There is growing concern over mounting evidence that the "War on Terror" military campaign against Iraq and Afghanistan is motivated by a hidden agenda of oil, profit and financial factors, rather than national security.
AFGHANISTAN OIL PIPELINE: CONSTRUCTION STARTS
The construction a massive oil pipeline through Afghanistan will now begin, after the final agreement was signed today.
The U.S. government gas been planning the pipeline since the 1980s, but a regime change was needed before construction could begin.
None of the declared objectives of the American-led conquest of Afghanistan were achieved.
The military campaign in Afghanistan did not capture or defeat Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda was not found or destroyed, and no peace has been established to date.
The one success of the American-led Afghan war was to clear the route for the American-led oil and gas pipe-line through the country.
Despite the failures of the previous war, the U.S. government is now planning a new crusade against Iraq, the world's second greatest source of oil.
[ BBC News, "Central Asia pipeline deal signed", 27 December 2002. ]
WHY INVADE IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN WHEN AL-QAEDA ARE FUNDED BY SAUDI ARABIA?
The American government can no longer justify attacking Iraq or Afghanistan by claiming that these countries have supported al-Qaeda, because the world now knows that the main source of support for al-Qaeda is Saudi Arabia.
We must therefore look for other reasons why America wants to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is substantial evidence that the true motive for the "war on terrorism" is oil.
America has justified their conquest of Afghanistan and their planned conquest of Iraq by claiming that these countries support al-Qaeda.
But why were Afghanistan and Iraq singled-out for attack when there is a more convincing case against Saudi Arabia?
The U.S. government has now been accused by their own advisors of lying to hide the true supporters of al-Qaeda.
U.S. government advisors have yet again accused Saudi Arabia of supporting terrorism, making Saudi an obvious target for the "war on terror".
The Council on Foreign Relations, which advises the White House on foreign policy, has accused Saudi of
supporting al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden.
In a press-release
on 17 October, CFR called Saudi Arabia "the most important source of funds for Al-Qaeda".
The press-release quoted a new report
which repeats this accusation in two separate paragraphs, word for word.
"...it is worth stating clearly and unambiguously what official U.S. government spokespersons have not:
For years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al-Qaeda;
and for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye to this problem.
"This is hardly surprising since Saudi Arabia possesses the greatest concentration of wealth in the region;
Saudi nationals and charities were previously the most important sources of funds for the mujahideen;
Saudi nationals have always constituted a disproportionate percentage of al-Qaeda's own membership;
and al-Qaeda's political message has long focused on issues of particular interest to Saudi nationals..."
[ CFR Report on Terrorist Financing, 'Nature of the Problem' section, paragraph 8. ]
The new CFR report accuses the U.S. government of deliberately lying to cover-up the fact that al-Qaida is supported by Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq.
In August 2002 the RAND Corporation, which officially advises the U.S. government on military strategy, "recommended" that
America should invade and capture Saudi Arabian oil-fields
if the Saudis continue supporting al-Qaeda.
The White House attempted to disown this plan when it was accidentally leaked to the press, but RAND was set-up by the U.S. military, is run by senior U.S. ex-military and ex-political personnel, and funded by American tax-payers.
The CFR was founded by an elite group of business-men,
is run by senior U.S. ex-military personnel and top U.S. business executives,
and funded by donations from sources which cannot be identified because the relevant pages are mysteriously missing from
the annual reports on CFR's internet website.
The section on CFR's financing on their FAQs web page boldly claims that the sources of their funding are not secret and: "A list of donors appears in the annual report."
However, on CFR's Annual Reports web page the information about their funding is not available.
CFR's Annual Reports from 1998 to 2002 are all available on their website, but the pages about their funding have all been removed.
For example, the contents page of CFR's Annual Report for 2002 lists 'Budget and Finance' on pages 93 to 100.
Unfortunately the entire finance section of CFR's 2002 Annual Report is missing from the website and the file for pages 93-100 does not exist.
WHY DID THE FBI AND THE CIA ALLOW THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS?
The U.S. security services did not simply fail to stop the terrorist attacks on September 11 - they are being accused of deliberately interfering with attempts to prevent the 9/11 disasters.
This is extremely disturbing, especially when senior politicians and their supporters are guaranteed to profit substantially as a direct result of the 'war on terror' that has been justified by the attacks.
There were "serious failings" by the American intelligence agencies before last September's terrorist tragedy, and attempts to stop the attacks were obstructed at high levels.
According to the latest reports "the CIA had failed to share crucial information with the FBI. Early in 2000, the reports said, the CIA knew that two of the future hijackers ... had met suspected members of al-Qaeda."
FBI headquarters has been accused of setting up a "roadblock" to the investigation ahead of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
An official congressional inquiry investigating intelligence failures leading to the 11 September attacks heard that the FBI deliberately "hindered an investigation of a terrorism suspect."
In the July before the September 11 attacks an FBI agent "issued a memo calling for an investigation into the large number of Middle Eastern men enrolled in pilot training programmes."
Complaints were made by an FBI agent, about "lack of co-ordination, mix-ups and even obstacles put in the way of her office's investigations from FBI headquarters before the September 11 attacks."
U.N. GRANTS AMERICA IMMUNITY FROM WAR CRIMES PROSECUTION
The U.S. has been granted immunity from crimes prosecution by United Nations
International Criminal Court.
American peace-keeping troops can now officially never be tried for war crimes.
It is impossible to think of any reason why the U.S. would need to seek immunity from prosecution for war crimes
unless they either have committed a war crime or expect to do so in the future.
"The United Nations Security Council has voted unanimously to exempt U.S. peacekeepers from
prosecution by the new war crimes court..."
"The Bush administration, which considers the court an affront to U.S. sovereignty, had said
it would veto such missions wherever it believed American troops might be prosecuted [for war crimes]."
[ SOURCE: BBC News, "Dispute over war crimes court settled", 13 July 2002. ]
If soldiers from any country commits a war crime, why shouldn't they be brought to trial?
Why should America be treated differently from other countries?
U.S. GOVERNMENT TALKING ABOUT INVADING SAUDI ARABIAN OIL FIELDS
U.S. Government advisors are talking about extending the objectives of the "War on Terror" to include an invasion of Saudi Arabia and the "seizure of its oil fields".
A report leaked to the Washington Post newspaper revealed that this action was recommended to the U.S. Defence Policy Board, which
advises the Pentagon on military policy, by the
RAND Corporation, an official expert advisory group to the U.S. military.
"A briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory board described
Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that
U.S. officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face
seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the
[ SOURCE: The Washington Post, "Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies", 06 August 2002. ]
The U.S. government now wishes to distance its self from the policy recommended by its advisory groups, but these groups are run by people with close
and top-level connections with the U.S. government, and their advice is ultimately paid for by the tax-paying American public. Nevertheless, this
high-profile controversy has reminded the public that oil appears to be a recurring theme in the war on terror.
The RAND Corporation was created in 1946 by the U.S. Air Force, and is currently led by
Dr James A. Thomson, a former member of the National
Security Council staff at the White House.
The Defence Policy Board is an influential group
of elite intellectuals and former leading U.S. officials, including Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger and Newt Gingrich, and
chaired by Richard Perle.
This new direction in the "War on Terror", which is being proposed to the U.S. government by its top advisors, raises yet again the
extremely serious question of whether or not it is ethical to deploy military force, unprovoked, to overthrow a foreign government just
because the country doesn't agree with the way you are doing things.
[ PLEASE SIGN PETITION FOR STATEMENT FROM U.S. GOVERNMENT ]