Mr Ouimette's letter adds credence to the polls that more than 50% of Americans have bought wholesale the 'story' of bad old Saddam being jointly responsible for 9/11 incident.

However, I noticed that even he tip-toed around the facts of the 'Project for a new American Century' with all its strategic but sinister aims, and that of the US-rehabilitated Afghan warlords - really, the American people ought to be told their government has been mixing around with bad hats, but hey, what's new!

He claimed that Arab radicals in hailing the 9/11 tragedy proved that Osama bin Laden had been the culprit. But this expression of Arab hatred actually followed the US nomination and accusation of Osama as the perpetrator.

As for the al-Qaeda operatives who allegedly provided intimate details o­n the attack itself, were they the o­nes detained at Guantanamo Bay, where o­nly the US military and intelligence agencies have access, and human right lawyers none?

Or were these from the US air base at Bagram, Afghanistan, where two of the prisoners were fatally 'softened up' during interrogations? To put it in plain language they were killed - cause of death: blunt force trauma!

And it's not Robert Fisk or any "anti-American demagogue" who reported this. Check the BBC News of March 6 and an associated article in the Washington Post of Dec 26, 2002. I must admit that I might be 'persuaded' to confess to the murder of my mother had I been subjected to that kind of 'interrogation'.

It may well be that Osama and his al-Qaeda terrorists were responsible for 9/11, but the fact is there was zilch evidence then. It was all based o­n suspicion, speculation and political expediency. The 'evidence' was then subsequently 'found' at various stages leading up to, during and even after the war.

But as I mentioned, it is strange that this man who had never hesitated in claiming responsibility for his numerous acts of terrorism (in fact he craved such recognition), that time disclaimed such responsibility. But did that matter o­nce the mighty US had 'decided' that he was guilty, and thus collaterally affected the Taliban and Afghanistan?

The greatest shame for a o­nce-great and globally admired nation like the US , supposedly the leading light of democracy, had been its stampeding over due process of western law, and resorting instead to old-fashion Texas vigilante action.

Certainly time did not favour US President George W Bush immediately after the 9/11 tragedy. Action was expected, and had to be demonstrated to satisfy and reassure a traumatised American public. But such drastic action should not have been based o­n anger nor political expediency but by careful investigations, evidence and measured considerations, especially when o­ne is the mightiest nation o­n earth.

Might will get the mighty what they want, except legitimacy. I and many million others grieve not for Osama nor the Taliban but for the thousands of innocent Afghans who were slaughtered by the US attack. Many of these innocent Afghans haven't even heard of an American city called New York.

But what takes the cake was his assertion that "the whole 9/11 attack was a direct result of the co-operation and collusion between the former (meaning the Taliban) and al-Qaeda". Even Mr Ouimette's government, the Bush administration, didn't aver such outrageous nonsense about the Taliban.

The writer made some ingenious attempts to demonstrate that there was a complete difference between the Afghan Mujahideen and the Taliban plus participants like Osama. I know it's fairly embarrassing to the US to be reminded of its association with the Taliban or Osama, just as it has been equally embarrassing to be linked with Saddam. Remember Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with his buddy, the mother of all leaders, Mr Saddam Hussein himself?

Mr Ouimette tried to minimise the relationship between the US and the Mujahideens-Taliban (call them what you like, but they were the same crowd) by stating, that the US o­nly provided "consultancy" to these people specifically to topple the Soviet-installed regime in Kabul.

I ask him to define "consultancy". Does it include arms, funds, CIA operatives in country, US training and intelligence, etc? And which superpower has installed the current regime in Kabul? Who constitutes the current Afghan regime?

And do refrain from using that old tired tactic of accusing anti-war people of being apologists for the Butcher of Baghdad, or pro-Saddam, or that we are naive, or that we are subjecting the Iraqi people to further years of Saddam's rule.

I know it's difficult for Mr Ouimette to reconcile himself to the possibility that there are actually people who are pro-peace per se. In fact there are many Americans, Australians and British who also believe that the peace process should be properly exhausted before the case for war be taken to the United Nations Security Council for a proper and legal resolution.

If the US wants to 'liberate' the world from dictators, please start with North Korea, Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen, and a host of those former USSR member states who now constitute some of its supporters for the Iraqi adventure. But, I must advise that they don't have oil.

Then there are also the US allies, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to address o­n this issue of 'liberation', though a democratic country would certainly have more of an independent mind and may not want to come to the US party. Absolute monarchies or despots when already in the US pockets are easier for the US to control.

Finally he went into a diatribe about the failures of radical Islamists, and what losers they are, and what terrible governments they have. I am afraid I have to agree with the last point where most Islamic countries are ruled by despots, including the many that are protected, armed and courted by the US.

He then went o­n to insult these countries and their people, showing at last his true colours. Needless to say, a person such as Mr Ouimette would aver that none of the Muslim grouses and grievances had anything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Either he has his head buried in the sand, or I guess those Palestinians are just 'conflicting' for the fun of it.

There are millions of anti-war people in this world. Not everyone of them are "radical Islamists". We all oppose the unjust, illegal, immoral and sinister US invasion of Iraq.

It is already too late to stop the invasion, but nevertheless we again make this call - Let the Iraqi people sort out their own affairs as the South Africans, Chileans, Romanians, Indonesians, etc. have, without any US military invasion.

If the US wants to play an interventionist role, do so with food aid, technical and educational assistance,

medical support and a host of Christian actions of charity and goodwill.

Use the powerful US military for humanitarian work, like despatching its armada to a place like Mozambique a couple of years back when that country was reeling from the devastation of widespread floods. A dozen or so USN helicopters would have been useful, but alas there was none.

Or if the US wants to trace the real culprit of the 9/11 and bring the criminal to true justice, whether he be Osama bin Laden or a radical Malaysian Muslim, I am certain the world, including Malaysia, will support it, as it has with intelligence o­n terrorists.

Just please don't run around wearing war paint, beating the war drums and indiscriminately shooting anyone it fancies, including the innocents.