Warum die USA 2001 Afghanistan bombardierten

Bei diesem Beitrag handelt es sich um ein Blog aus der Freitag-Community

Die offizielle Begründung der US-Regierung: Die Taliban verweigerten die Auslieferung des mutmaßlichen 9/11-Planers Osama Bin Laden.

Fakt ist:

"Zwischen 1999 und 2001 gab es mehrmals Angebote des Taliban-Regimes, Osama Bin Laden auszuliefern, berichtet das ZDF unter Berufung auf den afghanisch-amerikanischen Geschäftsmann Kabir Mohabbat. Nach eigenen Angaben war Mohabbat damals als Vermittler zwischen beiden Seiten tätig. "Ihr könnt ihn haben, wann immer die Amerikaner bereit sind", habe ihm der Taliban-Außenminster Ahmed Mutawakil gesagt. "Nennt uns ein Land und wir werden ihn ausliefern."

Im November 2000 soll es sogar ein Geheimtreffen zwischen Vertretern der USA und der Taliban in Frankfurt gegeben haben, um diese Frage zu diskutieren. Nach Angaben Mohabbats unterbreiteten die Afghanen bei den Verhandlungen in einem Nobelhotel mehrere Angebote. Unter anderem seien sie bereit gewesen, den Terrorchef an ein Drittland auszuliefern, von dem aus er an den Internationalen Gerichtshof in Den Haag hätte überstellt werden können."


Fakt ist:

Yet in late September and early October, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamic parties negotiated bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the September 11 attacks. The deal was that he would be held under house arrest in Peshawar. According to reports in Pakistan (and the Daily Telegraph), this had both bin Laden's approval and that of Mullah Omah, the Taliban leader.

The offer was that he would face an international tribunal, which would decide whether to try him or hand him over to America. Either way, he would have been out of Afghanistan, and a tentative justice would be seen to be in progress. It was vetoed by Pakistan's president Musharraf who said he "could not guarantee bin Laden's safety".

But who really killed the deal?

The US Ambassador to Pakistan was notified in advance of the proposal and the mission to put it to the Taliban. Later, a US official said that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some luck chance Mr bin Laden was captured".


Fakt ist: Der Afghanistan Krieg wurde vor 9/11 geplant und die USA haben die Taliban bis 2000 unterstützt:

"Continued US sponsorship of the al-Qaeda-Taliban nexus in Afghanistan was confirmed as late as 2000. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-committee on South Asia, Dana Rohrabacher – former White House Special Assistant to President Reagan and now Senior Member of the House International Relations Committee – declared: ‘This administration has a covert policy that has empowered the Taliban and enabled this brutal movement to hold on to power.’ The assumption was that ‘the Taliban would bring stability to Afghanistan and permit the building of oil pipelines from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan’. US companies involved in the project included Unocal and Enron. As early as May 1996, Unocal had officially announced plans to build a pipeline to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through western Afghanistan. US officials held several meetings with the Taliban from 2000 to the summer of 2001, in an effort to get the Taliban to agree to a joint federal government with their local enemies, the Northern Alliance. In exchange, they promised the Taliban financial aid and international legitimacy. But eventually US policymakers concluded that the Taliban would never bring the stability needed for the pipeline project. According to Pakistani Foreign Minister Niaz Naik, who was present at the meetings, US officials threatened the Taliban with military action if they failed to comply with the federalization plan. Even a date for threatened military action – October 2001 – was proposed. The Taliban rejected the plan. So months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a war on Afghanistan was already on the table."


Fakt ist:Der "war on terror" dient nicht nur den Interessen des Militärisch Industriellen Komplexes, sondern soll primär die Kontrolle über die Gas - und Ölvorkommen in Zentralasien und der Kaspischen Region sichern: "As noted in 1997 by an energy expert at the National Security Council on U.S. policy in Central Asia: “U.S. policy was to promote the rapid development of Caspian energy … We did so specifically to promote the independence of these oil-rich countries, to in essence break Russia’s monopoly control over the transportation of oil from that region, and frankly, to promote Western energy security through diversification of supply.” Former U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson observed in 1998 in relation to the republics of Central Asia: “We would like these newly independent countries reliant on Western commercial and political interests rather than going another way. We’ve made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it’s very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right.”One year later, the 106th Congress passed the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999, “…to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to target assistance to support the economic and political independence of the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia.” The U.S. Congress noted that: “The region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia could produce oil and gas in sufficient quantities to reduce the dependence of the United States on energy from the volatile Persian Gulf region.” Accordingly, one of the principal objectives of U.S. policy, it was agreed, is “to support United States business interests and investments in the region."


