3 figure Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – an alleged mastermind of the Sept 11 terrorist attacks -

3 figure, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – an alleged mastermind of the Sept 11 terrorist attacks – in Pakistan on March 1. Officials say that Mohammed is giving information to US interrogators, and that some of the subsequent arrests came as a result of his capture.Attacks have increased on Afghan government posts in southern Afghanistan in recent weeks. The authorities have blamed remnants of the Taliban, al-Qaida and loyalists of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a renegade rebel commander labeled a terrorist by the United States.Taliban soldiers ambushed an Afghan government post in the south and killed three Afghan soldiers, a security official said.The soldiers at Sherabik post, near the Pakistan border, were ambushed early Wednesday and their throats slit by attacking Taliban, said Abdul Razzak Panjshiri, security chief of Spinboldak Five Taliban attackers were arrested, he said.. Anger at the looming attack on Iraq was palpable across the Arab world yesterday as emirs and dictators tried to keep public protest under control. “Are you not afraid to come here? That you will be punished for what Blair is doing in Iraq?” journalists were asked in the West Bank city of Nablus.Already two foreign oil workers, an American and a Canadian, have been shot dead in Yemen.

And, across the region, anger has surfaced even in the strictly controlled media of states friendliest to the US.While Hosni Mubarak, the President of Egypt – the most populous Arab state – blamed President Saddam’s intransigence yesterday for the conflict, a commentator in Al-Ahram, the largest official newspaper, which usually reflects the government line, accused the US of mounting a “colonial war”.Its editorial said: “The whole world believes that it is an unnecessary war It was possible to resolve this crisis peacefully. It is also believed that it is irresponsible war.”The day before, the less strictly controlled opposition paper, Wafd, went further. “Bush, the most stupid leader in the world,” it said, “with his herd of the US administration’s hawks, have become experts and decision-makers deciding our destiny for the coming generations.”This is a setback, which will be remembered in the history of our region for long time.”In Qatar, where the government is actively backing the war and allowing the US military to use its bases, the press, which enjoys more freedom than most in the Arab world, has condemned the war. “It is very clear that the Untied States is insisting in avoiding wisdom in dealing with the crisis,” said an article in Al-Raya newspaper. “It has surrendered to the arrogance of power and its strong desire to impose its hegemony and will on the world.”The United States wants to control the oil of Iraq and reshape the political map in the region to serve the American and Israeli interests.”In Jordan, King Abdullah is walking a tightrope between huge public opposition to the war and heavy US pressure for assistance. The government is insisting that US soldiers based in the country are there only to protect Jordan.A commentator wrote in Al-Rai newspaper: “It is guaranteed that Iraq will become an American and Zionist base to control the entire region. It opens the doors for Israel to control the Arab oil.”Referring to the 1967 war in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights, the article said: “The 1967 defeat was losing a battle and land But the Iraq defeat is the defeat of a role …

It deprives our coming generation of any hope.”Only in Kuwait, which is the war’s most fervent Arab backer, are there signs of widespread support. But even there, there is serious opposition, as witnessed by recent attacks on US soldiers.. France and Russia bluntly condemned the move towards war against Iraq yesterday, accusing London and Washington of going far beyond UN resolutions in seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein and of risking an upsurge in terrorism because of their actions. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, called it a “sad day for the United Nations and the international community”.Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said Britain and America were violating the UN charter with their determination to invade Iraq. He reflected the feelings of many at the UN that past resolutions on Iraq were specifically focused on disarming Iraq, not on removing its President, and that the goalposts had been moved, by Washington in particular.”Not one of these decisions authorises the right to use force against Iraq outside the UN charter,” Mr Ivanov said “Not one … authorises the violent overthrow of the leadership of a sovereign state.”Earlier, Mr Ivanov posed for cameras beside his French and German counterparts, Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer, to symbolise their common front in opposing war.M. de Villepin openly questioned the argument repeatedly put forward over recent days by George Bush that punishing Iraq militarily would help to combat terrorism.”To those who think that the scourge of terrorism will be eradicated through what is done in Iraq, we say that they run the risk of failing in their objective,” he said.

“An outbreak of force in such an unstable area can only exacerbate the tensions and fractures on which terrorists feed.”However, delegates at the debate were fully aware that they were powerless to stop the momentum towards war. The general feeling was that an outbreak of hostilities was unstoppable and that nothing anyone said in the Council chamber would change that.Mr Fischer said: “Germany emphatically rejects impending war. In the current circumstances, the policy of military intervention has no credibility.” Echoing the complaints of Mr Ivanov, he said: “There is no basis in the UN charter for a regime change with military means.”Mr Annan highlighted the plight of the Iraqi people, who face both war and the suspension of the UN’s oil-for-food programme, which has been supporting about 60 per cent of the population. “In the short term, the conflict that is now clearly about to start can only make things worse – perhaps much worse,” he said.He also served notice to the US and Britain, without naming them, that they would have to shoulder the initial burden of sustaining the Iraqi population. “Under international law, the responsibility for protecting civilians in conflict falls on the belligerents.