Another question about 9/11

[slater71]

Something else that got pushed under the rug a long ago was, did this administration tell the CIA to back off Bin Laden and the Taliban because they wanted the pipeline through Afganistan? Did they pay 43 million dollars to the Talliban in the spring of 01? And did they offer the Taliban a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs if you don`t make a deal with us?
Would this have made Bin Laden attack us on 9/11 because he had nothing to loose when he refused to deal for the pipeline? Questions that need to be asked.

[La_Serpiente]

1. Michael Moore wrote it in his book that the US gave money to the Taliban

Some people call him the 'Rush of the left'. I don't know about that characterization, but if he is going to do some research, he better check his facts.

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/text2001/17may01.html

Text: Powell Reveals $43 Million in New Aid to Afghans

Calling on the international community to "mobilize and respond generously to avert a looming humanitarian catastrophe" in Afghanistan as a result of drought and years of internecine warfare, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell announced May 17 that the U.S. is contributing an additional $43 million in new humanitarian assistance relief to Afghans.

The secretary spoke at a State Department press conference May 17 on the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, saying that the new contribution brings total U.S. aid to Afghans so far this year to $124 million. Last year the U.S. contributed about $114 million in aid, making it the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to Afghans.

Powell emphasized that the aid is distributed through the UN and non-government organizations, and not to the Taliban or other warring Afghan factions. "It bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people and much to exacerbate it," he said.

Powell also emphasized that sanctions imposed on the Taliban for their support of terrorism do not have an impact on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. "U.N. terrorism sanctions against the Taliban are 'smart' sanctions and do not hurt the Afghan people. Nor do these sanctions affect the flow of humanitarian assistance for Afghans," he said.

<snip>

We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. We hope the Taliban will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support for terrorism; their violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, especially their treatment of women and girls; and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement.

Basically, the State Department did not give the aid to the Taliban. They gave it to the UN Aid Agencies which bypass the Taliban.

The 43 million dollar myth was even spread in the UK Independent.

If anyone has any other evidence to share, feel free to share.

[DoctorMyEyes]

2. additional info

When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html

another link:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n904/a07.html

Here's a link to Clintons executive order prohibiting business with the Taliban that got UnoCals panties in such a wrinkle:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/99070602.htm

and a little more about that executive order:
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/07/F.RU.990707135633.html

[La_Serpiente]

3. thanks for the info about the UNOCAL

[DoctorMyEyes]

5. You're welcome

there's lots more out there. I don't know how Unocal manages to stay so far below the radar, but there's a LOT to know about them.

For instance - there's a landmark case that's finally going forward in a U.S. court after many appeals against Unocal. Locals in Burma (now Mirmar???) were forced into slave labor by the local military for Unocals benefit.

http://www.karen.org/news/wwwboard/messages/2390.html


More about the Taliban/Unocal deal:

..."Dick Cheney was then CEO of Haliburton Corporation, a pipeline services vendor based in Texas. Gushed Cheney in 1998, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight. The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is.".....

..."It's also exciting to the Bush Administration. According to the authors of Bin Laden, the Hidden Truth, one of the FBI's leading counter terrorism agents, John O'Neill, resigned last year in protest over the Bush Administration's alleged obstruction of his investigation into bin Laden. (A similar complaint has been filed on behalf of another unidentified FBI Agent by the conservative Judicial Watch public interest group.) Supposedly the Bush Administration had been meeting since January 2001 with the Taliban, and was also reluctant to offend Saudi Arabians who O'Neill had linked to bin Laden."....

...."Maresca's prayers have been answered with the Taliban's replacement. As reported in Le Monde, the new Afghan government's head, Hamid Karzai, formerly served as a UNOCAL consultant. Only nine days after Karzai's ascension, President Bush nominated another UNOCAL consultant and former Taliban defender, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan..."

http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

[La_Serpiente]

6. Wow,

although it may be true that the US distributed the money via UN organizations, what was the real motivation for that money transfer?

[DoctorMyEyes]

7. There's just tons of information out there

and frankly none of it looks good for the Bush administration.


Not to beat a dead horse, but here's another interesting article that includes enough specific information to provide "google fodder" to just about anything you'd want to find.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/01/15_taliban.html

I've wanted to get a copy (in english!) of the book "Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth" by the French intelligence analysts for a long time, but even without it, there's plenty of damning evidence readily available.

(doesn't it just make your head hurt? It does mine...)

on edit, adding still another link. (I've been saving stuff for a long time..... please forgive me! LOL)

Village Voice June 6,2001
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0124/ridgeway.php

[Robb]

4. A little background on the pipe

can be found in this bit I wrote for Bartcop back in November 2001.