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

Tuesday, 15 March 2011 05:55 Dr Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD
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

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". 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.
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. 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." 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. 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:
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.

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.
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.
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."
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 plane...slammed 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?"

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."
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." 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

"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

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.
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.

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.

mdmiraki@ameritech.net
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, 2011

NOTE: This material is from web pages and forums carrying statements attributed to the Taliban, Taliban spokespersons . Posting of this material it is shared for information only