Babylon is fallen. See the dire warning, at the bottom of this article, from God. Take heed!
Greek is in Isopsephia, Hebrew in Gematria, Italian and English names (JOHAANNES PAOLO II and BENEDICT) are with the Greek below them.
Pundarika is from Sanskrit and is transliterated exactly to the Greek with the exact English equivalent to the Sanskrit and Greek.
Pundarika is given in the Greek under the English. Hammelek el Israel (king of Israel), the name or title, that in all probability, the Antichrist will claim for himself, is given in Hebrew under the English.
The Cosmic Christ – Cosmocrator (the Gnostic name for the False-Christ the Gnostics worshipped and which was actually Satan as immanent god of the universe) and the fruits of that bad tree.
P U N D A R I K A
P U N D A R I K A
80+ 400+ 50+ 4+ 1+ 100+ 10+ 20+ 1=666
Note: pundarika in Sanskrit (the above English and Greek are direct transliterations letter for letter from the Sanskrit) is literally “the great white dragon in the abyss” which is the core and basis of the whole esoteric tradition, priesthood, and the dainichi nyorai (the head of the diabolic trinity of the dragon in Buddhism). The dainichi nyorai is also the exact very basis for their magic/sorcery with it’s six elements they manipulate. Elements here are exactly the stoichea in Col. 2:8.
False prophet and Satanist John Paul II with his deluded fools at Assisi.
Windswept House
The Enthronement of the Fallen Archangel Lucifer
by Malachi Martin
June 29, 1963
"The Enthronement of the Fallen Archangel Lucifer was effected within the Roman Catholic Citadel on June 29, 1963; a fitting date for the historic promise about to be fulfilled.
As the principal agents of this Ceremonial well knew, Satanist tradition had long predicted that the Time of the Prince would be ushered in at the moment when a Pope would take the name of the Apostle Paul.
That requirement - the signal that the Availing Time had begun - had been accomplished just eight days before with the election of the latest Peter-in-the-Line."
[P. 7]
This Pope who would take the name of the Apostle Paul, was none other than Pope Paul VI, who became Pope on June 21, 1963.
He was followed by John Paul I who was murdered immediately and then by John Paul II, see below with the Broken Cross, the sign of the Sorcerer's service to their master Satan.
English transliteration (of how the crowds in Italian used to chant antipope John Paul II’s name) to Greek (with the II added).
J O H A A N N E S
I O H A A N N E S
10+ 70+ 8+ 1+ 1+ 50+ 50+ 5+ 200 = 395
P A O L O II
P A O L O II
80+ 1+ 70+ 30+ 70+ 10+10 = 271
= 666
English to Greek
B E N E D I C T
B E N E D I K T O S
2+ 5+ 50+ 5+ 4+ 10+ 20+ 300+ 70+ 200=666
Below: Father Sloet of Holland’s solution to the final name of the Antichrist (who will be a Jew) with medial kaph so the reign of this false “ ‘king’ of Israel” will be temporary, i.e. short.
(Note in the below that the Hebrew characters read in reverse order than the English letters) Numbers are under the English equivalents.
Hammelek l Yisrael
H M L K L Y S R A L
ה מ ל כ ל י ש ר א ל
5+ 40+ 30+ 20+ 30+ 10+ 300+ 200+ 1+ 30 = 6661 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 11:7!; Dan.: 7:3; Rev.: 12:3; 17:3
The Beast of the Sea
Rv:13:
The Beast of the Earth
11 ¶ And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth: and he had two horns, like a lamb: and he spoke as a dragon.
[1] -Ver. 1. The picture of the first beast is based on the seventh chapter of Daniel. This beast is the figure of the kingdoms of the world, kingdoms founded on passion and
1 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 15:1,6; 21:9; 19:2
VI: BABYLON THE GREAT
The Woman on the Scarlet Beast
Rv:17:
The Angel’s Explanation
7 ¶ And the angel said to me: Why dost thou wonder? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman and of the beast which carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
[1] -Ver:-5. A mystery: the name is not literal but symbolical and its meaning is that it will be revealed in due time. (mystery in Greek is musterion, that is “revealed”). In the final ‘universal recapitulation of evil’ (St. Irenaeus’ expression) the “woman” who is the “great harlot” will be the recapitulation of all the diabolic, demonic, gnostic, infidel, false religion of the world since Adam. In short, today it is the Pan-heresy of the Ecumenical movement (utterly opposed by Mortalium Animus, Pius XI, 1928), which is the culmination of modernist Judeo-Mason blasphemy of: the True God and His Christ and the Holy Spirit. This Pan-heresy is centered at Rome in the Vatican since 1958 especially, and has permeated all churches; this is the great apostasy that St. Paul the Apostle warned us about (see: 2 Thess.2:3, 6, 7). He who holds the great apostasy back (2 Thess: 2:6, 7) until the appointed time is Jesus Christ Himself, according to St. Justin Martyr. The beast that the woman rides is the world’s political-religious systems opposed to the True God, the Trinity, Who is the Creator and Ruler over all. These taken together are the precursor of the final beast of verse 11 which includes all the former systems within it.
18,18181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818
1 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 10:1; Ezek.: 43:2
The Fall of Babylon
Rv:18:
Her Sins and Punishment
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues. … Scripture reference – Jer.: 51:45!; 2 Cor.: 6:17!; Eph.: 5:7!; 1 Tim.: 5:22
Dirge of the Kings
9 ¶ [1] And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived in delicacies with her, shall weep and bewail themselves over her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning: … Scripture reference – Rev.: 18:3; 17:2; 18:18
Dirge of the Merchants
11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her: for no man shall buy their merchandise any more. … Scripture reference – Ezek.: 27;32!
17 For in one hour are so great riches come to nought.
Dirge of the Mariners
And every shipmaster and all that sail into the lake, and mariners, and as many as work in the sea, stood afar off, … Scripture reference – Ezek.: 27:29, 30!; Rev.: 18:10
The Angel’s Promise
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone, as it were a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying: With such violence as this, shall Babylon, that great city, be thrown down and shall be found no more at all. … Scripture reference – Jer.: 51:63, 64
[1] -Ver. 9-19. This passage is not an account of a vision but rather a direct prophecy, after. the manner of the prophecies of Isaias and Ezechiel concerning Tyre. Tyre furnishes a type of the vengeance of God upon satanic pride and luxury.
20,20202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020
1 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 9:1
Satan Chained
Rv:20:
Reign of the Saints
4 And I saw seats. And they sat upon them: and judgment was given unto them. And the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God and who had not adored the beast nor his image nor received his character on their foreheads or in their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. … Scripture reference – 1 Cor.: 6:2; Rev.: 1:2, 9; 6:9; 14:9, 11; 19:20; 13:16
Satan Loosed
7 And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison and shall go forth and seduce the nations which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog: [3] and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
The Last Judgement
11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away: and there was no place found for them … Scripture reference – Isaiah: 6:11; 2 Pt.: 3:12!
[1] -Ver. 2. A thousand years: not to be taken literally. It signifies that, after the destruction of hostile kings and the chaining of the dragon, the Church will enjoy a long era of peace. During this era Christ will reign over the souls of men, and Christians, through their influence over the world, will reign with Christ.
A scathing report authored by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the United States President’s role in protecting the Afghanistan drug trade essentially labels Barack Obama as the most powerful drug cartel leader our world has ever known.
Speaking at a conference this week on communicable diseases Lavrov lashed out over Obama’s refusal to eradicate Afghanistan’s poppy crop and stated, “It is hard for us to understand why our American partners don’t want the International Security Assistance Force to do this. This issue is crucial to the fight against the drug threat and, consequently, the spread of HIV/AIDS.”
Enraging Russian authorities the most was Obama’s 2009 decision to stop the eradication of Afghanistan’s poppy crop and, instead, order American military forces to actually begin protecting not only the fields where these dangerous drug plants are grown, but also protecting the transporters and manufacturers who turn it into heroin.
Since the US war against Afghanistan was launched the Bush administration paid American contractors and Afghan security personnel hundreds of millions of dollars to slash and burn individual poppy fields. Upon taking office, however, Obama regime officials stated bluntly that those efforts to eradicateAfghanistan’s poppy fields had failed and ordered their destruction stopped.
In late 2001 when the US invaded Afghanistan they accounted for 12% of the world’s opium production. By 2008, it accounted for 93% and the United Nations has reported this week that Afghanistan opium production is set to rise another staggering 61% this year.
As a virtual flood of Afghan heroin continues to devastate children and families, Russian officials publicly blame America for this plague because almost all this deadly drug comes from US-dominated Afghanistan and leading Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin to warn this past week that Russia will reject theUS presence in Afghanistan after its current UN mandate expires.
Not being told to the American people about Obama’s reason for protecting the global drug trade was his being able to use the money gained from this ‘death business’ to save the US economy from complete collapse in 2009 shortly after he took office.
Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, reported on this in December 2009 when he publically stated that he had seen the evidence that proceeds of the global drug trade were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse in 2008. He said that a majority of the $352 billion (£216 billion) of drugs profits was absorbed into the global economic system as a result.
Russian officials note that as Commander in Chief of all US military forces, administrative head of all US intelligence agencies, and the head of all US law enforcement, Obama singlehandedly controls the world’s largest known drug manufacturing, transporting and distribution network estimated to be worth nearly $1 trillion.
And long known to everyone in the world (even those American who choose to face the truth) is that Obama’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has an over 50 year long association with being the most powerful and dangerous global drug cartel and has (ironically) been blamed as being solely responsible for the massive crippling of American’s largely black inner cities due to drug violence.
Even worse, new reports surfacing in the United States are now showing that the Obama regime, in order to protect their CIA drug trafficking routes into the US, has been supplying Mexican drug cartels with thousands of weapons in exchange for protection with some of these guns being reported found in the home belonging to the purported top Sinaloa cartel enforcer in Ciudad Juarez and others proved to be used in the killing of US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry this past summer.
Not just to Mexico either has the Obama regime been sending thousands of weapons, but also to his hometown of Chicago where US reports are showing that the drug gangs in that large American city are being armed courtesy of the US government.
And in what can only be described as irony turning into farce, Obama’s 2008 election promise not to interfere with US State’s medical marijuana laws was broken this past week when he ordered his regime to launch an assault on medical pot dispensaries, vowing to shut down establishments licensed and regulated by State and local governments….while at the exact same time he has steadfastly refused to prosecute or jail one single Wall Street bankster responsible for looting the American people of over $9 Trillion of their wealth.
Not being understood by the millions of sick Americans who have benefited from medical marijuana, is that when it comes to the point that their wellbeing is cutting into the illegal drug profits made by the CIA for the elites of their country, their personal welfare means absolutely nothing at all.
President John F. Kennedy once said about America, “This nation was founded by many men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” One cannot but help think what he would say now about the people he gave his life to save, but have squandered it all away by allowing drug lords and despots to rule over them?
October 13, 2011 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com.
Related videos:
| ||||
|
What is the justification for waging war on a country of 28 million people?
What justifies Obama's military surge?
Both the media and the US government, in chorus, continue to point to the 9/11 attacks and the role of Al Qaeda led by "terrorist mastermind" Osama bin Laden.
The bombing and invasion of Afghanistan is described as a "campaign" against Islamic terrorists, rather than a war.
To this date, however, there is no proof that Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Neither is there evidence that Afghanistan as a Nation State was behind or in any way complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
The Afghan government in the weeks following 9/11, offered on two occasions to deliver Osama bin Laden to US justice, if there were preliminary evidence of his involvement in the attacks. These offers were refused by Washington.
Where was Osama on September 11, 2001?
To this date, Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, is identified in military documents and official statements of both the Bush and Obama administrations as the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.
The Afghan government (the "Taliban regime" in official documents) is identified as supporting Al Qaeda and providing refuge to its leader Osama bin Laden inside Afghan territory at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
On September 10, 2001, according to a CBS news report, Osama bin Laden had been admitted to a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi. (CBS Evening News with Dan Rather; CBS, 28 January 2002, See also Michel Chossudovsky, Where was Osama on September 11, 2001?, Global Research, 11 September 2008):
"DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.
This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan (CBS, op cit, emphasis added)
Recovering from his hospital treatment in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, how could Osama have coordinated the 9/11 attacks?
How could Afghanistan be made responsible for these attacks by Al Qaeda? Bin Laden is a national of Saudi Arabia who, according to CBS News, was not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan at the time of the attacks.
The Invasion of Afghanistan: NATO's Doctrine of Collective Security
The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared "armed attack" "from abroad" by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently "the laws of war" apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of "self-defense".
The "Global War on Terrorism" was officially launched by the Bush administration on September 11, 2001. On the following morning (September 12, 2001), NATO's North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, adopted the following resolution:
"if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against "The North Atlantic area", it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty". (emphasis added)
In this regard, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates that if:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." (NATO, What is Article 5, NATO Topics - NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
"Use of Armed Force" only "If It is Determined..."
There was an "if" in the September 12 resolution. Article 5 would apply only if it is determined that Afghanistan as a Nation State was complicit or behind the 9/11 attacks.
In practice, the "if" had already been waived prior to 9/11. The entire NATO arsenal was already on a war footing. In military terms, NATO and the US were already in an advanced state of readiness. Known to military analysts, but never revealed in the Western media, the implementation of a large scale theater war takes at least one year of advanced operational planning, prior to launching of an invasion.
The use of article 5 of the Washington Treaty had in all likelihood been contemplated by military planners, as a pretext for waging war, prior to 9/11.
There was no official declaration of war on September 12th. The Alliance waited until 3 days before the invasion to declare war on Afghanistan, an impoverished country which by no stretch of the imagination could have launched an attack against a member state of "The North Atlantic area".
The September 12 resolution of the Atlantic Council required "determination" and corroborating evidence, that:
1) Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden had ordered the "attack from abroad" on the United States of America;
2) The terrorist attacks of 9/11 constituted a bona fide military operation (under the provisions of Article 5) by an alleged foreign country (Afghanistan) against a NATO member state, and consequently against all NATO member states under the doctrine of collective security:
"Article 5 and the case of the terrorist attacks against the United States: The United States has been the object of brutal terrorist attacks. It immediately consulted with the other members of the Alliance. The Alliance determined that the US had been the object of an armed attack. The Alliance therefore agreed that if it was determined that this attack was directed from abroad, it would be regarded as covered by Article 5. NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.
Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination has yet been made whether the attack against the United States was directed from abroad. If such a determination is made, each Ally will then consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be decided by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN Charter.
Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area".
By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.
If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States. (Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances.
No collective action will be taken by NATO until further consultations are held and further decisions are made by the the North Atlantic Council. (NATO, NATO Topics - NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report
The final decision to invoke Article 5 in relation to the 9/11 attacks came three weeks later upon the submission to the NATO Council of a mysterious classified report by a US state Department official named Frank Taylor. The report was submitted to NATO on October 2nd, 5 days before the commencement of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.
Frank Taylor was working in the US State Department. He had been entrusted in writing up a brief to establish whether the US "had been attacked from abroad", pursuant to the North Atlantic Council's resolution of September 12 2001.
US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism Frank Taylor briefed the North Atlantic Council barely on October 2nd, five days before the commencement of the bombings.
On October 2nd he handed his brief to NATO "on the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks.... " NATO - Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009).
The classified report was not released to the media. And to this date, to our knowledge, it has remained classified.
NATO's Secretary General Lord Robertson casually summarised the substance of the Frank Taylor report in a press release:
"This morning, the United States briefed the North Atlantic Council on the results of the investigation into who was responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks which took place on September 11.
The briefing was given by Ambassador Frank Taylor, the United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-terrorism.
This morning's briefing follows those offered by United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and illustrates the commitment of the United States to maintain close cooperation with Allies.
Today's was classified briefing and so I cannot give you all the details.
Briefings are also being given directly by the United States to the Allies in their capitals.
The briefing addressed the events of September 11 themselves, the results of the investigation so far, what is known about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organisation and their involvement in the attacks and in previous terrorist activity, and the links between al-Qaida and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The facts are clear and compelling. The information presented points conclusively to an al-Qaida role in the September 11 attacks.
We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were part of the world-wide terrorist network of al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.
On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined that the attack against the United States on September 11 was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
I want to reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism." (Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General, statement to the NATO Council, State Department, Appendix H, Multinational Response to September 11 NATO Press http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10313.pdf, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
In other words, 2 days before the actual commencement of the bombing campaign on October 7, the North Atlantic Council decided, based on the information provided by Frank Taylor to the Council "that the attacks were directed from abroad" by Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, thereby requiring an action on the part of NATO under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty ( NATO - Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009):
NATO action under article 5, was outlined in an October 4 decision, 3 days before the commencement of the bombings.
Two days later, on 4 October, NATO agreed on eight measures in support the United States, which were tantamount to a declaration of war on Afghanstan:
to enhance intelligence sharing and co-operation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it;
to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, [military] assistance to Allies and other states which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;
to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory;
to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism;
to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures;
that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; and that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism. NATO - Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009 emphasis added)
Press reports of Frank Taylor's brief to the NATO Council were scanty. The invocation of Article 5, five days before the bombings commenced, was barely mentioned. The media consensus was: "all roads lead to Bin Laden" as if bin Laden was a Nation State which had attacked America.
What stands out are outright lies and fabrications. Moreover, prior to October 2nd, NATO had no pretext under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty to intervene militarily in Afghanistan.
The pretext was provided by Frank Taylor's classified report, which was not made public.
The two UN Security Council resolutions adopted in the course of September 2001, did not, under any circumstances, provide a justification for the invasion and illegal occupation of a UN member country of 28 million people. (see Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts).
UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) called for prevention and suppression of terrorist acts, as well suppression of the financing of terrorism:
“(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;
...
“3. Calls upon all States to:
“(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;
“(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;
“(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;
...
“4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;
“5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (excerpts of UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001, See also UN Press Release SC 7178 SECURITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS WIDE-RANGING ANTI-TERRORISM RESOLUTION; CALLS FOR SUPPRESSING FINANCING, IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, Security Council, 4385th Meeting, September 2001)
Nowhere in this resolution is there any mention of military action against a UN member State.
The US led war on Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a pretext and a justification is illegal and criminal.
The US and NATO heads of state and heads of government from 2001 to the present are complicit in the launching of a criminal and illegal war.
