Trinicenter.com | LETTERS |

Letters

Africa Links

Forums

Science Today

Members News

Caribbean

BOOKS

Sample comments on : Attack on America

CIA planned to bring down Chavez Frias
Posted: Saturday, September 20, 2003

Venezuelan Military Intelligence says overwhelming evidence the CIA planned to bring down Chavez Frias' airplane en route to United Nations in New York September 20, 2003 By: Roy S. Carson, www.vheadline.com
Details behind the sudden decision to cancel President Hugo Chavez Frias' next-week trip to Washington D.C. and New York (to deliver a speech to the United Nations) are being revealed by security services who say they have "overwhelming evidence" of a CIA-backed plan to "bring down" the Chavez Frias' airplane during the scheduled flight to the United States from Caracas. Sources in Venezuela's Military Intelligence Directorate (DIM) have told VHeadline.com that "presented with overwhelming evidence of Washington's planned attack on the Presidential flight, it was decided that the President's personal security was preeminent and that he should not go!"

U.S.nuclear threats against Afghanistan!
Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2001

Dear friends,

I am herewith forwarding a mail that I read in "The Hindu" which says that the U.S. defense secretary has not ruled out the use of nuclear
weapons in Afghanistan!! The barbarism of this statement shocked me as it should truly shock you! I am refusing to believe that we are living in the twentieth century!

The USA has already flaunted international law by bombing innocent
Afghan people to catch a few people it believes to be those behind the terror attacks on the USA!

If the United States army has balls it has to send armed ground troops
to engage the Taliban instead of bombing innocent Afghan civilians from the air in order to catch those individuals who were former pals of the CIA and to overthrow the Taliban regime which was created by American support and funds in the first place!

But now the threat to use nuclear weapons by the U.S. defense secretary nauseates me and I really want to throw up!! I truly detest the USA and the American people for the first time in my life! The barbarism of threatening nuclear attacks against a country which has no modern army and the real possibility of nuking millions of Afghan people to their deaths just to catch a few individuals and to overthrow a regime originally created by America is cannibalistic to say the least!! This sort of cannibalism in the internet age is made possible only by the mindless, thoughtless and fascist support accorded by the ignorant and bigoted American people to their
Government!

I want you to do everything that is possible to prevent US Government
from using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan!! Please write a letter to the local newspaper, your member of parliament, senator or congressman or go out and protest!!

Stop this shameful cannibalistic threats from becoming a reality!

Please act now!

With regards,
Iniyan Elango (alias) R.S.Sridhar

The following is the report by "The Hindu":

N-weapons not ruled out?

By Sridhar Krishnaswami

WASHINGTON, OCT. 29. The Bush administration has refused to rule out
the possibility of using nuclear weapons in its campaign against
Afghanistan if the present military hardware is unable to flush out terrorists and their operational facilities from the underground tunnels and caves.

The Defence Secretary, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, maintained in a Sunday
talk show that "the 5,000 pound bombs are going to be able to do the job of hitting the Al-Qaeda in their underground facilities. But when pressed for an answer on whether or not the U.S. would rule out the use of nuclear weapons, especially the smaller tactical nuclear weapons, he said, "I don't rule out anything".

There has been at least one person on Capitol Hill - Congressman Steve
Buyer of Indiana - who has taken the position that if the United States is unable to make much headway with the 5000 pounders to penetrate and level the cave facilities of the Al- Qaeda, the administration should think about using tactical nuclear weapons, not the larger ones in the stockpile.

During the talk show, Mr. Rumsfeld was reminded that in the Gulf War,
the U.S. had deliberately refused to rule out a nuclear strike should Mr. Saddam Hussein resort to a nuclear, chemical or biological attack.

As far as the situation in Afghanistan was concerned, Mr. Rumsfeld
would go no more than reiterating what he had said on earlier occasions. "The U.S. has historically refused to rule out the use of weapons like that," the Defence Secretary remarked.

Pak. rejects 'even the thought'

B. Muralidhar Reddy reports from Islamabad:

Pakistan on Monday rejected "even the thought" of using nuclear
weapons tactically or otherwise in Afghanistan.

"We firmly and categorically reject even the thought of using nuclear
weapons tactically or otherwise," the Pakistan Foreign Office
spokesman, Mr. Riaz Mohammad Khan, told correspondents in response to a question about a statement attributed Mr. Rumsfeld on use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan.

Daily warns of new plot in US-Britain's current actions
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2001

Tehran, Oct 18, IRNA -- Although a senior official of the U.S.
Administration has recently said that there is no valuable target in
Afghanistan, Washington's ongoing deployment of more and more forces
in the region, has given rise to the question as to what America is
trying to achieve through this huge military mobilization? pondered
the English-language daily `Tehran Times' on Thursday.

The daily in its opinion column recalled that even U.S. Secretary
of State Colin Powell at a recent press conference in Pakistan said
that "there is no definite timetable for the overthrow of the
Taliban," noting that even British Prime Minster Tony Blair and U.S.
President George W. Bush have also stated that their "war on
Afghanistan may last long, and that even their air raids on that
country may take months!"

All this indicates that the so-called campaign against terrorism
is only a "pretext", warned the paper, adding that Washington is
actually trying to gain a foothold in the region by setting up
military bases in the area.

Their real intention is "to exert influence over the Central Asian
countries and getting access to the regional oil and gas reserves,"
continued the paper.

In fact, signs indicate that the U.S. and Britain have aims to
establish another "Israel" in this part of the world through
disintegration of Afghanistan by exploiting ethnic conflict in that
country.

In other words, the daily said, "some evidence indicates that the
two countries are going to partition Afghanistan and establish three
governments in north, center and southern parts of that war-ravaged
country."

According to this theory, the paper believed, "the southern and
estern parts of Afghanistan will be allotted to the Taliban and
Pashtuns, who are supported by Pakistan; the deposed Zahir Khan will
rule the central part and the Northern Alliance will establish a
government in the north of that country."

What lends probability to this theory is that some reports have
quoted Northern Alliance leaders as having said that they intend "to
choose Mazar-i-Sharif as their capital and that they have no intention
of advancing towards Kabul," examined the daily.

If this plot is carried out, then it is sure that Washington and
London will make the most of the ethnic conflict existing among
different tribes in Afghanistan, warned the article.

Moreover, "considering the political background of Zahir and his
strong leanings towards the West, it is quite clear that the
government in the central part of Afghanistan will turn into a
regional base for the US," it added.

Even while the US and Britain are planning to dominate Central
Asia and control its natural resources, the Zionist entity has also
resumed its "liquidation policy" or assassination of Palestinian
activists and leaders of the Intifada, in order to crush the
resistance of Palestinians and pave the way for the realization of its
dream of a greater Israel extending from Nile to Euphrates, denounced
the paper.

Under such sensitive circumstances, it urged those Islamic
countries, that have not yet condemned the U.S-led air strikes on
innocent lives in Afghanistan, "to respond to the demands of their
nations and join other Islamic states that have suggested that any
anti-terrorism campaign should be launched under the umbrella of the
U.N."

It warned those Islamic countries, that if they do not condemn the
unilateral U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, then "unbridled aggressions
may become the norm of the day." Consequently, these countries may
also become a target of aggressions by the Zionist regime, which is
looking for any opportunity to make its dream come true, it concluded.

Wake up Ariel Sharon
Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2001

Dear Editor

The man whose job it was to make Israel appear safe and secure to the world was murdered today. Where ? In a hotel in the capital Jerusalem by to assailants who escaped. The response to this by the Israeli Leader Ariel Sharon was that " this is a new era, things are never going to be the same again." My advice to the Prime Minister is to wake up and look around; things have not been the same a long time now for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.

Maybe now that his colleague in Cabinet has been murdered a may not be the same for him, but for the people in the region it has been the same for quite sometime now.

Cindy Williams

Terror turns Bush's focus inside out
Posted: Tuesday, October 9, 2001

The go-it-alone approach of US foreign policy before September 11 may now be seen as the last hurrah for American unilateralism, writes Julian Borger

It is difficult to remember now just how unilateralist the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy was in its first eight months in office.
Like so much that happened before September 11, it is ancient history. The White House has since found a use for the rest of the world.

The most inward-looking US government since the Reagan era has been transformed by blood, fire and shock into a team of internationalist globetrotters.

It listens to the concerns of the Arab world about the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a far-off irritant it had previously filed in a thick dossier labelled "not our problem".

It checks in almost daily with Vladimir Putin, who had not been thought important enough to warrant a meeting with George Bush until the administration had dealt with a long list of other priorities.

Since September 11, the White House has even managed to persuade Congress to pay its arrears to the United Nations.

This apparent conversion to the uses of multilateralism is just one way in which Washington is learning the asymmetries of being the world's sole superpower.

Its military and economic dominance fooled the Bush administration into believing that the US did not need to waste time and manpower negotiating with the rest of the world over global warming or missile defence, or proliferation.

It could set out its position and leave foreigners with the dilemma of going along or defying US power.

Thus Moscow was told that it was welcome to renegotiate the anti-ballistic missile treaty, but if it did not want to Washington would proceed with missile defence in any case.

The Kyoto accord on global warming was jettisoned and the rest of the world was asked to halt its efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions while the US thought out an alternative Americans felt more comfortable with.

But the global dominance which allowed the Bush administration to behave is such a nonchalant manner, also made America a target.

Osama bin Laden chose the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon as targets because they symbolise not just US power, but western civilisation. Its hubris made it vulnerable.

Bin Laden did not need broad Arab support to carry out the stunning massacre on September 11, but his actions and his subsequent justifications struck a chord on the street in the Arab world, where the general populations feel powerless and frustrated, their views ignored by the only power on earth that counts.

The question now is whether the Bush conversion to multilateralism will outlive Operation Enduring Freedom.

The cynical line heard in Washington these days is that Iraq will be left off the target list until the Arab "anti-terror coalition" has served its purpose in the hunt for bin Laden, and then anything is possible.

Better to use the opportunity to rid the US of a persistent threat like Saddam Hussein, and pick up the pieces in the Middle East at some later date, so the argument goes at the hawkish end of Pentagon thinking.

On balance, however, it is more likely the newly-powerful diplomats will win out in the end.

September 11 proved that all the satellites and hi-tech gadgetry in the world could not keep America safe from a determined bunch of men with knives.

The US is short of human intelligence, and in particular rumours and gossip on the street.

For that it needs good relations with other intelligence services and their governments.

To try to keep track of all the dangerous nuclear, chemical and biological matter floating around the world, it will need to agree a global monitoring system, in which it will have to depend on other countries.

And to stem the flow of willing Arab martyrs, another grand effort will have to be made to bring compromise between Israelis and Palestinians.

Ultimately, Americans may look back at the period from January to September 2001 as their country's last serious attempt to embrace unilateralism, before discovering that unilateralism in the 21st century is far too dangerous.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/
For fair use only

Previous Page | Trinicenter Home