--- Begin Message ---
Haven't made up my mind whether we got the oil issue backwards,
though for the conventional 'got-to-get-the-oil-first' view, see Dale
Allen Pfeiffer article below:
http://www.votery.org/sugdet.php?sys=911&cid=10&sid=27
Or perhaps the main intent is something we're all missing.
MacNamara
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/oil-1.htm
THE EMPIRE ISN'T IN AFGHANISTAN FOR THE OIL!
By Jared Israel
[Posted 17 May 2002]
Louie [Claude Raines]: "And what in heaven's name brought you to
Casablanca?"
Rick [Humphrey Bogart]: "My health. I came to Casablanca for the
waters."
Louie: "The waters? What waters? We're in the desert!"
Rick: "I was misinformed."
-- 'Casablanca'
We recently published an article entitled, "U.S. Won't "Abandon"
Central Asia ...Central Asians, Be Warned!" (1)
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bbc1219.htm
The article dealt with the Senate testimony last December by US
Undersecretary of State for Eurasian Affairs, Elizabeth Jones.
In her testimony, Ms. Jones mentioned Caspian Sea energy resources as
one of the areas of interest to the US government regarding Central
Asia.
I commented that this might seem to confirm the idea, held by many
opponents of what one might call the New World Empire, that
the "cause" of the Anglo-US-German assault on Afghanistan, that "the
cause was oil."
I said in passing that I believed the "they're-doing-it-for-oil"
explanation was wrong. A reader wrote the following:
"Dear Emperor's Clothes:
"I respect your work, especially your high standards and due
diligence. Sometimes when I read your articles lights go on. .
However I also respect some of the folks who are arguing that oil
explains US actions in Afghanistan. You seem to disagree. Could you
explain why, providing the documentation to which I have become
accustomed?
"Best regards,
Phil R.
High School Teacher, greater New York
Fair enough.
Since posting my commentary on the report of what Elizabeth Jones
said about Central Asia, we received, also from a NY-area reader, the
actual transcript of her remarks. Thus you can now read the full
transcript at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/alljones.htm
Here are two excerpts from the accurate summary, which was broadcast
by the Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency.
Excerpt 1:
"The USA must step up 'constant support for democratic political
institutions, local NGOs and the independent media' in all five
countries.
"At the same time, Jones stressed that the USA would render
assistance to the Central Asian states only 'providing that the
latter take specific steps towards reforms.'
"The USA believes, Jones said, that 'certain countries' in the region
should noticeably step up their economic reforms and democratic
processes, the observance of human rights and the formation of a
strong civil society.'"
Excerpt 2:
"...assistance was conditional on economic and democratic reforms and
the observance of human rights. Jones outlined US priorities in the
region: combating terrorism; reform; the rule of law; Caspian Sea
energy resources."
Having posted the quotes from Ms. Jones, I noted that people who
oppose the war against Afghanistan might see the familiar
phrase, "Caspian Sea energy resources," and think, "Aha! This proves
it!"
The 'it' in question is the widespread theory that "the reason for US
policy in Afghanistan [and elsewhere] is oil."
The 'they-do-it-for-oil' theory relies on two assumed facts:
1) We are told that the US is running out of oil and therefore the US
establishment is desperate to control the area around the oil-rich
Caspian Sea; and -
2) Negotiations between the Unocal oil company and the Taliban rulers
of Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline in the area were supposedly
going on before September 11th. The Taliban was negotiating in bad
faith or simply refused to allow a pipeline and the US government,
beholden to greedy administration members connected with Unocal, and
also worried about running out of oil, went to war to get Unocal its
pipeline.
There are several problems with this theory.
