- With the war in Afghanistan becoming a decade old, the
rhetoric of peace and negotiation has been widespread including President
Obama's desire to negotiate with "moderate elements" of Taliban.
This mushrooming of desire for negotiations has several reasons. First,
the war in Afghanistan has become the longest war fought in the US history,
prompting the former Allied Commander General McChrystal to call it "a
bleeding ulcer". Such a statement is not unusual for leaders of a
losing war; after all, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev also
called their losing war in Afghanistan "the bleeding wound".
Second, the economic and human costs have been more than what the US and
her allies of some 45 countries could endure. Especially, the rise in casualties
tilted public opinion in the US and Europe in favor of ending this conflict.
Third, the US has finally realized what it should have known long ago that
the war in Afghanistan is not winnable. Furthermore, the US finds itself
in a similar position as the former Soviet Union and is stuck in a losing
quagmire.
-
- Why Continue the War?
-
- Multiple reasons exist for the Afghan resistance to justify
the continuation of the war and remain steadfast in their refusal of any
type of negotiation with the US and NATO.
-
- The Illegality of Invasion of Afghanistan
-
-
- The disaster living up by Afghans on daily basis has
its roots in the illegal invasion of Afghanistan by the United States and
NATO in 2001. The underling justification for the US to invade Afghanistan
was their response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Moreover, the
attacks of 911 have also shaped the American sense of morality for feeling
righteousness by referring to the war in Afghanistan "a just war"
as President Obama has shamelessly proclaimed in his acceptance speech
of the Nobel Prize for "Peace" in Oslo, Norway.
-
- The truth, however, is otherwise. The invasion of Afghanistan
was illegal if we use International Law as the underlying standard of legitimacy.
However, there has been a lot of disinformation about the legality of the
war when the so called experts refer to UN resolutions as basis of their
argument in favor of the legality of the war in Afghanistan.
-
- If we study the UN resolution subsequent to the attacks
of September 11, 2001, none of the resolutions advocates war or aggression
against Afghanistan. In fact, every resolution reiterates the significance
of the UN Charter in any international effort. If we look at the UN Security
Council Resolution 1368, which was adapted on September 12, 2001, a day
after the attacks in New York and Washington DC, it affirms the following
proclamations:
-
- Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter
of the United Nations,
- Determined to combat by all means threats to international
peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
- Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defence in accordance with the Charter[1]
-
-
-
- Among the above-mentioned three affirmations, the third
one "Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense
in accordance with the Charter" is construed by those individuals
either ignorant or hypocrites as the green light to invade Afghanistan.
However, they tend to forget the details in each of these affirmations.
The crucial addition to each of these affirmations is the notion of compliance
with the UN Charter. It may only be a phrase for the untrained eye or intentional
disregard by those advocating US's global agenda; nonetheless, it is a
legal and moral impediment that should not be taken lightly.
-
- Equally, if we refer to the Security Council Resolution
1373 adopted on September 28, 2001, Security Council Resolution 1377 adopted
on November 12, 2001 and Security Council Resolution 1378 adopted on November
14, 2001, each of these resolutions affirms that every action must be within
the confines of the UN Charter. Furthermore, Security Council Resolutions
1373, 1377 and 1378 reaffirm Security Council Resolution 1368, which affirms
without any qualifications the "principles and purposes of the Charter
of the United Nations".[2] This brings us to one basic fundamental
principle of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2 of the UN Charter.
-
- The Article 2 of the UN Charter forbids any nation state
from the unilateral use of force:
-
- All Members shall settle their international disputes
by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security,
and justice, are not endangered.
-
- All Members shall refrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.[3]
-
- The fundamentals of legality and moral superiority enshrined
in the Article 2 of the UN Charter are sufficient in their own right to
put to rest any claim of legitimacy of the invasion of Afghanistan. However,
there are three exceptions to the Article 2 of the UN Charter: action authorized
by the UN Security Council; Article 51 of the UN Charter--the State's right
of self-defense; and action by regional bodies with authorization from
the UN Security Council.
-
- The first exception to Article 2 of the UN Charter would
have been authorization of an attack by the UN Security Council; however,
as discussed above, none of the Security Council Resolutions authorizes
the use of force. All of the Security Council Resolutions, 1368 and 1373
adopted before the invasion and Security Council Resolutions 1377 and 1378
adopted shortly after the invasion affirm the UN Charter. What this means
is that each of the resolutions mandates conformity to the UN Charter in
particular Article 2 of the UN Charter.
-
- The second exception to the Article 2 of the UN Charter
is Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 of the UN Charter gives a nation-state
the right to self-defense as long as the attack is ongoing or imminent.[4]
Article 51 states that member states must report to the Security Council
and the Security Council would take necessary measures to restore peace.
The attacks were not ongoing and the response was not immediate. The US
waited until October 7, 2001 to retaliate against Afghanistan. The US has
reported the attacks of September 11, 2001 to the UN Security Council and
the Security Council passed two resolutions and adopted measures to combat
terrorism within the framework of the UN Charter. As mentioned above, none
of the resolutions authorized the use of force. Furthermore, the Security
Council measures included "legal suppression of terrorism, and its
financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence,
criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism."[5]
To this end, the Security Council had set up a monitoring committee to
oversee the progress of measures proposed by the two resolutions and gave
all states 90 days to report to the monitoring committee about the progress
done in that regard. As we know of course, the US did not wait for 90 days
or even a month and took matters in its own hands. The issue of self-defense
in the International Law is very similar to the rationale of self-defense
exercised within nation states. That is, when a person faces a threat from
an attacker and there is no police to neutralize the danger faced by the
victim, then that the victim is entitled to self-defense. However, once
the danger subsides, the would-be victim should not take the law into his
own hands and become a vigilante.
-
- If we look at Article 51 of the UN Charter within the
confines of the International Customary Law prior to 1945, the Carolina
incident of 1837 established three conditions that have to be met for any
retaliation to take place. These conditions are immediate, proportionate,
and necessary.[6] The response of the US was not immediate since the attacks
had stopped; hence, when the attacks stopped, the rationale for retaliation
cease to exist. Moreover, the US lacked evidence to tie the attacks to
anyone including Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, the US had to wait for almost
a month during which no other attack had taken place and then launched
a full scale invasion of Afghanistan. This brings us to the issue of proportionality.
The US has used massive amount of munitions both conventional and unconventional.
The invasion not only toppled the Taliban regime, it has also killed thousands
of innocent Afghan civilians and infested Afghanistan with uranium munitions
that would haunt the population there for generations to come. To this
end the issue of proportionality as stipulated by the International Customary
Law also failed. The third condition is whether the invasion was necessary.
The US claims that Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden to them; however,
it fails to address the issue of evidence. Taliban had demanded evidence
of Bin Laden's complicity in the attacks and then proposed legal proceedings
for a trial wherein the evidence for Bin Laden's complicity would be weighed.
-
- The third exception to the Article 2 of the UN Charter
is the authorization of regional bodies by the UN Security Council. The
'regional bodies' here refers to NATO. Since NATO is subservient to the
UN Charter, invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, that an attack
on one member of NATO is an attack on all members, does not constitute
legality. To this end, the use of force by NATO of which the US is a member
was illegal.
-
- Hence, all three exceptions to Article 2 of the UN Charter
were not satisfied. Therefore, the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal
according to the International Law and the UN Charter.
-
- Finally, it is worth mentioning that the plan to invade
Afghanistan was formulated well in advance to the attacks on September
11, 2001. According to a former Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, the US Government
had formulated a plan for invading Afghanistan in mid-July, 2001. Niaz
Naik told the BBC that the American officials in Berlin had told him that
the planned invasion of Afghanistan had to start before the snowfall, and
at the latest, it had to be in motion by mid October 2001 (George Arney,
BBC report September 18, 2001).
-
- No wonder, it took only 25 days to set in motion a full
scale invasion of Afghanistan, otherwise, logistically, it would be impossible
for the US Government to invade a country half a world away in a timeframe
of a little over three weeks. Steve Grey of the Independent Media Center
reiterates the improbability of waging war in 25 days. By comparison, it
took 4 1/2 months for the USA to wage war on Iraq in 1991. Planning is
a process, not an event requiring multiple phases, especially against an
elusive enemy like the Taliban and Al-Qaida. If we look at the planning
process and stages or at the process and stages of policy making, we would
come to a conclusion that preparation and implementation of invading a
country is much more complex than planning for an organization, and requires
a lot longer than 25 days to implement.
-
-
-
- Where Were the Evidences of the September 11 Attacks?
-
-
-
- The core issue of any claim is evidence. The issue of
evidence becomes crucial since presence or absence thereof has a direct
effect on the future of nation and could mean massive loss of life. Regarding
the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States claimed it had compelling
evidence linking Bin Laden and 'Al-Qaida' to the attacks on that day. However,
to this day, the US has failed to produce any evidence linking Bin Laden
to the attacks. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
very organization that oversees security of the United States, has failed
to produce any shred of evidence to that effect. That is why; Osama Bin
Laden is sought for the Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in
1998. When one visits the FBI's webpage on the most wanted individuals,
this is what you see in regards to Osama Bin Laden:
-
- 1.
-
- Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August
7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition,
Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings
of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi,
Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is
a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world. Usama Bin Laden
is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United
States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These
attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in
other terrorist attacks throughout the world.Usama Bin Laden is wanted
in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies
in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over
200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks
throughout the world.[7]
-
-
-
- Is it not strange that after 10 years, the FBI of the
United States still has no idea who carried out the attacks on September
11, 2001, while the Bush administration and his collection of Neoconservative
Zionists knew of Bin Laden's complicity within hours?
-
- In his speech on April 19, 2001, FBI Director Robert
Mueller said the following in regards to the existence of evidence:
-
- The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation,
we have not uncovered a single piece of paper in the U.S. or in Afghanistan
that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.[8]
-
- He attempted to explain away the lack of evidence by
erroneously asserting that the terrorists must have planned meticulously
to avoid detection. His assertion amounted to total contradiction and baseless
speculation. The absence of evidence is evident from the quote from the
FBI webpage seeking Bin Laden for the bombing attacks in Africa in 1998.
-
- Subsequent, to the attacks and announcement of the illusive
19 hijackers, at the least 7 of the 19 hijackers are alive and have contacted
US Embassies in their countries.[9]
-
- Mohammed el-Amir Atta who is the father of the so-called
ring leader, Mohammad Atta, was quoted saying that his son is alive and
he spoke with his son in the midday of September 12, 2001:
-
- "Speaking from his Cairo home, Mr Atta described
hearing about the attacks after returning from a holiday on the Red Sea
on the evening of September 12."My daughter called and said she was
going to drop in. She stood at the door and said 'turn on the TV',"
he said. Amid images of the jets crashing into the Twin Towers, he saw
his son's passport photograph."
-
- "As I saw the picture of my son," he said,
"I knew that he hadn't done it. My son called me the day after the
attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for two minutes about
this and that.
