Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Usama Bin Laden not wanted for 9/11 attacks


Recommended Posts

They didn't "overlook" updating the FBI most wanted list. The FBI says there's not enough hard evidence to charge Bin Laden with 9-11.

Wow, so many things we're learing already, what next? What there wasn't any WMD in Iraq? Or Saddams hasn't befriended Al-Quaeda after all? Even the case for envolvement of Taleban in 9/11 appears to be extremely shaky, if considered from the perspective of hard evidence.

So, how did we end up with two wars on our hands? Hope somebody sometime will be able to answer this conundrum...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Imagine if it was 1944 and the folks in the USA were busy attempting to prove Roosevelt did Pearl Harbor. That's how stupid the whole thing is.

-----------------------------------------

Russia Iraq is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

---Winston George W. Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites
They didn't "overlook" updating the FBI most wanted list. The FBI says there's not enough hard evidence to charge Bin Laden with 9-11. Yet we went to war in order to "smoke him out of his cave" and get him "dead or alive" because of 9-11. As you pointed out, he was already wanted for other terrorist attacks, yet we hadn't gone to war in Afghanistan in order to get him.

Actually, prior to 9/11 the U.S. had launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan (Operation Infinite Reach) over al-Qaeda's involvement in attacks on U.S. embassies. Most people would consider firing missiles an act of war, even though the U.S. didn't have the political resolve to push the issue and overthrow the taliban at the time.

So there is a lot of relevance to the opening post-- we started a war in Afghanistan to get bin Laden for 9-11 when there isn't even enough hard evidence to charge him for the crime.

Once again, the fact that they haven't bothered to lay charges does not mean that they would not have enough evidence to actually convict him if and when they actually bring him into court.

Of course, I could also point out that al Qaeda is more than just one man... there is more than enough evidence tying the hijackers into al Qaeda, so going after the base of operations for that organization is a valid response, even if you don't have evidence directly implicating the very head of the organization.

Don't you think there's something wrong with the idea that there was enough evidence to go to war but not enough to charge him with the crime we were going to war over?

Not at all.

First of all, while i do want governments to act on the best possible evidence, I recognize that establishing 'guilt' (according to standards in the court system) is not always possible, when the suspect is residing in a country hostile to western ideals. (Evidence is difficult to gather because the host country is uncooperative, witnesses are unwilling to testify, much 'evidence' must be classified by the government for legitimate security purposes, etc.) However, when the preponderance of evidence points to Al Quaeda's guilt, and there is no other logical explanation, then the government should respond appropriately.

And as I pointed out, bin Laden is just one individual... a country has the right and responsibility to act against terrorist organizations, even if they don't have charges laid out against the head of the organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, prior to 9/11 the U.S. had launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan (Operation Infinite Reach) over al-Qaeda's involvement in attacks on U.S. embassies. Most people would consider firing missiles an act of war, even though the U.S. didn't have the political resolve to push the issue and overthrow the taliban at the time.

They also threw missles into Sudan. Suspected chemical weapons plant.... turned out it really was a pharmaceuticle plant.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...etaliation.html

Days later, in the streets of Khartoum, Sudanese President al-Bashir led an anti-US march. Suddenly it seemed America was transformed from a victim of terrorism to an aggressor nation. And in the days following the bombing, the President's National Security Advisor Samuel Berger faced a barrage of questions--especially on the Sudan attack. Reports quickly circulated that the Sudanese missile strike had hit a working pharmaceutical plant with no easily-proven link to bin Laden.

FRONTLINE questioned National Security Advisor Sandy Berger about the attacks and he claimed they were justified. "Well, I believe we had solid knowledge that this facility was associated with chemical weapons," said Berger. But on the day immediately following the missile strike, Berger had said that the camp was "producing chemical weapons." Berger and others had backed away from their initial assertions about the camp as more evidence emerged.

Sounds familiar, like those ever elusive WMDs in Iraq.

As early as August 12--five days after the embassy bombings--sources say a "small group" of foreign policy advisors met with President Clinton to let him know they believed Osama bin Laden was behind the bombings. (Early breaks in the case had led to the quick arrests of two men who linked the attacks to bin Laden.)

The "small group" consisted of the National Security Advisor Sandy Berger; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; Secretary of Defense William Cohen; Director of the CIA George Tenet; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Henry Shelton; and a high-ranking staff member, counter-terrorism czar Dick Clarke.

"So these six very powerful people--the President, the head of the Pentagon, the head of the NSC, the head of the CIA, the head of the State Department and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have got a real dilemma," says Tim Weiner, New York Times reporter. "They want to strike back, but where? Where can you hurt him? Where can you take him down? Where can you do him damage? The problem is, they may not have struck him where it hurt the most."

In the past, the U.S. has taken a law enforcement stance to terrorist attacks: the FBI attempts to uncover who was responsible and bring them to trial in the U.S. The attack on the U.S. embassies, however, was deemed an act of war against the U.S. The advisory group discussed a military response and it was recommended that the U.S. attack bin Laden's network and attempt to destroy his base of operations.

The advisors had a list of potential targets that had been developed by the CIA over many months of investigating bin Laden and his terrorist network, "Al Qaeda." They eventually decided on two sites:

1) the camps in Afghanistan which they believed would be the site of a large meeting of terrorist leaders later that month; and

2) a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan where they believed bin Laden's network had been producing chemical weapons.

In Afghanistan, approximately 70 cruise missiles hit three alleged bin Laden training camps. An estimated 24 people were killed. But if they wanted to kill bin Laden, they failed. Bin Laden was not at the camps when the bombs hit. In the Sudan, approximately 13 cruise missiles hit a pharmaceutical plant. The night watchman was killed.

Days later, in the streets of Khartoum, Sudanese President al-Bashir led an anti-US march. Suddenly it seemed America was transformed from a victim of terrorism to an aggressor nation. And in the days following the bombing, the President's National Security Advisor Samuel Berger faced a barrage of questions--especially on the Sudan attack. Reports quickly circulated that the Sudanese missile strike had hit a working pharmaceutical plant with no easily-proven link to bin Laden.

FRONTLINE questioned National Security Advisor Sandy Berger about the attacks and he claimed they were justified. "Well, I believe we had solid knowledge that this facility was associated with chemical weapons," said Berger. But on the day immediately following the missile strike, Berger had said that the camp was "producing chemical weapons." Berger and others had backed away from their initial assertions about the camp as more evidence emerged.

To help sort out what had happened, FRONTLINE brought Milt Bearden to the Sudan. Besides coordinating the CIA's covert aid program to rebels in the Afghan war, Bearden was CIA station chief in Sudan during the mid-eighties. He has been critical of the missile strikes against bin Laden.

This man helped out the Muhajedeen in Afghanistan to fend off the Soviets.

Bearden believes the U.S. government needs to come forward and prove to people that their intelligence was accurate. "Look, if you've got intelligence sources that matters to protect, don't worry about it. Bite the bullet, lay the intelligence on the table," he says. "If you've got to move somebody up for safety, do that, but lay it on the table now. Let us see it. This is not going to go away. The doubts are not just lingering, they're growing."

Ahh, the doubts are growing. Hmmm those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Or like BC says, it was all part of the plan and who cares, nothing matters if they lied about it anyways. Which is really a cop out.

Of course, I could also point out that al Qaeda is more than just one man... there is more than enough evidence tying the hijackers into al Qaeda, so going after the base of operations for that organization is a valid response, even if you don't have evidence directly implicating the very head of the organization.

You are correct. And they got their man who coordinated the 9/11 attacks. Kaleid Sheik Mohammed. Bin Laden may have just fronted the cash to do it. But KSM was the mastermind of the attacks. This is the reason why you wont see Bin Laden being involved with the 9/11 attacks. Simply no real hard evidence to support it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Bush's term is coming to an end, I saw him on TV in England planning on hunting down OBL with PM Brown. I suppose if he doesn't get OBL he won't have anything to boost about. IF they do get OBL, will he be alive to talk or how long will he be alive to talk??? Do you think they already have him prisoner and just waiting for the right time and then there's...he's dead, died back in 2003 but we didn't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They also threw missles into Sudan. Suspected chemical weapons plant.... turned out it really was a pharmaceuticle plant.

Read up on the Soviet Union's biological weaponization program and you'll never trust a "pharmaceuticle plant" again. In particular their work with the India-1967 Variola virus...that's hemoragic smallpox...like an airborn ebola virus. Nasty. The research doctors actually feared their own work...

------------------------------------

On Vozrozhdeniya Island in the Aral Sea, the strongest recipes of smallpox were tested. Suddenly I was informed that there were mysterious cases of mortalities in Aralsk. A research ship of the Aral fleet came 15 km away from the island (it was forbidden to come any closer than 40 km). The lab technician of this ship took samples of plankton twice a day from the top deck. The smallpox formulation— 400 gr. of which was exploded on the island—”got her” and she became infected. After returning home to Aralsk, she infected several people including children. All of them died.

---Peter Burgasov: Chief Sanitary Physician of the Red Army

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that Bush's term is coming to an end, I saw him on TV in England planning on hunting down OBL with PM Brown. I suppose if he doesn't get OBL he won't have anything to boost about. IF they do get OBL, will he be alive to talk or how long will he be alive to talk??? Do you think they already have him prisoner and just waiting for the right time and then there's...he's dead, died back in 2003 but we didn't know.

Do troothers and their tinfoil hats care what happens or what happened? Generally hacts are boring in comparison to their ridiculous nutbar conspiracy theories...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that Bush's term is coming to an end, I saw him on TV in England planning on hunting down OBL with PM Brown. I suppose if he doesn't get OBL he won't have anything to boost about. IF they do get OBL, will he be alive to talk or how long will he be alive to talk??? Do you think they already have him prisoner and just waiting for the right time and then there's...he's dead, died back in 2003 but we didn't know.

Osama needed dialysis from what I have read online and in various news sources. If this is the case, then he is never far from a medical facility, or they have the equipment and personel to handle the dialysis.

He simply would not be able to survive very long if he did/does not have the medical equipment to take care of it. Probably why we don't see his face on the news anymore. Well not video anyways, it is now replaced with a static image of him with audio of his voice.

Also, it is worth mentioning that the CIA had disbanded the unit that was responsible for hunting down Bin Laden. Just another thing that does not smell right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/23/...in2035766.shtml Sept 23 2006

(CBS) Osama bin Laden's health has deteriorated in the past year, forcing him to curtail his movements, according to Arab diplomats in Pakistan who routinely track reports of his movements.

Holy crap if Pakistan can track him, why not the US?

Sources in the region near the Afghan-Pakistan border tell CBS News analyst Jere Van Dyk that if bin Laden were dead the West would never know it. They want to preserve the idea that Osama is alive because he is a mythical figure, as much as anything else.

Nothing more than a boogyman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had responded to this earlier, but going over my post, I don't think I properly responded to part of your post...

Don't you think that if there was some sort of vast powerful conspiracy to falsely blame bin Laden that it would be strange that they'd overlook some little detail like updating the FBI most wanted list?

They didn't "overlook" updating the FBI most wanted list. The FBI says there's not enough hard evidence to charge Bin Laden with 9-11.

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

The opening post sounded like he might be using the FBI's most wanted list to suggest that 9/11 was some sort of inside job, as part of some global conspiracy. That's why I was questioning his motivations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Read up on the Soviet Union's biological weaponization program and you'll never trust a "pharmaceuticle plant" again. In particular their work with the India-1967 Variola virus...that's hemoragic smallpox...like an airborn ebola virus. Nasty. The research doctors actually feared their own work...

Yes, those people who work to find a cure for highly contageous/hazardous materials should be scared and cautious of their work. Maybe they were hunting a cure for the Ebola Virus. Consider it at least.

If you work with viruses, or pharmecuticles, you should be very cautious. Remember some of the over the counter drugs we buy can cause us death if taken to much or the wrong type.

The US, would have those same facilities as the Soviets. Both have used or sold chem weapons to other countries. basicly so the Soviets and the US could proxy war without ever getting directly involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly working on a cure. The Soviets perfected weaponized India-1967 hemoragic smallpox well after we 'cured it' and apparently there are still huge stockpiles of it waiting for destruction...or theft...your choice. But I'm sure that plant in Sudan was making baby milk formulae. Aren't they all?

--------------------------------------------

The consequences of an act affect the probability of it's occurring again.

---B. F. Skinner

Link to post
Share on other sites
Osama needed dialysis from what I have read online and in various news sources.

There have been many rumors about bin Laden's health, but for the most part they are unconfirmed, from non-reputable sources, or even contradictory. Even many of the reports that claim he had problems with his kidneys don't claim its serious enough to need dialysis.

I'd treat all such statements with a grain of salt.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/kidney.asp

Also, it is worth mentioning that the CIA had disbanded the unit that was responsible for hunting down Bin Laden. Just another thing that does not smell right.

Yes, the CIA disbanded the unit specifically tasked to hunt bin Laden. The main reason for that may be because they believe al Qaeda (since the invasion of Afghanistan) no longer has a hierarchical structure (with bin Laden at the top), but is more compartmentalized... therefore, spending all their efforts to hunt one man may not be an effective use of resources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/23/...in2035766.shtml Sept 23 2006

Holy crap if Pakistan can track him, why not the US?

Well, its not like the Pakistanis know exactly where he is... they follow reported sitings, some of which may be accurate, some of which may be false, and most tend to be at least a day or 2 old. (And of course that doesn't mean that the Americans don't have the same information; they just might not be publishing it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The US, would have those same facilities as the Soviets.

The US gave up its bioweapon program complete with Russian inspections of facilities. The Soviet military went behind Gorby's back and accelerated the weaponization program in secret. They were successful...that was the late 1980s...not sometime in early Soviet history. The Russians went for it as a weapon because smallpox had been "eradicated" in the wild and we stopped giving vaccinations. The perfect weapon. Leaves cities intact.

Goodness knows what you believe, however.

-----------------------------------------

I have been laid up with intentional flu.

---Samuel Goldwyn

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
Actually, prior to 9/11 the U.S. had launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan (Operation Infinite Reach) over al-Qaeda's involvement in attacks on U.S. embassies. Most people would consider firing missiles an act of war, even though the U.S. didn't have the political resolve to push the issue and overthrow the taliban at the time.

We weren't "at war" prior to 9-11. Canada, NATO, etc. all went to war after 9-11 because of 9-11-- and the reason given was getting bin Laden. In fact, the Bush administration said there would be no war if the Taliban turned over bin Laden to the U.S. Why, if we had no hard evidence that bin Laden was involved in 9-11, was he all we heard about in regards to 9-11? None of it makes any sense.

Once again, the fact that they haven't bothered to lay charges does not mean that they would not have enough evidence to actually convict him if and when they actually bring him into court.

That makes no sense. If there's enough to convict him, there would be enough to lay charges. Laying charges doesn't take as much evidence as a conviction does. It's why people are charged and aquitted.

Of course, I could also point out that al Qaeda is more than just one man... there is more than enough evidence tying the hijackers into al Qaeda, so going after the base of operations for that organization is a valid response, even if you don't have evidence directly implicating the very head of the organization.

Al Qaeda is not what's at issue here, though. Bin Laden is. It was all about bin Laden. So it's very logical to question why, in light of everything that was said/done in regards to bin Laden, there isn't any hard evidence linking him to 9-11; that there aren't any charges against him for 9-11.

"The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans." GW Bush

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, while i do want governments to act on the best possible evidence, I recognize that establishing 'guilt' (according to standards in the court system) is not always possible, when the suspect is residing in a country hostile to western ideals.

..

And as I pointed out, bin Laden is just one individual... a country has the right and responsibility to act against terrorist organizations, even if they don't have charges laid out against the head of the organization.

Well they had their strongest chance to lay their hands on Bin Laden when Taleban agreed to extradite Bin Laden to a third muslim country for trial.

And "dealing with terrorist organization" became logically equivalent to unleashing all out wars? Causing death and destruction on the scale incomparable to the original cause; and during which the whole original cause has become forgotten; transgressed into ephemerial war on terrror; with neither goal nor end anywhere in sight.

These acts are impossible to reconcile with logic, or morality. They do it because they could, and because they believed that they could. And if G. Bush, or T. Blair can sleep well with what they've accomplished, I simply can't see who couldn't. Anything can be explained and any act can be justified.

Link to post
Share on other sites
.... They do it because they could, and because they believed that they could. And if G. Bush, or T. Blair can sleep well with what they've accomplished, I simply can't see who couldn't. Anything can be explained and any act can be justified.

This is all that really matters....everything else is just BS for those who can't or won't cope with power...those who have it...and those who want it. Afghanistan was being used as a training base and haven for "terrorists" as defined by western (and eastern) interests. NATO decided to engage and kill them. Because they could. Pretty simple.

Nation building for this or any other failed state is just gravy on top. Seeking some unified theory of "justice" and "war" is a futile exercise (by definition). Bin Laden is only a bit player in a much larger production.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We weren't "at war" prior to 9-11. Canada, NATO, etc. all went to war after 9-11 because of 9-11-- and the reason given was getting bin Laden.

Gross oversimplifcation. There are a variety of reasons NATO countries have joined the U.S. in Afghanistan. Canada's mission is to provide stability and enable the country to rebuild. Saying that its 'just to get bin Laden' is wrong.

In fact, the Bush administration said there would be no war if the Taliban turned over bin Laden to the U.S.

Again, a gross simplification.

The U.S. actually made several demands. Not only did they demand bin Laden, they demanded his 'cohorts', and they wanted access to terrorist training camps.

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/...ain310852.shtml : Mr. Bush demanded in his speech before members of Congress that the Taliban surrender bin Laden, release imprisoned Americans, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps.... "They will hand over the terrorists (note the plural) or they will share in their fate."

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/1...stan.terrorism5 : Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over."

So, your claim that it was 'just about bin Laden' is false.

Why, if we had no hard evidence that bin Laden was involved in 9-11, was he all we heard about in regards to 9-11? None of it makes any sense.

Could be that the average person is lazy and doesn't bother to actually properly research things.

The U.S. said right from the beginning that they wanted more than just bin Laden... however, its probably easier for the average person to fixate on one individual. (For the same reason most people know who Hitler was, even though there were others nazis that were just as evil/ruthless; a single personification is easier to comprehend.)

Once again, the fact that they haven't bothered to lay charges does not mean that they would not have enough evidence to actually convict him if and when they actually bring him into court.

That makes no sense. If there's enough to convict him, there would be enough to lay charges. Laying charges doesn't take as much evidence as a conviction does. It's why people are charged and aquitted.

Read what I said again... I did not claim that they lacked the necessary evidence to charge and/or convict him.

What I said is that a lack of charges does not mean bin Laden is innocent. They likely have enough evidence to try and convict him, if they so choose... however, such legal proceedings are pretty much unnecessary because of outstanding charges for other terrorist activities for which he's already been charged.

Al Qaeda is not what's at issue here, though. Bin Laden is. It was all about bin Laden.

Nope, I've already shown that that was incorrect. The U.S. did not just want bin Laden, they wanted access to al Qaeda training camps, and they wanted others in the terrorist organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well they had their strongest chance to lay their hands on Bin Laden when Taleban agreed to extradite Bin Laden to a third muslim country for trial.

How exactly is that "laying their hands on Bin Laden"? The Taliban agreed to send him to a "neutral" third country, not the U.S. Given the fact that bin Laden's crimes were carried out against americans, its quite reasonable to expect the U.S. to actually have access to him.

Of course, as I pointed out, that was not the only demand that the U.S. had... they wanted access to other terrorists, as well as terrorist training camps. (See my post above for references.)

And "dealing with terrorist organization" became logically equivalent to unleashing all out wars?

Every sovereign country has the right and duty to police its own affairs. However, if a country (such as Afghanistan under the Taliban) allows attacks to be launched from its soil, it has the obligation to at least attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Causing death and destruction on the scale incomparable to the original cause;

You do realize the Taliban were not exactly respectful of human rights. The civilian casualties that resulted from this war are indeed unfortunate; however, the amount of death probably wasn't that much greater than that caused by the Taliban and its strict Islamic law. (How many women died because the Taliban limited access to women's doctors? How many were executed at public executions?)

and during which the whole original cause has become forgotten; transgressed into ephemerial war on terrror; with neither goal nor end anywhere in sight.

Yes, the 'war on terror' may not have an easy "winnable" goal; however, that does not mean that it is not worth pursuing. Eliminating some terrorist infrastructure, and bringing improved human rights to some areas that were previously under despotic leadership will not solve all of the world's problems. But, it has the potential to at least make the world better than it was before.

These acts are impossible to reconcile with logic, or morality.

Is it moral to force women to stay at home and prevent them from working or going to school? Is it moral to execute women for adultery? Is it moral to force men to wear beards?

Granted, those weren't exactly the main issues that were on the minds of the U.S. when they overthrew the Taliban, but before you go assuming the war was 'immoral', consider the alternative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush gave the Taliban demands that he knew they wouldn't like just like he did with Hussein and so he invaded and now the US will have military there for years to come and I'm sure , unless the next presidents that come to be, will have miltary occupation in the Middle-East. It seems kinda strange since the US oil companies and the VP were talking oil business with this terrorists group!

Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems kinda strange since the US oil companies and the VP were talking oil business with this terrorists group!

No they weren't. Your toaster is lying to you again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
..... It seems kinda strange since the US oil companies and the VP were talking oil business with this terrorists group!

Not true...but we still love you Topaz. Sometimes your posts are like a Roseanne Roseannadanna skit.

Perhaps you are referring to the TAP natural gas pipeline project, which has actually been delayed because of US/NATO military action in Afghanistan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Jane BC-2004, it just goes to show you...It's always something. If it's not one thing, it's another. Either you go on a diet listen to toasters or you have a sweat ball hanging off your nose.

-----------------------------

Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true...but we still love you Topaz. Sometimes your posts are like a Roseanne Roseannadanna skit.

Perhaps you are referring to the TAP natural gas pipeline project, which has actually been delayed because of US/NATO military action in Afghanistan.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

Richard Butler , former UN Weapons Inspector.

Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the need to deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a pipeline through Russia would cost. So financially and politically, there's a big prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Pakistan coast would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and more cheaply.

So you have Harmid Karzai, a former UNOCAL board member himself, and also a former member of the Muhajedeen (that pesky militant group who fought off the Soviets) as leader of Afghanistan, running Sharia Law.... the same law the Taliban ran with. Nothing has changed there. Only the people in charge have changed.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...mp;pagewanted=2

Dated June 27 1998.

With peace talks stalled and the two sides gearing up for more war, frustrated executives from Western oil companies appear to be playing a more active role as mediators than the Clinton Administration is. Unocal Corporation, which leads a consortium that hopes to build a pipeline to transport natural gas and oil from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan, is financing a University of Nebraska program to train Afghan workers and teachers in regions controlled by both sides, and has paid for Taliban members to visit the United States. Bridas Corporation, an Argentine company that is a Unocal rival with its own plans for an Afghan pipeline, also has representatives in the country trying to cultivate both northern alliance and Taliban leaders.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A9679C8B63

Four years ago, the Unocal Corp. -- with the State Department's backing -- negotiated with the Taliban to build a pipeline through Afghanistan linking Turkmenistan, which is rich in natural gas but landlocked, to Pakistan. Although Pakistan has called for reviving the pipeline, industry experts say oil companies are so far not interested.

But the plan could be dusted off.

''Once we bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, we will have to cough up some projects there, and this pipeline is one of them,'' said Matthew J. Sagers of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a research and consulting group. ''Can oil companies be persuaded by the United States? It has happened before. Look at Baku-Ceyhan.''

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...