are the most recent ones. I'll let you decide how successful they were for yourself |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 14 Jan 17 - 08:22 PM Yes, there have been several business people who have risen to the US Presidency, but not in a single step. They all served as governors, legislators, or cabinet members before running for President. Mr. Trump is the first to have gone directly to the top job without spending any time serving in any other governmental position. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jack Campin Date: 14 Jan 17 - 08:39 PM The closest precedent to Trump is probably Silvio Berlusconi. He got to be prime minister from zero political experience in half the time it took Trump from announcing his candidature to getting the job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Stanron Date: 15 Jan 17 - 03:27 AM In the UK the landed gentry ran their estates as businesses. They would have been horrified at the suggestion that they were in 'Trade' but of course they were. The Labour party's punitive tax regimes put a lot of them out of business in the 20thC. The politics of envy thereby killing lots of golden geese who subsequently laid no more eggs. The embittered looney left loosers on this forum will contest most of this of course but it should be noted that some of the landed gentry had enormous beneficial effect on this country's financial well being. One example would be Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater. He had a coal mine in a place called Worsley. In order to make it more profitable he built a canal from Worsley to Manchester. One horse could pull, on a barge, ten times the amount of coal it could pull on a cart. The price of coal fell, and this was at a time when deforestation was making wood rather scarce for use as fuel. It is suggested that the whole Industrial revolution was born from this. The embittered LLLs will tell you that the landed gentry were all parasites living off the backs of the downtrodden peasants. Possibly some of them were. The likes of Francis E were not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: punkfolkrocker Date: 15 Jan 17 - 10:17 AM Stanron - do you want to contribute informative facts to broaden and stimulate debate.. maybe even help educate...??? or provoke fights with 'LLL' which are mostly a bogeyman figment of your imagination..?? Bit of both... ok fair enough.... 🙄 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: akenaton Date: 15 Jan 17 - 11:45 AM it would seem to me that if change is to be implemented, political experience would be a negative. Just look at The legacy of President Obama, A man who served his time in the Chicago Democrat establishment. In the end he was politically ineffective as the Rep/ Pub cartel made up his policy....including foreign policy like interventionism. or "Obamacare" a licence for the health insurance corporations to print money. "Yes we can"......."no you bloody didn't" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 16 Jan 17 - 02:15 AM Jack Campin - 14 Jan 17 - 03:10 PM "The most influential businessman-turned-statesman of recent decades was probably Osama bin Laden." Really?? I'd love to know when Osama bin Laden was ever either of those things, and he was never, ever a "leader of any nation". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Jan 17 - 02:55 AM In the U.S., it seems that political leaders have been lawyers and professors. Some businessmen, but mostly lawyers and a few professors - and now and then a physician or clergyperson. Here's a demographic study of a recent U.S. Congress that gives information about members' professional and educational background. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Jan 17 - 07:45 AM The landed gentry consists of people who do very little actual work themselves but who derive their income from the labour of others who are generally kept poor enough to keep them in line, even though they are working land that was stolen from the ordinary people by the ancestors of the gentry in question. On the surface of it, that may appear to work smoothly and quite well, but the principle (or lack of principle) behind it is one of exploitation by inherited wealth. Completely acceptable to the expedient, self-serving right. Slightly more indigestible to us on the loony left. I'll pick my side on the basis of morality if you don't mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Jan 17 - 08:56 AM ""Obamacare" a licence for the health insurance corporations to print money." Well - there we go - a supporter of Trump's 'pay up or die' approach to the people's health http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/07/health-care-poor-race-bottom.html There's no depth to your "socialism", is there Ake? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: akenaton Date: 16 Jan 17 - 11:20 AM Do you know anything about "obamacare" in practice Jim. I get plenty of information from my friends in America. Apparently people who are destitute are still taken care of through the "Medicare system?", but those on low to medium wages have seen their private health insurance bills soar, so much so that many people have no medical insurance at all and are earning too much to qualify for the free service. The legislation is universally disliked, hence the lack of protests over its abolition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 16 Jan 17 - 11:58 AM Steve Shaw - 16 Jan 17 - 07:45 AM Stereotypes again Shaw? All complete and utter unsubstantiated twaddle 1: "The landed gentry consists of people who do very little actual work themselves" And you "know" this for a fact how Shaw? Or is it just left-wing quasi-Marxist/Communist crap you were force fed in your youth. I think in real life you will find that they work very hard at it and employ others to assist them - if they don't they don't remain "landed" for very long. 2: "who derive their income from the labour of others who are generally kept poor enough to keep them in line" What actually does happen is that quite legally, with the agreement of both parties, tenant and landowner agree a rent or an amount for a lease that is fixed and that is not tied to any profit (This point has been put to you before and you have studiously ignored it - could the reason for that be that you cannot refute one single detail of that?). Now then please explain to us all exactly how all these tenant farmers are kept poor and kept in line? Complete and utter idiotic "leftie" hogwash. 3: "they are working land that was stolen from the ordinary people by the ancestors of the gentry in question". Really?? When did this theft take place? What proof of ownership exists that all this land was EVER owned by those you refer to as "the ordinary people"? I think that if you actually look into it you will find that ALL land is owned perfectly legally, the majority of it by purchase these days. 4: "I'll pick my side on the basis of morality if you don't mind." What "morality" Shaw? The "morality" of envy? The "morality" of "You have something, I don't, I want it so I will take it from you?". You will pick the side who build their case on baseless, supposition and lies and you know what Shaw? that does not surprise me at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Jan 17 - 12:07 PM Not again, Teribus. You go legal, I'll go moral. For Christ's sake turn the record over and talk about something else. Or preferably nothing at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Stu Date: 16 Jan 17 - 12:12 PM " I think that if you actually look into it you will find that ALL land is owned perfectly legally, the majority of it by purchase these days." Er, not true dat. I'm willing to bet a whole swathe of enclosed commons is being squatted on. Just because it happened a while ago doesn't means nowt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: akenaton Date: 16 Jan 17 - 12:15 PM You're quite right Teribus, I work/worked for all of the big estates in this area, and now they are all hock deep in debt, many with huge outlays on property maintenance, many cannot even get rid of their white elephants as they are tied up in family trusts. They cannot afford to pay staff on upkeep the properties and are selling off the cottages to pay bank charges. I was talking to one the other day and he said he envied me my wooden semi and no money worries......a first class bloke, a bit of a celebrity in his day, known one another from childhood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Jan 17 - 12:21 PM "Do you know anything about "obamacare" in practice Jim." Yes I do and I prefer to go with what I know rather than someone who blames British people for ruining the NHS - your record goes before you as far as supporting the less well off, social work, etc. "And you "know" this for a fact how Shaw?" Pretty well a historically established fact FORMER BISHOP OF DURHAM Still sucking up to the landed gentry Teribus Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Jan 17 - 12:26 PM Don't the ENCLOSURES feature in your history book? And you are joined by another cap-doffer Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 16 Jan 17 - 02:18 PM Akenaton alleged: The legislation is universally disliked, hence the lack of protests over its abolition. If you'd said "widely disliked", you just MIGHT have been in the ball park, but "universally"? No way, Jay. "Universally" is such an extremely broad expression that it is wiped out by even ONE liker. And "the lack of protests"? Hardly. But then, you say you get "plenty of information from my friends in America." Two things to point out there: Your source is "my friends in America". From long context, it's clear that your friends in America (if there really are any) are the nutty right. And what you call "plenty of information" is really "plenty of agreements with what I want to believe". That really means that "my contacts" (again, if there really are any) "in America tell me what I'm ready to believe." Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Stanron Date: 16 Jan 17 - 03:49 PM Little is known about land ownership in Britain before the Romans. We do know that the pre Roman Brits were good fighters. They saw off Julius Ceasar a few decades before Claudius invaded. They probably got that good by fighting amongst themselves which would suggest that land ownership was based on the ability to fight for it. After the Romans left, waves of Angles, Saxons and Jutes came over and took land to settle on simply because they could. The Romans had sent all the Britons who joined their army abroad as a matter of policy. An occupying Roman army was always made up of foreigners. and after they left there was no culture of training for combat so the country was wide open. Another 400 years later and the Viking invasions began. Alfred the Great sorted that, improved law and made the first steps in developing towns or cities in four hundred years. Again land was fought for. Another two and a half centuries later we get Billy the Bastard invading from France. Our current Aristocracy was founded then. Billy owned all the land, because he said he did. Who was going to argue? People who were able and prepared to fight for him got control of parts of it. They built castles, wooden stockades at first, and raised armies and took over control of any existing infrastructure. The suppression of the Saxon culture was deliberately brutal and more or less successful. I have wondered if the deep seated hate that socialist Britain has for the aristocracy is some kind of racial memory of this time. The conquerors conquered. Oh how unfair! The legal structure was maintained and developed. The church was a common factor and gradually became richer and more powerful. Over time possession became ownership, the power of Royalty over Aristocracy was eroded, slowly, slowly a middle class of merchants and independent farmers developed. Some of them got to own property. At no point was any land owned by 'ordinary people'. Common land was not owned by the commoners. The commoners had rights of use. Acts of Parliament were used to repeal those rights. All very legal, if inhumane in its application. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Jan 17 - 04:18 PM There is no racial memory. There is the rational conviction that you can't own land because you didn't make the land. Any land that was forcibly fenced off by powerful people was removed from the common good in order to exploit people as tenants and make themselves even more powerful and wealthy. You may argue that that is more efficient (it isn't - we end up with huge holdings planted with monocultures, devoid of wildlife and growing either inferior food that wouldn't grow at all but for massive chemical inputs, or, worse still, crops for biofuel). It is moral to enjoy stewardship of your fair share of land. If you do, you are likely to look after it by improving its soil and draining it so that it will produce the best quality food. Large holdings, over which the landlord may occasionally drive his Range Rover but have little clue as to how the land is being used, are run for profit only. They are regarded as open-air factory floors. That way we get soil degradation leading to erosion, silted-up drains and rivers, deforestation, polluted waterways, dustbowls and desertification. The evidence is everywhere if you open your eyes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: akenaton Date: 16 Jan 17 - 04:50 PM I accept your point Dave O and withdraw "universally".....There are "Liberals" everywhere quite prepared to cut off their noses...and everyone else's to protect what they imagine to be left wing ideology. "Obamacare" has been a failure. A political trade off which did not work. For your information and in spite of your patronising ignorance, my friends are not of the "nutty right" and they do exist. One I have known since childhood. Given your history here I thought you would have learned by now that I never knowingly lie on this forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Jan 17 - 05:09 PM One would have thought that any friend of yours who's been a friend since childhood is considerably more likely to be nutty than someone who's consorted since childhood with more rational people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 17 Jan 17 - 02:20 AM Steve Shaw - 16 Jan 17 - 04:18 PM - More idiotic left wing twaddle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Jan 17 - 03:16 AM I have to say that since the U.S. election in November, I have noticed an ugly air of triumphalism in Teribus and akenaton and bobad and some others. I used to have sympathy for them because they were the downtrodden underdogs. Some even accused me of supporting them. But now, now I don't know. They're not so nice, now that they're no longer underdogs. So, I dunno.... -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Jan 17 - 03:27 AM "There are "Liberals" everywhere quite prepared to cut off their noses" Infinitely preferable to having people like you cut off their noses for future reference, when we elect our own Trump into office. Can't help noticing we've moved on from the cap-doffing to the landed gentry Maybe a reminder of the enclosures did the trick!! "They're not so nice, now that they're no longer underdogs." "Rednecks rule OK" to borrow a term from the past Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: BobL Date: 17 Jan 17 - 03:34 AM "There is the rational conviction that you can't own land because you didn't make the land." Not particularly rational - you can't make land but you can buy it, inherit it, settle on it if uninhabited or conquer it by force of arms if not. I dare say most claims of ownership, if you trace them back far enough, depend on the last. Besides, without ownership, what gives one particular person or group the (necessarily exclusive) right to farm a particular piece of land, build on it or mine it for coal or minerals? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 17 Jan 17 - 03:48 AM Strange post Joe for someone in your position within this forum to make. But I do have to ask as you level the accusation without giving any substantive evidence to back it up - What "triumphalism"? - unless of course you view pointing out what are established facts as being triumphalist? Since November? You mean since Trump won the election in accordance with "your" (US) electoral system? As you can see from my posts I most certainly am not a fan of Donald Trump, so what exactly are you wittering on about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:08 AM Pity you didn't read that article on the Enclosures Jim, or anything else on them for that matter. If you had it would have struck you that those who did the most "enclosing" were not the aristocracy or the "landed gentry" but their tenant farmers who naturally enough wanted land of their own. So as in most successful "revolutions" it was not the "working classes" who started it and carried it through in the cause of equality, it was the ambitious, grasping, "middle-classes" in the cause of self-advancement. From your article though there is a perfect parallel for what is happening now with regard to Europe. The fact that useless, unproductive, waterlogged common land was enclosed, drained and recovered for agricultural use meant that an agricultural revolution did take place in time to match the population explosion that took place so that people could be fed. Your link states that the same sort of thing MIGHT have occurred in time under common tenure but it would have relied upon the unanimous agreement of all and as we know from the EU how long that takes to achieve don't we? Because of the "enclosures" and the agricultural revolution that occurred in England and Wales, by 1707 English and Welsh farmers were at least 50 years ahead their Scottish counterparts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Jan 17 - 04:40 AM I read the article and know who the enclosers were historically - the land owners of which the gentry were a part. The seizure of common land is many centuries old and historical rights by the great families played a part of that. Keep on cap-doffing - always good for a smile "What "triumphalism" Do you really have to ask? Your strutting and talking down to people has always been a feature of your postings - your pompous superiority is a standing joke I have to say I'm surprised it took Joe to notice it - far to tolerant, I suppose. "You mean since Trump won the election in accordance with "your" (US) electoral system? " As did the Nazis with Germany's system - a hard lesson for both Hopefully America will do better next time, if the Redneck in the White House and his "Free Russian" friends allows there to be a next time Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: akenaton Date: 17 Jan 17 - 05:46 AM Joe, its not triumphalism, I think reality is beginning to intrude upon this section of the forum......But you are a big enough fella to accept that and make your own points. You have always been extremely fair as far as I can see and I hope you are not becoming defensive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Jan 17 - 05:57 AM Ah but it wasn't just, or even mainly, useless, waterlogged land that was seized, was it? If only! Good land was usurped that could yield a profit without too much work once the newly-tenanted workers had been subdued and controlled. The upshot of your wonderful "agricultural revolution" was the conversion of thousands of small holdings into much bigger, "efficient" ones which did away with crop rotation and made way for big machinery and which had the horrible consequence of depopulating the countryside, a phenomenon from which it has never recovered. Thatcher may even have seen that as her model for closing down industries and wrecking communities. Even worse, the twentieth century saw the inexorable rise of the use of chemical inputs and hedgerow removal to make way for even more industrialisation of farmland. If your grass looks a bit yellow, don't worry too much about the soil: just whack on a bit more cheap artificial nitrogen, won by one of the most polluting industrial processes ever invented. And if it moves, competes with your crop or causes a rot, there will be a "-cide" to deal with it and you needn't worry too much about outdated and inconvenient methods such as rotation! Just ignore nature's lessons in diversity and "specialise!" No need to worry about quality too much either - those "-cides" will have made your crops LOOK perfect even though they now lack nutrient value and have the texture of wet cotton wool! Some revolution. Huge tracts of UK farmland now grow grain crops that can be used only for animal fodder (poor buggers) or for biofuels, and the rivers and drains just carry on silting up as whst used to be soil in good heart washes into them by the millions of tons every year. Oh yes, we've made such "progress" since those powerful "landed gentry" started to run things! BobL, there is no moral or rational right for someone to arbitrarily put a fence round common land and say that from now on this is mine. There is the moral and rational IMPERATIVE to allow everyone a fair share of land which he or she can have unconditional stewardship of. It's rational because if you have your fair share, and no more, you will have to work it as hard as you can, drain it, improve the soil, whatever it takes,to make a decent living. If you improve land or build a house on it you have the "ownership" of your improvements and yiure entitled to profit from thstbifvyiu pass the stewardship of the land on. If I buy an empty shop in Bude for fifty grand and, by my enterprise and hard work, turn it into a thriving and profitable business then sell it for half a million, I'm selling the goodwill and the products of my labour. I haven't increased the intrinsic value of the bricks and mortar very much except via a bit of decoration. Tests how it should be |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: punkfolkrocker Date: 17 Jan 17 - 06:00 AM Ake - you know that as much as we disagree on certain 'things' we tolerate each other in a good humoured nature.. But Teribus is a very unpleasant sociopathic character; and it's his kind of loathsome sneering dismissive attitude that is becoming established as a norm amongst the miniscule majority vote winning brexiteers... A vile culture of bad winners.... 😣 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Jan 17 - 06:13 AM Pressed the wrong button! To continue, I meant to say that's how it should be with land, except that I can own the bricks and mortar because I bought them from someone who had MADE them. I can't own the land but I can own the improvements I've made and I should be able to sell them on if I like. All the other unedited glitches can stand! 🤓 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Jan 17 - 06:29 AM "I think reality is I think reality is " The reality is a fortress Britain policy and a thug in the White House Nothing to be proud or pleased about, except those who wecome such things It's heartening that those who do haven't grown in number but just become more noticeable in their strident strutting. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: akenaton Date: 17 Jan 17 - 08:04 AM Oh Come on PFR,I know what sort of person you are and would never fall out with you here BUT......surely after all these years we must be allowed just a teeny wee bit of spite? :0) There are folk here who use much worse language than Teribus, but they do not see how abusive their language is. on this thread alone we have been called all manner of things, homophobia, racism, fascism, my friends referred to as "right wing nut jobs", people with conservative views referred to as "rodents" and now Joe whom I respect tremendously alleging "triumphalism". I think Joe felt sorry for the "underdogs" but that is rather different to being confronted by the fact that the "underdogs" were right all the time and the ideology of the bullies rejected by the electorate. I think that is what bothers Joe....I suppose it's a natural reaction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Jan 17 - 08:33 AM Uncle DaveO referred to your friends in America, if there really are any, as the nutty right. He did not say that your friends are "right wing nut-jobs." Clearly, you are taking lessons from the Keith-on-Wheatcroft school of meaning-drift. At this juncture I'm extremely tempted to suggest that the appellation you incorrectly allege was made, were it to be applied to you personally, would be entirely appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 17 Jan 17 - 08:40 AM "The upshot of your wonderful "agricultural revolution" was the conversion of thousands of small holdings into much bigger, "efficient" ones which did away with crop rotation and made way for big machinery and which had the horrible consequence of depopulating the countryside, a phenomenon from which it has never recovered." - Steve Shaw More ill-informed twaddle Shaw. When do you think the agrarian revolution happened Shaw? In England, depending upon who you read, it took place in three phases: Phase 1 - 1550 to 1650 Phase 2 - 1650 to 1750 Phase 3 - 1750 to 1880 So according to the omniscient Steve Shaw the Agricultural revolution did away with crop rotation. Utter bullshit of course it not only retained crop rotation but introduced new beneficial crops to improve the land (Clover and Turnips are the two that immediately spring to mind). What big machinery