After reading this [Beckham, sex and big business, Apr 16], it really makes me wonder why Asia Times chooses only blatantly anti-Hindu left-wing writers for reporting on India. What on earth does an average Indian care about [David] Beckham and his sexcapades or Clinton-Lewinsky or so forth?
Ashesh Parikh

Editor's note: Friday's Letters page update was intended to include a link to a response to readers by Gary LaMoshi regarding his Apr 8 article Hong Kong politics: Business as usual, but the link did not work. It has been fixed, and the LaMoshi piece can also be accessed here. - ATol


Not sure what Ritt Goldstein was trying to say in the article about Saddam's capture [Saddam's capture revisited, Apr 17]. However, the anti-American feeling was evident. As an American (non-military) who has been there (Iraq), I would pass on these thoughts:
a. We are there, and we are going to stay there until we are no longer needed.
b. What I saw there was a grateful people, but a confused people.
c. What is going on now is nothing more than an internal power struggle, the religious "nuts" who live in the 10th century vs anything that might reduce their power in the country.
RKW (Apr 19, '04)


After reading this [Beckham, sex and big business, Apr 16], it really makes me wonder why Asia Times chooses only blatantly anti-Hindu left-wing writers for reporting on India. What on earth does an average Indian care about [David] Beckham and his sexcapades or Clinton-Lewinsky or so forth? If he wants to talk something relevant, how about some juicy stories on "retards" like Rahul Gandhi and his Colombian girlfriend? After all, the leading opposition party is casting it as its future ...
Ashesh Parikh (Apr 19, '04)


Dear Spengler: Your pieces are delightful; though I rarely find myself fully agreeing with your conclusions, I usually enjoy your intention. In regards to your latest piece, Why Islam baffles America [Apr 16], it seems I actually have something to add. In your search for the spiritual experience of believing Muslims, you ask the right questions and come close to matters at hand, indeed, "Religion for them is an existential matter, of one substance with the smallest details of their daily lives." And you are quite right with your conclusion about how differently each particular religion speaks to its own. But in my opinion you have missed a few things and perhaps not delved as far as you could have. For context, I speak as an American Sufi Muslim. I have spent much time in churches, with Christians - Catholic and Baptist, Unitarian etc, as well with various Muslims, pro and anti-Sufi, Sunni and Shi'ite. While you may consider my vantage point irrelevant because it does not represent some aspect of "the mainstream", nonetheless I ask for your indulgence - I may be guilty of assuming that you have some understanding of the differences between Sunni, Shi'ite and Sufi, you seem intelligent enough, so I won't bore you in that direction. To the point. Firstly, while I don't doubt your sincerity, you say you go to the most reputable Islamic sources, what you miss is the differences in opinion on the importance (or lack thereof) of authority within the various groups of Muslims. When I converted to Islam, one of the first things the imam who taught me how to perform salaat [ritual prayer] stressed was the flexibility that is allowed by Islam for each practicing believer. While certainly, there are all these "rules", but it is your inward supplication that is paramount - he didn't assume to interfere with my interior dialogue with God. While a religious leader in Islam can certainly interpret and direct how a Muslim may physically pray, inevitably nowhere can an imam, sheikh, etc come between you and God. In Islam, for the most part, anyone who knows the prayers can lead other Muslims in prayer, which is hardly the case for Christians. That being said, [Joseph] Cardinal Ratzinger certainly speaks "officially" for all Catholics, but [Grand Ayatollah Ali al-]Sistani speaks only for his local Shi'ites. Ultimately Muslims don't need Sistani to intercede between them and Allah; Catholics need the pope to pray. In a crass way you could say that Christians have their prayer defined for them by the priest, or at least that's how some Muslims see it. I know it is not that simple. Secondly, by not delving far enough you never get to the meat, you haven't asked yourself why Muslims concern themselves with the minutiae of the performance of prayer. To understand this you have to understand the fundamental difference between Muslims and Christians - this may seem obvious, but your article shows that you do not. Christians believe Christ is God, correct? So, God for them is basically a human experience. No Jesus, no God. No human, no Jesus ... (Americans have inherited this, naturally enough, but their culture overly magnifies the importance of being human). On the other hand, Allah, as He defined Himself in the Koran, is unlike anything else, Limitless, One. He bears no resemblance to anything, hardly humanlike. Using Ratzinger's analogies, during prayer a Catholic "share[s] in the human nature of Jesus Christ ... share[s] in the dialogue with God". The focus is the human experience, a human is experiencing prayer, "a real exchange between God and man". In Islam, using Sistani's analogies, during Muslim prayer, one "manifest[s] an inner feeling that we all belong to Allah". The focus is (should be) entirely on God. "And when you utter the phrase, 'Allahu Akbar' ... all material things should become insignificant because you are in the presence of the Lord." Nothing exists but God. Your existence is entirely from and through God, you submit to the reality - to Reality (Allah) - that you have nothing but what God created for you, including you yourself! (Muslims have demagnified the importance of being human.) In the words of the Koran, "Everywhere you turn there is the face of God." Now, I ask you, Spengler, if you were going to talk to the Supreme Emperor of China, wouldn't you comb your hair? My suggestion, if I may be so bold, for both Americans and Muslims, is that Americans learn some humility and the Muslims learn some humanness, only then might they understand each other. And Spengler, you couldn't be further from the truth when you suggest that Muslims don't understand about love between man and God. Surely you must know that the troubadours of the Dark Ages learned their love songs from the Sufis? Next time you want to know about the spiritual experience of believing Muslims, why don't you just ask one?
Asallam Alaykum Hu
Kevin Gerrmain
USA (Apr 19, '04)


[Re Why Islam baffles America, Apr 16.] Spengler's attempt to encapsulate a religion practiced by over a billion individuals into a rationale that baffles America begs the question: What makes Spengler think that America is baffled by Islam? Many cognoscenti would argue that the baffling of many Americans is a product of dual and competing (Judeo-Christian) ways of "making love to God". Based on Spengler's extensive research into Islam (via his readings of selected excerpts from Sheikh [Ali al-]Sistani's website), one can only conclude that he is either baffled too or has developed an interest in men's testicles, their use, and/or specific postures during certain esoteric sexual acts. What is truly baffling in America is the way a Judeo-Christian treats his/her fellow citizen during the work week and then dresses up for religious attendance during Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Americans hopefully will cease to be baffled when they practice just being unhyphenated Christians and consider others of different beliefs, ie Hebrew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc, as they would expect to be considered and respected.
ADeL (Apr 19, '04)


I am disturbed not a little that Spengler's essays have unreasonably become fodder for rhetoricians to whom debunking anything even slightly non-Western in origin is a very urgent, almost primal, necessity. That this is a defensive reflex is obvious, as traditional culture is everywhere scattered and on the run, but what is not so apparent is that there is a great deal of mislabeling taking place, starting with Spengler himself, of course. What he calls "Islamic theology" in his latest piece [Why Islam baffles America, Apr 16] is actually fiqh, or jurisprudence, and jurists can hardly stand next to poets in the realm of divine love. "Theology" to Muslims has usually meant kalaam, yet even kalaam maintains a certain discipline while exploring the nature of the cosmos vis-a-vis God. By contrast, tasawwuf, or Sufism, is the all-encompassing Islamic science that dives into the realities of all things, up to and including the divine, and it does so at unimaginable heights of eloquence, beauty, poetry and soaring, passionate love of God. Sufism is the endearing spirit of the Islamic culture and its very lifeblood. Muslim submission, therefore, is the awesome expression of a people who were granted through the great Prophet of Arabia (peace and blessings upon him) a vision of Divine Beauty so unprecedented in human experience that they all fell prostrate in a swoon and their hearts divorced what was not pointing to the Beloved. But this is a long, long subject and it's not conceivable how that which occupied super-intellects and great lovers for a millennium and a half could be captured by us mere mortals in a rag-tag exchange of smart-sounding words, born of half-baked notions about the nature of man. Also, the urge to hasten judgments is simply too strong in this Age of Misinformation for any real dialogue to take place between mutually respecting foes. I admire Spengler and his flamboyant style - there's more in his repertoire than the eye beholds! - but I wish his supporters and detractors could both learn to love their own heritages and defend them with reason, not ham-fisted deconstructionism.
Bilal Saqib
Houston, Texas (Apr 19, '04)


I've just finished reading Spengler's Why Islam baffles America [Apr 16]. I think that if he really wants to imitate [Franz] Rosenzweig and investigate the experience of the average Muslim believer, he would do better to compare comparable kinds of literature. [Grand Ayatollah Ali al-]Sistani's legal opinions on prayer are the equivalent of halakhah or canon law. For something comparable to his quote from [Joseph] Cardinal Ratzinger on prayer, he might do better to look to Islamic mystical literature. As for Americans having an Enlightenment disdain for religion, that only applies to a few academics. The majority are children of the Great Awakening. Indeed, the Third Great Awakening is taking place in our time. Listen to the preaching of Billy Graham or any of other the evangelists and end-times prophets that permeate the American media. Hal Lindsey's works are far more relevant to the Bush administration's policies than Leo Strauss's.
Lester Ness
Putian University, China (Apr 19, '04)


Re Spengler's Mel Gibson's Lethal Religion [Mar 9]. Approaching Easter, I had the opportunity to spend time listening to [Johann Sebastian] Bach's masterpieces St Matthew [Passion] and St John Passion. While under the strong impression made by Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, I arrived to the conclusion that they are masterpieces of a similar class. Besides the artistic aspect and the fidelity to the truth, the movie is an authentic invitation to renewal of hearts and lives of the believers as well as a beginning of conversion for non-believers. The public reaction to this movie has highlighted the profound gap which exists between tradition and secularism both in the society and in the Catholic Church and the "battle for the American soul". Based on what you write, I would consider you a traditionalist, therefore at a first glance I had difficulties to understand the fact that you don't like the movie because of its "gory description of the crucifixion" based on the 15th-century mystic ... then I understood. You are not familiar with the theology of the Cross. Gibson brings the Catholic perspective. The essential role of the Catholic Church is to save souls. During its two thousand years of existence the millions of saints and martyrs have made their way to heaven through the Via Dolorosa, this narrow road from Gethsemane to Golgotha, carrying their Cross and marching along with Christ. What Gibson tried to do is to give the viewer a glimpse of Christ's great suffering, enlighten every person and bring us to the level of contemplation, which means closer to Christ, in the same way in which the great saints have contemplated and sanctified their souls. There is no sanctification outside Via Dolorosa. The movie gives life to the static images created by Caravaggio, [Mathias] Grunewald, [Tilman] Riemenschneider, Michelangelo etc, as well as to J S Bach's aria "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden" from St Matthew Passion or "Erwage, wie sein blutgefarbter Rucken" from St John Passion.
Elena N Suciu
Ridgewood, New Jersey (Apr 19, '04)


Regarding Frank's letter of Apr 15, he needs to read current news besides reading history. We live in a constantly changing new world. There are many distinguished Asian-Americans including your current governor Gary Locke in Washington state. Governor Locke earned his bachelor's degree in political science from Yale University in 1972, and a JD (doctorate degree in law) from Boston University in 1975. Then there are Michelle Kwan, Yo Yo Ma, Martin Yan etc and many distinguished Japanese-American judges. In America, everyone, regardless of race, strives for hard work for a good life. Are they considered unequal "to their white masters"? or did they become equals only by "wiggling their tails?"
YY
California (Apr 19, '04)


"By contrast, American strategists are children of the Enlightenment, for whom religion at best is a convenient civic myth (Leo Strauss), or an outmoded ideology to be manipulated. " - Spengler [Why Islam baffles America, Apr 16] As a deeply unsatisfied American, I feel the need to note this egregious misunderstanding of American politics. American policymakers in the Bush administration are deeply religious. They truly believe that they are in a holy war and that God is on their side. Furthermore, their conservative voting base in the south and Midwest is deeply religious. I do not think that Europeans can fully comprehend just how deeply religious most Americans are. Forty percent of the people in the United States describe themselves as "evangelical" and attend church services every week. If American strategists were truly children of the Enlightenment, we would all be better off. PS: I think that [Asia Times Online] is a great paper and usually publishes fascinating, unique stuff. Keep up the great work!
Ben Silverman (Apr 16, '04)


I am writing in reference to [Why Islam baffles America] written by Spengler on Apr 16. He makes the statement, "By no means am I biased against Islam; I go directly to the most reputable Islamic sources," yet his methodology is clearly flawed. He is comparing Jewish and Christian theologians' writings on the spirituality of prayer with a technical explanation of a prerequisite for prayer by a Muslim theologian, [Grand Ayatollah Ali] al-Sistani. Spengler has totally ignored the whole experience and influence of Sufism in Islam. If he had anything more than a cursory knowledge of Islam he would have found all the spirituality and love in prayer that he finds in Christianity and Judaism. Obviously he needs to work on his sources.
Shahab Mushtaq (Apr 16, '04)


Spengler's [Apr 16 article] Why Islam baffles America is a classic. He gives us a different perspective on what we all know to be true, but is hard for many to say; Islam is all about control over people. Control over their lives, their thoughts and even their souls. Why else does it appeal to so many dictators?We freedom-loving Americans don't like to be controlled by anyone, and that's the rub. That is also why we are concerned about our immigration policies. Many of us don't see immigrants embracing our freedom. They come bringing the "desire for control" with them. This is unacceptable ideology for most Americans. It is deeper than racial, ethnic and religious concerns. This begs the question: Is freedom really inherent in man or is it a learned experience? Sometimes I think you have to be born here to really understand.
Richard Bergquist
San Simon, Arizona (Apr 16, '04)


I appreciated your article [Why Islam baffles America, Apr 16], which provided me with some insight on the difference between Islam's view of everything - creation - and Jews' and Christians' view of everything. Your article helped me identify why I do not subscribe to Vatican II provisions which Protestantized Catholicism. My version of Catholicism is awe and mystery. In my experience of traditional Catholicism, I am with my prayers a supplicant. While I may seek audience with God by prayer at any time, I am nonetheless a supplicant, not seeking dialogue but expressing thankfulness and mercy and asking for forgiveness.
J Don Batalla (Apr 16, '04)


Bravo to Pepe Escobar for his excellent Wanted: A new Saddam [Apr 15]. It puts into words what I've long suspected. Probably I'm not the only one.
Lester Ness
Putian University, China (Apr 16, '04)


[Jim] Lobe discloses his political and philosophical bias by labelling [Daniel] Pipes as a leading Islamophobe and as a neo-conservative [US: From nation-building to religion-building, Apr 9]. This discredits his article in the first instance; however, his light touch with CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] and ISNA [Islamic Circle of North America] demonstrates either a willful ignorance or naivete that is dangerous. Mr Pipes is not only a noted author, but a renowned and highly accredited professor who has been recognized as an expert on Islam and the Middle East for decades. His views are no different than those of Bernard Lewis of Princeton, another noted professor and recognized expert on Islam - both the faith and political Islam. Mr Lobe would have done well to expose the tens of millions of dollars the Saudi Wahhabists are pouring into countries around the globe, particularly in America and Europe, to spread their fundamentalist and vicious form of Islam. Pipes merely points out the history and the intentions of these Wahhabists and the political dimension of Islam which does not accept a separation of church and state, and which seeks to dominant non-believers. This is not Pipe-myth, but fact. Mr Lobe cares not to hear it. So be it. It doesn't change the truth of the matter. CAIR and ISNA are nothing but the political fronts for fundamentalist Islamofascists that seek to support terrorists in the US. If Lobe expects us to be taken in by their lies and rhetoric, he has another think coming. Abundant evidence is available through Anti-CAIR website http://www.anti-cair-net.org. Mr Lobe should focus on truth instead of invective. What purpose exactly does he pursue in villainizing Pipes while downplaying the true goals of CAIR and ISNA?
Richard Stanaro
London, England (Apr 16, '04)


So Wada of Tokyo, Japan ([letter] Apr 15), thinks that Richard Hanson [Visits to war dead haunt Koizumi, Apr 8] is ignorant about Japanese law, history and the thoughts of ordinary Japanese people. Well, Wada-san, Japanese law and history about Japanese atrocities in World War II are not worth the paper they are printed on. What the ordinary Japanese people know or think about their own history of World War II is pathetic in its ignorance since their source is the school history books that were written after World War II by ... bureaucrats, "thought police", an "undemocratic" - to say the least - institution that was disbanded by General [Douglas] MacArthur in 1945 or '46. The war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni are just that. They were responsible for the murder of 25 million-plus Chinese men, women and children. They were responsible for the 60,000 "logs" (Japanese terminology), human victims of Unit 731 biological warfare experiments headed by Dr Ishii Shiro in Ping Fang west of Harbin who was ten times worse that Dr [Josef] Mengele and his thugs in Auschwitz-Birkenau. They were responsible for the millions of Indonesian and Filipino dead. They were responsible for the tens of thousands of European victims of slave-labor camps and for the death of European men, women and children who died in Japanese concentration camps. Every atrocity committed by Japanese citizens in uniform was committed in the name of Tenno Heika, Emperor Hirohito. To pray at Yasukuni is like praying at a shrine for [Adolf] Hitler and his thugs and SS murderers. Shame on you, Wada, and shame on all Japanese who either knowingly or from sheer ignorance sweep Japanese World War II atrocities under the carpet. There are millions and millions of us in Asia and in Europe and all over the world who know very well what the Japanese did in World War II. Remember, kudasai, that neither we nor our future generations will ever forget.
AL
Canada (Apr 16, '04)


For some odd reason, Asia Times seems to have a very hard time finding the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. First we can't be found for interviews, and now you can't seem to find anything about what we believe in. Try www.chamber.org.hk and you'll find both our phone number and statements about various policy issues facing Hong Kong. Among the latter will be our April 2 submission to the Hong Kong SAR [Special Administrative Region] government's constitutional development task force. That lengthy analysis formed the basis for "Let's get the process right", an opinion piece by our chairman that was printed in the South China Morning Post on March 29 (p A19). We've also issued a press release in response to the task force's report and the Hong Kong SAR government's report to Beijing on the need to modify the ways in which Hong Kong selects its leaders. None of this is secret, not to our thousands of members nor to those journalists willing to do a bit of research. But I suppose for a journal that criticizes reader Jay Liu [letter and editor's note, Apr 14] for citing the setup by Reuters as if it was something that I actually said isn't too surprising. After all, your unwarranted personal attacks, unjustified character assassination and aspersions against my name and reputation were nothing more than a setup, weren't they? If Asia Times honestly believes it fairly represented my views, in the context of the questions I was asked by Reuters, and did not deliberately attack my reputation, then state so and be done with it. Keeping the article on your website because removing it might stifle "lively debate about Hong Kong democracy" is a cop-out.
David O'Rear
Hong Kong (Apr 16, '04)

Asia Times Online honestly believes that its writer Gary LaMoshi in the Apr 8 article Hong Kong politics: Business as usual  fairly represented your views as he understood them in the ongoing absence of further clarification by yourself, and did not deliberately attack your reputation, in which we have no interest. Our Apr 14 editor's note was obviously not a criticism of letter writer Jay Liu but merely clarified that the citation chosen by Liu was not your quote, and we repeated the actual Reuters quote for further clarity. We have also given you ample opportunity to elaborate your position on Hong Kong democracy and explain how the LaMoshi article misinterpreted it, but you continue instead to insist (a la Beijing?) that our readers be deprived of the opportunity of reading the article itself. That said, we appreciate your providing the above links. As for the "lively debate", Gary LaMoshi responds here. - ATol

Frank [letter, Apr 15] made some rather depressing comments. How can anyone say that anyone else "has no right" to voice an opinion? This proves my letter of Apr 15 correct. Criticism is seen as either a "foreigner who doesn't understand and has no right to speak on the subject" or a Chinese who is unpatriotic and selling his soul to the "white man". I fear that Frank is prejudiced against Caucasians, although if not I happily welcome comments from him proving me wrong.
Peter Mitchelmore
Calgary, Alberta (Apr 16, '04)

I really enjoyed your Wanted: A new Saddam article [Apr 15]. I appreciate your perspective and could almost literally not function without knowing how people in Asia feel and what is really going on there. Alas, I live in the United States ... and it is very hard to find non-biased news, or news that doesn't just plain leave things out. The sin of omission is being committed by all news sources here. I do want people who live in places being most hurt by US or Israeli imperialism [to know] that not everyone in the US condones these things. I do not and all of my friends do not, and I am in the process of converting everyone here that I can. All they need to know is the facts. That is the problem over here. Like I said, American news media leave out essential parts of the stories. I swear that if Americans knew the whole truth, then they would not hold the opinions that they do. And also, one must realize that half of these people on the TV expressing opinions condoning American imperialistic action are robots or are part of the neo-con agenda and probably benefit from the actions being taken. I have to speak for some Americans when I say that they do not know of the tragedies the American military is pervading in their name. I do know of these things and I'm doing what I can to help, that basically being spreading information. Winning the war on information is the only thing I feel I can do at this point. Thank you for capturing the truth more than any American news source could ever possibly do.
Lee Jarrod Evans
Jonesboro, Arkansas (Apr 15, '04)


[Re Wanted: A new Saddam, Apr 15] "On the other hand, there are alarming, persistent noises of the American military perceiving Iraqis - not to mention Arabs as a whole - as untermenschen, sub-humans." As an historian I could not help but draw the striking parallels between the Nazi method of handling resistance and the new American model. I agree, this is not a random response by the US. It is a calculated series of moves, rather like the opening of a chess game. Startling statistics from a report by the Economic Research Service, "China's Food and [Agriculture]: Issues for the 21st Century":
Farm workers per 100 hectares: China, 310; USA, 2
Tractors per 100 hectares: China, 6; USA, 27
China, and most of the non-Western world, can feed itself with or without oil. America cannot. That is about as fundamental as you can get. America has no choice. It will use its economic and military might to secure the oil, whether it is President Bush or President Kerry. The power of America is utterly dependent on oil (to state the obvious). Shut off the oil, even for a few weeks, and you shut off American power. I watch in awe and bemusement, at times resigned, at others incandescent with rage. And as I watch the Muslim world's response, I recall a solicitor I once knew who was fond of resolving issues by saying "either shit or get off the pot". The strategy is simple - well, to my mind, which often is referred to as simple by many people - shut off the oil. The Muslim world has the key. Will it shit or will it get off the pot?
Graeme Mills (Apr 15, '04)


[Re Cricket is cricket, but Kashmir is Kashmir, Apr 15.] It was not clear from the article what [Sultan] Shahin's position is, but it is fair to see the position taken by [Chandan] Mitra. Like everything else in India, its policy on Pakistan is driven by the vision of its mainly north Indian elite. Here you have a motley group of leftists (Praful Bidwai et al), family-religion protagonists (Muslims), foolish sentimentalists (I K Gujral, Kuldip Nayar), traders (Punjabi farmers) and the beneficiaries of the corruption in the military-bureaucracy-politician complex. We therefore vacillate between extreme hostility and brotherly love. The questions Mr Mitra asks are very pertinent. Who needs open borders when we have enough problems with drugs, terrorists and money laundering with closed borders? Talking about trade is good, but Pakistan is a limited market. [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf and his ilk will continue to sip scotch whisky, drive German limos and threaten India with Chinese nukes and North Korean rockets. The rest of people who form the underclass won't be able to afford the goods India wants to sell. If Musharraf was serious, he could offer, of course for a price, transportation of goods to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
AP (Apr 15, '04)


From what [J] Zhang says at the beginning of his letter [Apr 14], a "patriotism plus pro-democracy" stance is probably going on as we speak. However, the PRC [People's Republic of China] government's insistence that party = state = nation leads them to label any criticism "unpatriotic". His mindset does seem to parallel this when he accuses many of these activists as being brainwashed by the British. Furthermore, Michael Lou and David [both Apr 14] remind me of the attitudes I heard in China: Praise by "outsiders" was highlighted, but when criticism came along, it was "an internal affair, none of your business". I recall also reading an article that [Asia Times Online writer] Gary LaMoshi has Hong Kong citizenship anyway. Finally, to freedom of speech in the mainland. David proved Antoaneta Bezlova's comments [Taiwan-China: Love, suspicion, spy charges, Apr 9] to be accurate when he contradicted himself and said, "So long as one doesn't directly confront the state, there is no problem." I have lost count of the number of times during my four years in China that lack of freedom of speech in public showed itself. "Lower your voice," a friend once said to me on a train when I started talking about the Three Gorges Dam. "If we were speaking in Chinese," he said, "I would have forcibly changed the subject already." China is not a living hell or dungeon, and the article didn't suggest that as far as I could see. It is still a country lacking in comprehensive social justice and real freedom of speech in a society where mistrust and infighting are the norms. These are not just my own opinions, in case I'm told to "butt out", but also those of many Chinese friends.
Peter Mitchelmore (Apr 15, '04)

Technically Gary LaMoshi has Hong Kong permanent residency, not citizenship. The article you refer to is Hong Kong bucks anti-immigration trend (Feb 21). - ATol


Richard Hanson shows his ignorance about Japanese law, history and the thoughts of ordinary Japanese people in his article Visits to war dead haunt Koizumi [Apr 8]. So-called "war criminals" executed by [Japan's] enemies are regarded as patriots by Japanese. Just after the independence of 1949, the Japanese Diet passed an act to declare that these patriots were victims of war and placed them among other fallen for the country and enshrined them at Yasukuni. [The judge who ruled] against the visit [to the shrine by Prime Minister Junichiro] Koizumi was also ignorant of these historical facts, and his deed reflects his own personal opinion. Silent and grassroots Japanese are now very angry at the judge. Japanese [resistance] to Chinese intervention against Japan is becoming very high. It is just before a blow-up. Not only about Yasukuni - Chinese are increasingly neglecting the Japanese interest in the Ryuku archipelago by illegally sending submarines and so-called research ships into Japanese waters. Foreign journalists have not yet recognized it, but Japanese opinion drastically changed last year. Japan took a first step toward [becoming a] politically and militarily independent country, because politicians cannot neglect their people's opinion - independent from the USA and counterattacking Chinese insolence. The future of East Asia depends on China, especially her attitude toward Japan. If not, the USA will take gain between the two. Note that these two hold most of the US debt. [Hanson] should take a more global aspect, and speak to ordinary Japanese and discard English sources.
Wada
Tokyo, Japan (Apr 15, '04)


I am wondering why YY of California [letter, Apr 14] is missing Hong Kong's British master. There are only two possibilities. One is that YY is a white man. He is missing the good old times of being the master of that colony. The second possibility is that YY is from a former white man's colony. YY may [have been] taught that he can get bones by wiggling his tail to his white masters. Either way, he has no right talking about China's Hong Kong. If YY read some history books, he would know that he can never be equal to his white masters by wiggling his tail for a living. I hope those Asians who still dream about tail-wiggling will soon understand that they can do great things by being themselves. Asia will be a much better place without the slavery of the white people.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 15, '04)


John Parker responds to readers
John Parker's Apr 3 book review of Jean-Francois Revel's Anti-Americanism (In defense of the Stars and Stripes) stimulated a number of letters from Asia Times Online readers. To read Parker's response, please click here. - ATol  (Apr 14, '04)


Thank you to ATol for publishing thoughtful articles with a unique perspective such as Wendell Minnick's The year to fear for Taiwan: 2006 [Apr 10]. It is refreshing to see some new thought on the issue instead of reading hackneyed statements about China's intention and ability to launch a full-scale invasion of Taiwan. However, Mr Minnick's article leaves me with three questions that I hope he will answer: (1) Even if Taiwan's airfields are damaged by surface-to-surface missiles, how will People's Liberation Army troop-transport airplanes, which are large and slow, avoid both surface-to-air missiles and even heavy machine-gun fire in sufficient numbers to build up an effective troop force in Taipei? (2) In view of the difficulty of resupplying or evacuating the islands of Jinmen and Matsu during a conflict, should Taiwan demilitarize those islands now and rely on defenses based on Taiwan? (3) Should Taiwan restructure its military to an active duty/reserve system a la Israel or Switzerland in order to increase the number of men at arms in the event of war?
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (Apr 14, '04)


I found Richard [Hanson]'s article [Hostage ordeal prompts soul searching on Iraq, Apr 10] of great interest, partly because of the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the political one here in Japan. I think, as a Japanese citizen, I should stress the important information regarding the Japanese media's insufficient information provision over the hostage crisis. When the Japanese media (NHK and other TV [network]s) run the news using the video clip handed in a CD-ROM, they intentionally processed and cut the segment showing the three hostages threatened by guns and knives ... With such limited and partial information, Japanese opinion is somewhat controlled. However, thanks to information [such as] you provided, we could triangulate the information from the Japanese media ... with those from non-Japanese sources and articles ... Japanese, including myself, should be more responsible for our decisions [to] send the Self-Defense Force to any conflicted areas and countries. I now clearly recognize myself as a global citizen living in Japan. I do not think the Japanese government decided to send its troops from a global citizen's point of view; rather, it was decided by a small group of powerful people in Nagata-cho, Kasumigaseki and Otemachi in Tokyo whose priority remains in their vested interest - position, economy and re-election. Action at the citizen level could change this decision-making structure in Japan with diversified sources of information, though this diversity does require readers [to make] more careful selections of the information.
Takayoshi Kusago
Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan (Apr 14, '04)


Another predictable rant from Pepe "Yanqui Go Home" Escobar ... [One year on: From liberation to jihad, Apr 9]. So what are the alternatives, Pepe? It's easy to criticize, hard to come up with answers. How about an immediate US and coalition pullout [from Iraq]? Your article implies that would be the best solution. The only reason Saddam [Hussein]'s Sunnis weren't annihilating the Shi'ites before the war was because of the US no-fly zone established after 1991. If the US troops left now, the Shi'ites and Sunnis would be rapidly at each other's throats. As for Pepe's condemnation, "anybody who has traveled in the Sunni triangle knows how the US occupation is universally loathed", I view this an indication that the US policy was appropriate. The Sunnis under Saddam and his fun-loving sons ruled with utter cruelty. No wonder they resent being taken out of power and resist the formation of a democracy where their power will not be absolute. As for Muqtada [al-Sadr], the only reason he is free now and not languishing in prison is because of the US liberation. His Islamic fascism needs to fought in Iraq as in Spain as in Paris as in Bali as in East Timor as in New York. As for the Kurds? Oh, Pepe forgot to mention them.
Ken Clay, MD (Apr 14, '04)


In regards to One year on: From liberation to jihad [Apr 9] by Pepe Escobar: We fought against Saddam Hussein to free the Iraqi people, including Sunni and Shi'ite people, from a dictatorship ruled by fear. Coalition forces fought without question, because people like Grand Ayatollah Mohammed al-Sadr were murdered/martyred. Now his son hates us, now we are killing the freed Iraq people. Over 400 people dead in the last few days alone. This is pure 100 percent insanity.
James Retta (Apr 14, '04)


Re When fear turns to anger by Nir Rosen [Apr 9]. This ... is an article about hate [between] two religious groups in Iraq. My complaint has nothing to do with Iraq but rather with the incredibly uneducated and irresponsible unrelated statement of the so-called journalist Nir Rosen. He states: "They hate each other. Sunnis view Shi'ites the way that many white South Africans viewed blacks, and now feel disenfranchised, seeing the 'barbaric heathens' threatening to rule their country." How dare you! How dare Nir Rosen write that lie and how dare you (as an editor) let him get away with it. I am a white South African. I grew up in South Africa through the '80s [at the] pinnacle of apartheid. I don't hate blacks or never did. Neither did my family. Neither did my friends' families. What about the soldiers that killed? Many thousands of young South African boys did not hate black people, yet were forced by government conscription to do armed patrols of various townships throughout South Africa - consequently being forced to defend themselves when they came under attack. That's just one small example. How can you compare the hate of two religious factions that murder each other on a daily basis because they believe their religion deems it fit to do so, to that of two different racial groups being puppeteered by an archaic and delusional government? None of my friends feel hate towards black people, I don't even know of anyone that hates (or should I put "hate" in italics like Nir Rosen did?) black people. I do know people that feel threatened or disfranchised because of the current affirmative-action policies, however - just to let you know I'm not entirely blind to the feelings of other fellow countrymen. I'm not saying people that hate don't exist in South Africa - as there are always right-wing maniacs in every country - I'm just saying that by making an idiotic sweeping statement like your reporter did, he's perpetuating a very old and very untrue myth of an incredibly beautiful country that is in fact filled with hope and positiveness. Even in South Africa's "bad old days" the number of whites that "hated" blacks was minimal. Please try to understand this. Hate is perpetuated by ignorance. Don't spread ignorance. It's your duty as a newspaper editor. I will be forwarding this message (along with the link to the article) to the two leading (and opposing) political parties in South Africa as well as Mr Nelson Mandela's contact liaison with the hopes that they get to see this lie being perpetuated and in turn write to you. I do expect a full apology from yourself as editor and the writer of that article to be posted on your website.
Brindley Uytenbogaardt
Cape Town, South Africa (Apr 14, '04)

Nir Rosen's remark was in no way "sweeping" and allowed for the reality that not all whites hated blacks during South Africa's "bad old days", which lasted more than four decades. - ATol


[Re Taiwan-China: Love, suspicion, spy charges, Apr 9.] "As all four loudly list their woes and argue their demands in a packed coffee shop in downtown Taipei - observed but undisturbed by curious onlookers - they are oblivious to at least one right they have gained by coming to Taiwan: the freedom to speak out freely, even against the government." Well, thanks to [Inter Press Service correspondent Antoaneta] Bezlova's wonderfully "insightful" article, we are now once again given the impression that China is indeed a dungeon or a living hell. Just for your information, the people of the mainland can and do criticize their government, many times out in the open like the four mainland women were doing at the coffee shop. So long as one doesn't directly confront the state, there is no problem. What do you think disgruntled peasants and laid-off workers do whenever they are angry at their plight? Do you really think the Chinese government is so omnipotent as to throw anyone who spoke out against it at private meetings in jail? To cheapen an otherwise good article on the sad fate of mainland wives in Taiwan with a few badly taken pot-shots at the government of China ruined it all for me.
David (Apr 14, '04)


All I can say to Gary LaMoshi's piece on China's policy in Hong Kong [Hong Kong politics: Business as usual, Apr 8] is, "Where have you been when the British colonial government was in Hong Kong?" Why is Mr LaMoshi so concerned for Hong Kong's supposed "democratic" future now that it has returned to China? Why are he and others so blase about "democracy" under British colonial (and not particularly democratic) rule? It is obvious to me that the naysayers are fearful of China's rise, and have a double standard between white dictatorship and Chinese dictatorship. Hong Kong is China's internal affair, and China will do what it wishes in accordance with China's and Hong Kong's best interests in mind. There is no need for you to worry, Mr LaMoshi, so butt out.
Michael Lou
Milton, Massachusetts (Apr 14, '04)


Referring to the letter of G Travan of California (Apr 9) regarding Hong Kong, I must say that he/she is comparing apples to pears. Hong Kong under British rule was very different from Hong Kong under Chinese rule, for the simple fact that the colonial government practiced common law, whereas the present Chinese regime practices communism. Yes, many people considered Hong Kong as a stepping stone to somewhere else and had left for other destinations even under the British rule. But many, many more had chosen to leave in the years leading up to the 1997 takeover. Obviously, between the two evils - colonialism and communism - the Hong Kongites considered the former as the lesser of the two. It seems that whatever little freedom that the Hong Kongites enjoyed under colonialism are quickly disappearing altogether.
YY
California (Apr 14, '04)


I totally support the views of G Travan [letter, Apr 9] and David O'Rear [Apr 8]. There are people in Hong Kong like Szeto Wah and Martin Lee who bowed to their British masters before 1997 and started bad-mouthing China on every issue since then. While economic development is the pressing paramount priority, China has to slowly and painstakingly find its own democratic way given its own culture and long history, amidst intense international competition and pressure. It is heartening, though, to see that those noises made will not lead anywhere.
S P Li (Apr 14, '04)


G Travan is right in his letter [Apr 9]. Why is pro-democracy automatically anti-China in Hong Kong? Why can't it be pro-China and pro-democracy? The best way for Hong Kong to achieve greater democracy is to take the distrust away by being more patriotic. Now many Chinese think the Hong Kong Democrats will sell Hong Kong out to foreign powers. They should be more patriotic, while at the same time asking for more democracy. With Martin Lee visiting the US and holding meetings with staunch anti-China politicians, I support the central leadership in controlling the pace and way of development in Hong Kong. Currently, it has kept its promise of keeping Hong Kong's special status unchanged for 50 years. If those democracy activists were silent during the colonial British days, why are they screaming now? These people have been brainwashed by their old colonial masters and are only serving their interests, not the interest of Hong Kong nor our country China. Please stop kowtowing to them.
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Apr 14, '04)


G Travan's letter (Apr 9) made so much more sense than Gary LaMoshi's unfounded assertions while responding to a letter from David O'Rear (Apr 8) that O'Rear, chief economist of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, meant to say "what Beijing did was okay and not a big deal" when he was actually quoted as saying "Despite the protests from democrats, the review of the Basic Law made hardly a ripple in Hong Kong's financial markets. Investors in China shares ignored the news entirely." How can a candid reflection of facts from financial markets be distorted so much so as to prop up a straw man making a sweeping political judgment that LaMoshi was so ready to knock down? I will not be surprised if LaMoshi truly believes that it is appropriate for a reporter to distort the truth. How can [Daniel] McCarthy (letter, Apr 9) claim to defend democracy and then go on himself to demand O'Rear to "remain silent" or "admit he acts as a tool of Beijing" in one breath? Is O'Rear a slave obligated to follow Master McCarthy's dictate now? If McCarthy had bothered to confirm with reality, freedom of speech in Hong Kong was so well protected that local business leaders were begging the government's own radio station to tone down its Beijing-bashing. How can McCarthy brand O'Rear's letter of indignation a "hysterical response" and then go on himself to designate O'Rear as having "a guilty conscience", "collaborat[ing] with those who have signed the death certificate for both Hong Kong's democratic development and its freedom", being "a fawning lackey of the existing power structure" and "lady-in-waiting for the despots" in one short letter of a mere 150 words? Where is the logic when McCarthy laments that O'Rear with just one letter "doth protest too much" while the activists in Hong Kong protest on and on without hearing one peep from McCarthy? Give me a break!
Jay Liu
USA (Apr 14, '04)

What you cite as David O'Rear's quote was in fact only the setup by Reuters, as provided by Mr O'Rear in his letter to put his own quote in context. O'Rear's actual quote in the Reuters article was: "We have more democracy than most other Asian countries ... Plus many overseas companies are very active throughout the region." - ATol


If you [Gary LaMoshi; Hong Kong politics: Business as usual, Apr 8] do not understand what I meant by "We [Hong Kong] have more democracy than most other Asian countries," perhaps it is because you never asked me that or any other question. You did not interview me for this article, but merely took a single phrase - out of context - from a Reuters report and twisted it to fit your own prejudices. You do not even know what question I was asked that prompted me to make that statement to Reuters. I did not say "what Beijing did was okay and not a big deal", nor did I say anything that might even remotely be construed to mean such a thing. Moreover, your vicious allegation that I deserve to be singled out for "special recognition for selling out freedom" cannot in any way be considered a fair interpretation of my statement. It is not my responsibility to provide you with sound bites to support your preconceived notions. Rather, it is your responsibility as a journalist to accurately reflect statements made to you, or to accurately reflect and cite the source of statements you have taken from the honest work of other journalists. I am still waiting for the apology, and for the offending article to be removed from this website.
David O'Rear Chief Economist
Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce
Hong Kong (Apr 14, '04)

Rather than removing the Gary LaMoshi article and thereby stifling the lively debate about Hong Kong democracy on this page, perhaps you should simply tell Asia Times Online readers what you and the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce actually believe. Are you in favor of more democracy in Hong Kong, or less? Do you believe that a free and autonomous Hong Kong is better for business, and for Hong Kong residents, than one ruled with an iron fist from Beijing or do you not? - ATol


[W Joseph] Stroupe's analysis [US complicit in its own decline, Mar 31] was super. For the accurate, up-to-date info I prefer Asia Times Online. [Henry C K] Liu, [Jim] Lobe, [Richard] Hanson and others are the best! Seems like the truth of it all originates with you, and days or weeks later it dribbles down to other news organizations.
John Anderson (Apr 14, '04)


Your reporting is so informative that I keep you on my desktop to check with, but your so obvious anti-Americanism is such a sad undercutting to your work.
Paul Vereshack (Apr 14, '04)


Re Pepe Escobar's statement related to the recent conflict in Fallujah: "The mosque itself was not hit - but dozens of people were" [One year on: From liberation to jihad, Apr 9].  Pepe forgot to mention that those "dozens of people" were firing AK-47s and RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] at the US troops outside of the mosque. I guess Pepe didn't realize that his wording might leave someone with the impression that these were pious Muslims at afternoon prayer who were viciously assaulted by bloodthirsty US killers. Just a slip of the pen, right Pepe?
Mike Callahan
Dallas, Texas (Apr 9, '04)


One year on: From liberation to jihad [Apr 9] by Pepe Escobar is the most comprehensive, intelligent and realistic summary of the realities of the US military occupation of Iraq. Pepe Escobar surpassed even himself and thousands of "sound bites" purportedly reporting facts of the Iraqi uprising against the foreign military occupiers. This article should be compulsory reading for everyone and especially for the duped and blinded American public. Thank you, Pepe Escobar, for calling a spade a spade and for showing up the Washington/Pentagon neo-con propaganda for what it is: incessant lies.
Eve Metz
Melbourne, Australia  (Apr 9, '04)


[Re] One year on: From liberation to jihad [Apr 9]. So, is this a national war of liberation? A war to rid Iraq of an occupying power? Or is it a religious war with far wider implications? Essentially the world is dividing between fundamental religious values, values of the spirit, of humanity and a secular materialistic fetish of greed. As I understand it, jihad means "struggle". At its foundation this is a struggle between two great forces which shape mankind's destiny. The force of the spirit and the force of the material world. Neither, I would suggest, are "right" at the extreme. The USA will win, on a tactical level, a "war" of national liberation. It cannot win a national "struggle" based on fundamentally opposing values. The potential, or should I say the reality, of this spilling out to become a global "struggle" is truly frightening. If this is to be mankind's destiny the "struggle" will not be resolved by conflict, lack of understanding and hatred. It will be finally won - after much hurt and suffering - by tolerance and understanding; by sharing, not exploitation. I fear I have only stated the obvious.
Graeme Mills
Australia (Apr 9, '04)


In From nation-building to religion-building [Apr 9], Jim Lobe has made a mistake presenting in good light Islamist organizations that in fact are shadowy and have proven records of anti-American, anti-moderation, Wahhabist positions. It's the norm in democratic polities for oppositions to criticize ruling parties and vice versa, and modern political criticism, of course, entails nothing short of nasty mudslinging and "fact fudging", so what Mr Lobe has reached for in criticizing Daniel Pipes is understood. Yet, as a Muslim, I am not humored that he is complicit in the same "religion-building" he accuses Mr Pipes of. CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations], ISNA [Islamic Society of North America] and ICNA [Islamic Circle of North America] employ pollsters to prove their legitimacy because they don't have authentic religious authority. In other words, their hegemonic zeal to eliminate plurality in Muslim America, coupled with an obsession to wield major influence on American foreign policy, has landed them in "Islamism" and alienated them from Islam. Their inspiration comes more from [Georg Wilhelm Friedrich] Hegel and [Karl] Marx than Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings upon him), and their shameless apologetics fool only those unfamiliar with the history and methodology of Wahhabism and neo-Wahhabism (aka Salafism), which I suspect includes Mr Lobe. Traditional Islamic law does not recognize any authority - religious, political, social, intellectual or otherwise - unless the one claiming power has gone through a due process ... Saying "we are non-sectarian" may be politically expedient, but it immediately raises the question about who authorized such a religiously untenable stand. CAIR may try "to represent the views of all US Muslims", but this is its private, foreign-influenced ambition, because the due process that would validate undertaking such a gargantuan task is simply outside the intentions of our self-appointed saviors. Traditional Islamic law - that is, Sunni Law as practiced by 85-90 percent of Muslims worldwide for the last 14 centuries - has not permitted such adventurism, and these groups act arbitrarily out of primal fears and misplaced priorities. Even to its foes, Islam is a great world religion that must be taken seriously if its practitioners are to live in peace and at peace with the rest of humanity. What I've explained here is hardly even the tip of the iceberg. Suffice it to say that Mr Lobe is, I assume unwittingly, regurgitating propaganda material; that too much is wrong with organizations that deceive gullible Muslims and tug at their heartstrings to further dubious, Machiavellian agendas; that spiritual mediocrity, and there's no shorter way to that than to follow what our "representatives" propose, is to be shunned, not celebrated.
Bilal Saqib
Houston, Texas (Apr 9, '04)


It seems quite strange to me that Gary LaMoshi so viciously decries China's assertion of control over Hong Kong [Hong Kong politics: Business as usual, Apr 8]. I wonder how incensed he was when Hong Kong's overseers were British bureaucrats who didn't even speak Chinese. I totally support the democratization of China, and the maintenance of Hong Kong's special status. But democratic rule in Hong Kong was instituted by the British in the run-up to the handover as a sort of poke in the eye to China. If the British had granted democratic rights to Hong Kong residents earlier, or even allowed Hong Kong residents anything more than second-class citizenship in their defunct empire, their democratic institutions would have far more legitimacy. People involved in the democracy movement in Hong Kong often seem more interested in bashing China than securing democracy. This is plainly evidenced by the fact that these people were silent during British rule, when Hong Kong had no local rights, and was ruled by a foreigner dispatched from London. Prominent democracy "activists" like Martin Lee have close ties to anti-China lawmakers in the US, and often attack Beijing in the foreign press, which has branded the entire democracy movement in Hong Kong as a fifth pillar for American interests. LaMoshi, as a self-claimed member of the "people of Hong Kong", displays absolutely no sympathy or concern for his brethren in China. He seems happy to spit on Beijing and demand full autonomy for Hong Kong. I cannot but feel that this is based on a sick colonial mentality that sees subjugation at the hands of the British as fine, but the same treatment at the hand of one's own countrymen as intolerable ... In my view, the democracy movement in Hong Kong can only become relevant by accepting that Hong Kong is part of China, abandoning this colonial-subject mentality, and directing its efforts not to secure Hong Kong's parochial rights, but to promote humanism and respect for individual rights throughout China.
G Travan
California (Apr 9, '04)


David O'Rear's hysterical response [letter, Apr 8] to Gary LaMoshi's witty and insightful analysis of Hong Kong's political situation [Hong Kong politics: Business as usual, Apr 8] belies a guilty conscience as Mr O'Rear collaborates with those who have signed the death certificate for both Hong Kong's democratic development and its freedom. Only a fawning lackey of the existing power structure could consider a legislature in which two-thirds of the members are directly or indirectly appointed by a communist government to be democratic in any way, shape or form. Even Singapore's window-dressing democracy is more convincing than the sham that Beijing has imposed on Hong Kong. Mr O'Rear would be better off to either admit he acts as a tool of Beijing's out of self-interest or to remain silent. By crying out in shrill fury to legitimate commentary, Mr O'Rear merely highlights his position as lady-in-waiting for the despots. He doth protest too much.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (Apr 9, '04)


In regard to the article on April 7 [Sri Lanka's bad moon keeps rising] by Sudha Ramachandran on the Sri Lankan elections, I beg to differ on the characterization of the JVP [Janata Vimukti Peramuna] as "anti-Tamil". They are Sinhala nationalist but they are also very much a socialist organization with a commitment to traditional socialist ideals of equality. It is a curious mix indeed but calling them anti-Tamil is a falsification. They have a Tamil-language newspaper as well as Tamil members, which is far more than could be said for the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam], which is purely a sectarian organization which has targeted innocent Sinhalese workers and farmers in its bombing campaigns in the past. The JVP in its commitment to maintain the unity of Sri Lanka may be construed in some quarters as being unsympathetic to the plight of the Tamil people, but that is if we equate sympathy for the Tamil cause with support for the LTTE and de facto support for separatism. The JVP, as far as I have seen, are committed to equality of all ethnicities and religions within a unitary socialist state.
Manjula Wijerama (Apr 9, '04)


Your reader [Hugh J] Pavletich, suitably overawed by the review of the book [Anti-Americanism], In defense of the Stars and Stripes  [Apr 3], seeks now to overawe others by applauding the USA "as the beacon of liberty ... as the most successful nation on the planet" (letter posted Apr 8) and asks rhetorically: "Where would the world be if the United States had not been around for the past 200 years?" Well, I can tell him: