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

NATO
Dr Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD
| 2011-03-11

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 Charter1

Among the above-mentioned three affirmations, the third one “Recognizing the inherent right
of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter” is construed by those
individuals either ignorant or hypocrites as the green light to invade Afghanistan. However,
they tend to forget the details in each of these affirmations. The crucial addition to each of
these affirmations is the notion of compliance with the UN Charter. It may only be a phrase
for the untrained eye or intentional disregard by those advocating US’s global agenda;
nonetheless, it is a legal and moral impediment that should not be taken lightly.

Equally, if we refer to the Security Council Resolution 1373 adopted on September 28, 2001,
Security Council Resolution 1377 adopted on November 12, 2001 and Security Council
Resolution 1378 adopted on November 14, 2001, each of these resolutions affirms that every
action must be within the confines of the UN Charter. Furthermore, Security Council
Resolutions 1373, 1377 and 1378 reaffirm Security Council Resolution 1368, which affirms
without any qualifications the “principles and purposes of the Charter of the United
Nations”.2 This brings us to one basic fundamental principle of the Charter of the United
Nations, Article 2 of the UN Charter.

The Article 2 of the UN Charter forbids any nation state from the unilateral use of force:

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.3

The fundamentals of legality and moral superiority enshrined in the Article 2 of the UN
Charter are sufficient in their own right to put to rest any claim of legitimacy of the invasion
of Afghanistan. However, there are three exceptions to the Article 2 of the UN Charter: action
authorized by the UN Security Council; Article 51 of the UN Charter--the State’s right of self-
defense; and action by regional bodies with authorization from the UN Security Council.

The first exception to Article 2 of the UN Charter would have been authorization of an attack
by the UN Security Council; however, as discussed above, none of the Security Council
Resolutions authorizes the use of force. All of the Security Council Resolutions, 1368 and
1373 adopted before the invasion and Security Council Resolutions 1377 and 1378 adopted
shortly after the invasion affirm the UN Charter. What this means is that each of the
resolutions mandates conformity to the UN Charter in particular Article 2 of the UN Charter.

The second exception to the Article 2 of the UN Charter is Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Article 51 of the UN Charter gives a nation-state the right to self-defense as long as the attack
is ongoing or imminent.4 Article 51 states that member states must report to the Security
Council and the Security Council would take necessary measures to restore peace. The attacks
were not ongoing and the response was not immediate. The US waited until October 7, 2001
to retaliate against Afghanistan. The US has reported the attacks of September 11, 2001 to the
UN Security Council and the Security Council passed two resolutions and adopted measures
to combat terrorism within the framework of the UN Charter. As mentioned above, none of
the resolutions authorized the use of force. Furthermore, the Security Council measures
included “legal suppression of terrorism, and its financing, and for co-operation between
states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to
terrorism.”5 To this end, the Security Council had set up a monitoring committee to oversee
the progress of measures proposed by the two resolutions and gave all states 90 days to report
to the monitoring committee about the progress done in that regard. As we know of course,
the US did not wait for 90 days or even a month and took matters in its own hands. The issue
of self-defense in the International Law is very similar to the rationale of self-defense
exercised within nation states. That is, when a person faces a threat from an attacker and there
is no police to neutralize the danger faced by the victim, then that the victim is entitled to self-
defense. However, once the danger subsides, the would-be victim should not take the law into
his own hands and become a vigilante.

If we look at Article 51 of the UN Charter within the confines of the International Customary
Law prior to 1945, the Carolina incident of 1837 established three conditions that have to be
met for any retaliation to take place. These conditions are immediate, proportionate, and
necessary.6 The response of the US was not immediate since the attacks had stopped; hence,
when the attacks stopped, the rationale for retaliation cease to exist. Moreover, the US lacked
evidence to tie the attacks to anyone including Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, the US had to
wait for almost a month during which no other attack had taken place and then launched a full
scale invasion of Afghanistan. This brings us to the issue of proportionality. The US has used
massive amount of munitions both conventional and unconventional. The invasion not only
toppled the Taliban regime, it has also killed thousands of innocent Afghan civilians and
infested Afghanistan with uranium munitions that would haunt the population there for
generations to come. To this end the issue of proportionality as stipulated by the International
Customary Law also failed. The third condition is whether the invasion was necessary. The
US claims that Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden to them; however, it fails to address
the issue of evidence. Taliban had demanded evidence of Bin Laden’s complicity in the
attacks and then proposed legal proceedings for a trial wherein the evidence for Bin Laden’s
complicity would be weighed.

