precipitates the World into barbarity.
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
11, 2001: The Crimes of War Committed
“in the Name of 9/11″
Initiating a Legal Procedureagainst the Perpetrators of
* * *
International Conference on
“9/11 Revisited – Seeking the Truth”
Perdana Global Peace
Kuala Lumpur, November 2012
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
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.
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.
far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 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”.
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
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:
1. The launching of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT),
used as a pretext and a justification to Wage a War of Conquest.
This GWOT mandate was used to justify the 2001 and 2003 invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq. The GWOT mandate has since extended its grip to a
large number of countries in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia,
where the US and its NATO allies are intervening selectively under a
2. The derogation of civil liberties and the
instatement of an Orwellian police state apparatus within Western countries.
In the US, the introduction of the PATRIOT legislation and the establishment
of the Department of Homeland Security in the immediate wake of the 9/11
attacks set the stage for the subsequent restructuring of the
judicial and law enforcement apparatus, culminating in the legalization of
extrajudicial assassinations under an alleged counter-terrorism mandate.
9/11 attacks constitute what is referred to in intelligence parlance to as a
“massive casualty producing event” conducive to the deaths of civilians.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
George Tenet stated that same morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to
plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”
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”.
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:
1. The 9/11 attacks although allegedly
conducted by Al Qaeda were upheld as an all out military attack by a foreign
2. Afghanistan in allegedly
supporting Al Qaeda, was responsible for an act of military aggression
directed against the United States of America.
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
Where was Osama bin Laden on September
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?
(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.
DAN RATHER. As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism
press the hunt for Osama bin Laden,
News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was
and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the
United States September 11.
This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS
news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the
business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):
Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what
may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for
Osama bin Laden.
CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist
attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment
with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing
for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan. (transcript of CBS report, see
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html , see also
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:
1. Osama bin Laden could not reasonably have coordinated the
9/11 attacks from his hospital bed;
2. The hospital was under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani
Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden’s
whereabouts were known to both the Pakistani and US military.
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
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
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
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
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
“if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the
United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan]
against “The North Atlantic area“, it shall be regarded as
an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. (emphasis added)
In this regard, Article 5 of the Washington
Treaty stipulates that if:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in
Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them
all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed
attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual
or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the
Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked
by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties,
such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force,
to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
(NATO, What is Article 5,
NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November
2009, emphasis added)
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
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
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:
“Article 5 and the case of the terrorist attacks against the United
States: The United States has been the object of brutal terrorist attacks.
It immediately consulted with the other members of the Alliance. The
Alliance determined that the US had been the object of an armed attack. The
Alliance therefore agreed that if it was determined that this attack was
directed from abroad, it would be regarded as covered by Article 5. NATO
Secretary General, Lord Robertson, subsequently informed the
Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance’s decision.
Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination has yet
been made whether the attack against the United States was directed from
abroad. If such a determination is made, each Ally will then
consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be
consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be
decided by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out
independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN
Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond
to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on
the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines
how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in
mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of
the North Atlantic area”.
By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward
the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the
terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.
If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO
Allies will decide how to assist the United States. (Many Allies
have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist
the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other
Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation
on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems
necessary in these particular circumstances.
No collective action will be taken by NATO until further
consultations are held and further decisions are made by the the North
Atlantic Council. (NATO,
NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November
2009, emphasis added)
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.
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:
“This morning, the United States briefed the North Atlantic Council on
the results of the investigation into who was responsible for the horrific
terrorist attacks which took place on September 11.
The briefing was given by Ambassador Frank Taylor, the United States
Department of State Coordinator for Counter-terrorism.
This morning’s briefing follows those offered by United States Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage and United States Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and illustrates the commitment of the United States
to maintain close cooperation with Allies.
Today’s was classified briefing and so I cannot give you all the
Briefings are also being given directly by the United States to the
Allies in their capitals.
The briefing addressed the events of September 11 themselves, the
results of the investigation so far, what is known about Osama bin Laden and
the al-Qaida organisation and their involvement in the attacks and in
previous terrorist activity, and the links between al-Qaida and the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan.
The facts are clear and compelling. The information presented
points conclusively to an al-Qaida role in the September 11 attacks.
We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were
part of the world-wide terrorist network of al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin
Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.
On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined that
the attack against the United States on September 11 was directed from
abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5
of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack
on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered
an attack against them all.
I want to reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the
full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism.” (Lord
Robertson, NATO Secretary General, statement to the NATO Council, State
Department, Appendix H, Multinational Response to September 11 NATO Press
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10313.pdf, accessed 24
November 2009, emphasis added)
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
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:
to enhance intelligence sharing and co-operation, both bilaterally and in
appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the
actions to be taken against it;
to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to
their capabilities, [military] assistance to Allies and
other states which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a
result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;
to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities
of the United States and other Allies on their territory;
to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that
are required to directly support operations against terrorism;
to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other
Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements
and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against
terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports
and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations against
terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures;
that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval
Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and
demonstrate resolve; and that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy
elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations
NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24
November 2009 emphasis added)
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
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:
“(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning,
preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist
acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other
measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious
criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment
duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;
“3. Calls upon all States to:
“(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of
operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of
terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic
in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications
technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of
weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;
“(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic
law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the
commission of terrorist acts;
“(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral
arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and
take action against perpetrators of such acts;
“4. Notes with concern the close connection between international
terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs,
money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear,
chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this
regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national,
subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a
global response to this serious challenge and threat to international
“5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary
to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly
financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the
purposes and principles of the United Nations (excerpts of UNSC Resolution
1373 (2001, See also UN Press Release SC 7178
SECURITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS WIDE-RANGING ANTI-TERRORISM RESOLUTION;
CALLS FOR SUPPRESSING FINANCING, IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION,
Security Council, 4385th Meeting, September 2001)
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
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
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.
“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in
newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and
motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad.” (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research,
1 May 2005)
”The United States spent millions of dollars to supply
Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant
Islamic teachings….The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and
featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since
then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used
the American-produced books,..”, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
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
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.
Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders
at the White House in 1985 (Reagan
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)
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
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
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
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.
But what makes this case
absurd is that in September 2011, a few months before the judgment, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has questioned the official 9/11
narrative, was accused by Al-Qaeda leaders of “spreading
conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks”. The semi-official media
outlet of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, insisted that al-Qaeda “had
been behind the attacks and criticised the Iranian president for
discrediting the terrorist group.” (See Julie Levesque,
Iran Accused of being behind 9/11 Attacks. U.S. Court Judgment, December
2011 (Havlish v. Iran), Global Research, May 11, 2012)
Al Qaeda: US-NATO
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.
has been the mainstay of war propaganda, which in itself constitutes a criminal
act under international law.
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.
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.
are presented as the perpetrators of the 9/11, thereby unleashing a Worldwide
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
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.
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.
and Islamophobia are an integral part of war propaganda.
Is this political
indoctrination? Is it brain-washing? If so what is the underlying objective?
to independently analyse World events, as well as address causal relationships
pertaining to politics and society, is significantly impaired. That is the
The routine use
of 9/11 and Al Qaeda to generate blanket explanations of complex political
events is meant to create confusion.
people from thinking. It strikes at the core of human values. In a sense, it
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.
underlying post 9/11 propaganda is of much broader nature, affecting people’s
mindsets, redefining fundamental social, political and institutional relations.
Civilization” have been committed.
precipitates the World into barbarity.