Robert Sterling
Editor, The Konformist
http://www.konformist.com


New Book Details Bush/Big Oil Negotiations With Taliban BEFORE WTC
By TOP_VIEW    TOP_VIEW1@go.com     11-19-1

  
Fact: The WTC was bombed right AFTER Bush-Taliban oil pipeline talks 
soured. 
  
The talks soured right AFTER Bush/Big Oil threatened Taliban to take 
their offer or receive a "carpet of bombs." 
  

SPELLING IT OUT 
  
Bush-Cheney/Big Oil and Afghanistan's Taliban negotiated for MONTHS 
over running a Caspian Sea oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Talks 
began in February and continued right on until only one MONTH before 
New York City's World Trade Center towers were demolished. 
  
DURING the course of these negotiations, the two parties were unable 
to agree upon a deal, MAINLY because Bush/Big Oil agents constantly 
upped the ante on the rather naive Taliban representatives: playing 
intimidation, bait & switch, and "shell" games relentlessly. The 
Taliban negotiators, understandably, became distrustful of the entire 
process, and less and less confident they were being dealt with in 
good faith. 
  
In the beginning of August, the Bush administration and its Big Oil 
cohorts delivered what amounted to an ultimatum to the Taliban. 
  
The Taliban representatives were reportedly told by Bush/Big Oil: 
Accept our offer of "a carpet of gold or you'll get a carpet of 
bombs." 
  
That's a DIRECT quote, according to French authors Jean-Charles 
Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, who've just written a thoroughly-
researched and heavily-documented book about the entire extraordinary 
business titled "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth" 
  
ALSO revealed in the book is the fact that BUSH HIMSELF directly 
ordered the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement groups to BACK OFF on 
TERRORIST-RELATED INVESTIGATIONS while the oil pipeline negotiations 
were underway! 
  
In FACT, the FBI's Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July in 
protest over this outrageous and intolerable obstruction. 
  
And by the way: the whereabouts of one OSAMA BIN LADEN, then already 
firmly entrenched at the very top of the US's "most-wanted terrorist" 
list during the entire course of these pipeline negotiations, was 
NEVER an issue with the Bush cartel. Never ONCE were the Taliban 
urged to hand bin Laden over for all those OTHER horrendous crimes 
Feds maintain bin Laden has been charged with committing over the 
years. 
  
And SO: barely a MONTH after the Bush administration sabotaged the 
negotiations with the Taliban regarding running the Caspian Sea oil 
pipeline through Afghanistan, the World Trade Center towers are 
bombed into oblivion, bringing about the currently ongoing UNDECLARED 
(and therefore illegal) "war on terrorism"...that just HAPPENS to be 
directed at the Taliban in Afghanistan. 
  
The WTC was bombed -- according to Feds -- by the VERY SAME Osama bin 
Laden whom the very same Bush administration was so UNCONCERNED ABOUT 
during those JUST-WRECKED talks with the Taliban. 
  
NO ONE but the bush administration and their Big Oil 
allies/accomplices -- not the Taliban, not the Palestinians, not ANY 
other nation whether Islamic or otherwise -- not any other group, 
agency, force or faction on Earth stood to "GAIN" from the 
destruction of the World Trade Center which occurred only ONE MONTH 
after talks between the Bush administration and the Taliban fell 
apart due to outrageous threats and intimidation by Bush/Big 
Oil "negotiators."
___ 
  
Now the Taliban have been removed, Americans have lost even more 
freedom and liberty thanks to the 'Anti-Terrorism' Bill (passed by 
the House without even having READ the bill), and we can expect the 
pipeline project to get back on track soon. It is important to 
remember that the world's richest oil country, Saudi Arabia, has 30 
billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The Caspian oil reserves are 
conservatively estimated to be 50 BILLON barrels. - ed.  

*****

Nostradaveus
11/16/01
dave@davesweb.cnchost.com

This seems like a good time to offer an installment of what I 
have rather humbly decided to call Nostradaveus. This excerpt comes 
from my first book, Derailing Democracy, where it provides the 
introduction to chapter 25. 
       
This also seems like a good time to make an appeal to all of 
you to help save the publisher of this book. As most of you are 
probably aware, independent booksellers are rapidly disappearing from 
the American landscape, crowded out by the likes of Barnes & Noble, 
Borders, and Amazon.com. 
        
What you may not be aware of is that independent publishers 
are also quickly becoming an endangered species. Common Courage Press 
is currently suffering from severe financial problems - meaning, 
among other things, that its authors (this one, at least) have not 
received any royalty payments for an entire year. Rumor now has it 
that they may soon be shutting their doors for good. 
        
If that happens, a number of quality books will soon be out 
of print, including works by such writers as Howard Zinn, William 
Blum, and Noam Chomsky. With the holidays approaching, please 
consider adding some books from their catalogue to your holiday wish 
lists, or giving them as gifts to others. 
        
A couple of my personal favorites are William Blum's Killing 
Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Mark 
Zepezauer's The CIA's Greatest Hits. For a complete list of the books 
offered by this publisher, visit their web site at: 
http://commoncouragepress.com.


"The fact that some elements [of the US government] may appear to be 
potentially `out of control' can be beneficial to creating and 
reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's 
decision makers… That the US may become irrational and vindictive if 
its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national 
persona we project to all adversaries.... It hurts to portray 
ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed...." 
US Strategic Command "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence," 1995 
(US Strategic Command, or STRATCOM, is the military entity 
responsible for formulating U.S. nuclear policy) 
        
The White House appears to have taken the advice of STRATCOM 
to heart, as how else are we to explain the drive-by bombing of the 
Sudan in August of 1998? This action, taken against a sovereign 
nation with which the U.S. had no legitimate grievances, was a 
flagrant violation of international law that was harshly condemned, 
and rightly so, by the world community. The increasingly militarized 
approach to foreign policy, of which the Sudan bombing is but one 
recent example, is justified on the basis of fighting 
international 'terrorism,' which has largely replaced the old 
justification of fighting international communism. Of course, who is 
identified as a terrorist at any given time is largely determined by 
what best serves US economic interests. 
        
Yesterday's Abu Nidal morphs seamlessly into today's Osama 
bin Laden while Abdullah Ocalan takes the place of Yassir Arafat and 
Nelson Mandela. Both of the latter, not long ago vilified 
as 'terrorist' leaders of 'terrorist organizations,' are now Nobel 
Peace Prize winners, widely praised in Washington and around the 
world. Other 'terrorist' threats, such as Kaddafi in Libya and Assad 
in Syria, simply fade from view, with no explanation given as to why, 
though they remain in power, they no longer pose a threat to the 
sovereignty of the United States. Some groups formerly pegged 
as 'terrorists,' most recently the KLA (identified as such by the 
U.S. State Department in 1998), are suddenly reborn as 'freedom 
fighters,' again with no explanation offered as to how this 
miraculous transformation has taken place. Then there are 
those 'terrorists' who suddenly become so only after years of serving 
as CIA 'assets.' Noriega of Panama, Aidid of Somalia, and the mother 
of all terrorists - Saddam Hussein - all fall into this category, all 
having been demonized only after ceasing to serve American interests. 
And of course there are the old standbys, such as the ever popular 
Fidel Castro, who can be trotted out at a moment's notice if no 
better villain is readily available. 
       
All of these largely manufactured threats are used to justify 
an increasingly bloated level of military expenditures, 
euphemistically referred to as 'defense spending,' as well as a 
foreign policy increasingly reliant on naked aggression. In addition 
to the aerial bombardment and military occupation of Kosovo, the 
continued military presence in Bosnia, and the cruise missile attacks 
on Sudan and Afghanistan, the United States continues to routinely 
launch air strikes against Iraq, though the American press has 
apparently decided that this is no longer news. All of these actions 
have been taken with virtually no debate in Congress and an obvious 
contempt for public opinion. The overwhelming bipartisan support for 
vastly increasing the current military budget at every possible 
opportunity signals a continuation and escalation of U.S. 
belligerence. 
        
The mainstream media have played a large part in creating a 
public tolerance for a greatly increased militarism by being a 
willing participant in this political shell game. American military 
actions are routinely glorified and sterilized, while the terrorist 
du jour is suitably vilified. Propaganda stories increasingly 
proliferate carrying preposterous warnings of near imminent nuclear 
attack on America from North Korea, Iraq, or some other 
allegedly 'rogue' nation. By the Pentagon's logic, any nation not 
allied with the U.S. that is working on a nuclear weapons program is 
doing so for the express purpose of launching a preemptive strike 
against American soil. 
        
Never is it suggested that these `rogue' nations, having 
witnessed the destructive power the United States was so eager to 
wield in such places as Iraq and Serbia, could feel a legitimate need 
to possess a meaningful deterrent against an international aggressor 
armed with some 6,000 long range nuclear missiles and a desire to 
appear `out of control.' The notion that any nation would use such 
weaponry for offensive purposes, to launch a first strike at the 
United States, defies any rational analysis. Surely the cost to the 
aggressor nation of such an attack on America would be nothing less 
than the complete and total nuclear annihilation of the `rogue' 
nation and its people. 
       
Of course, the State Department realizes that certain 
countries will not be deterred by this, because they are led by 
madmen who don't have the same respect for human life that we do. It 
would be foolhardy to expect these terrorist heads of state to act 
rationally. These men would willingly sacrifice their entire country 
for the chance to take out part of Manhattan. That is why we must 
always maintain our defenses against those who, in the words of one 
notorious rogue nation, "may become irrational and vindictive." 
"Another unacknowledged and unpleasant reality is that a more 
militant approach toward terrorism would, in virtually all cases, 
require us to act violently and alone." 
Former CIA Director Robert M. Gates in The New York Times,  August 
16, 1998