posted on November 18, 2001 04:03:58 PM new
Oh, but it wouldn't be the first deception, now would it?
Isn't the implication here that had there not been a breakdown in negotiation with the Taliban the attacks to WTC and the pentagon might never have taken place?
PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush
initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the
delivery of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) in exchange for political recognition and economic aid,
two French intelligence analysts claim.
In the book ''Bin Laden, la verite interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''),
that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and
Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy
director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.
Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic
terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in
it''.
The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan (news - web
sites) was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the
oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.
They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in
Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich
oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian
Ocean.
Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The
Bush government wanted to change all that''.
But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security
changed into a military one'', the authors claim.
''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our
offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris.
According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after
coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in
Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.
To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations,
Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her
uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) (CIA
(news - web sites)).
The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the
attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain.
posted on November 18, 2001 06:07:00 PM newtwinsoft and krs, what do you think would happen if someone suddenly appeared with documentation linking the Bushs and cohorts with plans to invade Afghanistan for oil - prior to September 11? Would we pull troops out? Or settle in ? Do the events of September 11 justify our presence there for most people? (And ,yes, I have questions about those events also.)
I just wonder what it would take for most people to really question what is going on?
posted on November 18, 2001 06:51:52 PM newDo the events of September 11 justify our presence there for most people?
I'm in the midst of Peter Bergen's new book about Bin Laden and Al-Queda. Quite informative and interesting from an UNbiased and objective viewpoint. By the way, the infamous "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" quote is in there, but not quite in the same "context" as Mr. Brisard is claiming. Still and all, interesting reading. And the more I read, the more I would have to answer YES! to saabsister's question.
posted on November 18, 2001 07:06:07 PM new
Twinsoft, I have, or haven't you noticed? If not, then I'll have to accelerate it some, even though I don't have the time very often. So say that you have noticed.
Katd, "Quite informative and interesting from an UNbiased and objective viewpoint"
All that means is that you agree with it, which is meaningless. I doubt that there is a more biased observer than you are.
posted on November 19, 2001 01:31:31 AM new
What's this garbage with Laura Bush and her little radio broadcast talking about the Afghanistan and womens rights? She has never spoken out about it before, but now all of a sudden she's on the band wagon to help them?
Give me a break! What kind of political Bush move is this? And, he let her have his spot on the radio for this. I'm sure there's more to this story then Mrs. Bush speaking about Afghanistan's womens rights when she doesn't care about American womens rights.
She's just as phoney as her husband and using this situation like he's using the war to get a little closer to that oil.
posted on November 19, 2001 04:43:22 AM new
Hi mybiddness and Katy D
Chococake, I'm so glad you brought that up about Mrs. Bush's radio address. I happen to think Bush is doing a good job as President, and Mrs. Bush makes a fine First Lady. However, and this is a big however, why was she giving the radio address instead of the President? It's supposed to be the President's radio address not the First Lady's. The only answer I can come up with is the advisors seized the moment for a little well-placed propoganda in support of the war effort. Since the oppression of women in Afghanistan is a good thing to be against, a woman gave the speech, the First Lady.
The reason this strikes me as hypocritical is that women are oppressed in many other countries of the world which were not mentioned, just Afghanistan. Serious problems in the treatment of women exist in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of our allies. What about the scourge of female circumcision throughout many African countries, this is a mutilation that affects millions of women.
This propaganda move was transparent and disheartening. I'm not opposed to the war, but I'm opposed to being manipulated because of the war.
posted on November 19, 2001 05:35:48 AM new
Tsk, Enchanted, is that the point? How hypocritical is it for this administration to decry the abuses of women in Afganistan when the same administration cut all funding for abortion and birth control services around the world leaving millions of women and their unwanted offspring to suffer their consequent misery and death without even an expression of sympathy from Laura(she never planned to be a talking head)Bush?
posted on November 19, 2001 06:07:03 AM new
"The reason this strikes me as hypocritical is that women are oppressed in many other countries of the world which were not mentioned, just Afghanistan. Serious problems in the treatment of women exist in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of our allies. What about the scourge of female circumcision throughout many African countries, this is a mutilation that affects millions of women. "
Maybe if these countries have something that we want, we can bomb them in the morning, drop food for them in the evening and make radio addresses to justify our "humanitarian" concerns for them on the radio.
Another recently published book "Taliban" covers the history of the oil pipeline issue for the last 21 years. Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist confirms the fact that the United States has been dilligently at work on an attempt to construct the pipeline for many years, especially during the Reagan and Bush administration. In fact, Unocal, a California based oil company, whitch had start-up plans for construction scheduled for the year 2000 were progressively delayed to 2003 and most recently to 2005.
Helen
what's causing the text line breaks? ed.
[ edited by hjw on Nov 19, 2001 06:19 AM ]
posted on November 19, 2001 06:16:33 AM new
Obvious perhaps, enchanted, but it is the one thing that the current administration wasted no time in imposing. The other aspects to do with the situation of women worldwide are ongoing, but the programs which alleviated some of the misery which had been enacted as humanitarian efforts by this country were shut off by this country. A few months later comes an expression of outrage or sympathy? That's like a chicken slaughterer chastising the farmer who hired him for having headless chickens in his coop.
posted on November 19, 2001 06:18:56 AM newAll that means is that you agree with it, which is meaningless. I doubt that there is a more biased observer than you are.