First, there is no evidence the US had to go to war to guarantee an
adequate oil supply. Fidel Castro spoke about this. Some of our
readers may admire Mr. Castro and some may not but surely all will
concede he is a shrewd observer. Commenting on the theory that oil
was "behind" the war in Afghanistan, Mr. Castro said:
"I do not share the view that the United States' main pursuit in
Afghanistan was oil. I rather see it as part of a geo-strategic
concept. No one would make such a mistake simply to go after oil,
least of all a country with access to any oil in the world, including
all the Russian oil and gas it wishes. It would be sufficient for the
U.S. to invest, to buy and to pay." (2)
- For full text of Fidel Castro's remarks, see
http://www.embacuba.ca/Doc-e.htm#Nov2
Mr. Castro is right. Before 9-11 the US was in a powerful position as
regards Caspian basin energy resources - indeed, according to an
earlier report from Secretary Jones, the main concern of the U.S. was
not getting oil but using oil-development projects to orient local
States in a way that favored US geopolitical interests.
Below is an excerpt from a report of some interesting statements made
by Elizabeth Jones on April 11, 2001 at Harvard. She was talking
about a proposed pipeline through the Caspian area (not Afghanistan)
and its relation to the core U.S. strategy of promoting Turkey as a
regional Imperial proxy force, strengthening its relations with
Georgia, which has a pro-U.S. government, and Azerbaijan, with the
goal of weakening Russian influence:
"...The Ambassador remarked on a change in the way the new
Administration talks about the oil pipeline that will run from Baku,
Azerbaijan through Tbilisi, Georgia, to the Turkish port of Ceyhan.
Jones made it clear that while the pipeline *itself* is not an
American strategic interest, the U.S. Government promoted and
continues to promote it�as a commercially viable project�because it
is seen as one of several ways to implement these U.S. strategic
goals. 'The BTC pipeline *is*,' she continued, 'a strategic interest
of Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.'"
"... In the early nineteen nineties, when newly independent
Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan began to increase oil production and
exports, the existing pipeline system led through Russia. Moscow used
the pipelines as political leverage, 'turning off the spigots' when
the Caspian states acted in ways that were seen as threatening
Russia's interests (such as joining NATO's Partnership for Peace). To
guard against dependence on Russia and also prevent dependence on
Iran, which would have an interest in controlling Caspian oil because
it is a competitor in the oil market, the U.S. supported a policy of
multiple pipelines..."
-- Emphasis as in original. To read entire text go to
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/Library.nsf/pubs/AmbJones
In other words, rather than being interested in Central Asia "because
of oil," the U.S. was interested in oil "because of Central Asia."
This follows an age-old truth: the poor seek security. The rich seek
more money. But the real rulers seek power, because power gets them
control of *everything* that human beings seek.
Second, the theory that the U.S. went to war because the Taliban were
being intransigent regarding an oil pipeline falsely assumes the
Taliban were the independent rulers of Afghanistan.
Actually the Taliban were under active control of the Pakistani army
and secret police, and were funded by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both
of which, especially Saudi Arabia, are part of the U.S. Empire.
Indeed there is substantial evidence that the US covert apparatus
supported the Taliban for a long time. For more on this,
see "Congressman: U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban to be Slaughtered'" at
http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/rohr.htm
So if the Taliban were being difficult in some important oil pipeline
negotiations, why wouldn't the U.S. government simply put pressure on
them to 'get with the program'? Why bomb the place to smithereens?
And what is the hard evidence that the Taliban did *not* want a
pipeline?
That evidence better be pretty good because it does not make sense
for the Taliban to have opposed a pipeline. Pipelines bring in lots
of cash. A pipeline would have decreased the Taliban's financial
dependence on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The Taliban were
extremists but they weren't fools.
Moreover, we have strong evidence the Taliban did *not* resist
building a pipeline. Quite the contrary.
According to the Petroleum Economist of February 11, 2002, it was the
Taliban which tried to get a trans-Afghan pipeline, and it was the
U.S. and Unocal which jinxed the project.
This can be found in an analytical article in the Petroleum
Economist, entitled, "ANALYSIS; PIPELINE SURVEY; RUSSIA GOES TO
MARKET." Note that the Economist is the most sophisticated journal of
the oil industry. It is not read by the general public. It has zero
interest in molding public opinion. Its purpose is to provide
insiders with accurate information. Here's the Petroleum Economist:
"The Taliban promoted Afghanistan as an oil and gas transit point for
exports from the Caspian to the Mideast Gulf. In 1997, Turkmenistan
brokered the creation of an international consortium, CentGas, under
the leadership of Unocal, which planned to build a $2bn gas line
across Afghanistan. The imposition of US and, later, UN sanctions
against the country and then Unocal's withdrawal put a stop to the
plan.
The project envisaged a 1,270-km, 20bn cubic metres a year link from
the border with Turkmenistan, along the Herat-Kandahar road, to the
Pakistan border, at Quetta, ending at Mulat." (3)
Proponents of the theory that the U.S. attacked Afghanistan "because
of the Afghan oil pipeline" must explain why the US establishment
first took the action which made it *impossible* to build a pipeline
and then attacked Afghanistan to make it *possible* to build a
pipeline.
Having killed the pipeline project, if the United States
establishment subsequently changed its mind and decided it wanted a
pipeline built after all, and if Unocal changed its mind and decided
now that it wanted to build the pipeline, why wouldn't the US simply
remove the sanctions which were what was preventing investors from
putting up the cash to build the pipeline?
Pipelines are vulnerable to attack, so going to war is the worst
thing for building a pipeline. Nobody will invest money in building a
pipeline in a country that is engulfed in war. But wars are tricky
business. Once you start a war, especially in an area like Central
Asia, it is difficult to say for sure when it will end. Afghanistan
is a maze of difficult terrains, literally and figuratively.
Thus the Petroleum Economist notes, in its dry way, that the war is
not helping the pipeline project one bit:
"But the reservations of the international investment community, wary
of becoming involved in a still-volatile area, suggest enthusiasm
about pipeline projects in the country may be premature."
- Petroleum Economist, see footnote (3)
Ahh, premature.
Moreover, this war has, predictably, destabilized a highly volatile
region jam-packed with nuclear weapons. The threat of nuclear war has
been increased. The U.S. would only risk nuclear war for the biggest
stakes - certainly not to build a pipeline, which it could have built
with no problem if instead of going to war it had lifted the
sanctions against Afghanistan.
The "they-are-in-Afghanistan-for-the-oil" theory has another problem.
The test of theory is its usefulness in predicting events.
But those who now put forward the "they are in it for the oil" theory
did not predict the attack on Afghanistan.
Rather, believing that "the US is motivated by oil," they predicted
that, following the terrible events of 9-11, the US would launch
military action in the Middle East, most likely against Iraq.
I am not saying the US and Britain will not - once again- escalate
their pitiless war against Iraq, a war of bombs and sanctions which
has killed so many Iraqis and had the secondary but also quite
harmful collateral effect of increasing world-wide political respect
for the increasingly distorted leaders in Iraq.
No, I am not saying the U.S. and England will definitely not escalate
the war against Iraq. But please consider that, despite the
predictions made by analysts who hold the "they're-in-it-for-the-oil"
theory, who have been saying ever since 9-11 that an all out attack
on Iraq is imminent, please note that in the eight months since 9-11
escalation against Iraq has not yet occured. This of course suggests
that the threat of a massive attack on Iraq is a diversion to shift
our gaze away from the central point of New World Empire interest:
Central Asia.
I do not wish to be unkind but really, what is left of the "they-did-
it-for-the-oil" theory?
It is apparently based on wrong information, asserting that the
Taliban was the obstacle to an Afghan pipeline, when common sense and
facts from a reliable source tell us the Taliban wanted the pipeline.
It fails to consider that war is the worst thing for pipelines.
Those who put forth this theory failed, every one of them, to predict
the invasion of Afghanistan, arguing instead that "because-they're-in-
it-for-the- oil," the U.S. government would invade the Middle East,
specifically Iraq.
(Though if the U.S. government really "wants oil" why not make a
mutually beneficial settlement with the Iraqi government? The Iraqi
leaders would come to terms with the new World Empire in two seconds
flat, given the chance. They have exactly zero interest in fighting
the US Empire. It is clearly the US which picked the fight.)
On September 18th, Emperor's Clothes published an article we had
started working on right after 9-11. In it we made some predictions
based on our own hypothesis.
