al-Qaeda and Taliban

[Max Sawicky]

This article isn't exactly non-conspiracist.  It doesn't discount the
possibility of a conspiracy, except insofar as it alludes to analyses
by means of that terminology.  If I had to guess, it would be that
the author believes some of this stuff and but chooses to present
it indirectly as what others are saying.

There is a difference between a conspiracist tale wherein Israel
or the CIA engineers the hijackings, and all of the following, for
which I have no particular evidence but I think are completely
plausible:

* the U.S. Gov had contacts with the Taliban and/or OBL, possibly
related to oil, that it has not informed us about;

* that the hijackings had something to do with the outcome of
these contacts;

* that present U.S. deployments have not *only* to do with fighting
the Taliban and OBL etc., but also with long-standing and
overarching geo-strategic considerations, in part related
to the geographic distribution of oil reserves and potential
routes of resource transport.

I don't see any of these latter three points as 'conspiracist.'
They could be wrong.  Or they could all be spot on, and the
U.S. mission to Afgh would still be justified as reponse to
9-11.  I think these are separate questions.  Jumbling them
together probably leaches credibility from the political-
economic issues more than not, since the issue of
U.S. motives in the region, comprehensively considered,
is spattered with improbable, unverifiable tales.  Maybe
there is a conspiracy to allege conspiracy.

mbs


> Hi,
> 
> For a refreshingly clear and non-conspiracist article, see:
> 
> Pipeline politics taint U.S. war
> 
> by Salim Muwakkil
> Chicago Tribune