Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00039)

Dear "Nos":

Bush has made no secret of the fact that promoting the
interests of oil dynasties such as the one to which he
was born, and oil heirs such as himself are his
motivations for wanting to be President. All of his
policies, foreign and domestic, have been oriented
toward that same master goal.

Thus far he has succeeded in getting the estate tax
repealed, so that he won't personally have to pay any
taxes when his parents go on to their reward, or
whatever it is they are going on to. His refusal to
sign the Kyoto Treaty, his insistence on drilling in
the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, his opposition to energy
efficiency or conservation and his opposition to the
development of alternative energy sources, etc., are
all oriented toward his master goal, which is
increasing dependence on oil and increasing domination
of the oil on which we are dependent by himself and
the rest of his family.

That Afghanistan is about oil was admitted publicly by
the Carter Administration during the seventies. That
fact was repeated on television and in the newspapers
numerous times. Carter even threatened a nuclear war
over Afghanistan at one point. Either suburbanites
have cheap gas for their Sport Utility Vehicles, or
the world comes to an end, apparently. Nobody during
that time or since then has ever pretended that
Afghanistan was about anything except oil.

Most wars are oil wars. Someone posted an absurd note
to the effect that there were no warships at Pearl
Harbor, but failed to note that from the Japanese
perspective, the Pacific War was about oil.

However, it is quite a stretch to begin with the
statement that the war in Afghanistan is an oil war,
and then to say that it "has nothing to do with
terrorism, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban or the World
Trade Centre." I believe Bush saw it as an
opportunity and even a godsend, but I do not believe
for a moment that it is irrelevant. A better take on
it is that if the WTC opportunity had not occurred,
Bush might have had to invent an opportunity of some
sort, and preferably one on foreign soil which was
less costly. The non existent attack in the Tonkin
Gulf got Johnson what he thought he wanted (actually
it put an end to his career) but took place in foreign
waters.

I also see a glaring inconsistency in the widely held
theory that Mossad piloted the planes and yet there
was not a single Jew in the WTC when it was attacked. 
It is doubtful you could pay a civil servant enough to
make him commit suicide, and if they evacuated the
targets, why would they man the missiles? Ariel
Sharon has made it clear by his behaviors and speeches
that he sees the War on Terror as an opportunity to
speed up his efforts to ethnically cleanse the
remainder of Palestine, but I don't think his agents
were on board the planes. It makes more sense to say
that these people are eagerly embracing opportunities
fortuitously created by others.

Opportunities are popping up all over the place. If
you watch the news, you know that Enron stock has
plummeted 99%. Enron is an oil company. What has not
been widely reported is that some Enron managers have
used that pleasant state of affairs to transfer
millions of dollars to themselves and out of the
retirement funds of their employees, which are heavily
invested in company stock. Once again I think they
merely figured out how to turn a situration into an
opportunity. I seriously doubt they manipulated the
stock market. The Bush Administration (otherwise
known as Oil, Incorporated) could allow this oil
company to go bankrupt. But once the employees have
been thoroughly bled, the stock could go back up to
its normal level, 100 x the price it now trades at. 
There is no way to know which way things will go at
this point, but if this turns out to be a fantastic
investment opportunity for people with iron stomachs,
it will not be the first time this sort of scenario
has played out that way. I would strongly urge anyone
not to mortgage the farm, but putting some throwaway
money in that stock after it bottoms out might be an
opportunity those of us who did not inherit oil
dynasties could exploit. This could be a tricky play
if relieving the employees of their almost worthless
stock before allowing the company to recover becomes
part of the game plan after the receivers take over. 
So be very cautious and gamble only with money you can
afford to lose.

Get in touch with your inner Republican!

--- nos <nos@granite.net.au> wrote:
> http://www1.jaring.my/just/FO-forbiddentruth.html
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Kier [mailto:dennw3k@earthlink.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2001 10:14 AM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World PEARL HARBOR II: The
> Technology of Manipulation
> 
> 
> > On December 7, 1941 a surprise Japanese
> air-attack over Pearl
> Harbor resulted in 4574 casualties (killed, injured,
> and missing), 177
> aircraft, two destroyers, two squadron minesweepers
> and a lot of smaller
> vessels destroyed. That day went into US history as
> a "day of infamy".
> This has been pounded into the heads of all American
> schoolchildren for
> the last 60 years. But what's been beaten out of
> their heads just as
> insistently?
> 
> DK>>>>>>>>>>
> Only 2 destroyers, and two minesweepers got hit? 
> Where did all those
> battleships come from that we all see burning from
> the old news-reels?
> 
> I have been in Pearl Harbor (about 50 years ago),
> and at that time the
> Battleship Arizona was sitting at the bottom of the
> bay, still leaking
> oil, and still in commission, even though sunk.
> 
> These wild fantacies of yours make for interesting
> reading, but you
> should remember that some of us have been around
> more than a couple of
> years, and know enough to know that you are not
> dealing with a full
> deck, so to speak.
> 
> If the battleships had not been destroyed, we would
> have fought most of
> the Pacific war with battleships, which is what the
> admirals preferred
> being on, rather than with aircraft carriers.
> 
> I was in the Navy over there in the early 1950s, and
> your "facts" don't
> square with reality, that I have seen and
> experienced.
> 
> Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com