by Jared Israel [1 November 2001]
Introductory Note: There has been much news coverage of the U.S.
bombing - twice! - of Red Cross humanitarian warehouses in Kabul.
Afghanistan.
Yet, while Pentagon spokesmen such as Gen. Richard Myers and Donald
Rumsfeld have been interviewed and widely quoted, we have seen only
one interview with a Red Cross spokesmen; that was on Canadian TV.
The general thrust of media coverage is that the Red Cross was hit
because it is right next to some military facilities, or even that its
warehouses had been taken over by the Taliban.
So on 31 October I called Red Cross headquarters in Geneva and
spoke to two officials.
Here is the transcript:
Jared Israel: The warehouses that have been bombed, are they in an
isolated area or are there many other warehouses right there?
Christoph Luedi: We had this warehouse which is our compound on its
own with these buildings inside and a wall around. So it is separate.
Jared Israel: You have a wall around?
Christoph Luedi: Yeah, it's five buildings; the compound has a wall
around; it's a compound on its own. At least two of the buildings had
a red cross on the top. There are three buildings in a row and then
there are two; they are very close together. As far as we know, one
building is still intact. One has been hit in the first bombardment.
Two have been hit in the second and the other caught fire.
Jared Israel: There is a news story from CNBC [29 October], they
say:
"Also, there was an interesting case on Friday where the
US--American warplanes hit a Red Cross food warehouse twice. Now
initially, it was said that that was hit by mistake. However today,
senior military officials tell us that that Red Cross warehouse was
hit on purpose because it was seized by the Taliban, who was
stealing all that food."
Is that a true statement or false?
Christoph Luedi: This we can confirm is not correct because we
started four days before the bombardment to distribute food out of
these warehouses to disabled-headed families, a distribution which
started on Tuesday and should have been ongoing until Sunday. This
distribution was notified to the Americans especially in light of,
because we distributed to different districts and this leads to a
massing of people and we wanted to keep them [the Americans] informed
that the massing people was linked to our distributions.
Jared Israel: And that involved the massing of people to receive
the food?
Christoph Luedi: But not around the warehouses. We load it on
trucks the day before. We load it, and then we bring it to the
different districts in Kabul where we distribute. So we gave a plan of
distribution to the Americans, we say, "On Tuesday the
distribution is in this district, District 1, these and these are the
distribution spots, on Wednesday these and these districts and so many
beneficiaries, on Thursday, on Saturday and on Sunday." And this
is where they get this information.
But we were using this food through our own channels. That means we
had the control over this warehouse. The only thing there was security
around the building, our own security and an extremely limited number
from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to give us protection because
after the first bombing we were afraid of looting so we had to
negotiate. So we said OK, we want to do a distribution but we need to
keep this material. And the Taliban said, OK, fair enough, that's your
warehouse.
[At this point Mr. Luedi consulted with another gentleman nearby;
this was John Wurt, a Red Cross specialist in logistics.]
Christoph Luedi: He [i.e., Mr. Wurt] is logistician who visits
regularly and he has a clear picture. As I said it is a compound; you
go through a gate. The compound is quite big. We used it for jogging.
And he confirms that it is fairly alone [i.e., isolated].
Jared Israel: Could I talk to him for a sec? Is that OK?
John Wurt: Hello.
Jared Israel: Hi. So, there's a fair amount of space between the
wall around the compound and the other buildings in the general area?
John Wurt: As I remember there aren't buildings around in the
general area. There's kind of a residential area as you go down the
road to the compound and then there's nothing much around as I
remember and then you go through the gate into the
compound and basically it's open field all around. [See pictures
at bottom of this page.]
Jared Israel: So this is really a Red Cross compound; this isn't a
complex of warehouses that the Red Cross has some food in?
John Wurt: No, no, no, we had the whole compound. There's a series
of, I think there was five chambers, some food some non-food, then we
had some other material stored in containerized material that wasn't
stuff we were using on a regular basis. But nobody else's stuff was in
our compound. It was solely for the use of the Red Cross.
Jared Israel: The Red Cross has a policy of non-discrimination,
right? You give out the food irrelevant of whose people are getting
it, based on need?
Christoph Luedi: Yeah, sure.
Jared Israel: Do you think they [the U.S. command] object to that?
Christoph Luedi: I will not speculate on the reasons why this
happened because I don't have the information and that's not my job.
Our job is to try and continue our work within Afghanistan.
Jared Israel: OK. But you do have this non-discrimination policy.
That is a true statement?
Christoph Luedi: OK, but humanitarian work should be that, not only
of the Red Cross but also of others.
Jared Israel: But that is not always true, right?
Christoph Luedi: Probably not but I will not judge others. But we
work together in a conflict with all parties to the conflict, and we
are in contact with the Americans; we are in contact with the Taliban,
with Northern Alliance, with Pakistan, to discuss what we are doing,
why we are doing it and remind them of their obligations within the
international humanitarian law. That's our job that we have to do with
all parties.
Jared Israel: Thank you for speaking to me.
Please feel free to repost or reprint the following interview in
any media, giving credit to www.tenc.net,
and without altering the text.
(Top)
Mines make Afghanistan a landscape of danger
By Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff, 10/23/2001
PESHAWAR, Pakistan - As they enter Afghanistan, American
troops may discover that the ground beneath their feet holds greater
danger than the Taliban forces hunkered down in machine-gun nests or
terrorist fighters dug into heavily fortified caves.
Afghanistan is the land of the land mine. No other place on
earth is sown more thickly with the treacherous contraptions
designed to kill, maim, and demoralize: between 6 million and 10
million antipersonnel and antivehicle mines concealed in every
region of the country, according to mine-clearing engineers of the
United Nations.
Some of the dreaded devices are the size and shape of hockey
pucks, meant to rip off a foot or hand with a small blast. Others
can reduce an armored personnel carrier to smoldering wreckage in
the blink of an eye. The notorious ''bouncing betty'' variety pops a
charge into the air that explodes at stomach height, disemboweling
its victim.
''These are the cruelest weapons in the world,'' said Dr.
Abdul Aleem, an Afghan physician who knows only too well the awful
capabilities of land mines, because he has treated so many victims.
''Like snakes of utmost patience, these contrivances are coiled,
waiting to strike, in every corner of countryside and cities.''
They are concealed in farm fields, in roadways, in high
mountain passes, in irrigation canals, and in the rubble of
shattered cities to await the unwary foot, the plod of a donkey
cart, the weight of a car or truck. Thousands of abandoned houses
and barns have also been booby-trapped.
''The carnage is dreadful,'' said Richard Daniel Kelly, a
former Canadian military engineer who heads the UN's ambitious
mine-clearing program in Afghanistan. ''They kill farmers as they
plant their crops. They kill workers trying to repair roads. They
kill the schoolboy who takes a shortcut across a vacant lot.''
Soon mines may also be killing Americans, as US special forces
take the war against Afghanistan's Taliban to the ground, fighting
their way across a terrain where one wrong step can be fatal.
''It's a big concern, the threat facing the ground troops,''
Kelly said. ''Unless they come seriously equipped for combat mine
clearance, they could become the newest victims of Afghanistan's
fields of danger.''
The Washington-based Center for Defense Information warned in
a report last month that American forces - unaccustomed to fighting
in regions so saturated with mines - may suffer casualties just
trying to move troops or land helicopters. US special forces
reconnaissance teams are believed to be operating now in southern
Afghanistan.
The toll taken by land mines in Afghanistan was hideous long
before Washington began its assault earlier this month.
Even in ordinary times, 10 Afghans are killed or crippled
every day by land mines. Nearly all victims are civilians, and many
are children. The verifiable toll is 150 casualties per month, but
because so many Afghans live in remote regions where their lives and
deaths often go unreported, mine-clearing experts believe the
real tally is at least twice as high.
A nightmare situation is now becoming worse, as the US forces
continue to pound installations of the Taliban militia and
Osama bin Laden's Qaeda terrorist legions.
Western attacks, although aimed at military targets, have
caused hundreds of thousands of panicked city dwellers to flee into
the countryside, according to the UN.
''As they travel into unfamiliar regions, they face increasing
risks from mines,'' Kelly said. ''There will be more land mine
casualties, as these desperate, displaced people fan out across the
danger zones.''
Compounding the long-term problem, some of the US bombs,
rockets, and missiles pouring from the skies fail to explode and
will pose a hazard to life and limb for decades to come.
''Like the land mines, these explosives must be removed,'' said
Peter Le Sueur, a munitions specialist in the Afghanistan
mine-clearing program, which has its main offices in Pakistan.
''This latest war is pushing our mine-clearing activities
backward by years,'' he said. ''Except for emergency removals,
ordinary mine-clearing has come to a halt.
''And the new unexploded submunitions - cluster bombs,
armor-penetrating projectiles - just mean more dangers for people.
An unexploded bomblet can still explode. There will be more
casualties, and mine-clearing teams will be facing unfamiliar
munitions.''
Millions of mines were placed in Afghanistan during the
1979-89 war, in which fierce mujahideen routed the Soviet Union's
occupation army. Hundreds of thousands more land mines were placed
in the civil war that followed and led to the takeover of the
country by the Taliban.
UN officials say that the Northern Alliance, which is battling
the Taliban, has planted even more
mines.
During more than a decade of work in Afghanistan, UN-trained
local sappers earning about $116 a month have located and destroyed
more than 10,000 antitank mines, 221,000 antipersonnel mines, and
1.4 million pieces of unexploded ordnance, such as bombs, rockets,
and artillery shells, according to the UN.
The teams use metal detectors and explosives-sniffing dogs to
pinpoint the location of each device. It is a painstaking and risky
task.
At least 59 sappers have died in Afghan mine-clearing
operations in the past decade, and 548 have been seriously injured,
although the safety rate has improved greatly in recent years, Kelly
said.
Small, antipersonnel mines pose the worst danger to civilians.
They can be concealed almost anywhere and are employed to terrorize
populations by making fields untillable, paths unwalkable, and
booby-trapped buildings unusable. They rarely kill outright, but
instead blow off a leg or arm.
''It is still a death sentence, because so many Afghans have
no access to medical treatment, so will die of infection,'' Aleem
said.
''Almost as cruel, a mine will kill a poor farmer's ox or
donkey, meaning his family must starve because they can no longer
plow the field to raise a crop,'' he said.
It has taken a decade to remove most of the mines from 88
square miles of land. Another 283 square miles has been targeted as
a priority for clearance.
''Until my country is cleared of mines, we can never be a
normal country,'' said K.M. Sharif, operations officer of the UN
Mine Action Program. ''Every day, mines are exploding beneath
people's feet. We cannot trust the very ground.''
This story ran on page A14 of the Boston Globe on 10/23/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
(Top)
MOLLY IVINS
AUSTIN - Actually, this is pathetic. And I say this as one who
supported military action in the wake of the attacks.
And I say this as one who supported military action in the wake of the
attacks. I still think we're dealing with a crime, not a war, but it
wasn't a crime that Interpol could solve. Who could we send but the
military? If we could just find an enemy.
As the satirical The Onion put it, "U.S. Vows to Defeat Whoever
It Is We're at War With."
Here we are, bombing not just a poor country but quite likely the most
miserable place on Earth, and creating a tidal wave of starving
refugees in the process. There has to be a better way.
Sissy Farenthold, the Mother Teresa of Texas liberalism, says her
reaction to the attacks was: "If not now, when? When are we going
to try the law?"
International law is not in a high state of development. Just bringing
Slobodan Milosevic, a remarkably hideous specimen, to trial took
several years. Nevertheless, when you stand back and look at it, the
development of international law is one of the few things that will
give you hope for Earth.
I know this freaks out the right, which thinks that U.N. black
helicopters are about to take over; and the left, which thinks
globalization benefits only vile, big-league capitalists. (I'm no
neutral here - globalization will benefit only vile, big-league
capitalists unless we get hold of it.) Nevertheless, growing up
through all the paranoia, the ancient enmities and the conflicting
ideologies, like grass pushing up through cement, is a substantial
body of international law. The reason it exists is because it is so
necessary.
It may seem as though the opportunity is now gone, but we can still
reconsider and announce that we (the most powerful country in the
world, as we keep reminding ourselves) are willing to submit our
grievance against Osama Bin Laden and Co. to the World Court.
As I have pointed out before, this is not only a good idea on its own
merits but has the happy effect of making it far more likely that we
will actually get bin Laden. The country in the best position to find
the terrorists is Pakistan, and its government, as we have seen, has
to deal with its own Islamic fundamentalists.
The Libyans who blew up Pan Am 103 were tried at the World Court, and
Libya gave them up precisely because they were tried in a third
country.
