Jumat, 29 November 2013

AS DAN ISRAEL SELALU SAJA MENGGUNAKAN DOUBLE BAHKAN MULTIPLE STANDAR...... UNTUK TERUS MEMBUAT KEKACAUAN DI TATANAN DUNIA...??>> KONON PERJANJIAN GENEVA II UNTUK NUKLIR IRAN SUDAH DISEPAKATI OLEH SEMUA PIHAK DK-PBB YAKNI 5 NEGARA ANGGOTA TETAP + 1.... ?? >> TAPI BIASA -LAH.... NEGARA YANG MERASA SUPER INI SELALU MENCARI-CARI TAFSIR SENDIRI... DAN MEMBANGUN OPINI2 ABSURD... YANG TUJUANNYA .... MENGACAUKAN MASYARAKAT DUNIA.. AGAR TETAP ADA CELAH UNTUK MELAKUKAN KEKACAUAN DINEGERI ORANG LAIN...???>> PERILAKU JAHAT DAN DENGKI SERTA POLITIK YANG PENUH KESERAKAHAN ITU... SELALU SAJA MEMBUAT TAFSIRAN YANG DISENGAJA DENGAN TUJUAN MEMBUAT KEKACAUAN BARU...???>> YANG SANGAT DISAYANGKAN ADALAH INTELEKTUAL2 MEDIA DAN KELOMPOK2 POLITISI KRIMINAL TERSELUBUNG ITU... MEMANG BERADA DIDALAM SELUBUNG TUBUH PEMERINTAHAN DAN BADAN2 RESMI AS...???>> MAKA TAK HERAN BILAMANA KEJAHATAN2 DAN ISSUE2 .. .PEPERANGAN... ITU SELALU BERSUMBER DARI NEGERI TERSEBUT... WALAUPUN ... KAUM TERPELAJARNYA SANGAT BANYAK... NAMUN SEPERTINYA... TANPA MORAL.. DAN TAK MENGENAL ETIKA.. KEMANUSIAANNYA.... .DALAM SETIAP PETUALANGANNYA... ??>> ... MAKA TAK HERAN JIKA BEBERAPA PRESIDENNYA DIBUNUH DENGAN TERENCANA RAPI... DAN JUGA PEMBUNUHAN RAKYATNYA DENGAN ISSUE2 DUSTA-INSIDERS JOBS-KONSPIRASI-DAN KEBOHONGAN..SERTA REKAYASA PENCIPTAAN KEJAHATAN POLITIK... YANG DIJADIKAN AJANG BISNIS... YANG MEMBERIKAN KEKAYAAAN BERLIMPAH KEPADA SEMENTARA KAPITALIS2... DAN DIPIHAK LAIN .... KORBAN KEMANUSAAN YANG TIADA TERKIRA...??>> SUNGGUH JAHAT... DAN SANGAT IRONIS....??? .. MENGAPA YAH MEREKA SEPERTI DEMIKIAN...??>> SUNGGUH SUATU FENOMENA YANG SANGAT ... MENYERAMKAN DALAM TATANAN SEJARAH HIDUP KEMANUSIAAN.... DARI ZAMAN KE ZAMAN....??>> ...Isu tentang senjata nuklir Iran sebenarnya tidak berdasar sama sekali. Program nuklir Iran sepenuhnya dalam pengawasan IAEA untuk keperluan damai. Sama seperti program nuklir damai di negara-negara lain. Bahkan beberapa negara lain yang secara diam-diam memiliki senjata nuklir tanpa persetujuan PBB, aman tidak tersentuh: Jepang, Brazil, Afrika Selatan, Korea Utara, Pakistan, India dan Israel. Namun isu senjata nuklir Iran diperlukan Amerika karena Iran, yang salah satu landasan idiologinya adalah pembebasan Palestina dari pendudukan Israel, dianggap sebagai musuh nyata bagi dominasi Amerika-Israel....>>> ....any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”..>> "Perselisihan" kecil itu sontak membuat "kesadaran" saya kembali tergugah, bahwa sebuah "konspirasi" kemungkinan telah dijalankan dalam perundingan nuklir Iran tersebut. Pikiran saya pun kembali ke sekitar bulan September dan Oktober, ketika Amerika secara tiba-tiba membatalkan rencana serangan militer terhadap Syria yang telah dipublikasikan besar-besaran. Sebulan kemudian Presiden Barack Obama menelpon Presiden Iran Hassan Rouhani dalam satu momen yang dianggap sebagai "momen paling penting tahun ini". Dilanjutkan kemudian dengan ke-aktifan Amerika dalam perundingan nuklir Iran di Genewa yang ditandatangani Minggu lalu (24/11). ..