Fucking Bullshit
Comments
-
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/06/05/memo/index.html
Al-Qaida monitored U.S. negotiations with Taliban over oil pipeline
A memo by military chief Mohammed Atef raises new questions about whether failed U.S. efforts to reform Afghanistan's radical regime -- and build the pipeline -- set the stage for Sept. 11.
By Jean-Charles Brisard
Pages 1 2
NothingJune 5, 2002 | A 1998 memo written by al-Qaida military chief Mohammed Atef reveals that Osama bin Laden's group had detailed knowledge of negotiations that were taking place between Afghanistan's ruling Taliban and American government and business leaders over plans for a U.S. oil and gas pipeline across that Central Asian country.
The e-mail memo was found in 1998 on a computer seized by the FBI during its investigation into the 1998 African embassy bombings, which were sponsored by al-Qaida. Atef's memo was discovered by FBI counter-terrorism expert John O'Neill, who left the bureau in 2001, complaining that U.S. oil interests were hindering his investigation into al-Qaida. O'Neill, who became security chief at the World Trade Center, died in the Sept. 11 attack.
Atef's memo shines new light on what al-Qaida knew about U.S. efforts to normalize relations with the Taliban in exchange for the fundamentalist government's supporting the construction of an oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan. As documented in the book I coauthored with Guillaume Dasquie, "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth," the Clinton and Bush administrations negotiated with the Taliban, both to get the repressive regime to widen its government as well as look favorably on U.S. companies' attempts to construct an oil pipeline. The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands.
The seven-page memo was signed "Abu Hafs," which is the military name of Atef, who was the military chief of al-Qaida and is believed to have been killed in November 2001 during U.S. operations in Afghanistan. It shows al-Qaida's keen interest in the U.S.-Taliban negotiations and raises new questions as to whether the U.S. military threat to the Taliban in July 2001 could have prompted al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attack.
Atef's memo is not about the pipeline alone, though it mentions the project several times. It is an analysis of the political situation facing the Taliban. It documents the movement's rise, its leadership, the geopolitical importance of Afghanistan, the Taliban's relationship with Pakistan, as well as the movement's relationship with the Arab mujahedin. The document's intended readership is unclear. But it reveals that the pipeline was seen as a strategic offering toward the West, in order to make the Taliban government acceptable to the United States and Pakistan, as well as to reduce military and investigative pressure on the country to rein in or even extradite bin Laden.
Atef explains that the United States wants "to take control of any region which has huge quantities of oil reserves," and "the American government is keen on laying the oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan." Atef concludes that al-Qaida's "duty toward the movement [Taliban] is to stand behind it, support it materially and morally, especially because its regional and international enemies are working night and day to put an end to it and make it fail."
It seems clear the military chief didn't expect the pipeline negotiations to bear fruit. Referring to Pakistanis as "nonbelievers," and noting that the pipeline "will be under American control ... and it also goes through the territories of Pakistan which are allied to America," Atef implies that the Taliban has no intention of ultimately cooperating with the project, but is trying to string along the Americans and Pakistanis to win some breathing room for its unpopular government.
The Atef memo is the latest piece of evidence documenting a murky chapter in recent American history -- the overtures of the last two American administrations to the repressive Taliban regime. Several U.S. oil companies, most notably Unocal, had been advocates of diplomatic overtures to the Taliban, in order to facilitate the building of a pipeline from the Caspian Sea region to Pakistan and the Persian Gulf through Afghanistan. In 1996, Unocal vice president Chris Taggart described the fall of Kabul to the Taliban regime as a "very positive step" and urged the U.S. to extend recognition to the new rulers in Kabul and thus "lead the way to international lending agencies coming in."
Just 10 days after the Taliban seized power in Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, former National Security Council official and Unocal consultant who was appointed special envoy to Afghanistan by President George W. Bush at the end of 2001, argued in a Washington Post opinion article that the U.S. should try to work with the mullahs and form a broad-based government that included other factions. "The Taliban does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran -- it is closer to the Saudi model ..." Khalilzad contended, concluding that "we should use as a positive incentive the benefits that will accrue to Afghanistan from the construction of oil and gas pipelines across its territory ... These projects will only go forward if Afghanistan has a single authoritative government."
Soon after, the State Department spokesman Glyn Davies told the New York Times he had hope that "the new authorities in Kabul will move quickly to restore order and security and to form a representative interim government that can begin the process of reconciliation nationwide." Davies also said the United States "wanted to send diplomats to Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban and held out the possibility of re-establishing full diplomatic ties with the country," according to the Times.
In November 1997 Unocal invited a Taliban delegation to Texas and, in early December, the company opened a training center at the University of Nebraska, to instruct 137 Afghans in pipeline construction technology. The company also donated to the university's Center for Afghanistan Studies. Unocal CEO John Imle estimated that the company spent between $15 and $20 million on its Central Asia oil pipeline (CentGas) project -- on preliminary feasibility studies, humanitarian projects and other efforts to lobby the Taliban (Unocal equipped the regime with satellite phones, for instance.)
In February 1998, Unocal's vice president for international relations, John Maresca, told a House subcommittee hearing on U.S. interests in the Central Asian Republics that an oil pipeline "would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage trade and economic development." Emphasizing that "the proposed Central Asia Oil Pipeline (CentGas) cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place," he urged the administration and the Congress "to give strong support to the United Nations-led peace process in Afghanistan."0 -
your cut and pasting skills are awesome. as well as you use of bold.
how does any of this prove your point?
US tried to talk to the Taliban. the taliban gave some song and dance about evidence. nothing got accomplished.
yet if I post a links. its bullshit.0 -
NCfan wrote:Well there you go. You just contradicted the hell out of yourself. Nobody gives a fuck about Osama Bin Laden anymore???
Well why the hell does Bush need him then? If nobody cares, Bush's supposed "ploy" of decpeption and fear mongering wouldn't work now would it?
Bush doesn't care about capturing him. However, Bin Laden still serves a purpose by remaining alive.
There's no contradiction there.0 -
jlew24asu wrote:your cut and pasting skills are awesome. as well as you use of bold.
how does any of this prove your point?
US tried to talk to the Taliban. the taliban gave some song and dance about evidence. nothing got accomplished.
yet if I post a links. its bullshit.
These articles provide evidence of repeated contacts between the Taliban and U.S officials. You said that the Taliban refused to deal with the U.S authorities. Therefore you were wrong.
In fact, not only were they in constant contact but Taliban representatives were invited to Washington and to Texas as guests of the Government and of big business.
'Atef's memo shines new light on what al-Qaida knew about U.S. efforts to normalize relations with the Taliban in exchange for the fundamentalist government's supporting the construction of an oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan. As documented in the book I coauthored with Guillaume Dasquie, "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth," the Clinton and Bush administrations negotiated with the Taliban, both to get the repressive regime to widen its government as well as look favorably on U.S. companies' attempts to construct an oil pipeline. The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands.
The seven-page memo was signed "Abu Hafs," which is the military name of Atef, who was the military chief of al-Qaida and is believed to have been killed in November 2001 during U.S. operations in Afghanistan. It shows al-Qaida's keen interest in the U.S.-Taliban negotiations and raises new questions as to whether the U.S. military threat to the Taliban in July 2001 could have prompted al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attack.'0 -
Byrnzie wrote:These articles provide evidence of repeated contacts between the Taliban and U.S officials. You said that the Taliban refused to deal with the U.S authorities. Therefore you were wrong.0
-
miller8966 wrote:why do his daughters have to go?
Their women for christsake! No one asked For Chelsea to go when Clinton went into kosovo or hit targets inside iraq.
that was a air war
kosovo was a nato operation
kosovo protected us from terrorism
iraq......not so muchlife has nothing to do with killing time
Bring it on cause I'm no victim
b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america0 -
jlew24asu wrote:they refused contact after 9/11 but then again my source was bullshit. so how can we debate right?
I don't recall stating that your source was bullshit. What you pasted was this:
'The Taliban refused to directly speak to Bush, stating that talking with a non-Muslim political leader would be an insult to Islam.'
This doesn't state that the Taliban were unwilling to talk with U.S officials.0 -
Byrnzie wrote:I don't recall stating that your source was bullshit. What you pasted was this:
'The Taliban refused to directly speak to Bush, stating that talking with a non-Muslim political leader would be an insult to Islam.'
This doesn't state that the Taliban were unwilling to talk with U.S officials.
ok sorry. you said the information in the source was bullshit.
let me clear it up for you.
you seem to believe that we could have sat down with Omar and politely asked for bin laden. maybe given the taliban some gold or something and in a few days we would have had the Osama.
according to the wiki...
In the weeks prior to the military action in Afghanistan, U.S. President George W. Bush delivered an ultimatum [5] to the Taliban, to:
* deliver Al-Qaeda leaders located in Afghanistan to the United States
* release all imprisoned foreign nationals, including American citizens [6]
* protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in Afghanistan
* close terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and "hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities"
* give the United States full access to terrorist training camps to verify their closure
President Bush further stated the demands were not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban refused to directly speak to Bush, stating that talking with a non-Muslim political leader would be an insult to Islam. But they made statements through their embassy in Pakistan: the Taliban rejected the ultimatum on September 21, 2001, saying there was no evidence in their possession linking bin Laden to the September 11 attacks.
I'm not doubting the US and the taliban have talked in the past. my point is.......
the US tried to talk to the taliban as clearly stated in Bush ultimatum above. taliban refused. we attacked. and rightfully so. the fires were still burning in NYC.0 -
jlew24asu wrote:ok sorry. you said the information in the source was bullshit.
let me clear it up for you.
you seem to believe that we could have sat down with Omar and politely asked for bin laden. maybe given the taliban some gold or something and in a few days we would have had the Osama.
according to the wiki...
In the weeks prior to the military action in Afghanistan, U.S. President George W. Bush delivered an ultimatum [5] to the Taliban, to:
* deliver Al-Qaeda leaders located in Afghanistan to the United States
* release all imprisoned foreign nationals, including American citizens [6]
* protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in Afghanistan
* close terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and "hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities"
* give the United States full access to terrorist training camps to verify their closure
President Bush further stated the demands were not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban refused to directly speak to Bush, stating that talking with a non-Muslim political leader would be an insult to Islam. But they made statements through their embassy in Pakistan: the Taliban rejected the ultimatum on September 21, 2001, saying there was no evidence in their possession linking bin Laden to the September 11 attacks.
I'm not doubting the US and the taliban have talked in the past. my point is.......
the US tried to talk to the taliban as clearly stated in Bush ultimatum above. taliban refused. we attacked. and rightfully so. the fires were still burning in NYC.
you know, you really shouldn't use wikipedia as verification for anything solid.
and you know there comes a time when if you've supported terrorism you will become a target of it. no matter how righteous you are or how indestructable you think you are.hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say0 -
catefrances wrote:you know, you really shouldn't use wikipedia as verification for anything solid.catefrances wrote:and you know there comes a time when if you've supported terrorism you will become a target of it. no matter how righteous you are or how indestructable you think you are.0
-
jlew24asu wrote:so america got what it deserved huh?
nice try. no that's not what i am saying. no one deserves such an attack. but when one supports terrorism outside one's own borders and takes part in the over throwing of foreign governments whilst at the same time sprouting democracy rhetoric, one has to expect at some time to reap the whirlwind created elsewhere due to one's actions.hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say0 -
catefrances wrote:nice try. no that's not what i am saying. no one deserves such an attack. but when one supports terrorism outside one's own borders and takes part in the over throwing of foreign governments whilst at the same time sprouting democracy rhetoric, one has to expect at some time to reap the whirlwind created elsewhere due to one's actions.
actually "America got exactly what it deserved" is EXACTLY what you're saying, so why not own it?And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days0 -
my2hands wrote:if this current Iraq war is so important to our way of lives, and our freedom. If it truly is the greatest fight of good and evil of the 21st century. If this war of for the spread of freedom and democracy. If it truly is a great mission that must be completed and held to the highest honor, then why the fuck havent the president's 2 daughters signed up to serve in the armed forces?
this war is bullshit, and everyone knows it, they just wont fucking admit it.
and if "God" told Bush to invade Iraq, and he feels it is the noblest of causes, then why have his own children NOT signed on the dotted line? because it is all fucking bullshit and they know it. so they would rather send your and my families into the line of fire so that american corporate interests can seize valuable natural resources, while at the same time the militray-industrial-complex can steal our wealth all in the name of "war" and "national defense", and "freedom".
wake up and smell the coffee, they do not care about you, they do not care about "our" country, and they do not care about iraq's "freedom". we are simply a tool they manipulate to execute their plan.
next time you think this war is "noble", "just", or "we got rid of sadaam" please just remember the architects of this war's children are at home on the couch watching CNN while our friends and family members are being shredded by an IED.
*end of rant*
gotta say...this was a pretty funny postgood job!
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days0 -
Purple Hawk wrote:actually "America got exactly what it deserved" is EXACTLY what you're saying, so why not own it?
so now you can read my mind is that is it?hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say0 -
catefrances wrote:so now you can read my mind is that is it?
no, reading your words.And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days0 -
Purple Hawk wrote:no, reading your words.
it's all about cause and effect.hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say0 -
catefrances wrote:it's all about cause and effect.
i'm guessing if i ask any questions, this is all going to get back to 1947....so i'm not sure i should proceed.And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days0 -
Purple Hawk wrote:i'm guessing if i ask any questions, this is all going to get back to 1947....so i'm not sure i should proceed.
puh-lease. don't hold back on my account. you can not expect to be able to act and not have that boomerang at some stage. you piss people off they will get you. it's just a matter of time. and no i'm not even saying bin laden's beef was legitimate.
it makes me laugh my arse off when i hear inane comments such as bush's when he said, 'we are a peaceful nation', cause everyone knows how much bullshit it is. unfortunately there are people who believe that what the united states government does around the world is for the greater good and that my friend is such bullshit that if you dried it out you could fertilise the entire third world with it. what it basically comes down to is what is in the best interests of the united states.hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say0 -
catefrances wrote:puh-lease. don't hold back on my account. you can not expect to be able to act and not have that boomerang at some stage. you piss people off they will get you. it's just a matter of time. and no i'm not even saying bin laden's beef was legitimate.
.
sooooo in other words...America got what it deserved. right. you believe it, so own it!catefrances wrote:what it basically comes down to is what is in the best interests of the united states.
sooooo, yeah. why is that a problem? what's more worrisome is that president tom of iran doesn't act in the best interest of iran, he acts in the best interest of president tom. or why is it so forgivable for hte human rights violations by russia? well, they are acting in their own self interest, right?
OF COURSE the U.S. is acting in their self interest. considering every other nation state is doing so. if western democracies weren't so beholden to socialism, just think of the possibliities. they could possibly compete! we aren't holding you back...you do it to yourself!And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days0 -
Purple Hawk wrote:sooooo in other words...America got what it deserved. right. you believe it, so own it!
no. i can't admit to something i never said. don't play roundabout with me hawk.
but you know a litle acknowledgement that perhaps their past actions and policies were in some way responsible would be refreshing. instead they sit in their ivory towers and refuse to own anything.Purple Hawk wrote:sooooo, yeah. why is that a problem? what's more worrisome is that president tom of iran doesn't act in the best interest of iran, he acts in the best interest of president tom. or why is it so forgivable for hte human rights violations by russia? well, they are acting in their own self interest, right?
OF COURSE the U.S. is acting in their self interest. considering every other nation state is doing so. If they weren't so beholden to socialism, they could possibly compete!
acting in the best interests of your country is fine. so long as it doesn't infringe upon others.
i certainly never said human rights violations by the russians were forgivable. sounds like your trying to bait me. but no, when a government violates the rights of its citizens, it is not acting in the best interests of the country. it is acting in the governments own self interest. i'm sure you would agree that they are quite often not the same thing.
as for socialism, it can not co exist with capitalism. we know this. but one day when the world we know collapses into a smouldering heap a new, more equitable way will have to be found.hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help