Join 3,552 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


October 15, 2001
9:29 PM   Subscribe

Why am I and a few others the only ones interested in this angle of the war story. I have been doing research about our disappearing VP and have found lots more than I can link here. No implied conspiracy theory, just more of those things that make you say Hmmmm. See if you can connect the dots!
posted by bas67 (27 comments total)

 
bas, you're my hero.

I'm not saying anything about any implied conspiracy theory either, but damn.

::: Saying hmmmm :::
posted by ethmar at 9:41 PM on October 15, 2001


yeah ethmar, you hungry for lots, lots, and lots more.
This is just a drop in the bucket. All of this is dry reading believe me, but, just take a look.
posted by bas67 at 10:01 PM on October 15, 2001


I'm a little lost. I get the oil pipeline/Stan connection - but what does this have to do with Dick. Did they stuff him in a pipeline???

Maybe I'm just a retard.
posted by QrysDonnell at 10:22 PM on October 15, 2001


My guess is that instead of sitting in a bunker, twiddling his thumbs, he was out helping to establish oil deals. Which will kick in after this is all said and done.
posted by the biscuit man at 10:37 PM on October 15, 2001


So he was out in Turkmenistan looking at the rotating statue of Turkmenbashi? (I'd link to it, but it's so much fun to find these things yourselves).
posted by QrysDonnell at 10:40 PM on October 15, 2001


Well, I may be coming at this from a slightly different angle, but "At Play in The Central Asian Oil Fields" was a bit disturbing to me, as were other details of the Unocal deal, also mentioned here and here. For a rather partisan overview, see Ted Rall on the oil connection.

As for me, the only amusing things I can see in all this are the heavy hands of Dr. Henry "Strangelove" Kissinger and his former gofer Smilin' Al Haig. But hell, they and Dick Cheney and the Bush clan are all just a bunch of good ol' oil boys, so what's the worry?

>huge wink<
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:40 PM on October 15, 2001


BINGO, biscuit man!!!!!!
posted by bas67 at 10:40 PM on October 15, 2001


I swear I'm not even playing the devil's advocate. But what are the *theories* as to the *attacks*? Is that just garden variety Islamic fundamentalism?

Or. . .as I've ruminated myself, is this simply a war between the rich (ie *Rich* Fundamentalist Islamic Leaders vs Western Corporate Establishment) taking the world's poor and middle classes along for the ride?

What's the word on the street?
posted by crasspastor at 10:50 PM on October 15, 2001


Or could it be said that perhaps bin Laden etc. aren't really "fundamentalists" in and of themselves, but have taken to wholesale brainwashing of the Islamic third world to further megalomaniacal goals?
posted by crasspastor at 10:53 PM on October 15, 2001


You may also want to check out Zalmay Khalilzad, special advisor to the President and director for the Gulf and Southwest Asia at the National Security Council. Khalilzad was a consultant to Unocal, the company that had the contract to build the oil pipeline in Afghanistan. Unocal were partners with Cheney's Halliburton on two pipelines in Myanmar. Khalilzad was also Cheney's partner in corporate lobbying group USA*Engage, and Chair in International Security at the RAND Corporation, the same folks who gave you that prescient report on Homeland Security.

I don't believe there was a conspiracy either, but like to keep tabs on where the people running US foreign policy are coming from.
posted by liam at 11:06 PM on October 15, 2001


oops

and what fold said...
posted by liam at 11:09 PM on October 15, 2001


Well crass, if I were to let my imagination run wild...I could say that maybe (through a third or fourth party) our oil government financed what happened on 9/11/01.

I know, no way right? Why does everyone think that only foreign governments are corupt?

Cheney, Bush, Bush Sr., Condi Rice, James Baker and many more have a vested interest in 1. legitimizing the president. 2. blaming the tanking economy on something else. 3. making the congress and senate play nice and get along. 4. settleing the climate in Afghanistan. 5. getting rid of bin Laden, so in the event of the pipeline completion, he wouldn't be able to gain control.

There is no way bin Laden is in this mess because he is dedicated to Allah. That is just his way to gain control of the people and area in order to control the mid-east oil.

Just a lively imagination I guess!
posted by bas67 at 11:09 PM on October 15, 2001


oh...and one other intrest might be 5 trillion dollars in oil and gas.

To some, maybe that would be worth 7,000 lives.

I've heard of people killed in thefts for less than a hundred bucks.

Far fetched? yes. Impossible? no.
posted by bas67 at 11:14 PM on October 15, 2001


(in Ralph Wiggum voice) My head hurts and my fingers taste salty.
posted by the biscuit man at 11:15 PM on October 15, 2001


I posted something about this on my blog a day or two after the attack. Although I thought it had to do with the Chechen oil fields at Baku.
posted by black8 at 11:18 PM on October 15, 2001


Before further postings!

This thread has the makings of an old fashioned MeFi flame war. Everybody keep in mind we're only all thinking here and posting what we're thinking.

That said. Please be cool and let the thread run its course.
posted by crasspastor at 11:19 PM on October 15, 2001


You were right black, but, the line through Afghanistan would remove the risk of Russia and India and Iran. All the Big Boys wanted it but the civil waring and the Taliban and
US pressure made it difficult. Something had to be done.
posted by bas67 at 11:32 PM on October 15, 2001


OK, I'll work with this house of cards premise y'all have built here, but do you think there will be anything left for the oil-men to grab after they pay back all the coalition for keeping their mouths shut? Like Russia doesn't want back in. That'll be one picked clean carcass.
posted by machaus at 11:53 PM on October 15, 2001


But you can make up a theory about anything without facts. One mailing list I was on suggested that the attackes were a covert mission of the CIA in order to increase their budget. Dismissing the fact that no government worker is willing to give up his/her life for a budget, anything you don't have to prove with facts is easy to speculate on.

The thing you have to remember in all of your theories is that this is not an isolated incedent. There have been attacks against embassies, US warships, etc. that would be difficult for even Oliver Stone to link together unless some grand consipracy was in force. All of these connections between unrelated events seem more trivial when combined with related events. If anyone has heard of Occam's Razor, it seems bizzare to even think about intricate, cross objective, relations being the cause of all this.
posted by billman at 12:06 AM on October 16, 2001


Well, I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist either, but some of these quotes are amusing. Here's big Dick Cheney speaking at the Cato Institute's "Collateral Damage Conference" (interesting and prescient name, eh?) June 23, 1998, (when he was still chairman of Halliburton), miffed because U.S. foreign policy kept Halliburton (temporarily) out of Azerbaijan and Iran:

"I think it is a false dichotomy to be told that we have to choose between "commercial" interests and other interests that the United States might have in a particular country or region around the world."

An example that comes immediately to mind has to do with efforts to develop the resources of the former Soviet Union in the Caspian Sea area. It is a region rich in oil and gas. Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action, both in terms of opportunities that develop with respect to Iran itself, and also with respect to our ability to gain access to Caspian resources.

Hell, as far as I can tell, these greedheads are all the same, willing to get on their knees and sell their souls to anyone with few bucks. It wouldn't surprise me much to find all of Bush Sr. and Reagan's former advisors on the board of directors for the manufacturer of Cipro, too.

>repeat wink<
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:19 AM on October 16, 2001


>take back plea< : )
posted by crasspastor at 12:40 AM on October 16, 2001


>chuckle<
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:50 AM on October 16, 2001


At the very least, Big Oil would be glad of a political structure in Afghanistan like those in the neighbouring republics: stable, authoritarian, nationalistic, willing to sell 20-year leases on infrastructure rights. The Taliban is so politically naive and introspective that it was never suited for this new "Great Game" in Central Asia.
posted by holgate at 2:31 AM on October 16, 2001


Why am I and a few others the only ones interested in this angle of the war story.

Because everyone else sees that it's complete bullshit, and that since 100% of it is coming straight from The Usual Suspects on the far left, we know that your motives are so unpure as to be prima facie evidence that the allegations are too twisted to be taken seriously.

Have a nice day!
posted by aaron at 5:45 AM on October 16, 2001



so unpure as to be prima facie evidence that the allegations are too twisted to be taken seriously.

prima facie? does that mean that upon closer inspection, these allegations will prove to be legitimate?
posted by tolkhan at 7:13 AM on October 16, 2001


1st response: Damn that Keyser Soze.

2nd: Ummm gimmie about 3 or 4 days to look through all of this and try to wrap my head around it enough to ask something along the lines of, "WHAT?"
posted by KnitWit at 10:59 AM on October 16, 2001


aaron: not your most thorough counter-argument

"100% is coming from the Usual Suspects on the far left."

I'm not on the far left, and I don't believe in a conspiracy. I'm just a guy with a search engine who heard about the Afghan pipeline, and thinks governments should be held accountable. I don't like it when people link to op-ed pieces supporting their viewpoint. I don't think that's the case here, by and large. You can certainly explain to me why all the linked information is totally irrelevant to the Current Situation. I hope you're right.

Thanks for the Homeland Security link, nonetheless.
posted by liam at 2:56 PM on October 16, 2001


« Older "The Tapes" -- plane radio traffic on 9/11....  |  The Wayback Machine.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments