Oil, Money, and Military Might
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia&Montenegro
Age: 56
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very refreshing to see something different of CNN and other Goebells' reporting machines. And maybe more interesting to see reactions to that:
"Well, we have been told what the truth is and we don't want to accept the existance of any possibility that it was , maybe, a lie."
What is your next country? Hope, not mine again!
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
"Well, we have been told what the truth is and we don't want to accept the existance of any possibility that it was , maybe, a lie."
What is your next country? Hope, not mine again!
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: North Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roll Roll,
From the tone of your post it sounds as if you prefer to believe anything other than CNN or BBC news reports ? I suppose 10 years of war in the Balkans was all a figment of the CNN news producer's imagination...filmed in a studio in Hollywood ? Let me guess, you've been watching the film "Wag the dog" where the USA stage manage the media to show reports of a fake war against Albania ?
Unlike your previous masters in Belgrade, democratic countries' leaders know only too well what happens if they start to meddle with the truth too much....remember Nixon ?
In Tor Wot's theory sounds the most plausible, because it is the most plausible.
Unlike Yugoslavia, most countries consider genocide to be a bit naughty - that's why I find it hard to believe the CIA organised or were complicit in the attacks on Sept 11th.
From the tone of your post it sounds as if you prefer to believe anything other than CNN or BBC news reports ? I suppose 10 years of war in the Balkans was all a figment of the CNN news producer's imagination...filmed in a studio in Hollywood ? Let me guess, you've been watching the film "Wag the dog" where the USA stage manage the media to show reports of a fake war against Albania ?
Unlike your previous masters in Belgrade, democratic countries' leaders know only too well what happens if they start to meddle with the truth too much....remember Nixon ?
In Tor Wot's theory sounds the most plausible, because it is the most plausible.
Unlike Yugoslavia, most countries consider genocide to be a bit naughty - that's why I find it hard to believe the CIA organised or were complicit in the attacks on Sept 11th.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZAHN: Boy, if any of these charges are true...
Tue Jan 8 17:50:00 2002
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15737" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15737</a>
AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html</a>
Explosive New Book Published in France Alleges that U.S.
Was in Negotiations to Do a Deal with Taliban
Aired January 8, 2002 - 07:34 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL
FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
============================================================ =====
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Time to check in with ambassador-in- residence,
Richard Butler, this morning. An explosive new book published in France
alleges that the United States was in negotiations to do a deal with the
Taliban for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan.
Joining us right now is Richard Butler to shed some light on this new
book. He is the former chief U.N. weapons inspector. He is now on the
Council on Foreign Relations and our own ambassador-in- residence --
good morning.
RICHARD BUTLER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good
morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Boy, if any of these charges are true...
BUTLER: If...
ZAHN: ... this...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ... is really big news.
BUTLER: I agree.
ZAHN: Start off with what your understanding is of what is in this book
-- the most explosive charge.
BUTLER: The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush
administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office
slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan
in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across
Afghanistan.
ZAHN: And this book points out that the FBI's deputy director, John
O'Neill, actually resigned because he felt the U.S. administration was
obstructing...
BUTLER: A proper...
ZAHN: ... the prosecution of terrorism.
BUTLER: Yes, yes, a proper intelligence investigation of terrorism. Now,
you said if, and I affirmed that in responding to you. We have to be
careful here. These are allegations. They're worth airing and talking
about, because of their gravity. We don't know if they are correct. But
I believe they should be investigated, because Central Asian oil, as we
were discussing yesterday, is potentially so important. And all prior
attempts to have a pipeline had to be done through Russia. It had to be
negotiated with Russia.
Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the
need to deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a
pipeline through Russia would cost. So financially and politically,
there's a big prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to
the Pakistan coast would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and
more cheaply.
ZAHN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) as you spoke about this yesterday, we almost
immediately got a call from "The New York Times."
BUTLER: Right.
ZAHN: They want you to write an op-ed piece on this over the weekend.
BUTLER: Right, and which I will do.
ZAHN: But let's come back to this whole issue of what John O'Neill, this
FBI agent...
BUTLER: Right.
ZAHN: ... apparently told the authors of this book. He is alleging that
-- what -- the U.S. government was trying to protect U.S. oil interests?
And at the same time, shut off the investigation of terrorism to allow
for that to happen?
BUTLER: That's the allegation that instead of prosecuting properly an
investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now
know, or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in
order to pursue oil interests with the Taliban. The people who we have
now bombed out of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says
that the negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a
carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs. That's what
the book alleges.
ZAHN: Well, I know you're going to be doing your own independent
homework on this...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ... to see if you can confirm any of this. Let's move on to the
whole issue of Iraq. The deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, at
one time was considered one of those voices within the administration...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ... that was pushing for moving beyond Afghanistan. He seemed to
back off a little from that yesterday.
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: What do you read through the tea leaves here?
BUTLER: A very interesting report that the administration will focus on
the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia as places where there are al Qaeda
cells. But the word Iraq wasn't used by the man who was the chief hawk
-- used as a, you know, as a future target. So what I interpret from
that is this: That very likely our allies have been saying to us, this
is too hard. This is
really serious. Be careful. Saddam is essentially contained at the
moment.
Don't start, you know, a bigger problem either in the Arab world or in
the coalition by going after him. And Wolfowitz, it seems, has probably
accepted that.
ZAHN: A quick thought on the Israelis intercepting this latest armed
shipment? What that means? You've got to do it in about 15 seconds.
BUTLER: It's extraordinarily serious, because it seems to have been tied
to Yasser Arafat himself. It needs to be further investigated, but you
know, Paula, the potentiality that this could once again prove an
impediment to resume peace negotiations is really quite serious.
ZAHN: Thank you as usual for covering so much territory. Richard Butler,
see you same time, same place tomorrow morning.
BUTLER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
ZAHN: We appreciate your insights.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL
800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM
LOCATED AT <a href="http://www.fdch.com." target="_blank">www.fdch.com.</a>
============================================================ ============
===
The Bush-Bin Laden Money Connection
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15727" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15727</a>
BUSH SR. IN BUSINESS WITH BIN LADEN FAMILY
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15729" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15729</a>
We the People of the U.S want to know....
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15730" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15730</a>
MAJOR MEDIA WON'T TALK ABOUT IT
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15700" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15700</a>
Petition to the Senate to Investigate Oddities
Involving 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15725" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15725</a>
Tue Jan 8 17:50:00 2002
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15737" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15737</a>
AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html</a>
Explosive New Book Published in France Alleges that U.S.
Was in Negotiations to Do a Deal with Taliban
Aired January 8, 2002 - 07:34 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL
FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
============================================================ =====
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Time to check in with ambassador-in- residence,
Richard Butler, this morning. An explosive new book published in France
alleges that the United States was in negotiations to do a deal with the
Taliban for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan.
Joining us right now is Richard Butler to shed some light on this new
book. He is the former chief U.N. weapons inspector. He is now on the
Council on Foreign Relations and our own ambassador-in- residence --
good morning.
RICHARD BUTLER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good
morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Boy, if any of these charges are true...
BUTLER: If...
ZAHN: ... this...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ... is really big news.
BUTLER: I agree.
ZAHN: Start off with what your understanding is of what is in this book
-- the most explosive charge.
BUTLER: The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush
administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office
slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan
in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across
Afghanistan.
ZAHN: And this book points out that the FBI's deputy director, John
O'Neill, actually resigned because he felt the U.S. administration was
obstructing...
BUTLER: A proper...
ZAHN: ... the prosecution of terrorism.
BUTLER: Yes, yes, a proper intelligence investigation of terrorism. Now,
you said if, and I affirmed that in responding to you. We have to be
careful here. These are allegations. They're worth airing and talking
about, because of their gravity. We don't know if they are correct. But
I believe they should be investigated, because Central Asian oil, as we
were discussing yesterday, is potentially so important. And all prior
attempts to have a pipeline had to be done through Russia. It had to be
negotiated with Russia.
Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the
need to deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a
pipeline through Russia would cost. So financially and politically,
there's a big prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to
the Pakistan coast would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and
more cheaply.
ZAHN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) as you spoke about this yesterday, we almost
immediately got a call from "The New York Times."
BUTLER: Right.
ZAHN: They want you to write an op-ed piece on this over the weekend.
BUTLER: Right, and which I will do.
ZAHN: But let's come back to this whole issue of what John O'Neill, this
FBI agent...
BUTLER: Right.
ZAHN: ... apparently told the authors of this book. He is alleging that
-- what -- the U.S. government was trying to protect U.S. oil interests?
And at the same time, shut off the investigation of terrorism to allow
for that to happen?
BUTLER: That's the allegation that instead of prosecuting properly an
investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now
know, or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in
order to pursue oil interests with the Taliban. The people who we have
now bombed out of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says
that the negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a
carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs. That's what
the book alleges.
ZAHN: Well, I know you're going to be doing your own independent
homework on this...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ... to see if you can confirm any of this. Let's move on to the
whole issue of Iraq. The deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, at
one time was considered one of those voices within the administration...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ... that was pushing for moving beyond Afghanistan. He seemed to
back off a little from that yesterday.
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: What do you read through the tea leaves here?
BUTLER: A very interesting report that the administration will focus on
the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia as places where there are al Qaeda
cells. But the word Iraq wasn't used by the man who was the chief hawk
-- used as a, you know, as a future target. So what I interpret from
that is this: That very likely our allies have been saying to us, this
is too hard. This is
really serious. Be careful. Saddam is essentially contained at the
moment.
Don't start, you know, a bigger problem either in the Arab world or in
the coalition by going after him. And Wolfowitz, it seems, has probably
accepted that.
ZAHN: A quick thought on the Israelis intercepting this latest armed
shipment? What that means? You've got to do it in about 15 seconds.
BUTLER: It's extraordinarily serious, because it seems to have been tied
to Yasser Arafat himself. It needs to be further investigated, but you
know, Paula, the potentiality that this could once again prove an
impediment to resume peace negotiations is really quite serious.
ZAHN: Thank you as usual for covering so much territory. Richard Butler,
see you same time, same place tomorrow morning.
BUTLER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
ZAHN: We appreciate your insights.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL
800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM
LOCATED AT <a href="http://www.fdch.com." target="_blank">www.fdch.com.</a>
============================================================ ============
===
The Bush-Bin Laden Money Connection
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15727" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15727</a>
BUSH SR. IN BUSINESS WITH BIN LADEN FAMILY
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15729" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15729</a>
We the People of the U.S want to know....
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15730" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15730</a>
MAJOR MEDIA WON'T TALK ABOUT IT
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15700" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15700</a>
Petition to the Senate to Investigate Oddities
Involving 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
<a href="http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15725" target="_blank">http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15725</a>
I'm sorry, I.M.E, but this is getting on my nerves. I've clicked onto a number of the links you give. Convinced me? No - just the opposite. Why? Here's a quick assessment of some of the sources:
In June, we announced a plan to remove the Taliban: <a href="http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy" target="_blank">http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy</a>
.The report cited here isn't about conspiracy theories; quick summary: the Taliban represent[ed] a threat to the US (terrorism), Russia (ditto); the Central Asian states (perceiving a threat to their territorial integrity & their oilfields); India (Afghan trained mercenaries in Kashmir). Further quick summary: everyone in the region is/was worried by the Taliban, they wouldn't negotiate, so it might have been necessary to do something about them militarily - which is what happened, if not in the fashion anticipated.
Alleged hijackers trained by USA:
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp</a>
Looks an exciting set of revelations, but notes that hijackers may have used false names, and in fact peters out into a mish-mash of might haves, could haves, etc.
FEMA in position on 10 Sept:
<a href="http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=14109" target="_blank">http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=14109</a>
A posting followed up by another pointing out that the 'revelation' was a slip of the tongue, made by a man who'd been awake for 48 hours straight, and who corrected the mistake.
<a href="http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm" target="_blank">http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm</a>
From a radio DJ who proudly claims to aim at a 'Straight, White American audience'. Regarded in many circles as slightly biased, then... Report made up of assertion and innuendo and no original hard evidence
Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and
American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.
Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in
the FBI.
This isn't foreknowledge, but reaction. The workers who got the message two hours before the attack probably thought 'nutter!' and got on with their work. Read it more carefully: the information reached the Israeli security services after the attack, they then contacted the Americans, so the Americans learned of the message only afterwards
A real loooong look at the events of 9/11:
<a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com" target="_blank">http://www.whatreallyhappened.com</a>
I do hope the author of that website's paranoia clears up soon. Once again lacking that crucial thing called hard evidence. Please note, I.M.E that there is a difference between assertion and hard evidence. One is unreliable, the other reasonably reliable.
The most massive so-called "terrorist" attacks on U.S. soil since the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995, were known, a week ahead of time, by the American CIA. Among the foreign intelligence agencies who penetrated the plots were the French CIA and Israel's The Mossad, units of both often working with one another.
This would be the same Mossad who knew about Mr Exploding Shoes and forgot to tell the French and US services?
Foreign intelligence sources confirm the validity of this story.
Really? Where's the evidence? Anyone from these services prepared to be quoted? Until there's evidence, it's assertion.
And they state that they informed the U.S. secret police who absolutely failed, neglected, and outright refused to take action as to known prior specifics of which the top-level of the CIA were informed in advance.
Ditto about evidence. And the US 'Secret Police' :wouldn't be an agenda there, then would there??
Also, while we're about it, remember that OBL has disowned/been disowned by his family, so doing business with the legitimate wing of the family (if I can use that term) doesn't quite equate to doing business with OBL himself.
And as for the oil pipeline, the other side to the argument is quite a simple one: the US, rather than launching military action against the Taliban (for which they would have been slaughtered in the press), tried to use diplomacy – untold wealth for the Taliban and the implication that they wouldn't interfere in Afghanistan if the Taliban behaved themselves. The Taliban didn't and got the carpet of bombs not gold. Also, blowing the you-know-what out of Afghanistan would presumably delay getting in to put down a pipeline, not expedite matters
From I.M.E's first posting:
'Although it took me a number of hours to put together, anyone can take the material here and quickly follow up on his or her favored theory and make some good menus of the vultures.'
I'd call that incitement to bull$hit; Look at the stories and put them together in your own DIY conspiracy theory is what we're being told.
Can we either have some hard evidence or an end to the insulting of our collective intelligence, please?
Rant Off; sorry about the length
[Edited for spoooling]
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes ]</p>
In June, we announced a plan to remove the Taliban: <a href="http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy" target="_blank">http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy</a>
.The report cited here isn't about conspiracy theories; quick summary: the Taliban represent[ed] a threat to the US (terrorism), Russia (ditto); the Central Asian states (perceiving a threat to their territorial integrity & their oilfields); India (Afghan trained mercenaries in Kashmir). Further quick summary: everyone in the region is/was worried by the Taliban, they wouldn't negotiate, so it might have been necessary to do something about them militarily - which is what happened, if not in the fashion anticipated.
Alleged hijackers trained by USA:
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp</a>
Looks an exciting set of revelations, but notes that hijackers may have used false names, and in fact peters out into a mish-mash of might haves, could haves, etc.
FEMA in position on 10 Sept:
<a href="http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=14109" target="_blank">http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=14109</a>
A posting followed up by another pointing out that the 'revelation' was a slip of the tongue, made by a man who'd been awake for 48 hours straight, and who corrected the mistake.
<a href="http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm" target="_blank">http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm</a>
From a radio DJ who proudly claims to aim at a 'Straight, White American audience'. Regarded in many circles as slightly biased, then... Report made up of assertion and innuendo and no original hard evidence
Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and
American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.
Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in
the FBI.
This isn't foreknowledge, but reaction. The workers who got the message two hours before the attack probably thought 'nutter!' and got on with their work. Read it more carefully: the information reached the Israeli security services after the attack, they then contacted the Americans, so the Americans learned of the message only afterwards
A real loooong look at the events of 9/11:
<a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com" target="_blank">http://www.whatreallyhappened.com</a>
I do hope the author of that website's paranoia clears up soon. Once again lacking that crucial thing called hard evidence. Please note, I.M.E that there is a difference between assertion and hard evidence. One is unreliable, the other reasonably reliable.
The most massive so-called "terrorist" attacks on U.S. soil since the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995, were known, a week ahead of time, by the American CIA. Among the foreign intelligence agencies who penetrated the plots were the French CIA and Israel's The Mossad, units of both often working with one another.
This would be the same Mossad who knew about Mr Exploding Shoes and forgot to tell the French and US services?
Foreign intelligence sources confirm the validity of this story.
Really? Where's the evidence? Anyone from these services prepared to be quoted? Until there's evidence, it's assertion.
And they state that they informed the U.S. secret police who absolutely failed, neglected, and outright refused to take action as to known prior specifics of which the top-level of the CIA were informed in advance.
Ditto about evidence. And the US 'Secret Police' :wouldn't be an agenda there, then would there??
Also, while we're about it, remember that OBL has disowned/been disowned by his family, so doing business with the legitimate wing of the family (if I can use that term) doesn't quite equate to doing business with OBL himself.
And as for the oil pipeline, the other side to the argument is quite a simple one: the US, rather than launching military action against the Taliban (for which they would have been slaughtered in the press), tried to use diplomacy – untold wealth for the Taliban and the implication that they wouldn't interfere in Afghanistan if the Taliban behaved themselves. The Taliban didn't and got the carpet of bombs not gold. Also, blowing the you-know-what out of Afghanistan would presumably delay getting in to put down a pipeline, not expedite matters
From I.M.E's first posting:
'Although it took me a number of hours to put together, anyone can take the material here and quickly follow up on his or her favored theory and make some good menus of the vultures.'
I'd call that incitement to bull$hit; Look at the stories and put them together in your own DIY conspiracy theory is what we're being told.
Can we either have some hard evidence or an end to the insulting of our collective intelligence, please?
Rant Off; sorry about the length
[Edited for spoooling]
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia&Montenegro
Age: 56
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X-QUORK, don't you think that you underestimate me a little?
Of course that we had a war here! (Actually, we had The War! I don't want to anybody of you to taste such experience.)
The question is: how journalists, reporters and news agencies managed all of that?
Well, they created bad guys and good guys. How? They got a wink from leading political establishment who is good and who is bad (and money from good guys, I would add), and started to create image for average TV watcher-election voter.
One of the results: after the end of bombing of Bosnian Serb's forces, a very tiny and carefully hidden report appeared in your newspapers: team consisted of three independent ballistics expert (one Polish, one Canadian and... sorry, forgott the third) gave the conclusion that under no circumstances that mortar shell at the marketplace Markale in the center of Sarajevo, couldn't come from Serb's positions at that moment. The story was unofficially confirmed by members of UN Airfield Monitor Team in Podgorica, 1995, who were well informed because one of them had just came from Sarajevo.
Another one (something between the rumours and official): destruction of the Old Bridge in Mostar was ordered from French TV team and commited by Croatian forces.
These were the most extreme constructions as far as I knew.
But, you may speak the truth and, at the same time , to lie. How? Simple: to say that somebody was attacked and killed by somebody's forces and not to say about previous events which were a key to understand. That was the most common way of CNN reportings during Balcan wars (except the last one, when you killed YU's TV, leaving ,again, CNN's truth as the only and unique truth).
It can be seen, that reporting agencies do not only reporting, we could see that they are creating a little. Beside some events, they are creating the public opinion for possible (and probable) actions. I can see that I am dangerously close to the line of your "conspiracy theory". But, where is the line?
The line is , maybe, to not accept everything without critism (for example, as you obviously accepted those charges for genocide, without sentence, and, as I've been informed, nobody's guilty, unless opposite is proven).
So, if you see strategic geopolitical interests, you are at the right place. Afghanistan: poor, undeveloped country, you can be real sheriffs there. Oh, I forgott...very close to Russia and Far East. Well, you are in very tight hug now. Dance can begin. The music have already started.
And, by the Coincidence, you even don't have to produce bad guys. They are evident, in any country, at any place in the world. You just have to point the finger and attack.
At the end, don't tell me that you can believe that anyone can base his attitude on Hollywood production's movies! Or, you may say what is your favourite movie, at which is your attitude based on? Rambo I, II, III?
Of course that we had a war here! (Actually, we had The War! I don't want to anybody of you to taste such experience.)
The question is: how journalists, reporters and news agencies managed all of that?
Well, they created bad guys and good guys. How? They got a wink from leading political establishment who is good and who is bad (and money from good guys, I would add), and started to create image for average TV watcher-election voter.
One of the results: after the end of bombing of Bosnian Serb's forces, a very tiny and carefully hidden report appeared in your newspapers: team consisted of three independent ballistics expert (one Polish, one Canadian and... sorry, forgott the third) gave the conclusion that under no circumstances that mortar shell at the marketplace Markale in the center of Sarajevo, couldn't come from Serb's positions at that moment. The story was unofficially confirmed by members of UN Airfield Monitor Team in Podgorica, 1995, who were well informed because one of them had just came from Sarajevo.
Another one (something between the rumours and official): destruction of the Old Bridge in Mostar was ordered from French TV team and commited by Croatian forces.
These were the most extreme constructions as far as I knew.
But, you may speak the truth and, at the same time , to lie. How? Simple: to say that somebody was attacked and killed by somebody's forces and not to say about previous events which were a key to understand. That was the most common way of CNN reportings during Balcan wars (except the last one, when you killed YU's TV, leaving ,again, CNN's truth as the only and unique truth).
It can be seen, that reporting agencies do not only reporting, we could see that they are creating a little. Beside some events, they are creating the public opinion for possible (and probable) actions. I can see that I am dangerously close to the line of your "conspiracy theory". But, where is the line?
The line is , maybe, to not accept everything without critism (for example, as you obviously accepted those charges for genocide, without sentence, and, as I've been informed, nobody's guilty, unless opposite is proven).
So, if you see strategic geopolitical interests, you are at the right place. Afghanistan: poor, undeveloped country, you can be real sheriffs there. Oh, I forgott...very close to Russia and Far East. Well, you are in very tight hug now. Dance can begin. The music have already started.
And, by the Coincidence, you even don't have to produce bad guys. They are evident, in any country, at any place in the world. You just have to point the finger and attack.
At the end, don't tell me that you can believe that anyone can base his attitude on Hollywood production's movies! Or, you may say what is your favourite movie, at which is your attitude based on? Rambo I, II, III?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/burningbush2000/3.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/burningbush2000/3.html</a>
THE GW BUSH--OSAMA BIN LADIN
CONNECTION
Very curious.
Subject: Making the world safe for the Texas oil barons
These two blasts from the past beg the question of why it is that 'terrorists' always seem to seek refuge in areas of
the world with vast, untapped oil reserves. One comes courtesy of the BBC, the other from the Los Angeles Times.
The originals are at:
<a href="http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm" target="_blank">http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm</a>
[ 11 January 2002: Message edited by: I. M. Esperto ]</p>
THE GW BUSH--OSAMA BIN LADIN
CONNECTION
Very curious.
Subject: Making the world safe for the Texas oil barons
These two blasts from the past beg the question of why it is that 'terrorists' always seem to seek refuge in areas of
the world with vast, untapped oil reserves. One comes courtesy of the BBC, the other from the Los Angeles Times.
The originals are at:
<a href="http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm" target="_blank">http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm</a>
[ 11 January 2002: Message edited by: I. M. Esperto ]</p>