>> Pada hari Selasa (26/11) Iran mengecam intepretasi perjanjian yang dirilis Amerika melalui situs resmi Gedung Putih dengan menyebutnya sebagai pernyataan pers yang "invalid". “Apa yang telah dirilis oleh situs resmi Gedung Putih sebagai "lembar-lembar nyata" merupakan intepretasi sepihak dari teks sebenarnya yang ditandatangani di Geneva dan sebagian dari penjelasan dan kalimatnya bertentangan dengan teks "Joint Plan of Action", dan disayangkan lembaran-lembaran itu telah diterjemahkan dan dirilis oleh beberapa media massa sebagai Perjanjian Genewa, yang sebenarnya tidak benar,” kata jubir kemenlu Iran Marziyeh Afkham di Teheran, Selasa (26/11)...>> With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders. The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports. And now, the US fully admits that the CIA and US State Department are openly arming, funding, and equipping fighters in Syria. The Washington Post's September 2013 article, "U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels," admits: The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war...>>> Dalam sebuah wawancara dengan Wall Street Journal yang dilansir oleh al-Alam pada Ahad, 24/11/13, melaporkan, al-Waleed bin Talal mengutuk kesepakatan antara Iran dan Barat atas program nuklir Tehran yang tidak akan mencakup penghentian pengayaan Uranium di Republik Islam. Dikatakannya, "Saudi dan Israel memiliki kepentingan sama, dan mengutuk setiap perjanjian yang tidak menyangkut penghentian kemampuan Iran untuk memperkaya uranium". Waleed bin Talal juga mendukung pernyataan Perdana Menteri Israel yang menyebut bahwa presiden Iran Hassan Rouhani adalah serigala berbulu domba...>> As the chief of Saudi Intelligence, Prince Bandar is now building a new strategy that would see Riyadh’s central foreign-policy goal of toppling Assad realized. As long as that goal comes to fruition, the secular or radical orientation of the militias really does not make a difference. Bandar’s aim is to broaden Saudi Arabia’s regional clout so as to position himself strategically when the next royal succession takes place. As Washington and Riyadh evidently have no interest in a political solution, a new pretext would be required to escalate the conflict to force Assad out. If chemical weapons are used again, Assad can either be blamed for their use or blamed for allowing rebels to capture his stockpiles. Intervention can be justified on the basis of “punishing” Assad or under the mandate of peacekeeping and humanitarianism....>>>

Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not "Breakthrough"

November 26, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - "...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 52.





Written years ago, as the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were already plotting to overrun Iran's neighbor and ally Syria with Al Qaeda to weaken the Islamic Republic before inevitable war, this quote exposes fully the current charade that is the "Iran nuclear deal."

The West has no intention of striking any lasting deal with Iran, as nuclear capabilities, even the acquirement of nuclear weapons by Iran was never truly an existential threat to Western nations or their regional partners. The West's issue with Iran is its sovereignty and its ability to project its interests into spheres traditionally monopolized by the US and UK across the Middle East. Unless Iran plans on turning over its sovereignty and regional influence along with its right to develop and use nuclear technology, betrayal of any "nuclear deal" is all but inevitable, as is the war that is to shortly follow. 

Exposing the duplicity that accompanies Western "efforts" to strike a deal will severely undermine their attempt to then use the deal as leverage to justify military operations against Iran. For Iran and its allies, they must be prepared for war, more so when the West feigns interest in peace. Libya serves as a perfect example of the fate that awaits nations reproached by the West who let down their guard - it literally is a matter of life and death both for leaders, and for nations as a whole


PERJANJIAN NUKLIR IRAN, JALAN DAMAI ATAU PERANG?

http://cahyono-adi.blogspot.com/2013/11/perjanjian-nuklir-iran-jalan-damai-atau.html#more

Baru 2 hari perjanjian nuklir Iran ditandatangani oleh pihak-pihak yang terlibat dalam perundingan di Genewa, namun "perselisihan" antara Amerika dan Iran sudah terjadi kembali.

Pada hari Selasa (26/11) Iran mengecam intepretasi perjanjian yang dirilis Amerika melalui situs resmi Gedung Putih dengan menyebutnya sebagai pernyataan pers yang "invalid".

“Apa yang telah dirilis oleh situs resmi Gedung Putih sebagai "lembar-lembar nyata" merupakan intepretasi sepihak dari teks sebenarnya yang ditandatangani di Geneva dan sebagian dari penjelasan dan kalimatnya bertentangan dengan teks "Joint Plan of Action", dan disayangkan lembaran-lembaran itu telah diterjemahkan dan dirilis oleh beberapa media massa sebagai Perjanjian Genewa, yang sebenarnya tidak benar,” kata jubir kemenlu Iran Marziyeh Afkham di Teheran, Selasa (26/11).

"Perselisihan" kecil itu sontak membuat "kesadaran" saya kembali tergugah, bahwa sebuah "konspirasi" kemungkinan telah dijalankan dalam perundingan nuklir Iran tersebut. Pikiran saya pun kembali ke sekitar bulan September dan Oktober, ketika Amerika secara tiba-tiba membatalkan rencana serangan militer terhadap Syria yang telah dipublikasikan besar-besaran. Sebulan kemudian Presiden Barack Obama menelpon Presiden Iran Hassan Rouhani dalam satu momen yang dianggap sebagai "momen paling penting tahun ini". Dilanjutkan kemudian dengan ke-aktifan Amerika dalam perundingan nuklir Iran di Genewa yang ditandatangani Minggu lalu (24/11).

Semua itu pun secara efektif berhasil mengubah Amerika, dari sosok yang gila perang, menjadi pecinta perdamaian nomor satu di dunia.

Kemudian muncul sebuah artikel di blog Land Destroyer yang dimuat ulang di situs thetruthseeker.co.uk tgl 27 November 2013, atau sehari setelah pernyataan pers kemenlu Iran tersebut di atas. Artikel itu berjudul "Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not “Breakthrough”" yang ditulis oleh kolumnis Tony Cartalucci. Dalam tulisan itu dicantumkan satu teks dari laporan tahun 2009 lembaga kajian yang dekat dengan kalangan neokonservatif Amerika, Brookings Institution, berjudul “Which Path to Persia?”:

“…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”

Secara ringkas teks tersebut menyebutkan bahwa "untuk memerangi Iran diperlukan satu kondisi yang dipercayai oleh publik dunia bahwa Amerika telah memberikan kepercayaan yang tulus kepada Iran mengenai program nuklirnya, namun dikhianati oleh Iran yang ternyata berambisi untuk memiliki senjata nuklir".

Ditulis tahun 2009, ketika US bersama Saudi Arabia dan Israel tengah aktif mempersiapkan serangan terhadap sekutu utama Iran, Syria, dengan menggunakan unsur-unsur teroris Al Qaeda. Serangan itu merupakan serangan pendahuluan untuk melemahkan Iran sebelum serangan langsung terhadap Iran akhirnya tidak bisa dielakkan.

Isu tentang senjata nuklir Iran sebenarnya tidak berdasar sama sekali. Program nuklir Iran sepenuhnya dalam pengawasan IAEA untuk keperluan damai. Sama seperti program nuklir damai di negara-negara lain. Bahkan beberapa negara lain yang secara diam-diam memiliki senjata nuklir tanpa persetujuan PBB, aman tidak tersentuh: Jepang, Brazil, Afrika Selatan, Korea Utara, Pakistan, India dan Israel. Namun isu senjata nuklir Iran diperlukan Amerika karena Iran, yang salah satu landasan idiologinya adalah pembebasan Palestina dari pendudukan Israel, dianggap sebagai musuh nyata bagi dominasi Amerika-Israel.

Jadi buat apa, setelah bersusah payah selama bertahun-tahun menciptakan ketegangan isu senjata nuklir Iran, Amerika tiba-tiba saja mau repot-repot berdamai dengan Iran?
REF:
"Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not “Breakthrough”"; Tony Cartalucci; Land Destroyer; 26 November 2013

"Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House"; Fars News Agency; 26 November 2013

Selasa, 26 November 2013

THE FINAL RESULT OF AMERICAN GAMES IN AFGHANISTAN WARFARE THAT THEY CREATED SINCE 911 WTC 2001... BY BIG LIER ISSUES... AND DEMOLISHED WTC TOWER NO 1 AND 2 AND 7... ?? >> ITS DID BY BUSH REGIME AND PEELS- ISRAEL-CIA-MI-6... AS CONSPIRATION OF THE INSIDERS JOB...>> SO HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE DIED AND WOUNDED... AND THE RUINS OF SO A LOT INFRA STRUCTURES.. AND ALSO HUMANITY ....>> REALLY ITS A HUGE CRIME COLONIALIST WAR..AND CRIME FOR MANKIND...??>> USA AND PEELS MUST BE BROUGHT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT.. AND GIFT THE SO STRONGLY HEAVY PUNISHMENT ....>> THIS THE BETRAYEL OF BASIC HUMANITY AND JUSTICE....>> AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE WELKNOWN AS THE MOST EDUCATED PEOPLE AND HAVE THE RICH AND MODERN COUNTRY... BUT UNLUCKY..THEY HAVE THE BADLY BRUTAL MORALITY AND SUCH LIKE MAKING WAR AND UNFAIR... POLITICAL BEHAVIORS..??>> SO WHAT ....??!! >> .... IS IT THE REAL AMERICAN...OR MAY BE WHICH IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT...?? We all know that Americans destroyed Iraq by lying that it had WMD. Similarly, they invaded and destroyed Afghanistan claiming that Ben Laden, then in Afghanistan, was responsible for 9/11, another unsubstantiated claim. Now, after the phony Seal 6 story of killing and dumping Ben Laden’s body in the ocean, they want to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Why? Some say they are in cahoots with UK queen to control the profits from the opium fields, while others also point to Afghanistan’s large uranium mines. On top of that, they also want to continue their crimes without being subject to due process under Afghanistan laws! Low and behold all those so-called supporters of human rights...>> You're right. But let me add some in. A host of political experts and military personnel in the western world are whispering the US is the main loser of these 10 years war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Even though it has inflicted severe damages to the infrastructure of these two countries. The US economy has gone, over 1 million US soldiers have been severely wounded as a result of necessary clashes between Taliban. The pain appears to be greater in the US part as it leads to sporadic internal revolts never seeing since the black liberation movement of the 60s. The only chance of declaring victory for the US while the situation has highly improved on the ground is to be able to stay another 10 years. This is where this pact comes to play and has become important for the US. With also the hope to be able to use it against a Iran. ..>>

Afghanistan rejects US demand on bilateral security agreement

 http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/22/336039/afghanistan-rejects-us-demand-on-bsa/
 
Afghanistan has rejected the US demand to sign a security deal with Washington, known as the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), as soon as possible.


The US said on Thursday it wants the key security pact approved and signed by Kabul by the end of 2013.

White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said, “Failure to get this [agreement] approved and signed by the end of the year would prevent the United States and our allies from being able to plan for a post-2014 presence.”

Earlier in the day, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said during his address to Loya Jirga, or grand council, that the BSA would be signed by the Afghan government after the presidential election.

On Friday, his spokesman, Aimal Faizi, reiterated Karzai’s stance on the issue, saying, “Security, peace and good elections are key to the signing of the BSA.”

“Let's wait and see what will the Loya Jirga decide on the document. If approved, as the president said, it will be signed after elections,” Faizi added.

Loya Jirga is Afghanistan’s assembly of some 2,500 tribal elders and political leaders from across the country who have gathered in the capital Kabul to discuss the BSA.

People in Afghanistan will go to the polls on April 5, 2014, to elect a successor to Karzai.

Under the BSA, US troops would be allowed to remain in Afghanistan beyond the 2014 deadline.

Kabul has agreed to US military operations under special circumstances and American troops' immunity from prosecution in Afghanistan.

Anti-US sentiments have been on the rise in Afghanistan due to the deadly raids carried out by the US and other foreign troops in the war-torn country.

Afghans have also held several demonstrations against the security deal with the United States.

MR/SS
 

Cheezehead
Nov 22, 2013 7:54 PM
they did the American people a favor by not supporting that agreement: we need to stay home and fix our own problems instead of occupying other nations and fighting wars!
Click to Rate ReplyRating1
Percy
Nov 22, 2013 7:0 PM
We all know that Americans destroyed Iraq by lying that it had WMD. Similarly, they invaded and destroyed Afghanistan claiming that Ben Laden, then in Afghanistan, was responsible for 9/11, another unsubstantiated claim. Now, after the phony Seal 6 story of killing and dumping Ben Laden’s body in the ocean, they want to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Why? Some say they are in cahoots with UK queen to control the profits from the opium fields, while others also point to Afghanistan’s large uranium mines. On top of that, they also want to continue their crimes without being subject to due process under Afghanistan laws! Low and behold all those so-called supporters of human rights.
Click to Rate ReplyRating8
atamaz jalizin reply to Percy
11/22/2013 8:12:40 PM
You're right. But let me add some in. A host of political experts and military personnel in the western world are whispering the US is the main loser of these 10 years war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Even though it has inflicted severe damages to the infrastructure of these two countries. The US economy has gone, over 1 million US soldiers have been severely wounded as a result of necessary clashes between Taliban. The pain appears to be greater in the US part as it leads to sporadic internal revolts never seeing since the black liberation movement of the 60s. The only chance of declaring victory for the US while the situation has highly improved on the ground is to be able to stay another 10 years. This is where this pact comes to play and has become important for the US. With also the hope to be able to use it against a Iran. 
 
Honest
Nov 22, 2013 6:7 PM
That is not difficult. US should raise the money and other perks. Karzai will definite sell his country.
Click to Rate ReplyRating7
ALIAS
Nov 22, 2013 4:8 PM
Karzai is an US puppet, but nobody's fool. Like the US, he knows how to get the cake and eat it too. But if he can't get the Loya Jirga to give him what he wants, he'll let the US dollars get them for him. Karzai doesn't want to go down as a traitor or be found hanging in a tree. He wants to pass the buck to the next elected satrap, who'll keep feeding off the US all over again. Poor ordinary Afghans who don't care for dictators or democracy, they only want their lives.
Click to Rate ReplyRating15
khosro
Nov 22, 2013 1:58 PM
All those who know Afghanistan nation very well, are not expecting anything else but the "Afghanistan rejects US demand on bilateral security agreement", from them for now and then.
Click to Rate ReplyRating14
Nick
Nov 22, 2013 1:17 PM
Next step will be duffel bags full of dollars delivered by US generals to tribal chiefs for their "agreement."
Click to Rate ReplyRating22
Igorin reply to Nick
11/22/2013 1:30:03 PM
They should take money and still kick USA .... out of Afghanistan.
Click to Rate Rating23
Truth
Nov 22, 2013 1:9 PM
The deal with USA was rejected. It will not be sign even if close of USA soldier immunity to crimes committed by them is scratched.
Click to Rate ReplyRating16
Rabiin reply to Truth
11/22/2013 1:22:57 PM
I am afraid that US will refuse to withdraw its soldiers from Afghanistan despite deal not being signed. USA military-indastrial lords will have do be forced to withdraw US army. Karzai is aware of that.
 

 

AFGHANISTAN TOLAK JADI BAWAHAN PERMANEN AMERIKA

Mengikuti tetangganya, Irak, yang menolak menjadi negara 1/2 jajahan Amerika, Afghanistan akhirnya menolak menandatangani perjanjian keamanan dengan Amerika (Bilateral Security Agreement) yang memberikan hak-hak istimewa kepada Amerika.

Dalam pernyataan di hadapan sidang para tetua agama dan masyarakat Lora Jirga yang digelar hari Kamis (21/11) Presiden Hamid Karzai mengatakan bahwa perjanjian keamanan akan ditandatangani oleh pemerintah mendatang setelah pemilu. Sehari kemudian jubir Karzai Aimal Faizi mengulang kembali pernyataan Karzai, "Keamanan, perdamaian dan pemilu yang baik adalah kunci untuk menandatangani perjanjian keamanan.”
http://cahyono-adi.blogspot.com/2013/11/afghanistan-tolak-jadi-bawahan-permanen.html#.UpRb0SeN6So

“Mari kita tunggu apa keputusan Loya Jirga atas dokumen itu. Jika disetujui, sebagai presiden, dokumen itu akan ditandatangani setelah pemilu," kata Faizi.

Padahal pada hari Kamis Amerika sudah menyatakan bahwa Amerika menginginkan perjanjian tersebut ditandatangani pada akhir tahun ini.

Jubir pemerintahan Amerika Josh Earnest, mengatakan, “kegagalan menandatangani perjanjian ini tahun ini akan mencegah Amerika dan sekutu-sekutu menetapkan rencana masa depan setelah tahun 2014.”

Loya Jirga adalah dewan rakyat Afghanistan yang beranggotakan 2.500 ketua suku dan pemimpin politik di seluruh Afghanistan. Mereka berkumpul di Kabul untuk membahasa perjanjian keamanan tersebut. Adapun pemilu presiden Afghanistan akan dilaksanakan tgl 5 April 2014.

Di bawah perjanjian keamanan yang dirancang Amerika berbulan-bulan itu sebagian pasukan Amerika diijinkan tetap tinggal di Afghanistan setelah tahun 2014. Selain itu tentara-tentara Amerika itu diberikan hak immunitas dari hukum Afgahistan. Namun kebencian terhadap Amerika sudah mendarah daging bagi sebagian besar rakyat Afghanistan terkait dengan banyaknya aksi-aksi biadab pasukan Amerika. Berbagai aksi demonstrasi juga telah digelar rakyat Afghanistan menentang perjanjian keamanan tersebut.

Jika Afghanistan benar-benar monolak perjanjian keamanan dengan Amerika, maka hal ini merupakan pengulangan dari apa yang terjadi di Irak sebelum penarikan pasukan Amerika tahun 2011. Kala itu pun Amerika memaksa pemerintah Irak menandatangani perjanjian yang memberi hak keberadaan pasukan Amerika dan kekebalan hukum bagi para personilnya. Namun karena penolakan rakyat Irak serta adanya jaminan keamanan dari Iran, maka Irak pun menolak perjanjian tersebut, dan Amerika terpaksa hengkang dengan tangan hampa setelah menghabiskan triliunan dolar biaya perang dan ribuan personil militernya yang tewas sia-sia.

REF:
"Afghanistan rejects US demand on bilateral security agreement"; PRESS TV; 22 November 2013