are you prattling on about in the period 1550 to 1880 Shaw? Who built it and how did the manufacturers deliver it round the country? How was it powered? Any idea what impact the Black Death and the subsequent plagues had on the countryside Shaw? I'll give you a hint: "Plague was present somewhere in Europe in every year between 1346 and 1671. The Second Pandemic was particularly widespread in the following years: 1360–1363; 1374; 1400; 1438–1439; 1456–1457; 1464–1466; 1481–1485; 1500–1503; 1518–1531; 1544–1548; 1563–1566; 1573–1588; 1596–1599; 1602–1611; 1623–1640; 1644–1654; and 1664–1667. Subsequent outbreaks, though severe, marked the retreat from most of Europe (18th century) and northern Africa (19th century). According to Geoffrey Parker, "France alone lost almost a million people to the plague in the epidemic of 1628–31." In England, in the absence of census figures, historians propose a range of preincident population figures from as high as 7 million to as low as 4 million in 1300, and a post-incident population figure as low as 2 million. By the end of 1350, the Black Death subsided, but it never really died out in England. Over the next few hundred years, further outbreaks occurred in 1361–1362, 1369, 1379–1383, 1389–1393, and throughout the first half of the 15th century. An outbreak in 1471 took as much as 10–15% of the population, while the death rate of the plague of 1479–1480 could have been as high as 20%. The most general outbreaks in Tudor and Stuart England seem to have begun in 1498, 1535, 1543, 1563, 1589, 1603, 1625, and 1636, and ended with the Great Plague of London in 1665. Now as it wasn't just the "townies" that died Shaw what do you think happened to the land that had previously been farmed and now had no-one left farming it? No-one left to "inherit" it. Depopulation of rural areas started long before you seem to think it did. Plentiful coal, water, mineral ores, the arrival of Dutch influence in the late 1600s all combined with a population explosion during the 18th century that allowed the industrial revolution fuelled by the agrarian revolution and the establishment of the British Empire - none of it would have happened had it not been for the departure of the Stuarts and the arrival of William of Orange. The rest as they say is "history". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Jan 17 - 08:50 AM " the "underdogs" were right all the time and the ideology of the bullies rejected by the electorate" Garbage Populism is mob rule writ large and, as last night TV program showed, put a thug in the White House who has been involved with gangsters and killers for decades, including The Russian Mafia. What can be possibly "right" about that? Not addressed to you Ake - you don't bother about such things \s political criminals We're getting more and more information about this monster and he's not inaugurated yet Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Thompson Date: 17 Jan 17 - 05:46 PM Aaaaaanyway, getting back to the subject on the subject line. The Bin Laden family were hugely wealthy builders and developers, who made their fortune through contracts in Mecca and Medina; Osama Bin Laden was a road builder on a big scale. I wouldn't personally see him as a statesman. Nicolas Sarkozy, ex-president of France, ran a legal practice specialising in business… Binyamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, was an economic consultant with Boston Consulting. His predecessor, Shimon Perez, was a shepherd and farmer (who spoke Polish, French, English, Russian, Yiddish and Hebrew). Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe worked for Kobe Steel. Former US president Barack Obama was an attorney specialising in civil rights, and served on the boards of directors of several organisations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Jan 17 - 08:11 PM Ah yes, Teribus, your agricultural revolution seemed to turn into a golden-age "agrarian" revolution all of a sudden. Well your 19th century phase drove people in their millions out of the countryside towards those dark satanic mills, where they could be exploited in semi-slavery for almost all their waking hours except for chapel on Sunday, where they'd damn well better be seen praying by the bosses or else. Meanwhile the squires carried on bleeding their tenants not quite dry but just short of making them squeal. You're a bit of an Archers country life man, aren't you? Well look around at all those monocultures that are the end-products of your agrarian dream world. Two-thirds of barley grown here is too poor to be used for malting. Over half the wheat goes for animal feed, too weak for flour production. Thousands of acres of elephant grass which gives farmers a yield for biofuel - not food! - that enables them to do very little work at all. Thousands of acres of maize that denudes soil, robs it of nutrients and and allows it to wash into rivers to silt them up, all for cattle feed. Oilseed rape as far as the eye can see that causes plagues of flea beetles and pollen beetles, a little for cooking oil but mostly for feed, industrial lubricants and biofuel. Neonicotinoid insecticides which are ravaging bee populations. All of this is profit-driven and it's big business, and, if that isn't enough, the "landowner" can get forty thousand a year for each monster wind-turbine that someone else paid for to put on a tiny patch of his land. You can go to the pubs round here and hear those same "landowners" whingeing about immigrants and blaming benefits claimants for all the ills of the country. The "contractors" they can affford to hire instead of doing the work themselves cause chaos all summer on our roads as they trundle along for miles, instead of a few years ago when farmers with their own machinery just had to cross roads to get from one field to another. Ah yes, Teribus, the economy of scale, the benefits of gigantism, never mind the quality feel the width! The fruits of your agrarian paradise! Now why don't you toddle off and find out for yourself just how important bees are to life on earth, then, when your agribusinessmen land-barons have destroyed them all, tell us a bit more about "progress!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 18 Jan 17 - 03:27 AM Cliched "socialist" stereotypes again Shaw. Is that really all you can come up with? Agricultural Revolution and the "agrarian revolution" are exactly the same thing, but then you would have known that if you had read anything about it. You were asked some questions about the last load of twaddle that you trotted out, but I see as usual you have ducked those. And let's see what was introduced by way of deflection - Maize, Oilseed rape (Apparently growing feed for livestock according to Shaw should now be a crime) Bees, Wind Farms (Thought that the Labour Party were big fans (pun intended) of Wind Farms - it was after all they who started this latest bonanza). Liked your take on the "contractors" and harvesting - your suggestions would beggar practically every arable farmer in the country. In researching for these little exchanges I was amazed to read that as much as the EU Commissioners have fucked up this country's agriculture British Farmers still are capable of supplying the country with 60% of everything we need. Thompson: Thank you for responding on behalf of Jack Campin, thought that he'd gone awfully quiet on the subject. As for your response: "The Bin Laden family were hugely wealthy builders and developers, who made their fortune through contracts in Mecca and Medina; Osama Bin Laden was a road builder on a big scale. I wouldn't personally see him as a statesman." While the Bin Laden FAMILY might have made their money from civil engineering, Osama bin Laden was never ever part of the family business was he? Mohammed bin Laden {Osama's father} divorced Hamida {Osama's mother} soon after Osama bin Laden was born. Mohammed recommended Hamida to Mohammed al-Attas, an associate. Al-Attas married Hamida in the late 1950s or early 1960s, and they are still together. The couple had four children, and bin Laden lived in the new household with three half-brothers and one half-sister Osama bin Laden: 1968 to 1976, he attended the élite secular Al-Thager Model School He studied economics and business administration at King Abdulaziz University. Some reports suggest he earned a degree in civil engineering in 1979. In 1979 he went to Pakistan to assist in the fight against the forces of the USSR in Afghanistan In 1988 he formed Al-Qeada He returned to Saudi Arabia in 1990 and offered his services to the King to protect the country against Saddam Hussein's forces, an offer that was rejected. Osama bin Laden was stripped of his Saudi Nationality and banished from the country in 1992. No mention at all of him ever building any roads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Thompson Date: 18 Jan 17 - 03:42 AM The best known reference to Bin Laden's road building is Robert Fisk's 1993 interview. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jan 17 - 06:18 AM BIN LADIN GROUP Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: punkfolkrocker Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:10 AM sigh... wouldn't we live in a much happier and creative utopian world if all nations were lead by artists.... 😎 ...ermm.. oh.. hold on a sec.. Hitler.... 😬 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:13 AM So why, Teribus, can't this country produce ALL of what we need? You can't keep blaming the EU forever, you know. It isn't EU commissioners who till the ground and sow the crops. It isn't EU commissioners who cause supermarket chains to force prices down so low that small farms are put out of business, is it? (Not "socialism," either, eh? Sounds a bit more like your pet capitalistic "blind workings of the market" to me). It wasn't EU commissioners who devastated the cattle industry by spreading foot and mouth via corner-cutting and ignorance of good practice, was it? (And, as with those silted-up rivers, it's the poor old taxpayer who pays the farmer the full market price for every cow that had to be killed, as it is with TB, blamed on badgers in spite of the bleedin' obvious fact that you're asking for big trouble if you keep your cows crowded together in filthy, damp, unhygienic barns for half the year). It isn't EU commissioners who have wiped out 75% of our songbirds and who are well on the way to killing all our bees, is it? Profit motive, gigantism, ignorance and bad practice steered by land-barons who don't actually know one soil type from another. Oh no, they'll look after the "books" while their "estate managers" are given free rein to do anything they can to maximise those profits. We don't produce more than 60% of what we need, in spite of having some of the finest soils and best climatic conditions for arable farming in the world, because we use perfectly good arable land for growing cattle feed, one-seventh as efficient as using it to grow food for people, or, even worse, growing crops for "biofuels" instead of conserving energy, all in a world of seven billion with billions of those malnourished. A lot of that forty percent shortfall is imports of cash crops from countries that can't adequately feed their own people. Capitalism and the "global market place" reign supreme! And don't come back preaching to me about farmers "having" to grow this, that or the other in order to get their EU subsidies. Yes it's just about the biggest absurdity of many EU absurdities so don't bloody start. I hold no candle for the CAP and never have, but I've not exactly seen a farmers' revolt over it, a downing of ploughshares. The little farmers I know round here work hard, do the best they can and get little in subsidies. The big boys upcountry, the ones you champion, moan and groan, take the subsidies, get someone to stick up those lucrative windmills, then vote leave. They'll bloody regret that last bit, sure as eggs is eggs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:14 AM And Churchill while we're at it, pfr... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:25 AM Thanks for the link Thompson, a nice piece of fiction. Perhaps you should look at the Official Khartoum - Port Sudan Road Project Report. The project {Project ID: P002626} was funded through the World Bank with actual funding coming from Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufban and the Norwegian Government. The work was actually carried out by a company called RBPC {Road and Bridges Public Corporation} who awarded two contracts to a company called Salini-Impregilo. No mention of Osama bin Laden at all. Even Fisk could not name Osama bin Laden's construction Company, didn't you find that rather odd? As usual the link provided by Jim Carroll actually substantiates what I have said - Osama bin Laden had absolutely nothing whatsoever with Saudi Bin Laden Construction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: punkfolkrocker Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:28 AM .. yeah I know a bit about Churchill the dauber [and his arty modern portrait painting burning antics] from history.. the mrs just box set watched the Crown on Netflix and I caught a few scenes while she demanded I brought in regular supplies of fizzy pop and chocolate..... sigh.. if only Hitler and Churchill had staged a painting competition to settle who won the war... Maybe instead then.. nations lead by piss artists... ...ermm.. oh.. hold on a sec.................. 😜 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:46 AM "Osama bin Laden had absolutely nothing whatsoever with Saudi Bin Laden Construction." It substantiates nothing of the sort - it says it is a family business, there is no reason to believe he was not part of it He had a degre in Civil engineering, yet there is no record of him ever having worked, so we can safely assume that he lived from the family billions which came from the family construction firm. Nit-pick this as much as you like, but his money came from construction. As usual, you are wrong. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 18 Jan 17 - 07:48 AM Nice to see Shaw is shying away from his idiotic remarks and version of the evils of the "Enclosures" and benefits/drawbacks of the Agricultural Revolution seeing as how he was getting hammered on those subjects. So now he wants to direct and deflect the off topic discussion to modern farming. Tell me Shaw whose idea was it to pay UK farmers for growing nothing? I take it that you have heard of "set aside" haven't you? The answer as to who did that is the EU Commission. Very pleased that you brought up "Foot and Mouth" - whose rules, that had to be followed to the letter, closed hundreds of local abattoirs and called for the setting up of abattoirs that specialised in the slaughter of certain animals that called for animals being transported over hundreds of miles to get to the correct location - best way known to man to ensure the spread of "Foot and Mouth" going - Right again Shaw it was the EU Commission. Also pleased that you disapprove of the CAP - wasn't that the thing that the EU were supposed to have been reformed in exchange for Tony Blair relinquishing part of our rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher. Good ol' Tone gifted that away and got nothing in exchange - what a prat, they must have seen him coming for miles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jan 17 - 08:51 AM "Nice to see Shaw is shying away from his idiotic remarks " Is there any chance that this feller be stopped from fucking up this thread with personal abuse aimed at anybody who disagrees with him. Permanently talking down to people really isn't going to keep this thread alive for too long For crying out loud - leave him at it and move on Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Jan 17 - 09:21 AM I tend not to "shy away," as no doubt others may have "noted" (oops,wrong thread! 😂😂😂) I do get very bored with going round the same old circles with a chap who sees my name, automatically spends the next hour building a head of steam then posts a pile of aggressive, revisionist abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Thompson Date: 18 Jan 17 - 10:14 AM I don't know - I'd tend to trust Fisk's word on Middle Easter subjects - but a government report not naming a company may have more authority. If you hunt it out, there's a long extract in Vanity Fair from a book by one of Osama Bin Laden's sons which is interesting. I vaguely thought the family had been wealthy for generations, but no, Osama's father worked his way out of utter poverty before getting the hugely lucrative contracts in Mecca and Medina. It's always seemed to me a strange psychological quirk in Osama Bin Laden that his father died in a plane crash and he repeatedly tried to use planes as deadly weapons. But we're straying away from the subject again. Looking at lists of elected and appointed leaders of countries and of leaders who inherited the honour, it appears to me that a huge majority came from the civil service of their countries, or from work within their political parties. Even the royals could be said to work for the civil service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 18 Jan 17 - 12:34 PM "it says it is a family business, there is no reason to believe he was not part of it" - Jim Carroll Ah so his father divorcing his mother shortly after his birth, her remarrying and him moving with his mother out of the family home didn't register then Jim? Not as though he was at the centre of things was he? He didn't have any money at all until he received his "cut" when his natural father died, but even then he had nothing to do with the family's construction business. Still Jim never let facts get in the way of a good story, it has never stopped you in the past, it is only a great pity that there a few here on this forum who pull you up on your wilder flights of fancy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jan 17 - 02:01 PM "but even then he had nothing to do with the family's construction business." Have you any evidence of this? "Still Jim never let facts get in the way of a good story, " Are you totally incapable of addressing people without abusively talking down to them? You really do manage to fuck up these discussions with your constant arrogance Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: frogprince Date: 18 Jan 17 - 02:26 PM Were you aware that Clyde Barrows worked for a time at a glass factory in Dallas ? (Just wanted to contribute something else relevant to the subject of the thread). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Jan 17 - 02:28 PM As I have a spare minute, let me untwist your twisted thinking on the EU and abattoirs. First, those small abattoirs were indeed driven out of business but the EU commissioners were not to blame for that. The EU laid down regulations about inspection and hygiene that small outfits should have been able to but couldn't afford to take on board. Our own government could have helped those small businesses to up their game - isn't that what every bloody government we ever elect says it will do? - but, instead, they allowed them to go to the wall. So let me ask you - where would you rather your meat came from, a well-run slaughterhouse that abides by strict hygiene and inspection rules, or a back-street setup doing its own thing unobserved, letting blood into the drains? When I lived in Tipton in 1973 there was an abattoir in the middle of the town that had more rats than people strolling in and out of it from the main road outside. Jaysus! Second, the 2001 outbreak started as a result of either illegal imports of infected meat or by feed producers failing to sterilise infected swill, or both. EU commissioners do not organise illegal importing or encourage the production of infected swill last time I looked. Third, the reason that animal movements spread the disease was extremely slack government regulation, a total failure to learn lessons from previous outbreaks. Recommended good practice such as inspection and vaccination prior to transport was never adopted. The responsibility for that rested squarely with the government, yes, the one led by the man who you mistakenly think I admire despite my telling you a hundred times how much I detest the bastard. EU commissioners set out regulations to prevent disease and restrict its spread. Our own government had it totally within their power to make farmers and transport companies up their game towards standards that any sane person would recognise as appropriate. The way you talk you'd think that those slapdash, corner-cutting ways of old were perfectly hunkydory. They were not, and the EU was actually doing a damn sight more about it than our own governments. I know how you love to blame the EU for all the ills of the world. I also think that setaside and other aspects of agricultural and fisheries policy are absurd. But, as ever, you allow your ideology to blind you to the specifics and you end up blaming the wrong people. We're the fifth best economy in the world I imagine you telling me. Well the fifth best economy in the world should be more than capable of organising animal inspection and movement according to strict and appropriate regulation in a way that prevents the uncontrolled spread of disease. That outbreak spread to several other countries in Europe but not one of them suffered like we did in spite of having to stick to the same rule book. Wonder why. . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 19 Jan 17 - 02:37 AM 1: As far as the 2001 FMD epidemic goes its origins were traced to a pig farm in the North-East of England {Burnside Farm, Heddon on the Wall, Northumberland}. From there it was wind spread to neighbouring sheep farms {sheep are the hardest animals to diagnose}. UK was compliant with ALL EU rules, codes and practices. In accordance with those the infected, but undiagnosed pigs from Burnside farm had to be transported to an abattoir in Essex where they infected pens and it was only when 20 "finished" pigs caught the disease at this abattoir was the outbreak discovered. By this stage over 57 sites had been infected. The EU contingency set up to deal with outbreaks is based upon the disease being detected before 10 sites are infected. Investigation showed that the only cause for the outbreak was contaminated swill. 2: Routine vaccination of livestock to prevent or slow foot and mouth disease is not legal in the European Union. European Union law permits the use of emergency vaccination only as part of a stamping out policy where appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 19 Jan 17 - 03:56 AM Evidence that Osama bin Laden never had anything to do with Saudi bin Laden Construction? Does the fact that not one single biographer makes any reference mentioning him ever working for the company count? Time line indicates Osama bin Laden leaving University in 1979 and going off to Pakistan to set up training bases for Mujahideen to help them in their fight against the Soviets. From that point onwards his life, whereabouts and his activities are fully documented and nowhere is there any reference to him working for Saudi bin Laden Construction. Not really all that clear what Osama bin Laden's degree qualification was. Mentioned as being Business Administration and/or Civil Engineering with two different years being mentioned 1979 and 1981 (The latter is impossible as he was in Pakistan at that time). Quite early on in this thread Jack Campin put forward Osama bin Laden as an example of a businessman and a leader of a nation. IIRC his words were that Osama bin Laden was "an influential businessman and statesman" - I merely pointed out that Osama bin Laden had never been any of those and had certainly never been the leader of a nation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jan 17 - 04:34 AM "Time line indicates Osama bin Laden leaving University in 1979 and going off to Pakistan to set up training bases for Mujahideen to help them in their fight against the Soviets" Using family money, no doubt - or did he stand in the street witnh a collecting tin? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 19 Jan 17 - 09:25 AM Well there was the $25-30 million that he inherited on the death of his father. But what has "family" money got to do with any claim that he worked for the company owned by the family as a civil engineer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: punkfolkrocker Date: 19 Jan 17 - 09:32 AM .. yes.. all very interesting.. but what was Osama bin Laden's favourite TV show, and did he dress to the right or the left...??? 😜 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jan 17 - 11:59 AM There is very little infotrmation on Bin Laden's early life - even the documents seized in the raid have never been made public, but it is logical to believe that it was family money he used, which came from the fortune amassed from building. One of my regular customers in London owned McAlpine's - never seen a shovel in his life and certainly never been on a building site and he employed representatives to attend company meetings but he worked for a building company - or so he claimed. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 20 Jan 17 - 02:40 AM "There is very little information on {Osama} bin Laden's early life" 1: We know that following his parents divorce Osama bin Laden was not brought up in the bin Laden family home. 2: We know that he was not raised by his natural father, but by his Step-father. 3: We know he was not schooled by the bin Ladens, but by his Step-father. 4: We know which of Osama bin Laden's brothers did work in the family business and those that did not. There is no mention of Osama bin Laden ever having any connection to Saudi BinLadin Group. 5: We know that on the death of his natural father Osama bin Laden received somewhere between $25 and $30 million as his part of his natural father's estate. Sounds a great deal but when you consider that his natural father was worth in excess of $5 billion it puts the size of Osama's inheritance into perspective. 6: We know that in 1992 he was banished from Saudi Arabia and that in 1994 he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship, disowned by the bin Laden family and had all his assets frozen. From 1979 when he left University and moved to Pakistan there is a great deal of information on Osama bin Laden's location and activities. Between 1979 and 2011 there is no mention of Osama bin Laden ever having any connection to Saudi Bin Ladin Group. "One of my regular customers in London owned McAlpine's - never seen a shovel in his life and certainly never been on a building site and he employed representatives to attend company meetings but he worked for a building company - or so he claimed. Your regular customer had every right to claim that he worked for a building company - he owned it and he employed people to act on his behalf, unless he ran the company through nominee directors, your customer would still have duties and responsibilities under Company Law. If your "customer" is being put forward as a comparison to Osama bin Laden's situation then he makes a very poor one, unless of course you are trying to tell us that Osama bin Laden owned SBG? Which of course is complete and utter nonsense. Osama bin Laden was never a businessman. Osama bin Laden was never a statesman. Osama bin Laden was never the Leader of any Nation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jan 17 - 03:23 AM Can't really understand why you bother with nit-picking these arguments Teribus Bin Laden left $29m on his death, deposited in Sudan, where he lived until he was deported. One of instructions of the distribution of his legacy read: "Another 1 percent of the sum should be given to a second associate, Engineer Abu Ibrahim al-Iraqi Sa'ad, for helping set up bin Laden's first company in Sudan, Wadi al-Aqiq Co, the document said." Reuters. He was a businessman - he owned at least one company, "first company" suggests he had several - they appear to have been connected with engineering He no doubt used some of the profits of that company to fund his other activities. Nit-pick your way out of that one Now perhaps we can move on. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 20 Jan 17 - 04:41 AM LOL!!! What "comic" did you get that from Jom? A thirty second "look" using Google comes up with at least three "wills" none of which can be verified, none mention the "bequest" detailed in your post but mention the rather inconvenient detail for your "story" in that the $29 million cannot be found and that Osama only "believed" that that is what he was worth. Latest date of any will mentioned was December 2001. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jan 17 - 05:11 AM Love it - love it - another Made up Carroll Shit" WHEN WILL YOU EVER ****** LEARN? Made my day Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jan 17 - 05:13 AM Latest date mentioned March 16th 2016 Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 20 Jan 17 - 09:17 AM The Reuters article is March 2016, the documents related to Osama bin Laden are not, they are much older, taken during the raid in which bin Laden was killed and merely recently declassified and released. The company mentioned was no "Construction Company" it was an Al-Qaeda "holding company", a front used as a front for receiving contributions to the cause. Wadi al Aqiq Part of Al-Qaeda Details Center of Gravity Sudan Goal Holding company Leader Osama bin Laden Key members Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, Wadih El Hage Formed - 1991 Narrative and Notes Osama bin Laden formed a holding company called Wadi al-Aqiq in the Khartoum, Sudan, to raise money for al-Qaeda purposes. It was the first al-Qaeda company formed in Sudan. Osama served as chairman, and Salim as the general manager. Sources 1: United States vs. bin Laden, Atef, El Hage, Fazul Mohammed, Odeh and Al-Owhali, indictment, Nov. 4, 1998. 2: Jamal al-Fadl testimony, United States vs. Osama bin Laden et al, trial transcript, Day 2, Feb. 6, 2001. 3: Essam al-Ridi testimony, United States vs. Osama bin Laden et al, trial transcript, Day 5, Feb. 14, 2001. Osama bin Laden was never a businessman. Osama bin Laden was never a statesman. Osama bin Laden was never the Leader of any Nation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jan 17 - 12:26 PM Reuters got it wrong then?? Can't trust anybody these days! Un-be-leiveble!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jan 17 - 01:12 PM The Guardian didn't fare much better You can't get the help, you know!! Jim Carroll Osama: the Sudan years Bin Laden spent five years in the Sudan before being expelled in 1996. The authorities claim he was busy building roads and farming. But what was he really up to? James Astill Wednesday 17 October 2001 03.22 BST "Osama who?" says the information minister, when he is asked about the man who spent five years running half of Sudan's industries, and perhaps even a global terrorist network, from an office just round the corner. "Oh... that Osama." President Bush's "with us or against us" speech made plain the consequences of not siding against Bin Laden, and Sudan has had further to scramble on-side than almost any other country. It is still on America's hitlist of states that sponsor terrorism - and Bin Laden's handprints are all over the place. There is his bullet-scarred house in a Khartoum suburb, his plane sitting at the airport, the companies he owned, the bank accounts... "He was investing heavily, he was doing the country a lot of good," says Mahdi Ibrahim Mohamed, the information minister. "But when the Americans told us to extradite him, we did - not that they provided proof of his involvement in terrorism." And not that Mohamed knew him well, you understand. They only met a few times. Bin Laden first flew to Sudan from Afghanistan in early 1991. Al-Qaida had been formed three years before but, officially at least, the US still considered him a friendly mojahedin. By 1998, less than two years after he was expelled from Sudan, he had become America's most wanted man, thanks to the east Africa embassy bombings. It seems reasonable to conclude that Bin Laden's years in Sudan were crucial for the development of his terrorist network. So what was he up to all that time? Nothing, say the Sudanese: it was Bin Laden's expulsion from Sudan that tipped him over the edge - which is to say, Sudan never hosted a terrorist. "Being extradited turned Bin Laden into an anti-America terrorist," says Dr Gutbi el-Mahdi, who took over Sudan's intelligence agency shortly afterwards. "Whatever his views when he was here, he was just doing business. We were watching him and he was under control. In Afghanistan, he went completely out of control." Advertisement Bin Laden first opened a small office in McNimr street, amongst the crowded ministries of central Khartoum, then moved it to the affluent suburb of Riyadh, where he had a house. But he was more often at Soba, his farm just outside Khartoum, according to a former close business associate, and this was where most of his business was done. The farmhouse was a single-storey mud-building, with no furniture and a rough wooden roof, on the left bank of the Blue Nile. The floor was beaten earth, laid with camel rugs. "His men all had nice air-conditioned flats in the city," says the associate. "But Bin Laden preferred to live simply with his horses and wives." There were four wives at the time, two or three horses and numerous children. "He was just another Saudi investor," he says. "If there is nothing between you, he is very kind. He smiles a lot. I never considered him dangerous." According to this associate, Bin Laden's mixed bag of mojahedin employees made indifferent managers, however. The reason he visited Bin Laden so often was to complain about money owed to him, or the mismanagement of the farms he was renting out. Bin Laden's business with the government, which supplied the vast majority of his contracts, did not go to plan either. Ideologically, Sudan's Omar al-Bashir and his mullahs were more to Bin Laden's liking than the Saudis for whom his father had built roads; but they were much worse at paying their bills. After completing 200 miles of road north from Khartoum to Adbara, and another 100 miles on towards Port Sudan, the government reneged on Bin Laden's £20m fee, instead giving him a majority share in a tannery, worth £5m. The road was never completed. Advertisement Meanwhile, the Sudanese government, which had declared a jihad against the country's Christian rebels, was augmenting the army with Islamist militias, press-ganged from Khartoum's sandy streets and souks. Bin Laden is rumoured to have been funding them heavily. But he was not training men himself - or for the government, according to the business associate. "Khartoum's a small town and everyone would have known," he says. Wisa al-Mahdi used to visit one of Bin Laden's two Saudi wives, Om-Hamza, a lecturer in Koranic law, from Medina, who would sometimes preach to local housewives. Others are scared to give their names when they talk about the Bin Ladens, but Al-Mahdi, the wife of Hassan Turabi, architect of Sudan's Islamic revolution and Bin Laden's friend, is happy to reminisce - her husband has just been imprisoned. "Osama was an ordinary Muslim, a good family man," she insists. "Definitely, he wasn't training people to kill." But the idea that Bin Laden was nothing more than a wealthy tycoon with business problems and a generous Islamic patron during his years in the Sudan is heavily undermined by the testimony of a former al-Qaida member from the embassy bombings trial in February. Jamal Ahmed Fadl, a 38-year-old Sudanese man, worked as a general fixer for Bin Laden in Khartoum before running off with £70,000 in 1994. He says the business was all a front for al-Qaida. He describes a web of worldwide Islamist terrorism groups, with al-Qaida doling out guns, money and expertise at its centre. Fadl says he personally smuggled four crates of explosives to Yemeni rebels. They were taken from a stockpile at Bin Laden's farm in Soba, and trucked to Port Sudan, where an army intelligence officer helped transfer them into an army truck. At midnight, the truck was taken to an al-Qaida boat moored at the army dock. Fadl also describes delivering $100,000 in $100 bills to an opponent of King Hussein of Jordan in Amman. He says he led a caravan of 50 camels loaded with Kalashnikovs to Egypt. And he details al-Qaida's assistance to Islamists in Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Syria, Chechnya, Turkey, Eritrea, Tajikistan, the Philippines and Lebanon. Advertisement According to Fadl, and others in Khartoum, the Gulf war in 1991 put the US in Bin Laden's sights just as he was moving to Sudan. Shortly afterwards, at one of the weekly al-Qaida meetings in Soba, he issued a fatwah against the US for desecrating the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Two years later, he issued another, at the same place and time, sunset on Thursday, to mark the arrival of American peacekeepers in Somalia. Southern Sudan would be next, Bin Laden told his men - not entirely unreasonable given America's military support for the rebels there. There are other stories that contradict the idea that Bin Laden led a quiet life in the Sudan. In 1995, four activists from an ultra-extreme Egyptian group which considers Islam so corrupt that it would be best to start again, opened fire in a mosque in Omdurman, killing 12 people. Afterwards, they jumped into a Toyota pickup and went hunting for Bin Laden - whom they judged offensively liberal. According to former neighbours, the Toyota screamed to a stop outside Bin Laden's offices, opposite his house, and even before getting out the occupants opened fire. Shots were returned immediately, from the offices and from the roof of the house. Within minutes, one man lay dead in the street, two or three in the offices, and three in the pickup. The fourth attacker was hanged. By early 1996, America was demanding that Sudan expel all its suspected terrorists, including most of the Afghanistan veterans. Bin Laden was high on that list, but principally as a well-known employer of Islamist misfits. Once his businesses were broken up, the US authorities assumed that he would disappear. "There was an awareness that he was tagged a dangerous figure; but we didn't have a handle on him as I recall," says Donald Petterson, the American ambassador to Sudan throughout most of Bin Laden's stay. Khartoum offered to hand Bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia, or, potentially straight to America, says el-Mahdi, the spy chief. "If America had had something against him we would have looked at extraditing him to America, but they had not." But, fearing an extremist backlash, and having nothing to charge Bin Laden with, Saudi Arabia wanted no part in the deal. "Ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia," the CIA finally instructed General Elfatih Erwa, who was leading Sudan's negotiatiors. "We said, 'He will go to Afghanistan,'" says Erwa. "But they said, 'Let him.'" The government promptly seized Bin Laden's businesses; Bin Laden chartered a plane for Kabul. He got away safely, but at the most conservative estimate, his losses totalled £30m. "He has nothing like the money you all think," says one of the country's richest men. "Losing a few tens of millions here nearly finished him off," el-Mahdi concurs. "I would say that by the time he went to Afghanistan he was totally broke - he didn't have anything." Several Sudanese banks have had foreign assets frozen since September 11. But businessmen, as well as ministers, say that whether Bin Laden still has major investments in Sudan depends, as his former associate puts it, on whether "the government decides to give them back or not". That does not look likely. Sudan is doing its brutal best to stamp out potential Bin Laden support. More than 50 of Turabi's supporters have been arrested since September 11 after protesting against his arbitrary detention and the country's perceived appeasement of America. "It would have been better for Osama and for Sudan if he had never left," says al-Mahdi, Turabi's wife. But it doesn't look like he'll be back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 20 Jan 17 - 01:46 PM Very entertaining Jom - but complete hogwash. Common knowledge that Osama bin Laden inherited $29 million after the death of his natural father - who did he inherit the other $171 million from? "the man who spent five years running half of Sudan's industries, and perhaps even a global terrorist network" F**kin Hilarious. "the US still considered him a friendly mojahedin" Really?? Rather doubt that his Fatwas caught their attention as did Al-Qaeda attacks in the USA and in the middle-east. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jan 17 - 03:58 AM "Very entertaining Jom - but complete hogwash." You are both arrogant and insane to deny news reports, the guardian one based on an actual interview. You deny them - you offer nothing to substantiate your denial Go find a lifeboat - your ship is sunk I really do think we're finished here - hopefully you are to, but I doubt if meglos like you are capable of learning their lesson Thanks for the giggle though! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Thompson Date: 21 Jan 17 - 04:11 AM Punkfolkrocker, Osama Bin Laden's favourite TV show was The IT Crowd, according to articles after his assassination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Teribus Date: 21 Jan 17 - 09:29 AM Sunk?? Far from it Carroll. The really funny thing in attempting to any discussion involving you is your rush to cut'n'paste articles that you believe support your line of reasoning, when 9 times out of 10 they do the opposite - Do you ever actually read them through? - Your last "contribution" is no different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Businessmen as Leaders of Nations From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jan 17 - 09:52 AM Can you explain why The Guardian and Reuter got it so wrong and only you have the answer? Your response to the Reuter article was "LOL!!! What "comic" did you get that from Jom?" You dismissed the Guardian one as "complete hogwash." Can't have it both ways - they are what you described them as or I didn't read them properly - which is it? If the latter - put me right You are an inconsistent saddo "sunk" joke. Jim Carroll |
