Author Topic: Hmmmm............  (Read 1538 times)

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Hmmmm............
« on: January 28, 2002, 10:43:45 PM »
America's dirty Afghan secret: it's a war over oil


A book written by two French intelligence analysts is certain to embarrass President George W Bush and his administration. The book, Bin Laden, La Verite Interdite (Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth), released recently, claims that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over Bush's obstruction of an investigation into Taliban's terrorist activities. The authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, claim that Bush resorted to this obstruction under the influence of the United States' oil companies.

Bush stymied the intelligence agency's investigations on terrorism, even as it bargained with the Taliban on handing over of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid. "The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it," O'Neill reportedly told the authors. According to the Brisard and Dasquie, the main objective of the US government in Afghanistan prior to Black Tuesday was aimed at consolidating the Taliban regime, in order to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

Prior to September 11, the US government had an extremely benevolent understanding of the Taliban regime. The Taliban was perceived "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. This would have secured for the US another huge captive and alternate oil resource centre. "The oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that…this rationale of energy security changed into a military one," the authors claim.

"At one moment during the negotiations, US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'," Brisard said in an interview in Paris. On Saturday, representatives of the Northern Alliance (NA), former King Zahir Shah's confidantes, and possibly, non-Taliban Pashtun leaders, will meet in Berlin under the aegis of the US-led coalition to discuss a broad-based government in Afghanistan. It might be a coincidence that the US and Taliban diplomatic representatives met in Berlin early this year.

According to the book, the Bush administration began a series of negotiations with the Taliban early in 2001. Washington and Islamabad were also venues for some of the meetings. The authors claim that before the September 11 attacks, Christina Rocca, in charge of Asian Affairs in the US State Department, met Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef in Islamabad on August 2, 2001. Interestingly, Rocca is a veteran of US involvement in Afghanistan. She was previously in charge of contacts with Islamist guerrilla groups at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), where she oversaw the delivery of Stinger missiles to Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation forces in the 1980s.

Brisard and Dasquie also reveal that the Taliban were not really ultra-orthodox in their diplomatic approach, because they actually hired an American public relations' expert for an image-making campaign in the US. It is, of course, not known whether the Pakistanis helped the Taliban secure the services of a professional image-maker. What is, however, revealed in the book is that Laila Helms, a public relations professional, who also doubles up as an authority on the way the US intelligence agencies work, was employed by the Taliban. Her task was to get the US recognise the Taliban regime. Prior to September 11, only three countries - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE - recognised the Taliban regime. Helms' familiarity with the ways of US intelligence organisations comes through her association with Richard Helms, who is her uncle a former director of the CIA and former US ambassador to Tehran.

Helms is described as the Mata Hari of US-Taliban negotiations. The authors claim that she brought Sayed Rahmatullah Hashimi, an advisor to Mullah Omar, to Washington for five days in March 2001 - after the Taliban had destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan. Hashimi met the Directorate of Central Intelligence at the CIA, and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department.

The authors have an impressive record in intelligence analysis, and this perhaps is the reason why the book is being talked about in hushed tones in Paris and other European capitals. Till the late 1990s, Brisard was the director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, a French company. He also worked for French secret services (DST), and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden. Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy.

On November 19, The Irish Times said in a report, "O'Neill investigated the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, a US base in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam in 1998, and the USS Cole last year."

"Jean-Charles Brisard, who wrote a report on bin Laden's finances for the French intelligence agency DST, and is co-author of Hidden Truth, met O'Neill several times last summer. He complained bitterly that the US State Department - and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage - blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt."

"The US ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine, forbade O'Neill and his team of so- called Rambos (as the Yemeni authorities called them) from entering Yemen. In August 2001, O'Neill resigned in frustration, and took up a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center. He died in the September 11 attack."

O'Neill, an Irish-American, reportedly told Brisard that all the answers, and everything needed to dismantle bin Laden's Al Qaeda, can be found in Saudi Arabia. Fearing that the Saudi royal family would be offended, US diplomats quietly buried the leads developed by O'Neill. So much so that even when the FBI wanted to talk to the suspects accused of bombing a US military installation in Dhahran in June 1996, in which 19 US servicemen were killed, the US State Department refused to make much noise about it. The Saudi officials, however, interrogated the suspects, declared them guilty and executed them. O'Neill actually went to Saudi with his team, but according to the report in The Irish Times quoting Brisard, "they were reduced to the role of forensic scientists, collecting material evidence on the bomb site".

The US' hedging on investigating Taliban's terrorist activities and its links with bin Laden were premised on the belief that a quid pro quo deal could be arranged with Taliban. The deal, apparently, was oil for diplomatic and international recognition. One important reason for Operation Enduring Freedom could well be securing American oil interests in the region. It would not be surprising if the pipeline project is put back on track soon. Even a cursory look at the oil potential of the Central Asian region is enough to understand the American interest in this region. The Caspian Sea basin encompassing countries like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are believed to possess some 200 billion barrels of oil, which is about one-third the amount found in the Persian Gulf area.

The greater Gulf area, encompassing Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other adjacent countries, has been a centre of international oil politics. First, the British fought to gain control over the area's petroleum wealth, followed by the French. But in the post-World War II scenario, the US emerged as the dominant power in the region, because its energy security and economic prosperity depended on the uninterrupted oil supply from this region. In March 1945, President Franklin D Roosevelt and King Addel Aziz ibn Saud signed a secret agreement, which forged a long-lasting strategic partnership. Though the details of the agreement remains secret till date, the deal ensured privileged US access to Saudi oil, in return for US protection of the royal family from internal and external threats.

However, the US dependence on Middle Eastern oil is not a secret. The US national energy policy, released by the Bush administration earlier this year, stated, "The Gulf will be a primary focus of US international energy policy." According to Michael T Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, and author of Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, by launching Operation Enduring Freedom, the US want to achieve two sets of objectives: "First, to capture and punish those responsible for the September 11 attacks, and to prevent further acts of terrorism; and two, to consolidate US power in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea area, and to ensure continued flow of oil. And while the second set may get far less public attention than the first, this does not mean that is any less important."

With many senior members of the Bush administration linked to major oil business interests, it more than a matter of coincidence that the US is involved in a war in Afghanistan. Vice-President Dick Cheney was, until the end of last year, president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for the oil industry. US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was, between 1991 and 2000, manager for Chevron; secretaries of commerce and energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.

There is, therefore, more to the War against terrorism than the Bush administration is willing to admit.



"Flame On Kato"

Offline Octavius

  • Skinner Team
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6651
Hmmmm............
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2002, 10:55:27 PM »
"Jean-Charles Brisard, who wrote a report on bin Laden's finances for the French intelligence agency DST, and is co-author of Hidden Truth, met O'Neill several times last summer. He complained bitterly that the US State Department - and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage - blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt."

"The US ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine, forbade O'Neill and his team of so- called Rambos (as the Yemeni authorities called them) from entering Yemen. In August 2001, O'Neill resigned in frustration, and took up a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center. He died in the September 11 attack."

:eek:

just a coincidence?
octavius
Fat Drunk BasTards (forum)

"bastard coated bastards with bastard filling?  delicious!"
Guest of the ++Blue Knights++[/size]

Offline Octavius

  • Skinner Team
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6651
wow
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2002, 11:00:51 PM »
Heh, I need to finish reading before I post...

Quote
The US' hedging on investigating Taliban's terrorist activities and its links with bin Laden were premised on the belief that a quid pro quo deal could be arranged with Taliban. The deal, apparently, was oil for diplomatic and international recognition. One important reason for Operation Enduring Freedom could well be securing American oil interests in the region. It would not be surprising if the pipeline project is put back on track soon. Even a cursory look at the oil potential of the Central Asian region is enough to understand the American interest in this region. The Caspian Sea basin encompassing countries like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are believed to possess some 200 billion barrels of oil, which is about one-third the amount found in the Persian Gulf area.


Bush, Afghanistan, oil, Enron, something bigger is going on for sure.  Its turning out to be like a bad plot in a B movie.
octavius
Fat Drunk BasTards (forum)

"bastard coated bastards with bastard filling?  delicious!"
Guest of the ++Blue Knights++[/size]

Offline Tumor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4272
      • Wait For It
Hmmmm............
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2002, 11:59:03 PM »
Anything written by a bunch of French tards gets a direct deposit in the trash can as far as I'm concerned.  Does anyone really think the "French" are freinds of the U.S.??  Thats funny...no really!
« Last Edit: January 29, 2002, 12:01:23 AM by Tumor »
"Dogfighting is useless"  :Erich Hartmann

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Why are you attacking the nationality of the authors ...
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2002, 12:30:11 AM »
Instead of the issues?  :rolleyes:

A bigger question is...if this book has any truth to it how do you feel about being used as a pawn for the petroleum industry?

The US military shouldn't be used to fill corporate bank accounts.

Offline easymo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1640
Hmmmm............
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2002, 12:40:08 AM »
Specified and approximations , November 18, 2001
Comment of: A reader of Paris
Like all the books having for source the secret service, this one swarms with new indications, very precise, but impossible to check. What is awkward, on the other hand, they are glaring errors

  BTW. Considering where this came from...................http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2001/nov/21/ca112101america.htm
« Last Edit: January 29, 2002, 12:51:36 AM by easymo »

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
Hmmmm............
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2002, 12:52:23 AM »
A pawn, I'm a pawn, oh dear me!

That there were talks of some kind at some level with a nation we don't recognize is hardly unusual or a cause for great conspiratorial concern.  That an issue of natural resources may have come up at some point in those possible discussions is hardly from left field.

That someone would somehow tie the manipulation of Bin Laden as the needed excuse to do what they wanted (were going to?) do anyway is hardly suprising, and will probably sell a few books.  I am suprised they didn't pin the bombing as a fake done by the CIA (maybe in the book they do), it would sell more copies.  They need to somehow tie Clinton's bombing into the conspiracy too, maybe blackmailed him into doing it with one of the prior scandels?  Maybe they're holding off on that for the sequel.

Offline Tumor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4272
      • Wait For It
Re: Why are you attacking the nationality of the authors ...
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2002, 01:28:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by weazel
Instead of the issues?  :rolleyes:

A bigger question is...if this book has any truth to it how do you feel about being used as a pawn for the petroleum industry?

The US military shouldn't be used to fill corporate bank accounts.


Ok, apart from the FACT that the frenchies have been doing everything in thier power to undermine pretty much everything "U.S." for decades...AND that the author's are for lack of a better description "intimate" with French Intelligence services, I suppose this book (article) could be worth some merit.  However, I shall of course expand.

The idea of a Central Asian pipeline is as old as oil itself, and it's not going to happen, any clod with an 8th grade education should be able to figure this out fairly easily if he were to apply himself.  

The guilt of Osama bin Lama has hardly been in doubt...for years.  Proving this guilt may have been burdensome for the authorities but :D, the talibonkers and al-quacko's themselves negated the need to provide this proof...or perhaps gave the world all the circumstancial evidence they needed, that all depends upon how you look at it.

Who in thier right mind thinks oil is NOT a major foriegn policy issue of the U.S.?  It is, however, if you bother to check on oil reserves available to the U.S. on it's own soil (granted development would be expensive) you might not be so convinced on the percieved U.S. dependance on foriegn oil.

Goals (oh so bad ones) as stated in the article:

1.  Destroy the Taliban and Al-Queda.

Ok, how exactly what should be done about these low-lifes?
Send'em aid and further thier sadistic goals?  Hell, why not just send them a few little nukes as a measure of good will?

2.  Counter and destroy the threat to Central Asian countries from Islamic extremists supported by bin Laden and Taliban.

 uhhm...ok?  Golly thats terrible.  Heck I won't even bother commenting on this one.  If one cannot figure this one out you may well need to think about sticking a diaper on your head and grabbing an AK-47

3.  Negate the Taliban and Al Qaeda objective of replacing the existing Central Asian governments with militant Islamic regimes.

  HOLY CRAP!!....ALL THIS FOR BLACK-GOLD??  Give me a break.

  More unsupported, uncorroborated, unreliable, vague, decietful leftist anti-Bush misinformation designed solely to bring discredit on the U.S. presidency...all because you don't like him.  And you're using the FRENCH to do it lolol.
"Dogfighting is useless"  :Erich Hartmann

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Hmmmm............
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2002, 02:16:39 AM »
As a general rule book about intelligence cannot be trust.

Neither Tumor.

Offline Gunthr

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
      • http://www.dot.squat
Hmmmm............
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2002, 05:32:44 AM »
Quote
A bigger question is...if this book has any truth to it how do you feel about being used as a pawn for the petroleum industry?
- Weasel

Sensational at first glance... but not very interesting - to me - it lacks credibility.

Energy is a strategic concern of our government. Our government is going to be assertive in protecting those interests.

The book is not going to unravel the spook stuff for us.
"When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off."  - Helvetius 18th Century

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Hmmmm............
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2002, 05:38:55 AM »
weazel is a well known USA hating leftist idiot, move on folks..............

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18207
Hmmmm............
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2002, 06:46:06 AM »
who cares?

I want cheap gas for my cars, don't you?

Seems they picked the wrong carpet and I'm sure the new guy in town will let us build all the oil pipe lines we want ... win, win for us and them.

Go Bush!
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
I'm with Fatty...
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2002, 07:35:01 AM »
Assuming this was all true, it is nothing new for a country to be involved in clandestine attempts to extract resources from other countries as cheaply as possible. To believe America doesn't do the same is naive beyond comprehension.

My question is, Weazel, "Where was this writer during the last administration?" I can accept the possibility of truth in this now. Can you accept the last administration had its hand shoved just as deeply down the cookie jar? Do you believe the next one won't?

Offline Udie at Work

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 311
Re: I'm with Fatty...
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2002, 07:43:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kieran
. Can you accept the last administration had its hand shoved just as deeply down the cookie jar?



 That's impossible,  Clinton's cookie jar was much deeper than Bush's, beside the fact that Clinton took that cookie jar with him when he left office :D

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Hmmmm............
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2002, 08:26:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tumor
Anything written by a bunch of French tards gets a direct deposit in the trash can as far as I'm concerned.  Does anyone really think the "French" are freinds of the U.S.??


 That depends what you mean by U.S. It is quite possible that someone revealing truth may be a "friend" of some people in the US but enemy of the others.

 As for this particular book, some of it may well be plausible. What does it matter? We do have a democratic representative government and free market economy, both of which reflect our interests. So while we agree to cooperate with and finance evil regimes so that we could continue driving our gas-guzzlers, what does the book say that we would care about?

 I would not expect the freenchies to be any less trustworthy then the american journalists (if only because it would be hard to be any less trustworthy) and at least they may have a different perspective then US Borg-like media.

 miko