-
- "He didn't tell me where he was calling from. At
that time neither of us knew anything about the attacks."[10]
-
- Meanwhile, during the attacks of September 11, 2001,
the entire air defense mechanism of the United States was on a stand down
order and not a single fighter plane scrambled even though this was standard
operating procedure. Andrew Air Force Base is only 10 miles away from Pentagon
and had two squadrons of combat aircraft ready to be scrambled 24 hours
a day. This fact was illustrated in San Diego Union--Tribune on September
12:
-
- "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly
by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District
of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and
equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said."
-
- Corps Maj. Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD, is quoted
to have said the following in the Boston Globe September 15 story:
-
- "[T]he command did not immediately scramble any
fighters even though it was alerted to a hijacking 10 minutes before the
first planeslammed into the first World Trade Center tower... The spokesman
said the fighters remained on the ground until after the Pentagon was hit..."
-
- The question is why the NORAD did not scramble fighter
jets.
-
- Since NORAD was notified of the hijacking as early as
8:35 am, this gave the air force ample time to scramble jet fighter aircraft
from McGuire AFB in New Jersey, which 71 miles from New York City, to intercept
the hijacked airplanes. An F15 from McGuire AFB in New Jersey could have
intercepted flight 11; however, it would have most certainly intercepted
flight 175. An F15 Eagle flies at 1850+ nmps, which is Mach 2.5+, equipped
with heat seeking infrared guided sidewinder missile, with a range of 18
miles. According to the USAF's own website, it takes an F15 eagle 2.5 minutes
from "scramble order" to 29000 feet. Between 8:35 am and 8:45
am, the air force had 10 minutes to scramble interceptors. An F15 Eagle,
when flies at Mach 2, it travels 20+ miles per minute, and at Mach 2.5
30+ miles per minute. To factor in the 2.5 minutes duration, from "scramble
order" to 29000 feet, the air force had 7.5 minutes to intercept flight
11. At Mach 2 and Mach 2.5, it would have taken F15 Eagle from 156 to 235
seconds to reach from McGuire AFB in New Jersey to New York City, less
than 4 minutes. The F15 would have at least 2.5 minutes lead over the hijacked
American Airlines flight 11. For the sake of argument, let us assume the
interceptors could not reach New York City in time to prevent flight 11
from crashing into the north tower of the World Trade Center. It had most
certainly more than enough time not only to intercept United Airlines flight
175 but to wait for about 10 minutes until flight 175 reached New York
City. Subsequent to the crash of the United Airlines flight 175 into the
south tower of the World Trade Center, at 9:06 am, the New York police
broadcast, "This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon."
At 9:08 am, police radio blared, "Freeze all the airports. Freeze
all the airports. Nothing in or out." (Daily News New York, 9, 12,
2002)
-
-
-
- STOCK TRANSACTIONS BEFORE THE ATTACKS
-
-
-
- Before the 911 attacks, there were unusually large stock
transactions involving American and United Airlines. Clearly, this pointed
to prior knowledge of the attacks. However, the massive activities in stock
markets were ignored. CIA uses the Prosecutor's Management Information
System (Promis) software that monitors stock transactions worldwide. Tagesspiegel
reported the following in an interview with Von Buelow, the former German
Intelligence Minister:
-
- "And what about the obscure stock transactions?
In the week prior to the attacks, the amount of transactions in stocks
in American Airlines, United Airlines, and insurance companies, increased
1,200 percent. It was for a value of $15 billion. Some people must have
known something. Who?"[11]
-
- On October 02, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported
that investigations were underway by the Security Exchange Commission into
purchases of large volume of five-year US Treasury note. These purchases
were done before the attacks of September 11. In fact, the transactions
of US Treasury note included a single trade amounted to $5 billion. However,
despite these large transactions, there hardly was any news coverage by
the corporate media.
-
- On October 03, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle reported
on trading in the stocks market prior to the attacks on September 11:
-
- "The Investment Dealers Association of Canada told
its 190 members that the SEC has identified 38 companies -- including the
parent firms of United and American airlines, which lost four aircraft
-- whose shares were traded at abnormally high levels in the weeks prior
to the attacks, suggesting that buyers and sellers had advance knowledge
of planned terrorist acts."
-
- The same article added:
-
- "The SEC equities list named several big companies
that were tenants in the collapsed buildings in the heart of New York's
financial district: investment firms Morgan Stanley, the towers' biggest
occupant; Lehman Bros.; Bank of America; and financial firm Marsh &
McLennan."
-
- Meanwhile, put options were purchased for American Airlines
and United Airlines:
-
- "In the days before the terrorist assaults, unusually
high numbers of put options were purchased for the stocks of AMR Corp.
and UAL Corp., the parents of American and United -- each of which had
two planes hijacked. A put option is a contract that gives a holder the
right to sell an asset at a specified price before a certain date."
(San Francisco Chronicle, October 03, 2001)
-
- On September 20th, Reuters reported unusual activities
in stock markets in Germany before the attacks on New York and Washington:
-
- "In Frankfurt, bankers also noticed unusual interest
in stock-lending in shares of Munich Re, raising the possibility that at
least one player may have prepared a short position with advance knowledge
of an attack that would send the insurer's shares plummeting."
-
- It continued:
-
- "One banker, who requested anonymity, said he had
received three price inquiries from major French banks about borrowing
abnormally large stakes -- millions of shares -- in Munich Re. The requests
were never followed up with an actual share loan. 'These inquiries were
very big in size and they only asked about one share, and for that reason
it stood out,' he said."
