Invasion of Afghanistan
After the 9/11 incident, Bush demanded to the Taliban government to destroy all bases of Al-Qaeda and handover Osama bin Laden. As I discussed earlier, there is no solid proof and evidence provided by the US government against bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Afghan Taliban government offered US officials to trial the accused Al Qaeda members in Afghan Court but refused by the Americans because it was decided to invade Afghanistan and 9/11 was just the false flag operation and an inside job to do it.
After the 9/11 incident, Bush demanded to the Taliban government to destroy all bases of Al-Qaeda and handover Osama bin Laden. As I discussed earlier, there is no solid proof and evidence provided by the US government against bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Afghan Taliban government offered US officials to trial the accused Al Qaeda members in Afghan Court but refused by the Americans because it was decided to invade Afghanistan and 9/11 was just the false flag operation and an inside job to do it.
The Afghan village of Darya Khanah is bombed on October 27, 2001. [Source: Associated Press]
This invasion was also illegal in terms of the international laws coded in UN charter. According to UN Charter, disputes are to be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorize the use of force. Without this authorization, any military activity against another country is illegal. According to article 51 of UN Charter:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
(Article 51 - Chapter VII: Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches, of the peace and Acts of Aggressions)
But the UN Security Council did not allowed the US-Lead military campaign against Afghanistan. Defenders of that invasion has a argument that Article 51 provides the right of self defense therefore American did not need the authorization of UNSC, but one thing I want ask is Self defense against whom? because Al Qaeda is not a nation, in fact they are Non-State Actors. All the alleged hijackers were not Afghans. Osama was not trialled and there was no legal accusation present against him. This war was not a self defense because Afghanistan did not attack US but American, in the name of self defense killed thousands of innocent Afghan men, women and children. This was is an Act of Aggression against Afghanistan and that was not a legitimate act.
Invasion of Iraq
On March 19, 2003 US with Allied forces attacked Iraq with no legal reason and logical explanation. Invading Iraq also had no legitimacy because there is no involvement of Saddam Hussein in 9/11 incident. Iraq never attacked American soil and there was no direct threat to American security. 9/11 alleged hijackers were not Iraqi's in fact most of them were Saudi Arabians as told by the CIA. So, there is no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq or Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Then what is the reason behind the war, US Secretary of State Colin Powell explained the United Nations Security Council on 5 February 2003 in the following words:"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression... given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post–September 11 world."
Wow, what a presentation it was, based totally on assumptions and accusation without no evidence and proof. A term used by Colin Powell "Weapons of mass destruction", have they found one? The answer is right here:
"In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion."
(NBC News, 25-4-2005)
After two years of killing of innocent men, women and children in Iraq, the CIA claimed that they'd found nothing. It was clearly mentioned in the IAEA report in 2003 presented to United Nations Security Council before the invasion of Iraq:
"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites."
"There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990."
"There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment."
"Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme."
(Statement to the United Nations Security Council by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei-7 March 2003 | New York, USA)
The Weapons of Mass Destruction never found but what about the Iraqi people, who suffered badly. What about the mass killing done by the Americans and Allied forces in Iraq. According to Iraq Body Count, a group that relies on press reports, NGO-based reports and official figures to measure civilian casualties, approximately 7,500 civilians were killed during the invasion phase.
There were world wide series of Protests held in all the major cities of the world, including New York City-USA, Washington DC-USA, London-UK, Montreal-Canada and Rome-Italy. According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war. The biggest anti-war rally was held in Rome including three million people.
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
(Article 51 - Chapter VII: Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches, of the peace and Acts of Aggressions)
But the UN Security Council did not allowed the US-Lead military campaign against Afghanistan. Defenders of that invasion has a argument that Article 51 provides the right of self defense therefore American did not need the authorization of UNSC, but one thing I want ask is Self defense against whom? because Al Qaeda is not a nation, in fact they are Non-State Actors. All the alleged hijackers were not Afghans. Osama was not trialled and there was no legal accusation present against him. This war was not a self defense because Afghanistan did not attack US but American, in the name of self defense killed thousands of innocent Afghan men, women and children. This was is an Act of Aggression against Afghanistan and that was not a legitimate act.
Invasion of Iraq
On March 19, 2003 US with Allied forces attacked Iraq with no legal reason and logical explanation. Invading Iraq also had no legitimacy because there is no involvement of Saddam Hussein in 9/11 incident. Iraq never attacked American soil and there was no direct threat to American security. 9/11 alleged hijackers were not Iraqi's in fact most of them were Saudi Arabians as told by the CIA. So, there is no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq or Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Then what is the reason behind the war, US Secretary of State Colin Powell explained the United Nations Security Council on 5 February 2003 in the following words:"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression... given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post–September 11 world."
Wow, what a presentation it was, based totally on assumptions and accusation without no evidence and proof. A term used by Colin Powell "Weapons of mass destruction", have they found one? The answer is right here:
"In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion."
(NBC News, 25-4-2005)
After two years of killing of innocent men, women and children in Iraq, the CIA claimed that they'd found nothing. It was clearly mentioned in the IAEA report in 2003 presented to United Nations Security Council before the invasion of Iraq:
"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites."
"There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990."
"There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment."
"Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme."
(Statement to the United Nations Security Council by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei-7 March 2003 | New York, USA)
The Weapons of Mass Destruction never found but what about the Iraqi people, who suffered badly. What about the mass killing done by the Americans and Allied forces in Iraq. According to Iraq Body Count, a group that relies on press reports, NGO-based reports and official figures to measure civilian casualties, approximately 7,500 civilians were killed during the invasion phase.
There were world wide series of Protests held in all the major cities of the world, including New York City-USA, Washington DC-USA, London-UK, Montreal-Canada and Rome-Italy. According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war. The biggest anti-war rally was held in Rome including three million people.
This was surely cannot justified by any reason, even American people who understand the truth are against this war. I am quoting an American pastor as concluding remarks:
"The Iraq war is an unjust war and an evil war. We did not have the right before God to destroy Saddam Hussein and kill his people just because we suspected he might eventually attack the U.S. The preemptive strike policy Bush has established in his foreign policy, as part of his war on terrorism, is both unholy and pagan. It is not new -- many pagan countries embrace it. It gives us the right to declare war on any nation or people simply because they may own weapons of mass destruction, and we suspect that nation or people may use those weapons to attack us. No aggression is necessary to declare war, only suspicion. This is not true self-defense. When we go to war under this policy we are the aggressor and murderers. Also, we must ask this question -- who made us the judge over other nations to decide which ruler needs to fall or who made us the policemen of the world? This is an extremely arrogant policy, which sets us up above other nations. The more we will attack other nations under this policy, the more the wrath of the world's countries will be toward us. Also, God will not be pleased. In the end it may lead to a huge war where many counties will band together to attack the United States of America."
(The Iraq War -- A Christian Perspective by Pastor Steve Brown, M. Div.)
This is not the end, war on terror is still going on. The recent example is Libya. The Americans are plaining to invade Iran and then ultimately Pakistan because both countries have the nuclear capability that is why these countries are posing threats to USA and according to American think tank, all the threats must be eliminated like Iraq. American are going to disintegrate Iraq into 3 smaller states. They also want to disintegrate Pakistan into different ethnic states like, Sindhudesh, Independent Baluchistan, and Independent Kashmir. That is why, they always support insurgents in Pakistan. It is time to think, realize the truth and wakeup. Pakistani people should understand what is going on in the world.
"The Iraq war is an unjust war and an evil war. We did not have the right before God to destroy Saddam Hussein and kill his people just because we suspected he might eventually attack the U.S. The preemptive strike policy Bush has established in his foreign policy, as part of his war on terrorism, is both unholy and pagan. It is not new -- many pagan countries embrace it. It gives us the right to declare war on any nation or people simply because they may own weapons of mass destruction, and we suspect that nation or people may use those weapons to attack us. No aggression is necessary to declare war, only suspicion. This is not true self-defense. When we go to war under this policy we are the aggressor and murderers. Also, we must ask this question -- who made us the judge over other nations to decide which ruler needs to fall or who made us the policemen of the world? This is an extremely arrogant policy, which sets us up above other nations. The more we will attack other nations under this policy, the more the wrath of the world's countries will be toward us. Also, God will not be pleased. In the end it may lead to a huge war where many counties will band together to attack the United States of America."
(The Iraq War -- A Christian Perspective by Pastor Steve Brown, M. Div.)
This is not the end, war on terror is still going on. The recent example is Libya. The Americans are plaining to invade Iran and then ultimately Pakistan because both countries have the nuclear capability that is why these countries are posing threats to USA and according to American think tank, all the threats must be eliminated like Iraq. American are going to disintegrate Iraq into 3 smaller states. They also want to disintegrate Pakistan into different ethnic states like, Sindhudesh, Independent Baluchistan, and Independent Kashmir. That is why, they always support insurgents in Pakistan. It is time to think, realize the truth and wakeup. Pakistani people should understand what is going on in the world.
RSS Feed
