Think tank: 92% of Afghans never heard of 9/11

By Daniel Tencer
Friday, November 19th, 2010

 92% of Afghans never heard of 9/11

Fewer than one in 10 Afghans are aware of the 9/11 attacks and their precipitation of the war in Afghanistan, says a study from an international think tank.

A report (PDF) from the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) shows that 92 percent of those surveyed had never heard of the coordinated multiple attacks on US soil on September 11, 2001. It also shows that four in 10 Afghans believe the US is on their soil in order to "destroy Islam or occupy Afghanistan."

To be sure, the survey can't claim to be definitive: It only canvassed men, and relied primarily on respondents from Helmand and Kandahar, the two most war-torn provinces in the country. But the results nonetheless show that Western forces fighting insurgents in Afghanistan have largely failed to connect with the local population.

“We need to explain to the Afghan people why we are here, and both show and convince them that their future is better with us than with the Taliban,” ICOS lead field researcher Norine MacDonald said in a statement.

The survey also suggests that Afghans are skeptical of their own government's ability to protect them, and have little regard for the fledgling democratic institutions the country is building. Fully 43 percent could not name one positive aspect of democracy, and nearly two-thirds -- 61 percent -- said they didn't think Afghan forces would be able to keep up the fight against the Taliban if and when Western forces withdrew.


The ICOS study recommends a publicity campaign to explain to Afghans why foreign forces are fighting on their soil. The think tank also proposes a number of other initiatives meant to improve the image of foreign forces in the country, including having NATO forces deliver humanitarian aid where aid groups fear to travel, providing farmland to the poor, setting up women's councils, and "safe village convoys" which would see foreign troops escort villagers in dangerous rural areas.

ICOS has a permanent presence in Afghanistan and has been studying the nearly decade-long war's impact on Afghan society. The think tank has previously proposed that Afghanistan license the growing of opium. The group argues that eliminating the opiate trade from Afghanistan is virtually impossible due to its entrenched place in the culture. At the same time, Afghan farmers could earn money by selling opiates to painkiller manufacturers.

Opponents of the idea say that Afghanistan is not stable enough to develop a proper opium-manufacturing industry, and a licensing scheme would only encourage the sale of opium to heroin manufacturers. 




but not surprising. I've heard Norine MacDonald speak on more than one occasion over the years. Frankly, although her institute has a couple of decent ideas, she's the one who needs to be informed about why foreigners are in Afghanistan.

I've heard her talk of "winning hearts and minds" with no apparent knowledge of the history of this expression (as in Vietnam) and with no apparent awareness of how offensive it is for occupation forces from the other side of the world to think they have the right to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. We win their hearts and minds and then, when oil and gas are gone, we're outta there. Bye, bye, hope you have a good life.

On the other hand, we don't have access to Afghans' views on things very often, so this survery is worth thinking about. The good news is...we aren't winning hearts and minds.

Yeah lets tell 'em about 9/11......

but no need to mention the difficulties we had prior to 9/11 negotiating with the Taliban for the much desired, Unocal pipeline right of way through Afghanistan to get all that Caspian Basin oil and gas to the Indian Ocean (which would have also meant some very big bucks for US energy companies like Unocal, Enron etc.).


In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan. [Guardian]


The key question then is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions, with several variations. One option is to go east across China, but this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers just to reach Central China. In addition, there would have to be a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. The question then is what will be the cost of transporting oil through this pipeline, and what would be the netback which the producers would receive.

For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the netback is the price which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the well head after all the transportation costs have been deducted. So it's the price he receives for the oil he produces at the well head.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company. (Above 3 paragraph snip from Unocal VP John Maresca's testimony to a Congressinal Hearing in 1998)

Pipeline Politics and the Afghanistan War


Another Berlin meeting was held in July. The Taliban was expected to send a spokesman, but he did not appear, probably because the Northern Alliance was represented there. It was later reported in Europe that the U.S. spokesman said that the Taliban could either “accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.'' Simons denied that a direct threat was made in these words but conceded that the subject of force may have come up in connection with a discussion of the investigation of the attack on the USS Cole. He also said, “It is possible that an American participant, acting mischievously, after some glasses, evoked the gold carpets and the carpet bombs.” Whatever Simons’ exact words were, people came away convinced that the U.S. was determined to employ force in Afghanistan if it did not get its way.

A British newspaper later reported that it was said that the bombing could begin as early as October. Niaz Naik, Pakistan’s former foreign minister, reported back to his government in mid-July that the U.S. would resort to force if Pakistan could not persuade the Taliban to come into line. Pakistan passed this information on to the Taliban. It was later reported on French television that “Islamabad and Pakistani military circles were buzzing with rumors of war.” The Indian press reported in October that "Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will lead the ground attack with a strong military back up of the U.S. and Russia. Vital Taliban installations and military assets will be targeted.”

MSNBC reported that the plan to invade Afghanistan was on Bush’s desk before 9/11 and included giving a red light to the Northern Alliance to mount a major campaign against the Taliban. On the afternoon of September 11, General Richard Myers reported at a teleconferenced NSC meeting that the Pentagon had 42 major Taliban bombing targets. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration immediately attributed it to Osama Bin Laden, but he repeatedly denied any involvement for several weeks. Later, a videotape turned up in Afghanistan in which Bin Laden supposedly took credit for the attack; however, some translators deny that is what he said.

Dr. Christina Rocca, represented the U.S. at its last meeting with the Taliban, which occurred on August 2 in Islamabad -- five weeks before September 11. The Taliban, at this point, was in the process of awarding the twin pipeline deal to an Argentine-led consortium. At that meeting Rocca demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden. In an interview, Brisard commented on the Islamabad meeting:

We believe that when [Rocca] went to Pakistan in [August] 2001 she was there to speak about oil, and unfortunately the Osama bin Laden case was just a technical part of the negotiations. He said “ I'm not sure about the pipeline specifically, but we make it clear she was there to speak about oil. There are witnesses, including the Pakistani foreign minister.

Blaming the victim

The writer comes right out of the State Department/Pentagonville propaganda mill. It is evident, because of the pattern these folks have already established a writing history in a rather distorted manner. "Fewer than one in 10 Afghans are aware of the 9/11 attacks and their precipitation of the war in Afghanistan, says a study from an international think tank." The US already had plans to invade Afghanistan before 9-11. 9-11 was an excuse.

Let's suggest he rivise it to:

"Fewer than one in 10 Afghans are aware of the 9/11 attacks as the excuse for the current war in Afghanistan."

A bonus benefit from explaining 9/11 to them.....

They'll feel so much better about having their homes and farms destroyed by the US military.

Pentagon blows up thousands of homes in Afghanistan Repeating the horrors of the Vietnam War

Borrowing a page from its infamous “pacification” effort in South Vietnam, where peasant villages were napalmed and burned to the ground to “save them from the communists,” the Obama-ordered surge in Afghanistan has been secretly blowing up thousands of homes and leveling portions of the Afghan countryside.

As tens of thousands of U.S. troops have surged into southern Afghanistan, villagers have fled. Then the Petraeus-led occupation forces have determined which homes will be destroyed.

“In Arghandab District, for instance, every one of the 40 homes in the village of Khosrow was flattened by a salvo of 25 missiles, according to the district governor, Shah Muhammed Ahmadi, who estimated that 120 to 130 houses had been demolished in his district,” reported the New York Times, Nov. 16, 2010.

The Pentagon asserts that they must destroy the homes because some of them may have explosive devices inside.

The Pentagon’s murderous rampage and terror campaign 40 years ago against South Vietnamese villages, in areas that were considered sympathetic to the resistance forces, used much of the same kind of explanation. In fact, the New York Times in a throw back to Vietnam quotes the Arghandab District Governor, who is working with the occupation forces: “We had to destroy them to make them safe.”


When Gen. David Petraeus describes his counter-insurgency strategy, he always puts in a few diplomatic words about the need of surging troops to win the “hearts and minds” of the people in Afghanistan’s poverty stricken villages. That is purely for public consumption—a message echoed endlessly by the complicit corporate-owned media and the politicians of both parties that serves as a mask for the Pentagon’s campaign of systematic terror employed to subdue an occupied people.

Americans could be better informed too.

Fewer than half of all Americans know that Republicans will have a majority in the House next year but not the Senate, according to a new poll.

Open game

If the economy fails to thrive, both parties will suffer and the citizens will look elsewhere for answers. The Republicans have a slim majority in the House, so they'll own the next two years of job stagnation. Here is our window of opportunity to show how corrupt both parties actually are. We are tired of lies.

Sounds familiar.

And 92% of Americans never heard of building 7. (Yes i know it's an exaggeration.)
At least the Afghanis can blame it on lack of education and freedom of the press.

It's a bunch of BS

Read the report. When asked whether the respondents knew about 9/11, they had three options: Yes, No, and "Don't know". The overwhelming majority chose "Don't know", indicating that they don't know whether they know.

There are lies, damn lies, and...

Reading the ICOS Afghanistan Transition report made me nauseous

It reminds me of the US soldiers being lied to about 9/11 while being transported to fight in the Iraq war.

The Report from the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) seems to be authored by its (Canadian?) president, Mrs Norine MacDonald (who holds a Queens Council nomination for the British Commonwealth).

Is she naïve when she writes:
One of the “5 key messages” that we need to convey to the Afghans is: “Why we are here: inform the Afghan people of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda’s responsibility for them, and the Taliban’s enduring links to Al Qaeda”. ???

We should all make an effort to write her (see below*) in a respectful way, and explain to her that the Taliban in Afghanistan did not have anything to do with rigging up three of New-Yorks most secure skyscrapers with tons of top military grade sol-gel nano-thermate fresh out of the Los Alamos National Laboratories. It has been established beyond reasonable doubt (see for example the work of which has been validated by 1368 verified architectural and engineering professionals and more than 10.000 other signed up supporters) that the destruction of the three skyscrapers in New-York was a very professional controlled demolition involving tons of high tech pre-placed explosives. The Taliban were prepared to hand over Bin Laden to American authorities if the US could hand over reasonable evidence of his involvement. This never came, and the FBI has officially stated that they have no evidence to charge Osama Bin Laden (deceased around Dec 13th 2001) for the terror deeds of September 11th 2001.

In fact, although “Islamic radicals” of “Al Qaeda” are still being profiled by main stream media as the perpetrators of the crime against humanity of September 11th 2001, they stood little to gain by such an act, and did not have military know-how to pull it off, or cover it up with pseudo-science reports from the NIST or “official reports on 9/11” penned by the likes of Bush Administration insiders like Philip Zelikow.

We should ask Mrs. MacDonald to answer the simple question posed by Mr Elias Davidsson here:

Mrs. MacDonald’s questionnaire also polled if the Afghans were aware that the US was being aided by its NATO allies under the notion that these allies must act in defense of their attacked ally : She stated : “NATO is an alliance of lots of foreign countries, including the United States. If one member of the alliance is attacked, all other members have a duty to join them in the response. So because the United States was attacked the other foreign countries, like Canadians, British and Dutch, are also in Afghanistan.” She asked the Afghans if they thought this was a good idea, and the majority of them said “No”. Wouldn’t it ne nice if they would also poll the population of the NATO allies on this same question concerning our involvement in Afghanistan!

In an effort to have less media lies about the alleged perpetrators of September 11th, M. Elias Davidsson proposed we sign the: “Declaration against racial incitement and slander”. See : . I have done so, and it is high time we let our media know that they are crossing the line of decency when they accuse a racial and religious minority profile of perpetrating a historic crime against humanity, while holding no credible evidence of this, and where motive, means and opportunity points to a totally different direction than the one pursued by the minions who eat from the trough of the “official” media, and prance around with honorary titles of the Queens Council nomination for the British Commonwealth.

*You can write Mrs Norine MacDonald QC via the e-mail given on the last (p.105) page of her report that was probably paid for by the NATO war effort: Her press secretary is M. Alexander Jackson :

Best regards from Belgium,


The report was discussed by NATO leaders gathered in Lisbon

on Friday Nov. 19, 2010. That pretty much confirms my suspicion about who paid for the report.

Reuters were good sports and did post my comment shown here below:

(or see first article here: )

“In an effort to have more objective investigative journalism to help track the perpetrators of September 11th, M. Elias Davidsson proposed we sign the: “Declaration against racial incitement and slander”. (Google Elias Davidsson). I have done so, and it is high time we let our media know that they are crossing the line of decency when they accuse a racial and religious minority profile of perpetrating a historic crime against humanity, while holding no credible evidence of this, and where motive, means and opportunity points to a totally different direction than the one pursued by the minions who eat from the trough of the “official” media, and prance around with honorary titles of the Queens Council nomination for the British Commonwealth.
I suggest Mrs. Norine MacDonald visits before writing her next report.”

You can also make an effort to encourage better objective investigative journalism at Reuters, (via the link above) although be aware that +/- all the “reports” about “Bin Laden”, “Al Zarqawi” and other “Al Qaeda” operatives (hmmmm) having been pouring out of this wolf’s throat for more than 9 years, without the slightest shame about sloppy or untruthful “investigative reporting.

Dr Beeth