From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: spectacle v truth
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:27:21 +0000


Bob Scheetz wrote

>yes, you're right.  as a structure or law of capital.  the US finally
>acceded reluctantly to the need to enter WW2 when the prospect of capital
>being denied access to the markets and resources of the greater part of the
>globe became so clear that a sufficient mass of US business types (the
>"enlightened" fraction) saw that survival required they temporarily
>subordinate their individual narrow interests and combine to defeat foreign
>enemies (of free capital) as they had only just pretty much finished 
>against
>domestic.

That accession has a much more plausible explanation, since it just happened 
to coincide with the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

> > Did you hear much about the furore over Michael Meacher's conspiracy
> > comments? Ex environment minister in the Blair government, he claims
> > the entire war on terror is a pretext to put into action the ideology
> > of US domination of the globe by force of arms (
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html &
> > http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1036591,00.html ).
> > And lastly, something almost completely unreported, one of the 911
> > widows has filed a racketeering suit against George Bush for the death
> > of her husband on flight 77 (
> > http://www.911citizenswatch.org/
> > modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=33&mode=thread&order=0
> > &thold=0 ).
>
>the meacher article brings together the congeries of facts and themes that
>almost compel such an hypotheses.  probably wolfowitz &co underestimated
>obl's comparable capacity for big ideas (i certainly would have); but it
>does seem more than plausible, don't it? indeed sensible and moral in their
>"hard-headed" straussian weighing of relative outcomes, energy starvation
>for "man's best hope" over against the tragic (and generously compensated)
>lives of the relative few "victims".

That is more than plausible? First of all, many of Meacher's allegations 
concern things that happened in the 1990s, during which there was an 
administration whose philosophy was hardly "Staussian." For example, "It is 
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US 
military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001)." 
Secondly, he conspicuously truncates quotes to his advantage. For example:

"A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public 
Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy 
dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to 
international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President 
Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an 
unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday 
Herald, October 6 2002)."

The full text of part of the report quoted by Meacher actually reads:

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, 
as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to 
international markets from the Middle East."

So the concerns in the report are hardly limited to "the flow of oil," as 
Meacher deliberately tried to portray. Thirdly, Meacher is incredibly 
careless with his references. For example:

"Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of 
stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon 
pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, 
Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, 
confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US 
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, 
or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 
2001)."

If he had done a little research, he would have known that this quote first 
publicly appeared in a book by Jean-Charles Brisard titled "Forbidden 
Truth," and his sources for this quote are riddled with holes. Here's just a 
taste I found in a review:

=========================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:
"...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."
According to the book, the Taliban was absent:
"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.'"
- FORBIDDEN, pp. 42-43
Ok. A few problems.
First, if the Taliban weren't present, why would US operatives use the word, 
"You"? Why not the word "They'?
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:
"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.'"
- - FORBIDDEN, p.xv
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.
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.
And of course, nobody uses the word "you" when delivering a message through 
an intermediary.
Second, if the Taliban were not present, why, in his apparent interview with 
Julio Gudoy, is Jean-Charles Brisard quoted as follows:
"'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."
- 'U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil - Say Authors,' by Julio 
Godoy, published November 15, 2001

Note that according to Gudoy, Brisard did not use the phrase, "told somebody 
to tell the Taliban," but the phrase, "told the Taliban."
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?
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."
But, you will recall, our two French intelligence experts refer to a July 
meeting held in
"the delightful seventeenth century manor house in Weston Park, in 
Shropshire England"
FORBIDDEN, p. 42
(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.)
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.
It gets worse.
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:
"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."
-- FORBIDDEN, p. 236
Note that although this is a long footnote, Brisard and Dasquié do not quote 
anything from their 'sources.' Hmmm.
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...
(We will be posting an English translation of the relevant part of the 
French broadcast within a few days.)
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:
"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?"
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.
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'?
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.
But if the threat does *not* appear, it means Brisard and Dasquié are liars.
So we are checking the most basic level of credibility. We are determining 
if Brisard and Dasquié are con men.
NO CARPETS, NEW MEETING
First, here is the relevant quote from the Guardian news report of September 
22, 2001:
"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.
"I told the Pakistani government, who informed the Taliban via our foreign 
office and the Taliban ambassador here."
[END GUARDIAN EXCERPT SEPT. 22]
Next here is the text from the September 26th Guardian op-ed piece:
"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.
"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.
"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."
[END GUARDIAN EXCERPT SEPT. 26]
That's it.
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.
So, according to intelligence expert Madsen, the 'carpet of bombs' threat 
was made in Berlin on May 15, 2001.
And according to intelligence experts Brisard and Dasquié (in the same 
book), it was made in Shropshire in July 2001.
And according to the two guardian articles, which supposedly support these 
claims, the meeting was held in Berlin in July.
Lots of variety! All different!
*And the key point is: neither article mentions carpets of gold vs. carpets 
of bombs.*
They lied about what is in their own documentation!
=====================
So let's work on researching the sources a little more before posting these 
accusations on the Heidegger list.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Get dial-up Internet access now with our best offer: 6 months -AT-$9.95/month!  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---