Was 9/11 a False Flag? America’s “Just War” Against Muslim Countries: “Self-Defense” Against “The Civilizational War of Islam Against the West”
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Wake of 9/11. “Just War” Against Muslim Countries, “Counter-Terrorism”
[This article was originally published by Global Research on December 22, 2023.]
Author’s note: My critique and analysis of the “Just War” concept was first raised in an article entitled America’s “Just War” against Afghanistan: Women’s Rights “Before” and “After” America’s Destructive Wars.
Introduction. The 9/11 False Flag and the 2023 Middle East War
This article which focusses on the 9/11 False Flag is of utmost significance to our understanding of the ongoing Israel-U.S. genocide against Palestine.
On September 11, 2001, Afghanistan was identified as a “state sponsor of terror”, without a shred of evidence. The 9/11 attacks were categorized as an act of war against America by an unnamed foreign power.
It was a “False Flag” which consisted in blaming Afghanistan of having attacked America. “The Right to Self-Defense” was put forth. The US-NATO aggressor was portrayed as the victim.
9/11: A Historical Landmark in U.S. Military Doctrine (2001- )
The alleged 9/11 “Attack on America” was instrumental in justifying the implementation of so-called “counter-terrorism” operations (aka wars) against ALL Muslim countries, now extending over a period of more than 20 years. (2001 onwards).
In the present context (2023), The 9/11 False Flag has a bearing on the evolving US-NATO-Israel 2023 “Humanitarian War” against Palestine and the Middle East War, which is predicated on the concept of “Self-Defense” against alleged terrorist attacks by Muslim Countries.
What Happened on September 11, 2001?
“A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without supporting evidence, that “Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects”.
CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
Former CIA Director James Woolsey 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.”
Meanwhile, parroting official statements, the Western media mantra had approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in the Middle East. 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”. (Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, September 12, 2001)
NATO’s “Collective Defense Clause” and the October 7, 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan
On September 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, at a meeting of the Atlantic Council in Brussels, NATO invoked for the first time in its history “Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – its collective defence clause” declaring the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon “to be an attack against all NATO members:
“The tragic death of thousands of Americans on 9/11 allegedly instrumented by Al Qaeda (with the support of an unnamed foreign power) was used as a pretext and a justification for launching the first phase of the Middle East Central Asian War, which consisted in the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan.” Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, September 12, 2001)
The decision of the Atlantic Council to invoke Article V (officially confirmed in late September), was conducive to the US-NATO bombing and invasion of Afghanistan which commenced on October 7 2001, four weeks after the tragic events of 9/11.
The invasion of Afghanistan had been on the drawing board of the Pentagon months prior to 9/11. The September 11 attacks were used as a pretext and a justification to invade and occupy Afghanistan.
Moreover, military analysts and the media were instructed not to reveal the fact that you do not plan a large scale theater war thousands of miles away in a matter of 25 days. Impossible. (From September 12- October 7, 2001)
The forbidden truth (known and documented) is that Osama bin Laden was a US “intelligence asset” and that his precise whereabouts prior and in the immediate wake of 9/11 were known to the US government.” ( Michel Chossudovsky, More Troops to Afghanistan)
The U.S. led war against Afghanistan consists essentially of two interrelated stages.
The first stage tagged as the Soviet-Afghan War started at the height of the Cold War in 1979 was a carefully planned military and intelligence operation led by the United States, which consisted in recruiting and financing the “Islamic brigades” (Mujahideen) including Osama bin Laden.
The second stage, unfolded with the US-NATO October 7, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan four weeks after 9/11, following the decision of the Atlantic Council to Invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
The Criminal Invasion of Afghanistan and the “Just War” Narrative
The October 7 2001 invasion was heralded as “A Just War” by Professor Richard Falk, renowned scholar, professor of International and Humanitarian Law at Princeton and anti-war activist.
The statement of Professor Richard Falk, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) formulated in the immediate wake of 9/11 — published four days after the commencement of the US-NATO bombing campaign– was intent upon providing legitimacy to America’s war on Afghanistan:
“I have never since my childhood supported a shooting war in which the United States was involved, although in retrospect I think the NATO war in Kosovo achieved beneficial results. The war in Afghanistan against apocalyptic terrorism qualifies in my understanding as the first truly just war since World War II.
“The perpetrators of the September 11 attack cannot be reliably neutralized by nonviolent or diplomatic means; a response that includes military action is essential to diminish the threat of repetition, to inflict punishment and to restore a sense of security at home and abroad.
The extremist political vision held by Osama bin Laden, which can usefully be labeled “apocalyptic terrorism,” places this persisting threat well outside any framework of potential reconciliation or even negotiation for several reasons: Its genocidal intent is directed generically against Americans and Jews;
its proclaimed goal is waging an unconditional civilizational war–Islam against the West– without drawing any distinction between civilian and military targets; it has demonstrated a capacity and willingness to inflict massive and traumatizing damage on our country and a tactical ingenuity and ability to carry out its missions of destruction by reliance on the suicidal devotion of its adherents.” (Richard Falk, The Nation, Defining a Just War, October 11, 2001, 4 days after the invasion of Afghanistan, emphasis added).
Note the emphasis on:
“genocidal intent against Americans and Jews”
as part of an alleged
“civilizational war of Islam against the West.”
Palestine 2023: Is It Not “The Other Way Round”? What We Are Witnessing Is “The Genocidal War of the West Against Muslim Countries.”
Osama bin Laden’s “Apocalyptic Terrorism” has provided a justification for the waging of America’s “Global War on Terrorism”, i.e. the numerous post 9/11 U.S. led “humanitarian wars” and “counter-terrorism operations” against Muslim countries (with the support of Israel) in the course of the last 22 years, which have resulted in millions of deaths.
Professor Richard Falk is a life-long anti-war activist. He is renowned for his commitment to the rights of Palestinians and his courageous stance against the Israeli government. In February 2001, Professor Falk was appointed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to serve in the Inquiry Commission pertaining to the occupied Palestinian territories.
In March 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Professor Richard Falk as UN Special Rapporteur pertaining to human rights in the Palestinian occupied territories.
Professor Falk’s statement entitled “Defining A Just War, Ends and Means” was formulated 8 months following his OHCR February 2001 appointment to serve in the Palestine Inquiry Commission. In a February 2001 Interview, Falk raised the question as to whether Palestinians have a “Right to Resistance”:
“The [UN OHCR] team will consider two major issues, he said. “One is evaluating whether the conditions of occupation are such as to give the Palestinians some kind of right of resistance,” said Falk. “And if they have that right, then what are the limits to that right?”
“We must ask specific questions, such as what kinds of weapons were used?” he said. “And how does one interpret and understand the vulnerability of children? For example, the Palestinians contend that the Israeli army targeted children, and the Israeli army says Palestinians used children as human shields.” (Princeton University Report, February 2001, (emphasis added))
According to Falk –referring to the role of Osama bin Laden’s– “apocalyptic terrorism” is marked by the conduct of
“an unconditional civilizational war of Islam against the West”.
This statement by Richard Falk constitutes a misunderstanding as to what happened on 9/11. 9/11 was a False Flag.
I should underscore, however, that in recent statements on Palestine, Professor Falk’s critique of the Netanyahu government goes against his earlier “Just War” stance formulated in the immediate wake of 9/11.
The evidence presented below documents the alleged role of Bin Laden in the September 11, 2001 attacks, which provided the pretext and the justification to wage war not only on Afghanistan but also against numerous Muslim countries (in the aftermath of 9/11), under the mantle of America’s “Global War on Terrorism”.
There Was No Evidence that Afghanistan Had Attacked America on 9/11
The Taliban government through diplomatic channels had offered on two occasions (September and October 2001) to enter into negotiations with regard to the extradition of Osama Bin Laden. President G. W. Bush is on record for having refused to negotiate with the Afghan government regarding the Taliban Offer “to Hand Over Bin Laden to Washington”.
Why was George W. Bush reluctant to negotiate the extradition of Osama bin Laden? The Bin Laden-Bush family relationship?
What Happened on September 10, 2001?
1. Poppy G.H.W. Bush Senior Meets Osama’s Brother Shafiq at the Ritz Carlton Hotel on September 10, 2001
One day before the 9/11 attacks, as well as on the morning of 9/11, the dad of the sitting President of the United States of America, George Herbert Walker Bush was meeting none other than Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of the alleged terror mastermind Osama bin Laden. Sounds absurd?
According to The Washington Post:
“It didn’t help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden [Shafiq bin Laden]. Former president Bush [senior], a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. (Greg Schneider, Pairing the Powerful With the Rich, Washington Post, March 16, 2003)
2. Osama Is Hospitalized in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on September 10, 2001
Confirmed by Dan Rather, CBS News, Osama bin Laden had been admitted to a Pakistani Military hospital in Rawalpindi on the 10th of September local time, less than 24 hours before the terrorist attacks.
“Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment.
On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person.” (CBS, For more details see this)
This CBS report casts doubt on the official narrative to the effect that Osama bin Laden was responsible for coordinating the 9/11 attacks. It would be impossible for Osama bin Laden to enter a Pakistani military hospital unnoticed. His whereabouts were known.
“How on earth could Bin Laden have coordinated the attacks from his hospital bed in a heavily guarded Pakistani military hospital located in Rawalpindi.
Bear in mind that the Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi (under the adminstration of the Pakistani military) exclusively “provides specialised treatment to Army personel and their immediate family”.
Osama bin Laden must have had some connections in the Pakistani military or intelligence to be admitted to the hospital. He was, according to Dan Rather’s CBS report, provided with “treatment for a very special person”.
If the CBS report by Dan Rather is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. (Michel Chossudovsky, September 10, 2010)
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed in the wake of 9/11 that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden remained unknown: “It is like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Wake of 9/11. What Is the Meaning of Al Qaeda in Arabic?
In the wake of 9/11, The Just War Concept has become embedded in U.S. Foreign Policy. It constitutes an anti-Muslim narrative of going after the alleged Al Qaeda “Islamic terrorists” who have (since the early 1980s) been routinely recruited by US intelligence.
What is the meaning in Arabic of Al Qaeda? القاعِدة
According to Major Pierre-Henri Bunel, a former agent of France’s military intelligence.
It’s “The Base”, namely the Computer Database of the Islamic Mujahideen (Reagan’s “Freedom Fighters”) recruited by the CIA.
“When Osama bin Laden was an American agent in Afghanistan, the Al Qaida Intranet was a good communication system through coded or covert messages.
The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this.
But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money. (Major Pierre-Henri Bunel, World Affairs, Delhi, emphasis added)
The above statement by Major Bunel, was confirmed by the late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook (shortly before his passing) in a pointed article in The Guardian:
“Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
Al-Qaeda, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. (Robin Cook, The Guardian, July 8, 2005, see also archive, emphasis added)
The “Just War Concept” was among several narratives including “Counter-Terrorism” directed against Islamic Jihadists, “Responsibility to Protect”, “Exporting Democracy”, “Humanitarian Wars”, etc. (See video interview below)
Video: Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett
The Criminalization of War
The Just War Concept provides a green light to wage “humanitarian wars” against Muslim countries. It is the antithesis of “a real peace movement”, which consists in what Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia defined as “The Criminalization of War” first formulated in Kuala Lumpur in December 2005.
Under “The criminalization of war” agenda all wars of aggression are categorized ascriminal undertakings, with the exception of “Self-Defense” (which today describes the Resistance of Palestine against the Israeli led invasion).
Under International law, there is no such thing as “A Just War”. From a legal standpoint, “Defining The Just War” formulated prior to the invasion of Afghanistan is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (IV).
Richard Falk denies the hegemonic nature of U.S. foreign policy:
“Another form of antiwar advocacy rests on a critique of the United States as an imperialist superpower or empire. This view also seems dangerously inappropriate in addressing the challenge posed by the massive crime against humanity committed on September 11.
Whatever the global role of the United States –and it is certainly responsible for much global suffering and injustice, giving rise to widespread resentment that at its inner core fuels the terrorist impulse– it cannot be addressed so long as this movement of global terrorism is at large and prepared to carry on with its demonic work.
These longer-term concerns –which include finding ways to promote Palestinian self-determination, the internationalization of Jerusalem and a more equitable distribution of the benefits of global economic growth and development–must be addressed.
Of course, much of the responsibility for the failure to do so lies with the corruption and repressive policies of governments, especially in the Middle East, outside the orbit of US influence. A distinction needs to be drawn as persuasively as possible between inherently desirable lines of foreign policy reform and retreating in the face of terrorism.” (Richard Falk, Defining a Just War, The Nation, October 11, 2023, emphasis added)
With. regard to the above quotation, is it not “the other way round”? Many of the governments “inside” rather than “outside” the orbit of US influence are corrupt. Why? Because their leaders are threatened, coopted and/or bribed by Washington.
With regard to the so-called “movement of global terrorism”, see the National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), (signed by President Reagan) which de facto authorized stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen.
To read the full text of NSDD 166, click here or image below.
The promotion of “Radical Islam” was a deliberate CIA initiative (NSDD 166) which in the wake of 9/11 has served as justification to waging a “Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and sub–Saharan Africa.
The number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000. USAID generously financed the process of religious indoctrination, largely to secure the demise of secular institutions and the collapse of civil society:
“The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings….
Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994“, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
“Before” and “After” a US-led “Humanitarian War”
Selected excerpts from America’s “Just War” against Afghanistan: Women’s Rights “Before” and “After” America’s Destructive Wars (I suggest you read the full article).
It should be understood, that the “Before” and “After” Analysis Applies to the numerous Muslim Countries which have been the object of America’s “Humanitarian Warfare” agenda including Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Palestine, Sudan, among others which have been the object of US-NATO bombings, invasions, “counter terrorism” and “regime change” operations in the wake of September 11, 2001.
Afghanistan “Before”
Afghanistan “After”
The Fate of Women and Children
No comments:
Post a Comment