110 POUNDS OFCESIUM-137 STOLEN IN KAZAKHSTAN

1. 64

   maxoxam41posted 9 years ago

   John Paul Leonard stated :"At the end of August 2007, with Bush beating the drums for war on Iran, a highly unusual thing occurred: a "rogue B-52" laden with six nuclear missiles flew from Minot, North Dakota to Barksdale AFB, the staging ground for bombing runs to the Middle East. Due to the risk of mishaps, it has been against USAF policy for bombers to transport nuclear weapons, since 1968. And one of the six warheads was apparently not recovered. Loose cannon Dick Cheney has been suspected of planning to use this warhead for a false flag attack on a U.S. target , to be followed by a nuclear retaliation timed to accompany Israel's air strikes on Syria on Sept. 6th -as in Brzezinski's scenario."
   
   A little panoramic view of Kazakhstan states that it is a dictatorship, that it provided transit routes for us in Afghanistan, that it is our puppet...
   
   Now, knowing what Leonard stated and our lovey-dovey relationship with Kazakhstan and neocons' urge to sacrifice as many Americans for their personal interests, what would be the probability for our CIA to steal (with the agreement of the local government) 110 pounds of cesium-137 under the disguise of Al Qaeda, Nostra, ISIS... and to strike the U.S. or Russia to start a nuclear war?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Zero.  You can start with the statement that there was a "rogue B52", followed by the claim a nuclear missile was never "recovered" from the AFB.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I should have mentioned an unbiased opinion. Or we can start with a Saudi attack on Sept 11 that ended up with the implication of the Bush government. Who attacked the Twin towers? You still believe it was Bin Laden? Because if it's the case, you can't rationally debate. If you see your government as flawless, can you criticize it and therefore uncover the truth?
         For me, our government behaves according to a logic which consists of sacrificing people in the name of their interests. The Tonkin event, Pearl Harbor, Sept 11, end of August 2007 (hadn't the USAF stop the madness), 2014, 2015, 2016... obey to their logic.
         If you were logic you would ask yourself the right questions. What was a B-52 with 6 warheads doing flying from Minot to Barksdale?
         1986 – The U.S. government declassifies 19,000 pages of documents indicating that between 1946 and 1986, the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington, released thousands of US gallons of radioactive liquids. Many of the people living in the affected area received low doses of radiation from 131I. That's how much our government cares about you!
         Now do you want to reconsider your answer?
         
         And the icing on the cake was the B-52 (again) on January 23, 1961 near Goldsboro, North Carolina. Are you going to tell me that pilots (especially the ones carrying a pair of 3.8-megaton Mark 39 hydrogen bombs, each of which were 260 times more powerful than Hiroshima)leave any airport without checking the safety of their plane? Fuel gushed out, the right wing suddenly sheered from the plane, it plunged into a tailspin and began to break up.
         It was 3 days after JFK's presidential inauguration, it was the cold war... Given JFK was against war it would have been a nice operation to implicate the Russians.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            No, no.  The comments was concerning a "rogue" B52 that lost an atomic warhead, not all the other stuff that has happened over the years.  Particularly with stuff that has absolutely nothing to do (a defective aircraft leaking fuel for instance) with a hidden CIA plot to nuke the US or Russia.
            
            Just a "rogue" B52 and a "lost" warhead.

            replyreport
            1. 64

               maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               It is your reading of news, mine is different. Cesium is stolen in Kazakhstan, 12 jetliners are stolen in Libya and in both cases we control both countries. Again, islamists will be the guilty ones and we will wage other wars under the guise of legitimacy. In Libya, we created a contained chaos. We are the masters. We divided the country, we seized its wealth, we still organize terrorist attacks to have the world believe that Libya needs us.
               Cesium and jetliners have one goal, terrorist actions and the ONLY ones that dispose of impunity are the U.S.. It is sad but nonetheless true.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  From your quote in the OP:
                  
                  "...a "rogue B-52" laden with six nuclear missiles flew from Minot, North Dakota to Barksdale AFB..."
                  
                  and
                  
                  "And one of the six warheads was apparently not recovered"
                  
                  and
                  
                  "Dick Cheney has been suspected of planning to use this warhead for a false flag attack on a U.S. target" (bolding added)
                  
                  If you don't read that as "a rogue B52", how do you read it?  If you don't read that we are missing a warhead, how do you read the second sentence?  And if you don't read that someone is planning an attack using that warhead, how do you read the third?

