Peter Dale Scott: Drugs, Managed Violence, and Russia's 9/11

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Peter Dale Scott: Drugs, Managed Violence, and Russia's 9/11

Postby Rigorous Intuition » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:19 pm

I think Peter Dale Scott's <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/global-drug.htm">The Global Drug Meta-Group: Drugs, Managed Violence, and the Russian 9/11</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->, from last October, helps bring into focus the big geopolitical picture of 9/11's narco-criminal milieu (with particular attention to the suspect firm "Far West Ltd"), making it a good companion piece to Hopsicker's work in miniature, on the operational scale, in Florida.<br><br>It's a quite lengthy piece. These are some excerpts from Scott's conclusions:<br><br>The fact that the United States will use drug traffickers as geostrategic assets does not at all mean that Washington and the traffickers will necessarily have the same agendas. In theory at least, the contrary should be true. Although the United States may have used known traffickers like Zaman and Qadir to regain access to Afghanistan, its stated ultimate goal, and the one assumed by the mainstream media, was to reimpose its own kind of order. Whether the country is Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Colombia, or Kosovo, America's national interest is said to be to install and then protect pipelines. And pipelines require peace and security.<br><br>The prime geostrategic goal of the drug traffic in Afghanistan is precisely to prevent peace and security from happening. It is true that the international illicit drug industry, like the international oil industry, is polymorphous and flexible, relying on diversified sources and markets for its products in order to maintain its global dominance. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>But for the global drug traffic to prosper, there must always be key growing areas where there is ongoing violence, and state order does not prevail</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.<br><br>However, in speaking above of America's stated national interest, I do not assume that a U.S. government will always represent that national interest. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Something else has happened in recent decades, the growth of the drug trade to the point that it now represents a significant portion of national and international wealth</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. And it has to be said that the American free enterprise system, like every other dominant political system in a current nation with world pretensions, will tend above all to represent the interests of the wealthy.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Thus Bush Administration policies cannot be assumed to reflect the national goals of peace and security</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, as outlined above. On the contrary, its shocking underfunding of Afghanistan's recovery, like its complex and destabilizing interventions in Georgia, suggest that it, as much as the drug traffic, hopes to utilize instability – as a pretext for maintaining unstable U.S. bases in countries like Uzbekistan, whose people eventually will more and more object to them. These policies can be said to favor the interests of the drug traffic more than the interests of security and orderly development.<br><br>A test of the Bush Administration's true intentions in the War on Terror came as early as November 2001. The Americans had learned, correctly, that Osama bin Laden was holed up in the caves of Tora Bora. While storming the caves was a difficult military challenge, surrounding and isolating them was well within the capacity of U.S. military strength. However General Franks, the United States commander, entrusted the task of capturing bin Laden to two local commanders: Hazrat Ali and Haji Zaman.<br><br>As we have seen, Hazrat Ali and Haji Zaman were not only drug lords, they were earlier part of the 1980s heroin trail to Soviet troops that had been organized "with the blessings of the CIA." Thus the U.S. could hardly plead ignorance as to these men's activities and interests, which clearly involved making sure that the writ of Kabul would never extend to their own Nangahar Province. For the drug trade to thrive in Afghanistan, it was necessary that the influence of Osama and the Taliban be preserved, not extinguished.<br><br>...<br><br>It is fitting to think of most U.S. intelligence assets as chess pieces, moved at the whim of their controllers. That is however not an apt metaphor for the meta-group, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>which clearly has the resources to negotiate and to exert its own influence interactively upon the governments it works with</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.<br><br>Since first hearing about the meta-group's role in the Russian 9/11, I have pondered the question whether it could have played a similar role in the American 9/11 as well. At this point I have to say that I have found no persuasive evidence that would prove its involvement. The fact remains that two informed and credible witnesses, Sibell Edmonds and Indira Singh, have spoken independently of the importance of international drug trafficking in the background of 9/11.<br><br>...<br><br>The meta-group's involvement in the Russian 9/11 of course does nothing to prove its involvement in the American one. However awareness of its presence – as an unrecognized Force X operating in the world – makes previous discussions of 9/11 seem curiously limited. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Again and again questions of responsibility have been unthinkingly limited to false dilemmas</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> in which the possible involvement of this or any other Force X is excluded.<br><br>An early example is Michael Moore's naïve question to President Bush in Dude, Where's My Country: "Who attacked the United States on September 11 – a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friends, Saudi Arabia?"[124] A far more widespread dilemma is that articulated by David Ray Griffin in his searching critique of the 9/11 Commission Report:<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><br>There are two basic theories about 9/11. Each of these theories is a "conspiracy theory." One of these is the official conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks of 9/11 were planned and executed solely by al-Qaeda terrorists under the guidance of Osama bin Laden....Opposing this official theory is the [sic] alternative conspiracy theory, which holds that the attacks of 9/11 were able to succeed only because they were facilitated by the Bush administration and its agencies.[125]</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Griffin of course is not consciously excluding a third possible theory – that a Force X was responsible. But his failure to acknowledge this possibility is an example of the almost universal cultural denial I referred to earlier. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>In America few are likely to conceive of the possibility that a force in contact with the U.S. government could be not just an asset, but a force exerting influence on that government</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.<br><br>My personal suggestion to 9/11 researchers is that they focus on the connections of the meta-group's firm Far West, Ltd. – in particular those which lead to Khashoggi, Berezovskii, Halliburton and Dick Cheney, and Diligence, Joe Allbaugh, and Neil Bush.<br> <p></p><i></i>
Rigorous Intuition
 
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Peter Dale Scott: Drugs, Managed Violence, and Russia's

Postby Gouda » Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:27 pm

I wondered about this bit of news posted awhile ago on another thread. <br> <br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>US sets up £215m deal for Afghan arms - from Russia</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/22/warms22.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/22/ixnews.html">www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...xnews.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>American defence officials have secretly requested a <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"prodigious quantity"</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> of ammunition from Russia to supply the Afghan army in case a Democrat president takes over in Washington and pulls out US troops.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> *Cough. Cough again* <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"The final order may be more or may be less but the broad aim is to spend the budget while they can. They want to stack the country up with ammunition.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> Great idea for a failed state and a tiny "army" with the world's boomingest opium trade. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The "decade's worth" of ammunition</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> will give the Afghan National Army a vast arsenal to deal with Taliban or drug warlords if Washington withdraws its troops...A senior British officer said: "The point of getting Afghanistan up and running is so they can take on their own operations...If fully trained it will provide a formidable force against insurgents and potential foreign aggressors, including Pakistan where tensions are high on the southern border. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> *Cough* <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 7/14/06 11:30 am<br></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests