why should taliban and other insurgents refrain from negotiation with the us

8/7/2019 Why Should Taliban and Other Insurgents Refrain From Negotiation With the US

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/why-should-taliban-and-other-insurgents-refrain-from-negotiation-with-the-us 1/19

Why Should Taliban and Other Insurgents Refrain from Negotiation With the US &

NATODr Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD

|2011-03-11

With the war in Afghanistan becoming a decade old, the rhetoric of peace and negotiation hasbeen widespread including President Obama¶s desire to negotiate with ³moderate elements´of Taliban. This mushrooming of desire for negotiations has several reasons. First, the war inAfghanistan has become the longest war fought in the US history, prompting the former Allied Commander General McChrystal to call it ³a bleeding ulcer´. Such a statement is notunusual for leaders of a losing war; after all, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev alsocalled their losing war in Afghanistan ³the bleeding wound´. Second, the economic andhuman costs have been more than what the US and her allies of some 45 countries couldendure. 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 USto invade Afghanistan was their response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Moreover, theattacks of 911 have also shaped the American sense of morality for feeling righteousness byreferring to the war in Afghanistan ³a just war´ as President Obama has shamelesslyproclaimed in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize for ³Peace´ in Oslo, Norway.

The truth, however, is otherwise. The invasion of Afghanistan was illegal if we useInternational 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 resolutionsas 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 theresolutions 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 UNSecurity Council Resolution 1368, which was adapted on September 12, 2001, a day after theattacks 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 ³Recognizing the inherent right

of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter´ is construed by thoseindividuals 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 phrasefor 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 CouncilResolution 1378 adopted on November 14, 2001, each of these resolutions affirms that everyaction must be within the confines of the UN Charter. Furthermore, Security CouncilResolutions 1373, 1377 and 1378 reaffirm Security Council Resolution 1368, which affirms

without any qualifications the ³principles and purposes of the Charter of the UnitedNations´.2 This brings us to one basic fundamental principle of the Charter of the UnitedNations, 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 UNCharter are sufficient in their own right to put to rest any claim of legitimacy of the invasionof Afghanistan. However, there are three exceptions to the Article 2 of the UN Charter: actionauthorized 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 CouncilResolutions authorizes the use of force. All of the Security Council Resolutions, 1368 and1373 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 theresolutions 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 SecurityCouncil and the Security Council would take necessary measures to restore peace. The attackswere not ongoing and the response was not immediate. The US waited until October 7, 2001to 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 measuresto 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 measuresincluded ³legal suppression of terrorism, and its financing, and for co-operation betweenstates in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating toterrorism.´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 reportto 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 issueof self-defense in the International Law is very similar to the rationale of self-defenseexercised within nation states. That is, when a person faces a threat from an attacker and thereis 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 intohis 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 bemet 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 lackedevidence to tie the attacks to anyone including Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, the US had towait for almost a month during which no other attack had taken place and then launched a fullscale invasion of Afghanistan. This brings us to the issue of proportionality. The US has usedmassive amount of munitions both conventional and unconventional. The invasion not onlytoppled the Taliban regime, it has also killed thousands of innocent Afghan civilians andinfested 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 InternationalCustomary Law also failed. The third condition is whether the invasion was necessary. TheUS claims that Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden to them; however, it fails to addressthe issue of evidence. Taliban had demanded evidence of Bin Laden¶s complicity in theattacks and then proposed legal proceedings for a trial wherein the evidence for Bin Laden¶scomplicity would be weighed.

The third exception to the Article 2 of the UN Charter is the authorization of regional bodiesby the UN Security Council. The µregional bodies¶ here refers to NATO. Since NATO issubservient to the UN Charter, invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, that an attack onone 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, theinvasion 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 inadvance 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 theplanned invasion of Afghanistan had to start before the snowfall, and at the latest, it had to bein 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 countryhalf a world away in a timeframe of a little over three weeks. Steve Grey of the IndependentMedia Center reiterates the improbability of waging war in 25 days. By comparison, it took 41/2 months for the USA to wage war on Iraq in 1991. Planning is a process, not an eventrequiring 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 ismuch more complex than planning for an organization, and requires a lot longer than 25 daysto implement.

Where Were the Evidences of the September 11 Attacks?

The core issue of any claim is evidence. The issue of evidence becomes crucial sincepresence 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 hadcompelling evidence linking Bin Laden and µAl-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. Infact, 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 in1998. When one visits the FBI¶s webpage on the most wanted individuals, this is what yousee in regards to Osama Bin Laden:

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 carriedout 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 terroristsmust have planned meticulously to avoid detection. His assertion amounted to totalcontradiction and baseless speculation. The absence of evidence is evident from the quotefrom 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 the19 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, wasquoted saying that his son is alive and he spoke with his son in the midday of September 12,2001:

³Speaking 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 twominutes 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 theUnited States was on a stand down order and not a single fighter plane scrambled even thoughthis was standard operating procedure. Andrew Air Force Base is only 10 miles away fromPentagon 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 AndrewsAir 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 NationalGuard spokesman said."

Corps Maj. Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD, is quoted to have said the following inthe Boston Globe September 15 story:

"[T]he command did not immediately scramble any fighters even though it was alertedto a hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane«slammed into the first World TradeCenter tower... The spokesman said the fighters remained on the ground until after thePentagon 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 ampletime to scramble jet fighter aircraft from McGuire AFB in New Jersey, which 71 miles fromNew York City, to intercept the hijacked airplanes. An F15 from McGuire AFB in NewJersey could have intercepted flight 11; however, it would have most certainly interceptedflight 175. An F15 Eagle flies at 1850+ nmps, which is Mach 2.5+, equipped with heatseeking infrared guided sidewinder missile, with a range of 18 miles. According to theUSAF'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 F15Eagle, 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 F15Eagle 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 AmericanAirlines flight 11. For the sake of argument, let us assume the interceptors could not reachNew 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 UnitedAirlines 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 WorldTrade Center, at 9:06 am, the New York police broadcast, "This was a terrorist attack. Notifythe 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 massiveactivities in stock markets were ignored. CIA uses the Prosecutor's Management InformationSystem (Promis) software that monitors stock transactions worldwide. Tagesspiegel reportedthe following in an interview with Von Buelow, the former German Intelligence Minister:

³And what about the obscure stock transactions? In the week prior to the attacks, theamount of transactions in stocks in American Airlines, United Airlines, and insurancecompanies, increased 1,200 percent. It was for a value of $15 billion. Some peoplemust have known something. Who?´11

On October 02, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that investigations were underway bythe Security Exchange Commission into purchases of large volume of five-year US Treasurynote. 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 theselarge 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 marketprior to the attacks on September 11:

³The Investment Dealers Association of Canada told its 190 members that the SEChas identified 38 companies -- including the parent firms of United and Americanairlines, which lost four aircraft -- whose shares were traded at abnormally high levelsin the weeks prior to the attacks, suggesting that buyers and sellers had advanceknowledge of planned terrorist acts.´

The same article added:

³The SEC equities list named several big companies that were tenants in the collapsedbuildings in the heart of New York's financial district: investment firms MorganStanley, the towers' biggest occupant; Lehman Bros.; Bank of America; and financialfirm Marsh & McLennan.´

Meanwhile, put options were purchased for American Airlines and United Airlines:



³In the days before the terrorist assaults, unusually high numbers of put options werepurchased for the stocks of AMR Corp. and UAL Corp., the parents of American andUnited -- each of which had two planes hijacked. A put option is a contract that givesa holder the right to sell an asset at a specified price before a certain date.´ (SanFrancisco Chronicle, October 03, 2001)

On September 20th

, Reuters reported unusual activities in stock markets in Germany beforethe attacks on New York and Washington:

³In 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 shortposition with advance knowledge of an attack that would send the insurer's sharesplummeting. ́

It continued:

³One banker, who requested anonymity, said he had received three price inquiriesfrom major French banks about borrowing abnormally large stakes -- millions of

shares -- in Munich Re. The requests were never followed up with an actual shareloan. 'These inquiries were very big in size and they only asked about one share, andfor that reason it stood out,' he said.´

With these unusual transactions in motion, the CIA and other intelligence agencies that relyon the Prosecutor's Management Information System (Promis), the computer software thatmonitors and identifies unusual activities in stock market, should have identified theseanomalies; however, they did not. Why not, one might ask, unless someone from within thehierarchy was profiting in billions of dollars.

In light of the unusual activities, for example:

³Volatility in Munich Re shares increased sharply before the attack, jumping 30percent from September 4 to September 7.´

Yet, the spokesperson for the Eurex claimed:

³«the exchange, the world's largest derivatives exchange, had probed transactions inthe 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 ErnstWelteke said:

³«a preliminary review by German regulators and bank researchers showed therewere highly suspicious sales of shares in airlines and insurance companies, along withmajor trades in gold and oil markets, before Sept. 11 that suggest they were conductedwith advance knowledge of the attacks. Welteke said his researchers came acrosswhat 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 couldbe 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 theunusual--to say the least²market 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 withthe 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 groupinvolved relatively easy. But unfortunately, the government is silent about this.

According to FTW December 06, 2001, the CIA acknowledged monitoring stock marketsoutside United States:

³In 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. Weonly 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 allelectronic banking transactions in the U.S. The goal, according to the diagrams whichlaid out (subsequently verified) relationships between Stephens, Worthen Bank, theLippo Group and the drug/intelligence bank BCCI was to penetrate every bankingsystem in the world. This "cabal" could then use Promis both to predict and toinfluence the movement of financial markets worldwide. Stephens, truly bipartisan inhis approach to profits, has been a lifelong supporter of George Bush and he was, atthe same time, the source of the $3 million loan that rescued a faltering ClintonCampaign 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 Americaninterests 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 thefollowing 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 concisebackground to the entire fiasco.

With the Cold War in its peak, the existence of a communist regime in the backyard of theUnited States was an unacceptable proposition. Cuba's conversion into communism was not acraft 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, FidelCastro 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, whoadmired the freedoms and individual rights enshrined in the United States Constitution, FidelCastro also thought that his struggle against the corrupt regime of the Batista would beappreciated. Meanwhile, he wanted to convey to the Americans that his new government inCuba 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 notcommunist. When Castro met with Richard Nixon, he told Nixon that his regime was notcommunist. It advocated social justice, a term that was interpreted by Nixon as communism.In fact, Nixon said, ³If he¶s not a communist, he certainly acts like one.´ He labeled Castrocommunist and thus, hindered any possibility of social and economic development andfriendly 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 AfghanPrime Minister Mohammad Daud Khan, thereby, forcing Afghanistan to fall into the SovietUnion sphere of influence whose consequences were the invasion of Afghanistan by theUSSR 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 theRussians were too eager to benefit from the indifference of US government in regards toCuba. To this end, the Russians took advantage of the situation by extending generouseconomic aid and financed the Cuban socioeconomic development.

The origin of the Operation Northwoods stemmed from the desire of President Eisenhower inhis 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 beforethe end of his term as President of the United States. Meanwhile, to invade Cuba, there had tobe 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 invadeCuba, only if Cuba gave him a good excuse to do so. Since these were Eisenhower's last daysin office leading to John F. Kennedy's inauguration, time was of the essence. He told GeneralLemnitzer and others in the same meeting on January 3 that if the Cubans did not gave himthe excuse, and then the USA "could think of manufacturing something that would begenerally acceptable."13 Richard Bissell, CIA Director of Plans, describes the January 3meeting in his book, MEMOIRS OF A COLD WARRIOR: FROM YALTA TO BAY OFPIGS, as follows:

³The 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 hewas prepared to µmove against Castro¶ before Kennedy¶s inauguration on the twentiethif a µreally good excuse¶ was provided by Castro. µFailing that,¶ he said, µperhaps wecould think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable.¶ «This isbut another example of his willingness to use covert action²specifically to fabricateevents²to achieve his objectives in foreign policy.´

What Eisenhower wanted was a staged terrorist attacks by elements of the United StatesGovernment 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 GeneralLemnitzer.

With John F Kennedy on board as President of the United States, the covert operations werein full swing against Castro's Cuba. President Kennedy had promised the Cubans in exile todo 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 notdoing enough to thwart the threat of communism from Cuba to the United States.



Meanwhile, General Lemnitzer, who was counting on the Kennedy Administration to launcha war on Cuba, saw the chances of any direct US intervention slipping away. In addition tothe failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, in February 26, 1962, Robert Kennedy told GeneralLansdale, who was in charge of the various covert actions under Operation Mangoose, that hiscovert activities were becoming ridiculous, and ordered the General to stop any anti-Castrooperations. This incident eliminated virtually any chance of having a direct military

intervention by the United States armed forces, hence, General Lemnitzer resorted to aterrorist plan that he drew and was signed by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Theplan was Operation Northwoods.

Initially, however, General Lemnitzer counted on the failure of the US space flight. Hisproposal to General Lansdale was that in the event of the explosion of John Glenn spaceflight, "irrevocable proof" should be provided that would implicate the Cuban's government inthe conspiracy that resulted in the explosion of John Glenn's flight. According to Bamford'sBody of Secrets, Lemnitzer continued to General Lansdale that such implication should beaccomplished "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronicinterference on the part of the Cubans." However, with John Glenn's successful lift off tospace, the possibility of starting a war slipped away.

The next step included staging all out terrorist attacks within the United States, targetingAmericans and Cuban exiles. This was dubbed Operation Northwoods, which consisted of aseries 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 Chiefsof Staff are articulated in the unclassified memorandum. The following is 'Annex to AppendixTo Enclosure A', which is part of the unclassified memorandum that illustrates clearly thecorruption 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 insidejob.

.

ANNEX TO APP ENDIX TO ENCLOSURE A

P RETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILIT ARY 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 withinthe 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 Santiagoas 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 thosepeople 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 bewidely 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 becoupled with "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican

Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on thebeach.

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 inthe 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 thepassenger-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 thepassengers 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 theCuban 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 themission 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 havea 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 needto 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 fewwar-mongering characters in the Pentagon.

Operation Nothwoods is not the only precedent pointing to the complicity of the USGovernment 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, inthe 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 foundcomplicit 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 peopleof 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 borndeformed from these Weapons of Mass Destructions (WMD) forever. These Weapons of Mass Destruction alter the texture of the ecosystem wherein the victims reside. Thisultimately condemns the people living there and future generations to death, and deprivesthem of their fundamental human right, the right to live. The US and the UK are the only twocountries used these horrible weapons indiscriminately in Iraq during the Gulf War andBalkans 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 inAfghanistan 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 magnitudeand 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 todepleted 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%, thehighest level of uranium ever recorded in civilian population. Incidentally, the uraniumparticles that were discovered in the urine samples from subjects in Jala-Abad exhibitedcharacteristics different from depleted uranium while the populations exhibited healthproblems similar to those in Iraq. The report continues:

"Durakovic and his team have searched for possible alternative causes, such asgeological or industrial sources, or the likelihood of Al Qaeda having uraniumreserves. But the uranium found is not consistent with the "dirty bomb" scenarioproposed by the US (in which stores of radioactive materials might explain thefindings), nor is it connected to DU, or an enriched uranium-type dust that has beenfound in Iraq and Kosovo." http://www.umrc.net

In Iraq, it took up to five years to have any significant effects of exposure to depleteduranium, however, in Afghanistan only after one year, the UMRC research group suspectsthat 25% of newly born in Kabul showed symptoms of exposure to uranium weapons. Thelatter 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 createsa distortion as if the uranium had come from the local uranium deposits. The conclusion of thereport was:

"However, marked differences between natural uranium and the uranium used in themetal fragments found in Afghanistan was [sic] uncovered with the use of an electronmicroscope, which revealed the presence of small ceramic particles produced by the



high temperatures created on impact. This method of disguising uranium wouldbenefit governments that are under pressure from the growing anti-DU lobby."

"The only conclusion is that the allied forces are now possibly using milled uraniumore 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 thebombardments 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 andchemical materials that also cause cancer." (Reuters, October 29, 2001)

The news report continued with quotes that further added credibility to the claims of manythat the US and the UK had used uranium weapons in Afghanistan. Dr. Wazir a surgeon atWazir Akbar Khan Hospital had said the following amidst the bombardments:

"We have some patients with superficial injuries with symptoms of chemicalweapons." (Reuters, October 29, 2001)

According to Dr. Wazir a 10 years old boy, who had superficial injuries died from respiratoryproblems after the bombing, while another individual, a 50 years old woman also died fromminor injuries. The doctor continues by citing three of his other patients-two girls aged 12 and15 and a boy aged 15-who had only sustained superficial injuries from the US bombings, diedhours later from breathing difficulties and internal bleeding. Dr. Wazir continued:

"These are only three examples. There have been other cases where we suspectchemical weapons have been used. Most of the victims have had respiratory problemsand 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 theseillegal weapons in Afghan villages and towns. The rise in various cancers and different typesof congenital deformities attest to the deadly effects of these weapons. The cancers anddeformities 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. Infact, the use of microwave bombs and energy beams is another calamity wherefrom peoplesuffer 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 usedmicrowave bombs in Nerkh district of Maidan-Wardak Province, relatives of the victims wereclueless about the identity of the relatives. Finally, locals identified their relatives by thedocuments retried from their clothing. Those victims that did not have any documents wereidentified from their torn outfits.

