Next week: how to nail jelly to the ceiling.

John's articles have got more fantastical every time. Where does he get his information? National enquirer?

I'm not a fan of Clinton and have been disgusted by the spin around the Peace Prize for Obama when weighed against to his actions in office but the fact that both Clinton and Obama are mentioned in this piece but George Bush escapes mention just does not sit right.

There is a lot of spin by US Democrats in office however they were not in office when either Afganistan or Iraq were invaded which are the two countries focused on in this piece.

R0bert

GOOD ARTICLE
even if Pilger, that black sheep set apart from yes-man commentators, wrote it.

When all is said and done the US military needs a mission (no matter what) as a crucial tool in US foreign policy and domestic economic policy. If the US military is not seen to be doing something useful, preferably fighting, its budget will decline - jobs US wide would be lost.

In the past the US military was based throughout Europe in the Cold War, occupied Vietnam and now Iraq as well as Afghanistan. US allies are reluctant to use THEIR militaries so willingly.

However with a budget of around US$750 Billion for 2010/2011 the US military keeps a large part of the US economy going. Obama's Democrat electorates are now targeted by defence companies in order that these electorates and their Congressmen become reliant on military spending. Arms companies building factories in electorates means jobs amongst the voters - improving chances for reelection for local Congressmen. This also increases the electoral support base for the compliant President - who is now Obama.

So what Eisenhower admitted about the military-industrial complex decades ago still holds. Its a juggernaut that snares US Presidents and also our dependent country.

Pete

According to Webster Tarpley the US had operatives in Afghanistan well before 911.

JFK spoke of the Military Industrial Complex's power and our media over the decades have failed to expose it.It now has so much power that it determines which party gets in and who will be the next president.Obama has failed to repeal all the repressive presidential orders of Bush.Obama has brought in a new one called preventative detention.Supposedly for terrorists,it allows the authorities to detain someone indefinitely just on the suspicion of being one,with no legal recourse.The USA is almost a totalitarian state and the oligarchs won't relinquish that power easily.

"In 2001, the Taliban tried three times to hand over bin Laden for trial, reported Pakistan’s military regime, and were ignored."

"More than two months before the Twin Towers were attacked...Niaz Naik, was told by the Bush administration that an American military assault would take place by mid-October."

John, can you cite original records for these claims? I note a lack of support for many of your claims. Do you expect us to believe anything you say without evidence?

Pete's right. Much that I love Pilger, he's OTT too often - but not this time.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Otherwise, crash on regardless :)

What does it take for people to wake up? Hamid Kazai the puppet leader,used to work for UNOCAL[Union OIL] They want to get an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the ocean.

The Bin Laden family were friends of the Bush family.Bin laden is said to have died at Tora Bora in late 2001.Note the sham photos they put out since,that looking nothing like Bin Laden.They wanted keep the terror campaign going so the people of the West would beg to have their freedoms curtailed under the ruse of being safe.

John Pilger has a reputation for honesty and integrety.I'm not a socialist but respect him for the courageous stand he has taken.There is no way he would sully his reputation based on a lie.

It is time for the rest of us to look at all the evidence.Only the small secrets need be hidden,since the really big ones are hidden by our incredulity.

If they can lie to us at Copenhagen about a secret agenda for a world Govt and try to cover up fraud at climategate,what else are they covering up?

People who disbelieve Pilger are not looking very hard.There are many ref on the WEB about the fact that the Foreign minister of Pakistan Niaz Naik did say well before 911 that the USA had plans to invade Afghanistan.

This is a BBC ref. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
Naik said that no doubt after the WTC bombings the attack would proceed within weeks.He did not refer to them as plane crashings but bombings.Did the foreign minister have a motive for lying or did the USA and it's allies have greater motive for lying?

Just because the wider corporate media do not publish something,it doesn't mean it didn't happen.This is why Murdoch wants to have more control over the internet, ie user pay basis, and Kevin Rudd wants to censor it under the guise of controling pornography.Obama is jumping up and down about cyber terrorism. "Weapons of mass disruption"

Before the US invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban had stopped the heroine production and there was a world wide shortage.Now under the US, production of heroine is at record levels.The US could quite easily destroy the poppy plantations but now the Taliban have money for war to buy from international arms dealers.

Stezza,

If you don't believe that International Diplomacy works in strange ways or believe that we are told the complete and utter truth about everything, here's something from July 2001 that was published in November 2001 -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0111/S00018.htm

Osama was already on the "Most Wanted" list for missile attacks in Somalia. They could have had him just before 911 if they wanted to.

Before this was leaked to Asian Media by the French Secret Service, there was a lot of anti-French sentiment coming from the US because of their reluctance to support the US invasion. Afterwards it strangely went quiet.

The plan that the US would have "troops on the ground in Afghanistan by October" was actually printed in the Sydney Morning Herald as a quote from Colin Powell on addressing business concerns over the stalled progress of the Unacol Pipeline across Afghanistan.
Of course that was before the 911 attack.

Thanks for the links,

My point was that Pilger should cite supporting evidence himself, and I definitely do not "believe that we are told the complete and utter truth about everything. Especially by politicians (including Niaz Naik) or from intelligence organisations (including French Secret Service). Obviously we can only speculate over motives and goals.

However I have no doubt that USA had plans to invade Afghanistan prior to 9-11. As for the oil pipeline, is there any reason why any government of Afghanistan would not want this built in this resource poor country?

Stezza. You did not read the article or the comments that explained the reason for the pipeline through Afghanistan.How can you comment on what you have not read or comprehended?

Arjay,

My question was "is there any reason why any government of Afghanistan would not want this [oil-pipeline] built in this resource poor country?"

After reading your comment I read the article and comments again, twice, looking for an answer to this question. The only reference to the pipeline was; "The Taliban regime... was no longer regarded as “stable” enough to ensure America’s control over oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea." ; "Hamid Kazai /UNOCAL... want to get an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the ocean." and "troops on the ground in Afghanistan by October" addressing business concerns over the stalled progress of the Unacol Pipeline across Afghanistan."

As you can see, these references do not answer my question. Perhaps it is you who should have carefully re-read my comment before responding. However, hypocrites aside, I have attempted to find an answer my own question.

The Taliban were negotiating with both Unocal (CentGas) as well as Bridas regarding the construction and operation of a trans-afghan oil pipeline, with an expected 8% of the project's revenue going to the government. Whether or not USA invaded Afghanistan to influence/control this pipeline was irrelevant to my question. The fact is that the government of Afghanistan (Taliban/Karzai/other) would want to build this pipeline as it could produce revenue that could be used to lift the standard of living for all Afghanis (well we wish that this was the case).

Obviously I am no expert on these matters, so please contribute if you have any relevant knowledge regarding this issue.

Washington initially considered the Taliban as business partners in any pipeline and Unocal invited Taliban representatives to Texas for negotiations in 1997.

As well as Unocal, Enron was negotiating with Haliburton to build the pipeline.
The Taliban was demanding US aid to rebuild Afghan infrastructure and as well as being a transit line to India and beyond, they insisted any pipeline was also to serve Afghan requirements.

Washington rejected the demands and in July 2001 (allegedly) told the Taliban leaders "either you accept out offer on a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs".

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html

Whatever the truth may be, it was not simply to capture Bin Laden or bring democracy to that country. It's a strategy to secure and control the energy requirements of the USA (and beyond). If you can't control the oil, you can at least control the distribution and that's what's been behind Iraq and even the fracas in Georgia a few years ago.

Thanks rache for the links.USA to Afghanistan," You can have a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs."It is Wall St and the US Federal Reserve who control Govt in the USA.Will a few good men and women stand up to them,or let evil prevail?