The Wayne Madsen report on "Israeli Art Students"

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: China?

Postby Qutb » Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:25 pm

I believe the Taliban boys were in Texas in 1997, when W was governor. He didn't meet them though, they met with oil bidniss people. In 2001, a Taliban envoy visited the State Department. <br><br>About the sale of US arms technology to China by Israel - not only was Wolfowitz involved, but Richard Clarke (later counterterrorism czar) as well. He was fired from the State Department over it, and then immediately hired by Brent Scowcroft to the National Security Council.<br><br>Clarke and the neo-cons appear to be enemies today, but they were not back then. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: China?

Postby toscaveritas » Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:48 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> He didn't meet them though, they met with oil bidniss people.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>hmm uh....you do realize that bush represents the OIL industry in Texas?<br><br>and i also found this:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>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. Mr. O'Neill, after leaving the FBI, assumed the position of security director at the World Trade Center, where he was killed in the 911 attacks.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>From ENRON Entanglements to UNOCAL Bringing the Taliban to Texas and Controlling Afghanistan<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html">www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>enron and unocal directly profited from the invasion of Afghanistan! it had NOTHING to do with 'terrists'! That invasion was just as illegal and a crime against humanity as Iraq! <br><br>and aside from oil-- Afghanistan has ONE very important resource: poppy fields! of course, i'm not suggesting that intl drug trade is of interest to the global elite - no way! <p></p><i></i>
toscaveritas
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Afghanistan

Postby robertdreed » Sat Aug 13, 2005 3:05 pm

Afghanistan is mostly unexplored territory, but preliminary explorations have indicated the presence of a wide array of mineral resources- everything from strategic elements and precious metals to gemstones. <br><br><br>There are all sorts of places to cultivate poppies, Afghanistan isn't particularly unique in that respect. It does have some advantages for poppy cultivation, like limestone soil and semi-arid climate... <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Wayne Madsen's "Forbidden Truth"

Postby proldic » Sat Aug 13, 2005 3:28 pm

"FORBIDDEN TRUTH" <br><br>...The book includes some accurate information - for example, that Saudi Arabia funds Islamic Fundamentalist schools all around the world; and that the CIA has long-standing ties to Osama bin Laden. Even so, right from the start it is framed from a false perspective. Joseph Trento writes in the book's first introduction:<br><br>"FORBIDDEN TRUTH is the story of the greatest foreign policy blunder of the past thirty years...FORBIDDEN TRUTH is the story of how that force [the US/Saudi -created Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists] turned against its creator with effectiveness and vengeance."<br><br>-- FORBIDDEN p. ix<br><br>For the most part, Trento is saying what the US media says: that the Afghan Arabs et al were organized with US help to fight the Soviets, and then they turned against their masters by killing all those people on 9-11. <br><br>We have argued that this is untrue. That the US/Euro Empire *never* stopped - has still not stopped! - sponsoring Islamic Fundamentalist/terrorist forces. <br><br>The Afghan 'government' it has created is what it has tried to create for several years: a united Islamic terrorist state under NATO control to alter the balance of power in Central Asia. We have hard evidence (not speculation, evidence) that 9-11 was organized (not 'known about' but organized) to allow the US/Euro Empire to invade Central Asia under the guise of the wounded party fighting terrorism, thus neutralizing widespread opposition within the former Soviet Union because "the USA is getting attacked too!" and mobilizing support for future wars among U.S. citizens...<br><br>Even when the book, FORBIDDEN TRUTH, does offer some accurate stuff it is entwined with misleading or even falsely documented claims, especially about Oil. <br><br>On a humorous note the book has no less than five (5) introductions: two forwards, a preface, a prologue and then another forward. Two of the introductions were written by people whom the book describes as intelligence experts. <br><br>Could it be that somebody is trying to make sure we are properly oriented for a correct reading experience? <br><br>Anyway, apparently unlike the French edition of FORBIDDEN, the English edition includes the famous 'Carpet of gold/carpet of bombs' threat. The book claims it was made at an 'early July' meeting which took place in: <br><br>"...Shropshire England...[and included] the Afghan opposition, Pakistani diplomats, senior staff from the British Foreign Office and - according to one report - twenty- one countries with an interest in Afghanistan." <br><br>According to the book, the Taliban was absent: <br><br>"In the course of these last talks, and in the absence of Taliban representatives, according to the Pakistani representative Niaz Naik, the small American delegation mentioned using a 'military option' against the Taliban if they did not agree to change their position, especially concerning Osama bin laden. Naik recounted that a US official had threatened, 'Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.'" <br>- FORBIDDEN, pp. 42-43 <br><br>Ok. A few problems. <br><br>First, if the Taliban weren't present, why would US operatives use the word, "You"? Why not the word "They'? <br><br>Wayne Madsen who, according to the biographical notes, "worked for the National Security Agency as a communications security analyst," wrote, in one of the book's five introductions: <br><br>"The authors reveal that it was at a May 15, 2001 meeting in Berlin that a U.S. official ominously presented the following ultimatum to the Pakistani delegation (who were the Taliban's interlocutors at the meeting), 'Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.'" <br>- - FORBIDDEN, p.xv <br><br>This doesn't help. First, it just doesn't sound right. Who were the Taliban? A poverty stricken group of fanatics put in power by the Pakistani secret police (ISI). And the Pakistani ISI answers to...the CIA and to Saudi Arabia, whose Royal Family is part of the elite of the US/Euro Empire. So these Taliban were way down, down at the bottom of the pecking order. But the Americans at this meeting were way up, high-placed operatives at the pinnacle of the US/Euro Empire. <br><br>If you've ever worked in a big company you know that when top management wants the guys in the mailroom to get their act together they do not make flowery speeches. They say, "Do it." Power does not need to waste words. <br><br>And of course, nobody uses the word "you" when delivering a message through an intermediary. <br><br>Second, if the Taliban were not present, why, in his apparent interview with Julio Gudoy, is Jean-Charles Brisard quoted as follows:<br><br>"'At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'," Brisard said in an interview in Paris." <br>- 'U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil - Say Authors,' by Julio Godoy, published November 15, 2001<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/11.17A.Oil.Taliban.htm">www.truthout.org/docs_01/...aliban.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br>Note that according to Gudoy, Brisard did not use the phrase, "told somebody to tell the Taliban," but the phrase, "told the Taliban." <br><br>How could Brisard and Dasquié know *for sure* in November 2001 what was said to the Taliban but only find out sometime in 2001 that the Taliban was not present? And why isn't this bizarre change even mentioned in the book?<br><br>Third, American intelligence expert Wayne Madsen's introduction introduces another problem. He claims the 'carpet of bombs' quote was made during a "May 15 Berlin meeting." <br><br>But, you will recall, our two French intelligence experts refer to a July meeting held in<br><br>"the delightful seventeenth century manor house in Weston Park, in Shropshire England" <br>FORBIDDEN, p. 42<br><br>(Here's a quick side-point: liars tend to talk too much, embellishing with lots of flowery baloney in the hope of creating an atmosphere of believability...But really, who cares about the delightful surroundings? Give me some facts! Maybe the tendency to embellish explains why Brisard and Dasquié overdid it when they made up the 'carpets of bombs' nonsense.) <br><br>So far we've got some hard-to-believe wording and some disappearing Taliban and a meeting that took place at two different times in two different places. <br><br>It gets worse.<br><br>The third problem is with the 'documentation' for the 'carpet of bombs' claim. This would be footnote #19. I was picky and looked it up in the back of the book. Chapter 6, Footnote #19. Here's the text, in full: <br><br>"Testimony of Niaz Naik, former foreign Minster of Pakistan, obtained by Pierre Abramovici for a television program on the French channel France 3. Naik also repeated these allegations to the 'Guardian' newspaper in London, see 'Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY Attack,' Guardian, September 22, 2001. See also David Leigh's op-ed. 'Attack and Counter-attack...' Guardian, September 26, 2001." <br>-- FORBIDDEN, p. 236<br><br>Note that although this is a long footnote, Brisard and Dasquié do not quote anything from their 'sources.' Hmmm.<br><br>Note that (I am told) there is no mention of a 'carpet of bombs' in the earlier, French edition. Therefore, one assumes, there is also no reference to a program on French Television, Channel 3, a program which French readers might have seen. But in the American edition there *is* a reference to such a TV program, which of course Americans could be expected *not* to have seen... <br><br>Let us consider the two Guardian articles. Both support the basic thesis of the book. For example, Mr. Leigh's Sept. 26th op-ed piece begins:<br><br>"Did Bin Laden decide to get his retaliation in first? And did the new Bush administration make a horrible miscalculation by taking an ill-informed, 'tough guy' approach to their fanatical Islamist opponent?"<br><br>This is based on the assertion, made but not proven in the earlier (September 22nd) Guardian article, that the US broadcast its intention to attack the Taliban before launching the attack. And more basically, it assumes that the terrible events of 9-11 were really planned by bin Laden without the involvement of high US officials and others. I believe we have proven this second point to be false.<br><br>However, the only thing we are interested in now is: do these Guardian articles include the claim that the US threatened the Taliban, 'Accept a pipeline or be bombed?' Do these articles mention the famous supposed threat, 'Accept our carpet of gold or be buried under a carpet of bombs'? <br><br>Keep in mind that if the 'carpet of bombs' threat *does* appear in either article, it would not prove the threat was made. It would only mean that Niaz Naik, a Pakistani official who might have an axe to grind and therefore could well be lying about anything he said, apparently reported this to the Guardian. I say 'apparently' because the Guardian could have inaccurately reported his words. <br><br>But if the threat does *not* appear, it means Brisard and Dasquié are liars.<br><br>So we are checking the most basic level of credibility. We are determining if Brisard and Dasquié are con men. <br><br>NO CARPETS, NEW MEETING<br><br>First, here is the relevant quote from the Guardian news report of September 22, 2001: <br><br>"The warning to the Taliban originated at a four-day meeting of senior Americans, Russians, Iranians and Pakistanis at a hotel in Berlin in mid-July...The Americans indicated to us that in case the Taliban does not behave and in case Pakistan also doesn't help us to influence the Taliban, then the United States would be left with no option but to take an overt action against Afghanistan," said Niaz Naik, a former foreign minister of Pakistan, who was at the meeting. <br><br>"I told the Pakistani government, who informed the Taliban via our foreign office and the Taliban ambassador here." <br><br>[END GUARDIAN EXCERPT SEPT. 22]<br><br>Next here is the text from the September 26th Guardian op-ed piece: <br><br>"By July 8, the Afghan opposition, Pakistani diplomats, and senior staff from the British Foreign Office, were gathering at Weston Park under UN auspices for private teach-ins on the Afghan situation. <br><br>"And a couple of weeks later, another group gathered in a Berlin hotel. There, former state department official Lee Coldren passed on a message he had got from Bush officials: 'I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.' Karl Inderfurth was there too, and former ambassador to Pakistan, Tom Simons. <br><br>"The chilling quality of this private warning was that it came - according to one of those present, the Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik - accompanied by specific details of how Bush would succeed where Clinton had failed." <br><br>[END GUARDIAN EXCERPT SEPT. 26]<br><br>That's it. <br><br>Note, that the first Guardian article refers to a supposed meeting in Berlin in mid-July and the second refers to a supposed meeting in Berlin "a couple of weeks" after July 8th. <br><br>So, according to intelligence expert Madsen, the 'carpet of bombs' threat was made in Berlin on May 15, 2001. <br><br>And according to intelligence experts Brisard and Dasquié (in the same book), it was made in Shropshire in July 2001. <br><br>And according to the two guardian articles, which supposedly support these claims, the meeting was held in Berlin in July. <br><br>Lots of variety! All different! <br><br>*And the key point is: neither article mentions carpets of gold vs. carpets of bombs.* ...<br><br>They lied about what is in their own documentation!<br><br>...This tendency to make statements and use documentation in a manner befitting the Theater of the Absurd is rife among those who have led the way in proselytizing for the 'it's-about-oil' argument... <br><br>...we quoted Brisard's comments about what happened at the Rocca-Taliban meeting in Islamabad. (It appears there was such a meeting. Just no theatrical threats that we know of. Possibly some non-theatrical threats. Or possibly a whole lot of other stuff that nobody is talking about. The defeat of the Taliban was after all accompanied by massive internal treachery on their side...) According to the salon.com transcript, Brisard said: <br><br>"We believe that when [Rocca] went to Pakistan in 2001 she was there to speak about oil, and unfortunately the Osama bin Laden case was just a technical part of the negotiations." <br><br>So bin Laden was not the focus? Oil was the focus? <br><br>But in the English version of the book, which, I presume, one of the many intelligence experts who claim to have been involved in its production, on both sides of the Atlantic pond, at least showed Mr. Brisard prior to publication, it is written: <br><br>"In Islamabad on August 2, the tireless Christina Rocca ['tireless' is another one of those tell-tale gossipy-but-irrelevant adjectives, used to tell us the writer is 'in the know' - a mark of the liar!] spoke with the Taliban ambassador and demanded the extradition of bin Laden. Was this the ultimate bravado?" <br>-- FORBIDDEN p. 45<br><br>So. Now Ms. Rocca "demanded the extradition of bin Laden." And the authors ask, "Was this the ultimate bravado?"<br><br>I don't know, was it? <br><br>What happened to, "Unfortunately the Osama bin Laden case was just a technical part of the negotiations," as Brisard told Salon in February? <br><br>Quite a change, eh?<br><br>Did Rocca's August 2001 message to the Taliban miraculously change after February 2002?<br><br>Or, perhaps, did somebody decide that Brisard misspoke in the Salon interview? That he should have said Rocca strongly demanded bin Laden's extradition? That it was important that the book affirm that Rocca *did strongly demand* bin Laden be extradited, in keeping with Mr. Trento's introductory lines, depicting bin Laden as a real enemy of the US (that is, not still a CIA asset)? <br><br>Did Brisard and Dasquie, or somebody else, rewrite the script? So that Rocca's message to the Taliban morphed into a fierce demand for bin Laden? <br><br>Is that what happened?<br><br>Is "ultimate bravado" a self-description? Do these 'intelligence experts' think they can say anything, change anything, dish out any baloney and nobody will notice?<br><br>Maybe they do.<br><br>Consider that the documentation for FORBIDDEN TRUTH's account of the Rocca meeting as quoted above is supposed to be found in footnote #27. <br><br>I checked in the back, chapter 6, footnote #27. Surprise: Footnote #27 does not exist. The footnotes for chapter six end at #26. <br><br>Apparently they were in such a rush to rewrite Rocca's words that they forget to stick in some phony documentation.<br><br>Samuel Beckett anyone? <br><br><br><br><br> <br> <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: China and neo-cons

Postby chiggerbit » Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:04 pm

clips<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Perle-Aided-Loral29mar03.htm">www.mindfully.org/Reform/...9mar03.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>WASHINGTON, March 28 — While he led an influential Pentagon advisory board, Richard N. Perle advised a major American satellite maker, Loral Space and Communications, as it faced government accusations that it improperly transferred rocket technology to China, administration officials said today.....<br><br>.......After criticism of his business deals, Mr. Perle announced on Thursday that he would resign as chairman of the Defense Policy Board but would remain on the board. In July 2001, he was appointed to head the board, a group of influential advisers that meets regularly with the defense secretary and other top officials, has access to classified information and plays an important role in shaping military policy....<br><br>.....<br><br>The Loral matter is the second instance in which Mr. Perle was doing business on behalf of an American company encountering government difficulties over ties to China. Mr. Perle had been retained by Global Crossing, the communications giant, to overcome Defense Department opposition to its proposal to be sold to a venture led by Hutchison Whampoa, the conglomerate controlled by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: China?

Postby Qutb » Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:04 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>hmm uh....you do realize that bush represents the OIL industry in Texas?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well duh. But I don't think he met with the Taliban boys when they visited Texas. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>enron and unocal directly profited from the invasion of Afghanistan! it had NOTHING to do with 'terrists'! That invasion was just as illegal and a crime against humanity as Iraq! <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think it goes beyond oil and opium and terr'ists. Like the title of Brzezinski's book, which laid out the blueprint for the Bush admin's conquest of Central Asia: it's the "grand chessboard". It's about the resources, but it's also about geopolitics and the balance of power between the US and Russia/China. Russia is still America's most important adversary in the minds of the Pentagon/thinktankocracy hawks. As noted in the famous Wolfowitz/Libby document from 1992, Russia is the ony country that can blow us up.<br><br>Many Pentagon hawks would like to see a war against China, to assert American predominance in the pacific area. They wanted it during the Vietnam war too. I recently saw "The Fog of War", the documentary about/interview with Robert McNamara, and he said that Lyndon Johnson deserved credit for resisting those who pushed for nuking Vietnam and attacking China.<br><br>Russia and China created the Shanghai Cooperation Organization with all the Central Asian countries after the US invasion of Iraq. Iran was invited in to the organization this summer. The SCO recently demanded that the US withdraw from Central Asia. Uzbekistan has given Rumsfeld six months to abandon the US air base in the country. <br><br>Russia and China are soon to hold joint military excercises. I don't think they have ever done that before. It's a great geopolitical game being played out in Central Asia and the Middle East right now. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wayne Madsen report on "Israeli Art Students"

Postby MinM » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:54 pm

Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Might I interest you in a painting?
Image
"Utah residents fear ‘Israeli art students’ prying into NSA data center" "Are Israeli art students spying in Utah?" Previously: "The Israeli "art student" mystery"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/01/u ... dents-nsa/

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34284
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Wayne Madsen report on "Israeli Art Students"

Postby elfismiles » Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:39 am

Interesting that all those articles are from 3 years ago - before I'd heard about the Utah facility.

MinM » 18 Oct 2013 03:54 wrote:
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Might I interest you in a painting?
Image
"Utah residents fear ‘Israeli art students’ prying into NSA data center" "Are Israeli art students spying in Utah?" Previously: "The Israeli "art student" mystery"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/01/u ... dents-nsa/

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34284
“Mass shootings and mass burnings,” Pyne says. “Welcome to the new America.”
The Terrifying Science Behind California’s Massive Camp Fire - WIRED


AnomalyRadio.com
Streaming Since Last Century
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8298
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Previous

Return to Middle East

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests