U.S. Warns Its Citizens in Afghanistan.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
U.S. Warns Its Citizens in Afghanistan.
13
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:20pm

More troubles as the elections draw closer.


http://daily.webshots.com/content/ap/current/h56265778.html


The U.S. government warned its citizens to keep a low profile in Kabul Monday after a car bomb hit a private American security company, killing up to 11 people in the deadliest attack in the Afghan capital in two years.

Three Americans died in Sunday's attack, according to Kabul's NATO-led security force.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the blast at the office of Dyncorp Inc., which provides bodyguards for Afghan President Hamid Karzai and works for the American government in Iraq.

Security officials have issued repeated warnings in recent weeks that anti-government militants could ramp up attacks to disrupt the country's landmark presidential election.

The bombing came hours after another explosion killed at least nine people, eight of them children, at a school in southeastern Afghanistan, underlining the country's fragile security as it moves toward the Oct. 9 vote.

On Monday, the U.S. Embassy e-mailed Americans in Kabul to tell them to limit their movements, take strict security measures and avoid "potential target areas" such as government offices, NATO bases and restaurants.

U.N. staff were also ordered to keep off the streets as much as possible.

Mullah Hakim Latifi, a man who claims to speak for the Taliban, said one of its members carried out the Kabul attack with a time-bomb loaded in a vehicle, and warned that more attacks would follow.

"Taliban began trying to place a bomb in this area three days ago, and finally they have succeeded," Latifi told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location.

"We appeal to civilians to stay away from the elections and places where the Americans and coalition are living and working," he said. "They are our priority targets."

His claim could not be verified independently.

Lt. Cdr. Ken Mackillop, a spokesman for NATO-led troops in Kabul, said the FBI and Interpol had joined the investigation into the incident, but that it was still unclear who was behind it. He said the bomb was detonated by remote control.

Mackillop said one person had been arrested at Kabul airport with "traces of explosives on his hands," but cautioned that authorities had not found anything to link him to the bombing.

"On whether we are seriously considering al-Qaida or anybody else, all possibilities are open," he said.

Haji Ikramuddin, the chief of police in the downtown Shar-e-Naw district where the blast occurred, said "American professionals" were combing the site of the bombing.

There was confusion about the exact number of people killed in the attack, which appeared to be the worst in Kabul since a car bomb killed 30 Afghans and wounded 150 on Sept. 5, 2002.

Karzai's office said Sunday that two Americans, three Nepalese and two Afghan nationals were confirmed dead.

On Monday, Mackillop said the bodies of three Americans and three Afghans were at the international force's field hospital. Two Nepalese and another American were being treated at the German-run facility in the capital, he said.

Four more bodies were at the Afghan National Army hospital, the only other facility in the capital with a morgue, said its head doctor, Gen. Mohammed Atiq Shamim.

"It's difficult to recognize them," Shamim said, refusing to speculate on their nationality.

Afghan officials said as many as 20 more people were wounded.

None of the victims was identified.

Karzai and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad expressed shock at the attack against the contractor, which had been helping train Afghanistan's new national police.

"This cowardly attack will not deter U.S. participation in the ongoing effort to help Afghanistan stand on its own feet," Khalilzad said, describing the bombing as a terrorist attack.

Dyncorp Inc. is a division of Computer Sciences Corp. based in El Segundo, California. In Kabul, the company was also involved in training Afghan police.

Mackillop said it was unclear if a car or a truck carried the explosives, which witnesses said left mutilated bodies lying in the street amid the burning wreckage of several vehicles.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 8:48pm
Things still going well in Afghanistan then, are they ?? When will the US realise that the US is the problem ??

There is talk of the US getting Israel to bomb Iranian plants. Oh, now that is a SMART idea. Not.

Octagonal
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 10:47am

Octagonal thanks for the heads-up on this story.


The neo-cons give Iran the Iraq treatment.


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/29/1093717832595.html?oneclick=true


Sexed-up reports, pressure on the United Nations... here we go again, writes Jonathan Steele.


History is beginning to repeat itself, this time over Iran. Just two years after the British Government's notorious "Downing Street dossier" on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and the first efforts to get United Nations approval for war, Washington is trying to create similar pressures for action against Iran.


The ingredients are well-known: sexed-up intelligence material that puts the target country in the worst possible light; moves to get the UN to declare it in "non-compliance", thereby claiming justification for going in unilaterally even if the UN gives no support for invasion; and at the back of the whole brouhaha, a clique of US neo-conservatives whose real agenda is regime change.


The immediate focus for action against Iran is the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has produced five reports on Iran in the past 14 months. Part of the UN, the IAEA in its reports has raised questions about Iran's professedly civilian nuclear program and its desire to create its own fuel cycle that could eventually be used to produce bombs.


To satisfy its critics, Iran agreed last year to allow so-called intrusive inspections. As a confidence-building measure, it also stopped enriching uranium. In a few days' time the IAEA will issue a new report, and it is its wording that is causing the latest flurry.


John Bolton, the Bush Administration's point-man, has been rushing round Europe claiming the evidence of sinister Iranian behaviour is clear, even though the IAEA has consistently made no such judgement. It has called for more transparency, but prefers to keep probing and, like Hans Blix in Iraq in 2003, insisting that it needs more time.


Iran, meanwhile, says the IAEA should accept that nothing wrong has been found and let Iran receive the civilian nuclear technology - with the safeguards that go with it - that countries such as Germany and France have promised.


Bolton is not, at this stage, claiming to have intelligence that the IAEA's inspectors don't. After the fiasco of the US's pre-war material on Iraq, he has not started to trumpet US sources. But he is choosing to interpret the available knowledge as harshly as possible. He is also close to the Washington hardliners in the Project for the New American Century, who created the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against unfriendly states and who favour regime change to deal with Islamist fundamentalism.


Norman Podhoretz, the arch-conservative editor of Commentary magazine, one of their house journals, said last week: "I am not advocating the invasion of Iran at this moment, although I wouldn't be heartbroken if it happened."


There are differences from the anti-Iraq campaign two years ago. This time the US is taking the lead in going to the UN. Bolton wants the IAEA board to say that Iran has violated its commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and take the matter to the Security Council for a decision on sanctions or other stern action. France and Germany are resisting a move to the UN.


Second, even the US (Podhoretz excepted) is not talking about a full-scale US invasion with ground troops. It has too many soldiers tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan to spare many for a third campaign. The talk is of using US Special Forces or air strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear plants, or giving a green light to Israel to do it.


The biggest difference, though, is in Britain's stance. Unlike the Bush campaign against Saddam, Britain is siding with France and Germany this time. It is part of a "troika" that promotes constructive engagement rather than confrontation with Iran. (Me: Once bitten twice shy.)


They have powerful arguments. The disaster of the Iraq war and the failure to bring peace, stability or order make them want to avoid a repetition with Iraq's more populous and larger neighbour. Even "limited" air strikes on Iran's nuclear plants would unify the country and harden hostility to the West throughout the Middle East, especially if Washington subcontracted the attacks to the Israeli air force.


Most Iraqi resistance to the Americans is based on nationalist resentment, and Iranians are no different. People of all political persuasions in Tehran support their country's right to have nuclear power, and probably even bombs. Threatening them with force is not the most intelligent way to persuade them otherwise.


The defeat of Iran's reformist MPs in this northern spring's unfair elections, as well as the certainty that President Mohammad Khatami will be replaced by a less liberal figure next year, have not ended the chance of dialogue with Tehran. European diplomats detect the emergence of a group of "pragmatic conservatives" in the Iranian leadership who could be easier to deal with than the beleaguered liberals of the past seven years. They want better relations with the West.


London's difference with Washington on Iran is remarkable. But does Britain's alignment with France and Germany on Iran mean that Tony Blair has really parted with George Bush on a key geo-political and military issue?


We will know the answer after the US election. Even if John Kerry wins, European diplomats expect no major change in Washington's policy towards Iran. So how will Blair cuddle up to the new president? What easier way than to break with France and Germany and show Kerry that, whether there's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, Britain's prime minister is still best friends when it comes to being tough with Islamist bullies and taking the brave and moral route to war?

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 3:40pm

I knew it was just a matter of time...this just makes me sick.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 4:10pm

Hope to heck he doesn't get in! Will it be too late to clean-up the mess?


 


Photobucket&nbs

Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 5:38pm
Now I am really going to ask a stupid question. Why if most of the mainstream media in this country is considered liberal/left leaning do we have to read information like this a foreign newspaper? Seems to me If media is so anti Bush they would be all over this stuff. I am not doubting the story, DH and I listen to BBC all the time to try and get accurate world news and US news. What are the US reporters so afraid of???

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 5:51pm
The Taliban are supposed to be a religious group, what kind of religion allows you to kill innocent people? Religious groups are supposed to be peaceful.

Where is the outcry from the Arab world about the killing of innocent children and other people who have not done anything to the Taliban? What kind of madness is this?

As long as the Taliban don't get their way, they will kill to get it. That is evil. They are evil people. The funny thing about it is that they call the US evil.

These are people who won't stop until they are killed. Sometimes one must fight fire with fire.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 5:54pm

I listen to BBC news most mornings to catch the world news.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 6:43pm

Then perhaps we should have focused on finishing the job in Afghanistan first...before invading Iraq...and, now it looks like a 'diversion' could be created by invading Iran??


The Taliban is awful.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 7:06pm

Maybe...maybe not.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 08-31-2004 - 7:40pm
As one poster said, this has been coming for a long time. While we were focused on Najaf

the the battles continued. The army turned its attention back to the Sunni Triangle after the "peace" in Najaf. This article is almost a satire if it wasn't so truthful.

"The real Bush-Cheney '04 campaign strategy is not, and could never be, on show in New York. Its main "themes" are fear and character assassination: fear in the form of perennially evoking the "war on terra", and character assassination like the Swift Boat smear campaign. The strategy aims to brainwash and polarize voters relentlessly with a barrage of lies and caricature. And it involves never, ever talking about the Iraq quagmire (best slogan in the New York march: "Quagmire Accomplished"), unless to tie it up with the "war on terra". Many Americans are smart enough not to fall into this trap: according to the latest Gallup poll, Kerry is now more trusted to handle Iraq (48%) than Bush (47%) - even considering the fact that still nobody knows exactly what Kerry would do.

As much as corporate media insist New York "is not America", the Sunday mass protest once again underlined the total failure of the twin pillars of Bush's record - the economy and especially the "war on terra".

The Sunni Iraqi resistance controls the major cities in the Sunni triangle and is able to sabotage pipelines at will. Nobody is even dreaming of investing in Iraq. Unemployment is close to 70%. Muqtada is a nationalist leader with popular legitimacy who can cause endless trouble to the illegitimate US-appointed government.

The Taliban control at least 40% of Afghanistan - and warlords control the rest. As a New Yorker puts it: "The Taliban are killing people in Afghanistan? Again? That's soooooo 2001 ..." US-installed Hamid Karzai may win October's presidential election, but he will control little else apart from his own chair, as the joke in Kabul goes. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, these figures were not "smoked out" as promised, so they were completely erased from the Bush administration spinning machine - as Iraq is being erased by complicit corporate media. Opium-poppy cultivation is the rage in Afghanistan - its heroin back with a vengeance in Western Europe. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are under martial law. Their governments can only survive because they are protected by US troops - and mercenaries. "Democracy", anyone? "

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI01Aa02.html

Let's face it Bush doesn't want America to know what a mess he has made of foreign relations. And the neo-cons are plotting for regime change in Iran. Remember Hitler's "All Quiet on the Western Front" while the war raged. You have to buy into the delusion of success to support GWB.





Pages