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     While you are debating on the form, I am focusing on the content. I guess you have nothing to say.

                     replyreport
         2. 76

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Hello, Max. The hallmark of a rational debate is voluntary citations to reasonably credible sources and not your typical refusal to reveal the origins of your anti-American propaganda.
            .
            In late October 2004, the Arabic television channel Al-Jazeera received a videotaped message from Osama bin Laden at its offices in Islamabad.
            
            “In the videotaped message,” reported NBC News, “bin Laden claims full responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States and warns Americans ‘your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands.’" {1}
            
            Here are bin Laden’s own words taken from an online English Translation…
            
            “So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.
            
            “I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
            
            “And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
            
            “We had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.” {2}
            
            Is this confession the truth or more government cover up?
            
            Al Jazeera, not exactly your typical pro-American news outlet was the first to receive this tape and the first to listen to its contents. It would be normal, I expect, for the foremost Arabic television network to respond harshly if western news outlets misquoted bin Laden’s words spoken the tape. As it turns out, they did not complain. In fact, Al Jazeera believes the tape and bin Laden’s admission of guilt are authentic.
            
            A later Al-Jazeera article titled Al-Qaeda facts and figures focuses on “Global neo-Jihadi terrorist plots targeted at the West over the last 20 years.” In this piece,  Al-Jazeera lists “9/11/01 attack (2001)” as one of “12 al-Qaeda Core controlled operations.” [Emphasis added] {3}
            
            Obviously, Max, Al-Jazeera understood bin Laden’s words on the tape they received in Oct 2004 and they believed him.
            
            {1} http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6363306/
            {2} http://rense.com/general59/full.htm
            {3} http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/emp … 68960.html

            replyreport
            1. 73

               rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               ...."But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind."
               
               These are the words of the terrorist. This is the explanation for the attacks. This is where the conflict is centered. Yet when I hear people say that "they" attacked us with no provocation I am dumbfounded. Actions have reactions when you wrong someone. Yet we continue to ignore the basis of the argument and insist the reasons for our activities over there are something else. We point at them and say they continue to attack us because they hate us for our freedom  and stupid reasoning's we somehow get behind. We simply cannot look at our own actions and the affect we have on other societies because of our interests. Truth be told we would not be there but for the oil and we would not support Israel if it were not a good distraction from our intents.
               
               By the way, your post was an excellent and topical reply to the "reasoning's" being offered as facts Quilligrapher.

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Back to your doublespeak? You can't say on one hand "heck yeah bomb them... And few days later adopt a rational and tolerant discourse, can you?

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Poppycock! You can certainly respond to violence (the beheadings) with return punishment. I was for going into Afghanistan to mete out the punishment on the Taliban and Al Qaeda for the Twin Towers. But after we devastated them we should have left. Why didn't we leave? Because there is a wealth of precious metals in Afghanistan and Cheney wanted a shot at that Iraqi oil.
                     
                     What I have a problem with is letting our troops be drawn into another long never ending war. The impetus is still on the local militias and armies to take control while we bomb the hell out of them from above. Just because someone is against war does not mean they should become an open target. My mother always taught me if someone starts a fight with you and you get hit, make sure you let them know how their beating can stop.

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        "...Why didn't we leave? Because there is a wealth of precious metals in Afghanistan and Cheney wanted a shot at that Iraqi oil. "
                        
                        As my son would say... Really? Can you back up that, (ridiculous in my view), statement with any kind of facts? What precious metals did we gain from our Afghanistan adventures? What oil Iraqi concessions did Chaney realize?
                        
                        With all the possible rationals for our misadventure in Afghanistan, precious metals and oiul are what top your list?
                        
                        Nuts to that.
                        
                        ps. I will gladly offer an apology if I have shot from the hip and you can provide the proof behind your convivtions.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 64

                           maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           What about oil and gas? What about impeding China to buy natural resources from Afghanistan, from Africa...? It would surprise me if your son had a diametrically opposite opinion from yours. Don't we say like father, like son?

                           replyreport
                           1. 88

                              GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              "What about oil and gas? "  - Is there an echo in here?
                              
                              Wasn't that the question I asked rHamson? Do you restate it because you can't offer proof of the claim, or because you think the US and Cheney's goal was to open the door for China to scoop up more oil contracts.
                              
                              Since most reports note that the largest oil beneficiary of our actions in Iraq, (Afghanistan oil?),  have been China, how is that you think our purpose was to block China's efforts?
                              
                              Of course I may have been hoodwinked by the powers behind the curtain, so if you want to answer the questions posed in my response to rHamson - give it a go. But answering with just more questions isn't what I would consider any kind of proof.
                              
                              As for my son's perspectives... assumptions can be dangerous things.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 If you know about Afghanistan's mineral wealth and natural resources why don't you know about Chinese partnership with Afghanistan? Why don't you search on the subject? Each time China is partnering with a country that has important mineral, natural resources we are targeting the country. Recently, we remove the Iraqi president that we installed only because he made deals with China. Indeed we want to cut China's route to natural resources. It makes sense, their economy is growing and not ours.

                                 replyreport
                        2. 73

                           rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           At the time of the invasion by the US the oil was controlled by Saddam Hussein since 1972 when the oil industry was nationalized. The US and UK were determined to gain access to the second largest cache of oil in the world.
                           https://www.globalpolicy.org/political- … -iraq.html
                           
                           "Exxon Oil is selling its 25% of its 60% share of Iraqi oil to China. Exxon’s decision to divest in southern Iraq was partly in response to an ongoing conflict between the Iraqi central authorities in Baghdad and the authorities of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil over control of oil and gas resources."
                           
                           http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener … Field.html
                           
                           The US is still buying blacklisted Iraqi oil. For a country that did not have oil on its mind with regards to Iraq we certainly have done a poor job of showing any other conviction.
                           http://www.blacklistednews.com/US_is_bu … 8/Y/M.html
                           
                           As far as Afghanistan the military has known that the precious metals are a real bonus. And I quote "An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys."
                           
                           http://wonkette.com/415964/afghanistan- … ous-metals
                           
                           There were underlying reasons for the invasion.
                           
                           http://globalresearch.ca/the-war-is-wor … -gas/19769
                           
                           I don't know if this is enough but a quick search on the old interweb may help you more than I can.

                           replyreport
                           1. 88

                              GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              First I must thank you for prompting me to become more informed. I have done a few of those "famous internet searches" and found that there has indeed been an apparent abundance of valuable precious metals and minerals discovered in Afghanistan, a point I was formerly unaware of.
                              
                              And since you went to such effort to provride links to assist my education, I will repay your kindness with a similar effort. (which, perhaps regrettably, means a rather lengthy reply)
                              
                              Starting with the "Buts..."
                              
                              But, (of course there is always a but), this fact is not at all relevant to your purpose in stating it. My take on your point was that oil and precious metals were the hidden agenda behind the US war efforts. When in fact this "bountiful discovery" occurred at a minimum, six years after the war started, (2007 - the precious metals and gems discoveries) and possibly as much as nine years later, (2010 -the lithium discoveries).
                              
                              So on the one hand I have learned something new, (the country's treasure of precious metals, gems, and minerals), and on the other, reaffirmed something I believe - the oil and gas war bounty argument still appears as bogus as I initially thought.
                              
                              Perhaps you should have researched this "lithium mother-lode" claim a little deeper before you proclaimed it as a possible reason for the US war effort in Afghanistan.
                              
                              Moving on to your globalpolicy.org link that proclaims the US and UK intent to reap the rewards of rigging the Iraqi Constitution in their favor;
                              
                              
                              You could also have found this link to the content of this topic in the 2005 Iraqi constitution - Treatment of Oil in Iraq's 2005 Constitution and discovered for yourself there is no documented truth, (conspiratorial truth, perhaps), to the claims of the globalpolicy.org article. And if you doubt that source, you can read the full text of the Iraqi Constitution in this Washington Post link.  Skip down to Chapter Two - Executive Powers, Article 63 to see the available arbitrary powers available to "our puppet" Iraqi president, then bounce on down to Section Four - Powers of the Federal Government - starting at Article 108, and you will quickly see there is no apparent support for the claims of your linked GlobalPolicy.org article.
                              
                              Then balance that with the generally accepted fact that China has reaped the bounty of foreign country oil contracts, (the Iraqi government required much slimmer profit margins than US and UK companies were willing to accept), and you will see the fallacy of the articles claims further illustrated.  If you do one of your own "Interweb" searches you will find ample credible sources to verify this detail.
                              
                              Further, regarding your link to Exxon's divestiture - I am unsure of your purpose. I have faith in my research that yields the seeming economically valid reason as too slim profit margins for this move. In what way does it offer validation to your point?
                              
                              Moving on once more, to your "blacklisted oil" link... Rightly or wrongly, I view this as a gray area. Your link even demonstrates the vagueness of the oil's origin and pedigree. Kurdistan oil loaded in Turkey? OK, maybe it is a case of a US company skirting the edges of legality and patriotic duty. But the Iraqi/Kurdistan sovereignty dispute appears to be a very legitimate point of discussion in my mind. And if it is a point of transgress, then it is one US company - not the "cabal" of the US oil industry.
                              
                              And even so, your own linked article highlights the dispute between Kurdistan autonomy and Iraqi declarations of foul play. Do you really think this link and story buttress you "go to war for oil" theory?
                              
                              Next on your list is the "valuable minerals" point which I have already addressed. So we are to the point where I ask; Globalresearch.ca, Really? Come on rhamson, that is a Maxx-type source. Are you really comfortable using that site as support for your points? Conspirators will never feel they have been proven wrong because they know that their truth is the real truth, and any other truth is just a manipualtion of the masses.
                              
                              Think about it, do you really feel comfortable relying on a site like that?
                              
                              But in the end, although I think you have failed miserably in validating your points, I am still thankful that you prodded me to learning something new. Which makes this day very worthwhile.
                              
                              ps. Do you always stop looking when you find a source that agrees with your perspective?
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 73

                                 rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Your dissection of the articles is rather good and I could not agree with you more that there are holes in all of it. The peculiar thing is unless I came up with a direct quote from a top official I think my efforts would be fruitless in persuading you any different of your findings. If your purpose is to shoot holes in a story than that will be your motivation and will achieve it to your own satisfaction. If, however there is enough information to cast a doubt then you owe it to yourself to investigate other avenues. The precious metals have been known for many years prior to the invasion. That was in the news during Russia's failed invasion. The real reason for the invasion of Afghanistan was in retaliation to the 911 attacks. The subsequent "Nation Building" was to set up bases in Afghanistan and exploit these resources. Karzai and his mobster connections were wise to it and they wanted a part of it.
                                 
                                 I cannot convince you to look beyond the forest to see the trees. Only you can see what you wish.
                                 
                                 Here are some more to shoot holes in.
                                 
                                 http://www.bollyn.com/the-spoils-of-war … fghanistan
                                 http://100777.com/node/239
                                 
                                 " They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989." We knew about this long before the US invasion.
                                 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world … p;emc=eta1
                                 
                                 I am sorry if you cannot see the conspiracy but maybe that is a credit to your good natured demeanor. Don't worry, I won't let it get out as it could damage that curmudgeon reputation.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 88

                                    GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    You are correct, I am not much of a conspiracy theorist. The fact that something may be possible does not necessarily mean it is probable. But neither am I a "Denier" that refuses to face proven facts.
                                    