Both the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression
of Terrorist Bombings and the Montreal Sabotage Convention are on
point here.
Those who recommend following the law seem to be regarded by most of
the media as two-headed freaks, but I think the media do a disservice
by reducing this debate to a simplistic false choice: Either we nuke 'em
or we engage in some tedious, years-long process that ends not with a
bang but a whimper.
Again, the question is: What works?
When Timothy McVeigh committed a terrible act of terrorism, we did not
go bomb the right-wing nut camps in Idaho for the very good reason
that it (a) was illegal and (b) would have created a pile of martyrs,
in the style of David Koresh, and thus a whole new set of citizens who
think the government is the enemy.
This is the Catch-22 of "nuke 'em": the endless daisy chain
of reaction that keeps creating more terrorists, who then strike and
cause more reaction, creating more terrorists, etc. If killing more
people were the answer, there would have been peace in the Middle East
50 years ago.
The answer is justice, and there is nothing weak-kneed about it.
The second drawback of the "nuke 'em" argument is that
Afghanistan is the graveyard of invading armies. It has swallowed the
armies of mighty empires three times - Britain twice, the Soviet Union
once. It may boast the most hostile topography on the planet, and, as
in Vietnam, you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys.
Speaking of bad guys, we need to take a close look at the Northern
Alliance; according to RAWA, the almost unbearably courageous Afghan
women's group, the Northern Alliance is as bad as the Taliban.
There's nothing left to bomb - the country only had 18 miles of
railroad to begin with - so now we start the chopper war. But as we
know from Somalia, choppers can be brought down with rocket-propelled
grenades - practically a pea-shooter in terms of modern weaponry.
Right after the attacks, Secretary of State Colin Powell was actually
taken to task by the armchair warriors for pledging to "bring
those responsible to justice."
A point made by Jeff Cohen of Fairness and Accuracy in Media is that a
bombing campaign does more than undermine the rule of law: "It
isolates the U.S. instead of isolating the terrorists." There is
a better way.
Molly Ivins writes for Creators Syndicate. 5777 W. Century Blvd.,
Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045
Extensive "essay" by Michael Albert and Stephen R
Shalom,
titled War in Afghanistan. It is 47 questions and answers, plus links
to additional materials, all laid out for easy access and readability.
We hope it will provide much assistance in the difficult task of
raising consciousness among those who don't yet oppose this war.
By way of inducement, here are the 47 questions. On the page
linked above you can read straight through, or you can click any
particular question to see our answer...and in many instances to see
links for more information.
1. What is Islamic fundamentalism?
2. What is the attitude in the Arab and Islamic worlds to (a) the
Sept.
11 attacks, and (b) the current US war in Afghanistan?
3. What grievances fuel hatred for the U.S. in the Middle East?
4. Does trying to understand/explain the grievances of the people of
the Middle East constitute excusing bin Laden, excusing terror,
softness on fascism, etc.
5. What is Terrorism?
6. Are Bin Laden and his network terrorists?
7. Is the Taliban terrorist?
8. Is Hamas a terrorist group?
9. Is the U. S. government terrorist?
10. Why did the World Trade Center terrorists do it?
11. What is the legal way of dealing with terrorism?
12. What would be the implication regarding Sept 11 of legal
prosecution of all terrorists?
13. What would be the implication regarding the embargo of Iraq,
the bombing of Kosovo and Serbia, and the bombing of Afghanistan,
of a legal prosecution of all terrorists?
14. Is what the U. S. is doing consistent with a legal approach?
15. Which nations have been supporting the US war in Afghanistan
and why?
16. What has been the role of the UN in the current war in
Afghanistan?
17. What are the reasons to oppose U.S. bombing of Afghanistan?
18. But isn't it obvious bin Laden did it?
19, Is it possible that there is decisive evidence, but that its
disclosure would compromise important intelligence gathering
capabilities?
20. But didn't Afghanistan reject out-of-hand US demand to turn
over bin Laden?
21. But you can't negotiate with terrorists?
22. But doesn't the U.S. have the right of self-defense?
23. But isn't the U. S. getting a vast coalition of support?
24. How about Congress's 420-1 vote empowering Bush to act
militarily? Doesn't that make it right? 25. But aren't the targets
being
bombed in Afghanistan legitimate targets?
26. But aren't civilian casualties being avoided in Afghanistan?
27. But aren't U. S. food drops a sincere effort to help the people of
Afghanistan?
28. What about the anti-terrorism bill passed by Congress, isn't that
a step in the right direction?
29. How about the Bush administration's campaign to dry up
terrorism's financial networks?
30. How about supporting the Northern Alliance, doesn't that hold
out positive promise for Afghanistan?
31. How about invading Iraq, won't that be good for Iraqis?
32. How about increasing U.S. defense and military spending?
33. How about building a national missile defense system?
34. How about repealing the executive order prohibiting
assassinating foreign leaders?
35. How about using racial profiling needed to counter terrorism in
the United States?
36. What is a "war on terrorism," and why is it being
elevated as the
capstone of U. S. foreign policy?
37. But what about the role of oil in the current crisis?
38. So how long will the war in Afghanistan go on?
39. What dangers will we face in South Asia and the Middle East as
a result of the current war?
40. But won't the "war on terrorism" reduce terrorism, and
isn't that
worth it?
41. Wouldn't changing US foreign policy under the threat of
terrorism mean that we are giving in to terrorism?
42. Does the US support a Palestinian state? Should it?
43. What should the U.S. have done in response to September 11?
44. What other policies should our government be following to
reduce the likelihood of people will undertake terrorist agendas?
45. The peace movement says "Justice, Not War. " But with
terrorists, how can justice be achieved without war?
46. In what ways if any should the peace movement adjust its
positions in the light of Sept. 11?
47. What should be the relation of other movements to the peace
movement, and vice versa? ##
(Top
(Top
10/10/01
IN THIS ISSUE: A fear that Afghanistan may revert to
"warlord-ism" in an analysis of how the U.S.
"endgame" needs to be fast as Ramadan and the winter sets
in—also the "Powell doctrine" of overwhelming blitz is out
and replaced by "no exit strategy" by Rumsfeld who equates
this action with the Cold War—which last 50 years; Stratfor Forecast
says flat out that fighting will continue after the Taliban is ousted
and will hinder finding Bin Laden—predicts "costly, lengthy, and
doomed" engagement; Family of exiled Afghan king is now warning
Pakistan to forget about picking a leader in Afghanistan; Simmering
opposition in Pakistan is gearing up for jihad and sending fighters into
Afghanistan; An analysis of groups readying for jihad says they
couldn’t overthrow the Pakistani government before the U.S. strikes
against Afghanistan because moderate public opinion hadn’t been
galvanized—now all bets are off…meanwhile, there are rumors of
thousands in tribal areas being organized to fight a guerilla war and an
"eerie silence" among militant wings of the religious parties;
Pakistan and India are at each others throats to the point where the
U.S. is concerned about their disrupting the coalition efforts.
************************************************************
The International News, Pakistan
October 9, 2001
AFGHANISTAN MAY REVERT TO WARLORDISM
News Analysis By Amir Mateen
WASHINGTON:…Many Afghanistan pundits worry that in the absence of
international forces replacing the Taliban vacuum, there is a
possibility of the country reverting back to 'warlord-ism' of pre-Taliban
days. The latest military campaign is not necessarily going to be to a
short, surgical operation as hoped by Pakistan and several other Muslim
countries apprehending domestic resistance. It seems the Americans will
not take chances of leaving any military resistance on ground that might
increase their casualties during a possible ground operation.
At this stage, the Americans are keeping mum of what they want to do
operationally. But it seems clear from Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld's Monday statement that the much-vaunted Powell doctrine is
out. The purest examples of the Powell doctrine were the 1989 invasion
of Panama, when the United States military stormed the country in a
several-day blitz and captured its leader, Manuel Noriega, and then
restaged it 1991 war with Iraq.
Basically, what it says is that if American forces are to be used
they should be overpowering and decisive. It should be like a
thunderstorm, furious but brief and, preferably, with no entangling
commitments. But if Rumsfeld's Monday interview is any guide, the first
casualty of the 'fourth Afghan war' is the Powell doctrine.
"Unconventional approaches, obviously, are more likely and
appropriate than the typical conventional approach," Rumsfeld said
about Afghanistan. "There are not high- value targets. There aren't
navies to attack. There are not lands to occupy and hold." More
generally, Rumsfeld has likened the fight against terrorism to the
strategy the United States had for containing Soviet power during the
cold war.
In a most un-Powell- like statement, he warned that there was no
clear exit strategy. "The cold war, it took 50 years, plus or
minus," Rumsfeld said. "It did not involve major battles. It
involved continuous pressure and cooperation by a host of nations. And
when it ended, it ended not with a bang, but through internal
collapse."
The very comparison of medieval-like Taliban forces with the mighty
Soviet Union shows the American bent to kill the fly with a
sledgehammer. Their best hope is that the combination of the
psychological shock of the air strikes, bribes to anti-Taliban forces in
Afghanistan covertly supported by Washington and sheer opportunism will
lead many of the Taliban's fighters to put down their arms and defect.
But they are not willing to take any chances.
The difficult phase will involve hunting down Osama bin Laden and
helping the anti-Taliban foes within Afghanistan install a new
government. Even the most enthusiastic Defence expert on major TV
networks agreed that the Americans cannot achieve their objective -- the
destruction of the Taliban regime by proxy -- by air power alone. This
can take weeks and months.
Despite wooing the Northern Alliance and dissident Taliban
Commanders, arranging political accommodations, supplying weapons and
money, somebody will ultimately need to go on ground. Since there are
political consequences of long, sustained air strikes, particularly in
the wake of wide-spread demonstrations in neighbouring Pakistan, the
end-game needs to be fast.
With Ramadan and winter in Afghanistan both approaching in November,
it has to between now and then, says pundits. Stratfor, an online
intelligence service, opines that the fall of Kabul is not the key. Even
the fall of Kandahar is not critical. This will disperse the Taliban
over the countryside, making the operations to destroy their armed
forces more difficult. A simultaneous ground assault by a broad
coalition of Taliban enemies, coupled with the US air campaign, would
have been ideal.
In a sense it was a question of the chicken versus the egg. The
chicken, a commitment by the Taliban opposition to fight under US
guidance, and the egg, belief in Washington's genuine commitment, forced
an early air assault, says Stratfor. Washington is now trying to alter
the power equation in Afghanistan by covert assistance to their
opposition and overt military attacks against the Taliban's military
abilities.
These are relatively traditional missions. The test will be in
tracking down Osama Bin Laden. According to the Rumsfeld doctrine, now
in operation, force alone is not sufficient. The Bush administration's
broader aims, he said, depend on obtaining good intelligence from allies
in the region, cutting off money to the Taliban and winning support from
anti- Taliban forces inside Afghanistan.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2001-daily/09-10-2001/main/main12.htm
***The Stratfor Forecast site is flat out predicting continued
fighting even after the Taliban are removed which could doom efforts to
root out Bin Laden:
CONFLICT WILL FOLLOW TALIBAN’S FALL 1630 GMT, 011009
Summary
The United States has begun its military campaign in Afghanistan
without first forging a post-Taliban regime. Although opposition forces
will take advantage of U.S. air strikes to attempt to drive the Taliban
from power, this will only usher in another round of fighting among the
victors.
Because the United States needs a friendly and stable regime in Kabul
to facilitate its primary mission of rooting out Osama bin Laden and his
Afghan Arabs, it will find itself drawn into an attempt at
nation-building in Afghanistan. This is an intractable problem that
could draw the United States into a lengthy, costly and ultimately
doomed engagement in Afghanistan at the expense of its primary mission.
(MORE)
http://www.stratfor.com/home/0110091630.htm
***As a further indication of the tensions involved in creating a
stable government in Afghanistan, the ex-royal family is sending out
warning signals about any involvement by Pakistan (as described in a
prior WMW on October 5, Pakistan has been trying to find it’s own
replacement for the Taliban ruler.)
The Kajheel Times out of Dubai, U.A.E, picks up this story from the
Agence France Press network:
AFGHAN EX-ROYAL FAMILY WARNS PAKISTAN OF INTERFERENCE
ROME - Afghanistan's former royal family has warned neighbouring
Pakistan not to try to play a kingmaker's role if the Afghan ruling
Taliban regime collapses under internal and external pressure.
General Abdul Wali, a senior aide and son-in-law of the former Afghan
monarch, Mohammed Zahir Shah, told AFP on Tuesday that the ex-king has
however nominated a delegation to travel to Pakistan in a week's time.
"Nobody has the right to interfere in our Afghan policy," he
warned. The delegation will discuss the situation after the United
States launched military strikes against the Taliban militia and prime
terror suspect Osama bin Laden.
The move responds to a request from Pakistan President Pervez
Musharraf, who invited Zahir Shah to send a team to Islamabad to discuss
a post-Taliban scenario….
…"The delegation will exchange views on the two countries'
bilateral relations," Wali said. He also warned Pakistan not to
interfere in Afghanistan's internal affairs by favouring one Afghan
ethnic group against another. "Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen,
Hazaras, Nooristanis and others constitute the Afghan people," he
said.
"It is the job of the Afghan people and only the Afghan people
to determine the future government of Afghanistan. We have no
consultations with others," he said after attending a session of
Zahir's associates and other exiled Afghan dignitaries here. Pakistan
President Pervez Musharraf has warned that the anti-Taliban Northern
Alliance would manipulate a vacuum likely to be created once the
religious militia administration, controlling 90 percent of the country,
starts crumbling under the US military thrust…
…Pakistan, which backed the Taliban as strategic partners until the
September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, has also a
Pashtoon minority living in its tribal belt on Afghanistan's borders. It
is concerned that a government hostile to Islamabad will emerge if non-Pashtoon
ethnic groups in Afghanistan came to power.
Wali, also a Pashtoon like the rest of the ex-royal family, rejected
Pakistan's concerns, saying Afghanistan was a multi-ethnic society.
"Pashtoons, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Hazaras, Nooristanis and
others constitute the Afghan people," he said.
In a statement released after the first wave of US and British
strikes in Afghanistan on Sunday night, Zahir Shah has called upon the
United States to respect Afghanistan's integrity while retaliating
against bin Laden and the Taliban positions…(MORE).
– AFP http://www.khaleejtimes.co.ae/subcont.htm
- story11
***Meanwhile, The International News out of Pakistan is reporting on
the opposition to that is simmering in the country, including many calls
for "jihad":
ATTACKS TERMED AGGRESSION AGAINST AFGHANS
NASEERULLAH BABAR SAYS PAKISTAN’S 28-YEAR EFFORTS IN AFGHANISTAN
WASHED AWAY By our correspondent
PESHAWAR: People from different walks of life throughout the NWFP
Monday expressed deep resentment over the US and its allies' air attacks
on Afghanistan and termed it as direct aggression on the poor Muslim
country.
Chief of National Awami Party Pakistan (NAPP) Ajmal Khattak said the
attacks would further devastate Afghanistan and asked for immediate halt
to it. He said for restoration of lasting peace in the region a solution
must be found according to the traditions and values of Afghan culture.
Ajmal feared spill over of the war to the neighbouring countries and
said that in order to resolve the issue a representative Jirga should be
convened….
…Leader of Pakistan People's Party and former interior minister Maj
Gen (retd) Naseerullah Babar expressed deep resentment over the US
attacks on Afghanistan and condemned Pakistan government's support to
them. He said it was very unfortunate that all efforts of Pakistan for
the past 28 years were washed away by a decision of a "coward
leader".
He said the support of Northern Alliance to the US and its allies has
further triggered the chances of Afghanistan's disintegration. He said
these attacks would cause colossal losses to human lives, who are
already ravaged by the continued decades long war…In Batkhela, Jamiat
Ahle Hadith Nooristan leader Maulana Taj Muhammad Nooristani of
Afghanistan said the US attacks on Afghanistan will further increase the
anger against America in the Muslim world….
…A meeting held at Darul Uloom Zargari was attended by religious
scholars from Orakzai, Kurram, Khyber, North Waziristan and South
Waziristan agencies. It was decided that all ulema would work
under the leadership of Mualana Fazlur Rahman to prepare people for
jihad in Afghanistan. Leader of Pakistan People's Party (Sherpao)
Sikandar Hayat Sherpao expressed concern over the US attacks on
Afghanistan but said these were inevitable due to the inflexible
attitude of the Taliban regime. In a statement the younger Sherpao said
the air strikes were aimed at targeting terrorist camps and their
collaborators. He hoped the US-led coalition would adopt all
precautionary measures and make the operation short and
objective-oriented to ensure the safety of Afghan civilians. The PPP
leader regretted the miseries of Afghan people, saying they should not
be subjected to further sufferings. In Mingora, the Tehrik Nafaz
Shariat-e-Muhammadi's central leader Maulana Sufi Muhammad termed the US
attacks on Afghanistan as un-Islamic and said in these circumstances
Jihad was mandatory on each and every Muslim….
…He said the TNSM has started preparations for sending youth for
jihad to Afghanistan and was now registering names of volunteers. In
Hangu, NWFP Amir of JUI Maulana Amanullah announced the waging of jihad
against the US following its aggression on Afghanistan. He said the US
aggression on Afghanistan has once again awakened the Muslims and there
would be an open war against the US and its allies. Amanullah said
President Musharraf was "the American puppet" and his decision
has caused insecurity among the people…
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2001-daily/09-10-2001/national/n5.htm
***This analysis piece discusses the "eerie silence" that
is surrounding the militant religious parties in Pakistan, the possible
The Asia Times October 8
THE ROVING EYE
MOMENT OF TRUTH FOR PAKISTAN’S JIHADIS
By Pepe Escobar
PESHAWAR - It's Saturday morning in Peshawar on the Pakistan-Afghan
border and Maulana Fazlur Rahman is very angry. With his long white
beard, orange-and-white turban and ultra-chic silk gold and brown robe
over white shalwar kameez (tunic), the rotund leader of one of three
factions of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) cuts a dashing and imposing
figure.
Addressing a rally of at least 7,000 screaming Deobandi (school of
thought) and pro-Taliban supporters, Rahman puts on an absolutely
over-the-top performance. He lashes out at the US - "the biggest
terrorist state of the world". He threatens to wage a jihad against
America if
Afghanistan is attacked….
…Maybe the whole thing was a bit too much. A few hours later, the
Musharraf government delivers its response: Fazlur Rahman is to be put
under house arrest at his abode in Dera Ismail Khan, in the tribal
areas, to become the first prominent pro-Taliban supporter to be
detained in the country…
…But on the fringes, important clerics have only one question: what
does Islam say in the case where there is an attack on a Muslim country
by a non-Muslim power? One of the important clerics at the madrassa is
none other than Rahman's brother, Maulana Atta-ur-Rahman…Maulana Atta
agrees that the crackdown was expected - and that it will be countered
with "dozens of demonstrations all over the NWFP and in
Peshawar". He emphasizes that "we are friends of the Taliban.
If the Pakistani government takes any steps against the Taliban, we will
resist. We can do anything for them, even sacrifice our lives". In
answer to the query, is there going to be a jihad?, Maulana Atta
answers, "Yes, but against America only." He stresses that
"politics is part of the jihad". For him, the "majority
of the NWFP and the whole of Pakistan is against Musharraf's policies:
in the event of an attack on Afghanistan, all Pakistanis will resist
Musharraf also".
In his opinion, "the rulers of all Islamic countries are under
pressure from America, acting as slaves for any kind of reason. But the
common people totally disagree with these rulers." Regarding what
were then the imminent US attacks, he said that should they occur,
"the world will see what we will do". In other words, a jihad
against America appears inevitable…
…A few hours later, after many a fiery speech inside the Madani
mosque criticizing the Musharraf government and urging Muslims to
fulfill their obligation and wage a jihad once America attacks
Afghanistan, the rally finally paralyzes one of Peshawar's traditional
bazaars. There seem to be as many foreign TV crews as participants.
There are the inevitable bin Laden posters, denouncements of Musharraf,
cries of jihad. These images of less than a thousand screaming diehards
are now replaying non-stop all over the world. The impression is that
these people are about to topple the government. Could they? Not really.
The militant wings of Pakistan's religious parties are, at least for
the moment, eerily silent. For many moderate commentators, everything
about them is nothing but a storm in a teacup. But their silence could
mean the lull before the storm. The army in the past has seemed
reluctant to face them head-on, but now apparently the gloves are off.
And now is the moment of truth: Sunday night's American attacks are
supposed to be met with a jihad. Interviews with Afghan immigrants or
refugees in the tribal areas, and with the local NWFP Pashtun
population, reveal that a jihad is the only solution. Some echo the JUI
call that if the Pakistani government helps the Americans, the jihad
will be directed against it as well.
There have been widespread reports for days in the tribal areas of
thousands being mobilized and armed to fight alongside the Taliban in
Afghanistan, in what certainly will develop into a bloody guerrilla
warfare. Hardcore religious militants number several thousand. They know
how to deal with light and heavy weapons, and explosives. Their suicide
squads are supposed to be extremely dangerous. There is also a
substantial faction of religious militants inside the Pakistani army
which could cause havoc with Musharraf's plan of silencing the religious
parties.
So far the pro-Taliban position of the different factions of the JUI
has failed to galvanize moderate Pakistani public opinion. But all bets
are off now with the first attacks already having taken place, and
depending on the scale and ferocity of further attacks on the Taliban,
and above all, Pashtun Afghanistan.
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CJ06Df02.html
***While Pakistan deals with internal dissent, it is
also involved in a situation of rising tension with India and the U.S.
has taken notice:
October 9 Pioneer News Service/New Delhi
PERVEZ BREAKS ICE WITH ATAL
In a day of fast-moving developments, Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf began by verbally assaulting India at a news conference in
Islamabad and ended with a longish telephonic conversation with Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. For most of the day, the Pakistani
establishment battled rioters on the streets of Peshawar, Quetta and
Karachi who turned out in large numbers to agitate against President
Musharraf's support for the US-led military action in Afghanistan.
In a surprise move, President Musharraf called Mr Vajpayee Monday
evening within 24 hours of the first US-led attack on Afghanistan only
to be told that if Kashmir is Pakistan's single-point agenda, there
cannot be much progress in India-Pakistan bilateral relations.
Ever since Mr Vajpayee sent a rather terse note to US President
George Bush last week warning the US, and by extension, Pakistan, that
India's patience was not infinite, there has been apprehension in
Western quarters that India could act on the cross-border terrorism
issue. President Musharraf's call to the Indian Prime Minister
apparently comes under pressure from Washington, with the US President
telling the Pakistani leadership not to attempt anything that would rock
the Washington-led coalition in Afghanistan…
…Mr Vajpayee, in categorical terms, told the Pakistani President
that in the perpetration of terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir,
particularly in the context of the Srinagar car bomb blast last week,
"your Government has done nothing." President Musharraf
attempted to assuage Mr Vajpayee by saying that his Government was
inquiring into the incident. President Musharraf is also understood to
have told Mr Vajpayee that the resurrected bilateral dialogue process
between the two countries ought to continue. At this point he was
reminded by Mr Vajpayee that Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism in
J&K was not conducive to a progressive relationship. Clearly, the
Indian leadership has conveyed to Islamabad that terrorism and diplomacy
cannot go hand in hand. http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon2.asp?cat=\story1&d=FRONT_PAGE
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CJ06Df02.html
Copyright 2001, Gloria R. Lalumia
The latest news from the DEBKAfile at www.debka.com…Again,
information from this site may not be 100% accurate, but we are
providing these stories because, in the past, reports from this site
have often been borne out…
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEPLOYED
6 October: DEBKAfile's military and intelligence sources report that
Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, in a single 70-minute
conversation on September 23, eleven days after the terrorist assaults
in New York and Washington, agreed on the deployment of tactical nuclear
weapons. This is an epic shift in the global balance of strength.
Putin gave the nod for US forces poised in Central Asia to jump
into Afghanistan to be armed with tactical nuclear weapons, such as
small neutron bombs, which emit strong radiation, nuclear mines, shells,
and other nuclear ammunition suited to commando warfare in mountainous
terrain.
In return, Bush assented to Russia deploying tactical nuclear weapons
units around Chechnya after Moscow’s ultimatum to the rebels, some of
whom are backed by Osama Bin Laden, to surrender, went by without
response. (More)
Over the last week, I’ve been wondering why things were very quiet
in the Chinese press. Today, I again searched around several Chinese
sites and found no reports of Chinese involvement (the biggest story was
China’s gaining its first World Cup berth). However, Debkafile is
reporting this story:
CHINIA MOVES FORCES INTO AFGHANISTAN
October: Before even the launching of the major US military offensive
in Afghanistan, long Chinese convoys were carrying armed Chinese Muslim
servicemen through northwest China into Afghanistan, according to
DEBKAfile’s intelligence experts.
They were sent in to fight alongside the ruling Taliban and
Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Their number is estimated roughly
between 5000 and 15,000. Our sources report another three convoys are
behind the first 3000, who crossed the frontier Friday, October 5.