The third exception to the Article 2 of the UN Charter is the authorization of regional bodies
by the UN Security Council. The ‘regional bodies’ here refers to NATO. Since NATO is
subservient to the UN Charter, invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, that an attack on
one member of NATO is an attack on all members, does not constitute legality. To this end,
the use of force by NATO of which the US is a member was illegal.

Hence, all three exceptions to Article 2 of the UN Charter were not satisfied. Therefore, the
invasion of Afghanistan was illegal according to the International Law and the UN Charter.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the plan to invade Afghanistan was formulated well in
advance to the attacks on September 11, 2001. According to a former Pakistani diplomat,
Niaz Naik, the US Government had formulated a plan for invading Afghanistan in mid-July,
2001. Niaz Naik told the BBC that the American officials in Berlin had told him that the
planned invasion of Afghanistan had to start before the snowfall, and at the latest, it had to be
in motion by mid October 2001 (George Arney, BBC report September 18, 2001). 
No wonder, it took only 25 days to set in motion a full scale invasion of Afghanistan,
otherwise, logistically, it would be impossible for the US Government to invade a country
half a world away in a timeframe of a little over three weeks. Steve Grey of the Independent
Media Center reiterates the improbability of waging war in 25 days. By comparison, it took 4
1/2 months for the USA to wage war on Iraq in 1991. Planning is a process, not an event
requiring multiple phases, especially against an elusive enemy like the Taliban and Al-Qaida.
If we look at the planning process and stages or at the process and stages of policy making,
we would come to a conclusion that preparation and implementation of invading a country is
much more complex than planning for an organization, and requires a lot longer than 25 days
to implement.

Where Were the Evidences of the September 11 Attacks?

 The core issue of any claim is evidence. The issue of evidence becomes crucial since
presence or absence thereof has a direct effect on the future of nation and could mean massive
loss of life. Regarding the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States claimed it had
compelling evidence linking Bin Laden and ‘Al-Qaida’ to the attacks on that day. However,
to this day, the US has failed to produce any evidence linking Bin Laden to the attacks. In
fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the very organization that oversees security of
the United States, has failed to produce any shred of evidence to that effect. That is why;
Osama Bin Laden is sought for the Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in
1998. When one visits the FBI’s webpage on the most wanted individuals, this is what you
see in regards to Osama Bin Laden:

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the
United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These
attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist
attacks throughout the world.7

Is it not strange that after 10 years, the FBI of the United States still has no idea who carried
out the attacks on September 11, 2001, while the Bush administration and his collection of
Neoconservative Zionists knew of Bin Laden’s complicity within hours?

In his speech on April 19, 2001, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the following in regards to
the existence of evidence:

The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a
single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of
the September 11th plot.8

He attempted to explain away the lack of evidence by erroneously asserting that the terrorists
must have planned meticulously to avoid detection. His assertion amounted to total
contradiction and baseless speculation. The absence of evidence is evident from the quote
from the FBI webpage seeking Bin Laden for the bombing attacks in Africa in 1998.
Subsequent, to the attacks and announcement of the illusive 19 hijackers, at the least 7 of the
19 hijackers are alive and have contacted US Embassies in their countries.9

Mohammed el-Amir Atta who is the father of the so-called ring leader, Mohammad Atta, was
quoted saying that his son is alive and he spoke with his son in the midday of September 12,
2001:

“Speaking from his Cairo home, Mr Atta described hearing about the attacks after
returning from a holiday on the Red Sea on the evening of September 12."My
daughter called and said she was going to drop in. She stood at the door and said
'turn on the TV'," he said. Amid images of the jets crashing into the Twin Towers, he
saw his son's passport photograph.”

"As I saw the picture of my son," he said, "I knew that he hadn't done it. My son called
me the day after the attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for two
minutes about this and that.

"He didn't tell me where he was calling from. At that time neither of us knew anything
about the attacks."10

Meanwhile, during the attacks of September 11, 2001, the entire air defense mechanism of the
United States was on a stand down order and not a single fighter plane scrambled even though
this was standard operating procedure. Andrew Air Force Base is only 10 miles away from
Pentagon and had two squadrons of combat aircraft ready to be scrambled 24 hours a day.
This fact was illustrated in San Diego Union--Tribune on September 12:

"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews
Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air
National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National
Guard spokesman said."

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

"[T]he command did not immediately scramble any fighters even though it was alerted
to a hijacking 10 minutes before the first 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?”11 

On October 02, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that investigations were underway by
the Security Exchange Commission into purchases of large volume of five-year US Treasury
note. These purchases were done before the attacks of September 11. In fact, the transactions
of US Treasury note included a single trade amounted to $5 billion. However, despite these
large transactions, there hardly was any news coverage by the corporate media. 

On October 03, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on trading in the stocks market
prior to the attacks on September 11:

“The Investment Dealers Association of Canada told its 190 members that the SEC
has identified 38 companies -- including the parent firms of United and American
airlines, which lost four aircraft -- whose shares were traded at abnormally high levels
in the weeks prior to the attacks, suggesting that buyers and sellers had advance
knowledge of planned terrorist acts.”

The same article added:

“The SEC equities list named several big companies that were tenants in the collapsed
buildings in the heart of New York's financial district: investment firms Morgan
Stanley, the towers' biggest occupant; Lehman Bros.; Bank of America; and financial
firm Marsh & McLennan.” 

Meanwhile, put options were purchased for American Airlines and United Airlines:
 “In the days before the terrorist assaults, unusually high numbers of put options were
purchased for the stocks of AMR Corp. and UAL Corp., the parents of American and
United -- each of which had two planes hijacked. A put option is a contract that gives
a holder the right to sell an asset at a specified price before a certain date.” (San
Francisco Chronicle, October 03, 2001)

On September 20th, Reuters reported unusual activities in stock markets in Germany before
the attacks on New York and Washington:

“In Frankfurt, bankers also noticed unusual interest in stock-lending in shares of

Munich Re, raising the possibility that at least one player may have prepared a short
position with advance knowledge of an attack that would send the insurer's shares
plummeting.”

It continued:

“One banker, who requested anonymity, said he had received three price inquiries
from major French banks about borrowing abnormally large stakes -- millions of
shares -- in Munich Re. The requests were never followed up with an actual share
loan. 'These inquiries were very big in size and they only asked about one share, and
for that reason it stood out,' he said.”

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

In light of the unusual activities, for example:

“Volatility in Munich Re shares increased sharply before the attack, jumping 30

percent from September 4 to September 7.”

Yet, the spokesperson for the Eurex claimed:

“…the exchange, the world's largest derivatives exchange, had probed transactions in
the days before and after the attack but found nothing to raise an alarm flag.”

According to Miami Herald article of September 24, 2001, the Bundesbank chief Ernst
Welteke said:

“…a preliminary review by German regulators and bank researchers showed there
were highly suspicious sales of shares in airlines and insurance companies, along with
major trades in gold and oil markets, before Sept. 11 that suggest they were conducted
with advance knowledge of the attacks. Welteke said his researchers came across
what he considers almost irrefutable proof of insider trading…”

In the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11, Harvey Pitt, then chairman of the US Securities &
Exchange Commission said the following:
      "We've heard those reports about terrorists' involvement in our markets.

Our enforcement division has been looking into a variety of market actions that could
be linked to these terrible acts including the subjects of the rumours." (BBC,
September 18, 2001)

Ten years have passed, yet we have not heard about the result of the investigations into the
unusual--to say the least—market transactions. 

It needs to be said, claims of lack of knowledge by government officials of the absence of

any paper trail leading to the perpetrators of insider trading are false. The following
remarks by Lynne Howard, spokesperson of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE)
further reduces the legitimacy of the government officials:

"We would have been aware of any unusual activity right away. It would have been
triggered by any unusual volume. There is an automated system called 'blue
sheeting,' or the CBOE Market Surveillance System, that everyone in the business
knows about. It provides information on the trades - the name and even the Social
Security number on an account - and these surveillance systems are set up
specifically to look into insider trading. The system would look at the volume, and
then a real person would take over and review it, going back in time and looking at
other unusual activity."

Lynne Howard continues:

"The system is so smart that even if there is a news event that triggers a market
event it can go back in time, and even the parameters can be changed depending on
what is being looked at. It's a very clever system and it is instantaneous. Even with
the system, though, we have very experienced and savvy staff in our market-
regulations area who are always looking for things that might be unusual. They're
trained to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Even if it's offshore, it might take a
little longer, but all offshore accounts have to go through U.S. member firms -
members of the CBOE - and it is easily and quickly identifiable who made the
trades. The member firm who made the trades has to have identifiable information
about the client under the 'Know Your Customer' regulations (and we share all
information with the Securities and Exchange Commission.)" (TBRNews.org)

The existence of such tracking system should make the identification of individuals or group
involved relatively easy. But unfortunately, the government is silent about this.

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

“In a returned phone call from the Central Intelligence Agency, press spokesman Tom
Crispell denied that the CIA was monitoring "real-time," pre-September 11, stock
option trading activity within United States borders using such software as the
 Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS). 'That would be illegal. We
only operate outside the United States,' the intelligence official said.”12

In fact, Promis was used by a cabal of bankers in the United States to penetrate every bank
worldwide and predict its transactions as the following quote illustrates:

"In the late seventies and early eighties, Systematics handled some 60-70% of all
electronic banking transactions in the U.S. The goal, according to the diagrams which
laid out (subsequently verified) relationships between Stephens, Worthen Bank, the
Lippo Group and the drug/intelligence bank BCCI was to penetrate every banking
system in the world. This "cabal" could then use Promis both to predict and to
influence the movement of financial markets worldwide. Stephens, truly bipartisan in
his approach to profits, has been a lifelong supporter of George Bush and he was, at
the same time, the source of the $3 million loan that rescued a faltering Clinton
Campaign in early 1992." (Promis by Michael C Ruppert of FTW)

Thus, any claim by the CIA and NSA about the lack of knowledge about the stock
transactions prior to 911 is ludicrous because these intelligence agencies have the modified
and advanced form of Promis enabling them to analyze data and predict many outcomes. 

 
 WOULD THE US GOVERNMENT COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST ITS OWN
PEOPLE?

OPERATION NORTHWOODS IS ONE SUCH PRECEDENT

Operation Northwoods was a plan drafted by the US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Leminitzer to launch operations within and outside United States, targeting American
interests in order to implicate Cuba. The ultimate goal was the invasion of Cuba. The 1962
unclassified memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense has the
following under the heading of subject: "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba
(TS)".

However, before going into the details of the matter, it is prudent to discuss some concise
background to the entire fiasco.

With the Cold War in its peak, the existence of a communist regime in the backyard of the
United States was an unacceptable proposition. Cuba's conversion into communism was not a
craft of Fidel Castro, but rather resulted from the ignorance and arrogance of the Eisenhower
Administration, in particular Richard Nixon. After the onset of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel
Castro came to the United States as a guest of the American Society of Newspaper Editors
and also wanted to present his case as being a non-communist to the US administration, after
all he considered the US constitution to be his ideal. Like other world revolutionaries, who
admired the freedoms and individual rights enshrined in the United States Constitution, Fidel
Castro also thought that his struggle against the corrupt regime of the Batista would be
appreciated. Meanwhile, he wanted to convey to the Americans that his new government in
Cuba was not a communist regime. At the outset of the revolution, high ranking officials of
the Batista regime landed in Miami with millions of dollars looted from the treasury of Cuba,
Castro and his companions thought the Americans would arrest them and put them in jail for
looting Cuba. On the contrary, they received a special welcome. With this in mind, Castro
came to Washington to tell the Eisenhower Administration that his regime was not
communist. When Castro met with Richard Nixon, he told Nixon that his regime was not
communist. It advocated social justice, a term that was interpreted by Nixon as communism.
In fact, Nixon said, “If he’s not a communist, he certainly acts like one.” He labeled Castro
communist and thus, hindered any possibility of social and economic development and
friendly relations between the two nations. It is worth mentioning that such irresponsible
behavior was the modus operandi of Nixon. He behaved in a similar fashion insulting Afghan
Prime Minister Mohammad Daud Khan, thereby, forcing Afghanistan to fall into the Soviet
Union sphere of influence whose consequences were the invasion of Afghanistan by the
USSR in 1979 and the loss of close to two million Afghan civilians.

After Castro returned to Cuba, the Russians extended their arms of friendship, after all the
Russians were too eager to benefit from the indifference of US government in regards to
Cuba. To this end, the Russians took advantage of the situation by extending generous
economic aid and financed the Cuban socioeconomic development.

The origin of the Operation Northwoods stemmed from the desire of President Eisenhower in
his last days in office to leave office with a 'victory' by invading Cuba. The U2 shot-down
over the USSR, being a failure invigorated Eisenhower to engage in some operation before
the end of his term as President of the United States. Meanwhile, to invade Cuba, there had to
be a justification, for which Eisenhower was eager to surface. Hence, on January 3, 1962,
Eisenhower told General Lemnitzer and other cabinet members that he was eager to invade
Cuba, only if Cuba gave him a good excuse to do so. Since these were Eisenhower's last days
in office leading to John F. Kennedy's inauguration, time was of the essence. He told General
Lemnitzer and others in the same meeting on January 3 that if the Cubans did not gave him
the excuse, and then the USA "could think of manufacturing something that would be
generally acceptable."13 Richard Bissell, CIA Director of Plans, describes the January 3
meeting in his book, MEMOIRS OF A COLD WARRIOR: FROM YALTA TO BAY OF
PIGS, as follows:

“The president (Eisenhower) seemed to be eager to take forceful action against Castro,
and breaking off diplomatic relations appeared to be his best card. He noted that he
was prepared to ‘move against Castro’ before Kennedy’s inauguration on the twentieth
if a ‘really good excuse’ was provided by Castro. ‘Failing that,’ he said, ‘perhaps we
could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable.’ …This is
but another example of his willingness to use covert action—specifically to fabricate
events—to achieve his objectives in foreign policy.” 

What Eisenhower wanted was a staged terrorist attacks by elements of the United States
Government against the United States and the American people, and blaming it on Cuba,
which would provide ample justification for invasion of Cuba. Eisenhower's term ended as
President without his hopes of invading Cuba. However, this idea remained with General
Lemnitzer.

With John F Kennedy on board as President of the United States, the covert operations were
in full swing against Castro's Cuba.  President Kennedy had promised the Cubans in exile to
do every effort to oppose communism and make efforts to topple Castro's regime. In fact,
during his presidential campaign, Kennedy accused the Eisenhower Administration of not
doing enough to thwart the threat of communism from Cuba to the United States.
Meanwhile, General Lemnitzer, who was counting on the Kennedy Administration to launch
a war on Cuba, saw the chances of any direct US intervention slipping away. In addition to
the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, in February 26, 1962, Robert Kennedy told General
Lansdale, who was in charge of the various covert actions under Operation Mangoose, that his
covert activities were becoming ridiculous, and ordered the General to stop any anti-Castro
operations. This incident eliminated virtually any chance of having a direct military
intervention by the United States armed forces, hence, General Lemnitzer resorted to a
terrorist plan that he drew and was signed by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The
plan was Operation Northwoods.

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

The next step included staging all out terrorist attacks within the United States, targeting
Americans and Cuban exiles. This was dubbed Operation Northwoods, which consisted of a
series of well-coordinated actions entailing death and destruction only to appease the egos of
warmongering officers in the United States military. The actions proposed by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff are articulated in the unclassified memorandum. The following is 'Annex to Appendix
To Enclosure A', which is part of the unclassified memorandum that illustrates clearly the
corruption and deception within the elements of the United States government, and further
adds credibility to the claim that the false flag operation of September 11, 2001 was an inside
job.    

   .   

 ANNEX TO APPENDIX TO ENCLOSURE A

PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA

      (Note: The courses of action which follow are a preliminary submission suitable
only for planning purposes.  They are arranged neither chronologically nor in
ascending order.  Together with similar inputs from other agencies, they are intended
to provide a point of departure for the development of a single, integrated, time-
phased plan.  Such a plan would permit the evaluation of individual projects within
the context of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably to the
objective of adequate justification for US military intervention in Cuba).

1.   Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US
military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite
preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be
executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions.  Harassment plus deception
actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized.  Our
military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from
exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies. 
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around
Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order);

1. Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

2. Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on
base.
3. Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
4. Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
5. Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
6. Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
7. Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to
installations.
8. Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of
Guantanamo City.
9. Capture militia group which storms the base.
10. Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.
11. Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock victims
(may be lieu of (10)).

b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water

and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which
threaten the base.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. 
We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago
as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both.  The
presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel
could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack.  The
nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those
people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire.  The US could
follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to
"evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew.  Casualty lists in US
newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

       4.  We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in
other Florida cities and even in Washington.  The terror campaign could be pointed
at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States.  We could sink a boatload of
Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).  We could foster attempts on lives of
Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be
widely publicized.  Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the
substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an
irresponsible government.

   5.   A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could be simulated against a

neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the
Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua at present possible others.  These
efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure.  For example,
advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to intrusions
within their national air space.  "Cuban" B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane-
burning raids at night.  Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found.  This could be
coupled with "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican
Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on
the beach.

   6.   Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. 
Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military
drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions.  An F-
86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG,
especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such a fact.  The primary
drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or
modifying an aircraft.  However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced
from US resources in about three months.

   7.    Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to
continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.  Concurrently,
genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be
encouraged.

   8.    It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a

Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a charted civil airliner enroute from the
United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela.  The destination would
be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.  The passengers could be
a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a
common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

              a.  An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered an exact
duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in
the Miami area.  At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the
actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded
under carefully prepared aliases.  The actual registered aircraft would be converted
to a drone.

                                b.  Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft
will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.  From the rendezvous point
the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into
an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate
the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.  The drone aircraft
meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan.  When over Cuba the drone will
being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message
stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft.  The transmission will be
 interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.  This
will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has
happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

                    9.     It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that
Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in
an unprovoked attack.

                              a.  Approximately 4 of 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in
trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba.  Their mission will be to
reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern
Florida.  These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent
intervals.  Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast;
however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile
actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

                             b.  On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end
Charley at considerable interval between aircraft.  While near the Cuban Island this
pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down.  No
other calls would be made.  The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low
altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary.  The aircraft would be met by
the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number.  The pilot who had
performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to
his normal place of business.  The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared. 

                             c.  At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably
shot down a submarine or small surface was presumably shot down a submarine or
small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15
to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart.  The pilots returning to Homestead would
have a true story as far as they knew.  Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched
and parts of aircraft found.

To make sense of the relevance of the above-stated unclassified document, one does not need
to be a superb analyst but rather common sense would suffice. Had this plan gone through,
thousands of American and Cuban lives would have been lost, simply to fulfill the ego of few
war-mongering characters in the Pentagon.

Operation Nothwoods is not the only precedent pointing to the complicity of the US
Government officials conspiring to harm Americans; other exists as well. The explosion of
USS Maine in 1898 in Guantanamo Bay that sparked the Spanish American War was another
of those crimes in which over two hundred American sailors lost their lives. Incidentally, in
the directive of Operation Northwoods, General Lemnitzer proudly refers to the explosion of
the US battleship USS Maine as a precedent to follow.

Therefore, it should not surprise anyone if high-ranking US government officials were found
complicit in the attacks of September 11.

 
THE USE OF GENOCIDAL WEAPONS

Another reason why Taliban should refrain from negotiating with the US-NATO is the use of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Afghanistan. With the invasion of Afghanistan, the
US armed forces and UK had resorted to the use of these illegal weapons and set the stage for
the genocide of the Afghan people. The use of uranium munitions has condemned the people
of Afghanistan to a perpetual death. The half-life of uranium 238 stands at 4.5 billion years.
What this means is that the people of Afghanistan would be dying and their new born
deformed from these Weapons of Mass Destructions (WMD) forever. These Weapons of
Mass Destruction alter the texture of the ecosystem wherein the victims reside. This
ultimately condemns the people living there and future generations to death, and deprives
them of their fundamental human right, the right to live.  The US and the UK are the only two
countries used these horrible weapons indiscriminately in Iraq during the Gulf War and
Balkans in the 1990s and in Afghanistan from October 7th, 2001 to the present.

Tragically, the US-UK armed forces have used three times more uranium weapons in
Afghanistan than they did in Iraq in the first Gulf War or in the Balkans. In fact, the types of
Weapons of Mass Destruction used in Afghanistan are more deadly in terms of its magnitude
and type. This became evident with a report by the Uranium Medical Research Center
(UMRC), establishing the presence of uranium isotopes in soil samples and urine samples of
victims. They discovered symptoms in population of illnesses associated with exposure to
depleted uranium contamination similar to that in Iraq and the Balkans. Upon the analysis of
urine samples, the investigators discovered the level of uranium to be 400% to 2000%, the
highest level of uranium ever recorded in civilian population. Incidentally, the uranium
particles that were discovered in the urine samples from subjects in Jala-Abad exhibited
characteristics different from depleted uranium while the populations exhibited health
problems similar to those in Iraq. The report continues:

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

In Iraq, it took up to five years to have any significant effects of exposure to depleted
uranium, however, in Afghanistan only after one year, the UMRC research group suspects
that 25% of newly born in Kabul showed symptoms of exposure to uranium weapons. The
latter factor further strengthens the hypothesis of the UMRC that the US-UK militaries are
using uranium ore in their weapons in order to increase its destructive capability. The usage of
uranium ore also makes it difficult to trace these weapons to the US-UK militaries and creates
a distortion as if the uranium had come from the local uranium deposits. The conclusion of the
report was:

"However, marked differences between natural uranium and the uranium used in the
metal fragments found in Afghanistan was [sic] uncovered with the use of an electron
microscope, which revealed the presence of small ceramic particles produced by the
 high temperatures created on impact. This method of disguising uranium would
benefit governments that are under pressure from the growing anti-DU lobby."

"The only conclusion is that the allied forces are now possibly using milled uranium
ore in their warheads to maximise [sic] the effectiveness and strength of their
weapons, as well as to mask the uranium, hoping that it may be discounted as part of
any local natural deposits."

The destructive effects of the uranium weapons became evident in the beginning of the
bombardments in Afghanistan, when Reuters reported that people died from minor injuries.
Public Health Minister Mullah Abbas said:

"Our findings prove that this is true. These bombardments have radioactive rays and
chemical materials that also cause cancer." (Reuters, October 29, 2001)

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

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

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

"These are only three examples. There have been other cases where we suspect
chemical weapons have been used. Most of the victims have had respiratory problems
and internal bleeding for which there is no apparent cause." (Khalifa.com, October 30,
2001)

The use of uranium munitions continues to this day. Every day, the fighter aircrafts use these
illegal weapons in Afghan villages and towns. The rise in various cancers and different types
of congenital deformities attest to the deadly effects of these weapons. The cancers and
deformities among new born are virtually identical to the victims in Iraq and the Balkans.

Uranium munitions are not the only types of unconventional weapons used in Afghanistan. In
fact, the use of microwave bombs and energy beams is another calamity wherefrom people
suffer in Afghanistan. The microwave bombs when explode turn individuals into puffed-up
hotdog like creatures that could not be identified by relatives. In 2008, when the US used
microwave bombs in Nerkh district of Maidan-Wardak Province, relatives of the victims were
clueless about the identity of the relatives. Finally, locals identified their relatives by the
documents retried from their clothing. Those victims that did not have any documents were
identified from their torn outfits.

Furthermore, the energy beam is another dreadful weapon used on daily basis. On one
occasion, last year, one of the insurgents was targeted by the energy beam from AC-130
Gunship. When other insurgents attended to the fighter, the exposed portion of his body was
soft like a sponge and deformed. While in another incident, the US forces fired the energy
beam into a mosque in Maidan Province. When people entered the mosque to retrieve their
relatives, all the victims in the mosque were like twisted and deformed tissues unrecognizable
to their relatives.

Meanwhile, the use of Thermobaric Bombs is a common place as are the use of other exotic
weapons with deadly effects. When the US forces use Thermobaric Bombs on homes in
Helmand, Maidan and other provinces, the neighbors and relatives of the bombed victims
could not find their bodies because the bodies were sucked into the ground. At best, they
could find the hair and some body parts of their relatives. Furthermore, the US forces’ use of
White Phosphorus is known by most informed people in Afghanistan. In 2009, the US forces
bombed the village Bala Blook in Farah Province with White Phosphorus killing 147
civilians.

The killing of Afghan civilians is no longer an issue that is taken seriously by the US
government. The most recent incidents were the barbaric murder of 65 civilians and shooting
of 9 children, respectively. In the first case, 65 civilians were targeted with different types of
weapons including incendiary devices that burned many children to death. When General
Petreous met the puppet President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, Petreous suggested that
Afghan parents may have burned their own children to death to blame US forces, reported by
The Washington Post:

To the shock of President Hamid Karzai's aides, Gen. David H. Petraeus suggested

Sunday at the presidential palace that Afghans caught up in a coalition attack in
northeastern Afghanistan might have burned their own children to exaggerate claims
of civilian casualties, according to two participants at the meeting.14

Similarly, NATO made an outrages claim:

Nato believes there was not a single civilian casualty from its operation in Kunar. It
says that pro-Taliban villagers have created a propaganda story that was taken up by
politicians in Kabul eager to prove their nationalist credentials.15

It is this kind of bestiality and lack of regard for human dignity exercised by the upper
hierarchy of the US armed forces whose irreverence is seen on daily basis on Afghan soil.

The second tragedy happened days after the slaughter of 65 civilians also in Kunar Province.
On March 1, 2011, US-NATO forces targeted ten children ages 8-14. Nine children were
killed and one was injured. The survival child recounted the incident as follows:

We had almost finished collecting wood when suddenly we saw the helicopters come.
There were two of them. They hovered over us, scanned us and we saw a green flash.
Then they flew back high up, and in a second round they hovered over us and started
shooting. They fired a rocket that hit a tree. The branches fell over me and shrapnel hit
my right hand and my side.16

 
 
The apache Helicopters has the target acquisition designation sight (TADS). In fact, this
system enables the pilot with unmistaken capability to differentiate between children
collecting firewood and adults with guns:

TADS provides the co-pilot/gunner with search, detection and recognition capability
by means of direct view optics, TV or FLIR sighting systems which may be used
singly or in combinations according to tactical, weather or visibility conditions.17

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

The Apache features a Target Acquisition Designation Sight (TADS) and a Pilot Night
Vision Sensor (PNVS) which enables the crew to navigate and conduct precision
attacks in day, night and adverse weather conditions.18

Taliban and other Insurgents did not come from the Moon. They are the relatives of these
victims that have taken arms against the forces of the US and her NATO allies.

My question to the American public is this: would you stop fighting against an evil force that
would kill your relatives indiscriminately? I am sure your answer would be no.

THE IMMINENT FAILURE OF THE USA-NATO

In light of the aforementioned discussion, the US-NATO has already failed in Afghanistan. In
2002, US-NATO controlled almost all of Afghanistan; however, in 2011, 70 percent of the
country is out of their control and in the control of insurgents in one form or another.

Additional factors that contributed to the imminent failure of the US-NATO forces in
Afghanistan is a corrupt government, wherein government officials are preoccupied in finding
ways to fill their pockets, complimented by the corruption and outright robberies by the US
forces. The US military brass, its rank and file along with elements of the civilian government
including the US State Department are involved in outright robberies, stealing cash and
supplies from the US Taxpayers worth billions of dollars. No wonder, they are reluctant to put
an end to this war.

The US forces are experiencing what forces of the former Soviet Union had experienced,
being oblivious of the ways to deal with the insurgency. Equally, the current insurgency has
also arrived at a point to acquire the much needed shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles as did
the Mujahideen during the 1980s; however, this time, there are many actors including
neighbors to provide military hardware through some indirect channels.

The explicit and implicit animosity of the countries in the region is enough to provide the
needed implements to Taliban. The provision of weapons, especially shoulder-held missiles
and advanced RPGs such as RPG-32 would be the deciding factors ensuring US-NATO
departure from Afghanistan. As one Afghan elder puts it, “this departure would not be
walking out of Afghanistan with their heads up but rather one characterized with crawling out
on their knees.”

WHY NOT PEACE

Peace is the product of those involved in the conflict. Peace could not be achieved
unilaterally. Peace had to be desired by all the parties involved in the conflict. It is impossible
to bomb Afghan villages and expect peace overtures from the insurgents. Furthermore, the US
has to realize that the oversell of 911 is no longer working. People in the world are not stupid;
they do not accept the official explanation of the US government. In fact, the official line of
the US government is the only conspiracy theory that lost credibility in the eyes of the people
worldwide. The US government needs to put an end to the travesty of justice at Guantanamo
detention cages, which has tarnished all aspects of American life in the eyes of people
everywhere.

Justice needs to prevail and those placed on blacklists need to be unlisted.

Through my personal efforts, I am of the opinion that the US government is not interested in
peace. I have tried in vain contacting the US State Department and members of the Foreign
Relation Committee in the US Congress many times; however, the replies I received ranged
from indifference to outright unrealistic demands ignoring Afghan tradition. Whatever
Taliban and other insurgents decide in regards to negotiation and peace, it is my opinion that
the US is not serious; hence, any overture for peaceful settlement from Taliban and other
insurgents would land on deaf ears in the US Government. 

Meanwhile, with all these atrocities and travesty of justice, what incentives would Taliban and
other insurgents have in negotiating peace with the Americans and NATO? I would say very
little.

Dr Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD

mdmiraki@ameritech.net

maidan11@yahoo.com

www.afghanistanafterdemocracy.com

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, 2011