Brzezinski: Islamic terror geopolitical weapon created by US

by **proldic** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:04 pm

Le Nouvel Observateur's Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Published 15-21 January 1998 Translated by Jean Martineau Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement? Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets. Le Nouvel Observateur: Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it? Zbigniew Brzezinski: It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it. Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today? Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire. Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice? Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Le Nouvel Observateur: "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat... Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries.

by **DrDebugDU** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:20 pm

I loved that story, because it meant that it was a set up. They quickly started to recruit Osama bin Laden as well. The setup was as follows. The US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were going to set up the training camps for the muhadjedeen. And they needed a leader. And they wanted somebody with standing, so the US asked Saudi Arabia to provide a prince, but no prince wanted to do it. The bin Ladens which were the #2 family in Saudi Arabia were willing and supplied Osama to head the operation. When the war was raging on it was getting more and more expansive for the US, so they set up the system were every dollar the US and Pakistan put in the war would be matched with an equal amount from Saudi Arabia. That's why nobody ever refuses Saudi Arabia a favor because they have been an enormous help during the Soviet-Afghani War.

by **proldic** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:24 pm

Yeah, notice he confirmed it was 6 months BEFORE the Soviet Union sent troops.

by **DrDebugDU** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:30 pm

Yeah, I've seen it Prof. GlobalResearch.ca (I can never remember his name) mentioned as well in an article. They wanted the Soviet Union to invade the country. It's a very dark story. Carter gave the order on July 3rd 1979 and the Soviet invasion was September 24 Here's the story: When the Shah of Iran was overthrown in January 1979, the United States lost its chief ally and outpost in the Soviet-border region, as well as its military installations and electronic monitoring stations aimed at the Soviet Union. Washington's cold warriors could only eye Afghanistan even more covetously than before.[1] On July 3 President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the Mujahideen, opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. [2] In September 1979 Noor Mohammed Taraki was ousted and replaced Hafizullah Amin. Amin tried to gain Pakistani or American support and refused to take Soviet advice. [3]The Kremlin was unhappy with Amin. Amin himself insisted that Moscow replace its ambassador.{22} The Soviets repeatedly referred to Amin as a "CIA agent", a charge which was greeted with great skepticism in the United States and elsewhere.{27} However, enough circumstantial evidence supporting the charge exists so that it perhaps should not be dismissed entirely out of hand. [1] The Soviet Union invaded in September 24, 1979 and assassinated Amin. [1] The Soviets was forced to withdraw 10 years later by anti-Communist mujahidin forces supplied and trained by the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others. The Communist regime in Kabul fought on until collapsing in 1992. [2] Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions. This eventually gave rise to a state of warlordism. The chaos and corruption involved in warlordism in turn spawned the rise of the Taliban in reaction. The most serious of this fighting occurred in 1994, when 10,000 people were killed from factions fighting in the Kabul area. Backed by Pakistan and her strategic allies, the Taliban developed as a political/religious force and eventually seized power in 1996. The Taliban were able to capture 90% of the country, aside from Northern Alliance strongholds primarily in the northeast. The Taliban sought to impose a strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law. The Taliban gave safe haven and assistance to individuals and organizations that engaged in terrorism, especially Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda. [4] (1) <a href="http://members.aol.com/bblum6/afghan.htm">members.aol.com/bblum6/afghan.htm</a> (2) <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html">www.globalresearch.ca/art...Z110A.html</a> (3) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafizullah_Amin">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafizullah_Amin</a> (4) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan</a> <a href="http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Afghanistan">demopedia.democraticunder...fghanistan</a>

by **DrDebugDU** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:45 pm

More stuff about Zbigniew Brzezinksi, because he is a real bastard as well and it wouldn't surprise me if the PNAC got many of their ideas from the works of Brzezinksi Zbigniew Brzezinski The Grand Chessboard American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives Key Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal Book "Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii) "... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv) "In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31) “It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35) “The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125) "In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209) "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211) <a href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard">www.wanttoknow.info/brzez...chessboard</a> Page 209 is very interesting, because there he gives the clue about NWO. In the old stories they were talking about a World Order under the UN and nowadays they are talking about a Pax Americana. By Trilateral/CFR/Bilderberg Brzezinksi gives a clue aobut what the plan is. Pax Americana comes first and then the NWO will be developed. The first part of the mission is to subdue all the countries and then they take the final step. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=drdebugdu>DrDebugDU</A> at: 7/29/05 5:49 pm

