This might be interesting.

Umm, I think this might be important, or at least interesting. Whether or not it is relevant or not is up to you, but you should seriously read this and think about it for a moment. This is the first time I have actually started a thread like this, but I honestly believe people should read it. The full article is here: http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=13331
The conclusion, which sums up what the article outlines -minus the evidence- is this:

"Did the threats of war levied against the Taliban on behalf of Unocal spur Osama bin Laden into murderous action on behalf of his host nation? Was his attack made easier because the Bush administration willfully weakened our intelligence apparatus so as to avoid offending potential client states? Is it possible that the dust and ruin in New York and Washington are byproducts of a pipeline deal that was pursued before the attacks, and has been allowed to come to fruition in the aftermath?

Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasique would have us believe so. Recent news has vigorously bolstered their allegations. If further revelations come to light, there will indeed be hell to pay. "

Like an "X-Files" episode, it only works if you want to believe. You should do some background checking on Working Assets. This is not a news agency, but an organisation with an agenda, one that primarily involves convincing people of the 'evils' of capitalism, especially American capitalism. For starters, Consider this suposedly damning paragraph:

"Pakistani news agencies reported [u]in the weeks before September 11th[/u] that America had threatened war against the Taliban if they did not agree to the pipeline deal. "Accept our carpet of gold," the Bush administration is reported to have said, "or be buried under a carpet of bombs."

(my underline) So, an attack that took [u]years[/u] to plan, came about because [u]in the weeks before September 11th[/u], the Taliban was subjected to "...dire threats of war, believable enough that the September 11th attack could well be seen as a pre-emptive strike by bin Laden and the Taliban..."

This should be funny. I'm sad to read that someone I usually admire for clear thought, has been sucked in.

This is all part of the so called "right wing conspiracy". Unfortunately, as Lordathestrings has pointed out, it doesn't exactly hold up to any serious critique.

Originally posted by workingforchangecom
Brisard and Dasique were paid little mind by the American news media. Many of their allegations were based upon conjecture, circumstantial evidence, and the words of a dead man named John O'Neill.

I dont think it ever tries to put across a water-tight-will-stand-up-in-court acrgument.
There's is another that has been over looked, bin laden is still a SUSPECT, who has denied involvment in 911 and the embassies, so really the press shouldn't say he was responsible... do you know what i mean?
the articicle is a little bit of a strech really (although, the whole pipeline deal has been well publisised on the net, and by a few MPs here)..
THe whole 911 made my view of the media grow up very quickly. I realized, you cant fight it by word of mouth. (which is really scary if your a big name musicain, and allegation of child abuse or whatever get aired to death... I mean, the sad fact is the majority of poeple would believe it simple cos they were told it over and over again.. grrr) But then again (as ponyone pointed out) it's been used by poeple for thier own agendas, by everyone from the isreali's to the palastinains *LOL*..
I dont think there's any "conspiricy" *looks over shoulder*... I just think that the worlds top super power, is sadly ready to use military force for financail gain, but the media actaully perpetuates this.. by being "patriotic", and refusing to ask the critical questions... or correcting mistakes, liek the arabic flight instructor who was arrested, and apperantly had his photo taken with one of the hijackers (who actually turned out to be his cousin not the hijacker), gave them lessons (later, it was found the dates never matched), alledgely had a phone number of the some al quaida fund raising group (which was later found not to be).... They dont report this, the only people who reported this wer channel 4, when they showed like 10 minute exertes from an interview with him, now that he's free (the guy is only in his twenties, but because of those allegations, he'll never work on a plane again... another happy customer)... Why doesn't the US media report the screw ups? Does it feel no sense of morality, or is just a case of the viewers being happy told that the popele in charge are great, they always get the guy, crime doesn't pay, there no such thing as a perfect crime (which is the stupidest idea that alot of poeple beleive. How in god's name do you know there's no such thing as a perfect crime? The whole point of them is no one finds out... and i had trouble convincing my 50+ form tutor last year of this, poeple are so dense... heheheh) etc etc.

if you look at the history of the "junk bonds" (the milikan (Sp?) bonds) and the whole corprate raiders phase, and how those buisness men acted, and how companies gave cosy names to employees worst nightmares (eg "down sizing", actually means, we'er gonna fire lots of you, to suppousedly make this place more efficient, which worked in some cases i'll admit) (by the way as a result of the junk bonds, the real corprate power lies with the pensioners... I'd recommend some reaserch, it's a really cool subject) ... you see that corprate life is reflected very heavily on the Us admin, and the media.. being biased and one sided, no longer seems that bad anymore, it's "patroitic" *talks like ruby wax "just let roll of the tounge sweety.. p-at-rio-tic"*... same shist, differnt name..
oh well... *curses at the conseravtive middle classes for being so with drawn from forign polices.... oh well, it looks it'll always be down to us students*
:)
intresting read though... hehe, now where was i? ... oh yeah... *gets back to work*

Quote: 'The Bush administration willingly entered parley with the Taliban, despite their care and feeding of wanted killer Osama bin Laden, so as to further the goals on an American petroleum interest.'

If any of you have ever seen 'The Godfather part 2' you may be familiar with the line 'My father once taught me, "keep you friends close and your enemies even closer"' That line may be part of fiction but there's a striking comparison to be made here.....who knows what other motifs Bush may have had.

One thing I was taught when I studied history was never to get 'sucked in' by one viewpoint or one set of evidence. On the surfice this seems like a logical and well thought out argument, but when a lot of it comes from things reported in newspapers you have to remember how full of **** the press can be, plus they may be biassed against the Americans and use easily-manipulated situations such as this to their advantage. There will always be theories kicked around and what you believe or disbelieve is up to you, but I believe that sometimes you can never fully prove anything, some things will always be open for debate. New evidence can emerge that sugests people who were convinced they were right are very wrong. It's important to keep an open mind.

But what the hell, Bardsly was righ, the stuff in the article was certainly worth reading.

Originally posted by ^Chacron^
plus [the press] may be biassed against the Americans . . .

"May be"? How about "are biased".

lol gimmi a break I'm tired :P

Originally posted by PonyOne
Then he could finish the job his daddy couldn't in Iraq and save his family's face.

Bush Sr. chose not to finish that war under the premise that a weakened Saddam would be overthrown by his own people. Dumb move.


...Not that I've heard a good reason to invade Iraq now. We're not even hearing the "we've got evidence, we just can't show it to you" argument for that kind of action.

I think Saddam realizes that the embargo is his key to staying in power and that getting caught screwing with the US will mean another stomping that won't end until he's removed from power, one way or another.

I admit there are serious issues in that article that are ignored, like as Lordathestrings suggests, the fact that the attack seems to have been years in the making. However, it's like the debate about whether Bush knew anyhting about the S11 attacks before they happened. It's not so much whether he did, as I honestly believe that he would have done anything he could to stop it happening, and it's not whether the pipeline deal actually sparked off S11, but instead just the information on the deal. It's the kind of pressure that the American government puts on other countries to further their own economic interests, without thought for the possible consequences. I don't believe that there is a "right wing conspiracy", just as I don't believe there is a left-wing one, but I do think that there are passages in that article worth thinking about.
What was all the rhetoric about dealing with terrorists, etc, that Bush came up with after the attacks? Seeing as his government seems to have had a lot to do with regimes supporting terrorism, it's an interesting call to make.