top
Afghanistan
Afghanistan
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Conspiracy or Proof?

by All about oil
If the USA wanted a war with Afghanistan, could they have done a better job?
Conspiracy?....

Suppose you were making a lot of money in the Oil business, specifically
buying oil cheaply and reselling it to Americans in the many forms that
Americans consume oil. Gasoline of course but also there are over
500,000 known other uses of oil: Fertilizers (farms/food supply),
medicines, plastics, insulation, computers, asphalt, inks & toners,
paints, glues, solvents, antiseptics, golf balls, CDs, trash bags, nail
polish, detergents, chewing gum, etc.

Suppose you knew that your current sources of cheap oil were drying up
and you knew where the next and probably last large oil reserve was
(Kazakhstan) and had already invested very heavily in that exploration
but in order for this oil to remain cheap and exploitable it has to be
piped through Afghanistan. And the ruling government refused to allow
you your pipeline.

Suppose you were an unpopular President needing to boost the economy.
Needing to protect the Nations oil supplies. But you also wouldn't mind
having more power over the citizenry, and wanted to erode civil
liberties. Suppose you believed that the best way to boost the economy
was by pumping money into the largest corporations in the world. And by
pumping money into the military, defense contractors and weapons
manufacturers, after all these are the very ones that helped pay my way
into office. Suppose you believed that you needed a war to accomplish
all of these things at once, what would the main obstacle be? Why the
people of the country could never stand for a war for economic reasons!
They would clearly see that the government is bought and paid for by
campaign contributions. Suppose you also wanted to teach the Taliban a
lesson for threatening to kill christian woman! The people still
wouldn't support a war over that.

What would it take for the whole country to get behind a war against
Afghanistan? What if we could get them to attack us first? Well so it
would be hard to get them to do that, but we would need an attack on US
soil to get the kind of support that would carry the war effort. Suppose
we could get those terrorist that hate us so much to attack us? Or
suppose we knew they were going to and just let them. Then we could
attack Afghanistan claiming that we were attacking the terrorist that
they harbored. This would accomplish all that this president needed.

We can now continue with our plans to pipe oil through the new
government that we install there. We get a boost in the economy. The
president becomes popular as the war would be popular "Protecting US
interests and All". We can easily pass new laws giving hugh amounts of
money to the very people that put me into office as an economic stimulus
package, and increased military spending, and by consuming arms we'll of

course need new ones to replace those. New laws giving hugh un-heard of
powers to police agencies.

How else could we protect these interests and maintain public, worldwide
support?

Who would offer the most support for this? Look at the map. If oil is
piped through Afghanistan, it has to also go through Pakistan, and to a
major port there (Karachi), undoubtedly increasing Pakistan's wealth.
Pakistan is a big supporter of the White Oil Pipeline Project. Which is
also supported largely by Britain's Shell Oil Company. And Britain seems
to be very big supporter.

Now the president wants the power to keep his records and those of his
father and all other presidents private forever. Overruling the current
12 year privacy rule.


Proof?...

http://www.runningonempty.org/oilcrash.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/2001/0211.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html
http://www.dawn.com/2001/09/18/ebr9.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11839
http://www.opensecrets.org/payback/issue.asp?issueid=EC1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,586470,00.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/payback/index.asp
http://www.indybay.org/2001/11/108862.php
http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm
http://www.newscoast.com/headlinesstory2.cfm?ID=35115
http://www.indiaabroadonline.com/PublicAccess/ia-10132000/Economy/Pakistanfuel.html



What if the bad guys really were working with the cia, in order to
incite a wanted war, for the final evolution of a dying oil economy.

Would we be able to tell?
by Patriot
The US would never attack it's own people!
by the CIA did it!
Sounds just like "Operation Northwoods". Look it up!
by a3m
are you one of them? just because we accuse persons in government, we do not accuse some abstract "U.S." so then lets forego your conclusion that the attacked are wards of the attacker. The US might not attack its citizens, but its pupet masters might. Just sloppy wording would cause a confusion here. you presume loyalty and concern to little people, based on what, that these nice pupetmasters give a damn we elected their pupets?

puleeeze and btw, want some candy?
by tesserakt
first of all, i am an active member of the antiwar movement, so don't dismiss me as brainwashed by cnn.

that being said, i do not think that the u.s. government would purposefully provoke, plan, or allow an attack of the sort that took place on 9.11. i'm not saying that they wouldn't provoke and encourage *some* sort of attack. i just find it highly unlikely that they would take the risk of destroying the wtc. it's too damaging a blow in many many respects. and if it came out, they would have to deal with unprecedented revolutionary forces in addition to all of the forces rallying against them in the mideast/central asia. it's just not realistic.

given all of the strange evidence, and how badly the u.s. clearly wanted war, i think what may be likely is that the u.s. knew an attack was imminent, but vastly underestimated its scope. they probably wanted a more "normal" terrorist attack to occur, and may have even taken measures to encourage it (let's not forget pearl harbor). but as inhuman as the criminals in washington are, i don't think that the utter destruction of the wtc was in their plan. large-scale civilian casualties and severe financial infrastructural damage are generally tactics that they reserve for use *outside* our borders.
by welfare
i agree with tesserakt. but tesserakt, if you accept that, can't you accept that you just don't know? to me, the point is that you *dont know* exactly what happened.

we won't know for at least 20 years.

the point is, we can *accept* an influential elite within the u.s. government contributing to or allowing this atrocity to happen. we certainly know that they order it to happen elsewhere. i do not think the military-industrial elite are nationalists. they are multinationalists. they are out for themselves, not some stupid flag. that's for beer-swilling patriots who get ripped off by these rich thugs everyday.

either way, to me is that if you accept that something like this could happen, that's enough. let's do something about it.

by demitria monde thraam (monde [at] involution.org)
...Because you took the words and thoughts right out of my head, my friend. I've been thinking of each and every one of these things all the way from the first hour of my day on 9/11 and I'm thinking them now as I type this post. The frustrating, devastatingly frustrating thing is we never WOULD be able to tell. Hell, I think even if the facts were staring everyone right in the face people would refuse to believe it...because they don't WANT to believe that we could have monsters like this running our country. But the past actions of the Bush League, and of Unocal, and of the group of individuals that control the mass media (a group which is dwindling with every passing decade into a smaller and smaller cabal of owners as companies Borg one another into giant megalithic corporations) bears out the fact that these people don't place a great deal of value on human life.

My theory on this is that perhaps a terrorist attack was either expected and ignored or possibly financed (by Unocal? By the Bushes? By the little grey aliens holding their marionette strings? God I don't know, maybe it was The Devil working through them and making them do it whilst sleepwalking. In a lot of ways it doesn't even really matter.

The point is that it happened, and I think maybe they got more than they bargained for. Perhaps it was expected that they'd take out a plane, not take out four planes, the entire World Trade Center, a huge crowd of onlookers and rescuers and a chunk of the Pentagon.

That's the only way I can look at this logically. Some things which lead me to believe it:

Why aren't we getting any information at all about the black box recording picked up from the plane in Pennsylvania? I would think that would be something everyone would be wanting to hear. OK, the FBI might keep it under wraps if there was important evidence on it that might hamper the investigation into the responsible parties. But this could go two ways. Maybe it is all too well known that it could let it be known that something somewhere wasn't as we were told it was. That nice story about the brave young men who commandeered the plane was just such good copy, it sounded TOO good to me. What could be on that recording that might screw up the investigation if the public were to know of it? Were the terrorists talking amongst themselves mentioning names and addresses of the other cell members or other planned attacks? That would be pretty stupid of them, and while they struck me as horribly degenerate, insane and evil they did NOT strike me as stupid.

What happened to that plane? Strange that it was the one targeted for the places the President was expected to be, and strange that he happened to not be there in advance of it. (Not impossible, under normal nonconspiratorial circumstances, but thrown in with the rest of it, it becomes one more question mark.)

Why that one but none of the others? On all the other planes not one passenger thought to try to gang up on the four guys and take their Exacto knives away from them?

Even if the attacks were not ordered by some consortium or known about in advance and ignored, there's the possibility that the crashed plane was actually shot out of the sky immediately as word reached authorities of what was happening. That would not even be such an unreasonable thing to do given the circumstances, and I think a lot of people would probably be able to accept the necessity of it - not everyone, no, but many. Yet if it happened, and they chose to cover it up, it would be ample grounds to impeach that submoronic president that got put into office (and I won't say elected.)

The person who does not think this sort of thing could ever happen, that the government would never kill its own people - "no, no, never in America!" obviously has never read about things like MK ULTRA. If the CIA will dose people with hallucionogens and paralysis drugs just to watch them and see what happens, I would not put anything past them, And remember: the Bush family is a CIA family. Bush II grew up with his father in the espionage and intelligence business all his life. Imagine being the son of such a man and then becoming President after the father also spent some time in that office. The things they must talk about. Like a nice little game of chess between a father and his son. Shudder.
by All about oil
Suppose that there was a little group of puppeteers, it might be hard to get unanimous approval for an attack against us. Suppose that the descenters were in the WTC and the Pentagon?
by All about Oil
http://www.indybay.org/2001/11/109502.php
by jade (rustystryngz [at] aol.com)
nessie, i think you are very clear in your perspective.
by rasec zaid
Since the late 1800's U.S. wants to dominate the whole planet for themselves I strongly believe U.S. should be terminate.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$120.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network