Furthermore, the energy beam is another dreadful weapon used on daily basis. On oneoccasion, last year, one of the insurgents was targeted by the energy beam from AC-130Gunship. 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 energybeam 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 unrecognizableto 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 inHelmand, Maidan and other provinces, the neighbors and relatives of the bombed victimscould not find their bodies because the bodies were sucked into the ground. At best, theycould 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 forcesbombed the village Bala Blook in Farah Province with White Phosphorus killing 147civilians.

The killing of Afghan civilians is no longer an issue that is taken seriously by the USgovernment. The most recent incidents were the barbaric murder of 65 civilians and shootingof 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 thatAfghan parents may have burned their own children to death to blame US forces, reported byThe Washington Post:

To the shock of President Hamid Karzai's aides, Gen. David H. Petraeus suggestedSunday at the presidential palace that Afghans caught up in a coalition attack innortheastern Afghanistan might have burned their own children to exaggerate claimsof 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. Itsays that pro-Taliban villagers have created a propaganda story that was taken up bypoliticians 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 werekilled 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 startedshooting. They fired a rocket that hit a tree. The branches fell over me and shrapnel hitmy 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 childrencollecting firewood and adults with guns:

TADS provides the co-pilot/gunner with search, detection and recognition capabilityby means of direct view optics, TV or FLIR sighting systems which may be usedsingly or in combinations according to tactical, weather or visibility conditions.

17

Another source further confirms the effectiveness of the Apache Helicopters visual anddetection capability that would have clearly established that those 10 children were pickingfirewood, and indeed were children not armed insurgents:

The Apache features a Target Acquisition Designation Sight (TADS) and a Pilot NightVision Sensor (PNVS) which enables the crew to navigate and conduct precisionattacks in day, night and adverse weather conditions.

18

Taliban and other Insurgents did not come from the Moon. They are the relatives of thesevictims 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 thatwould 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. In2002, 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 inAfghanistan 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 USforces. The US military brass, its rank and file along with elements of the civilian governmentincluding the US State Department are involved in outright robberies, stealing cash andsupplies from the US Taxpayers worth billions of dollars. No wonder, they are reluctant to putan 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 hasalso arrived at a point to acquire the much needed shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles as didthe Mujahideen during the 1980s; however, this time, there are many actors includingneighbors to provide military hardware through some indirect channels.

The explicit and implicit animosity of the countries in the region is enough to provide theneeded implements to Taliban. The provision of weapons, especially shoulder-held missilesand advanced RPGs such as RPG-32 would be the deciding factors ensuring US-NATO



departure from Afghanistan. As one Afghan elder puts it, ³this departure would not bewalking out of Afghanistan with their heads up but rather one characterized with crawling outon their knees.´

WHY NOT PEACE

Peace is the product of those involved in the conflict. Peace could not be achievedunilaterally. Peace had to be desired by all the parties involved in the conflict. It is impossibleto bomb Afghan villages and expect peace overtures from the insurgents. Furthermore, the UShas 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 peopleworldwide. The US government needs to put an end to the travesty of justice at Guantanamodetention cages, which has tarnished all aspects of American life in the eyes of peopleeverywhere.

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 inpeace. I have tried in vain contacting the US State Department and members of the ForeignRelation Committee in the US Congress many times; however, the replies I received rangedfrom indifference to outright unrealistic demands ignoring Afghan tradition. Whatever Taliban and other insurgents decide in regards to negotiation and peace, it is my opinion thatthe 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 andother insurgents have in negotiating peace with the Americans and NATO? I would say verylittle.

Dr Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD

[email protected]

[email protected]

www.afghanistanafterdemocracy.com

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, 2011

why should taliban and other insurgents refrain from negotiation with the us

Documents