All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

On September 11, 2001, Afghanistan was identified as a “state sponsor of terror”, without a shred of evidence. The 9/11 attacks were categorized as an act of war, an attack against America by an unnamed foreign power.

Was it a “False Flag” which consisted in blaming Afghanistan of having attacked America? The right to self-defense was put forth. The US-NATO aggressor was portrayed as the victim.

What Happened on September 11, 2001?

“A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without supporting evidence, that “Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects”.

CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning”

Image (right). George Tenet with G. W. Bush and Dick Cheney

Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey pointed his finger at “state sponsorship,” implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, “I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution.”

Meanwhile, parroting official statements, the Western media mantra had approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in the Middle East. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times:

“When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.(Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, September 12, 2001)

The October 7, 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan

On September 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, at a meeting of the Atlantic Council in Brussels, NATO invoked for the first time in its history “Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – its collective defence clause” declaring the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon “to be an attack against all NATO members:

“The tragic death of thousands of Americans on 9/11 allegedly instrumented by Al Qaeda (with the support of an unnamed foreign power) was used as a pretext and a justification for launching the first phase of the Middle East Central Asian War, which consisted in the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan.” Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, September 12, 2001)

The decision of the Atlantic Council to invoke Article V (officially confirmed in late September), was conducive to the US-NATO bombing and invasion of Afghanistan which commenced on October 7 2001, four weeks after the tragic events of 9/11.

The U.S. led war against Afghanistan consists essentially of two interrelated stages.

The first stage tagged as the Soviet-Afghan War started at the height of the Cold War in 1979  was a carefully planned military and intelligence operation led by the United States, which consisted in recruiting and financing the “Islamic brigades” (Mujahideen)  including Osama bin Laden.

The second stage, namely the US-NATO October 7, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan four weeks after 9/11, following the decision of the Atlantic Council to Invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

The Criminal Invasion of Afghanistan: The Just War Narrative

The October 7 2001 invasion was heralded as “A Just War” by Professor Richard Falk, renowned scholar, professor of International and Humanitarian Law at Princeton and anti-war activist.

The statement of Professor Richard Falk, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) formulated in the immediate  wake of 9/11 and published four days after the commencement of the US-NATO bombing campaign was intent upon providing legitimacy to America’s war on Afghanistan:

“The perpetrators of the September 11 attack cannot be reliably neutralized by nonviolent or diplomatic means; a response that includes military action is essential to diminish the threat of repetition, to inflict punishment and to restore a sense of security at home and abroad. 

The extremist political vision held by Osama bin Laden, which can usefully be labeled “apocalyptic terrorism,” places this persisting threat well outside any framework of potential reconciliation or even negotiation for several reasons: Its genocidal intent is directed generically against Americans and Jews;

its proclaimed goal is waging an unconditional civilizational war–Islam against the West– without drawing any distinction between civilian and military targets; it has demonstrated a capacity and willingness to inflict massive and traumatizing damage on our country and a tactical ingenuity and ability to carry out its missions of destruction by reliance on the suicidal devotion of its adherents.”  (Richard Falk, The Nation,    Defining a Just War, October 11, 2001, 4 days after the invasion of Afghanistan, emphasis added).

Note the emphasis on:

“genocidal intent against Americans and Jews”

as part of an alleged

“civilizational war of Islam against the West”.

Palestine 2023: Is It Not “The Other Way Round”? What We Are Witnessing Is “The Genocidal War of the West Against Muslim Countries.”

Osama bin Laden’s “Apocalyptic Terrorism” has provided a justification for the waging of America’s “Global War on Terrorism”, i.e. the numerous post 9/11 U.S. led “humanitarian wars” and “counter-terrorism operations” against Muslim countries (with the support of Israel) in the course of the last 22 years, which have resulted in millions of deaths.

Professor Richard Falk is a life-long anti-war activist. He is renowned for his commitment to the rights of Palestinians and his courageous stance against the Israeli government. In February 2001, Professor Falk was appointed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to serve in the Inquiry Commission pertaining to the occupied Palestinian territories.

In March 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Professor Richard Falk as UN Special Rapporteur pertaining to human rights in the Palestinian occupied territories.

Professor Falk’s statement entitled “Defining A Just War, Ends and Means” was  formulated 8 months following his OHCR February 2001 appointment to serve in the Palestine Inquiry Commission. In a February 2001 Interview, Falk raised the question as to whether Palestinians have a “Right to Resistance”: 

“The [UN OHCR] team will consider two major issues, he said. “One is evaluating whether the conditions of occupation are such as to give the Palestinians some kind of right of resistance,” said Falk. “And if they have that right, then what are the limits to that right?”

“We must ask specific questions, such as what kinds of weapons were used?” he said. “And how does one interpret and understand the vulnerability of children? For example, the Palestinians contend that the Israeli army targeted children, and the Israeli army says Palestinians used children as human shields.” (Princeton University Report, February 2001, (emphasis added)

According to Falk –referring to the role of Osama bin Laden– “apocalyptic terrorism” is marked by the conduct of

“an unconditional civilizational war of Islam against the West”.

This statement by Richard Falk constitutes a misunderstanding as to what happened on 9/11. 9/11 was a False Flag.

I should underscore, however, that in recent statements on Palestine, Professor Falk’s critique of the Netanyahu government goes against his earlier “Just War” stance formulated in the immediate wake of 9/11.

The evidence presented below documents the alleged role of Bin Laden in the September 11, 2001 attacks, which provided the pretext and the justification to wage war not only on Afghanistan but also against numerous Muslim countries (in the aftermath of 9/11), under the mantle of America’s “Global War on Terrorism”. 

There Was No Evidence that Afghanistan Had Attacked America on 9/11

Why was George W. Bush reluctant to negotiate the extradition of Osama bin Laden? The Bin Laden- Bush family relationship?

What Happened on September 10, 2001? 

1. Poppy G.H.W. Bush Senior Meets Osama’s Brother Shafiq at The Ritz Carlton Hotel on September 10, 2001

One day before the 9/11 attacks, as well as on the morning of 9/11, the dad of the sitting President of the United States of America, George Herbert Walker Bush was meeting none other than Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of the alleged terror mastermind Osama bin Laden. Sounds absurd?

According to The Washington Post:

2. Osama bin Laden is Hospitalized in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on September 10, 2001

Confirmed by Dan Rather, CBS News, Osama bin Laden had been admitted to a Pakistani Military hospital in Rawalpindi on the 10th of September local time, less than 24 hours before the terrorist attacks. 

This CBS report casts doubt on the official narrative to the effect that Osama bin Laden was responsible for coordinating the 9/11 attacks. It would be impossible for Osama bin Laden to enter a Pakistani military hospital unnoticed. His whereabouts were known.

U.S. Foreign Policy in the Wake of 9/11. “Just War” Against Muslim Countries, “Counter-Terrorism”

The above statement by Major Bunel, was confirmed by the late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook (shortly before his passing) in a pointed article in The Guardian:

The Criminalization of War

Richard Falk denies the hegemonic nature of U.S. foreign policy:

“Another form of antiwar advocacy rests on a critique of the United States as an imperialist superpower or empire. This view also seems dangerously inappropriate in addressing the challenge posed by the massive crime against humanity committed on September 11.

Whatever the global role of the United States –and it is certainly responsible for much global suffering and injustice, giving rise to widespread resentment that at its inner core fuels the terrorist impulse– it cannot be addressed so long as this movement of global terrorism is at large and prepared to carry on with its demonic work.

These longer-term concerns –which include finding ways to promote Palestinian self-determination, the internationalization of Jerusalem and a more equitable distribution of the benefits of global economic growth and development–must be addressed.

Of course, much of the responsibility for the failure to do so lies with the corruption and repressive policies of governments, especially in the Middle East, outside the orbit of US influence. A distinction needs to be drawn as persuasively as possible between inherently desirable lines of foreign policy reform and retreating in the face of terrorism.”  (Richard Falk, Defining a Just War, The Nation, October 11, 2023, emphasis added)

With. regard to the above quotation, is it not “the other way round”? Many of the governments “inside” rather than “outside” the orbit of US influence are corrupt. Why? Because their leaders are threatened, coopted and/or bribed by Washington.

With regard to the so-called “movement of global terrorism”, see the National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), (signed by President Reagan) which de facto authorized stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen.

To read the full text of NSDD 166, click image below.

The promotion of “Radical Islam” was a deliberate CIA initiative (NSDD 166) which in the wake of 9/11 has served as justification to waging a “Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and sub–Saharan Africa.

“Before” and “After” a US Led “Humanitarian War”

Selected excerpts from 

America’s “Just War” against Afghanistan: Women’s Rights “Before” and “After” America’s Destructive Wars.

suggest you access full article

Afghanistan “Before”

Afghanistan “After”

The Fate of Women and Children