What are Canadians saying when they display bumper stickers that say “I support our troops”? They are stating that they support war. They are stating that they support the unlawful killing of the innocent people of Afghanistan. They are stating they support the killing of little Afghani girls and boys and their mothers. They state that they support wars of aggression. They are stating that they do not want peace. They are stating that they want the death and destruction to continue. Why are they stating all this? Because we are the enemy. We attacked them. Canada and all Canadians has the blood of the innocent on our hands. I challenge all true Christians to go through your Bible and look for what God says about the shedding of innocent blood. God will forgive a lot of things, but there is a price that is paid by the individual and the nation for that sin. “Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed.” (Deuteronomy 19:10). According to Islam it is a great sin to kill an innocent person. Killing one innocent person is regarded as equivalent to killing all of mankind. Every Christian and Jew knows the Ten Commandments (a list of religious and moral imperatives that were given to us by God). What does it say about killing? What does it say about lying? According to the Ten Commandments it is a great sin for any Christian or Jew to kill or lie.

Not one Canadian has sense enough to realize that our troops are killing the innocent people of Afghanistan and their duly elected Taliban ruling party. The Taliban has never been a terrorist organization. Taliban is the name of an Afghanistan political party much like Canada has Liberals, Conservatives and NDP political parties. The Afghanistan people and their Taliban ruling party have not attacked us, we attacked them. They have not killed our women and children we have killed their women and children.

When did you decide to become war mongers instead of peace keepers? When did you become baby killers? You are free. They are not. Your supporting of our troops gives your government justification and approval to keep sending our troops to continue to kill those innocent people, people who did not attack us or cause us any harm and who were no threat to us. We murdered them for what reason? They are not and never were a threat to us or any other country. They are very poor. They have no military because they are so poor as a nation. If they had a military we would not be there, the US would most definitely not be there because the US only cowardly attacks poor and defenseless nations.

Do you want to know the truth as to to why the Afghan people and their Taliban ruling party are killing our troops? Can you handle the truth? Can you accept the truth? They kill our troops because they are defending their country and people from our unlawful attacks and occupation. They are the patriotic ones. They are killing our troops to regain their freedom, a freedom that you all obviously take for granted. What would you do if you were attacked? You would fight back. They are not the enemy, we are the enemy.

The Canadian government’s website states that Canadian troops are in Afghanistan for the following reason:

We are there with more than 50 other nations and international organizations, at the request of the democratically-elected Afghan government and as part of a UN-mandated, NATO-led mission.

Least we forget Canada got involved in the “illegal” attack and war against Afghanistan at the request of the US government. The US illegally attacked Afghanistan to overthrown their democratically elected Taliban government. It wasn’t Muslim extremists who made the decision to help bring the Taliban to power in the mid-1990s: it was the US government who did that, on the theory that the Taliban political party would help bring stability to Afghanistan. The US was responsible for the Taliban being the governing body of Afghanistan because the Taliban fought the US proxy war against the Soviet Union. The Taliban and bin Laden successfully drove out the Soviet Union from Afghanistan with the full support of the US government. The US financed what is now known as the Taliban (made up of Afghanistan nationalists) and Al Qaeda (made up of CIA financed, trained and controlled foreign mercenaries). The US provided the Taliban “freedom fighters” with shoulder fired stinger missiles, heavy machine guns and anti-tank weaponry. Without these weapons the Soviet Union would not have been driven out.

Proclamation 5034 — Afghanistan Day, 1983
By the Ronald Reagan - President of the United States of America, 21 March 1983

The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters [The Taliban] persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation. The Afghan people are struggling to reclaim their freedom, which was taken from them when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979.

In this three-year period the Soviet Union has been unable to subjugate Afghanistan. The Soviet forces are pitted against an extraordinary people who, in their determination to preserve the character of their ancient land, have organized an effective and still spreading country-wide resistance. The resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.

Canada’s mission in Afghanistan is not about rebuilding, or democracy, or freedom or any number of other excuses given by the government, it is about Canada’s wilful participation in a war of aggression against a nation that did not attack Canada, the US or any other nation. They are willing participants in a war crime. They are engaging in the mass murder of the innocent people of Afghanistan. Afghanistan did not have any hijackers involved in the criminal hijackings of US commercial airlines, on US soil, on September 11, 2001. Canada is there at the request of the US government. There is no democratically elected government in Afghanistan as Afghanistan is under military occupation. There can be no democracy without self-governing. There can be no democracy while under military occupation by the US, Canada and other NATO states.

The US imposed leader of occupied Afghanistan was and is an agent of the US government. The CIA played a key role in the rise to power of US imposed president Hamid Karzai, according to a new publication in the Netherlands. After the events of 9/11, Hamid Karzai entered Afghanistan from Pakistan in the first week of October on a motorcycle and headed for Uruzgan province, where many of his supporters of the Popolzai tribe lived. Dutch journalist Bette Dam reveals in her book ‘Expedition Uruzgan’* that Karzai’s ‘luggage’ included a satellite phone and a large sum of money provided by the CIA. Karzai and a small group of armed supporters moved to the hamlet of Durji, to the Northwest of the provincial capital Tarin Kowt. Karzai had described Uruzgan province as a pivotal stronghold. But so it was for the Taliban.

The ruling Taliban soon got word of Hamid Karzai’s whereabouts. The CIA subsequently organised an emergency evacuation operation by helicopter and flew the future president to the safety of Jacobabad Airbase in Pakistan. Karzai was quickly sent back to Afghanistan to Durji, this time with the support of a 12-men team (ODA-574) made up of US Special Forces and a CIA team of some six men, of the covert ‘Special Activities Division‘. The book identifies the leader of the team as ‘Graig’, and describes in detail the contacts between Hamid Karzai, Washington, and the CIA station in Islamabad (Pakistan) prior and during the uprising.

By late November, key pro-US leaders from Afghanistan met near Bonn (Germany) and decided, “under strong pressure from the US”, to appoint (the people of Afghanistan never had a say through a vote) Hamid Karzai as interim president of the country. CIA paid Hamid Karzai participated in the meeting via his satellite telephone while still in Uruzgan province. Hamid Karzai’s US appointment as their president for Afghanistan was almost and prematurely finished on December 5th, 2001, when a US bomber dropped a 2,000lbs guided bomb on ‘friendly’ positions north of Kandahar, killing three Green Berets (including two members of ODA-574) and numerous Afghan fighters. Karzai escaped death and was only slightly injured.

We are the enemy. We attacked them without the justification of self-defense.

The Canadian mission in Afghanistan is illegal according to the UN Charter, Canadian Law, US Law and International Law. A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The President of the US swears to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (article VI, paragraph 2) states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

One of the most important treaties that the U.S. is signatory to is one governing when a nation may go to war. After 20th century wars that killed over 100 million human beings, the UN was formed to eliminate war as a foreign policy option The UN Charter is registered in the US State Department as a Treaty in Force.

Therefore, one of the most important Constitutional duties of any US President is to follow the law to not unleash the world’s most powerful destructive force. It is therefore the duty of the U.S. president to defend innocent countries and their civilian population from such onslaught and misery. This is also one of the most important laws for citizens to understand and hold their political leadership accountable for ethical behavior and demand prosecution in its violation.

On August 17, 2009 President Obama again defended the US invasion of Afghanistan. He called it “fundamental to the defense of our people,” and said, “But we must never forget this is not a war of choice, this is a war of necessity. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”

Let’s review the history of the US invasion of Afghanistan before we analyze the US claim that this is a defensive war. After the attacks of 9/11, the US government requested the cooperation of the Afghanistan Taliban government for extradition of Osama bid Laden to be charged with the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban ruling government agreed, as per usual cooperative international law, as soon as the US government provided evidence of bin Laden’s involvement. The US government refused to provide any evidence. The Taliban ruling government refused to allow US troops to enter their country and extradite bin Laden until evidence was provided, and made their argument to the world press for the rule of law to apply to the US extradition request. The US invaded Afghanistan without providing evidence and without UN Security Council approval. President Bush stated, “There’s no need to discuss evidence of innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.” Nine years later, despite promises to do so, the U.S. has not provided any evidence that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, the FBI does not seek bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, stating “there is no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

Some of you might have heard of a bin Laden “confession video.” The Pentagon’s “official translation” seems to indicate foreknowledge of the attacks, but independent translations show that the “official” version is a manipulation and an accurate translation shows no evidence of involvement. Apparently, the FBI is in agreement with the independent translations as they do not seek him for the crime. Indeed, Princeton professor of International Law Richard Falk articulates doubts concerning many aspects of the government’s explanation of 9/11. This view of a counter-government explanation is now shared by over 1,500 reputable scholars and professionals with academic training and professional experience that qualify them as experts in their testimonies.

The US invaded Afghanistan. The US provided no evidence to the Taliban Afghan government that bin Laden was involved in 9/11 and still have not done so. The US has provided no evidence that the Taliban supported the attacks of 9/11. The UN Security Council did not authorize use of force in Afghanistan. The US has provided no evidence of imminent threat to US national security from the Taliban. With no evidence of imminent threat or attack by Afghanistan, the US invasion is a War of Aggression. And yes, it’s just that simple.

Bush, Jr. went to the United National Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan. He failed to get a resolution from the UN authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. The first Security Council resolution refused to call what happened on September 11, 2001 an “armed attack” - that is by one state against another state. Rather they called it “terrorist attacks.” The critical point here is that this war has never been approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law. It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.

Now in addition Bush, Jr. then went to Congress to get authorization to go to war. Bush, Jr. tried to get a formal declaration of war along the lines of December 8, 1941 after the Day of Infamy like FDR got on Pearl Harbor. He failed to get a declaration of war. Despite all the rhetoric we have heard by the Bush, Jr. administration Congress never declared war against Afghanistan or against anyone. There is technically no state of war today against anyone as a matter of constitutional law as formally declared.

Was the invasion of Afghanistan a legitimate act of self-defense by the United States after the 9/11 attacks? No, for several reasons. First, self-defense, in both international law and domestic law (in Canada, the Criminal Code), must be clearly distinguished from the use of force for revenge or punishment; states, like persons, must not act as vigilantes. Second, in criminal law, self-defense may be invoked in the face of an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. In general, the threat must be immediate and the response must not be pushed beyond what is reasonably required to repel that threat. Therefore, in general, self-defense may not be invoked to justify physical retaliation to an attack a few weeks after it occurs. The appropriate course of action in that case would involve police work, legal proceedings, and so forth.

Article 1 of Resolution 3314 of the UN General Assembly (1974) defines aggression: Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

The resolution provides several concrete examples of acts that would be considered instances of aggression, including invasion, blockade, bombardment, or “[t]he sending [of armed groups] by or on behalf of a State” against another state.

In the case of the 9/11 attacks, the concepts of self-defense and aggression simply do not apply. Afghanistan could not be considered an aggressor state since the attacks were neither perpetrated by it or its agents nor planned on its territory. As well, in early October 2001 when it launched its war on Afghanistan, the United States was not, to anyone’s knowledge, facing an imminent threat of new attacks.

In both international and domestic law, self-defense certainly cannot be invoked to justify a later attack on a person or country who is merely presumed or claimed to be an aggressor. The US aggression against Afghanistan in October 2001 more closely resembles the new doctrine of “preventive war” which the White House subsequently made official in its National Security Strategy of September 2002. With this doctrine, the US claims the right to attack unilaterally, “preventively,” any country perceived as a serious threat to its vital interests or those of its allies. This doctrine was used as a cover for the invasion of Iraq and will likely serve the same purpose in any future aggression against Iran, Syria, or other countries. Under international law, such acts and “strategy” are totally illegal and illegitimate. Quite interesting that “preemptive attack” doctrine was rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal when the lawyers for the Nazi defendants made it at Nuremberg. They rejected any doctrine of preemptive attack. When Bush failed to get any formal authorization from the Security Council, the U.S. Ambassador Negroponte sent a letter to the Security Council asserting Article 51 of the U.N. Charter to justify the war against Afghanistan. Basically saying that we reserve the right to use force in self-defense against any state we say is somehow involved in the events of September 11. Again George W Bush failed to get any formal authorization to use force against Afghanistan because of a legal precedent that goes back to the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946 where the lawyers for the Nazi defendants argued that we, the Nazi government had a right to go to war in self-defense as we saw it, and no one could tell us any differently. That argument was rejected by Nuremberg. In 2001 the highest level of officials of the US government made the same legal arguments that were rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Was the Afghanistan war authorized by the United Nations?

The war in Afghanistan was devised and directed by the United States. It was led by a coalition of countries, mainly NATO members (including Canada), who on 4 October 2001 invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic (Washington) Treaty. Under this provision, an armed attack against any NATO country is considered an attack against them all. However, the UN declared the 9/11 attack as a “terrorist attack” not an “armed attack”. Even to this day the US government regards the attacks of September 11, 2001 as a “terrorist attack”. The US Congress did not recognize or declare the attacks as an “armed attack” which legally means that the US could not invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

There is no UN Security Council resolution authorizing the United States, whether alone or in coalition with other countries, to attack Afghanistan. Between 11 September and 7 October 2001, when the bombardment of Afghanistan began, the UN Security Council adopted only two resolutions, both concerning the 9–11 attacks. Resolution 1368 of September 12 “unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks… and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security.” The preamble to this resolution recognizes “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter. The terms of the Charter do not apply to the Afghan war. The language in the preamble of the resolution allowed the United States government to claim legitimacy for its actions despite none ever being implied or authorized by the United Nations. Then, on 28 September 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, which sets forth certain anti-terrorism measures that all states must apply. Neither Resolution 1368 nor Resolution 1373 even mentions the word “Afghanistan.

But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue has muttered perversity. No one calls for justice, nor does any plead for truth. They trust in empty words and speak lies; they conceive evil and bring forth iniquity. They hatch vipers’ eggs and weave the spider’s web; he who eats of their eggs dies, and from that which is crushed a viper breaks out. Their webs will not become garments, nor will they cover themselves with their works; their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they have not known, and there is no justice in their ways; they have made themselves crooked paths; whoever takes that way shall not know peace” (Isaiah 59:2-8).

I Support Peace. I support the immediate end to the illegal war and occupation of Afghanistan. I support the laying of charges of; war crimes, war of aggression, crimes against peace and murder against the leadership of the United States, Canada and NATO.