The War on Terror Main File_2

8/8/2019 The War on Terror Main File_2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-war-on-terror-main-file2 1/55

THE War On terror THE War On terror The Greatest 21The Greatest 21stst Century ShamCentury Sham

By Himanil Raina, Alankrita Anand, Eeshan Sharma & Yogen Mohan.





Defenders Of Freedom



Are They?









Disturbing? Gruesome? Revolting? Sadly enough this is the reality of today·s War On Terror.



War On Terror. What Is It?

The War on Terror is an ongoinginternational military campaign led

by the United States of America and the UnitedKingdom with the support of other NATO and non-NATOcountries. The campaign was

launched in 2001 with the



What Are Its Objectives?

The George W. Bush administration defined thefollowing ob jectives in the War on Terror:

Defeat terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, AbuMusab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations

Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along withtheir organizations Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to

terrorists Diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists

seek to exploit Defend US citizens and interests at home and

abroad



International Military Support

The invasion of Afghanistan is seen to have

been the first action of this war, and initially

involved forces from the United States,

the United Kingdom, and the Afghan Northern

Alliance. Since the initial invasion period,these forces were augmented by troops and

aircraft from

Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway amongst

others.



On September 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after the September

11 attacks in New York City and Washington,D.C., NATO invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and

declared the attacks to be an attack against all 19 NATO

member countries.

On November 22, 2002, the member states of the Euro-Atlantic

Partnership Council(EAPC) decided on a Partnership Action

Plan against Terrorism which explicitly states that "EAPC

States are committed to the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as the rule

of law, in combating terrorism."





The War On Terror Is In Itself An Act Of Terror

War against terrorism is plainly wrong since terrorist attacks areconsidered criminal acts like murder and therefore should beinvestigated by the police with the perpetrators brought to justiceand given a fair trial in a court of law.

Critics believe that interrogation methods employed by U.S. forces

violate international Geneva Conventions in places suchas Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Abu Ghraib, Iraq. They believe that if U.S. forces act immorally or unethically then those forces are nobetter than the insurgents they are trying to find. The war onterrorism has been effectively called an act of terrorism in itself.Critics point to incidents such as the Bagram torture and prisoner

abuse scandal, the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal,the use of chemical weapons against residents of Fallujah, and theuse of military force to disperse anti-American demonstrations inIraq



Denying terrorists enemy combatant status, practicing

extraordinary rendition and prisoner abuse

tantamount to torture are extremely widespread.

Keep in mind that 9/11 wasn·t the first time that

terrorists attacked the World Trade Center. Terrorists

also attacked it in 1993. Those terrorists were

indicted by a federal grand jury, prosecuted in

federal district court, and convicted. In other words,

they were treated as criminal defendants, not as

prisoners of war in the ́ war on terrorism.µ



Prisoner Abuse Is Extremely Rampant!



Why This War IsUnacceptable?

Perpetual WarFormer U.S. President George W. Bush articulated the goals of the"war on terror" in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said it"will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,stopped and defeated." In that same speech, he called the war "a task

that does not end." To critics, such goals create a state of perpetualwar. They have argued that terrorism is itself only a tactic which cannever be defeated by military force alone. It is further disputed thatthe "War on Terror" does not qualify as a war because there is no party whose defeat can bring victory.



Preventive war

The justification given for the invasion of Iraq (prior to its happening)was to prevent terrorist or other attacks by Iraq on the United Statesor other nations. This can be viewed as a conventionalwarfare realization of the war on terror.

A major criticism leveled at this justification is that, according to war

opponents, it does not fulfill one of the requirements of a just war andthat in waging a war preventively, the United States hasundermined international law and the authority of the United Nations,particularly the United Nations Security Council.



On this ground it has been advocated that by invading a country thatdoes not pose an imminent threat and without UN support, the U.S.

has violated international law, including the UN Charter andthe Nuremberg principles and is guilty of committing a war of aggression, which is considered to be a war crime. A fact for whichofficials and members of the Bush administration are potentially

criminally culpable under thecommand responsibility. Additionalcriticism has been raised that the United States has seta precedent, under the premise of which any nation could justify theinvasion of other states.



Curtailing Civil Liberties

The "War on Terror" has little to do with its statedpurpose, since Iraq had nothing to do with theSeptember 11 attacks and the invasion was carriedout on the basis of faulty or doctored intelligence.

Excerpts from an April 2006 report compiled fromsixteen U.S. government intelligence agencies hasstrengthened the claim that engaging in Iraq has

actually increased terrorism in the region



The "War on terror" has been seen as a pretext for reducing civilliberties. Bush introduced the USA PATRIOT Act legislation to theUnited States Congress shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks,which significantly expanded U.S. law enforcement's power. It hasbeen criticized as being too broad and having been abused forpurposes unrelated to counter-terrorism.



Many opponents focus on the domestic aspects,complaining that the government is systematicallyremoving civil liberties from the population or engagingin racial profiling. They also allege that this approachincreases public hostility to dissenting voices by

encouraging the view that such people are beingunpatriotic or even treasonous for simply disagreeingwith the administration.



Disillusionment Amongst Allies?



In the United Kingdom, critics have claimed thatthe Blair government has used the War on Terror as a

pretext to radically curtail civil liberties, someenshrined in law since Magna Carta. For example, thedetention-without-trial in Belmarsh prison controls onfree speech through laws against protests nearParliament and laws banning the "glorification" ofterrorism; and reductions in checks on police power.Former Liberal Democrat Leader Sir MenziesCampbell has also condemned Blair's inaction over thecontroversial U.S. practice of extraordinaryrendition, arguing that the human rights conventionsto which the UK is a signatory (e.g. European

Convention on Human Rights) impose on thegovernment a "legal obligation" to investigate andprevent potential torture and human rights violations



Stella Rimington, former head of the Britishintelligence service MI5 has criticised the waron terror as a "huge overreaction", and haddecried the militarization and politicization ofthe U.S. efforts to be the wrong approach toterrorism. David Milliband, UK foreignsecretary, has similarly called the strategy a"mistake". Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor ofthe Exchequer, has called for Britain to end itsinvolvement in the War in Afghanistan,describing the mission as "wholly unsuccessfuland indeed counter-productive. United

Ki ngdom ambassador t o It aly, Iv or Robert s, sai d th at U.S. Presi dent Bu sh i s "th e best recruiti ng sergeant ever f or al Qaeda.



The American government has grantedpolitical asylum to several terrorists and

terrorist organizations that attack Cuba totry and overthrow Fidel Castro, while theAmerican government itself claims to beanti-terrorist. The fact stands that

America is the biggest funder of statesponsored terrorism in the world whoseforeign policy is one of convenience and notof principles, resultantly it gives birth to

and quashes terrorist organizations as itsees fit manipulating them to serve itsends.



True Motives Behind

ThE War On Terror



Throughout the past century there have been examplesgalore of America rushing troops/invading numerous

nations for its own self serving interests, every timeunder some rosy sounding slogan like defendingdemocracy, protecting American interests or enforcinghuman rights. One can take one·s pick from just about

every continent. The Korean war, the Grenadianintervention, the Somalian intervention, the Vietnam war,the Kuwait war, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan.Each of these served American interests in some manner

and this time the guise for the war is that of protectingAmerica and the world from so called terrorists out toset the world aflame.



What we though fail to understand is just how doa mere 100 people pose a threat enough to

justify the invasion of multiple nations.Obama's National Security Adviser,Gen. James Jones and the chief of CIA

both have publically acknowledgedthat there are no more than a 100 AlQaeda members in Afghanistan. Yet stillAmerica has spent over a trillion dollars on the socalled war on terror, an amount that is 3 timesmore than what was spent in WW-1.



The Case Of Iraq

Blueprints of leading think tanks closely affiliated to the

Bush gvt. have extremely disturbing content. It says thatsaid the US must "discourage advanced industrial nationsfrom challenging our leadership or even aspiring to alarger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such asthe UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes

peacekeeping missions as "demanding American politicalleadership rather than that of the UNUS bases in SaudiArabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran maywell prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". Itspotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time toincrease the presence of American forces in SE Asia".



Iraq Was All About Oil The Iraq war was to put it simply an oil currency war. One of the core reasons

for this upcoming war was America·s goal of preventing further Organization of

the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as anoil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, theyneed to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oilreserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quietacknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration isthe impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is pro jected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production.



The re al re ason the Bush administration wants a pupp et gov ern m ent in I r aq -- or more import antl y, the re ason

wh

ythe

cor po

r ate

-milit

ar y- indu

stri

al network

con g lo m er ate w ant s a p u pp et g o v ern m ent in I r aq -- i s so th at it will re v ert back to a doll ar st and ard and st ay th at w ay." (W hile al so ho p in g to v eto an y wider OPEC

m o m entu m tow ard s the euro , e sp eci all y f ro m I r an -- the 2 nd l ar g e st OPEC p roducer who i s acti v el y di scu ssin g aswitch to euro s f or it s oil ex p ort s)



The Picture Some Years Ago



The Picture Desired Today



Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro inlate 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the

U.N. to euros) -- it was at that point that an Iraq invasion becameinevitable. The effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-

consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their(central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The

dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and theconsequences would be similar to as it was during the GreatDepression, the current account deficit would becomeunserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on.



The United States economy is intimately tied

to the dollar's role as reserve currency. Thisdoesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function

otherwise, but that the transition would have

to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and

the ultimate result of this would probably be

the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the

global economy



For example, a large spike in oil prices could create huge problems for theimperiled Japanese banking system, the world's largest holder of U.S. dollar

reserves. Unfortunately the current Bush administration has chosen amilitary option instead of a multilateral conference on monetary reform to resolve these issues. In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S.will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed,there is no talk of an èxit strategy,' as the military will be needed to protectthe newly installed regime, and to send a message to other OPEC producersthat they too might receive a ̀ regime change' if they convert their oilpayments to euros. Americas diplomatic encirclement and recent

panicky attitude over Iranian nuclear ambition ring any bells?



Moreover, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of reserve fundsin Iran's central bank were shifted to euros. It appears imminent they intend to

switchoil payments t

oeur

os. Aside from the geopolitical risks regarding Saudi Arabia and Iran, another risk

factor is actually Japan. Perhaps the biggest gamble in a protracted Iraq warmay be Japan's weak economy.If the war creates prolonged oil high prices($45 per barrel over several months), or a short but massive oil price spike($80 to $100 per barrel), some analysts believe Japan's fragile economy would

collapse. Japan is quite hypersensitive to oil prices, and if its banks default, thecollapse of the second largest economy would set in motion a sequence of events that could prove quite damaging to the U.S. economy. There is littledoubt the Iraq war plan is designed to be a quick victory, with the U.S. militarysecuring Iraq's vital oil fields at the very onset of hostilities.



According to research by Dr. David Spiro, in 1974 the Nixonadministration negotiated assurances from Saudi Arabia to

price oil in dollars only, and invest their surplus oil proceedsin U.S. Treasury Bills. In return the U.S. would protect theSaudi regime. These purchases were done in relativesecrecy. These agreements created the phenomenonknown as "petrodollar recycling."

What we are witnessing is a imperialist conquest of theMiddle East to feed American excessive oil consumption,while ignoring the duplicitous overthrowing of democratically elected governments in Latin America themiddle east and elsewhere? Is it acceptable for a U.S.President to threaten military force upon OPEC nation

state(s) because of their sovereign choice of currencyregarding their oil exports al in the name of fightingterrorism?



It would appear that any attempt by OPEC memberstates in the Middle East or Latin America totransition to the euro as their oil transaction currencystandard shall be met with either overt U.S. militaryactions or covert U.S. intelligence agencyinterventions. Under the guise of the perpetual `waron terror' the Bush administration is manipulating theAmerican people about the unspoken but very realmacroeconomic reasons for this upcoming war withIraq. This war in Iraq will not be based on any threatfrom Saddam's old WMD program, or from terrorism.This war will be over the global currency of oil. A warintended to prevent oil from being priced in euros.



RATHER REPRESENTATIVE OF

AMERICAS STATE TODAY



The Case Of Afghanistan The average life expectancy in Afghanistan is 43 years.

Per capita income is $180 per year. Only 13 percent of theentire population has access to drinking water. Barely 12% ofthe population has sanitation coverage. Literacy is only 20percent. The infant- mortality rate is a shocking 247 deaths per1,000 live births. On average, 16,000 mothers die in childbirthevery year, one out of every 17 births, the second worstmaternal mortality rate in the world.

It's not just the bombs are killing people. The dislocation andchaos of the war itself means huge numbers of Afghan people

will die from hunger, cold and disease. According to UNICEFofficials, more than 100,000 Afghan children will likely die fromwar-related causes by the end of winter.

Is this the freedom and prosperity that America has brought toAfghanistan by liberating it from terrorists?



After Sept. 11, the U.S. immediately targeted allof Afghanistan and added to its "enemies" list any

country or organization that didn't fully supportthe U.S. government on terrorism. Afghanistanagreed to negotiate but asked for proof of theculpability of Osama bin Laden in the September 11attack. The Bush administration responded thatthey wouldn't negotiate and they refused toprovide the evidence. Was it really because theU.S. wanted to combat terrorism? Or is it becausethe U.S. made a calculated decision to use theterrible Sept. 11 attack as justification for aPentagon move to expand its domination in the

Middle East and South/Central Asia?



What is less known is the vast interests of U.S. oil,banking and military corporations in South and CentralAsia as the next strategic region for oil and natural gas

exploitation. The Caspian Region--made up of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,

Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan--has a potential value in oiland natural gas of more than $5 trillion. These formerSoviet states share a border with Afghanistan, and areprecisely the countries that the U.S. military has now

established bases and troops. The U.S. militarization ofthe region began before September 11; now it is going full-scale. A Unocal Oil Corp. spokesperson, Vice PresidentJohn J. Maresca testified to the House ofRepresentatives Committee on International Relations,February 12, 1998. He said, "the Caspian region contains

tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves «provennatural gas reserves « equal more than 236 trillion cubicfeet. « [oil reserves] estimates are as high as 200 billionbarrels."



The Pentagon has been seeking to link the region's governmentsinto a military alliance connected to NATO's so-called"Partnership for Peace." These former states of the Soviet

Union became open to unbridled exploitation for their oil and gasresources by firms whose directors are ex-U.S. military andpolitical leaders. Former Reagan, Bush and Clinton advisers likeGen. Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, former WhiteHouse Chief of Staff John N. Sununu; former DefenseSecretary Richard Cheney, Secretary of State James Baker,former Clinton treasury secretary, Lloyd Bentsen, all havebecome oil and gas company executives involved in the CaspianRegion.

So there is the question raised, isn·t the U.S trying to stabilizethe region by eliminating a network of terrorists? This is themost dangerous myth of all. More war, bombing andassassinations will only create more violence, death and economic

crisis. The death of thousands in New York must not be used to justify what the United States is doing in Afghanistan and tohide what it has done and continues to do to the Iraqi andPalestinian people.



TerroristHere?



Over 800 Palestinians have been killed and 16,000seriously wounded since the second Intifada began in

September 2000. Their homes are bulldozed as theytry to defend themselves against the brutal and long-standing Israeli occupation of their land. Everybullet, every helicopter, every F-15 and F-16 camefrom the United States. Every year, the U.S. continuesto fund Israel by $4 billion. This is unabashed

terrorism, and more and more people in the worldare calling for an end to U.S.-Israeli oppression ofthe Palestinian people.

The FBI and the Justice Department under JohnAshcroft are considering using torture as an approvedpolicy of the United States against those in detention

who assert their legal rights to remain silent. WhoÙsthe terrorist here?



The U.S. government's National Mapping andImaging Agency has signed a contract giving it

exclusive control over all satellite imaging ofthe war in Afghanistan. They bought thecommercial rights to all satellites on October 7,the day the bombing of Afghanistan began.

Therefore all the information that comes out ofIraq comes through essentially after Americancensorship and all that we ever see is AmericaÙsso called rightful and valiant war over terror.Truth is that the Afghan invasion did not beginbecause the Americans wanted to get at someterrorists but because of deeper geo-strategic

objectives. America isnÙt going to pull out ofAfghanistan, all that we can expect here is tosee another South Korea.



Just How Did He Endanger American

Freedom?



Or He?

GET IT CLEAR! AMERICA IS GOING



GET IT CLEAR! AMERICA IS GOING

NOWHERE

While the United States officially insists that it is not settingup permanent bases in Afghanistan, the scale andpermanency of the construction underway at Bagramseems to suggest, at the least, a very long stay. According topublished reports, in fact, the new terminal facilities for thecomplex arent even slated to be operational until 2011.

In 2009 alone, after many billions of dollars had alreadygone into the construction, expansion, and maintenance of U.S. bases in Afghanistan, American taxpayers were calledupon to pay for more than $1 billion in constructioncontracts and based on the evidence at hand, including

those future options, this may prove just a drop in theproverbial bucket.

Forget for a moment the ´debatesµ in Washington over Afghan War policy and if you just focus on the



Forget for a moment the debates in Washington over Afghan War policy and, if you just focus on theconstruction activity and the flow of money into Afghanistan, what you see is a war that, from the point of view of the Pentagon, isn·t going to end any time soon. In fact, the U.S. military·s building boom in thatcountry suggests that, in the ninth yearof the Afghan War, the Pentagon has plans for a far longer-term, if

not near-permanent, garris

oning

ofthe c

ountry, n

omatter what c

ourse Washingt

on may decide up

on.

The building and fortifying of bases in Afghanistan isn·t the only sign that the U.S. military is digging in foran even longer haul. Another key indicator can be found in a Pentagon contract awarded in late Septemberto SOS International, Ltd., a privately owned ́ operations support companyµ that provides everything from

ćultural adviso

ry servicesµ to

íntelligence and co

unterintelligence analysis and trainingµ to

numero

usfederal agencies. That contract, primarily for linguistic services in support of military operations inAfghanistan, has an estimated completion date of September 2014.



It seems but a tithe bit hard

to believe that the worldstechnologically mostadvanced war fighting

machine requires 200,000troops in Afghanistan at anestimated yearly cost of

$60 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter,the U.S. will commit 2,000



America is never going to be willing to mend its ways for

the simple reason that there is no one around to make themdo so. Terror is just another in a long line of patriotisminvoking themes that the American propaganda machine hascarefully weaved and spun out, one for which we have alleasily fallen. It is time to examine the true causes forAmerica·s actions and realize that the global war onterrorism is truly the greatest 21st century sham.

We leave with one image, one that pro-American policy

supporters consistently make use of to account of theiractions to the world. Its subtler meanings are perhaps bestleft to the viewer to comprehend.



Documents

The War on Terror Main File_2