There was a Conspiracy to mislead US citizens into war with Afghanistan and Iraq

I'd like to see some indication from the Ex-Im bank that they are aware of their offer.

I put in "Turkmenistan AND pipeline" into their website (www.exim.gov), and get 4 hits, none of which relates to this project.

Same results with "Afghanistan AND pipeline". (3 hits, 0 pertinent)

Same results with "Pakistan AND pipeline". (32 hits, 0 pertinent)

Same results with "India AND pipeline". (2010 hits, FY2007 latest, 0 pertinent)

Got any confirmation of this story?
 
tfk you should know better than that. If you want to know the truth, you can't go to legitimate sources, you need to search the conspiracy websites. gez! :rolleyes:
 
tfk said:
Got any confirmation of this story?
Click to expand...
Truthers have been pedaling the pipeline story for a decade now. The name and location changes with each telling but they are always just positive a pipeline was the reason for staging an event causing billions in damages to the US economy.
 
The United States' "New Silk Road" Strategy: What is it? Where is it Headed? “The TAPI pipeline project would bring on-shore natural gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to markets in Pakistan and India.” http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/2011/174800.htm

Breach of rule 4 removed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ConspiracyKiller said:
THIS THREAD DOES NOT BELONG ON THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY FORUM!

I have never suggested that 9/11 happened because of the long-term US geo-political goals involving Afghanistan and Iraq blah blah blah blah blah... PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY... blah blah blah...
Click to expand...

Do you think we're stupid? We've heard this @#$% before. We probably know your beliefs better than you do.

You're definitely in the right place.
 
ConspiracyKiller said:
The United States' "New Silk Road" Strategy: What is it? Where is it Headed? “The TAPI pipeline project would bring on-shore natural gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to markets in Pakistan and India.” http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/2011/174800.htm
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why this is something we would start two wars over. Here is a map I developed for another project showing where the pipelines from Central Asia route.

pipelines.jpg


We have access (solid black dots represent American pipelines) to Turkmenistan's resources via Azerbaijan -> Turkey. Why would we care about Turkmenistan being able to sell to India?
 
Last edited:
Why is this thread in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

BCR said:
I'm not sure why this is something we would start two wars over. Here is a map I developed for another project showing where the pipelines from Central Asia route.

[qimg]http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/pipelines.jpg[/qimg]

We have access (solid black dots represent American pipelines) to Turkmenistan's resources via Azerbaijan -> Turkey. Why would we care about Turkmenistan being able to sell to India?
Click to expand...

***Journalist Pepe Escobar comments: “In terms of no-holds-barred power politics and oil geopolitics, BTC is the real deal—a key component in the US’s overall strategy of wrestling the Caucasus and Central Asia away from Russia—and bypassing Iranian oil and gas routes… BTC makes little sense in economic terms. Oil experts know that the most cost-effective routes from the Caspian would be south through Iran or north through Russia. But BTC is a designer masterpiece of power politics—from the point of view of Washington and its corporate allies. US Vice President Dick Cheney, already in his previous incarnation as Halliburton chief, has always been a huge cheerleader for the ‘strategically significant’ BTC.” Escobar also mentions that the amount of Caspian oil was overestimated (see November 1, 2002), “the Caspian may hold only 32 billion barrels of oil—not much more than the reserves of Qatar, a small Gulf producer.” [ASIA TIMES, 5/26/2005] However, the Caspian area is still believed to hold considerable amounts of natural gas. The construction of this pipeline does not halt plans for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean (see January 18, 2005).***

'Context of '1991-1997: Oil Investment in Central Asia Follows Soviet Collapse'' - History Commons.


******************************************


jhunter1163 said:
Do not post large blocks of text from other sites. Links are OK. And, do not personalize your arguments and remain civil and polite.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163
Click to expand...

NoahFence said:
I'm curious. What brought you back after a year and a half off?
Click to expand...

BStrong said:
Compassionate release maybe?
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
The OP author asked the same question. I don't think it belongs under the 9/11 sub-forum either.
Click to expand...

The implication of the OP is that 9/11 was used as a trigger to start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. More specifically, the thread title appears to be a direct reference to "the gubmint did it". Not that I'm necessarily agreeing with the move, mind you, but there is a certain logic to it, even if it is tangential.
 
thedopefishlives said:
The implication of the OP is that 9/11 was used as a trigger to start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. More specifically, the thread title appears to be a direct reference to "the gubmint did it". Not that I'm necessarily agreeing with the move, mind you, but there is a certain logic to it, even if it is tangential.
Click to expand...

I don't usually pay much attention to people who have to resort to baby language to bolster their arguments.
 
Originally I expected this thread to be moved to politics but instead it was moved to 9/11 conspiracy theories despite that I never suggested a 9/11 theory.

By now I thought most everyone had heard about the “new silk road”, (TAPI pipeline), and its importance to the US in its larger geo-political strategy in the global energy war.

Why do many of the JREF’ers refuse to except that the “new silk road”, (TAPI pipeline) has been of vital interest and an important strategic goal of the US geo-political strategy and therefore has been a major influence regarding the Afghan war?

The Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis states,
“Despite problems, if the pipeline does succeed in being constructed, it will be due to the US’ uncompromising support for the project." http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TAPIStillaDistantDream_sdadwal_020511

Removed breach of Rule 4.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ConspiracyKiller said:
Why do many of the JREF’ers refuse to except that the “new silk road”, (TAPI pipeline) has been of vital interest and an important strategic goal of the US geo-political strategy and therefore has been a major influence regarding the Afghan war?
Click to expand...

Mainly because none of your linkspam actually indicates (to say nothing of proving) that the pipeline was any factor whatsoever in the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, much less the main factor which the stated goal of capturing bin Laden and overthrowing the Taliban was just a smokescreen for.

The Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis states,
“Despite problems, if the pipeline does succeed in being constructed, it will NOT be due to the US’ uncompromising support for the project." http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TAPIStillaDistantDream_sdadwal_020511
Click to expand...

Why did you add "not" to that sentence? The original article does not have that word in it there.
 
ANTPogo said:
Why did you add "not" to that sentence? The original article does not have that word in it there.
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing...and making the 'not' CAPS too. Why emphasize something that isn't even in the original?
 
ANTPogo said:
Mainly because none of your linkspam actually indicates (to say nothing of proving) that the pipeline was any factor whatsoever in the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, much less the main factor which the stated goal of capturing bin Laden and overthrowing the Taliban was just a smokescreen for.

Why did you add "not" to that sentence? The original article does not have that word in it there.
Click to expand...

Thank you your right about the "NOT".

When skimming my post I thought I erased the not to add NOT but forgot. This is when I was capitalizing the key parts for JREF.

The NOT makes it say the opposite of what I was trying to say. It only proves my point without the not. So thank you very much. I'll fix it now.

As for the rest of your post, do you think the pipeline was a factor before 9/11 or do you think the pipeline is a factor now or do you think the pipeline has never been a factor?
 
JihadJane said:
Why is this thread in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?



***Journalist Pepe Escobar comments: “In terms of no-holds-barred power politics and oil geopolitics, BTC is the real deal—a key component in the US’s overall strategy of wrestling the Caucasus and Central Asia away from Russia—and bypassing Iranian oil and gas routes… BTC makes little sense in economic terms. Oil experts know that the most cost-effective routes from the Caspian would be south through Iran or north through Russia. But BTC is a designer masterpiece of power politics—from the point of view of Washington and its corporate allies. US Vice President Dick Cheney, already in his previous incarnation as Halliburton chief, has always been a huge cheerleader for the ‘strategically significant’ BTC.” Escobar also mentions that the amount of Caspian oil was overestimated (see November 1, 2002), “the Caspian may hold only 32 billion barrels of oil—not much more than the reserves of Qatar, a small Gulf producer.” [ASIA TIMES, 5/26/2005] However, the Caspian area is still believed to hold considerable amounts of natural gas. The construction of this pipeline does not halt plans for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean (see January 18, 2005).***

'Context of '1991-1997: Oil Investment in Central Asia Follows Soviet Collapse'' - History Commons.


******************************************








:confused:
Click to expand...


Go ahead and report it if you feel the need. But before you do, please note the timing of these posts. You changed the timing to imply the request to remain civil and polite came before the two posts that confused you so.

Why did you do that?
 
twinstead said:
I was wondering the same thing...and making the 'not' CAPS too. Why emphasize something that isn't even in the original?
Click to expand...

Throughout my post I emphasized the key parts for JREF and when skimming it I thought it was one that I erased but forgot to emphasize.

I carelessly made it say the opposite of what I was trying to prove which is that the US has been and is supporting the TAPI pipeline and the fact that the pipeline is not completed is not do to lack of trying as some at JREF are suggesting.

“Despite problems, if the pipeline does succeed in being constructed, it will be due to the US’ uncompromising support for the project." http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TAPI...sdadwal_020511
 
ConspiracyKiller said:
Throughout my post I emphasized the key parts for JREF and when skimming it I thought it was one that I erased but forgot to emphasize.

I carelessly made it say the opposite of what I was trying to prove which is that the US has been and is supporting the TAPI pipeline and the fact that the pipeline is not completed is not do to lack of trying as some at JREF are suggesting.

“Despite problems, if the pipeline does succeed in being constructed, it will be due to the US’ uncompromising support for the project." http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TAPI...sdadwal_020511
Click to expand...

The US had uncompromising support for a canal to be built in Panama, as well. I can't recall a war being started to serve that purpose however.
 
Why do many of you JREF'ers still refuse to except that the pipeline was a factor in the US invasion of Afghanistan and not just the sole decade long attempt to apprehend one old man?

The TAPI pipeline had been a long term aim of the US as part of it's strategy for Central Asia throughout the 1990s. And Unocal was lobbying Congress to oust the Taliban before 9/11 because they wanted the replacement of the Taliban with a stable government that would be receptive to construction and operation of the pipelines.

Breach of Rule 4 removed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom