واقعه 11 سپتامبرA Legal Framework for Criminalizing the GWOT
کار بن لادن نبوده Michel
Chossudovsky
Presents in Kuala Lumpur see also from dprogram.net: ******************* US to build mysterious 'Site 911' in Israel The US Army Corps of Engineers plans to supervise
construction of a five-story underground facility for an Israel Defense Forces
complex, oddly named "Site 911," at an Israeli Air Force base near Tel
Aviv.
Expected to take more than two years to build, at a cost of up to $100
million, the facility is to have classrooms on Level 1, an auditorium on Level
3, a laboratory, shock-resistant doors, protection from nonionizing radiation
and very tight security. Clearances will be required for all construction
workers, guards will be at the fence and barriers will separate it from the rest
of the base.
Only U.S. construction firms are being allowed to bid on the contract, and proposals are due Dec. 3, according to the latest Corps of Engineers notice. Site 911 is the latest in a long history of military construction projects the United States has undertaken for the IDF under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program. The 1998 Wye River Memorandum between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has led to about $500 million in U.S. construction of military facilities for the Israelis, most of them initially in an undeveloped part of the Negev Desert. It was done to ensure there were bases to which IDF forces stationed in the West Bank could be redeployed. As recorded in the Corps' European District magazine, called Engineering in Europe, three bases were built to support 20,000 troops, and eventually the Israeli air force moved into the same area, creating Nevatim air base. A new runway, 2.5 miles long, was built there by the Corps along with about 100 new buildings and 10 miles of roads. Over the years, the Corps has built underground hangars for Israeli fighter-bombers, facilities for handling nuclear weapons (though Israel does not admit having such weapons), command centers, training bases, intelligence facilities and simulators, according to Corps publications. Within the past two years the Corps, which has three offices in Israel, completed a $30 million set of hangars at Nevatim, which the magazine describes as a "former small desert outpost that has grown to be one of the largest and most modern air bases in the country." It has also supervised a $20 million project to build maintenance shops, hangars and headquarters to support Israel's large Eitan unmanned aerial vehicle. Site 911, which will be built at another base, appears to be one of the largest projects. Each of the first three underground floors is to be roughly 41,000 square feet, according to the Corps notice. The lower two floors are much smaller and hold equipment. Security concerns are so great that non-Israeli employees hired by the builder can come only from "the U.S., Canada, Western Europe countries, Poland, Moldavia, Thailand, Philippines, Venezuela, Romania and China," according to the Corps notice. "The employment of Palestinians is also forbidden," it says. Among other security rules: The site "shall have one gate only for both entering and exiting the site" and "no exit or entrance to the site shall be allowed during work hours except for supply trucks." Guards will be Israeli citizens with experience in the Israeli air force. Also, "the collection of information of any type whatsoever related to base activities is prohibited." The well-known Israeli architectural firm listed on the plans, Ada Karmi-Melamede Architects, has paid attention to the aesthetics of the site design as well as the sensibilities of future employees. The site, for example, will be decorated with rocks chosen by the architect but purchased by the contractor. Three picnic tables are planned, according to the solicitation. The Corps offered a lengthy description of the mezuzas the contractor is to provide "for each door or opening exclusive of toilets or shower rooms" in the Site 911 building. A mezuza (also spelled mezuzah) is a parchment that has been inscribed with Hebrew verses from the Torah, placed in a case and attached to a door frame of a Jewish family's house as a sign of faith. Some interpret Jewish law as requiring — as in this case — that a mezuza be attached to every door in a house. These mezuzas, notes the Corps, "shall be written in inerasable ink, on uncoated leather parchment" and be handwritten by a scribe "holding a written authorization according to Jewish law." The writing may be "Ashkenazik or Sepharadik" but "not a mixture" and "must be uniform." Also, "The Mezuzahs shall be proof-read by a computer at an authorized institution for Mezuzah inspection, as well as manually proof-read for the form of the letters by a proof-reader authorized by the Chief Rabbinate." The mezuza shall be supplied with an aluminum housing with holes so it can be connected to the door frame or opening. Finally, "All Mezuzahs for the facility shall be affixed by the Base's Rabbi or his appointed representative and not by the contractor staff." What's the purpose of Site 911? I asked the Pentagon on Tuesday, and the Corps on Wednesday said that only an Israeli Defense Ministry spokesman could provide an answer. This might be a trend-starter. The Corps is also seeking a contractor for another secret construction project in Israel in the $100 million range to awarded next summer. This one will involve "a complex facility with site development challenges" requiring services that include "electrical, communication, mechanical/HVAC [heating, ventilation, air conditioning] and plumbing." The U.S. contractor must have a U.S. secret or equivalent Israeli security clearance for the project, which is expected to take almost 2 1/2 years to complete. That sounds like a secure command center. The purpose of Site 911 is far less clear. September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War,Committed “in the Name of 9/11″September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War Committed “in the Name of 9/11″
Initiating a Legal Procedure
against the Perpetrators of 9/11 Michel Chossudovsky
*****************
International Conference on “9/11
Revisited – Seeking the Truth”
Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF) Kuala Lumpur, November 2012
Introduction
The tragic events of September 11, 2001
constitute a fundamental landmark in American history, a decisive watershed, a
breaking point.
