There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for
replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's
decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence
presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the
motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan,
especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry.
Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster,
which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been
prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request
for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we
invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF OIL PIPELINE
America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998,
three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report
from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12
February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the
need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on
Terror that followed September 11th:
"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project."
[ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12
Feb 1998 ]
"The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across,
Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
"CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized
Afghanistan Government is in place."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
The Afghanistan oil pipeline project was finally able to proceed in May
2002. This could not have happened if America had not taken military action
to replace the government in Afghanistan.
THE CONQUEST OF AFGHANISTAN BEGAN BEFORE 9/11
The war on Afghanistan was sold to the public as a reaction to the attacks
on 11 September 2001. However, the war was planned before the infamous 9/11
disaster, and the military action began long before the World Trade Center
fell.
The conquest of Afghanistan had been planned since at least 12 February
1998, and 9/11 happened just in time to secure public support for the
attacks.
SOURCES
Janes International Security News, "India joins anti-Taliban coalition", 15
March 2001.
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a
concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern
Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the
four countries' collaborative effort.
...
BBC News, "US 'planned attack on Taleban'", 18 September 2001.
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning
military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last
week's attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior
American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored
international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
...
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the
Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in
its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir
Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases
in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation
and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take
place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of
October at the latest.
...
BBC News, "Afghanistan: Campaign of conflict", 2 January 1999.
No sooner had the Taleban won a series of victories in the north, than
the US launched an attack on camps in Afghanistan run by Saudi dissident
Osama bin Laden, who had allegedly masterminded the bombing of US embassies
in East Africa.
...
BBC News, "US attack closes US project", 3 November 1998.
Up to 80 cruise missiles were fired at Afghanistan and Sudan in August
An American-funded training project in Afghanistan has closed down as a
result of the US cruise missile attack on the country in August. The
programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was once
hoping to be involved in building a gas pipeline across the country from
Turkmenistan to Pakistan.
...
THE "WAR ON TERROR": AN EXCUSE TO ADVANCE US ENERGY INTERESTS?
In 1998 US Vice-President ***** Cheney said in a speech to oil
industrialists:
"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as
suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian"
Within four years the US military had overthrown the government of
Afghanistan, and the construction of the Caspian Sea oil pipeline by US oil
corporations had begun.
The 'war on terror' is being used as an excuse to further US energy
interests in the Caspian.
SOURCES:
BBC News, "Race to unlock Central Asia's energy riches", 29 December 1997.
"American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong
interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via
Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi."
...
The Guardian, The new Great Game, 20 October 2003.
Lutz Kleveman (2003), The New Great Game, Atlantic Monthly Press.
AMERICA DEPLOYED MILITARY FORCE TO INSTALL AN "INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED"
(I.E. PRO-AMERICAN) AFGHAN GOVERNMENT
The American-driven invasion of Afghanistan swiftly captured of the
country's capital Kabul, enabling the removal of the former Afghanistan
government and the establishment of a new government.
Afghan capital, Kabul, conquered by U.S.-led invasion force, November 2001.
U.N. Conference discusses future of Afghanistan, November 2001.
U.S. Congress in Washington debates future of Afghanistan, November 2001.
U.N. appoints leader of new Afghanistan government, December 2001
U.S. Government, State Department website documents installation of new
Afghan government.
United Nations website documents installation of new Afghan government.
WAS THERE A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR BUSH'S U.S. GOVERNMENT DECISION TO
INVADE AFGHANISTAN?
There have been suggestions that Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan could
have been influenced by oil money. This is the unlimate reason why we are
now offering everyone this opportunity to sign the petition calling for
George Bush (Junior) to make a public statement confirming that his decision
was not influenced by the oil pipeline issue.
HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DOES THE OIL INDUSTRY HAVE ON BUSH AND THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT?
George W. Bush's connections with the oil industry are well established.
There is evidence of surprisingly close ties between Bush's U.S. Government
and big oil companies, partly brought to light through recent high-profile
cases of alleged corruption involving U.S. government officials and major
oil companies.
"During the 2000 elections, oil, gas and other energy interests donated
more than $40 million to Republicans, including the Bush presidential
campaign..." [ League of Conservation Voters website ]
"Condoleezza Rice, the [U.S.] National Security Adviser, has a Chevron
oil tanker named after her."
[ BBC News, "Bush and big business", 1 May 2001 ]
"The White House has acknowledged that US President George W. Bush
failed to follow the law and disclose details of shares [in a Texas oil
company] he sold when he was a company director."
[ BBC News, "Bush in shares embarrassment", 3 July 2003 ]
"US oil services and engineering firm Halliburton is being investigated for
its accounting practices when US Vice President ***** Cheney was at the
helm." [ BBC News, "Accounts probe at Cheney firm", 30 May 2002 ]
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE CONTROVERSIAL AFGHANISTAN PIPELINE PROJECT?
The CentGas consortium was formed in 1997 to build the controversial Caspian
Sea oil pipeline. The American oil company, Unocal, had the largest stake
(46.5%) in CentGas's Afghanistan pipeline project. Unocal, currently an
ex-member of the CentGas pipeline consortium, is now trying to distance
itself from the pipe-line controversy and perceived conflict of interest.
Dr Rice, a director of Unocal, served as Secretary of the Air Force in
the Bush Administration. He earlier served in the U.S. Defence Department as
deputy assistant secretary for resource analysis and director of cost
analysis. Ties between the Whitehouse and the oil industry are so close that
winners of a competition organised by Unocal won a prestigious visit to the
Whitehouse to receive an award from President Bush himself.
THE TALIBAN GOES SHOPPING IN AMERICA WITH AMERICAN OIL COMPANY BOSSES!
Did you know that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan were offered more than
$100 million a year by the American oil industry to submit to the pipeline
project without a fight?
"On at least one occasion, in December 1997, Unocal officials played host to
high-ranking Taliban leaders in Texas. The American oil executives
reportedly
wined and dined them and took them on a shopping spree."
[ Boston Herald, "U.S. ties to Saudi elite may be hurting war on terrorism",
10 December 2001 ]
If a secret deal was struck between the Americans and Taliban officials,
might this explain why the troops invading Afghanistan never seemed to find
the enemy?
There were only a handful of casualties among the Coalition troops invading
Afghanistan. A BBC News report on 27 July 2002 said: "About 40 American
soldiers have been killed in combat and non-combat incidents and more than
340 have been wounded in the US operation in Afghanistan that began last
October." It is not clear where these figures come from but, if correct,
they include "non-combat" casualties, such as the helicopter accidents which
killed U.S. soldiers near Bagram or the crash at the Bande Sardeh dam, or
accidental explosions, or one of the "friendly-fire" incidents. Overall
losses seem small considering that a whole country was conquered in this
campaign, especially in view of current opinions that the enemy are
supposedly so willing to die fighting the west.
REPORTS SUGGEST U.S. GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE DONE MORE TO PREVENT SEPTEMBER
11TH TRADGEDY
If undeclared economic factors were involved in America's decision to invade
Afghanistan and install a new government, this would invite a closer
investigation of reports that more could have been done to prevent the
disastrous attack on the World Trade Center, which was declared to be the
reason for invading Afghanistan.
Why are both the FBI and the CIA suspected of hindering the
investigations that might have prevented the 9/11 catastrophe? How much did
the CIA know about the al-Qaida hijackers operating in the U.S. who
allegedly orchestrated the 11 September attack?
The most serious reports claim that senior U.S. intelligence officials
"hindered enquiries". An official investigation was launched but "the
hearings are secret in order to protect sources." Many people are also
concerned about the well-documented evidence suggesting that Osamir Bin
Ladin and the al-Qaida network were set-up and funded by the U.S.
intelligence agency, the CIA.
"The White House says it received intelligence reports in the months before
the 11 September attacks that Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network was
plotting to hijack US passenger planes."
[ BBC News, "Q&A: US terror intelligence", 11 June 2002 ]
"The national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, says the President [Bush]
was briefed in August last year that Osama bin Laden planned to hijack
American aircraft."
[ BBC News, "World Trade Centre: Could the attacks have been prevented?", 22
May 2002 ]
"FBI agent ... expected to publicly tell a Senate committee ... bosses
hindered
enquiries into the man now suspected of being the would-be 20th
hijacker.
"The United States Congress has begun hearings into possible US intelligence
failures in the run-up to the attacks of 11 September.
"The hearings are secret in order to protect sources."
[ BBC News, "Congress probes US intelligence failures", 5 June 2002.
"Ms Rowley, an FBI agent for 22 years, said senior personnel put
'roadblocks'
in the way of Minneapolis staff trying to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui,
now alleged to be the '20th hijacker'."
[ BBC News, "Bush overhauls domestic security", 7 June 2002 ]
AL-QAEDA WAS CREATED, ARMED, FUNDED AND SUPPORTED BY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
The US government trained, armed, funded and supported Osama bin Laden and
his followers in Afghanistan during the cold war. With a huge investment of
$3,000,000,000 (three billion US dollars), the CIA effectively created and
nurtured bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network using American tax-payers
money. Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest countries, where such an
enormous sum sum of money would have had extraordinary value.
"In the 1980s, bin Laden left his comfortable Saudi home for Afghanistan to
participate
in the Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the invading forces of the Soviet
Union - a
cause that, ironically, the United States funded, pouring $3 billion into
the Afghan
resistance via the CIA."
[ ABC News, "Osama Bin Laden: Profile of a Terror Leader", 12 February
2002 ]
"...Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion
of
Afghanistan. The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the
blessing
of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He received security
training from the
CIA itself."
[ BBC News, "Who is Osama Bin Laden?", 18 September 2001 ]
"...[Osama bin Laden] received military and financial assistance from the
intelligence
services of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States."
[ Forbes bsuiness news, "Who Is Osama Bin Laden?", 14 September 2001 ]
WHAT IS THE FUTURE THE NEW WEST-FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN?
The United Nations indicated that the 'temporary' administration, which they
established in Afghanistan following the American-led NATO conquest, will
soon be replaced by a permanent democratic government. But when the new head
of state for Afghanistan was announced it was simply the Chairman of the
existing United Nations 'provisional' administration.
"The loya jirga is expected to elect the current interim leader, Hamid
Karzai, as head
of state."
"This is not a democracy; it is a rubber stamp - everything has already been
decided
by the powerful ones." Seema Samar, Women's Affairs Minister, Afghanistan
[ BBC News, "Tempers flare at loya jirga", 12 June 2002 ]
AFGHAN PUPPET GOVERNMENT LED BY FORMER OIL COMPANY ADVISOR
The leader of the new US-controlled interim government in Afghanistan, Hamid
Karzai, was a key collaborator in the conspiracy to construct the major gas
and oil pipe-line in the region, which was the hidden agenda of the US-led
invasion. Mr Karzai was involved with the American oil company that planned
to build the pipeline through Afghanistan, and now he holds the highest job
in the country.
"The interim chief, Hamid Karzai has been an advisor to UNOCAL. He has been
involved in negotiations of UNOCAL with Taliban."[1]
Mr Karzai was installed as the leader of Afghanistan by the US government.
"Mr Karzai had strong American backing and was clearly being groomed for
leadership."[2]
The US government is now moving on to a new conflict against Iraq,[3] but
the latest news reports show that the war in Afghanistan has not yet been
won.[4-9]
SOURCES
[1] Defence Journal, "Afghanistan - not so great games", April 2002.
[2] BBC News, "Hamid Karzai: Shrewd statesman", 14 June 2002.
[3] BBC News, "'Massive assault' planned on Iraq", 3 February 2003.
[4] BBC News, "US troops hunt Afghan rebels", 29 January 2003.
[5] BBC News, "Analysis: No unity among Afghan rebels ", 28 January 2003.
[6] BBC News, "Fierce battle rages in Afghanistan", 28 January 2003.
[7] BBC News, "Several slain in Afghan attack", 26 January 2003.
[8] BBC News, "Taleban 'regroup' in Afghanistan", 17 January 2003.
[9] BBC News, "Afghan security situation 'urgent'", 14 January 2003.
-----------------------------------------------------
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
24 Sep 2004 05:00:36 AM |
|
|
Again the same debunked ***** for three years now, but that you still
post every other week. Aren't you tired of being shown for having
nothing to say but worn out tired old ***** all the time?
You think you influence anyone here? Think again, all your ***** is total
bunk all the time.
You have NOTHING. Your propaganda links are LAME.
J.
Barbarossa a écrit:
There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for
replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's
decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence
presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the
motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan,
especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry.
Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster,
which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been
prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request
for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we
invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF OIL PIPELINE
America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998,
three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report
from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12
February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the
need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on
Terror that followed September 11th:
"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project."
[ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12
Feb 1998 ]
"The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across,
Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
"CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized
Afghanistan Government is in place."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
The Afghanistan oil pipeline project was finally able to proceed in May
2002. This could not have happened if America had not taken military action
to replace the government in Afghanistan.
THE CONQUEST OF AFGHANISTAN BEGAN BEFORE 9/11
The war on Afghanistan was sold to the public as a reaction to the attacks
on 11 September 2001. However, the war was planned before the infamous 9/11
disaster, and the military action began long before the World Trade Center
fell.
The conquest of Afghanistan had been planned since at least 12 February
1998, and 9/11 happened just in time to secure public support for the
attacks.
SOURCES
Janes International Security News, "India joins anti-Taliban coalition", 15
March 2001.
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a
concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern
Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the
four countries' collaborative effort.
...
BBC News, "US 'planned attack on Taleban'", 18 September 2001.
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning
military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last
week's attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior
American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored
international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
...
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the
Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in
its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir
Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases
in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation
and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take
place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of
October at the latest.
...
BBC News, "Afghanistan: Campaign of conflict", 2 January 1999.
No sooner had the Taleban won a series of victories in the north, than
the US launched an attack on camps in Afghanistan run by Saudi dissident
Osama bin Laden, who had allegedly masterminded the bombing of US embassies
in East Africa.
...
BBC News, "US attack closes US project", 3 November 1998.
Up to 80 cruise missiles were fired at Afghanistan and Sudan in August
An American-funded training project in Afghanistan has closed down as a
result of the US cruise missile attack on the country in August. The
programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was once
hoping to be involved in building a gas pipeline across the country from
Turkmenistan to Pakistan.
...
THE "WAR ON TERROR": AN EXCUSE TO ADVANCE US ENERGY INTERESTS?
In 1998 US Vice-President ***** Cheney said in a speech to oil
industrialists:
"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as
suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian"
Within four years the US military had overthrown the government of
Afghanistan, and the construction of the Caspian Sea oil pipeline by US oil
corporations had begun.
The 'war on terror' is being used as an excuse to further US energy
interests in the Caspian.
SOURCES:
BBC News, "Race to unlock Central Asia's energy riches", 29 December 1997.
"American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong
interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via
Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi."
...
The Guardian, The new Great Game, 20 October 2003.
Lutz Kleveman (2003), The New Great Game, Atlantic Monthly Press.
AMERICA DEPLOYED MILITARY FORCE TO INSTALL AN "INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED"
(I.E. PRO-AMERICAN) AFGHAN GOVERNMENT
The American-driven invasion of Afghanistan swiftly captured of the
country's capital Kabul, enabling the removal of the former Afghanistan
government and the establishment of a new government.
Afghan capital, Kabul, conquered by U.S.-led invasion force, November 2001.
U.N. Conference discusses future of Afghanistan, November 2001.
U.S. Congress in Washington debates future of Afghanistan, November 2001.
U.N. appoints leader of new Afghanistan government, December 2001
U.S. Government, State Department website documents installation of new
Afghan government.
United Nations website documents installation of new Afghan government.
WAS THERE A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR BUSH'S U.S. GOVERNMENT DECISION TO
INVADE AFGHANISTAN?
There have been suggestions that Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan could
have been influenced by oil money. This is the unlimate reason why we are
now offering everyone this opportunity to sign the petition calling for
George Bush (Junior) to make a public statement confirming that his decision
was not influenced by the oil pipeline issue.
HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DOES THE OIL INDUSTRY HAVE ON BUSH AND THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT?
George W. Bush's connections with the oil industry are well established.
There is evidence of surprisingly close ties between Bush's U.S. Government
and big oil companies, partly brought to light through recent high-profile
cases of alleged corruption involving U.S. government officials and major
oil companies.
"During the 2000 elections, oil, gas and other energy interests donated
more than $40 million to Republicans, including the Bush presidential
campaign..." [ League of Conservation Voters website ]
"Condoleezza Rice, the [U.S.] National Security Adviser, has a Chevron
oil tanker named after her."
[ BBC News, "Bush and big business", 1 May 2001 ]
"The White House has acknowledged that US President George W. Bush
failed to follow the law and disclose details of shares [in a Texas oil
company] he sold when he was a company director."
[ BBC News, "Bush in shares embarrassment", 3 July 2003 ]
"US oil services and engineering firm Halliburton is being investigated for
its accounting practices when US Vice President ***** Cheney was at the
helm." [ BBC News, "Accounts probe at Cheney firm", 30 May 2002 ]
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE CONTROVERSIAL AFGHANISTAN PIPELINE PROJECT?
The CentGas consortium was formed in 1997 to build the controversial Caspian
Sea oil pipeline. The American oil company, Unocal, had the largest stake
(46.5%) in CentGas's Afghanistan pipeline project. Unocal, currently an
ex-member of the CentGas pipeline consortium, is now trying to distance
itself from the pipe-line controversy and perceived conflict of interest.
Dr Rice, a director of Unocal, served as Secretary of the Air Force in
the Bush Administration. He earlier served in the U.S. Defence Department as
deputy assistant secretary for resource analysis and director of cost
analysis. Ties between the Whitehouse and the oil industry are so close that
winners of a competition organised by Unocal won a prestigious visit to the
Whitehouse to receive an award from President Bush himself.
THE TALIBAN GOES SHOPPING IN AMERICA WITH AMERICAN OIL COMPANY BOSSES!
Did you know that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan were offered more than
$100 million a year by the American oil industry to submit to the pipeline
project without a fight?
"On at least one occasion, in December 1997, Unocal officials played host to
high-ranking Taliban leaders in Texas. The American oil executives
reportedly
wined and dined them and took them on a shopping spree."
[ Boston Herald, "U.S. ties to Saudi elite may be hurting war on terrorism",
10 December 2001 ]
If a secret deal was struck between the Americans and Taliban officials,
might this explain why the troops invading Afghanistan never seemed to find
the enemy?
There were only a handful of casualties among the Coalition troops invading
Afghanistan. A BBC News report on 27 July 2002 said: "About 40 American
soldiers have been killed in combat and non-combat incidents and more than
340 have been wounded in the US operation in Afghanistan that began last
October." It is not clear where these figures come from but, if correct,
they include "non-combat" casualties, such as the helicopter accidents which
killed U.S. soldiers near Bagram or the crash at the Bande Sardeh dam, or
accidental explosions, or one of the "friendly-fire" incidents. Overall
losses seem small considering that a whole country was conquered in this
campaign, especially in view of current opinions that the enemy are
supposedly so willing to die fighting the west.
REPORTS SUGGEST U.S. GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE DONE MORE TO PREVENT SEPTEMBER
11TH TRADGEDY
If undeclared economic factors were involved in America's decision to invade
Afghanistan and install a new government, this would invite a closer
investigation of reports that more could have been done to prevent the
disastrous attack on the World Trade Center, which was declared to be the
reason for invading Afghanistan.
Why are both the FBI and the CIA suspected of hindering the
investigations that might have prevented the 9/11 catastrophe? How much did
the CIA know about the al-Qaida hijackers operating in the U.S. who
allegedly orchestrated the 11 September attack?
The most serious reports claim that senior U.S. intelligence officials
"hindered enquiries". An official investigation was launched but "the
hearings are secret in order to protect sources." Many people are also
concerned about the well-documented evidence suggesting that Osamir Bin
Ladin and the al-Qaida network were set-up and funded by the U.S.
intelligence agency, the CIA.
"The White House says it received intelligence reports in the months before
the 11 September attacks that Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network was
plotting to hijack US passenger planes."
[ BBC News, "Q&A: US terror intelligence", 11 June 2002 ]
"The national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, says the President [Bush]
was briefed in August last year that Osama bin Laden planned to hijack
American aircraft."
[ BBC News, "World Trade Centre: Could the attacks have been prevented?", 22
May 2002 ]
"FBI agent ... expected to publicly tell a Senate committee ... bosses
hindered
enquiries into the man now suspected of being the would-be 20th
hijacker.
"The United States Congress has begun hearings into possible US intelligence
failures in the run-up to the attacks of 11 September.
"The hearings are secret in order to protect sources."
[ BBC News, "Congress probes US intelligence failures", 5 June 2002.
"Ms Rowley, an FBI agent for 22 years, said senior personnel put
'roadblocks'
in the way of Minneapolis staff trying to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui,
now alleged to be the '20th hijacker'."
[ BBC News, "Bush overhauls domestic security", 7 June 2002 ]
AL-QAEDA WAS CREATED, ARMED, FUNDED AND SUPPORTED BY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
The US government trained, armed, funded and supported Osama bin Laden and
his followers in Afghanistan during the cold war. With a huge investment of
$3,000,000,000 (three billion US dollars), the CIA effectively created and
nurtured bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network using American tax-payers
money. Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest countries, where such an
enormous sum sum of money would have had extraordinary value.
"In the 1980s, bin Laden left his comfortable Saudi home for Afghanistan to
participate
in the Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the invading forces of the Soviet
Union - a
cause that, ironically, the United States funded, pouring $3 billion into
the Afghan
resistance via the CIA."
[ ABC News, "Osama Bin Laden: Profile of a Terror Leader", 12 February
2002 ]
"...Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion
of
Afghanistan. The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the
blessing
of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He received security
training from the
CIA itself."
[ BBC News, "Who is Osama Bin Laden?", 18 September 2001 ]
"...[Osama bin Laden] received military and financial assistance from the
intelligence
services of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States."
[ Forbes bsuiness news, "Who Is Osama Bin Laden?", 14 September 2001 ]
WHAT IS THE FUTURE THE NEW WEST-FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN?
The United Nations indicated that the 'temporary' administration, which they
established in Afghanistan following the American-led NATO conquest, will
soon be replaced by a permanent democratic government. But when the new head
of state for Afghanistan was announced it was simply the Chairman of the
existing United Nations 'provisional' administration.
"The loya jirga is expected to elect the current interim leader, Hamid
Karzai, as head
of state."
"This is not a democracy; it is a rubber stamp - everything has already been
decided
by the powerful ones." Seema Samar, Women's Affairs Minister, Afghanistan
[ BBC News, "Tempers flare at loya jirga", 12 June 2002 ]
AFGHAN PUPPET GOVERNMENT LED BY FORMER OIL COMPANY ADVISOR
The leader of the new US-controlled interim government in Afghanistan, Hamid
Karzai, was a key collaborator in the conspiracy to construct the major gas
and oil pipe-line in the region, which was the hidden agenda of the US-led
invasion. Mr Karzai was involved with the American oil company that planned
to build the pipeline through Afghanistan, and now he holds the highest job
in the country.
"The interim chief, Hamid Karzai has been an advisor to UNOCAL. He has been
involved in negotiations of UNOCAL with Taliban."[1]
Mr Karzai was installed as the leader of Afghanistan by the US government.
"Mr Karzai had strong American backing and was clearly being groomed for
leadership."[2]
The US government is now moving on to a new conflict against Iraq,[3] but
the latest news reports show that the war in Afghanistan has not yet been
won.[4-9]
SOURCES
[1] Defence Journal, "Afghanistan - not so great games", April 2002.
[2] BBC News, "Hamid Karzai: Shrewd statesman", 14 June 2002.
[3] BBC News, "'Massive assault' planned on Iraq", 3 February 2003.
[4] BBC News, "US troops hunt Afghan rebels", 29 January 2003.
[5] BBC News, "Analysis: No unity among Afghan rebels ", 28 January 2003.
[6] BBC News, "Fierce battle rages in Afghanistan", 28 January 2003.
[7] BBC News, "Several slain in Afghan attack", 26 January 2003.
[8] BBC News, "Taleban 'regroup' in Afghanistan", 17 January 2003.
[9] BBC News, "Afghan security situation 'urgent'", 14 January 2003.
-----------------------------------------------------
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
25 Sep 2004 05:37:32 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:00:36 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Again the same debunked ***** for three years now, but that you still
post every other week. Aren't you tired of being shown for having
nothing to say but worn out tired old ***** all the time?
You think you influence anyone here? Think again, all your ***** is total
bunk all the time.
You have NOTHING. Your propaganda links are LAME.
You are a lemming.
Barbarossa a écrit:
There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for
replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's
decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence
presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the
motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan,
especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry.
Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster,
which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been
prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request
for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we
invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF OIL PIPELINE
America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998,
three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report
from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12
February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the
need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on
Terror that followed September 11th:
"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project."
[ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12
Feb 1998 ]
"The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across,
Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
"CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized
Afghanistan Government is in place."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
The Afghanistan oil pipeline project was finally able to proceed in May
2002. This could not have happened if America had not taken military action
to replace the government in Afghanistan.
THE CONQUEST OF AFGHANISTAN BEGAN BEFORE 9/11
The war on Afghanistan was sold to the public as a reaction to the attacks
on 11 September 2001. However, the war was planned before the infamous 9/11
disaster, and the military action began long before the World Trade Center
fell.
The conquest of Afghanistan had been planned since at least 12 February
1998, and 9/11 happened just in time to secure public support for the
attacks.
SOURCES
Janes International Security News, "India joins anti-Taliban coalition", 15
March 2001.
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a
concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern
Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the
four countries' collaborative effort.
...
BBC News, "US 'planned attack on Taleban'", 18 September 2001.
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning
military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last
week's attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior
American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored
international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
...
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the
Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in
its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir
Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases
in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation
and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take
place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of
October at the latest.
...
BBC News, "Afghanistan: Campaign of conflict", 2 January 1999.
No sooner had the Taleban won a series of victories in the north, than
the US launched an attack on camps in Afghanistan run by Saudi dissident
Osama bin Laden, who had allegedly masterminded the bombing of US embassies
in East Africa.
...
BBC News, "US attack closes US project", 3 November 1998.
Up to 80 cruise missiles were fired at Afghanistan and Sudan in August
An American-funded training project in Afghanistan has closed down as a
result of the US cruise missile attack on the country in August. The
programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was once
hoping to be involved in building a gas pipeline across the country from
Turkmenistan to Pakistan.
...
THE "WAR ON TERROR": AN EXCUSE TO ADVANCE US ENERGY INTERESTS?
In 1998 US Vice-President ***** Cheney said in a speech to oil
industrialists:
"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as
suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian"
Within four years the US military had overthrown the government of
Afghanistan, and the construction of the Caspian Sea oil pipeline by US oil
corporations had begun.
The 'war on terror' is being used as an excuse to further US energy
interests in the Caspian.
SOURCES:
BBC News, "Race to unlock Central Asia's energy riches", 29 December 1997.
"American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong
interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via
Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi."
...
The Guardian, The new Great Game, 20 October 2003.
Lutz Kleveman (2003), The New Great Game, Atlantic Monthly Press.
AMERICA DEPLOYED MILITARY FORCE TO INSTALL AN "INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED"
(I.E. PRO-AMERICAN) AFGHAN GOVERNMENT
The American-driven invasion of Afghanistan swiftly captured of the
country's capital Kabul, enabling the removal of the former Afghanistan
government and the establishment of a new government.
Afghan capital, Kabul, conquered by U.S.-led invasion force, November 2001.
U.N. Conference discusses future of Afghanistan, November 2001.
U.S. Congress in Washington debates future of Afghanistan, November 2001.
U.N. appoints leader of new Afghanistan government, December 2001
U.S. Government, State Department website documents installation of new
Afghan government.
United Nations website documents installation of new Afghan government.
WAS THERE A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR BUSH'S U.S. GOVERNMENT DECISION TO
INVADE AFGHANISTAN?
There have been suggestions that Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan could
have been influenced by oil money. This is the unlimate reason why we are
now offering everyone this opportunity to sign the petition calling for
George Bush (Junior) to make a public statement confirming that his decision
was not influenced by the oil pipeline issue.
HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DOES THE OIL INDUSTRY HAVE ON BUSH AND THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT?
George W. Bush's connections with the oil industry are well established.
There is evidence of surprisingly close ties between Bush's U.S. Government
and big oil companies, partly brought to light through recent high-profile
cases of alleged corruption involving U.S. government officials and major
oil companies.
"During the 2000 elections, oil, gas and other energy interests donated
more than $40 million to Republicans, including the Bush presidential
campaign..." [ League of Conservation Voters website ]
"Condoleezza Rice, the [U.S.] National Security Adviser, has a Chevron
oil tanker named after her."
[ BBC News, "Bush and big business", 1 May 2001 ]
"The White House has acknowledged that US President George W. Bush
failed to follow the law and disclose details of shares [in a Texas oil
company] he sold when he was a company director."
[ BBC News, "Bush in shares embarrassment", 3 July 2003 ]
"US oil services and engineering firm Halliburton is being investigated for
its accounting practices when US Vice President ***** Cheney was at the
helm." [ BBC News, "Accounts probe at Cheney firm", 30 May 2002 ]
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE CONTROVERSIAL AFGHANISTAN PIPELINE PROJECT?
The CentGas consortium was formed in 1997 to build the controversial Caspian
Sea oil pipeline. The American oil company, Unocal, had the largest stake
(46.5%) in CentGas's Afghanistan pipeline project. Unocal, currently an
ex-member of the CentGas pipeline consortium, is now trying to distance
itself from the pipe-line controversy and perceived conflict of interest.
Dr Rice, a director of Unocal, served as Secretary of the Air Force in
the Bush Administration. He earlier served in the U.S. Defence Department as
deputy assistant secretary for resource analysis and director of cost
analysis. Ties between the Whitehouse and the oil industry are so close that
winners of a competition organised by Unocal won a prestigious visit to the
Whitehouse to receive an award from President Bush himself.
THE TALIBAN GOES SHOPPING IN AMERICA WITH AMERICAN OIL COMPANY BOSSES!
Did you know that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan were offered more than
$100 million a year by the American oil industry to submit to the pipeline
project without a fight?
"On at least one occasion, in December 1997, Unocal officials played host to
high-ranking Taliban leaders in Texas. The American oil executives
reportedly
wined and dined them and took them on a shopping spree."
[ Boston Herald, "U.S. ties to Saudi elite may be hurting war on terrorism",
10 December 2001 ]
If a secret deal was struck between the Americans and Taliban officials,
might this explain why the troops invading Afghanistan never seemed to find
the enemy?
There were only a handful of casualties among the Coalition troops invading
Afghanistan. A BBC News report on 27 July 2002 said: "About 40 American
soldiers have been killed in combat and non-combat incidents and more than
340 have been wounded in the US operation in Afghanistan that began last
October." It is not clear where these figures come from but, if correct,
they include "non-combat" casualties, such as the helicopter accidents which
killed U.S. soldiers near Bagram or the crash at the Bande Sardeh dam, or
accidental explosions, or one of the "friendly-fire" incidents. Overall
losses seem small considering that a whole country was conquered in this
campaign, especially in view of current opinions that the enemy are
supposedly so willing to die fighting the west.
REPORTS SUGGEST U.S. GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE DONE MORE TO PREVENT SEPTEMBER
11TH TRADGEDY
If undeclared economic factors were involved in America's decision to invade
Afghanistan and install a new government, this would invite a closer
investigation of reports that more could have been done to prevent the
disastrous attack on the World Trade Center, which was declared to be the
reason for invading Afghanistan.
Why are both the FBI and the CIA suspected of hindering the
investigations that might have prevented the 9/11 catastrophe? How much did
the CIA know about the al-Qaida hijackers operating in the U.S. who
allegedly orchestrated the 11 September attack?
The most serious reports claim that senior U.S. intelligence officials
"hindered enquiries". An official investigation was launched but "the
hearings are secret in order to protect sources." Many people are also
concerned about the well-documented evidence suggesting that Osamir Bin
Ladin and the al-Qaida network were set-up and funded by the U.S.
intelligence agency, the CIA.
"The White House says it received intelligence reports in the months before
the 11 September attacks that Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network was
plotting to hijack US passenger planes."
[ BBC News, "Q&A: US terror intelligence", 11 June 2002 ]
"The national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, says the President [Bush]
was briefed in August last year that Osama bin Laden planned to hijack
American aircraft."
[ BBC News, "World Trade Centre: Could the attacks have been prevented?", 22
May 2002 ]
"FBI agent ... expected to publicly tell a Senate committee ... bosses
hindered
enquiries into the man now suspected of being the would-be 20th
hijacker.
"The United States Congress has begun hearings into possible US intelligence
failures in the run-up to the attacks of 11 September.
"The hearings are secret in order to protect sources."
[ BBC News, "Congress probes US intelligence failures", 5 June 2002.
"Ms Rowley, an FBI agent for 22 years, said senior personnel put
'roadblocks'
in the way of Minneapolis staff trying to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui,
now alleged to be the '20th hijacker'."
[ BBC News, "Bush overhauls domestic security", 7 June 2002 ]
AL-QAEDA WAS CREATED, ARMED, FUNDED AND SUPPORTED BY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
The US government trained, armed, funded and supported Osama bin Laden and
his followers in Afghanistan during the cold war. With a huge investment of
$3,000,000,000 (three billion US dollars), the CIA effectively created and
nurtured bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network using American tax-payers
money. Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest countries, where such an
enormous sum sum of money would have had extraordinary value.
"In the 1980s, bin Laden left his comfortable Saudi home for Afghanistan to
participate
in the Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the invading forces of the Soviet
Union - a
cause that, ironically, the United States funded, pouring $3 billion into
the Afghan
resistance via the CIA."
[ ABC News, "Osama Bin Laden: Profile of a Terror Leader", 12 February
2002 ]
"...Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion
of
Afghanistan. The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the
blessing
of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He received security
training from the
CIA itself."
[ BBC News, "Who is Osama Bin Laden?", 18 September 2001 ]
"...[Osama bin Laden] received military and financial assistance from the
intelligence
services of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States."
[ Forbes bsuiness news, "Who Is Osama Bin Laden?", 14 September 2001 ]
WHAT IS THE FUTURE THE NEW WEST-FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN?
The United Nations indicated that the 'temporary' administration, which they
established in Afghanistan following the American-led NATO conquest, will
soon be replaced by a permanent democratic government. But when the new head
of state for Afghanistan was announced it was simply the Chairman of the
existing United Nations 'provisional' administration.
"The loya jirga is expected to elect the current interim leader, Hamid
Karzai, as head
of state."
"This is not a democracy; it is a rubber stamp - everything has already been
decided
by the powerful ones." Seema Samar, Women's Affairs Minister, Afghanistan
[ BBC News, "Tempers flare at loya jirga", 12 June 2002 ]
AFGHAN PUPPET GOVERNMENT LED BY FORMER OIL COMPANY ADVISOR
The leader of the new US-controlled interim government in Afghanistan, Hamid
Karzai, was a key collaborator in the conspiracy to construct the major gas
and oil pipe-line in the region, which was the hidden agenda of the US-led
invasion. Mr Karzai was involved with the American oil company that planned
to build the pipeline through Afghanistan, and now he holds the highest job
in the country.
"The interim chief, Hamid Karzai has been an advisor to UNOCAL. He has been
involved in negotiations of UNOCAL with Taliban."[1]
Mr Karzai was installed as the leader of Afghanistan by the US government.
"Mr Karzai had strong American backing and was clearly being groomed for
leadership."[2]
The US government is now moving on to a new conflict against Iraq,[3] but
the latest news reports show that the war in Afghanistan has not yet been
won.[4-9]
SOURCES
[1] Defence Journal, "Afghanistan - not so great games", April 2002.
[2] BBC News, "Hamid Karzai: Shrewd statesman", 14 June 2002.
[3] BBC News, "'Massive assault' planned on Iraq", 3 February 2003.
[4] BBC News, "US troops hunt Afghan rebels", 29 January 2003.
[5] BBC News, "Analysis: No unity among Afghan rebels ", 28 January 2003.
[6] BBC News, "Fierce battle rages in Afghanistan", 28 January 2003.
[7] BBC News, "Several slain in Afghan attack", 26 January 2003.
[8] BBC News, "Taleban 'regroup' in Afghanistan", 17 January 2003.
[9] BBC News, "Afghan security situation 'urgent'", 14 January 2003.
-----------------------------------------------------
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
25 Sep 2004 08:59:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:13:13 +0200, "Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be>
wrote:
There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for
replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's
decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence
presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the
motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan,
especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry.
Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster,
which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been
prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request
for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we
invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF OIL PIPELINE
Furthermore...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
28 Sep 2004 02:17:43 PM |
|
|
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:13:13 +0200, "Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be>
wrote:
There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for
replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's
decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence
presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the
motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan,
especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry.
Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster,
which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been
prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request
for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we
invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF OIL PIPELINE
Furthermore...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
1997, lol.
Gee, of course you cannot find anything for 2004 because it is pure bull.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
29 Sep 2004 08:26:32 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:17:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:13:13 +0200, "Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be>
wrote:
There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for
replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's
decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence
presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the
motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan,
especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry.
Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster,
which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been
prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request
for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we
invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF OIL PIPELINE
Furthermore...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
1997, lol.
Gee, of course you cannot find anything for 2004 because it is pure bull.
Are you thinking that they're no longer interested in building a
pipeline, just all of a sudden?
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
There's a .edu site for you, Jean. I'm sure you'll find it credible.
It might also help to enlighten you as to why the Russians would want
to suddenly get involved in TWOT.
And, oh *****, you gotta read this one! He paints a pretty little
picture for you and allows YOU to connect the dots YOURSELF. Ain't
he, to use a Masonic term, grand? (BTW: use his hyperlinks)
http://www.geocities.com/francis_uy/halliburton.html
What's next?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,634489,00.html
Oh, and another good one!
http://www.alternet.org/story/12525
*sigh* And another...
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/25/oil/index.html
*yawn*
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1997/bresnws_081197.jsp
Halliburton makes a killing on the battlefields...
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/07/22/7686141
Cronyism!
http://www.practicalradical.com/followthemoney.html
A pipeline agreement is signed?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm
Oh, and other for posterity! Very good. Lots of links.
http://www.practicalradical.com/hiddentruth.html
And there's more pipeline stuff...
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epdscott/qf2.html
You'll probably try and discredit this one...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE14Ak03.html
And finally, a good essay...
http://www.wpc-in.org/cgi-bin/vfr?bulletin/docs/0030.htm
Phew! I'm BUSHed! I'd love to look for more, but this post has taken
me the last 30 minutes to write and I think that's long enough for
now.
Happy clicking!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
29 Sep 2004 07:08:54 PM |
|
|
Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message news:<k62ll0lseikcbbgh2omj576jh9c9mhlcp3@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:17:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
There's a .edu site for you, Jean. I'm sure you'll find it credible.
Looks like a big whoopee-do site - but the first article there was
posted
December 7, 2001. Now that is up to date news casting ;)
And there's more pipeline stuff...
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epdscott/qf2.html
"FLASH: Before 9/11, the Bush Administration Curbed FBI Anti-Terrorism
Efforts"
You links are a crock-of-*****. Everyone knows that Clinton curbed all
the intelligence programs in the '90s. Just look at the Congress
funding records dorky ;)
I never deny there was no plan - I never researched it. However, I
understand the basic concept that the libs will not let the repubs
drill for oil in America - so where the hell are we supposed to get it
tard? Your house?
I see you blame Bush but not the underlying problem the left in
America who wants to ***** on other countries ecosystems.
Way to go - nice that you out yourself again as 'partisan with no
clue.' - Like a 'Rebel with out a clue' ;)
Better be riding your bicycle everywhere - wouldn't want you riding in
a Bus or car that uses oil now would we? ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
29 Sep 2004 11:00:04 PM |
|
|
Michael Johnathan McDonald a écrit:
Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message news:<k62ll0lseikcbbgh2omj576jh9c9mhlcp3@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:17:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
There's a .edu site for you, Jean. I'm sure you'll find it credible.
Looks like a big whoopee-do site - but the first article there was
posted
December 7, 2001. Now that is up to date news casting ;)
Of course it is , this is a forum not news, reminds me of AK posting
some forum anti-semite post from the wikipedia site and pretending it
had any value. And maybe he wrote the damn article. This is what these
losers do to bamboozle people.
J.
And there's more pipeline stuff...
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epdscott/qf2.html
"FLASH: Before 9/11, the Bush Administration Curbed FBI Anti-Terrorism
Efforts"
You links are a crock-of-*****. Everyone knows that Clinton curbed all
the intelligence programs in the '90s. Just look at the Congress
funding records dorky ;)
I never deny there was no plan - I never researched it. However, I
understand the basic concept that the libs will not let the repubs
drill for oil in America - so where the hell are we supposed to get it
tard? Your house?
I see you blame Bush but not the underlying problem the left in
America who wants to ***** on other countries ecosystems.
Way to go - nice that you out yourself again as 'partisan with no
clue.' - Like a 'Rebel with out a clue' ;)
Better be riding your bicycle everywhere - wouldn't want you riding in
a Bus or car that uses oil now would we? ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
30 Sep 2004 04:36:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00:04 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Michael Johnathan McDonald a écrit:
Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message news:<k62ll0lseikcbbgh2omj576jh9c9mhlcp3@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:17:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
There's a .edu site for you, Jean. I'm sure you'll find it credible.
Looks like a big whoopee-do site - but the first article there was
posted
December 7, 2001. Now that is up to date news casting ;)
Of course it is , this is a forum not news, reminds me of AK posting
some forum anti-semite post from the wikipedia site and pretending it
had any value. And maybe he wrote the damn article. This is what these
losers do to bamboozle people.
"Marjorie Cohn is an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School of
Law in San Diego, where she teaches International Human Rights Law.
She welcomes comments on this essay at JURIST@law.pitt.edu.
December 7, 2001"
You're a really silly old man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
30 Sep 2004 05:28:53 AM |
|
|
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:upknl0p8v4hmeiobm52mjd70l1elq7mu58@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00:04 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Michael Johnathan McDonald a écrit:
Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:<k62ll0lseikcbbgh2omj576jh9c9mhlcp3@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:17:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
There's a .edu site for you, Jean. I'm sure you'll find it credible.
Looks like a big whoopee-do site - but the first article there was
posted
December 7, 2001. Now that is up to date news casting ;)
Of course it is , this is a forum not news, reminds me of AK posting
some forum anti-semite post from the wikipedia site and pretending it
had any value. And maybe he wrote the damn article. This is what these
losers do to bamboozle people.
"Marjorie Cohn is an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School of
Law in San Diego, where she teaches International Human Rights Law.
She welcomes comments on this essay at JURIST@law.pitt.edu.
December 7, 2001"
You're a really silly old man.
As well as being a dope smoker who has to apply for special permission to
visit the US. I wonder if he'll explain why he wasn't allowed access to his
kids for so long as well?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
30 Sep 2004 04:34:35 AM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2004 17:08:54 -0700, (Michael
Johnathan McDonald) wrote:
Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message news:<k62ll0lseikcbbgh2omj576jh9c9mhlcp3@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:17:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
There's a .edu site for you, Jean. I'm sure you'll find it credible.
Looks like a big whoopee-do site - but the first article there was
posted
December 7, 2001. Now that is up to date news casting ;)
Still later than 1997, boyo. Still later than 9/11/2001, boyo.
That's what Jean was moaning about.
And there's more pipeline stuff...
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epdscott/qf2.html
"FLASH: Before 9/11, the Bush Administration Curbed FBI Anti-Terrorism
Efforts"
You links are a crock-of-*****. Everyone knows that Clinton curbed all
the intelligence programs in the '90s. Just look at the Congress
funding records dorky ;)
I'm not going to bother trying to refute that since I heard it myself,
although it may or may not be entirely the truth. It's one link out
of what, thirteen? Care to comment of the rest of them?
I never deny there was no plan - I never researched it. However, I
understand the basic concept that the libs will not let the repubs
drill for oil in America - so where the hell are we supposed to get it
tard? Your house?
Sidestepping.
I see you blame Bush but not the underlying problem the left in
America who wants to ***** on other countries ecosystems.
The Republicans have been doing that for years. Present a valid
argument.
Way to go - nice that you out yourself again as 'partisan with no
clue.' - Like a 'Rebel with out a clue' ;)
You see, that is where you're very wrong, as I've explained many times
before. I'm not partisan at all, boyo. I don't like either
administration's policies in hindsight. I used to support the
Republicans before Bush, and hated Clinton. How clueless I was back
then, hey.
Better be riding your bicycle everywhere - wouldn't want you riding in
a Bus or car that uses oil now would we? ;)
I walk to most places, kid. Sorry, you've got nothing on me there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
30 Sep 2004 01:31:40 PM |
|
|
Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message news:<pdjnl09rjh9dnh7slevscmsjfa2dv2aqpb@4ax.com>...
On 29 Sep 2004 17:08:54 -0700, (Michael
Johnathan McDonald) wrote:
Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message news:<k62ll0lseikcbbgh2omj576jh9c9mhlcp3@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:17:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
There's a .edu site for you, Jean. I'm sure you'll find it credible.
Looks like a big whoopee-do site - but the first article there was
posted
December 7, 2001. Now that is up to date news casting ;)
Still later than 1997, boyo. Still later than 9/11/2001, boyo.
That's what Jean was moaning about.
And there's more pipeline stuff...
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epdscott/qf2.html
"FLASH: Before 9/11, the Bush Administration Curbed FBI Anti-Terrorism
Efforts"
You links are a crock-of-*****. Everyone knows that Clinton curbed all
the intelligence programs in the '90s. Just look at the Congress
funding records dorky ;)
I'm not going to bother trying to refute that since I heard it myself,
although it may or may not be entirely the truth. It's one link out
of what, thirteen? Care to comment of the rest of them?
Where do you live? In South Africa or somewhere - you news or info may
not give you a clear picture about America - because this is common
knowledge for many years. Surprised you have not heard this - but
appearing by your other posts you are much uninformed anyway.
I never deny there was no plan - I never researched it. However, I
understand the basic concept that the libs will not let the repubs
drill for oil in America - so where the hell are we supposed to get it
tard? Your house?
Sidestepping.
Nope it called avoiding the question on your part - no solutions -
you are only negative.
I see you blame Bush but not the underlying problem the left in
America who wants to ***** on other countries ecosystems.
The Republicans have been doing that for years. Present a valid
argument.
Way to go - nice that you out yourself again as 'partisan with no
clue.' - Like a 'Rebel with out a clue' ;)
You see, that is where you're very wrong, as I've explained many times
before. I'm not partisan at all, boyo.
Ohhhhh... we got links and ones you are not even replying to - another
avoidance on your part. This link is ample evidence of your
partisanship – that is too obvious not to be refuted. I will wait for
a day or two and see your response – or not ;)
I don't like either
administration's policies in hindsight. I used to support the
Republicans before Bush, and hated Clinton. How clueless I was back
then, hey.
Better be riding your bicycle everywhere - wouldn't want you riding in
a Bus or car that uses oil now would we? ;)
I walk to most places, kid. Sorry, you've got nothing on me there.
There you go with that 'kid' thing again. You must have an inferiority
-complex. That's OK, someone has to have it to keep psychologists
having jobs - and it looks like ya ;)
Also; Sorry didn't know you are in jail ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
01 Oct 2004 09:35:16 AM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2004 11:31:40 -0700, (Michael
Johnathan McDonald) wrote:
Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message news:<pdjnl09rjh9dnh7slevscmsjfa2dv2aqpb@4ax.com>...
On 29 Sep 2004 17:08:54 -0700, (Michael
Johnathan McDonald) wrote:
Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message news:<k62ll0lseikcbbgh2omj576jh9c9mhlcp3@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:17:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
There's a .edu site for you, Jean. I'm sure you'll find it credible.
Looks like a big whoopee-do site - but the first article there was
posted
December 7, 2001. Now that is up to date news casting ;)
Still later than 1997, boyo. Still later than 9/11/2001, boyo.
That's what Jean was moaning about.
And there's more pipeline stuff...
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epdscott/qf2.html
"FLASH: Before 9/11, the Bush Administration Curbed FBI Anti-Terrorism
Efforts"
You links are a crock-of-*****. Everyone knows that Clinton curbed all
the intelligence programs in the '90s. Just look at the Congress
funding records dorky ;)
I'm not going to bother trying to refute that since I heard it myself,
although it may or may not be entirely the truth. It's one link out
of what, thirteen? Care to comment of the rest of them?
Where do you live? In South Africa or somewhere - you news or info may
not give you a clear picture about America - because this is common
knowledge for many years. Surprised you have not heard this - but
appearing by your other posts you are much uninformed anyway.
You're the one who stated that I cannot read. Read what I wrote
again, chump.
"...since I heard it myself..."
There, not so difficult.
I never deny there was no plan - I never researched it. However, I
understand the basic concept that the libs will not let the repubs
drill for oil in America - so where the hell are we supposed to get it
tard? Your house?
Sidestepping.
Nope it called avoiding the question on your part - no solutions -
you are only negative.
What solutions are you asking for? You digressed to the Democrats not
allowing the Republicans to drill on home soil. What has that got to
do with a pipeline through Afghanistan? AFAICS, you're trying to
blame the pipeline deal on the Democrats because they wouldn't allow
the Republicans to drill domestically. Not so?
I see you blame Bush but not the underlying problem the left in
America who wants to ***** on other countries ecosystems.
The Republicans have been doing that for years. Present a valid
argument.
Way to go - nice that you out yourself again as 'partisan with no
clue.' - Like a 'Rebel with out a clue' ;)
You see, that is where you're very wrong, as I've explained many times
before. I'm not partisan at all, boyo.
Ohhhhh... we got links and ones you are not even replying to - another
avoidance on your part. This link is ample evidence of your
partisanship – that is too obvious not to be refuted. I will wait for
a day or two and see your response – or not ;)
Response to what? Why not post it now, or you *will* be waiting a day
or two to see my response, being a weekend and all.
I don't like either
administration's policies in hindsight. I used to support the
Republicans before Bush, and hated Clinton. How clueless I was back
then, hey.
Better be riding your bicycle everywhere - wouldn't want you riding in
a Bus or car that uses oil now would we? ;)
I walk to most places, kid. Sorry, you've got nothing on me there.
There you go with that 'kid' thing again. You must have an inferiority
-complex. That's OK, someone has to have it to keep psychologists
having jobs - and it looks like ya ;)
So, if you're not a kid, what are you? A fully grown goat?
Also; Sorry didn't know you are in jail ;)
Heh...I would have to be a political prisoner in this country to get
broadband internet access.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
29 Sep 2004 09:05:13 PM |
|
|
You provide NOTHING of reliable site that speak of the hypothetical
Afghan pipeline in 2004.
You are a liar.
J.
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:17:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:13:13 +0200, "Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be>
wrote:
There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for
replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's
decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence
presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the
motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan,
especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry.
Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster,
which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been
prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request
for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we
invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF OIL PIPELINE
Furthermore...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
1997, lol.
Gee, of course you cannot find anything for 2004 because it is pure bull.
Are you thinking that they're no longer interested in building a
pipeline, just all of a sudden?
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
There's a .edu site for you, Jean. I'm sure you'll find it credible.
It might also help to enlighten you as to why the Russians would want
to suddenly get involved in TWOT.
And, oh *****, you gotta read this one! He paints a pretty little
picture for you and allows YOU to connect the dots YOURSELF. Ain't
he, to use a Masonic term, grand? (BTW: use his hyperlinks)
http://www.geocities.com/francis_uy/halliburton.html
What's next?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,634489,00.html
Oh, and another good one!
http://www.alternet.org/story/12525
*sigh* And another...
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/25/oil/index.html
*yawn*
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1997/bresnws_081197.jsp
Halliburton makes a killing on the battlefields...
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/07/22/7686141
Cronyism!
http://www.practicalradical.com/followthemoney.html
A pipeline agreement is signed?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm
Oh, and other for posterity! Very good. Lots of links.
http://www.practicalradical.com/hiddentruth.html
And there's more pipeline stuff...
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epdscott/qf2.html
You'll probably try and discredit this one...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE14Ak03.html
And finally, a good essay...
http://www.wpc-in.org/cgi-bin/vfr?bulletin/docs/0030.htm
Phew! I'm BUSHed! I'd love to look for more, but this post has taken
me the last 30 minutes to write and I think that's long enough for
now.
Happy clicking!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
30 Sep 2004 05:44:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:05:13 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You provide NOTHING of reliable site that speak of the hypothetical
Afghan pipeline in 2004.
In 2004? Where did I say a pipeline was being discussed in 2004? The
pipeline is *old* news, like your selective amnesia. You weren't
happy with Clinton Administration stuff, so I provided you with some
Bush Administration stuff. He didn't take up office in 2004, you
know.
Cuan a écrit:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:17:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:13:13 +0200, "Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be>
wrote:
There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for
replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's
decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence
presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the
motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan,
especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry.
Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster,
which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been
prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request
for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we
invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF OIL PIPELINE
Furthermore...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
1997, lol.
Gee, of course you cannot find anything for 2004 because it is pure bull.
Are you thinking that they're no longer interested in building a
pipeline, just all of a sudden?
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php
There's a .edu site for you, Jean. I'm sure you'll find it credible.
It might also help to enlighten you as to why the Russians would want
to suddenly get involved in TWOT.
And, oh *****, you gotta read this one! He paints a pretty little
picture for you and allows YOU to connect the dots YOURSELF. Ain't
he, to use a Masonic term, grand? (BTW: use his hyperlinks)
http://www.geocities.com/francis_uy/halliburton.html
What's next?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,634489,00.html
Oh, and another good one!
http://www.alternet.org/story/12525
*sigh* And another...
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/25/oil/index.html
*yawn*
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1997/bresnws_081197.jsp
Halliburton makes a killing on the battlefields...
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/07/22/7686141
Cronyism!
http://www.practicalradical.com/followthemoney.html
A pipeline agreement is signed?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm
Oh, and other for posterity! Very good. Lots of links.
http://www.practicalradical.com/hiddentruth.html
And there's more pipeline stuff...
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epdscott/qf2.html
You'll probably try and discredit this one...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE14Ak03.html
And finally, a good essay...
http://www.wpc-in.org/cgi-bin/vfr?bulletin/docs/0030.htm
Phew! I'm BUSHed! I'd love to look for more, but this post has taken
me the last 30 minutes to write and I think that's long enough for
now.
Happy clicking!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
25 Sep 2004 09:30:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:13:13 +0200, "Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be>
wrote:
There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for
replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's
decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence
presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the
motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan,
especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry.
Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster,
which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been
prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request
for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we
invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF OIL PIPELINE
Futhermore...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0610/p01s03e-wosc.html#continue
"Cool and worldly, Karzai is a former employee of US oil company
Unocal – one of two main oil companies that was bidding for the
lucrative contract to build an oil pipeline from Uzbekistan through
Afghanistan to seaports in Pakistan – and the son of a former Afghan
parliament speaker. He has been the confident and earnest face of the
Afghan people to the outside world, and the very antithesis of the
wild-eyed warlord preaching jihad."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence That The War In Aghanistan Was For Oil |
28 Sep 2004 02:24:53 PM |
|
|
Nothing in 2004. Gee, what a surprise.
J.
Cuan a écrit:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:13:13 +0200, "Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be>
wrote:
There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for
replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's
decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence
presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the
motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan,
especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry.
Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster,
which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been
prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request
for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we
invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF OIL PIPELINE
Futhermore...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0610/p01s03e-wosc.html#continue
"Cool and worldly, Karzai is a former employee of US oil company
Unocal – one of two main oil companies that was bidding for the
lucrative contract to build an oil pipeline from Uzbekistan through
Afghanistan to seaports in Pakistan – and the son of a former Afghan
parliament speaker. He has been the confident and earnest face of the
Afghan people to the outside world, and the very antithesis of the
wild-eyed warlord preaching jihad."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
