US role in WTC attacks - Investigation called for

Infinite Justice | 22.09.2001 18:52

Evidence is mounting that the Bush administration may have deliberately provoked a terrorist attack on the U.S. as a means of justifying its plans to replace the Taliban in Afghanistan with a puppet government friendly to gas and oil development in the region. Control of the area is considered crucial not only to development of oil and gas resources, but to a new "Silk Road" commercial corridor long planned by corporate interests. Many of the important players in this initiative are top officials in the Bush administration, and include VP Cheney and the President himself.

Commercial success in the region could only occur through military domination, since the fractious political situation in these countries has stymied all progress in this direction. However, direct intervention by the U.S. military would have been impossible to justify since pursuing speculative development plans can hardly be classified as "protecting U.S. interests".

In July of this year, the U.S. "leaked" word to the Taliban that it planned to invade Afghanistan and replace the Taliban government. This was either incredibly stupid "foreign relations" or a cynical and deliberate effort to provoke a preemptive attack on U.S. soil and thereby "justify" the requisite use of force. In this circumstance, attacks such as those carried out at the WTC and Pentagon were inevitable.

There should be an immediate call for a full and open inquiry into the Bush administration's role in provoking the WTC attacks - all the indications are there, and criminal indictments are routinely obtained on a lot less evidence than this.

Sources on US actions leading up to attacks:

US planned attack on Taleban - BBC News September 18, 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

Secret memo reveals US plan to overthrow Taliban regime - September 21, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4261737,00,html

Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before US attack - Guardian September 22, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html

Sources on oil/gas interests:

Testimony by John J. Maresca VP, International Relations UNOCAL CORP - February 12, 1998
(Mr. Maresca was George Bush Sr.'s Ambassador to Cyprus )

http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm

Afghanistan Fact Sheet (note section titled "Regional Pipeline Plans") - December, 2000

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan2.html

The New Great Game - Guardian, March 5, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4146099,00.html

See also article titled "Afghanistan and Enron"

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=66181&group=webcast

Infinite Justice

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

Bin Laden no longer in Afghanistan?

23.09.2001 09:15

Saturday's Guardian also reported that the Taliban had lost contact with Bin Laden, and that he is believed to have entered China. Bush & Blair continue their preparations to attack Afghanistan as if they are unaware that their target is no longer there.

Richie

The US had an "excuse" anyway

23.09.2001 11:46

I think there is something important here... Big Oil was wooing the Taleban about pipeline routes for years....

But given that American intelligenec has already linked Al-Qaida to bomb attacks on US embassies in East Africa and the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.... so I can't believe they would want to provoke something as gruesome as the 11th September attacks, when they had "an excuse" anyway.

db
mail e-mail: darius2001@hotmail.com

This Article is a Lie

23.09.2001 21:51

This article is a lie. It is the most egregiously irresponsible piece of propaganda I have ever read. It shows an incredible lack of understanding of how power works in this world. The person who wrote it is either

a.) evil

or

b.) insane

or

c.) incredibly stupid

If our goal was to overthrow the Taliban there are much more efficient ways of doing it than to sacrifice 7,000 citizens, the pentagon, the world trade center, our economy, the airline industry and our sense of security.

How much oil do we gain if Afghanistan is free of the Taliban? How much cheaper will gasoline be per gallon? How much profit will the oil industry reap? How do we know that the regime that replaces the Taliban in Afghanistan will be anymore biased towards us.

If it is true and someone representing the U.S. government threatened this with offical sanction (and nowhere in this article does make this case) it is still ridiculous to assume that the Taliban is responsible. For two reasons:

a.) No one, not even the current administration, has implicated the Taliban in the attack on the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. No one has even suggested it. We are going to overthrow the Taliban because they are sheltering Bin Laden not because they were responsible for the attack.

b.) The "sleepers" who committed this disgusting act of brutality have been in the U.S. for over a year. Unless the Clinton adminstration also threatened the Taliban about 3 years ago then there can be no line drawn between the two events.

This is a lie. This is irresponsible. I have support indymedia in the past but this is just too goddamn ridiculous. It is not backed up by the FACTS AT ALL.

ThorsteinVeblen
mail e-mail: nothanks@nothanks.com

Why are yer knickers in such a knot?

24.09.2001 19:15

Mr. ThorsteinVeblen seems very upset and is apparently incapable of dispassionate dialogue. Why is it so "irresponsible" or "propaganda" for the author of the article to draw on published sources and call for investigation of something that seems altogether possible?

Nowhere in the article do I see any assertion it was the Taleban who were responsible for the attacks, but news of an impending invasion of Afghanistan could certainly be expected to engender a preemptive attack by ANY NUMBER of fundamentalist Muslim groups (as stated in the article "Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before US attack"). The fact that the US made its intentions known was a clear provocation. Whether this was by design or stupidity is something an investigation of the actors' motivations might reveal.

As for branding the article "a lie", and labeling the author as "evil", "insane" or "incredible stupid", methinks ThorsteinVeblen doth protest too much.

cant_believe_the_venom

You missed my points

24.09.2001 22:49

Please excuse my angry rhetoric it seems to have drawn attention from the points I was trying to make.

The fact that the Sleepers have been in the U.S. for over a year shows the above "theory" contradicts the facts

ThorsteinVeblen
mail e-mail: nothanks@nothanks.com

No it doesn't Thor

25.09.2001 03:17

Just because the cells might have been in the US does not mean that the US did not provoke them.
Actually this fact may support the the theory that the terrorists were provoked some how to act now.

indigo11153
mail e-mail: indigo11153@yahoo.com