Millions of people have been misled regarding
the causes and consequences of 9/11.
September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis,
upheaval and militarization of American society. The post September 11, 2001 era
is marked by the outright criminalization of the US State, including its
judicial, foreign policy, national security and intelligence apparatus.
9/11 marks the onslaught of the “Global War
on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its
NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.
A far-reaching overhaul of US military
doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.
9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the
relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and
the inauguration of “Police State USA”.
In assessing the crimes associated with 9/11
in the context of a legal procedure, we must distinguish between those
associated with the actual event, namely the loss of life and the
destruction of property on 9/11, from the crimes committed in
the aftermath of September 11, 2001 “in the name of 9/11″.
The latter build upon the former. We are
dealing with two related dimensions of criminality. The crimes committed
“in the name of 9/11″ involving acts of war are far-reaching, resulting in the
deaths of millions of people as well as the destruction of entire countries.
The 9/11 event in itself– which
becomes symbolic– is used to justify the onslaught of the post 9/11 US-NATO
military agenda, under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism”
(GWOT), not to mention the ushering in of the Homeland police state and the
repeal of civil liberties.
The crimes committed in the name of 9/11 broadly
consist in two intimately related processes:
The 9/11 attacks constitute what is referred
to in intelligence parlance as a “massive casualty producing event” conducive to
the deaths of civilians.
The dramatic loss of life on the morning of
9/11 resulting from an initial criminal act is used as a pretext and a
justification to wage an all out war of retribution, in the name of 9/11 against
the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, namely the “state sponsors of terrorism”,
including Afghanistan, Iraq as well as Iran.
We are dealing with a diabolical and criminal
project. The civilian deaths resulting from the 911 attacks are an instrument of
war propaganda, applied to build a consensus in favor of an outright war of
global domination.
The perpetrators of war propaganda are
complicit in the conduct of extensive war crimes, in that they readily justify
acts of war as counter-terrorism and/or humanitarian operations (R2P) launched
to protect civilians. The “Just War” (Jus ad Bellum) concept prevails: The
killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq are “rightfully” undertaken in
retribution for the deaths incurred on 9/11.
Evidence is fabricated to the effect that the
“state sponsors of terrorism” had committed, on the morning of 9/11, an outright
act of war against the United States.
Realities are turned upside down. The US and
its allies are the victims of foreign aggression. America’s crimes of war in
Afghanistan and Iraq are committed in the name of 9/11 under a counter terrorism
mandate.
The 9/11 attacks are used to harness public
opinion into supporting a war without borders. Endless wars of
aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” are set in
motion.
Chronology of Events
At eleven o’clock, on the morning of
September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was
responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon.
This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an in-depth police
investigation.
CIA Director George Tenet stated that same
morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with
little or no warning.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell called the
attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised
address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists
who committed these acts and those [foreign governments] who harbor
them”.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey, without
mentioning Afghanistan, pointed his finger at “state sponsorship,” implying the
complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National
Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, “I think we will show when we get
attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution.”
That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet”
was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military
advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White
House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.
The war cabinet had decided to launch an an
illegal and criminal war on Afghanistan, based on essentially two interrelated
concepts:
The tragic events of 9/11 provided the
required justification to wage war on Afghanistan on “humanitarian grounds”,
with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the
“international community”. Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a
case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. In
taking on this stance they provided legitimacy to the conduct of war crimes. The
“just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face
value as a legitimate response to 9/11.
In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was
completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had
swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of
retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country in Central Asia of 30
million people.