Fakt ist:9/11 hätte nicht passieren müssen,das Bush/Cheney-Regime log:


Zusammenfassung von Nafeez Ahmed (The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001) Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is a London-born author and political scientist specialising in interdisciplinary security studies.His research on international terrorism was officially used by the 9/11 Commission in Washington DC:

"Both the U.S. and the USSR are responsible for the rise of religious extremism, terrorism and civil war within Afghanistan since the 1980s. The U.S., however, is directly responsible for the cultivation of a distorted ‘jihadi’ ideology that fuelled, along with U.S. arms and training, the ongoing war and acts of terrorism within the country after the withdrawal of Soviet forces.

The U.S. approved of the rise of the Taliban, and went on to at least tacitly support the movement, despite its egregious human rights abuses against Afghan civilians, to secure regional strategic and economic interests.

The U.S. government and military planned a war on Afghanistan prior to 11th September for at least a year, a plan rooted in broad strategic and economic considerations related to control of Eurasia, and thus the consolidation of unrivalled global U.S. hegemony.

The U.S. government has consistently blocked investigations and inquiries of Saudi royals, Saudi businessmen, and members of the bin Laden family, implicated in supporting Osama bin Laden and terrorist operatives linked to him. This amounts in effect to protecting leading figures residing in Saudi Arabia who possess ties with Osama bin Laden.

The U.S. government has consistently blocked attempts to indict and apprehend Osama bin Laden, thus effectively protecting him directly.

The U.S. government has allowed suspected terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden to train at U.S. military facilities, financed by Saudi Arabia, as well as U.S. flight schools, for years.

High-level elements of the U.S. government, military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies received numerous credible and urgent warnings of the 11th September attacks, which were of such a nature as to successively reinforce one another. Only a full-fledged inquiry would suffice to clarify in a definite manner why the American intelligence community failed to act on the warnings received. However, the nature of the multiple warnings received, along with the false claims by U.S. intelligence agencies that they had no specific warnings of what was about to occur, suggests that they indeed had extensive foreknowledge of the attacks, but are now attempting to prevent public recognition of this. In spite of extensive forewarnings, the U.S. Air Force emergency response systems collapsed systematically on 11th September, in violation of the clear rules that are normally and routinely followed on a strict basis. This is an event that could only conceivably occur as a result of deliberate obstructions to the following of Standard Operating Procedures for emergency response.

To succeed, such systematic obstructions could only be set in place by key U.S. government and military officials. Both President Bush and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers displayed sheer indifference to the 11th September attacks as they were occurring, which further suggests their particular responsibility. Once again, a full-fledged inquiry is required into this matter.

Independent journalists revealed that Mahmoud Ahmed, as ISI Director- General, had channeled U.S. government funding to Mohamed Atta, described as the “lead hijacker” by the FBI. The U.S. government protected him, and itself, by asking him to resign quietly after the discovery, thus blocking a further inquiry and a potential scandal.

The events of 11th September have in fact been of crucial benefit to the Bush administration, justifying the consolidation of elite power and profit both within the U.S. and throughout the world. The tragic events that involved the murder of thousands of innocent civilians were exploited by the U.S. government to crack down on domestic freedoms, while launching a ruthless bombing campaign on the largely helpless people of Afghanistan, directly resulting in the further killing of almost double the number of civilians who died on 9-11."


"More terrorists are given training and sanctuary in the United States than anywhere on earth. They include mass murderers, torturers, former and future tyrants and assorted international criminals. This is virtually unknown to the American public, thanks to the freest media on earth." (John Pilger)

21:40 10.09.2010
Dieser Beitrag gibt die Meinung des Autors wieder, nicht notwendigerweise die der Redaktion des Freitag.
Geschrieben von

Kommentare 2

sachichma | Community