                                    For instance, if you had started with the bollyn story, (which seems credible and is dated more relative to your point), and the NY Times article, (even though the later does not support your point, it does seem more credible), then that might have been enough to give me pause, and say Hmm... could he be right?
                                    
                                    But instead you made your claim and then followed with those "holey" conspiracy links. I did not make the holes in those stories - I just pointed them out. I did not construct their obvious bias - I just pointed it out.
                                    
                                    "The real reason for the invasion of Afghanistan was in retaliation to the 911 attacks. The subsequent "Nation Building" was to set up bases in Afghanistan and exploit these resources. "
                                    
                                    It appears you are now saying oil and minerals were not the reasons for our war in Afghanistan, but came to light as a possible bonus if we, (the puppet masters), put our people in control.
                                    
                                    Have you considered the extent and complexity of the behind-the-scenes machinations that would be needed to make your theory plausible? Maybe in Hollywood, but in my mind such a scenario remaining secret in the White House seems highly unlikely. Do you have other information that gives you the confidence to make your "real purpose of the nation building" declaration?
                                    
                                    Further, you must also believe our puppet-masters are much more devious and conniving than the Soviets/Russians. As you noted, they had records of these troves of treasures first. Why wouldn't it have occurred to them to grab the bounty?
                                    
                                    I really don't think I have a problem seeing the forest for the trees, although I may have a penchant to look before I leap.
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 73

                                       rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       The real reasons were not necessarily the ones stated. A good conspiracy theory has a plausible deniability built in to it. It allows the sub plot to operate in absence of the truth. Maybe the inverse has over ruled your acceptance of the theory.
                                       
                                       As far as the Russians exploiting the gems I think the SAM's and RPG's gave the Ruskies a hard time getting out of their tanks and helicopters to actually mine anything.
                                       
                                       I respect your opinion however rose colored I think it is but I would keep my eyes wide open when it comes to the comings and goings of this government of ours.

                                       report
                                       1. 88

                                          GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          Plausible deniability... sub-plots,,,, and the real truth being the absence of truth... these are the makings of your conspiracy theory? Sounds fair to me. Considering that it is usually the exposure of truth and absence of sub-plots that destroy conspiracy theories.
                                          
                                          I do not think my opinion is rose colored at all, as a dedicated Curmudgeon, I find that my opinions are generally more cynical than most.
                                          
                                          But since I do prefer to be right rather than wrong, and since even though, (I believe), your main "conspiracy" points have been shown to be wrong or weak - you persist in believing your "conspiracy" - you pushed me into a black hole of multiple hours of "Google searching" to ensure my glasses weren't of any tint.
                                          
                                          So thanks to you, I am more sure than ever that I am right regarding my disbelief in your "precious metals" aspect of the oil, gas and precious metals" conspiracy.
                                          
                                          I won't make this an essay of counter-points, but I did find this seemingly very credible paper on the subject; Afghanistan's Mineral Fortune: Multinational influence and development in a post-war economy by Saleem H. Ali and John F. Schoder - associated with University of Vermont and University of Nebraska at Omaha.
                                          
                                          If you take a look at it, without your dark glasses, you will find plenty of documented historical data related to the contentions of your conspiracy. It is a well written paper that shows you the whole forest, and even addresses the individual trees of your "sub-plots."
                                          
                                          *note: I also found multiple other reference articles related to the important points of this paper which confirm, (in my opinion) the evaluations and conclusions it contained.
                                          
                                          To disregard this trove of debunking information and continue believing in this conspiracy would indicate to me that it is not my glasses that are tinted. And that you might consider taking a few more nature walks and watch a few less Hollywood movies.
                                          
                                          Just Sayin'
                                          
                                          GA

                                          report
                                          1. 73

                                             rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             I appreciate your candor and curmudgeon views on the topic and find that maybe you are not as much a pessimist as you would have us believe by your self proclaimed title. I think when something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is in fact a duck. I don't buy into the autonomous government offerings that continue to plague the truth. I applaud your optimism and hope that you are correct in assuming the motives of our government are indeed as you believe. I don't know how long you have been walking upright on this earth but my years among the human primates has shown me how much the primate is in control of the human to his own detriment. I guess until I find some undeniable document of my understanding to show you we will have to agree to disagree.

                                             report
                                             1. 88

                                                GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                Even a semi-deniable document would be enough to give me pause. Of course I may not have gone deep enough, or extended my reach beyond internet available sources, but I have yet to find even a semi-deniable document, or semi-credible voice to support this particular conspiracy theory.
                                                
                                                My mention of Hollywood was because I think you give the masters of your conspiracy too much credit. Just imagine the number of people that would have to be "in" on the conspiracy... yet not one document, not one slip of the tongue, not one disgruntled participant spilling the beans, (of course the "not one" phrasing is severe, but it makes the point), to give any weight to the theory.
                                                
                                                And yes, we can agreeably agree to disagree.
                                                
                                                GA

                                                report
                                                1. 73

                                                   rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Documents are impossible to obtain as the deniability is that much more difficult when defending a greedy initiative. I did find a piece that might help.
                                                   
                                                   http://globalresearch.ca/the-war-is-wor … -gas/19769
                                                   
                                                   From the article:
                                                   "Afghanistan’s mineral wealth and energy resources (including natural gas) were known to both America’s business elites and the US government prior to the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1988)."

                                                   report
                                                   1. 88

                                                      GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                      I have seen the article you linked to. I find it to be so full of unsubstantiated BS and outrageous claims that I am surprised you have revisited it.
                                                      
                                                      "US military bases in Afghanistan are also intent upon protecting the multibillion narcotics trade.  Narcotics, at present, constitutes the centerpiece of Afghanistan’s export economy."
                                                      
                                                      "The heroin trade, instated at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979 and protected by the CIA, generates cash earnings in Western markets in excess of $200 billion dollars a year."
                                                      
                                                      "Today, under US-NATO military occupation, the drug trade generates cash earnings in Western markets in excess of $200 billion dollars a year."
                                                      
                                                      Those are quotes from your article too. Any proof of their truth? (Do I hear the footsteps of an Iran/Contra validation approaching?)
                                                      
                                                      Then there was this;
                                                      "Under US and allied occupation, this mineral wealth is slated to be plundered, once the country has been pacified, by a handful of multinational mining conglomerates. According to Olga Borisova, writing in the months following the October 2001 invasion, the US-led “war on terrorism [will be transformed] into a colonial policy of influencing a fabulously wealthy country.” (Borisova, op cit).
                                                      
                                                      Part of the US-NATO agenda is also to eventually take possession of Afghanistan’s reserves of natural gas, as well as prevent the development of competing Russian, Iranian and Chinese energy interests in Afghanistan"
                                                      
                                                      So now NATO is in on the American "Plunder Afghanistan" conspiracy too?
                                                      
                                                      GA

                                                      report
                                                      1. 61

                                                         John Holdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                         As both the UK and the USA have a long history of this kind of blunder I suspect that we would be better to accept it and look for proof that it isn't so rather than not accept it and look for proof that it is so.

                                                         report
                                                      2. 73

                                                         rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                         A conspiracy is never so sweet as one that ceases to reveal itself. You cannot accept that this country could be involved in something such as an exploitation of other sovereign states resources? And when did NATO become so sacred? Please say it isn't so. Are you saying you need a smoking gun for proof of the crime. The smoking gun is the failure of what has happened is too late. I am sorry you need so much to prove so little.