The myth of the “outside enemy” and the
threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s
military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to
mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.
The post 9/11 era was also characterised by the development of Islamophobia,
including routine ethnic profiling directed against Muslims.
Where was Osama bin Laden on September
11, 2001?
Is there any proof to the effect that Osama bin
Laden, the bogeyman, coordinated the 9/11 attacks as claimed in the official
9/11 narrative?
According to CBS news (Dan Rather, January 28, 2002), “Enemy
Number One” was admitted to the urology ward of a Pakistani military hospital in
Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally
Pakistan. Rawalpindi is the Headquarters of the Pakistani military including its
intelligence apparatus. He could have been arrested at short notice which would
have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama
Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as presidential speeches in the
course of the last eleven years.
CBS News footage of the Rawalpindi, Pakistan,
hospital where bin Laden was allegedly treated the day before 9/11. [Source:
CBS News]
The foregoing CBS report which is of utmost
relevance indicates two obvious facts:
U.S. military and intelligence advisers based in
Rawalpindi. were working closely with their Pakistani counterparts. Again, no
attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive. Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld claimed, at the time, that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden
were unknown. According to Rumsfeld: “Its like looking for a needle in a stack
of hay”.
Recovering from his hospital treatment in
Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, how could Osama have coordinated the 9/11
attacks?
How could Afghanistan be made responsible for
these attacks by Al Qaeda? Bin Laden is a national of Saudi Arabia who,
according to CBS News, was not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan at the time of
the attacks.
September 12, 2001: The
Invasion of Afghanistan:
NATO’s Doctrine of Collective Security
The immediate response of the US and its NATO
allies to the 9/11 attacks was to the declare a war of retribution against
Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting “terror
mastermind” Osama bin Laden, who at the time of the attacks was in Pakistan,
protected by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus. In a bitter
irony, the Pakistani government and military, which had facilitated bin Laden’s
hospitalization in Rawalpindi on September 10, offered to assist the US in
“going after bin Laden”. An agreement to this effect was reached on September
12 in Washington between the head of Pakistan’s military Intelligence (ISI)
General Mahmoud Ahmed and Secretary Colin Powell.
Parroting official statements, the Western media
mantra on September 12, 2001 had already approved the launching of “punitive
actions” directed against civilian targets in Afghanistan. In the words of
William Saffire writing in the New York Times: “When we reasonably determine our
attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting
the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize
terror’s national hosts”.
By allegedly harboring bin Laden, the Afghan
government was complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for
having waged an act of war against the United States.
This decision was taken by the Bush-Cheney war
cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption,
“confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
On the following morning, September 12, 2001,
NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s
declaration of war on Afghanistan (taken by the war cabinet at 11pm on September
11), invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
Meanwhile, on two occasions in the course of
September 2001, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels– offered to
hand over Osama Bin laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by
president Bush, on the grounds that America “does not negotiate with
terrorists”.
The War on Afghanistan: First Stage of
the “Global War on Terrorism”
The war on Afghanistan was launched 26 days later
on the morning of October 7, 2001. The timing of this war begs the question:
how long does it take to plan and implement a major theater war several
thousand miles away.
Military analysts will confirm that a
major theater war takes months and months, up to a year or more of advanced
preparations. Confirmed by press reports, the war on Afghanistan was already in
an advanced state of readiness prior to September 11, 2001, which begs the
question of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
In other words, the 9/11 attacks were used as a
means to trigger a military agenda which was already on the drawing board of
both the Pentagon and NATO.
The repeal of civil liberties in America was
launched in parallel with the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. Immediately
following 9/11, the PATRIOT legislation was adopted. The Homeland Security
apparatus was launched, with a view to “protecting Americans against
terrorists”. This post-911 legal and institutional framework had been carefully
crafted prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:
NATO’s Legal Argument
In invoking Article 5 on the morning of
September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council endorsed a criminal military agenda,
in derogation of international law.
The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to
invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared
“armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently
“the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the
name of “self-defense”.
On the morning of September 12, 2001,
NATO’s North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, responded to the decision of
the War Cabinet taken a few hours earlier at 11pm on 9/11, adopted the following
resolution:
In this regard, Article 5 of the Washington
Treaty stipulates that if:
An act of war by a foreign nation
(Afghanistan) against a member of the Atlantic Alliance (the USA) was considered
as an act of war against all members under NATO’s doctrine of collective
security.
Under no stretch of the imagination, can the
attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon be categorized as an act of war by
a foreign country. But nobody seemed to have raised this issue.
“Use of Armed Force” only “If It is
Determined…”
There was an “if” in the September 12 resolution.
Article 5 would apply only if it is determined that Afghanistan as a Nation
State was complicit or behind the 9/11 attacks.
In practice, the “if” had already been waived
prior to 9/11. The entire NATO arsenal was already on a war footing. In military
terms, NATO and the US were already in an advanced state of readiness. Known to
military analysts, but never revealed in the Western media, the implementation
of a large scale theater war takes at least one year of advanced operational
planning, prior to the launching of an invasion.
The use of article 5 of the Washington Treaty had
in all likelihood been contemplated by military planners, as a pretext for
waging war, prior to 9/11.
There was, however, no official declaration of
war on September 12th. The Alliance waited until 3 days before the
invasion to declare war on Afghanistan, an impoverished country which
by no stretch of the imagination could have launched an attack against a member
state of “The North Atlantic area”.
The September 12 resolution of the Atlantic
Council required “determination” and corroborating evidence, that:
1) Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden with the
support of a foreign power had ordered the “attack from abroad” on the United
States of America;
2) The terrorist attacks of 9/11 constituted a
bona fide military operation (under the provisions of Article 5) by an alleged
foreign country (Afghanistan) against a NATO member state, and consequently
against all NATO member states under the doctrine of collective security:
The Mysterious Frank Taylor
Report
The final decision to invoke Article 5 in
relation to the 9/11 attacks came three weeks later upon the submission to the
NATO Council of a mysterious classified report by a US State Department official
named Frank Taylor. The report was submitted to NATO on October 2nd, 5 days
before the commencement of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.
Frank Taylor was working in the US State
Department. He had been entrusted with the writing of a brief to establish
whether the US “had been attacked from abroad”, pursuant to the North Atlantic
Council’s resolution of September 12 2001.
US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for
Counter-terrorism Frank Taylor briefed the North Atlantic Council on October
2nd, five days before the commencement of the bombings.
On October 2nd he handed his brief to NATO “on
the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks…. ” NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against
Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009).
The classified report was not released to the
media. And to this date, to our knowledge, it has remained classified.
NATO’s Secretary General Lord Robertson casually
summarised the substance of the Frank Taylor report in a press release:
In other words, 2 days before the actual
commencement of the bombing campaign on October 7, the North Atlantic Council
decided, based on the information provided by Frank Taylor to the Council “that
the attacks were directed from abroad” by Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden,
thereby requiring an action on the part of NATO under Article 5 of the
Washington Treaty ( NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against
Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009):
NATO action under article 5, was outlined in an
October 4 decision, 3 days before the commencement of the bombings.
Two days later, on 4 October, NATO agreed on
eight measures in support the United States, which were tantamount to an illegal
declaration of war on Afghanistan:
Press reports of Frank Taylor’s brief to the NATO
Council were scanty. The invocation of Article 5, five days before the bombings
commenced, was barely mentioned. The media consensus was: “all roads lead to Bin
Laden” as if bin Laden was a Nation State which had attacked America.
What stands out are outright lies and
fabrications. Moreover, prior to October 2nd, NATO had no pretext under Article
5 of the Washington Treaty to intervene militarily in Afghanistan.
The pretext was provided by Frank Taylor’s
classified report, which was not made public.
The two UN Security Council resolutions adopted
in the course of September 2001, did not, under any circumstances, provide a
justification for the invasion and illegal occupation of a UN member country of
28 million people. (see Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) Threats
to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) Threats
to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts).
UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) called for prevention
and suppression of terrorist acts, as well suppression of the financing of
terrorism:
…
“3. Calls upon all States to:
Nowhere in this resolution is there any mention
of military action against a UN member State.
The US led war on Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a
pretext and a justification is illegal and criminal.
The US and NATO heads of state and heads of
government from 2001 to the present are complicit in the launching of a criminal
and illegal war.
The Big Lie: Al Qaeda Made in
America
Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the
mainstream media, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet-
Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including
official documents of the US Congress, which the mainstream media chose to
either dismiss or ignore. The intelligence community had time and again
acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the
wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.