We said the central (that is, dominant) goal of the New World Empire
was to fully encircle Russia with Imperial proxy states and
gradually - including the use of phony rebellions and military
attrition - reduce Russia and certain other former Soviet states to
shattered, totally impoverished territories under Imperial
domination. That is not an arbitrary goal, born of malice. Those who
run the New World Empire (centered in the U.S. establishment) are
fully aware that Russia and China are the most likely potential
counter weight to their power. Therefore for over a decade they have
been patiently laying a noose around Russia's neck. As the gangster
said in the movie, 'The Godfather," nothing personal. It's only
business.
Our article was entitled, "Why Washington Wants Afghanistan." It is at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
Note that this article was published *before* the US attacked
Afghanistan. It is hard to remember, but at first it wasn't at all
clear that the US planned to attack Afghanistan, or only Afghanistan.
Note that at that time, columnists and politicians were threatening
that the US would launch all-out war against many countries. (4)
Note that the proponents of the "they're-in-it-for-the-oil" theory
were all saying the US had gone insane and was about to attack
everyone under the sun, particularly Iraq.
When we wrote that in fact the U.S. was going to concentrate on
Afghanistan, a lot of people, particularly on the "left," said we
were hallucinating. Afghanistan, they said. What did the US want with
Afghanistan?
Note that we were 100% correct.
At first the list of countries the US promised to bomb for
("harboring terrorists") was limited to Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Libya,
North Korea and Sudan. As we noted in our article, there was no
evidence that any of these countries had ties with Osama bin Laden.
In fact, the opposite was true:
"... the countries which collaborated to create the Taliban, training
and financing the forces of Osama bin Laden, and which have never
stopped pouring money into the Taliban - namely Pakistan...Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and the United States itself -
have not been placed on the 'we've got to get them' list. Instead
these states are touted as core allies in the New World War against
terrorism."
- "Why Washington Wants Afghanistan" at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
We quoted Donald Rumsfeld who, on September 16th, upped the number of
countries threatened with US attack to 60:
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the US would engage in
a 'multi-headed effort' to target terrorist organizations and up to
60 countries believed to be supporting them.
"The US, Mr. Rumsfeld told American TV, 'had no choice' other than to
pursue terrorists and countries giving them refuge."
- BBC News, September 16th
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-waterloo-stories/2001-
September/000215.html
We made the following argument:
[START EXCERPT FROM 'WHY WASHINGTON WANTS AFGHANISTAN']
"The threats to bomb up to a third of the world's countries has
scared many people, worldwide. This, we think, is the intention. It
serves two functions.
"First, it means that if Washington limits its aggressive action
mainly to attacking Afghanistan, the world will breathe a sigh of
relief.
"And we think Washington will mainly attack Afghanistan - at first.
Other immediate violations of sovereignty, such as the forced use of
Pakistan, will be backup action to support the attack on Afghanistan.
There may also be some state terror, such as increased, unprovoked
bombing of Iraq, as a diversion. But the main immediate focus will,
we think, be Afghanistan.
"Second, this scare tactic [of threatening to bomb everyone] is meant
to divert attention from Washington's real strategy, far more
dangerous than the threat to bomb many states. Washington wants to
take over Afghanistan in order to speed up the fulfillment of its
strategy of pulverizing the former Soviet Republics in the same way
Washington has been pulverizing the former Yugoslavia. This poses the
gravest risks [of nuclear war] to mankind. (4)
[END EXCERPT FROM 'WHY WASHINGTON WANTS AFGHANISTAN' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
We argued that Washington would strive to bring together elements of
all the various Islamic fundamentalist sects in Afghanistan into a
united force under its control. Washington did not wish to destroy
the Taliban. Rather, it wished to take Afghanistan into receivership,
so to speak, because the Taliban was incompetent and unreliable, and
the Empire needed to move NATO forces directly into the area to speed
up the encirclement of Russia:
"It is our conviction, and that of many observers from the region in
question, that Washington ordered Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fund
the Taliban so the Taliban could do a job: consolidate control over
Afghanistan and from there move to destabilize the former Soviet
Central Asian Republics on its borders. But the Taliban has failed.
It has not defeated the Russian-backed Northern Alliance. Instead of
subverting Central Asia in businesslike fashion, it has indulged in
blowing up statues of Buddha and terrorizing people who deviate from
the Taliban's super-repressive interpretation of Islam."
'Why Washington Wants Afghanistan." (4)
The inefficiency of the Taliban was one of the reasons Washington
moved into Afghanistan. The other reason was that Russia was taking
independent steps which could challenge Washington's hegemonic rule:
"...China and Russia have signed a mutual defense pact. (5) And
despite immense European/U.S. pressure, Russian President Putin
refused to condemn Belarussian President Lukashenko who, like the
jailed but unbroken Yugoslav President Milosevic, calls for standing
up to NATO. (6) It is this unfavorable series of developments that
has caused Washington to increase its reliance on its all-time
favorite tactic: extreme brinkmanship." (4)
Since the invasion of Afghanistan, the encirclement of Russia has
greatly intensified. For example, NATO has developed much closer
military ties with the Central Asian Republics. There are now
US 'advisers' in Georgia, a former Soviet Republic on Russia's
strategic southern flank, whose government is hostile to Russia.
Russian leader Vladimir Gorbachev - oh, I am so sorry, I meant
Vladimir *Putin*! - has used the excuse of a supposed "united fight
against terror" to isolate Russian patriots and make major
concessions to Washington.
As an added Imperial benefit, the supposed war on terrorism has
confused some patriots in Russia and elsewhere in another way.
Seeing that the U.S. *says* it wants to fight the Islamic terrorists,
and having failed to organize ordinary people to defend and reclaim
the social gains of the Soviet period, they toy with the "solution"
of allying with Islamic fundamentalist and authoritarian Muslim
states under the illusion that in this way they can build a real
coalition against the New World Empire. In fact, the Islamic
fundamentalist and authoritarian forces are the deadly enemies of
ordinary people, pushing the most backward ideas (such as the most
brutal oppression of women, violent hatred of Jews, religious
tyranny, glorification of terrorism, and so on) and the most
authoritarian conditions of political life. It is far better not to
have allies than it is to have allies like these.
In fact, the only solid basis on which to build if one would oppose
the New World Empire is: the political understanding of ordinary
people. Perhaps the most important people in the world - because of
where they live - are the peoples of the former Soviet Union.
In October we published an article which discussed the danger that
those who want to resist the Empire would adopt the superficial
political strategy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." That they
would support the Islamic fundamentalists (e.g., Islamic Jihad,
Hammas, etc.) and the equally dangerous authoritarian Muslim regimes
and movements (e.g., Saddam Hussein, Arafat) because, superficially,
the Empire *seems* to oppose them. That article is called 'Osama bin
Laden, Terrorist Monster: Take Two!' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo-a.htm
Now we see, unfortunatly, that some in the former Socialist
countries, who should know better, and others in the Western peace
movement are making this mistake. We will discuss this more in other
articles.
And as for the Taliban, despite the ruthless bombing of Afghanistan,
which killed so many civilians, despite the pictures released by the
US military of prisoners in Guantanamo, intended to show how
*ruthlessly* they were suppressing the Taliban, in fact what has
happened? On October 19th we wrote:
"We have been sold a vicious little war, my friends. The terrorists
will not be eliminated. They will be regrouped into a more effective
force. The talk of keeping 'moderate Taliban' in the government is
the tip-off. A 'moderate Taliban' is one who does what the U.S. tells
him to do. Washington plans to combine some of these moderates with
moderate muhajedeen (i.e., terrorists) from the Northern Alliance,
with the aim of creating a unified moderate terrorist apparatus
modeled after the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)." (12)
So we predicted that much of the Taliban would be absorbed into the
armies of the new Afghan puppet state. And look what was reported as
early as January of this year:
"THOUSANDS of former Taliban soldiers are being recruited into a new
Afghan army, where they are being armed with Russian AK47 rifles and
dressed in uniforms provided by the United States. Some soldiers in
Mullah Mohammed Omar's former stronghold estimate that as many as
6,000 Taleban will soon be part of Kandahar�s new army."
- This was originally published by the (London) Times at
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002027355,00.html
But you can more easily access the article at
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020118/world.htm#3
The U.S. claim that it is fighting Islamic fundamentalism in
Afghanistan is a farce, as demonstrated by the policy of continuing
to ship Islamic fundamentalist textbooks into that tortured country.
See
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm
How well this new puppet state, based on an army combining all the
gruesome factions of Islamic fundamentalists which Washington and
Saudi Arabia have created in Afghanistan and Pakistan since 1979, an
army which is more like an archeological dig, with its various layers
representing the various nightmares schemes of the boys in Langley,
Virginia, how well this living expression of the agony which
Bryzinsky's slick schemers have inflicted on the people of
Afghanistan, how well this puppet state and army will ever function
remains to be seen.
We read in the Washington Post of a week ago that the CIA has been
trying to assassinate Gulbuddin Hekmatyar:
"In the U.S. view, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is a villain who deserves a
violent death, although he is different from the al-Qaida and Taliban
leaders previously targeted by the military and CIA in Afghanistan.
"The CIA took a shot at Hekmatyar with a missile from one of its
unmanned Predator drones on Monday near Kabul, but missed, defense
officials said. The missile killed some of his followers.
"U.S. officials accuse Hekmatyar of plotting attacks on American
troops, offering rewards for their deaths and trying to destabilize
the U.S.-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai. At the same time,
officials acknowledge that Hekmatyar, who once served as
Afghanistan's prime minister, has limited ties to the Taliban and is
only suspected of working with al-Qaida. But they say his anti-U.S.
activities make him a more immediate threat than the other feuding
warlords.
"'I can assure you when we go after individuals in the theater of
war, it is because they intend to do some harm to America,' President
Bush said Thursday when asked about the strike."
- Associated Press Online * May 10, 2002 Friday
WASHINGTON DATELINE * "CIA Fails to Kill Afghan Warlord* By JOHN J.
LUMPKIN
"Go after individuals in the theater of war." What a nice, Bush-
folksy way of saying "trying to murder people."
To understand the horrible irony of this, you should know that
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was the fanatic into whose pockets the CIA pumped
much of its billions of dollars of Afghan blood money, and who was
installed as a "Prime Minister" after the overthrow of the Afghan
secular government. For more on this go to
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/camps.htm#1
Some news reports said that the recent unpleasantness had occured
because Mr. Hekmatyar was trying to murder Americans.
Perhaps he was. Or perhaps he wasn't.
Perhaps Hekmatyar heard that the CIA was trying to murder him and in
proper gangster fashion, he tried to kill them first.
Or maybe he and the CIA boys were trying to murder each other.
Maybe 'Murder' is the proper word to describe what Washington has
visited upon Afghanistan.
Maybe it was Murder Incorporated that set up shop in Afghanistan
in1979 when the idiot-monsters at CIA in Langley, Virginia began
trying to "draw Russia into the Afghan trap," in the process of which
they turned an ancient land of wonderful people into living hell.
And maybe by the time Washington finishes this latest phase of its 23
year old murderous "we're-in-it-to-destroy-Russia" Afghan nightmare,
maybe by the time it's all over, the New World Empire will earnestly
wish that in fact it had gone to Afghanistan only for the oil.
-- Jared Israel
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Receive articles that appear on Emperor's Clothes.
*****************************************
Further Reading on US/NATO Encirclement of Russia
****************************************
For map of Central Asia, see
http://www.sitara.com/central_asia_map.html
1) US WON'T 'ABANDON' CENTRAL ASIA ...CENTRAL ASIANS, BE WARNED!"
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bbc1219.htm
2) For full text of Fidel Castro's remarks on the war in Afghanistan
plus other issues, see
http://www.embacuba.ca/Doc-e.htm#Nov2
(3) Petroleum Economist, February 11, 2002, Pg.12
"ANALYSIS; PIPELINE SURVEY; RUSSIA GOES TO MARKET" * "After the
Taliban,"
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/pipe-tal.htm
4) 'Why Washington Wants Afghanistan,' by Jared Israel, Rick Rozoff &
Nico Varkevisser, analyzes the geo-political designs behind the
massive deception called The War On Terror"
http://www.tenc.net/analysis/afghan.htm
* En Fran�ais
http://emperors-clothes.com/french/articles/pourquoi.htm
* Deutsch
http://emperors-clothes.com/german/articles/d-afghan-i.htm
5) What's the Target of the U.S. Move into Central Asia?
Two news reports look at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
which includes Russia, China and the Central Asian former Soviet
Republics.
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/sco.htm
For more on the encirclement of Russia:
5a) Afghan Operation Leaves Russia 'Encircled' by US-NATO
by Sergey Ptichkin and Aleksey Chichkin
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/encircle.htm
5b) "US Military Pushes into Ex-Soviet Georgia Under Guise of
Fighting Terror," by Rick Rozoff can be read at http://emperors-
clothes.com/articles/rozoff/pushes.htm
6) 'Why is NATO Decimating the Balkans and Trying to Force Milosevic
to Surrender?' by Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser. Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/whyisn.htm
7) Osama Bin Laden was propelled into power as part of the U.S. drive
to create an Islamist terrorist movement for use, in the first
instance, to crush the former Soviet Union. See the truly amazing
account from the 'Washington Post,' 'Washington's Backing of Afghan
Terrorists: Deliberate Policy.' at http://emperors-
clothes.com/docs/anatomy.htm
8) 'Osama bin Laden: Made in USA,' by Jared Israel. This article
includes quotes from a New York Times piece documenting the vast sums
spent creating Islamist terrorism. It can be read at http://emperors-
clothes.com/articles/jared/madein.htm
9) To read the New York Times piece quoted in the above article, go
to 'Afghan Taliban Camps Were Built by NATO,' By TIM WEINER
The New York Times August 24, 1998, at http://emperors-
clothes.com/docs/camps.htm
10) One of Washingon's most amazing uses of terrorists (amazing
because of the extent of the hypocrisy involved) is against
Macedonia, whose government, like that of Mr. Putin, did everything
to please the American Empire. Macedonia is nevertheless - and
indeed, all the more easily - now being destroyed. See "Articles
Documenting Washington's Terrorist Attack on Macedonia,' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/mac/listm.htm
11) Regarding bin Laden's supposed break with the CIA, see 'Gaping
Holes in the 'Washington Hates bin Laden' Story,' by Jared Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm
12) 'Kosovo Concentration Camps : The KLA Archipelago' Can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/reporter.htm
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Receive articles posted on Emperor's Clothes.
Click here to email the link to this article to a friend.
=======================================
Emperor's Clothes Needs Your Help!
=======================================
Emperor's Clothes has only one source of income - your donations. We
want everyone to read our articles, whether they can afford to
contribute money or not. But if you can contribute, please do; we are
able to continue based on your help.
To keep Emperor's Clothes publishing please send whatever
contributions you can! $20, $50, $100, $500, $1000, whatever you can
afford. Every penny will be used to get articles to more people.
(But whether or not you make a donation, please continue reading
Emperor's Clothes!)
You can make a donation using Paypal at
https:[EMAIL PROTECTED]&no_shippin
g=1
You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
Or Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)
Or make a donation by phone at the donation line, (U.S.) 617 916-
1705.
We can now accept donations through e-gold. Our account # is 444982.
Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let
us know by email at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to make sure we receive it.
Thanks!
You Can Be an Emperor's Clothes Sponsor!
Help Emperor's Clothes grow! You can automatically contribute any sum
you wish via credit card once a month. In this way you will help put
Emperor's Clothes on a more reliable financial basis. To become a
Sponsor, write [EMAIL PROTECTED] and we'll contact you Thanks!
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes.
www.emperors-clothes.com or
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at
http://globalresistance.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/xYTolB/TM";><B>Click
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs
-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- End Message ---
