Robert Sterling
Editor, The Konformist
http://www.konformist.com
New Book Details Bush/Big Oil Negotiations With Taliban BEFORE WTC
By TOP_VIEW TOP_VIEW1@go.com 11-19-1
Fact: The WTC was bombed right AFTER Bush-Taliban oil pipeline talks
soured.
The talks soured right AFTER Bush/Big Oil threatened Taliban to take
their offer or receive a "carpet of bombs."
SPELLING IT OUT
Bush-Cheney/Big Oil and Afghanistan's Taliban negotiated for MONTHS
over running a Caspian Sea oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Talks
began in February and continued right on until only one MONTH before
New York City's World Trade Center towers were demolished.
DURING the course of these negotiations, the two parties were unable
to agree upon a deal, MAINLY because Bush/Big Oil agents constantly
upped the ante on the rather naive Taliban representatives: playing
intimidation, bait & switch, and "shell" games relentlessly. The
Taliban negotiators, understandably, became distrustful of the entire
process, and less and less confident they were being dealt with in
good faith.
In the beginning of August, the Bush administration and its Big Oil
cohorts delivered what amounted to an ultimatum to the Taliban.
The Taliban representatives were reportedly told by Bush/Big Oil:
Accept our offer of "a carpet of gold or you'll get a carpet of
bombs."
That's a DIRECT quote, according to French authors Jean-Charles
Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, who've just written a thoroughly-
researched and heavily-documented book about the entire extraordinary
business titled "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth"
ALSO revealed in the book is the fact that BUSH HIMSELF directly
ordered the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement groups to BACK OFF on
TERRORIST-RELATED INVESTIGATIONS while the oil pipeline negotiations
were underway!
In FACT, the FBI's Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July in
protest over this outrageous and intolerable obstruction.
And by the way: the whereabouts of one OSAMA BIN LADEN, then already
firmly entrenched at the very top of the US's "most-wanted terrorist"
list during the entire course of these pipeline negotiations, was
NEVER an issue with the Bush cartel. Never ONCE were the Taliban
urged to hand bin Laden over for all those OTHER horrendous crimes
Feds maintain bin Laden has been charged with committing over the
years.
And SO: barely a MONTH after the Bush administration sabotaged the
negotiations with the Taliban regarding running the Caspian Sea oil
pipeline through Afghanistan, the World Trade Center towers are
bombed into oblivion, bringing about the currently ongoing UNDECLARED
(and therefore illegal) "war on terrorism"...that just HAPPENS to be
directed at the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The WTC was bombed -- according to Feds -- by the VERY SAME Osama bin
Laden whom the very same Bush administration was so UNCONCERNED ABOUT
during those JUST-WRECKED talks with the Taliban.
NO ONE but the bush administration and their Big Oil
allies/accomplices -- not the Taliban, not the Palestinians, not ANY
other nation whether Islamic or otherwise -- not any other group,
agency, force or faction on Earth stood to "GAIN" from the
destruction of the World Trade Center which occurred only ONE MONTH
after talks between the Bush administration and the Taliban fell
apart due to outrageous threats and intimidation by Bush/Big
Oil "negotiators."
___
Now the Taliban have been removed, Americans have lost even more
freedom and liberty thanks to the 'Anti-Terrorism' Bill (passed by
the House without even having READ the bill), and we can expect the
pipeline project to get back on track soon. It is important to
remember that the world's richest oil country, Saudi Arabia, has 30
billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The Caspian oil reserves are
conservatively estimated to be 50 BILLON barrels. - ed.
*****
Nostradaveus
11/16/01
dave@davesweb.cnchost.com
This seems like a good time to offer an installment of what I
have rather humbly decided to call Nostradaveus. This excerpt comes
from my first book, Derailing Democracy, where it provides the
introduction to chapter 25.
This also seems like a good time to make an appeal to all of
you to help save the publisher of this book. As most of you are
probably aware, independent booksellers are rapidly disappearing from
the American landscape, crowded out by the likes of Barnes & Noble,
Borders, and Amazon.com.
What you may not be aware of is that independent publishers
are also quickly becoming an endangered species. Common Courage Press
is currently suffering from severe financial problems - meaning,
among other things, that its authors (this one, at least) have not
received any royalty payments for an entire year. Rumor now has it
that they may soon be shutting their doors for good.
If that happens, a number of quality books will soon be out
of print, including works by such writers as Howard Zinn, William
Blum, and Noam Chomsky. With the holidays approaching, please
consider adding some books from their catalogue to your holiday wish
lists, or giving them as gifts to others.
A couple of my personal favorites are William Blum's Killing
Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Mark
Zepezauer's The CIA's Greatest Hits. For a complete list of the books
offered by this publisher, visit their web site at:
http://commoncouragepress.com.
"The fact that some elements [of the US government] may appear to be
potentially `out of control' can be beneficial to creating and
reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's
decision makers… That the US may become irrational and vindictive if
its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national
persona we project to all adversaries.... It hurts to portray
ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed...."
US Strategic Command "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence," 1995
(US Strategic Command, or STRATCOM, is the military entity
responsible for formulating U.S. nuclear policy)
The White House appears to have taken the advice of STRATCOM
to heart, as how else are we to explain the drive-by bombing of the
Sudan in August of 1998? This action, taken against a sovereign
nation with which the U.S. had no legitimate grievances, was a
flagrant violation of international law that was harshly condemned,
and rightly so, by the world community. The increasingly militarized
approach to foreign policy, of which the Sudan bombing is but one
recent example, is justified on the basis of fighting
international 'terrorism,' which has largely replaced the old
justification of fighting international communism. Of course, who is
identified as a terrorist at any given time is largely determined by
what best serves US economic interests.
Yesterday's Abu Nidal morphs seamlessly into today's Osama
bin Laden while Abdullah Ocalan takes the place of Yassir Arafat and
Nelson Mandela. Both of the latter, not long ago vilified
as 'terrorist' leaders of 'terrorist organizations,' are now Nobel
Peace Prize winners, widely praised in Washington and around the
world. Other 'terrorist' threats, such as Kaddafi in Libya and Assad
in Syria, simply fade from view, with no explanation given as to why,
though they remain in power, they no longer pose a threat to the
sovereignty of the United States. Some groups formerly pegged
as 'terrorists,' most recently the KLA (identified as such by the
U.S. State Department in 1998), are suddenly reborn as 'freedom
fighters,' again with no explanation offered as to how this
miraculous transformation has taken place. Then there are
those 'terrorists' who suddenly become so only after years of serving
as CIA 'assets.' Noriega of Panama, Aidid of Somalia, and the mother
of all terrorists - Saddam Hussein - all fall into this category, all
having been demonized only after ceasing to serve American interests.
And of course there are the old standbys, such as the ever popular
Fidel Castro, who can be trotted out at a moment's notice if no
better villain is readily available.
All of these largely manufactured threats are used to justify
an increasingly bloated level of military expenditures,
euphemistically referred to as 'defense spending,' as well as a
foreign policy increasingly reliant on naked aggression. In addition
to the aerial bombardment and military occupation of Kosovo, the
continued military presence in Bosnia, and the cruise missile attacks
on Sudan and Afghanistan, the United States continues to routinely
launch air strikes against Iraq, though the American press has
apparently decided that this is no longer news. All of these actions
have been taken with virtually no debate in Congress and an obvious
contempt for public opinion. The overwhelming bipartisan support for
vastly increasing the current military budget at every possible
opportunity signals a continuation and escalation of U.S.
belligerence.
The mainstream media have played a large part in creating a
public tolerance for a greatly increased militarism by being a
willing participant in this political shell game. American military
actions are routinely glorified and sterilized, while the terrorist
du jour is suitably vilified. Propaganda stories increasingly
proliferate carrying preposterous warnings of near imminent nuclear
attack on America from North Korea, Iraq, or some other
allegedly 'rogue' nation. By the Pentagon's logic, any nation not
allied with the U.S. that is working on a nuclear weapons program is
doing so for the express purpose of launching a preemptive strike
against American soil.
Never is it suggested that these `rogue' nations, having
witnessed the destructive power the United States was so eager to
wield in such places as Iraq and Serbia, could feel a legitimate need
to possess a meaningful deterrent against an international aggressor
armed with some 6,000 long range nuclear missiles and a desire to
appear `out of control.' The notion that any nation would use such
weaponry for offensive purposes, to launch a first strike at the
United States, defies any rational analysis. Surely the cost to the
aggressor nation of such an attack on America would be nothing less
than the complete and total nuclear annihilation of the `rogue'
nation and its people.
Of course, the State Department realizes that certain
countries will not be deterred by this, because they are led by
madmen who don't have the same respect for human life that we do. It
would be foolhardy to expect these terrorist heads of state to act
rationally. These men would willingly sacrifice their entire country
for the chance to take out part of Manhattan. That is why we must
always maintain our defenses against those who, in the words of one
notorious rogue nation, "may become irrational and vindictive."
"Another unacknowledged and unpleasant reality is that a more
militant approach toward terrorism would, in virtually all cases,
require us to act violently and alone."
Former CIA Director Robert M. Gates in The New York Times, August
16, 1998
|