"Afghanistan was a failed state."- State Dept in defense of 9/11 Fraud allegations.

"Afghanistan was a failed state."- State Dept in defense of 9/11 Fraud allegations.

To: zerhoune@od.nih.gov, SpinLyme@yahoogroups,com ,
kshepard@calea.org, fitzmas@gmail,com , patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov,
modelt1918@sbcglobal,net , jdrazen@nejm.org, letters@courant,com ,
Jgerberding@cdc.gov, lender@courant,com , michael.cole@po.state.ct.us,
conndcj@po.state.ct.us, executive-editor@nytimes,com , managing-
editor@nytimes,com , news-tips@nytimes,com , the-arts@nytimes,com ,
bizday@nytimes,com , foreign@nytimes,com , metro@nytimes,com ,
national@nytimes,com , dvbid@cdc.gov, brigidcallahan@optonline,net ,
trvl@hotmail,com , ubinas@courant,com , mas1@concentric,net ,
campbell@courant,com , jhornberger@fff.org, thomas.carson@usdoj.gov,
thomas.ryan@po.state.ct.us, kurtzh@washpost,com ,
georgewill@washpost,com , horgan@courant,com ,
commissioner.dcf@po.state.ct.us, cohencolumn@aol,com ,
FalNields@aol,com , bransfield@comcast,net , vtsherr@comcast,net ,
oca@po.state.ct.us, dand@davila-dilzer,com ,
scott.murphy@po.state.ct.us, governor.rell@po.state.ct.us,
attorney.general@po.state.ct.us, randall.samborn@usdoj.gov
Cc: francam@ucia.gov, dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir,
eugenerobinson@washpost,com , horgan@courant,com ,
bmiller@newstimes,com , trvl@hotmail,com , rastro18@aol,com ,
billcurryct@gmail,com , thomas.carson@usdoj.gov, amcguigan@rms-law,com ,
rjmurzyn@aol,com , paulcraigroberts@yahoo,com ,
sidney blumenthal@yahoo,com , criminal.division@usdoj.gov,
karla.dobinski@usdoj.gov, christopher.christie@usdoj.gov

Subject: "Afghanistan was a failed state."- State Dept in defense of
9/11 Fraud allegations.

Date: Apr 9, 2008 9:22 AM

RESPONDING TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT, BELOW.
Recall that the State Department does not speak for Americans since we
never elected
this cabal in DC, and neither did we permit Congress to turn over
their "authority"
to declare war on our behalf since we elect them *** to represent us.
***
Congress is supposed to do what *we* tell them to do, and Congress is
not to tell
*us* why they voted a certain way after the fact, and neither are they
to "convince"
us of anything. That's the media's job, were they to decide to jump
back
into the original game.

================================
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS BALONEY:

1) Afghanistan was a failed state because of US CIA intervention
including being
friendly to Osama Bin Laden in order that Russia could have their own
VietNam.
It is also true that Afghanistan is very rich in mineral wealth:
http :// www .ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071113/afghan resources 071113/20071113?hub=TopStories

It is in the interest of the new and fake Bushie Empire of the Former
United States
to *create* failed states, especially when they are wealthy, in case
no one has
read the Kissinger/Bush/Rockefeller Resources report.
http :// www .population-security.org/28-APP2.html


2) Additionally, Enron was about to be charged with Human Rights
abuses in Afghanistan
while performing their various machinations to get at the Caspian Sea
oil:
http :// www .actionlyme.org/BIN LADEN BUSH.htm
http :// www .actionlyme.org/BIN LADEN BUSH PART I.htm

==================================3) Gonzales' Afghanistan Torture Memo:
http :// lawofwar.org/Torture Memos analysis.htm
On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a
Memorandum to President
Bush regarding a presidential decision on January 18, 2002, (the White
House has
issued an Order to that effect, dated February 7, 2002, see below)
that captured
members of the Taliban were not protected under the Geneva POW
Convention ("GPW"),
to which the legal advisor to the Secretary of State had objected. He
advised that
"there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW [the ] does
not
apply ...to the conflict with the Taliban." Mr. Gonzales argued that
grounds
for the determination might include:

1) a determination that Afghanistan was a failed state "...because
the
Taliban did not exercise full control over the territory and people,
was not recognized
by the international community, and was not capable of fulfilling its
international
obligations" (see definition of statehood in Cpt. 1.3 and discussion
in Kadic
v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 244 to 245 (2nd Cir, 1995) ) and/or

2) a "determination that the Taliban and its forces were, in fact,
not
a government but a militant, terrorist-like group."


===================
HERE IS OUR POLICY:
"We, The Former United States, have determined that the uncooperative
people
who should be dead anyway because they happen to live over the
property and resources
we want (Kissinger 200NSSM), and who "harbor" the people we employ to
terrorize, entrap, and weaken Russia, and who we have infiltrated
along with the
Mossad (9/11 stunt), but who we also pretend to be unable to catch
(prolonging the
War On Terror, until it includes "terrorists" in ALL the countries who
have goodies we want, starting with oil), shall be first destabilized
with a "create
the terrorist" assistance program, and we shall not be guilty of war
crimes
because we will hire really stupid lawyers who say things like,
"unstable countries
who have people in them, have changed the status of the people into
sub-people,
and who shall not be provided the protections of Human Rights or
Geneva Conventions,"
because in that way, we can terrorize the entire world into
cooperating with the
overall ActionPlan of stealing the world's resources for the elite."
==================
Now, we're simply not putting up with any more bullshit and nonsense
by the
war criminals in the White House. We do not support this government,
because it
not in any way, resembles the kind of elected representative
government, as outlined
by the Constitution writers, which happens to DEFINE US, us, the USA,
as the people
who hold the reigns of power, and who have the right to a well-armed
militia to
overthrow any usurpers or performers of a coup d' Etat, as is the case
with
the current Bush Administration.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http :// www .actionlyme.org
=====================
http :// www .presstv.ir/detail.aspx?idP882§ionid510203

US: Sept. 11 not a pretext to invade

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:52:51

US State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack

The US Department of State spokesman has repudiated the recent remarks
by Iran's
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his remarks, President Ahmadinejad said that the September 11
attacks were a
pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

"We went into Afghanistan because that's where the attack originated.
We
went after al-Qaeda, we went after the Taliban. Afghanistan was a
failed state,"
Sean McCormack noted.

Commenting on the reasons for invading Iraq, McCormack dismissively
remarked that
the issue has been discussed at length and the reasons for invading
Iraq are clearly
understood.

However, McCormack failed to elaborate on how the US has clamped down
on al-Qaeda
and Taliban, while their leaders, including Osama bin Laden, Mullah
Omar and Aiman
Al-Zawaheri, are doing well in Pakistan.

The US has failed to take any serious action to detain leaders of the
two insurgents
groups ever since its its invasion of the country in October 2001.

HSH/JC/BGH