They are entering Afghanistan along the ancient Krakoram Road
to the Afghan-Pakistani border, through the Kulik Pass of Little Pamir,
which is situated in one of the highest and most remote regions of the
world. Beijing is deploying this force in two places:
A. Whakyir, the Kirgyz tribal encampment near the Little
Pamir-Tadjik frontier, opposite the swelling concentration of US and
Russian Special Forces and air strength. (More)
B. Jalalabad in north Afghanistan, at the foot of the Hindu
Kush range. DEBKAfile’s Chinese sources reveal that, immediately
after the terrorist strikes in the United States on September 11, the
Chinese intelligence service, MSS, handed in to the defense ministry in
Beijing their estimation that the United States would go to war to
overthrow the Taliban regime, for the sake of which it would sign a pact
with Russia. The Chinese leadership viewed this eventuality as the most
significant shift in the global balance since the 1962 Chinese-Russian
feud, with dangerous implications for China’s world standing and its
interests in Central and Southwest Asia. They decided it must be
counteracted.
The only satisfactory outcome of the Bin Laden crisis in
Chinese eyes is the redeployment of Japanese-based US troops to the
Persian Gulf, when the Kitty Hawk carrier moved the 3rd
Marines Division out of Okinawa last week.
Chinese intelligence did not miss the absence of fighters and
reconnaissance craft on her decks. The planes stayed behind, but the
very fact that the Kitty Hawk is no longer within operational range of
the Straits of Taiwan leaves the disputed island with diminished
protection.
Beijing also took note of additional US military movements,
including the Army’s 10th Mountain Division based at Fort
Drum, New York and that of another formerly Pacific-based unit, the 25th
Infantry Division, out of Hawaii to the Persian Gulf.
According to DEBKAfile ’s Far East experts, the removal of
substantial US military strength from the Pacific Rim opened the way for
Chinese intervention in Afghanistan and its effort to slow down the
US-Russian advance.
NOTE: We reported the departure of U.S. Navy amphibious units
from Japan in a previous World Media Watch.
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: Just before attacks on Afghanistan begin,
The Observer reports the FBI still warning about widespread military
strikes. Why?
Because if after bombing Afghanistan into smithereens we still
don’t catch Bin Laden, then "it would be like kicking open a
hornet’s nest."
Meanwhile, the Afghan News Network reports via Reuters that Bin Laden
could have as many as 4 "doubles" roaming the countryside; In
the previous WMW we reported on the efforts to re-install the former
king of Afghanistan in a new government—but the former number 2
official in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Terrence Burke,
says the king was surrounded by people involved in the drug trade and
the Northern Alliance as well as Bin Laden also profit from heroin
trafficking; how the war on terrorism will tie in with the war on
drugs—a Stratfor Intelligence report details the Bin Laden connection
to East Africa—drug arrests made September 29 in Uganda may be tied to
Bin Laden; finally, a terrible example of how bad U.S. security was
before the
WTC—how Mohammed Atta boarded one of the planes with a passport
from the "Republic of Conch."
**************************
**The Observer (London) reports that the FBI wary of strikes right up
to just before they started:
KILL BIN LADEN OR RISK CATASTROPHE, SAYS FBI
War on Terrorism: Observer special
Ed Vulliamy in New York Sunday October 7, 2001 The Observer
Investigators tracking Osama bin Laden have emerged as a cogent voice of
caution over widespread United States military strikes against
Afghanistan.
There is pressure in America for action to match the rhetoric of
President George Bush and others during the first weeks of the crisis,
but one official from the security services said: 'This is not a war
that will be won by impatience.'
But those charged with the most onerous task of all - killing or
catching the world's most wanted man - acknowledge that widespread
military action might crush the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which
protects their target.
But, say sources in the intelligence community, the FBI and those
preparing the legal case against bin Laden at the Justice Department, if
such action allowed their target to escape it would prove catastrophic,
igniting his terrorist network with 'more resolve than ever'…
…Officials in the Justice Department and intelligence services
believe that the bin Laden network, still operative in cells across the
globe, would implode if he were beheaded. Investigators laid out two
scenarios: 'There's a notion that if you behead the snake, another two
crawl out of the swamp,' said one official. 'This situation is the
opposite: cut off the snake's head and the body shrivels up. The
important thing is to get the man.'
On the other hand, if Afghanistan was bombed into submission and bin
Laden survived, it would be like kicking open a hornet's nest: 'This
would just burnish his image and make the network even more determined.
The worst thing would be a military operation that caused civilian
casualties, let him escape and steeled the resolve of his operatives.'
(MORE)
http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,564845,00.html
**And the Afghan News Network carries a story why Bin Laden may be so
hard to find:
BIN LADEN LOOK-ALIKES REPORTEDLY PLACED IN AFGHANISTAN
DUBAI (Reuters) - The brother of Afghanistan's late opposition
commander said in remarks published on Sunday that Osama bin Laden has
doubles traveling around Afghanistan to confuse people over his
whereabouts.
"The latest report we had a few days ago locates him in
Jalalabad. But we know that he has several doubles -- individuals who
look like him and travel in Toyota convoys like him -- to foment
confusion," Ahmad Wali Masood told Saudi Arabia's English-language
Arab News daily.
"A few months ago we had reports of four Osama look-alikes in
different locations at the same time," said Masood, the brother of
the legendary Ahmad Shah Masood who was assassinated last month.-
Article added at 12:11 PM (CST) on 10/7/2001.
http://www.myafghan.com/news.asp?id=-1027712235
**Meanwhile, the former king of Afghanistan carries some baggage in
the form of a drug connection during his reign:
OPIUM DEN IN THE AFGHAN BADLANDS, ADD DRUGS TO A DEVIL’S BREW
10/5/01
By Edward T. Pound and Chitra Ragavan
King Mohammad Zahir Shah, Afghanistan’s last monarch, is likely to
play a principal role in organizing a new Afghan government should the
U.S. coalition or internal forces topple the militant Taliban
Government. The 86-year-old Zahir Shah, seen as a unifying figure by
some anti-Talbian forces, ruled Afghanistan for decades before he was
deposed in 1973. But, information is now emerging that could damage his
new standing. According to the former number 2 official in the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration, Zahir Shah’s inner circle was heavily
involved in drug trafficking during the early 1970s, even using his
plane to smuggle hashish to Italy.
The king himself was not linked to the drug business, says Terrence
Burke, the former deputy DEA administrator who was based in Afghanistan
from 1971 to 1973.But, he says, a top powerful aide named Mohammed Rahim
Panjshiri and others close to Zahir Shah were profiting from the drug
trade. He says his information came from reliable informers and also
from Sardar Sultan Ghazi, whom he described as a first cousin of the
king and a powerful official in his own right. Burke says he has kept
detailed notes from his days in Afghanistan. In June 1973, he says,
Prince Ghazi pledged to inform King Zahir Shah of the drug running but
warned that Panjshiri was very powerful. "He selects the
ministers,’’ Prince Ghazi said, according to Burke’s recollection.
"People around the king were involved,’’ says Burke, who now
runs a international investigative firm outside Denver….
…Should Zahir Shah become a power broker in a new government,
Burke’s disclosures could prove troublesome. Afghanistan has been a
country awash in opium and many of its leaders have been the principal
feeders at the trough. The militant Islamic Taliban government,
terrorist Osama bin Laden and, to a degree, the resistance group known
as the Northern Alliance all profit from heroin trafficking, according
to American officials. "Heroin is to Afghanistan," says one,
"what oil is to Saddam Hussein."
Bin Laden’s ties to the drug trade have been difficult to pin down.
But, American officials say that reliable intelligence reports from U.S.
allies have linked him and his terrorist al Qaeda network to the drug
trade….
…Opium and heroin may become a target of the U.S. war against the
Taliban. Some U.S. officials are convinced that drugs, stockpiled by the
Taliban after a ban in July 2000 in a reported scheme to drive up
prices, must be destroyed. Afghanistan became the world’s largest
producer of raw opium in the 1990s, and the drug trade is seen as an
important revenue stream, particularly to the Taliban. In a recent
report, the United Nations said the Taliban buys arms and trains
terrorists with some of the drug profits. American officials estimate
that the Taliban makes at least $50 million a year by taxing and selling
opium and by providing protection for smugglers. Bin Laden also profits,
they say, by providing armed fighters to protect shipments. They say he
did not need the money to finance his terrorist war but wanted to cement
his relationship with the Taliban, which has provided him a safe haven
since 1996.
It is not a pretty picture. In Afghanistan, explains one official,
"nobody wears a cape or a white hat.’’
- With Gordon Witkin and Eleni E. Dimmler
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/011005.htm
**The drug connection to East Africa takes front and center stage:
EAST AFRICA: TERRORISM’S TIES TO DRUGS 2000 GMT, 011005
Summary
Seven Pakistanis and a Zambian en route to Europe were arrested
recently in Uganda. The suspects are allegedly tied to Osama bin Laden
and have also been linked to drug trafficking. Suspected terrorist
networks in East Africa overlap with the drug trade from South Asia,
making East Africa a vital source for information on funding sources for
al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Analysis
Uganda's Joint Anti-Terrorism Taskforce arrested seven Pakistanis and
a Zambian Sept. 29 in Entebbe, Uganda. The suspects -- thought to be
both drug traffickers and members of Saudi exile Osama bin Laden's
terrorism network -- were en route from Rwanda to Europe, The Post, a
daily in Lusaka, Zambia, reported Oct. 2.
These arrests in Uganda are part of a region-wide law enforcement
effort to sniff out possible terrorist networks. For the moment
investigators are focusing on suspects with possible ties to bin Laden.
Ample evidence, however, links the suspected terrorists to drug
trafficking. These ties will lead the FBI and Interpol to combine the
hunt for terrorists with investigations into regional drug-trafficking
networks -- possibly uncovering a key to the financial resources of both
bin Laden and Afghanistan's ruling Taliban. ….
…Details of the relationship between the region's drug-trafficking
networks and terrorism remain unclear. But circumstantial evidence
points to a definite connection. Drug traffickers based in Afghanistan
and Pakistan have established hubs in the predominately Muslim coastal
city of Mombasa, Kenya, and in the two islands comprising Zanzibar,
Tanzania, where hundreds of Pakistani nationals and their East African
counterparts are arrested for drug smuggling each year, according to the
United Nations and government agencies.
Several of those connected to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings hailed
from these coastal regions. Also one of South Asia's most notorious drug
lords, Dawood Ibrahim, allegedly has ties to bin Laden. Ibrahim often
operates out of Karachi, Pakistan, and has made several trips to Kabul,
Aghanistan, according to Indian intelligence officials…
…But reports from Pakistan indicate that heroin prices in border
regions with Afghanistan have dropped dramatically in recent days. This
suggests the Taliban and Afghan traders likely stockpiled the drug and
are now dumping heroin on the market in anticipation of U.S. strikes,
Agence France-Presse reported, quoting sources in Islamabad.
A growing tide of drugs from Afghanistan would necessitate more
couriers taking the drugs to market. This should bring more traffickers
through East Africa, giving investigators more opportunities to snag
them…
…The United States will attempt to focus its efforts on uncovering
the financial choke points for bin Laden and the Taliban. Curtailing the
drug traffic through East Africa may be impossible. But efforts to
dismantle the supporting infrastructure will likely become a part of the
hunt for terrorists.
http://www.stratfor.com/home/0110052000.htm
**Pravda reports how the "Republic of Conch" was involved
in the plane attack on the World Trade Center and comments on the
"cultural level" of the personnel checking passports that
day…
2001-10-06
USA: TERRORIST HAD PASSPORT FROM NONEXISTENT COUNTRY
The terrorist Mohammed Atta boarded one of the aircraft that collided
with the World Trade Center on September 11th using a passport from the
"Republic of Conch," which does not exist.
The "Republic of Conch" was born in 1982, as a protest
against inspection of vehicles which were leaving Florida. The
inhabitants of Key West declared that if their vehicles were not good
enough to travel to the rest of the USA, they would declare themselves
an independent country.
Peter Andersen, the leader of this "Republic" started to
issue "passports" of the "Republic of Conch." An
annual fair was held at which passports and flags of this
"Republic" were sold. In the last year, demand for the
passports has soared and Mohammed Atta was one of the many buyers.
Such details show how lax security operations had become in the
United States of America and bring into question the cultural level of
the person who checked Atta’s passport.
Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY
PRAVDA.Ru
LISBON PORTUGAL
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/06/17232.html
Copyright 2001, Gloria R. Lalumia
(Top)