Why would you think that I am biased? As for agreeing with anything, in his book, Bergen doesn't assign blame to anyone per se. He simply chronicles past events as they happened in administrations going back to Carter's. I don't like Bush. I didn't vote for him and won't vote for him in the next election. Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that neither Bush nor his father "created" Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. And it isn't "politics" as we understand the term. In Bin Laden's particular form of Islam, "politics" and "religion" are one and the same. There is no distinction between the two, and all the "political" concessions that some here have suggested will not assuage him nor deter him (or his supporters) from his intentions.
posted on November 19, 2001 07:15:39 AM new
I don't know if it's significant or not, but today is the 28th anniversary of the presidential announcement in 1973 as follows: "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook".
posted on November 19, 2001 07:22:11 AM new
KatyD's not biased. She just has the inside track to more information than we do.
Helen, I've been meaning to ask you this philosophical question for some time. I hope it would be fair to characterize many of your positions as anti-war. So, my question is this, do you think it would ever be possible for a war to be just, that is, for just causes? Or in your opinion, are ALL wars per se unjust? Krs, I'd also be interested to know your thoughts.
Also, about the humanitarian aid. I read somewhere this weekend that Blair is getting frustrated with Bush that humanitarian aid should be commenced rapidly and in greater amounts, that no time should be wasted in commencing as much humanitarian aid as possible. Did anyone else hear this? I totally agree the humanitarian aid should be rapidly increased.
posted on November 19, 2001 08:04:33 AM new
Although war may be justified, I believe that it should be avoided at all cost.
I believe that freedom is imperiled by the use of violence to protect that freedom. To go to war to become more safe we risk becoming less free as you can see today.
posted on November 19, 2001 08:10:22 AM newAlthough war may be justified, I believe that it should be avoided at all cost.
That's a contradictory statement, Helen.
I believe that freedom is imperiled by the use of violence to protect that freedom.
George Washington felt otherwise.
posted on November 19, 2001 08:12:06 AM new
No, no, enchanted. I don't have any inside information. Just the same information available to everybody else. Unless you're talking about "bridge threats".
posted on November 19, 2001 08:40:52 AM new
KatyD, that's exactly what I'm talking about, those bridge threats.
Thanks for answering that Helen. It's something I've been thinking about for quite a long time.
I believe that freedom is imperiled by the use of violence to protect that freedom.
Good point. I'm assuming you mean political and societal freedom? (As opposed to total individual freedom, which can lead to anarchy. Total individual freedom would include the freedom to commit violence against others, including murder, etc. By accepting the existence of "good" or "just" laws, we accept as healthy the existence of some limits on individual freedom.)
However (you knew there had to be a however, right?) even though there is potential peril to freedom in using violence to protect it, I believe it is not an absolute cause and effect that our political and societal freedoms will be limited each and every time violence is used. It can happen, but it doesn't necessarily have to happen.
So it is possible to have a war for just causes that does not impair our essential freedoms? I'm trying to work this through in my head.
posted on November 19, 2001 11:20:43 AM new
Enchanted...I had to go our for awhile and I just noticed your question. I think that somebody is trying to confuse my poor unlearned head. HaHaHa.
As you know, I am not a political philosopher. LoL In school, I spent most of my hours studying Psychology and after Logic 101, I avoided Philosophy like the plague.
Based on my training in Psychology, I have a tendency to look for the cause of conflict in order to alleviate the problem and avoid it's possible recurrance. In the case of this terrorist attack, for example, I am amazed that Americans were ready to go to war so quickly without consideration of any other option.
You are right in stating that my position is anti-war. But at the same time, I am not a Pacifist because I realize that all war can not be avoided.
posted on November 19, 2001 01:28:11 PM new
enchanted, to your question:
I left, and was at a rifle range, or I'd have answered earlier..
I think that the United States should use nuclear weapons to destroy first Mecca and a few days later, Medina. I know that both of them are in Saudi Arabia and I don't think that it matters a lick because I think that the Saudis are behind the WTC attack, and probably would hardly object. Without markets for oil they are nothing but sand and camels
If those two cities are gone then there's nothing for the religious fanatics to fight and die for, and most of them will wake up to just how stupid their religious causes are.
I think that all of this effort in Afganistan is wasted and done for private interests which are pretty shortsighted. Some more barrels of oil and keep the Russkies from gettin' any--big deal. Little dumbbell is no more than a puppet.
That's specific to the instant situation.
In general, I hate war because it brings waste and death to too many really undeserving people. Soldiers are led to it in relative ignorance fired by rhetoric and fueled by the energy of youth only to be spent forever to no good cause. Those who foster their going cannot know anything of the horror that they would send their own to face, or they could not send them and so should desist for the sake of those they purport to love and cherish. No matter how it's couched by the living, there is no lasting honor or pride in the dead--they're just dead, lost to us forever.
I think that it should be the responsibility of all nations to endeavor with all effort to find ways to coexist peaceably on earth. To that end war should be abolished as a mechanism of solution because it should be obvious by now that it has never solved anything.
Instead of war there should be a policing force which could act to restrict any who would violate an international trust, and international maintenance of the peace. Of course this is not news--it's axactly what the two world peacekeeping efforts have been contracted by nations to do. I think that it's still a worthy effort and that each nation (yep, including this one) MUST defer to such organizations of international agreement regardless how pressing any nation's immediate needs seem to be. Such a force should be the ONLY depository in the world of the means to apply full measure force and that force used only upon some percentile majority agreement between nations. No war, just the hammer--like Thor was supposed to wield.
posted on November 19, 2001 04:32:19 PM newkrs: that's a lot of wishful (& erroneous) thinking on your part. Destroying a religion's focus points certainaly won't put an end to religious fanaticism. On the contrary, not only would it increase, but Moslems who heretofore had not been involved soon would be. Can you say "bloodbath"?
