America's Secret War - The True Reason for war in Iraq...

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphisDoes the book address the Herion export boom in Afghanistan after the US invasion which is a major contributor to Wall Streets liquid cash source, CIA funding, black ops etc?? The taliban were destroying the herion crops which was draining billions from wall street and CIA budgets and wars are expensive, Bush had promised tax cuts, what to do? 9/11 was timed for more than just the 'al-qaedas' benefit.

Seems I remember hearing that Al Queda was USING the herion monies not suppressing it. It in ATS somewhere.

As for the 911 'planned' by the US conspiracy...............

I just do not believe it, nor do I believe in Aliens in the ET sense.

Well, terrorism is surely profiting of the heroin trade but so are the CIA. This is why people believe the puppet masters of the terrorism movement are the intelligence agencies.
It's a very easy thing to look up. Herion trade boomed from the hundreds to thousands in tonage after America invaded, everyone has acknowledged that. Where the money goes is up for debate.

The US allowed their Warlords to grow crops whereas the Taliban were destroying them. Most of the Taliban just swaped hats when the US arrived and started fighting with the Warlords, simply because they don't fight for their beliefs, they fight for their lives rather than getting caught up in the storm. When America says they destroyed most of the Taliban, they mostly just dissapated the group and got the less loyal members to swap sides or they went back to their normal lives not really interested in any fighting at all.

The Taliban prohibition had indeed caused "the beginning of a heroin shortage in Europe by the end of 2001", as acknowledged by the UNODC.

Heroin is a multibillion dollar business supported by powerful interests, which requires a steady and secure commodity flow. One of the "hidden" objectives of the war was precisely to restore the CIA sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and exert direct control over the drug routes.

Immediately following the October 2001 invasion, opium markets were restored. Opium prices spiraled. By early 2002, the opium price (in dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000.

In 2001, under the Taliban opiate production stood at 185 tons, increasing to 3400 tons in 2002 under the US sponsored puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai.

While highlighting Karzai's patriotic struggle against the Taliban, the media fails to mention that Karzai collaborated with the Taliban. He had also been on the payroll of a major US oil company, UNOCAL. In fact, since the mid-1990s, Hamid Karzai had acted as a consultant and lobbyist for UNOCAL in negotiations with the Taliban. According to the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan:

"Karzai has been a Central Intelligence Agency covert operator since the 1980s. He collaborated with the CIA in funneling U.S. aid to the Taliban as of 1994 when the Americans had secretly and through the Pakistanis [specifically the ISI] supported the Taliban's assumption of power."
(quoted in Karen Talbot, U.S. Energy Giant Unocal Appoints Interim Government in Kabul, Global Outlook, No. 1, Spring 2002. p. 70. See also BBC Monitoring Service, 15 December 2001)

www.globalresearch.ca...

``

seems like a fairly interesting story,
i will remain satisified with the synopsis you provided.

there is another 'Essay' by Webster G. Tarpley
Author - 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in USA

the Essay, translates to 31 pages of print,
it may be accessed at : www.rense.com...
(for some purists, that address will red-flag the article, well- it's your loss)

~~~
to TheShroudOfMemphis and edsinger quips on 911
Tarpley does address the 911 events, under the section heading;
TERRORISM UNDER THE COVER OF EXERCISES AND DRILLS
among larger bodies of thought, there are 3 subcategories in hindsight,
MIHOP= Made it happen on purpose
HIHOP= Helped it happen on purpose
LIHOP= Let it happen on purpose

? Why war in Iraq?-> PNAC, preceeded by Bernard Lewis plan for the Middle East see map on link, & google up.
~~~

this is also another good, engaging storyline, like the book you
are presenting to us- either or both have plausable elements in the spin

thanks

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Well, terrorism is surely profiting of the heroin trade but so are the CIA.

- It's nothing new; the CIA/USA did exactly the same thing in SE Asia and with the 'golden triangle' heroin.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Pinkey, I love the way you can read 15 words and come up with (what you think is) a witty and intelligently insightful commentary.

- Actually TC it is called having an appreciation of what has been going on for quite a while (and I suppose an indirect comment on ed's editing and what he chose to post up).

I can remember discussing the Muslim/Soviet Union situation as far back as the late 1970's when the trouble along their southern borders was expected after the Afghan invasion.

.....and the heavy involvement of North, Poindexter and Reagan in building up the Muslim 'resistance' (early bin Laden/ Al Quada) is undeniable.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Seekerof
When you assume any thing close to resembling the status, validity, and credibility of George Friedman, sminkeypinkey, perhaps then your rhetorical words and comment concerning this matter and topic will be viewed, interpreted, and held beyond what it is now: taken with a grain of salt.

- Oh sorry to offer a different point of view and have a view in conflict with yours Seekerof.

I'm quite sure that if it had been Michael Moore or some other sminkeypinkey approved author, you would have given more thought to your post

- Well as said before the comments about a deliberate attempt by the USA to spark trouble along the then Soviet southern borders shouldn't be news to anyone; sadly it seems they are and sadly it appears this book does nothing to illuminate that phase of US (secret) policy.

I suggest a close look at North's career and what he was up to out there (actually you'll find North even writes about what a vile and ultra dangerous piece of work he thought bin Laden was - not that it stopped him funding and teaching him and his group the 'art of terrorism', right?).

Or is telling the complete story a tad too much for you?

(BTW I can also tell you I'm a hell of a lot less uncritical of MM's work than it appears some are here with this guy.......where is the stuff detailing the scale of the Afghani connections then?)

[edit on 29-8-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Sorry my friends.

As one who has opposed the war, I look beyond all the Bush and Bush, DIA, CIA, NRA, NRO and all the other agencies the US employes in an effort to justify the war.

I do not care, rightly or wrongly, about WMDs in the region. Israel has 'the bomb' and has had it since the late 70s early 80s. Israel, if pressed too hard, if she finds her back up against the wall without UN/US support, in the face of certain destruction will have no other option but to go nuclear! That is why the Arab states support terrorism because they cannot take Israel on in a one on one fight. They would simply loose.

With regards to Iraq and Al Qaeda. This is, as I have stated time and time again, all about Bin Laden and the Royal Saud family.

Osama bin Laden is a disaffected and distant cousin of the deceased King Faud of Saudi Arabia. His main aim, is the overthrow of this "corrupt and decadent" government and replace it with a Theocracy.

Saudi Oil will probably run out in the next 10/15 years. It is the main source of US imported oil. It has to be protected at all costs.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, it provided the US with the perfect opportunity to say to King Faud, "We can protect your Kingdom [Iraq's main target] but you have to allow us to build bases from which we can launch attacks against Kuwait" - or words to that effect.

If GWI was fought solely to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, why was an invasion on Iraq necessary?

Simply put, to destroy as much as possible, the Iraqi armed forces, thus preventing Saddam from launching a retaliatory invasion of Saudi Arabia.

GWII was necessary to capture the Iraqi oilfields, the second biggest oilfields in the region, thus ensuring the supply of oil to the US.

If you have any doubts about my theory, just take a look at the current situation with Venezuela. In this country, we have the third biggest oil and natural gas fields anywhere in the world and the biggest in South America.

Only problem is, the President of Venezuela is anti-American and what's happening? We now have a so called 'Christian' preacher calling for this guy's assassination and, in some circles, there is allegedly talk of the US grabbing the oilfields by force.

As for Al Qaeda, this is the stick the US beats Saudi Arabia with and keeps the other pro-western Arab states in line with.

Just my view - but it makes sense in a roundabout way - well kinda.

You missed the point, Pinkey. I am well aware of what went on in "the day" as well, and wasn't questioning your memory of then. Your not reading the entire information presented by Ed is what was painfully evident. From your post to me there, it is also evident that in your mind, the problems began after Carter lost the election. I suggest you remove the political shades and try to see the world in an objective manner.

how would the US invade Pakistan??? Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is an ally. Sure, since their intelligence services are infiltrated by al qaeda , it's difficult for them to catch Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri... but you cannot invade Pakistan

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a subject that I have been looking into for a while and the more that I do, the more that it seems to me that this whole "War on Terror" let alone the War in Iraq actually has it's roots even before Clinton and actually may have began back during the fall of Russia.
The US needed a new "enemy" and "Islamic Extremeists" were the target du jour that the goverment picked.

Of course our support of Pakistan is another reason we are hated by Muslims.

Originally posted by white4life420

And faust:

I would put the intelligence of a human far beyond the war between cats and dogs.

As far as Muslim's hating America. That's true. But it's not because of our ideas. There are countries that are far more self-indulgent and "free" than us that will never be attacked by al Qaeda. Go hold a protest in Amsterdam, do some mushrooms, smoke pot, and go to as many peep shows as you want. You won't get blown up by al Qaeda.

Why? Because Amsterdam has not been suppressive of Muslim's for the sake of Oil and Israel.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by white4life420]

[edit on 29-8-2005 by white4life420]

What the hell are you talking about? I make a comment about how fear keeps your enemies from attacking you as a deterance. And then you start rambling on about me doing drugs in Amsterdam and protesting there against al Qaeda so i can be safe from attack................WTF?!?

And oh yes, America has been REAL suppressive of the Arabs oil. Since we were the ones who taught them how to drill it in the first place, so they could achieve a booming economy in the middle of a freakin DESSERT. And this "war for oil" conspiracy B.S.? Nobody's buying it. We're paying even more for gas at the pumps. Not to mention the COMPLETE and TOTAL lack of evidence of U.S. troops hauling thousands of barrels onto trucks and then taking them on ships to the U.S.

You want to know why Amsterdam has not been suppressive of Muslim's for the sake of Israel? Because Amsterdam doesn't give a sh!t about Israel. However, we in the U.S., BY LAW will protect Democratically free countries. ....you know, when almost an entire region wants every Israeli dead, that's called genocide. What kind of monkey thinks genocide is acceptable? Maybe a Hitler monkey...are you a Hitler monkey?

Don't know if others noticed but I am a wee bit concerned with the thread title. And was even a bit more concerned it was based on another's words.

Sorry if I seem pointing, but I'm pointing at what I feel might be a misleading thread - maybe?

respectfully

Dallas

Oh, look at me momma, I can copy and paste stuff from books and other sources to make my case.

Why bother with an original thought or post when you can feed people stuff that already exists elsewhere?

The actual truth of this war is a matter of perception that exists inside of any free thinking person who has not given in to propaganda fed them by one or the other side of a political divide.

Believe it or not some people can still think for themselves, That in itself is amazing.


ESP




[edit on 29-8-2005 by EvilSockPuppet]

I see nothing wrong with the title.

Since all of the publicly stated reasons for the war have born out to be lies the real reason remains largely unreported. There’s lots of good, solid, logical reasons in this thread that hold much more water than the pronouncements of our "leaders".

Someone mentioned oil and drug profits and "drugs for guns" schemes of the past. The people who actually run countries (their "turf" on this little planet) don't give a rat's ass about our "politics". They are the money people.

The Middle East was not simply " the perfect foe" for a new imperial adventure for our moneyed overlords, it was vital to their interests.

You don't need to "steal" actual physical oil in the dead of night. You just need to control the market so you can keep your economy afloat.

The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

Everything else, from the use of religious fundamentalism (on all sides), drug profits, increased arms sales for the military-industrial complex etc. etc.. is just a means to an end. IMHO.

Last one with all the toys wins.
.


[edit on 8/29/2005 by Gools]

Originally posted by white4life420Why? Because Amsterdam has not been suppressive of Muslim's for the sake of Oil and Israel.

But they have not been able to defend themsleves for the last century so they either let someone else do it or they get run over.....no offense, but you still speak Dutch there and not Russian or German I presume?

Oil Feeled

Originally posted by fritz
GWII was necessary to capture the Iraqi oilfields, the second biggest oilfields in the region, thus ensuring the supply of oil to the US.

It isn't just about oil, but oil is definitely an important part of the equation. It also isn't just about oil for the U.S.

Every economy in the world depends on oil one way or another which, as the Peak Oil people will tell you, has profound ramifications for world politics.

If Saddam would have succeeded in capturing and either controlling or destroying the Saudi oil wells, which he apparently intended to do, the emphasis of discussions like these would be much, much different than it is today.

The U.S. always acts in its own interests. Always.

However, it is not the only beneficiary of its policies, and it is wise to remember that.

Meanwhile, those who put themselves between the U.S. and its interests do so at their significant peril.

Propaganda to the contrary is demonstrably false. The proof lies in the historical actions of the United States, as witnessed by the world.

Whatever the "real" reasons are for the war, does anyone doubt that the US was lied to in regards to the reasons for the war?

If so, what does the law have for someone who sends that many of your sons and daughters to their death without informing you(and them) of the reasons they are being asked to make the supreme sacriface?

I have to say that I agree with Passer By. The US and UK administrations have placed a ring through our noses, fed us all bull# and led us down the road to war, like lambs to the slaughter.

The US President Richard M Nixon was impeached for much less and Bill Clinton was also forced to resign. Both men were guilty of telling lies to the American people.

GW Bush Snr had a legitimate reason for invading Iraq (perhaps) and GW Bush Jnr appears to have got away with it.

Here in the UK, I was so angry with what has been doen, in my name, that I signed up for the impeachment of 'President' Tony Blair.

Only the people have the power to stop their folk from dying in a war that should never have been started. This was will go on for years to come and we, the people, are the ones who are wrong. We need to stop this madness now!

The other thing that really bugs me, is that lop-sided almost inane smirk that Bush Jnr always wears. Kinda makes you want to reach out and slap it off his face.

The other thing that really bugs me, is that lop-sided almost inane smirk that Bush Jnr always wears. Kinda makes you want to reach out and slap it off his face.

Which one, this one? Though you might like to see it

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I gotta say that i am colour blind. But i do have to say that those eyes are the most darkest unfeeling eyes i have ever seen. What colour are they?

This guy scares me big time...................................