by **proldic** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:45 pm

The best first-hand account of this chapter in history that I've read is a book called "Afghanistan -Washington's Secret War" by Phillip Bonosky (1985 International Publishers). He actually says they were involved long before then. Plus he's got some amazing anecdotal stories about the assassination of Ambassador Adolph Dubs, Breszinski, and other CIA spooks there. Definitely worth getting if you can find it.

by **DrDebugDU** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:18 pm

> He actually says they were involved long before then. I don't doubt that at all. > Plus he's got some amazing anecdotal stories about the assassination of Ambassador Adolph Dubs, Breszinski, and other CIA spooks there. Thanks. Anyhow I've the quote of Breszinski I was looking for. The Iraq part: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Once in control of Iraq, the U.S. player occupies a key strategic position. Firstly, Iraq floats on a sea of oil. Secondly it sits on top of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states which also float on a sea of oil. U.S.-occupied Iraq also borders Iran, an old protagonist, another member of the “Axis of Evil” and another oil-producer. In this position, the U.S. not only assures continued supply of its own oil but controls the oil supply of others, such as Europe and Japan. Coupled with its interests in the Turkic regions, the U.S. has cornered the market. But this isn’t all about oil. Iraq also borders Syria, and Syria supports the Palestinian guerrilla groups waging war on Israel out of Syrian-held Lebanon. The U.S. can now bring pressure to bear on Syria or even invade it. © armed-combat.com 2 May 2003. YOU MAY REPRODUCE THIS PAGE You may reproduce the above article on your own website provided that the text is reproduced in full and unaltered. You must include the copyright line and this notice. You may not copy other content from armed-combat.com without specific written permission. <a href="http://www.armed-combat.com">www.armed-combat.com</a> <hr></blockquote>

by **Qutb** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 9:11 pm

Brzezinski, who is now "opposed to" the war in Iraq and the current administration. I linked to this article by John Stanton in another thread, but I'm linking it again as I think it is very illuminating: <a href="http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/021805Stanton/021805stanton.html">www.onlinejournal.com/Spe...anton.html</a> "Now, before you yell, "Conspiracy," you might want to think Necessity and Stability, particularly in light of the opening to Central Asia, the Caucasus and the new Europe provided by 9-11. Pull up Net maps of Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Europe. Once you've done that, consider what political, economic and military activities (defined as US national interests) the United States has underway in those regions. It is no less than the development of a US-dominated New EuroAsia that includes the "Stans," Ukraine, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech, Croatia, and Poland. Crazy? Hardly, it is a brilliant gamble. There are many compelling reasons to create a New EuroAsia with the US with a controlling interest. First, there's the little matter of energy resources. The fact is that the both regions possess an abundance of resources and those countries there that don't are key transit points for the movement of energy. With the US becoming more reliant on a stable world market for energy, it's imperative to stabilize and exploit available resources. Second, Americans have all the candy and weapons systems they need. New markets for American products are critical for American economic survival. Third, with WWII having ended a mere 60 years ago, US foreign policy is still very much in the hands of America's anti-Soviet/Chinese Cold Warriors. Hence, Russia-China encirclement remains part and parcel of US policy. US military outposts close to Russia's and China's borders dot the landscape in the New EuroAsia. As Space Daily reported, US mobile missile defense batteries are likely to appear at these bases since continental US-based systems are doomed to failure. US military outposts will also allow quick jump off points for covert operations into Russia and China, interdiction of black market WMD and their components, and drug interdiction. Fourth, to compete against the combined economic forces of the European Union (EU), it is necessary to have a leveraging position in the New EuroAsia. For example, the EU's Inogate Program is a source of concern for the US as Europe has been busy for years laying the groundwork for new energy sources and transit points. The US was late to that game and is still playing catch-up. Fifth, isolating and destabilization Iran remains paramount. Such has been the policy since the 1980s. As recently reported, US Unmanned Aerial Vehicles have been launched from bases in Iraq to spy on Iran's military infrastructure and nuclear reactor sites. In all likelihood such activity has been underway at least since the beginning of the US's 21st century invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Guiding Light ATC is joined in the creation of the New EuroAsia by the American Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (AACC). AACC's Honorary Council of Advisors just happens to have Scowcroft and the following persons of significance: Henry Kissinger, Zibigniew Brezinski, Lloyd Benston, John Sununu and James Baker III. Former Council members include Dick Cheney and Richard Armitage, former undersecretary of state. Board of trustee members include media-overkill subject Richard Perle of AEI, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Frank Verrastro of CSIS."

by **DrDebugDU** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:11 pm

I already thought that American Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce sounded familiar. It seems it was even posted on Rigorous Intuition blog <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Possibly some very important dots being connected here ( <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2238307">www.democraticunderground...04x2238307</a> ) First, how well are you acquainted with the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce? You're certainly well acquainted with its members. Meet the "Honorary Council of Advisors": James Baker, Lloyd Bentson, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Dick Cheney (resigned after the Nov 2000 election), Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, John Sununu. That's just for starters. Richard Perle is a Trustee; until his State Department appointment, Richard Armitage sat on the Board. Bigger Names of Big Oil are listed here than in the Houston directory. The stated goals of the USACC include: To serve as a liaison with governmental and non-governmental entities, business organizations, think tanks, and to encourage cooperation and information exchange To sponsor educational programs, trade missions, seminars, conferences and publications to foster cultural and business interests Interesting, maybe, but...so what? Think the Caspian Sea. Think pipelines. Oil of course, and also drugs. Azerbaijan sits between Russia and Iran on the Caspian, and serves as a transit point for Southwest Asian opiates bound for Russia, and to a lesser extent the rest of Europe. Well, that's what the CIA says, and they know their opiates. And what has Sibel Edmonds said? From her interview with Christopher Deliso: CD: At several points you state that such organized crime networks employ "semi-legitimate organizations" as their point of interface with governments and the "legit" world. Can you explain exactly what you mean? SE: These are organizations that might have a legitimate front – say as a business, or a cultural center or something. And we've also heard a lot about Islamic charities as fronts for terrorist organizations, but the range is much broader and even, simpler. CD: For example? SE: You might have an organization supposed to be promoting the cultural affairs of a certain country within another country. Hypothetically, say, an Uzbek folklore society based in Germany. The stated purpose would be to hold folklore-related activities – and they might even do that – but the real activities taking place behind the scenes are criminal. CD: Such as? SE: Everything – from drugs to money laundering to arms sales. And yes, there are certain convergences with all these activities and international terrorism. CD: So with these organizations we're talking about a lot of money – SE: Huge, just massive. They don't deal with 1 million or 5 million dollars, but with hundreds of millions. An organization supposedly promoting the cultural affairs of another nation. Hypothetically, Uzbek. Now, in what languages did Edmonds serve the FBI as a translator? CD: Now I know you speak Turkish – but what else? SE: Because of my time in Iran, I also know Farsi. And Azerbaijani. ... <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/where-drugs-arms-and-oil-intersect.html">rigorousintuition.blogspo...rsect.html</a> <hr></blockquote> As far as Brzezinski's statement against the war in Iraq. He had been busy outlining that Iraq should be kept under control and he called for a terrorist attack to control the Indo-China oil reserves a couple of years earlier. I forgot to highlight the "African subordination" part. His language alone makes it clear what he thinks of the world.

Brzezinski: Islamic terror geopolitical weapon created by US

Brzezinski: Islamic terror geopolitical weapon created by US

Re: Brzezinski: Islamic terror geopolitical weapon created b

The Afghan Trap

Re: The Afghan Trap

Re: The Afghan Trap

Thanks

Re: Thanks

Imagine that

American Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce

Who is online