Both the 9/11 Commission Report as well as the
Western media have largely upheld the “outside enemy” mythology, heralding Al
Qaeda as the “mastermind” organization behind the 9/11 attacks. The official
9/11 narrative has not only distorted the causes underling the collapse of the
World Trade Center buildings, it has also erased the historical record of US
covert support to international terrorism, while creating the illusion that
America and “Western Civilization” are threatened.
Without an “outside enemy”, there could
be no “Global War on Terrorism”. The entire national security agenda would
collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no
leg to stand on.
After 9/11, the campaign of media
disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the
historical evidence on how this illusive Al Qaeda “outside enemy” had been
fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.
This is why a legal procedure directed
against the actual perpetrators of 9/11 is absolutely essential.
History of Al Qaeda
Important to the understanding of 9/11, US
intelligence is the unspoken architect of “Islamic terrorism” going back to the
heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.
Bin Laden was 22 years old and was trained in a
CIA sponsored guerrilla training camp. Education in Afghanistan in the years
preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. With religious textbooks
produced in Nebraska, the number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs)
increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.
Under the Reagan administration, US foreign
policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic
“freedom fighters”. This endorsement has not in any way been modified.
In a twisted irony, throughout the post 911 era,
US intelligence in liaison with Britain’s MI6, an Israel’s Mossad, continues to
provide covert support to the radical Islamist organization allegedly
responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda and its various affiliated groups
including the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and factions within the Free
Syria Army (FSA) are directly supported by the US and NATO.
In a bitter irony, the US and its allies claim to
be waging a “war on terrorism” against the alleged architects of 9/11, while
also using Al Qaeda operatives as their foot-soldiers.
 Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director
general of Pakistan’sInter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987. (source RAWA) 
Iraq: Alleged State Sponsor of the 9/11
Attacks
The formulation of a war of retribution
conducted in the name of 9/11 was not limited to Afghanistan.
In the course of 2002, leading up to the
invasion of Iraq in March 2003, “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass
Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain. While
Washington’s official position was that Saddam Hussein was not behind the 9/11
attacks, insinuations abounded both in presidential speeches as well as in the
Western media. According to Bush, in an October 2002 press conference:
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. .,.. We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability — even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source [Iraq], that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, October 7, 2002)
Barely two weeks before the invasion of Iraq,
September 11, 2001 was mentioned abundantly by president Bush. In the weeks
leading up to the March invasion, 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam
Hussein was “personally involved” in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. (See . The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq / The Christian Science
Monitor – CSMonitor.com, March 14, 2003)
 Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu
Musab Al-Zarqawi.
In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United
Nations Security Council, in February 2003, detailed “documentation” on a
sinister relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was
presented, focussing on his ability to produce deadly chemical, biological and
radiological weapons, with the full support and endorsement of the secular
Baathist regime. The implication of Colin’s Powell’s assertions, which were
totally fabricated, was that Saddam Hussein and an Al Qaeda affiliated
organization had joined hands in the production of WMD in Northern Iraq and that
the Hussein government was a “state sponsor” of terrorism.
The main thrust of the disinformation campaign
continued in the wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in
presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of
“terrorists opposed to democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on
television screens and news tabloids across the globe.
Iran: Condemned by a New
York City Court for Supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11 Attacks
In the wake of the Iraq invasion, the same
alleged “state sponsorship” of terrorism accusations emerged in relation to
Iran.
In December 2011, the Islamic Republic of Iran
was condemned by a Manhattan court, for its alleged role in supporting Al Qaeda
in the 9/11 attacks.
The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role was
launched in 2004, pursuant to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding
an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 9/11
Commission’s recommendation was that this “apparent link” required “further
investigation by the U.S. government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241).
(See Iran 911
Case ).
In the December 2011 court judgment (Havlish v. Iran) “U.S.
District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah materially and
directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally
responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are
plaintiffs in the case”.
According to the plaintiffs attorneys “Iran,
Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s. Citing
their national security and intelligence experts, the attorneys explained “how
the pragmatic terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi’a divide in order to
confront the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel (the “Lesser Satan”)”. Iran and
Hezbollah allegedly provided “training to members of al Qaeda in, among other
things, the use of explosives to destroy large buildings.” (See Iran 911 Case
).
This judicial procedure is nothing more than another vicious weapon in the fabricated “War on Terror” to be used against another Muslim country, with a view to destabilizing Iran as well as justifying ongoing military threats. It also says a lot more about the people behind the lawsuit than about the accused. The expert witnesses who testified against Iran are very active in warmongering neocon circles. They belong to a web of architects of the 21st century Middle-Eastern wars, ranging from high profile propagandists to intelligence and military officers, including former U.S. officials.
Al Qaeda: US-NATO
Foot-soldiers
Ironically, while Washington accuses Afghanistan,
Iraq and Iran of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, the historical record and
evidence indelibly point to the “state sponsorship” of Al Qaeda by the
CIA, MI6 and their intelligence counterparts in Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi
Arabia.
Realities are turned upside down. Al Qaeda death
squads have been recruited to wage America’s humanitarian wars throughout the
Middle East an d North Africa.
In Syria Al Qaeda units were recruited by NATO
and the Turkish High command:
“Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels.” (http://www.debka.com/article/21255/ Debkafile, August 31, 2011).
In Libya, jihadists from Afghanistan trained by
the CIA were dispatched to fight with the “pro-democracy” rebels under the helm
of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim
Belhadj:
Western policy makers admit that NATO’s operations in Libya have played the primary role in emboldening Al Qaeda’s AQIM faction (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). The Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution’s Bruce Riedel in his article, “The New Al Qaeda Menace,” admits that AQIM is now heavily armed thanks to NATO’s intervention in Libya, and that AQIM’s base in Mali, North Africa, serves as a staging ground for terrorist activities across the region. http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-and-natos-pan-arab-terrorist-blitzkrieg/
“Crimes against Civilization”
9/11 mythology has been the mainstay of war
propaganda, which in itself constitutes a criminal act under international law.
Fiction prevails over reality. For propaganda
to be effective, public opinion must firmly endorse the official 9/11 narrative
to the effect that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. A well organized structure
of media disinformation is required to reach this objective. Perpetuating the
9/11 Legend also requires defying as well smearing the 9/11 Truth
Movement.
Throughout the post 9/11 era, a panoply of Al
Qaeda related events and circumstances is presented to public opinion on a daily
basis. These include terrorist threats, warnings and attacks, police
investigations, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, country-level regime
change, social conflict, sectarian violence, racism, religious divisions,
Islamic thought, Western values, etc.
Muslims are presented as the
perpetrators of the 9/11, thereby unleashing a Worldwide demonization
campaign.
In turn, 9/11, Al Qaeda – War on Terrorism
rhetoric permeates political discourse at all levels of government, including
bipartisan debate on Capitol Hill, in committees of the House and the Senate, at
the British House of Commons, and, lest we forget, at the United Nations
Security Council. All these various bodies are complicit in a criminal
project.
September 11 and Al Qaeda concepts, repeated
ad nauseam have potentially traumatic impacts on the human mind and the ability
of normal human beings to analyze and comprehend the “real outside World” of
war, politics and the economic crisis.
What is at stake is human consciousness and
comprehension based on concepts and facts.
With September 11 there are no verifiable
“facts” and “concepts”, because 9/11 as well as Al Qaeda have evolved into a
media mythology, a legend, an invented ideological construct, used as an
unsubtle tool of war propaganda.
Al Qaeda constitutes a stylized, fake and
almost folkloric abstraction of terrorism, which permeates the inner
consciousness of millions of people around the World.
Reference to Al Qaeda has become a dogma, a
belief, which most people espouse unconditionally. According to the media,
“Muslims were behind the attacks”, thereby justifying a war of
retribution against Muslim countries.
Racism and Islamophobia are an
integral part of war propaganda.
Is this political indoctrination? Is it
brain-washing? If so what is the underlying objective?
People’s capacity to independently analyse
World events, as well as address causal relationships pertaining to politics and
society, is significantly impaired. That is the objective!
The routine use of 9/11 and Al Qaeda to
generate blanket explanations of complex political events is meant to create
confusion.
It prevents people from thinking. It strikes
at the core of human values. In a sense, it destroys civilization.
All of these complex Al Qaeda related
occurrences are explained by politicians, the corporate media, Hollywood and the
Washington think tanks under a single blanket “bad guys” heading, in which Al
Qaeda is casually and repeatedly pinpointed as “the cause” of numerous terror
events around the World.
The criminality underlying post 9/11
propaganda is of much broader nature, affecting people’s mindsets, redefining
fundamental social, political and institutional relations.
“Crimes against Civilization” have been
committed.
9/11 mythology precipitates the World into barbarity. |
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment