Sir: B Atashband (DT, May 30) admits he got his statistics from the UN. An overwhelming majority of the worlds population will not trust a word that comes from this organisation after lessons learned from years of experience. It simply does not uphold all those lofty ideals it claims to stand for. It seems, it is hostage to those who go by the law of jungle i.e. “Might is right”. Further Mr Atashband wrote: As far as the US war on Saddam Hussain’s regime in Iraq is concerned, there were over 16 UN resolutions, where it was accepted that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction, which was against Chapter 7 of the UN charter.If we compare reality, with the above acceptance by the UN we come to the conclusion that the UN accepted and supported a fictitious claim. The undeniable fact is that the campaign of bloodshed in Afghanistan was initiated just because the US contractors did not get the pipeline contract from the Afghans. Before that, the Taliban were acceptable to the US government, who invited a Taliban delegation to the U.S.Qui bono (who benefited?) The Romans had a novel way of finding the murderer. They would always explore as to who benefited from a murder. So we can guess that 9/11 was a pretext to launch a campaign of bloodshed in Afghanistan. Many intellectuals in the U.S are promoting this theory.It is not only in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran where the campaign of bloodshed has been planned. There are many other countries. Some have endured bloodshed some will endure anew.S H WASTYUK