-
- With these unusual transactions in motion, the CIA and
other intelligence agencies that rely on the Prosecutor's Management Information
System (Promis), the computer software that monitors and identifies unusual
activities in stock market, should have identified these anomalies; however,
they did not. Why not, one might ask, unless someone from within the hierarchy
was profiting in billions of dollars.
-
- In light of the unusual activities, for example:
-
- "Volatility in Munich Re shares increased sharply
before the attack, jumping 30 percent from September 4 to September 7."
-
- Yet, the spokesperson for the Eurex claimed:
-
- "the exchange, the world's largest derivatives exchange,
had probed transactions in the days before and after the attack but found
nothing to raise an alarm flag."
-
- According to Miami Herald article of September 24, 2001,
the Bundesbank chief Ernst Welteke said:
-
- "a preliminary review by German regulators and bank
researchers showed there were highly suspicious sales of shares in airlines
and insurance companies, along with major trades in gold and oil markets,
before Sept. 11 that suggest they were conducted with advance knowledge
of the attacks. Welteke said his researchers came across what he considers
almost irrefutable proof of insider trading"
-
- In the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11, Harvey Pitt,
then chairman of the US Securities & Exchange Commission said the following:
-
- "We've heard those reports about terrorists' involvement
in our markets.
-
- Our enforcement division has been looking into a variety
of market actions that could be linked to these terrible acts including
the subjects of the rumours." (BBC, September 18, 2001)
-
- Ten years have passed, yet we have not heard about the
result of the investigations into the unusual--to say the least-market
transactions.
-
- It needs to be said, claims of lack of knowledge by government
officials of the absence of any paper trail leading to the perpetrators
of insider trading are false. The following remarks by Lynne Howard, spokesperson
of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) further reduces the legitimacy
of the government officials:
-
- "We would have been aware of any unusual activity
right away. It would have been triggered by any unusual volume. There is
an automated system called 'blue sheeting,' or the CBOE Market Surveillance
System, that everyone in the business knows about. It provides information
on the trades - the name and even the Social Security number on an account
- and these surveillance systems are set up specifically to look into insider
trading. The system would look at the volume, and then a real person would
take over and review it, going back in time and looking at other unusual
activity."
-
- Lynne Howard continues:
-
- "The system is so smart that even if there is a
news event that triggers a market event it can go back in time, and even
the parameters can be changed depending on what is being looked at. It's
a very clever system and it is instantaneous. Even with the system, though,
we have very experienced and savvy staff in our market-regulations area
who are always looking for things that might be unusual. They're trained
to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Even if it's offshore, it might
take a little longer, but all offshore accounts have to go through U.S.
member firms - members of the CBOE - and it is easily and quickly identifiable
who made the trades. The member firm who made the trades has to have identifiable
information about the client under the 'Know Your Customer' regulations
(and we share all information with the Securities and Exchange Commission.)"
(TBRNews.org)
-
-
-
- The existence of such tracking system should make the
identification of individuals or group involved relatively easy. But unfortunately,
the government is silent about this.
-
- According to FTW December 06, 2001, the CIA acknowledged
monitoring stock markets outside United States:
-
- "In a returned phone call from the Central Intelligence
Agency, press spokesman Tom Crispell denied that the CIA was monitoring
"real-time," pre-September 11, stock option trading activity
within United States borders using such software as the Prosecutor's Management
Information System (PROMIS). 'That would be illegal. We only operate outside
the United States,' the intelligence official said."[12]
-
- In fact, Promis was used by a cabal of bankers in the
United States to penetrate every bank worldwide and predict its transactions
as the following quote illustrates:
-
- "In the late seventies and early eighties, Systematics
handled some 60-70% of all electronic banking transactions in the U.S.
The goal, according to the diagrams which laid out (subsequently verified)
relationships between Stephens, Worthen Bank, the Lippo Group and the drug/intelligence
bank BCCI was to penetrate every banking system in the world. This "cabal"
could then use Promis both to predict and to influence the movement of
financial markets worldwide. Stephens, truly bipartisan in his approach
to profits, has been a lifelong supporter of George Bush and he was, at
the same time, the source of the $3 million loan that rescued a faltering
Clinton Campaign in early 1992." (Promis by Michael C Ruppert of FTW)
-
- Thus, any claim by the CIA and NSA about the lack of
knowledge about the stock transactions prior to 911 is ludicrous because
these intelligence agencies have the modified and advanced form of Promis
enabling them to analyze data and predict many outcomes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- WOULD THE US GOVERNMENT COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST ITS OWN
PEOPLE?
-
- OPERATION NORTHWOODS IS ONE SUCH PRECEDENT
-
- Operation Northwoods was a plan drafted by the US Chairman
of Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Leminitzer to launch operations within
and outside United States, targeting American interests in order to implicate
Cuba. The ultimate goal was the invasion of Cuba. The 1962 unclassified
memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense has
the following under the heading of subject: "Justification for US
Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)".
-
- However, before going into the details of the matter,
it is prudent to discuss some concise background to the entire fiasco.
-
- With the Cold War in its peak, the existence of a communist
regime in the backyard of the United States was an unacceptable proposition.
Cuba's conversion into communism was not a craft of Fidel Castro, but rather
resulted from the ignorance and arrogance of the Eisenhower Administration,
in particular Richard Nixon. After the onset of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel
Castro came to the United States as a guest of the American Society of
Newspaper Editors and also wanted to present his case as being a non-communist
to the US administration, after all he considered the US constitution to
be his ideal. Like other world revolutionaries, who admired the freedoms
and individual rights enshrined in the United States Constitution, Fidel
Castro also thought that his struggle against the corrupt regime of the
Batista would be appreciated. Meanwhile, he wanted to convey to the Americans
that his new government in Cuba was not a communist regime. At the outset
of the revolution, high ranking officials of the Batista regime landed
in Miami with millions of dollars looted from the treasury of Cuba, Castro
and his companions thought the Americans would arrest them and put them
in jail for looting Cuba. On the contrary, they received a special welcome.
With this in mind, Castro came to Washington to tell the Eisenhower Administration
that his regime was not communist. When Castro met with Richard Nixon,
he told Nixon that his regime was not communist. It advocated social justice,
a term that was interpreted by Nixon as communism. In fact, Nixon said,
"If he's not a communist, he certainly acts like one." He labeled
Castro communist and thus, hindered any possibility of social and economic
development and friendly relations between the two nations. It is worth
mentioning that such irresponsible behavior was the modus operandi of Nixon.
He behaved in a similar fashion insulting Afghan Prime Minister Mohammad
Daud Khan, thereby, forcing Afghanistan to fall into the Soviet Union sphere
of influence whose consequences were the invasion of Afghanistan by the
USSR in 1979 and the loss of close to two million Afghan civilians.
-
- After Castro returned to Cuba, the Russians extended
their arms of friendship, after all the Russians were too eager to benefit
from the indifference of US government in regards to Cuba. To this end,
the Russians took advantage of the situation by extending generous economic
aid and financed the Cuban socioeconomic development.
-
- The origin of the Operation Northwoods stemmed from the
desire of President Eisenhower in his last days in office to leave office
with a 'victory' by invading Cuba. The U2 shot-down over the USSR, being
a failure invigorated Eisenhower to engage in some operation before the
end of his term as President of the United States. Meanwhile, to invade
Cuba, there had to be a justification, for which Eisenhower was eager to
surface. Hence, on January 3, 1962, Eisenhower told General Lemnitzer and
other cabinet members that he was eager to invade Cuba, only if Cuba gave
him a good excuse to do so. Since these were Eisenhower's last days in
office leading to John F. Kennedy's inauguration, time was of the essence.
He told General Lemnitzer and others in the same meeting on January 3 that
if the Cubans did not gave him the excuse, and then the USA "could
think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable."[13]
Richard Bissell, CIA Director of Plans, describes the January 3 meeting
in his book, MEMOIRS OF A COLD WARRIOR: FROM YALTA TO BAY OF PIGS, as follows:
-
- "The president (Eisenhower) seemed to be eager to
take forceful action against Castro, and breaking off diplomatic relations
appeared to be his best card. He noted that he was prepared to 'move against
Castro' before Kennedy's inauguration on the twentieth if a 'really good
excuse' was provided by Castro. 'Failing that,' he said, 'perhaps we could
think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable.' This
is but another example of his willingness to use covert action-specifically
to fabricate events-to achieve his objectives in foreign policy."
-
- What Eisenhower wanted was a staged terrorist attacks
by elements of the United States Government against the United States and
the American people, and blaming it on Cuba, which would provide ample
justification for invasion of Cuba. Eisenhower's term ended as President
without his hopes of invading Cuba. However, this idea remained with General
Lemnitzer.
-
- With John F Kennedy on board as President of the United
States, the covert operations were in full swing against Castro's Cuba.
President Kennedy had promised the Cubans in exile to do every effort
to oppose communism and make efforts to topple Castro's regime. In fact,
during his presidential campaign, Kennedy accused the Eisenhower Administration
of not doing enough to thwart the threat of communism from Cuba to the
United States.
-
- Meanwhile, General Lemnitzer, who was counting on the
Kennedy Administration to launch a war on Cuba, saw the chances of any
direct US intervention slipping away. In addition to the failure of the
Bay of Pigs invasion, in February 26, 1962, Robert Kennedy told General
Lansdale, who was in charge of the various covert actions under Operation
Mangoose, that his covert activities were becoming ridiculous, and ordered
the General to stop any anti-Castro operations. This incident eliminated
virtually any chance of having a direct military intervention by the United
States armed forces, hence, General Lemnitzer resorted to a terrorist plan
that he drew and was signed by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The plan was Operation Northwoods.
-
- Initially, however, General Lemnitzer counted on the
failure of the US space flight. His proposal to General Lansdale was that
in the event of the explosion of John Glenn space flight, "irrevocable
proof" should be provided that would implicate the Cuban's government
in the conspiracy that resulted in the explosion of John Glenn's flight.
According to Bamford's Body of Secrets, Lemnitzer continued to General
Lansdale that such implication should be accomplished "by manufacturing
various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on
the part of the Cubans." However, with John Glenn's successful lift
off to space, the possibility of starting a war slipped away.
-
- The next step included staging all out terrorist attacks
within the United States, targeting Americans and Cuban exiles. This was
dubbed Operation Northwoods, which consisted of a series of well-coordinated
actions entailing death and destruction only to appease the egos of warmongering
officers in the United States military. The actions proposed by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff are articulated in the unclassified memorandum. The following
is 'Annex to Appendix To Enclosure A', which is part of the unclassified
memorandum that illustrates clearly the corruption and deception within
the elements of the United States government, and further adds credibility
to the claim that the false flag operation of September 11, 2001 was an
inside job.
-
- .
-
- ANNEX TO APPENDIX TO ENCLOSURE A
-
- PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA
-
- (Note: The courses of action which
follow are a preliminary submission suitable only for planning purposes.
They are arranged neither chronologically nor in ascending order. Together
with similar inputs from other agencies, they are intended to provide a
point of departure for the development of a single, integrated, time-phased
plan. Such a plan would permit the evaluation of individual projects within
the context of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably
to the objective of adequate justification for US military intervention
in Cuba).
-
- 1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation
as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception
plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed
in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke
Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deception actions to convince the Cubans
of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout
execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention
if Cuban response justifies.
- 2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned
to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being
done by hostile Cuban forces.
- a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not
in chronological order);
- (1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
- (2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence"
to stage attack on base.
- (3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
- (4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
- (5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
- (6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
- (7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base.
Some damage to installations.
- (8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea
or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
- (9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
- (10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires --
napthalene.
- (11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct
funerals for mock victims (may be lieu of (10)).
- b. United States would respond by executing offensive
operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and
mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
- c. Commence large scale United States military
operations.
- 3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could
be arranged in several forms:
- a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay
and blame Cuba.
- b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere
in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity
of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the
air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating
the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship
was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility
especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen
the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered
by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent
crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national
indignation.
- 4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror
campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in
the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida
(real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees
in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be
widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots,
the substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting
the idea of an irresponsible government.
- 5. A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster
could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein
of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and
Nicaragua at present possible others. These efforts can be magnified and
additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be
taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to intrusions within
their national air space. "Cuban" B-26 or C-46 type aircraft
could make cane-burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could
be found. This could be coupled with "Cuban" messages to the
Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and "Cuban" shipments
of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach.
- 6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide
additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping
and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would
be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince
air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the
transport were to announce such a fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion
appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft.
However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources
in about three months.
- 7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface
craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government
of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military
air and surface craft should be encouraged.
- 8. It is possible to create an incident which will
demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
a charted civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala,
Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the
flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college
students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest
to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
- a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be
painted and numbered an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft
belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated
time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and
would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully
prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to
a drone.
- b. Take off times of the
drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous
south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft
will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field
at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers
and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile
will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will
being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY
DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The
transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will
be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the
Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead
of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
- 9. It is possible to create an incident
which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF
aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
- a. Approximately 4 of 5 F-101
aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the
vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate
fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These
aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent intervals.
Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast;
however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that
hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
- b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed
pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft.
While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been
jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The
pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at
a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper
people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had
performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity
and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would
then have disappeared.
- c.
At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a
submarine or small surface was presumably shot down a submarine or small
surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately
15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to
Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and
aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.
-
-
-
- To make sense of the relevance of the above-stated unclassified
document, one does not need to be a superb analyst but rather common sense
would suffice. Had this plan gone through, thousands of American and Cuban
lives would have been lost, simply to fulfill the ego of few war-mongering
characters in the Pentagon.
-
- Operation Nothwoods is not the only precedent pointing
to the complicity of the US Government officials conspiring to harm Americans;
other exists as well. The explosion of USS Maine in 1898 in Guantanamo
Bay that sparked the Spanish American War was another of those crimes in
which over two hundred American sailors lost their lives. Incidentally,
in the directive of Operation Northwoods, General Lemnitzer proudly refers
to the explosion of the US battleship USS Maine as a precedent to follow.
-
- Therefore, it should not surprise anyone if high-ranking
US government officials were found complicit in the attacks of September
11.
-
-
-
- THE USE OF GENOCIDAL WEAPONS
-
-
-
- Another reason why Taliban should refrain from negotiating
with the US-NATO is the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Afghanistan.
With the invasion of Afghanistan, the US armed forces and UK had resorted
to the use of these illegal weapons and set the stage for the genocide
of the Afghan people. The use of uranium munitions has condemned the people
of Afghanistan to a perpetual death. The half-life of uranium 238 stands
at 4.5 billion years. What this means is that the people of Afghanistan
would be dying and their new born deformed from these Weapons of Mass Destructions
(WMD) forever. These Weapons of Mass Destruction alter the texture of the
ecosystem wherein the victims reside. This ultimately condemns the people
living there and future generations to death, and deprives them of their
fundamental human right, the right to live. The US and the UK are the
only two countries used these horrible weapons indiscriminately in Iraq
during the Gulf War and Balkans in the 1990s and in Afghanistan from October
7th, 2001 to the present.
-
- Tragically, the US-UK armed forces have used three times
more uranium weapons in Afghanistan than they did in Iraq in the first
Gulf War or in the Balkans. In fact, the types of Weapons of Mass Destruction
used in Afghanistan are more deadly in terms of its magnitude and type.
This became evident with a report by the Uranium Medical Research Center
(UMRC), establishing the presence of uranium isotopes in soil samples and
urine samples of victims. They discovered symptoms in population of illnesses
associated with exposure to depleted uranium contamination similar to that
in Iraq and the Balkans. Upon the analysis of urine samples, the investigators
discovered the level of uranium to be 400% to 2000%, the highest level
of uranium ever recorded in civilian population. Incidentally, the uranium
particles that were discovered in the urine samples from subjects in Jala-Abad
exhibited characteristics different from depleted uranium while the populations
exhibited health problems similar to those in Iraq. The report continues:
-
- "Durakovic and his team have searched for possible
alternative causes, such as geological or industrial sources, or the likelihood
of Al Qaeda having uranium reserves. But the uranium found is not consistent
with the "dirty bomb" scenario proposed by the US (in which stores
of radioactive materials might explain the findings), nor is it connected
to DU, or an enriched uranium-type dust that has been found in Iraq and
Kosovo." http://www.umrc.net
-
- In Iraq, it took up to five years to have any significant
effects of exposure to depleted uranium, however, in Afghanistan only after
one year, the UMRC research group suspects that 25% of newly born in Kabul
showed symptoms of exposure to uranium weapons. The latter factor further
strengthens the hypothesis of the UMRC that the US-UK militaries are using
uranium ore in their weapons in order to increase its destructive capability.
The usage of uranium ore also makes it difficult to trace these weapons
to the US-UK militaries and creates a distortion as if the uranium had
come from the local uranium deposits. The conclusion of the report was:
-
- "However, marked differences between natural uranium
and the uranium used in the metal fragments found in Afghanistan was [sic]
uncovered with the use of an electron microscope, which revealed the presence
of small ceramic particles produced by the high temperatures created on
impact. This method of disguising uranium would benefit governments that
are under pressure from the growing anti-DU lobby."
-
- "The only conclusion is that the allied forces are
now possibly using milled uranium ore in their warheads to maximise [sic]
the effectiveness and strength of their weapons, as well as to mask the
uranium, hoping that it may be discounted as part of any local natural
deposits."
-
- The destructive effects of the uranium weapons became
evident in the beginning of the bombardments in Afghanistan, when Reuters
reported that people died from minor injuries. Public Health Minister Mullah
Abbas said:
-
- "Our findings prove that this is true. These bombardments
have radioactive rays and chemical materials that also cause cancer."
(Reuters, October 29, 2001)
-
- The news report continued with quotes that further added
credibility to the claims of many that the US and the UK had used uranium
weapons in Afghanistan. Dr. Wazir a surgeon at Wazir Akbar Khan Hospital
had said the following amidst the bombardments:
-
- "We have some patients with superficial injuries
with symptoms of chemical weapons." (Reuters, October 29, 2001)
-
- According to Dr. Wazir a 10 years old boy, who had superficial
injuries died from respiratory problems after the bombing, while another
individual, a 50 years old woman also died from minor injuries. The doctor
continues by citing three of his other patients-two girls aged 12 and 15
and a boy aged 15-who had only sustained superficial injuries from the
US bombings, died hours later from breathing difficulties and internal
bleeding. Dr. Wazir continued:
-
- "These are only three examples. There have been
other cases where we suspect chemical weapons have been used. Most of the
victims have had respiratory problems and internal bleeding for which there
is no apparent cause." (Khalifa.com, October 30, 2001)
-
- The use of uranium munitions continues to this day. Every
day, the fighter aircrafts use these illegal weapons in Afghan villages
and towns. The rise in various cancers and different types of congenital
deformities attest to the deadly effects of these weapons. The cancers
and deformities among new born are virtually identical to the victims in
Iraq and the Balkans.
-
- Uranium munitions are not the only types of unconventional
weapons used in Afghanistan. In fact, the use of microwave bombs and energy
beams is another calamity wherefrom people suffer in Afghanistan. The microwave
bombs when explode turn individuals into puffed-up hotdog like creatures
that could not be identified by relatives. In 2008, when the US used microwave
bombs in Nerkh district of Maidan-Wardak Province, relatives of the victims
were clueless about the identity of the relatives. Finally, locals identified
their relatives by the documents retried from their clothing. Those victims
that did not have any documents were identified from their torn outfits.
-
- Furthermore, the energy beam is another dreadful weapon
used on daily basis. On one occasion, last year, one of the insurgents
was targeted by the energy beam from AC-130 Gunship. When other insurgents
attended to the fighter, the exposed portion of his body was soft like
a sponge and deformed. While in another incident, the US forces fired the
energy beam into a mosque in Maidan Province. When people entered the mosque
to retrieve their relatives, all the victims in the mosque were like twisted
and deformed tissues unrecognizable to their relatives.
-
- Meanwhile, the use of Thermobaric Bombs is a common place
as are the use of other exotic weapons with deadly effects. When the US
forces use Thermobaric Bombs on homes in Helmand, Maidan and other provinces,
the neighbors and relatives of the bombed victims could not find their
bodies because the bodies were sucked into the ground. At best, they could
find the hair and some body parts of their relatives. Furthermore, the
US forces' use of White Phosphorus is known by most informed people in
Afghanistan. In 2009, the US forces bombed the village Bala Blook in Farah
Province with White Phosphorus killing 147 civilians.
-
- The killing of Afghan civilians is no longer an issue
that is taken seriously by the US government. The most recent incidents
were the barbaric murder of 65 civilians and shooting of 9 children, respectively.
In the first case, 65 civilians were targeted with different types of weapons
including incendiary devices that burned many children to death. When General
Petreous met the puppet President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, Petreous
suggested that Afghan parents may have burned their own children to death
to blame US forces, reported by The Washington Post:
-
- To the shock of President Hamid Karzai's aides, Gen.
David H. Petraeus suggested Sunday at the presidential palace that Afghans
caught up in a coalition attack in northeastern Afghanistan might have
burned their own children to exaggerate claims of civilian casualties,
according to two participants at the meeting.[14]
-
- Similarly, NATO made an outrages claim:
-
- Nato believes there was not a single civilian casualty
from its operation in Kunar. It says that pro-Taliban villagers have created
a propaganda story that was taken up by politicians in Kabul eager to prove
their nationalist credentials.[15]
-
- It is this kind of bestiality and lack of regard for
human dignity exercised by the upper hierarchy of the US armed forces whose
irreverence is seen on daily basis on Afghan soil.
-
- The second tragedy happened days after the slaughter
of 65 civilians also in Kunar Province. On March 1, 2011, US-NATO forces
targeted ten children ages 8-14. Nine children were killed and one was
injured. The survival child recounted the incident as follows:
-
- We had almost finished collecting wood when suddenly
we saw the helicopters come. There were two of them. They hovered over
us, scanned us and we saw a green flash. Then they flew back high up, and
in a second round they hovered over us and started shooting. They fired
a rocket that hit a tree. The branches fell over me and shrapnel hit my
right hand and my side.[16]
-
-
-
- The apache Helicopters has the target acquisition designation
sight (TADS). In fact, this system enables the pilot with unmistaken capability
to differentiate between children collecting firewood and adults with guns:
-
- TADS provides the co-pilot/gunner with search, detection
and recognition capability by means of direct view optics, TV or FLIR sighting
systems which may be used singly or in combinations according to tactical,
weather or visibility conditions.[17]
-
- Another source further confirms the effectiveness of
the Apache Helicopters visual and detection capability that would have
clearly established that those 10 children were picking firewood, and indeed
were children not armed insurgents:
-
- The Apache features a Target Acquisition Designation
Sight (TADS) and a Pilot Night Vision Sensor (PNVS) which enables the crew
to navigate and conduct precision attacks in day, night and adverse weather
conditions.[18]
-
-
-
- Taliban and other Insurgents did not come from the Moon.
They are the relatives of these victims that have taken arms against the
forces of the US and her NATO allies.
-
- My question to the American public is this: would you
stop fighting against an evil force that would kill your relatives indiscriminately?
I am sure your answer would be no.
-
-
-
- THE IMMINENT FAILURE OF THE USA-NATO
-
-
-
- In light of the aforementioned discussion, the US-NATO
has already failed in Afghanistan. In 2002, US-NATO controlled almost all
of Afghanistan; however, in 2011, 70 percent of the country is out of their
control and in the control of insurgents in one form or another.
-
- Additional factors that contributed to the imminent failure
of the US-NATO forces in Afghanistan is a corrupt government, wherein government
officials are preoccupied in finding ways to fill their pockets, complimented
by the corruption and outright robberies by the US forces. The US military
brass, its rank and file along with elements of the civilian government
including the US State Department are involved in outright robberies, stealing
cash and supplies from the US Taxpayers worth billions of dollars. No wonder,
they are reluctant to put an end to this war.
-
- The US forces are experiencing what forces of the former
Soviet Union had experienced, being oblivious of the ways to deal with
the insurgency. Equally, the current insurgency has also arrived at a point
to acquire the much needed shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles as did
the Mujahideen during the 1980s; however, this time, there are many actors
including neighbors to provide military hardware through some indirect
channels.
-
- The explicit and implicit animosity of the countries
in the region is enough to provide the needed implements to Taliban. The
provision of weapons, especially shoulder-held missiles and advanced RPGs
such as RPG-32 would be the deciding factors ensuring US-NATO departure
from Afghanistan. As one Afghan elder puts it, "this departure would
not be walking out of Afghanistan with their heads up but rather one characterized
with crawling out on their knees."
-
-
-
- WHY NOT PEACE
-
-
-
- Peace is the product of those involved in the conflict.
Peace could not be achieved unilaterally. Peace had to be desired by all
the parties involved in the conflict. It is impossible to bomb Afghan villages
and expect peace overtures from the insurgents. Furthermore, the US has
to realize that the oversell of 911 is no longer working. People in the
world are not stupid; they do not accept the official explanation of the
US government. In fact, the official line of the US government is the only
conspiracy theory that lost credibility in the eyes of the people worldwide.
The US government needs to put an end to the travesty of justice at Guantanamo
detention cages, which has tarnished all aspects of American life in the
eyes of people everywhere.
-
- Justice needs to prevail and those placed on blacklists
need to be unlisted.
-
- Through my personal efforts, I am of the opinion that
the US government is not interested in peace. I have tried in vain contacting
the US State Department and members of the Foreign Relation Committee in
the US Congress many times; however, the replies I received ranged from
indifference to outright unrealistic demands ignoring Afghan tradition.
Whatever Taliban and other insurgents decide in regards to negotiation
and peace, it is my opinion that the US is not serious; hence, any overture
for peaceful settlement from Taliban and other insurgents would land on
deaf ears in the US Government.
-
- Meanwhile, with all these atrocities and travesty of
justice, what incentives would Taliban and other insurgents have in negotiating
peace with the Americans and NATO? I would say very little.
-
- ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - 2011
-
- [1] UN Security Council Resolution 1368 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/533/82/PDF/N0153382.pdf?OpenElement
- [2] http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm
- [3] http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
- [4] http://www.counterpunch.org/mandel5.html Michael
Mandel-This War is Illegal, October 09, 2001
- [5] http://www.counterpunch.org/mandel5.html Michael
Mandel-This War is Illegal, October 09, 2001
- [6] http://aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2001-02/02cib08.htm
Angus Martyn, 2002
- [7] http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten I copied this information
from the FBI's website on October 12, 2010
- [8] http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04mueller-speech.html
-
- [9] http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html?q=hijackers.html
- [10] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa
- [11] Von Bülow Tagesspiegel interview, published
on January 13, 2002
-
- [12] Promis (Prosecutor's Management Information System)
is magical computer software created by former National Security Agency
programmer and engineer Bill Hamilton in the 1970s.
- [13] Excerpts from Body of Secrets by James Bamford
- [14] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/21/AR2011022103256.html
-
- [15] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12575394
-
- [16] http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304232
-
- [17] http://www.101st.org/Data/7.28.htm
- [18] http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/ah64_apache.html
-
-
-
-
- Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD
- mdmiraki@ameritech.net
- maidan11@yahoo,com
- www,afghanistanafterdemocracy.com
|