                                                         report
                              2. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 And why would our opinions differ if they agree with a website or a newspaper article? Opinions are made with a plethora of information, why my opinion, based upon my understanding of any given situation, be wrong? Yourself, you are basing your opinion upon what you read but at no moment do you question the legitimacy of our government to be in Afghanistan. Either it is for oil or mineral resources, the reality is that the US is there exploiting their wealth.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 88

                                    GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    I did not address the "legitimacy" question because I did not see it posed. I addressed the contention that we were there for their oil, gas and precious minerals. with the discussion focus being the precious metals.
                                    
                                    You are absolutely right about opinions, (see, I promised not to contradict you again), in that we are all free to form our own based on our understandings. It is the validity of those understandings that make all the difference in the world.
                                    
                                    In our case, it seems our understandings are from different worlds too.
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 64

                                       maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       As for your source (the report) what does guarantee that it wasn't funded by private interests? I could as well question you : REALLY?

                                       report
                                       1. 88

                                          GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          Yes, you certainly can question me, REALLY? But would that mean anything?
                                          
                                          But since you asked, of course I can't guarantee that. Can you guarantee that your sources are not biased?
                                          
                                          GA

                                          report
                                          1. 64

                                             maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             It wouldn't mean anything but you also understand that your questioning leads also to the same answer (it wouldn't mean anything either). I'm just showing you that your attitude towards rhamson is tainted with bias. Both of you have your believes.
                                             Between you and I, we have both 2 sets of belief that contradict each others with, for sure, one of them to be the truth. Now, history will tell us who was right or wrong.
                                             Obviously not. But one can check the rationalization of one statement. For instance, when I say America is an imperialist and a warmonger, you can't refute it. When I say that the US is capitalistic and not socialistic, you can't deny it. It is factual. Now, if I'm telling you we are in Iraq to preserve democracy. I can emit a doubt given that our freedoms have been infringed on the national soil. We can't praise democracy abroad and not apply the same ideology and principles locally. Then, if I follow the logic of my reasoning, I have to question myself as for the real reason. I proceed by elimination. Then appears a behavior. Repetitively, it becomes a pattern and so forth.

                                             report
                                 2. 88

                                    GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    "Either it is for oil or mineral resources, the reality is that the US is there exploiting their wealth."
                                    
                                    Max can you provide an example of our exploitation of Afghany oil or mineral wealth? Real examples of it happening, not just condemnations of possible US private enterprise contracts or concessions.
                                    
                                    Regardless of your trust in the source of the following "points", (DOD, U.S. Agencies Help Afghanistan Exploit Mineral Wealth -2012), do you think these statements are too unreasonable to be true:
                                    
                                    "DOD officials and USGS scientists work as partners in this initiative with the Afghanistan government and scientists and engineers from the Afghan Ministry of Mines and the Afghan Geological Survey.
                                    
                                    “The task force is a Defense Department organization charged to help spur and grow the private-sector economy in Afghanistan, … and clearly, the mineral and oil and gas extractive areas are critical to that effort,”
                                    
                                    "In December, supported by the DOD task force, officials from Afghanistan’s Ministry of Mines opened tender processes, or auctions, for exploration and later exploitation of four project areas in the country."
                                    
                                    "That doesn’t mean it will be easy to turn these resources into national income, Medlin told American Forces Press Service....
                                    ...“You’re talking about a capital investment of billions of dollars up front before you’ve even mined a pound of ore,” Medlin said. “It’s the reason companies want well-defined mining laws … and they want all the legal and regulatory requirements spelled out.”"
                                    
                                    "    At the embassy event, Afghanistan’s Ambassador to the United States Eklil Hakimi thanked DOD and the USGS for their help with the mining enterprise and discussed the potential economic benefits.
                                    
                                    “The estimated direct revenue to be generated by royalties and taxes from the extractive industries could reach up to $1.5 billion by 2016 and exceed $3.7 billion by 2026,” Hakimi said, “and will become a major source of employment, with 165,000 jobs anticipated by 2016 and up to half a million by 2026...
                                    ... “The word that I hear is [the Afghans] want to do this themselves,” the USGS director added. “They … are eager to take leadership and ownership of these projects and learn how to do it because they’re excited about rebuilding.”
                                    
                                    If you note that the tender and bidding process is open to many other nations besides the US, and that winning bids will have to spend tons of money to make tons of money - which includes the fact that their making their tons of money also makes tons of money for the Afghan people, and that Afghanistan does not have the infrastructure, expertise, technology, or money to do it all themselves, (so they must rely on external nations/businesses) - do you still call that US exploitation of Afghany wealth?
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 64

                                       maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       If we refer to our history, when did America step up to help countries genuinely? Burkina Faso is a poor country where is our sense of duty towards suffering? Then why are we in Afghanistan if not because we recently discovered untapped and exploitable wealth? Why are we in Liberia if not AGAIN because we found untapped oil?
                                       Why are they developing private sector versus public? Still for the good of the people or private interests and corporations?
                                       You are telling me that the Defense department is the qualified department for the mission? Does it make sense?
                                       By Afghan government did you mean the corrupt government? Kharzai was our puppet, Ghani will follow his steps undoubtedly.
                                       The US doesn't give a DAMN of the Americans but they care about Afghan people. Corporations escape the US to cheaper manpowered countries with Obama's blessing just to create jobs abroad? Corporations create jobs because it benefits their agenda not because the Afghan interest prevails.
                                       What you copied/pasted smells like the American stinking (excuse me for the term) good feeling! Have you noticed that we are ALWAYS the intelligent ones? What would those Afghans do without us? Why don't you let them figure it out on their own? I am fed up of our hypocritical paternalistic behavior.

                                       report
                                    2. 64

                                       maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       You are JOKING. The Afghan people make a lot of money. Isn't it the rascals that we install at their government? Is it your understanding of our foreign policy? We are investing for the Afghan people. What a farce! If it's your only argument to justify our pilfering then you are fooling yourself or you are dishonest.

                                       report
                                       1. 88

                                          GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          Nope, I wasn't joking.
                                          
                                          And, Nope, I did make not the imply the points you attribute to my statement.
                                          
                                          Can you provide any proof of the "pilfering" you speak of? Beyond your belief that is. Any real tangible proof?
                                          
                                          And Nope, I do not think I am dishonest or fooling myself. But I do wonder about ...
                                          
                                          GA

                                          report
                                          1. 88

                                             GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             Oops... and that was written during a martini-free period
                                             
                                             Of course it should have read; "And, Nope! I did not infer the points you attribute to my statement."
                                             
                                             Now I must write ""And, Nope! I did not infer the points you attribute to my statement."" 100 times - single spaced.
                                             
                                             GA

                                             report
                     2. 64

                        maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        How good of you to fly and help Afghans against the Talibans that we trained and installed! How nice of you to fight against Al Qaeda that WE created.
                        I thought that September 11 was Saddam Hussein? What are you going to invoke to justify his killing? I guess you're lost in the mainstream media narrative...
                        Obviously, for you it was our government reason to kill civilians, our GOOD HEART, now you know what we are about if you still have a doubt.
                        The only reason they are a target is because they are occupying and pilfering their country, wouldn't you behave accordingly?

                        replyreport
            2. 64

               maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               NBC, Al-Jazeera? Very independent, aren't they? And since when an Arabic channel has the freedom of broadcasting on the American audiovisual landscape? Probably since the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have the same interests? Why not the national Syrian channel? I'm wondering what kind of propaganda allowed Bachar Al- Assad to have a majority that even Obama didn't have? Or better a Russian source?

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Good evening Max. Your post is very predictable.
                  
                  When unable to deny the factual evidence, it is typical to respond with an attack on NBC and Al-Jazeera, which in this case is a transparent attempt to divert attention away from the truth. The entire reply consists of seven unrelated, irrelevant and unanswered questions, a poor substitute for actual and supported information from a verifiable source. More importantly, the fact that there is not one original, coherent declarative statement renders the entire effort empty and meaningless. Time to switch to benefactors who not only supply anti-American propaganda but also can provide reliable and verifiable sources. 
                  

                  replyreport