Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community

Oil Negotiations with Taliban before WTC


sassa

Recommended Posts

Oil Negotiations with Taliban Before WTC

New Book Details Bush/Big Oil Negotiations With Taliban BEFORE WTC

Fact: The WTC was bombed right AFTER Bush-Taliban oil pipeline talks soured.

The talks soured right AFTER Bush/Big Oil threatened Taliban to take their offer or receive a "carpet of bombs."

SPELLING IT OUT

Bush-Cheney/Big Oil and Afghanistan's Taliban negotiated for MONTHS over running a Caspian Sea oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Talks began in February and continued right on until only one MONTH before New York City's World Trade Center towers were demolished.

DURING the course of these negotiations, the two parties were unable to agree upon a deal, MAINLY because Bush/Big Oil agents constantly upped the ante on the rather naive Taliban representatives: playing intimidation, bait & switch, and "shell" games relentlessly. The Taliban negotiators, understandably, became distrustful of the entire process, and less and less confident they were being dealt with in good faith.

In the beginning of August, the Bush administration and its Big Oil cohorts delivered what amounted to an ultimatum to the Taliban.

The Taliban representatives were reportedly told by Bush/Big Oil: Accept our offer of "a carpet of gold or you'll get a carpet of bombs."

That's a DIRECT quote, according to French authors Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, who've just written a thoroughly-researched and heavily-documented book about the entire extraordinary business titled "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth"

ALSO revealed in the book is the fact that BUSH HIMSELF directly ordered the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement groups to BACK OFF on TERRORIST-RELATED INVESTIGATIONS while the oil pipeline negotiations were underway!

In FACT, the FBI's Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over this outrageous and intolerable obstruction.

And by the way: the whereabouts of one OSAMA BIN LADEN, then already firmly entrenched at the very top of the US's "most-wanted terrorist" list during the entire course of these pipeline negotiations, was NEVER an issue with the Bush cartel. Never ONCE were the Taliban urged to hand bin Laden over for all those OTHER horrendous crimes Feds maintain bin Laden has been charged with committing over the years.

And SO: barely a MONTH after the Bush administration sabotaged the negotiations with the Taliban regarding running the Caspian Sea oil pipeline through Afghanistan, the World Trade Center towers are bombed into oblivion, bringing about the currently ongoing UNDECLARED (and therefore illegal) "war on terrorism"...that just HAPPENS to be directed at the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The WTC was bombed -- according to Feds -- by the VERY SAME Osama bin Laden whom the very same Bush administration was so UNCONCERNED ABOUT during those JUST-WRECKED talks with the Taliban.

NO ONE but the bush administration and their Big Oil allies/accomplices -- not the Taliban, not the Palestinians, not ANY other nation whether Islamic or otherwise -- not any other group, agency, force or faction on Earth stood to "GAIN" from the destruction of the World Trade Center which occurred only ONE MONTH after talks between the Bush administration and the Taliban fell apart due to outrageous threats and intimidation by Bush/Big Oil "negotiators."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sassa...

Just shit the fuck up already....

BTW...there are a multitide of articles, research, and books on the Taliban, Bin laden, the fight on Terrorism, and the Clinton era that would make your head spin.....

Add excerpts from these and you may add some credibility to whatever you are trying to accomplish here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard this before . . . There's not a hint of objectivity in this article (i.e., the "Bush cartel" and the "illegal" war (editor's note: just because a war is undeclared doesn't make it illegal; I'll give you all the hallatiously boring citations you want to prove that)). That being said, I don't know whether true or not, but the author's blatant bias casts serious doubt on its veracity. It's good to be aware of ALL the information concerning historical events, but it's also important to be wary of (potential) crackpots and political ideologues who use an event such as 9-11 to put forth their conspiracy theories to garner the attention of anyone looking for that sort of thing and put their political spin on the issue. You want conspiracy theories? Have an intelligent discussion about Clinton and China. I'm no Bush cheerleader by no stretch of the imagination, but this looks highly suspect to me. Take the article with a grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank God some one Knows

all the fighting goin on ins afghanistan right now is cause of the oil IN uzbeck

Well pakistan agreed with usa for a oil pipe line coming from uzbeck to afghanistan and then to pakistan port gawadar but mullah omer was not agreeing with it and then after that the 9/11 attack USA changed the whole situation ....

Well uzbekistan has the biggest oil reserve in the world .. its way larger then sudia arabia !!!

well let see what happenes now..

The war is all about the OIL

even in IRAQ it was about the OIL

freakin oil man !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by raver_mania

The two authors are pretty seasoned analysts, and I don't see a reason why two French guys would be biased against the US. There really is no reason why I should disregard the validity of this article.

Nice point...the French are NEVER biased against the US....

You certainly know what you are talking about...

With regards to the validity of the article, see deeprock's post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by igloo

Nice point...the French are NEVER biased against the US....

You certainly know what you are talking about...

With regards to the validity of the article, see deeprock's post...

So, you're saying they're gonna sell a book full of outright lies?? Please, give me a fuckin break!

Igloo - you gotta open your mind a bit, and stop trying to defend that dream of a perfectly righteous America. You keep doing that, and you'll defend it right to fascism. Just remember, extremism of any sort is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by raver_mania

So, you're saying they're gonna sell a book full of outright lies??

YEAH-THAT NEVER HAPPENS!

Please, give me a fuckin break!

Igloo - you gotta open your mind a bit, and stop trying to defend that dream of a perfectly righteous America. You keep doing that, and you'll defend it right to fascism. Just remember, extremism of any sort is bad.

My mind is completely open - I actually spend a considerable amount of time engaged in research/study on US affairs in the middle east...

It allows me to keep things baked in reality, as oppossed to schmucks like yourself jump onevery grandious bullshit passed along......

I find it laughable that those who enjoy leftist conspiracy theories and claim others should "open their minds', are just as quick to discount those who challenge them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by igloo

Originally posted by raver_mania

So, you're saying they're gonna sell a book full of outright lies??

YEAH-THAT NEVER HAPPENS!

Please, give me a fuckin break!

Igloo - you gotta open your mind a bit, and stop trying to defend that dream of a perfectly righteous America. You keep doing that, and you'll defend it right to fascism. Just remember, extremism of any sort is bad.

My mind is completely open - I actually spend a considerable amount of time engaged in research/study on US affairs in the middle east...

It allows me to keep things baked in reality, as oppossed to schmucks like yourself jump onevery grandious bullshit passed along......

I find it laughable that those who enjoy leftist conspiracy theories and claim others should "open their minds', are just as quick to discount those who challenge them

and the name calling begins:rolleyes:

why must igloo always go down this road?

and once again....where are your specific examples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that igloo is so lost in his blind, close-minded right wing ideologies, that he can't find his way back from that thick fog (covering his mind) to give us specific examples.

Thus, he resorts to name-calling, which does nothing but undermine any valid points he might have made!

I don't even think he read the article posted!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by sassa

The Taliban negotiators, understandably, became distrustful of the entire process, and less and less confident they were being dealt with in good faith.

the first clue to how biased the article really is is when the word "understandably" pops up...

great way to stir up some excitement, sassa...and i like your penchant for drama, i.e. posting it on the three-month anniversary of the attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...