Write to us at letters@atimes.com

Please provide your name or a pen name, and your country of residence. Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.

(Or join the The Edge, the lightly moderated discussion board for our global community.)

April 2005

I would like to refer to Ioannis Gatsiounis' article on Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and his political track record to date [Malaysia makes all the wrong moves, Apr 29]. I found it odd that while Mr Gatsiounis wrote about the apparent dualistic nature of his political maneuvering, his article was equally contradictory; because paradoxically Dr Badawi would have to become a strongman himself in order to provide widespread institutional reforms without consultation with his own party. Mr Gatsiounis had also pointed out that it seemed ironic that reform rested upon only on Dr Badawi himself, without mentioning any of Malaysian opposition MPs [members of parliament] who bring up issues such as foreign policy or Malaysian civil-society groups. Personally I would not downplay Malaysia's claim as an "advanced Islamic democracy", despite the current government's inherent problems with corruption and inability to review some of its more repressive laws. I would also not equate Westernization or Americanization with liberal democracy, ie "mainstream" dress code, music, attitudes towards sex, family structure, sports, etc, but the institutions which would provide political dissent, greater tolerance within the nation-state and promote dialogue with foreign nations and culture. In my opinion, from my observation of Malaysia's political bloggers and opposition website, there is a growing culture of political dissent and alternative intelligent (non-Western) views raised both by the Malaysian government and its opposition not to be found anywhere else in the region. Unique political institutions are slowly emerging from Malaysian civil society (Sisters in Islam, Chinese civil groups, interreligious dialogues) which challenge the status quo and encourage debates about society and culture. If reform seems slow, I feel that Malaysia's political system is "bootstrapping" with its own unique identity ... Regarding Dr Badawi's ([he] is also finance minister) economic policies, from what I had read from the Malaysian opposition website, it seems that Dr Mahathir [Mohamad] casts a long shadow on Malaysia's economic future as it is implied that he exerts much influence through his involvement with Proton, Malaysia's national car company, and Petronas, Malaysia's national oil company. As mentioned, I believe that it is more appropriate to take a look at Dr Badawi's deputy finance ministers's track record and ministerial statements instead. On corruption, maybe he can take a page out of Singapore's book to "reduce" corruption by officially paying ministers et al higher wages (wages that are greater than that of the US president) plus all the perks associated with office (paid directorships, endorsements, etc). Corruption is a complex business and most certainly not uniquely Malaysian ...
Omega Lee aka Clement (Apr 29, '05)


Writer Jianwei Wang in Chen could be Taiwan's Nixon [Apr 29] does not realize how true the title to his article is. If President Chen Shui-bian took Mr Wang's advice and normalized relations with China, such normalization would be under the so-called "one-China principle" which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is stuck on. But since the overwhelming majority of Taiwanese reject the one-China principle, President Chen would then be reviled and despised just as [US president Richard] Nixon was. No, I do not think that President Chen wants to be Taiwan's Nixon. The CCP has an opportunity to make history if it announces during Lien Chan's visit that the Kuomintang is legalized as an opposition political party in China, and that KMT members can compete for national, provincial and local political offices on equal footing with CCP members. Undoubtedly the CCP will miss this opportunity, as it has missed so many others in the past.
Daniel McCarthy (Apr 29, '05)


Henry Liu's series [World Order, Failed States and Terrorism], as thorough as it is, especially with regard to the militarization of the police force in the United States, fails to mention the implications for the American citizenry of the return from the Middle East of those in the military coddled for shooting civilians and foreign journalists on the pretext of concern for their own skins, and trained in the insouciant use of torture. Many of these alleged "bad apples" will either seek employment as bullying and imperious security people who think they are above the law, or as law-enforcement types who, under [cover] of lawful authority with badge and gun, apply their training to the citizenry with the same impunity they exercise it against Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Many of the military-police drones responsible for the abuse of human rights from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib to Kabul are already former employees of the US prison system, a system which has a higher incarceration rate than any other country in the world. The chickens coming home to roost are returning to an increasingly police state in which excessive violence and brutality are hallmarks of routine law-enforcement procedure, and in which the citizenry are thought of as a population of potential perpetrators who must be electrocuted by Tasers if they do not show the subservience expected by the police occupiers. In my 57 years on this Earth I have observed the change from police once being respected generally to people laughing and celebrating when they read about police deaths, especially those in which off-duty cops shoot it out with each other. And the Pentagon is going to exacerbate this deterioration. The US is already a failed state, and is responsible for most of the terrorism in the world, both foreign and domestic.
Gregorio Kelly (Apr 29, '05)


Dr Sunyat Tojo's letter (Apr 28) bears reading, if only to roll up one's eyes. He sounds like one of those anti-China hacks who cannot help but project their paranoia on to others or, worse, like a Japanese right-winger who attempts to justify his actions and ideals through the lens of his "divine" race. There seems to be either an ignorant or deliberate confusion in associating the resentment that the Chinese in China and elsewhere feel about Japan's wartime actions and the Chinese Communist Party. Of course the CCP will always seek an opportunity to deflect criticisms of itself on to others. And that applies to all political parties of all stripes. Let's examine his points:
(1) Tojo is so right that Japan has no obligation to seek approval about what it teaches. So can we can expect Japan to be remilitarized and go on another Imperial Army sojourn in the next generation? What's that saying about history repeating itself? Hmm, this reminds me of another Tojo (Hideki - Japan's wartime prime minister - or Eiku as he was known earlier).
(2) Japan doesn't have to "apologize" about anything. Tojo is right again - whatever Japan does, it is always right, isn't it? So Japan will also stop asking the US to apologize for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Vis-a-vis the Brits and Japan, the Brits were a real pompous lot and hypocritical too, but they didn't [expressly] go on a killing spree. As an analogy, imperial Britain was a thief while imperial Japan was a murderer, rapist and robber (an impressive resume for an Asian neighbor). So first things first. Britain has returned Hong Kong while Japan has yet to give a full accounting. Considering the resources that Japan plundered from China from the moment [it] stole Taiwan and occupied Manchuria, I think the least that Japan can do is pay.
(3) I almost fell off my seat reading the part [where] Tojo claimed the soldiers died defending Japan from imperial Russia. The Japanese under Admiral Togo launched a surprise attack against the Russian fleet at Port Arthur (today Lushunkou, near Dalian) on Feb 8, 1904 (there seems to be a pattern with surprise attacks). Tojo's exposition about the end of grudges with the passing of the dead was enlightening about Tokyo's constant refusal to talk about the wartime deeds. So Tokyo is just waiting for all the victims like the sex slaves to pass on, present a fait accompli and then say, "Oops, everyone died - so can we now go on?" How convenient. No one said anything [about] not being able to pay respects to those soldiers who died thinking they had died for the sake of their Emperor and Japan. It's the Class A war criminals - or [hasn't] Tojo been paying attention? If Tokyo was serious, [it] could place those ghouls somewhere else and erect a monument to all the victims of Japanese imperialism. At least we should thank Tojo for highlighting the contempt the Japanese right-wingers still show.
(4) Sure, Japan does not need China. So can we ask the zaibatsu (or keiretsu) to pack up and go? The Chinese will have to learn [to be] peasants again ... And tell all those MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] PhDs and [those] with many long titles that they should have learned agriculture. Oh wait, they can still use their ever-increasing patents to good use - but only in other countries. Tojo must be willfully ignoring the fact that China and Japan are top trader nations to each other. The US as the alternative market? Have they forgotten the Japan bashing in the '80s?
(5) Taiwan relinquished "in perpetuity". Yes, that's what they said about Hong Kong Island, too. Ideally, I would like to see Taiwan reunified peacefully with China one day, preferably under a democratic government. Please bear in mind one thing: those in support of China's reunification do not necessarily support the CCP. In fact, many Chinese in China and elsewhere would not mourn its passing. China will terrorize Asia - well, that's the excuse the anti-China crowd uses. Excuse me, whose Imperial Army actually went on a whirlwind tour through Asia circa the early 20th century? The list of countries that were on the itinerary: Korea, China, Indochina, the Philippines, Malaysia, Burma [Myanmar] and Indonesia. Highlights of tour: Take their land, resources, women (all willing to submit to your needs) and men (to be worked to death). Need target practice? Take your pick from a choice of babies, children and civilians. Optional items: Random humiliation, torture, mutilation and mayhem. Check with the local kempeitai (military police) first. I can only hope that Tojo's views belong to a minute minority and they do not influence the largely peaceable Japanese of today. If not, God help us all. Better yet, get some Mitsubishi stocks (they did make some fine fighter planes).
Tino Tan H S
Singapore (previously Shonanto, 1942-45)

For more analysis of the China-Japan dispute, see the new commentary Why Japan's 'so sorry' doesn't wash in China. - ATol


Just curious as to how many others recognized the sad irony of Dr [Sunyat] Tojo's address [letter, Apr 28].
T Sullivan
Princeville, Hawaii (Apr 29, '05)


First I would like to confirm that I am a fan of ATol and Pepe Escobar. You may not have everything exactly correct all of the time, but in my experience, you are more correct more times than anyone else. To Geoffrey Sherwood (letter, Apr 28): Embedded journalists are under extreme pressure to report the Pentagon's and the US military's view of events, whether they are true or false. It just doesn't ring true that a tank commander would, under no threat and on his own initiative, target a well-known hotel which was home to many expatriates and military officers, and then one particular room of that hotel, without orders from someone. In my view, from the time of the bombing of al-Jazeera in Kabul, the US has been targeting journalists who report independently of US control. After four-plus years of lies and misinformation from this [Bush] administration, I would believe the devil himself in preference to the US government. To Chris (letter, Apr 28): Are you absolutely sure that communists never ever tell the truth? I remember sweeping a BAR [Browning automatic rifle] at a target in Korea and after much more than a hundred rounds finally got five in the target. The Toyota Corolla carrying the Italians was shot from behind (ie, the car [had] passed the tank and was proceeding away), and who knows how many rounds missed the car? Why would the US not let the Italians examine the car? The car's speed can be ascertained by the trajectory of the bullets through the metal bulkheads. Why have the Italians disagreed with the conclusion of the US? They are not communists ... maybe just Italians and communists lie. It must be wonderful to be "American" and not have all of the sins of these communists and foreigners.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 29, '05)


Brij [letter, Apr 28]: Things such as dowry deaths [and] social discrimination might happen in other countries, but they are the exception and not the norm as is in India. I did not criticize Hinduism, but merely stated that it is not a system in which social mobility [exists]. An untouchable cannot go to school and become a Brahmin, he will have to hope that in his next life he is born a Brahmin. Ever read the matrimonial sections in Indian newspapers - caste, fair skin? With regards to Jon, your comment about India being in a "dangerous neighborhood" says it all - only ignorant Americans speak in such terms. It is you who has your nose pressed against the glass wishing for acceptance in the West. Our policies are not misguided but based on our aspirations. We don't want to be part of an anti-Muslim-and-China alliance with the US and Israel as partners. We seek to form strong bonds with China and the Islamic world - therein lies our path to success. You, Sri and his crew of merry Sadhus made your choice and left this "dangerous neighborhood", so stay out and stop slandering people we Indians consider friends.
John Daniel
Thane, India (Apr 29, '05)


For Brij's information [letter, Apr 28], Manchuria jointed China voluntarily in 1600. Tibet together with Mongolia joined China voluntarily in 1300. Nobody forced them. Instead of believing white man's obedience-school training, I suggest Brij read a few history books before spreading his ignorance. Daniel McCarthy's letter told us [that] no matter what [the] Chinese government and Chinese people do, they will never receive any approval from white colonists. Unless they can embrace white man's rule like English-speaking Indians do.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 29, '05)

The Manchus invaded and conquered China in 1644, claiming a relationship to the Chin Dynasty, and ruled the country as the Ching Dynasty until the revolution of 1911. Over time the Manchus were assimilated for the most part into the general Chinese population. Manchuria itself was fought over in modern times by the Chinese, Russians and Japanese but has generally been considered Chinese territory. The Mongols were another great conquering people, and they brought Tibet under their influence in the 13th century. The Ching Dynasty took Tibet over from the Mongols in 1720. There is little evidence that either the Mongols, the Manchus or the Han ever asked the Tibetan people who they wanted their masters to be. - ATol


Chrysantha Wijeysingha's response (Apr 27) detailing the glories of the southern kingdoms [of India] resonates well with me. It is not just because I am from the south in India and take pride in the greatness of the Pandya, Chola, Pallava [and] Vijayanagar kingdoms, but it is a fact that they established the footprint of Hindu culture and civilization as far as the Ganges in the north and Sri Lanka in the south and Indochina in the east. However, Chrysantha falls off the factual map with his observation about Hinduism and conversion. His thesis that the south was evangelized and converted to an Aryan Vedic Hindu religion does not make sense and is not supported by history, Tamil literature or [the] present-day status quo. At the outset the underlying assumption of Aryans conquering Dravidians needs to be given a fancy burial given the modern-day research disproving the theories of Max Mueller and company. The notions of conversion that Chrysantha implies are (1) replacement as in the case of Christianity, and (2) total nihilism in the case of Islam. Neither of these theories applies to Hinduism. Indeed, Hinduism revels in profusion with no loss of perfection, for, to Hindus, all paths lead to the same god. Hence in south India (like the rest of the north today) you see the finest example of a composite religion and culture that [have] come about through peaceful osmosis or voluntary means - more of a peaceful intersection and co-existence of spiritual paths. (The only exceptions in India [are] Islam with its violent conversion movement and Christianity through violence by Portuguese in Goa and by modern-day Christian missionaries through financial measures continuing even today.) The south is living evidence of families devoted to both Vedic Hinduism [and] Dravidian gods and goddesses ... Having established the composite religious development that fits with the Hindu Santana Dharma, may I also challenge Chyrsantha's allegation of the north's hold on Vedanta. Let me point out that the three main systems of Vedanta - Advaitism, Dvaitism [and] Vishitadvaitism - were developed by southerners, Sankara, Madhva [and] Ramanuja. The greatest collection of Hindu devotional literature and hymns are in Tamil ... and sung in every southern Vedic temple. Southern temples, though distinctly Dravidian in architecture, have evolved to become the guardians of the Vedic culture, which unfortunately decayed in the north due to the twin onslaught of Abhramaic religions such as Islam with the Mughals and Christianity with the British. But why talk of the past? Let's take the Hindu temples in North America today. Almost all Vedic temples are in the Dravidian architectural mold and run by mostly south Indians but attract all Indians, implying a deep underlying fundamental spiritual unity in Hinduism - a unity that is molded by the tolerance of diversity which led to equal respect for all spiritual paths (sarva dharma samabhava). There is no instance of triumphalism and supremacy leading to conquering other peoples or in converting peoples, or in dividing humanity that I see in Chrysantha's allegation.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Apr 29, '05)


Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are monotheistic and each contains both the heaven-hell and the God-Satan dualities. Their one and only creator-god demands to be worshipped and is represented on earth by a prophet and each religion anticipates an apocalyptic Judgment Day. If you trace this model of religion all the way back, it will take you to Egypt in 1300 BC and a small monotheistic cult known as the cult of Aton. Egypt had practiced a stable and adaptive form of multi-deism for millennia. The stability was shaken when Akhenaton became pharaoh and adopted the cult of Aton after having appointed himself as the prophet figure of the cult, that is to say, Aton's representative on Earth. Akhenaton unleashed a kind of madness upon the kingdom when he tried to establish the cult of Aton as the state religion. Monotheism by its very nature is singular and exclusive as the many convulsive letters to ATol will attest. Upon Akhenaton's death, normalcy was restored to the kingdom and the remnants of the cult of Aton were rounded up and expelled. They settled in what is now Palestine and from them have evolved the three great monotheistic religions of our time. Each is patterned after the cult of Aton, but there are sufficient differences in the details to have sown the seeds of calamity throughout their history. Three different gods cannot co-exist in a monotheist's world. The Akhenaton nightmare is still with us for this reason. Monotheistic religions are singular and exclusive. Each, by definition, is the only correct version of reality and all others are therefore necessarily wrong. My hope is that some day soon, perhaps in the next thousand years or so, followers of these three religions will discover that they have more in common than they have differences and that the three religions are, in reality, the same religion. It would be the end of a tormented history. What a wonderful day that would be.
Cha-am Jamal
Cha-am, Thailand (Apr 29, '05)


Pepe Escobar's accusation that American soldiers in Iraq have purposely targeted journalists for attack is unconscionable ( They shoot journalists, don't they?, Apr 28). Escobar writes: "The Pentagon considers independent journalism an act of subversion. An investigation by the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders has reached the same conclusions. Most covering the war on Iraq remember how the Pentagon intentionally targeted the media-saturated Palestine Hotel in Baghdad on April 8, 2003, killing a Ukrainian and a Spanish journalist." It is a bald-faced lie to say "the Pentagon" targeted the Palestine Hotel. A tank commander targeted the Palestine Hotel. And according to Chris Tomlinson, an embedded AP [Associated Press] reporter who was listening to the military radio traffic when the US Army tank shot a lone shell at the hotel, a superior officer of the tank commander's went into a rage immediately upon hearing what had happened. Tomlinson's account is corroborated by Jules Crittenden, of the Boston Herald, another embedded journalist who was nearby at the time. And for those who are predisposed to think of all embedded reporters as Pentagon propagandists, there is the May 2003 report titled "Permission to Fire" by Joel Campagna and Rhonda Roumani, of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which concluded that "investigation into the incident - based on interviews with about a dozen reporters who were at the scene, including two embedded journalists who monitored the military radio traffic before and after the shelling occurred - suggests that attack on the journalists, while not deliberate, was avoidable". Escobar cites the CPJ's statistics on the number of journalists killed by US military fire in Iraq for his article. If I were not a longtime reader of Escobar, I might wonder how he could have overlooked the CPJ's main report on the incident, and their conclusions. But while I no longer wonder, I still don't understand. The ATol editors are right. We read ATol because of, not in spite of, writers like Henry C K Liu, Spengler, and Escobar. It's worth plowing through their writings to encounter the occasional gem of insight, or marvelous use of language. But a little more substance and a little less spin would be nice. Style, personality and conviction don't always have to pummel the bejeezus out of the facts.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Apr 28, '05)


Regarding [Pepe] Escobar's They shoot journalists, don't they? [Apr 28]: The [terrorists'] most effective weapon in Iraq has been either the roadside bomb or the suicide car bomber. An American soldier has mere seconds to analyze a situation of the sort described in the article, an approaching car, unresponsive to warnings. An error on the soldier's part means his team going home in a body bag. The driver states he saw no warning and wasn't speeding. Quite likely he lies to save his own hide. And as to the testimony of Giuliana Sgrena, nothing this women utters is to be believed. She's an avowed communist and rabidly anti-American. She claimed that the American soldiers fired "hundreds" of rounds on her car. Now we learn that only eight to 10 rounds were fired. Quite a discrepancy, would you say? There is no American conspiracy involved here. American society as a whole is too transparent for any conspiracy to take place. At least one of the conspirators would spill it all on television without fail. Americans are the worst keepers of secrets on the planet. But I do sense a conspiracy behind this story. It revolves around Ms Sgrena. I suggest [that] Ms Sgrena, in her anti-American zeal, staged this whole "kidnapping" in an attempt to sway Italian public opinion and force the Italian government to withdraw its troops and further degrade the alliance and embarrass George Bush. Yes, hang on to this one, people, and remember where you heard it first. Ms Sgrena is a wacko and her plot is going to blow wide open one of these days.
Chris
USA (Apr 28, '05)


Three cheers [for] Ted Galen Carpenter [Conflicting concepts of Taiwan's status quo, Apr 28]. China hands and watchers owe him a big hand of thanks for cutting through the Gordian knot of verbiage. He brings clarity to the all-too-common confusion in conflicting concepts of Taiwan's status: in diplomacy or analysis, a cardinal rule should prevail - do not presume, do not assume. Everyone colors words with different meanings and varying shades of grey in nuances. Consequently, it is of utmost importance to put yourself in another's shoes to grasp the import of the meaning of the same words you are using. Out of this exercise, understanding comes and possible resolutions of a hard nut of a problem to crack. To some this might sound like the laborious work of a scholastic monk parsing meaning on the head of a pin. Far from it, such patient analysis can and does make a difference between war and peace. One can apply Carpenter's approach to the incoherence and tone-deafness of Washington in the stalled six-power talks.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 28, '05)


I would like to thank Vincent Maadi [letter, Apr 27] for stepping forward and displaying his grotesque anti-Semitism. It would ill-behoove literate people everywhere to suggest that Vincent Maadi has taken a unassociated non sequitur set of quotes out of the Talmud for the express purpose of defaming Jews. No, instead groups like "stormfront.org" have done that for him. All Vincent needs to do is parrot a Nazi hate speech. I'd be willing to wager Spengler isn't even Jewish. Mr Maadi's assumption that Spengler is Jewish simply reveals Mr Maadi's hatred of Jews. This is not the first nasty assault on Spengler perpetrated by Mr Maadi. This is simply the worst yet. What's more, Vincent Maadi is the archetype of all the "Spengler-haters". Finally, I understand the nature of all Spengler's detractors. I see the same lunacy in all the ad hominem attacks against Spengler. All of them purport to be putting together a sound argument, yet everything they write is riddled with flagrant logical fallacies or simply sums up to a long, nasty insult. Have the "Spengler-haters" sunk so low they now suck on the teat of fascism? Think about what side you're on.
Terence Redux
USA (Apr 28, '05)


In prior letters, many ATol readers steadfastly asserted that the violent anti-Japanese protests in China were a sincere expression of patriotism by Chinese people, which had not been organized by any part of the Chinese government (even though the government provided free bus service to transport people to the protests). But now the Shanghai Liberation Daily newspaper says that the anti-Japanese protests were not a patriotic movement but were a backstage plot to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party. Forty-two people have already been arrested for participating in the protests. Does anyone remember the Hundred Flowers Movement followed by the Anti-Rightist Campaign, or is that a dirty little secret not taught in Chinese textbooks? Andrew Ren, is this the behavior of a civilized government?
Daniel McCarthy (Apr 28, '05)


It is truly entertaining to watch the shills of the [Communist] Party in China come on an English board and ridicule all who reject Chinese propaganda and imperial ambitions. After all, they say, we have 4,000 years of glorious history, how dare they? Great stuff. Predictably, they gloss over myriad facts which destroy their devious and opportunistic agenda. However, it seems that many are afraid to point these out, [for] example:
(1) As a sovereign nation, Japan has absolutely no obligation to seek approval from foreigners with regards to what they teach their children, none whatsoever. If [the Chinese are] such [sticklers] for truth in history, they can start with their own back yard, teaching their kids about empire-loving China's historical injustices towards its neighbors and its own citizens. What injustices, you ask? Well, that's exactly my point. If Japan wants to teach kids that they are descended from purple polka-dotted bunny rabbits, it's absolutely none of China's business; that is unless they start soliciting advice from Japan on what to teach in their "Chinese history" classes. When is China going to submit its textbooks for review to Japanese editors?
(2) Nor does Japan have to "apologize" about anything. How come China never tries to bully the Brits for "apologies"? After all, the Brits were the primary culprits in crashing China's imperial party. Probably because they know they'd get laughed right out of the United Nations if they tried such a stupid thing. Japan is just too darn nice with China, giving them attention every time they start heeing and hawing about their "victimization", handing over billions in extortion money in the name of "ODA" [official development assistance]. China is the master of extortion ...
(3) Yasukuni visits are none of China's business either. It is imperative and simply honorable for Japan to recognize and commemorate those who died to keep it from becoming [a victim] of imperial Europe, imperial Russia and, in the big picture, imperial China. Hey, if those brave souls didn't die for Japan, it would be Japan instead of China screaming for apologies and handouts. Unlike Chinese culture, in which the sins of the father are the sins of the son and sins of the grandson etc for endless generations, Japanese religion does not believe in holding earthly grudges against the dead. Once dead, all spirits are equal - surely an impossible concept to grasp from the perspective of grudge-perpetuating equality-less China. China should butt its nose into religious and traditional affairs of other countries instead, say, like it's doing with Tibet. Chinese propaganda like "do you think Japanese officials worshipping war criminals is justified" is typical of this ruse ... What war crimes, anyway? Japan doesn't really recognize the authority of the International Kangaroo Tribunal of Victorious Imperial Plunderers to accuse others of "war crimes". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. So when is China going to apologize to Tibet, India, Korea, and Vietnam? Everybody's waiting.
(4) Japan does not need China "more than China needs Japan". This is a ridiculous piece of foolish propaganda. Japan is a developed country; China is a developing country. There's a huge difference between the two ... The USA is being propped up by Japan mostly. China's exports of flimsy sneakers and TVs (60-year-old tech) is no threat to Japan's exports of capital goods, advanced materials, etc, many of which Japan has a virtual monopoly on. China's export industries are invincible, you say? Well, where do you think all [that] manufacturing equipment and technology come from? Japan, of course ... There is an abundance of cheap labor worldwide; not so for generous capital and advanced technology.
(5) Taiwan is not "domestic affairs" of China. Get real - China relinquished Taiwan in 1895 "in perpetuity". The only "Chinese government" with actual official administration of Taiwan only ruled it for less than a decade; Japan did for 50 years ... If Taiwan is part of China, then America is part of Britain. The real reason that imperial China covets Taiwan is to terrorize the rest of Asia, and choke Japan's all-important sea lanes ...
Dr Sunyat Tojo
Diego Garcia (Apr 28, '05)


I have no doubt that there are large numbers of white people [who] respect Chinese [culture]. I am grateful to many of the white people who helped China in the past. Actually, Chinese people built a few statues of those white folks to honor them. However, I do not see any of them [serving] ATol. Most of the white writers from ATol hate China and Chinese people. Like Andrew H Ren pointed out, these white ATol writers are no different than the other whites whose only China knowledge come from their Chinese buffet experiences in USA. In my observation, at [the] ATol letter section, whites support white writers. Yellows support yellow writers. Yellows do not agree with whites. Whites do not agree with yellows. I do not see any colorblindness here. And predominately, whites get their chance to express their white opinions about China and Chinese people. Chinese do not get much of their fair share of opportunities to express their opinions at ATol. Can we change that?
Frank
Seattle, Washington

We can't publish letters we don't receive. - ATol


Re Andrew Ren's letter (Apr 27): How is the Unending Rape of Tibet different from the Rape of Nanjing, Andrew? Shouldn't Manchuria go with Korea? Would China agree to demonize Chairman Mao [Zedong] because of all the deaths that he caused? China is looking to gain political advantage with this controversy. Having destroyed culture and intellectuals, there it nothing left to enthrall Chinese minds other than history and violence - using old history to hide the current violence. Mohd [Salek] Noor [letter, Apr 27] wants to know evidence for his prophet's marriage to a child. I suspect that the Internet must be heavily censored in the UAE if he has not come across such evidence, since the websites that discuss this are numerous. If Noor is a Sunni, then he has to believe that the Hadiths are true. Read Sahih-al Bukhari Vol 5:236. Or read Bukhari Vol 7:88. Or read Sahih Muslim Vol 2:3309-3311. There are many other references. The historian al-Tabari (died 923 CE) wrote: "Aisha was six (or seven) years old when she was married, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old" (al-Tabari Vol 9, pp 129-131). Earlier, he [Noor] had mentioned that Muslims consider Jesus a prophet. Well, Muslims consider Alexander the Macedonian a prophet also. Aren't prophets supposed to have some common message between them? If Genghis Khan had come eight centuries earlier, would he be a prophet now too? John Daniel (letter, Apr 27) wrote: "Caste system, female infanticide and dowry deaths are a part and parcel of Hinduism, no matter how one spins it." Christianity in India is ridden with class and caste distinctions also. As is Islam. Dowry deaths occur among Muslims of Pakistan. Female infanticide happens in communist China. Racism exists in all Christian countries. Hindu texts ask followers to judge people by their actions, and not by their beliefs. That is why Hindu-majority India seeks to fight social evils while Islamists seek to find Koranic justifications for them. The Hindu [Mahatma] Gandhi was more like Christ (who perhaps copied Buddhist teachings) than any figure produced by the "Christian" world in its nearly two millennia of oppression, crusades, imperialism, colonialism, genocide, slavery, torture, inquisitions, apartheid and wars. Tell me, John Daniel, what panacea religion would you want us to replace Hinduism with?
Brij (Apr 28, '05)


This is regarding John Daniel's letter [Apr 27] on NRIs [non-resident Indians] and neo-con imperialism. Well, Mahatma Gandhi was an NRI, and many of the leaders of the freedom struggle were educated abroad. Today's diaspora Indians certainly do have a vision (not a fantasy as you put it) that their success in the world economy, against world-class competition, proves that India and Indians are not inferior to anyone else. In various ways, we try to infect Indians in India with the same attitude, and counteract the mental attitudes built up because of the last 50 years of clueless economic and foreign policy. Through geography and history, the fact is that India lives in a dangerous neighborhood, and one way to ensure continued economic progress is to have a strong military that discourages any adventurous neighbors. If this is neo-con thinking, so be it, but it's far safer than living in a fantasy world, like the early Nehru days. And by the way, the Persian Gulf countries you speak of are no better than they should be, they are not doing anyone a favor by employing people from poor countries and treating them like dirt. I have no specific quarrel with any of them, but think how much better it would be if Indians didn't have to do this. There is no "Western imperialist" agenda as such that India has bought into; for the first time, India is on a positive economic trend which might naturally cause misgivings among well-intentioned people such as yourself perhaps, about losing our "culture" or "modesty". But would you rather the country stay poor and hungry, looking from the outside with its nose pressed to the glass at the feast inside?
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Apr 28, '05)


John Daniel (letter [Apr 27]) raises reasonable questions when asking why so many Indians are poor, but then launches a fairly common diatribe regarding caste and religion ... The Yaday twins have ruled UP [Uttar Pradesh] and Bihar for over a decade. During this time, the metrics of both these states have fallen in all aspects except for crime and outward migration. While you may be correct in blaming caste, pray what share of blame should a Brahmin or a Bania take for this? [If] you have a problem with the Indian political system, then I suggest you elect better leaders. After all, no Indian government has formed without the support of the so-called backward castes or Muslims. I might even go as far as suggesting that it is these governments formed by these groupings that have done their best to keep India backward. Reservations, the so-called panacea you suggest, really is a way to deny opportunity to a deserving person in favor of a less deserving person. Perhaps, if you have better ideas, you might put forward ways to improve the very problems you cite. To Mohd Salek Noor [letter, Apr 27]: As you yourself claimed, your parents sent you to an Indian school in the UAE and thus you have become a man of letters. I imagine you should be thankful to them (and the Hindu classmates who tolerated you during those years). Let me hypothesize what might have happened if you went to a Saudi-sponsored Pakistani school (aka madrassah). (a) You could be a martyr who was promised virgins in heaven, but instead raped Kashmiri women. (b) You could be a martyr fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and earned the nom de guerre of Mullah Omar. (c) You could be in Sudan (Darfur) raping and killing women in the name of Islam. Now pray, what would have been the better outcome?
AP (Apr 28, '05)


"So I worship the unseen god and my inner faith in God is much stronger than yours - that is why I don't make idols and you make [them]," a Muslim [wrote] to ATol (Apr 27). It is this kind of arrogant, dogmatic belief that Islam is superior to every other faith that is causing misery to millions of its followers worldwide. How easy to manipulate young unschooled jihadis to fight for lost causes.
Reetha P
Malaysia (Apr 28, '05)


Regarding [Mohd Salek] Noor's comment that "Islam at 1 billion is larger than the combined numbers of Hindus and Buddhists", I decided to put pen to paper and here [are] the results: Burma [Myanmar], 50.7 million [Buddhists]; Cambodia 14.8 million; Japan 127.9 million; South Korea 48 million; Laos 5.9 million; Taiwan 22.5 million; Thailand 64.1 million; Vietnam 83.6 million; Bhutan 2.4 million; and Sri Lanka 19.4 million. I only concentrated on the nations [that] are predominantly Buddhist and ignored the nations that have significant minorities of Buddhists, therefore in compensation I take the above numbers whole. The total comes to 439.3 million [Buddhists. Add the] approximate number of Hindus in India (and not counting Bali or the expats), 800 million, [and] the grand total is 1,239,300,000, and that is not counting China when (and not if) China allows the practice of religion, which is being done in certain provinces like Tibet. The number of Chinese who adhere to Buddhism would render Islam into third category. As far is Islam being the "fastest-growing religion in the world", [it doesn't] hold that title in Africa, where Christianity is growing even faster, and Christianity is already a billion people ahead of Islam ...
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 28, '05)


[Mohd Salek] Noor [letter, Apr 27], it seems, just doesn't get [it]. There is no "my god" or "your god". There is (for those who believe in religion) just one god. Hindus don't have an exclusive country-club system in their religion through which only the members of the club will find nirvana or moksha. Here is the crux of the problem. You, Mr Noor, are adamant in creating divisions in the world based on faith and comments about comparing gods [are] ridiculous. We don't worship the idol, remember. We don't think that the piece of rock itself is our god, but if someone smashes it then there will be trouble. If someone was to burn the Koran in the Middle East, then chances are that they would be killed by a mob. Why? Because the Koran itself isn't God, yet it is, for Muslims, the word of God and a symbol of Him. Similarly the idol is a symbol for us and the Gita is His divine word. If it comes down to one's faith and confidence in the faith, then I think Muslims are quite paranoid, actually. Hindus lived for centuries under Abrahamic rule and yet survived, but it seems Muslims are afraid of even allowing non-Muslims to open churches of temples in their countries. Let's just take the UAE for example. I traveled extensively to Dubai and I know for a fact that there is just one St Mary's Church and one Shiva temple, both in [the] Bur Dubai area of town. Then there is one Sikh gurudwara and one more church in Al Barsha and Jebel Ali respectively. Wow, considering that there are ... hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims in that city alone, one would think that the government would allow more temples and churches to open up. I have seen Sunday mass at the church and the poojas at the temples; the people are overflowing and trying desperately to find a place to stand. Why not let the people open more? What are you afraid of? You expect unhindered construction of mosques in secular countries and set-up charities to proselytize in secular countries yet you deny the same freedom to other faiths in your country? What sort of equality and freedom is this? Are you afraid that if people saw the real face of the different faiths, which is quite different from what the mullahs at Juma (Friday) prayers blabber about, they might change their opinions of it? Perhaps secular countries should start giving rights based on reciprocity. If I as an Indian citizen can have freedom of worship and speech in the UK, then a British citizen can have the same freedoms in India. If I as an Indian can't enjoy freedoms in the Middle East, then the Middle Eastern people shouldn't enjoy those rights in the free countries till they get their own house in order. Reciprocity is a harsh mistress - you can't have your cake and eat it too. Welcome to the real world - it might be difficult for a poor laborer to stand up for himself in the UAE (where he often doesn't even get paid on time), but here at Asia Times [Online] at least everyone is allowed to reply honestly, unlike your one-sided diatribes that I have read on the Khaleej Times (a UAE newspaper) Letters to the Editor page.
Aryan Singh Rathore
London, England (Apr 28, '05)


"Hinduism and Buddhism say that God (or enlightenment) can be reached through various means, be it service, good deeds, devotion, meditation etc. God is such a grand concept that it seems ridiculous that there will be only one path to him," says Aryan Singh Rathore [letter, Apr 26], but according to Swami Dayanand, "Multiplicity of religion has led much unhappiness and great discord. It is the duty of wise men to find means to end it. It is an established fact that 5,000 years ago, there was no other religion except Vedic." And Brij supports Swami Dayanand when he writes about Islam to be countered with military force (like in Afghanistan). Now let me ask just a single question, is it not an attempt by Hindu fanatics to attack Islam because Muslims worship no idols? (According to Dayanand 5,000 years ago those barbaric people worshipped idols so in this modern world we should also follow suit.) Mr Rathore, God never visited me in the form of cow, elephant, monkey, snake or human being, so I don't find true God in them. Buddha was not God, he was a human being, so it is ridiculous to prostrate before a human being who had never created us. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was a messenger of God, he was not God either, so we don't worship him but God, the Almighty who is Truth far above from all those you ascribe unto Him. No one has ever seen God so we don't know what shape He might be in and only irrational people would create thousands of gods though they don't have power to make a mosquito. So keep your lofty principles about God with you and [do] not impose them on others. And Sri "the enlightened one" adds [Apr 25], "I went back and read through the thread of letters to see if that was the focus of the 'discussion' and verified ... the poor comprehension, obfuscated thinking, inability to concentrate on the issue and pent-up frustration that made up his puny attack on Hinduism." Well, Sri, my focus is very much on issue; I just wanted you to call a spade a spade instead of mindlessly mocking Islamic beliefs and convincing your prejudiced mind that Hindus are nothing but angels. I [wrote] earlier ... that some extremists from Islam are responsible for irrationally killing innocent non-Muslims and I also added that my heart bleeds for them. But no, you were bent upon distorting the image of [a] whole community saying Islam is fake and ugly and because I asked for peace among Hindus and Muslims you started calling me [an] unworthy Islamist. Now tell me truly, who used the method of extremists, you or me? When I wrote truth about Hinduism you all are burning with fire. It is time you people stopped illogically blaming every Muslim for the wrongdoings they are not responsible for. I strongly reject extremist [views] of Islam or any other religion but tit-for-tat [seems] to be the only answer you require and my call of unity and peace was just nonsense. One last question to Sri: How will you feel when someone says your Krishna was a pedophile, Ram was a sexist and Laxhmi Mata was a bitch, despite knowing the fact that person does not have any evidence against your Hindu deities? But it seems the letter of Roy has amused you to a greater extent because worthless Roy bashed Islam. Reetha P (Apr 25) writes [that] Hinduism predates Islam. Do you know exactly when Islam began? From Adam, the first man on Earth, to Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) everyone preached about the oneness of God. So Islam was there since the inception of humanity. Don't judge Islam a new religion that began some 1,400 years ago. The Jewish scripture taught oneness of God, the Christian Bible taught oneness of God and the Holy Koran taught oneness of God. And all have been worshipping one god since the beginning of human life on Earth.
Mohd Salek Noor
Al Fujairah, UAE (Apr 28, '05)

"My religion is better than yours" is an argument as old as humanity, but as far as this page is concerned, it has run its course. If you wish to continue it, please take it to The Edge forum. - ATol


While [US President George W] Bush's own Party of God, along with US corporate media, cheer Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, there was not a single beep heard about Israel withdrawing from Palestine. Reminds me of a Buddha observation: "Where there is great power, there is great evil."
PenDragon
Sleepy Hollow, New York (Apr 28, '05)


Dear Spengler: You are incorrect in asserting that women are incapable of forgiveness because they are paranoid [Women as priests? They never forgive anything!, Apr 27]. A common expression holds that one should "forgive and forget". It is precisely because women never forget the most innocent transgression that they are incapable of forgiveness.
John Alshuler (Apr 27, '05)


Spengler: Ego is a tricky devil and some people just don't have the strength to fight him. If you truly believe in God and apply His scripture to your life, He will fight the battle for you. I forgive you for your latest article, Women as priests? They never forgive anything! (Apr 27) because you seem to be begging for forgiveness. That makes two women who forgive you, myself and your mother. I hope that makes you feel better.
Beth Bowden (Apr 27, '05)


I refer to Spengler's latest hate column Ask Spengler (Apr 26). He writes: "You should focus on your successes, for example, the fact that terrorists have not staged a major attack on your country since September 11, 2001." It has never been [proved] who the actual perpetrators of the September 11 event were. From thousands of people arrested in the initial swoop around the world, hundreds being tortured or beaten to death, and scores of cases coming to trial in various countries, no one has yet been convicted of association or having participated in it. On the contrary, plenty of evidence published by non-mainstream journalists, scientists and some major political figures like [Andreas] von Buelow, former defense minister of Germany, point to the Americans themselves. From where I stand, it was the American ruling-class establishment with the help of Mossad that was behind September 11 and nearly all other major acts of terror around the world to achieve their goal of domination and subjugation of mankind through fear and terror. In today's world of technology, when scientists can clone humans, it is not impossible to fabricate evidence and make pronouncements on suspect websites and e-mails claiming responsibility for actions. With budgets running into hundreds of millions, secret services of major countries, who do not fall under any legal constraints, if there were any, can create events and fabricate evidence. The reason that there are no terrorist events is because the elites who were behind September 11 have achieved their goals of enslaving Americans and Europeans by pushing through laws that were planned a in advance. They will, however, continue to create acts of terror to keep the public enslaved. He further writes: "As long as the governments of the Muslim world believe that you will tear them limb from limb if they support terrorism, they will behave." No doubt Spengler is well versed in Talmudic language. Here are some quotes from the Talmud which expose Spengler's hate for the Gentiles: "It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah" (Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425.5). "A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands" (Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b). "Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless [non-Jews], is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God" (Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 and Jalkut 772). Sanhedrin 57a: When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep. Baba Kamma 37b: Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel". Does Spengler expect the Muslims to turn over and play dead? Muslims will not allow themselves to become victims of this racist ideology and will fight back. We do not believe in turning the other cheek.
Vincent Maadi (Apr 27, '05)


Spengler in his latest "intellectual"outpouring Women as priests? Women never forgive anything! [Apr 27] displays the two major types of psychotic "thought disorders" that clinical psychologists know of: (1) "formal" disorder, ie formational such as loosening of association between one [thought and] the next ... as expounded in the first part of his piece of April 26; and (2) "content" disorder as revealed in the second portion of the piece. The former is seen in schizophrenia and the latter as delusions of persecution [manifested] in paranoid psychosis. In the first piece, he understandably makes the first statement proposing his position on women priests in [the] Catholic Church, but the totally illogical and [dissociated] apparent connections he makes [among] love (godly or erotic), charity, forgiveness, paranoia [and] homosexuality (cause and effect thereof) in terms of women's revenge would put any florid schizophrenic patient in any mental asylum anywhere in the world to shame. In the second piece he demonstrates the height of his paranoid delusions as the ongoing unjustified and unreasoning distrust he has so vehemently held against all Muslims of the Middle East as terrorists or its [terrorism's] supporters. Spengler [writes]: "Your [Perplexed on the Potomac's] spies do not know and are not likely to find out. Whether Saddam Hussein personally supported al-Qaeda is irrelevant." Facts typically become irrelevant in paranoid delusions, one might note. Spengler [writes]: "He indulged enough nasty creatures in his intelligence menagerie such that al-Qaeda obtained resources from Iraq where necessary. The same is true of other governments" - including many Western governments, one might add. It is a tribute to [the] ATol editorial board's generosity and tolerance of such [a] varied spectrum that even a psychotic level of rantings can find a place in its platform.
Nara
USA (Apr 27, '05)

A reference, no doubt, to the Letters Page. - ATol


The article by Aruni Mukherjee [India beckons Land of the Rising Sun, Apr 27] is based on a false hope filled with imaginary alliance that is remote from reality. Aruni would like us to believe that Japan would be a better partner than China and India's booming ties with Beijing can be easily substituted if Tokyo steps in. I don't really see why India's [relationship] with Japan/China has to be seen through antagonistic lens and not valued independently for its worth.
Srikanth
Boston, Massachusetts (Apr 27, '05)


In reference to the article Nepal back in India's embrace [Apr 27], it is interesting to note that the parties most vociferous about bringing back democracy [to Nepal] are the far-left-wing parties, including the parties that have affiliations with the Maoists. The immediate question is, Why would they want King Gyanedra out so badly and a democracy (which they fully intend to destroy and replace with a communist regime) reinstalled? The answer may lie in the fact that under democratically run Nepal ... according to the article, "so far over 11,000 Nepalis have died in the insurgency that began in 1996". During that time Nepal was not ruled by a monarchy, it was a democracy. What in the world were the representatives elected by the Nepalis doing while 11,000 were slaughtered? Obviously the Maoists figure that ... a Nepali-style democracy where internal bickering rules over national security best suits them and they don't want a king singularly intent on their destruction to be in power. Many of the comments on Hinduism [on the Letters page] portray that religion as a faith that never went through a "conversion" period. That may be fine and dandy for north India, but the Brahmins did go to the Dravidian south India around the time of Christ and for several centuries [went] on to "Sanskritize" the south. Tamil, which the current government is considering to make a "classical language", for good reason withstood this process but also absorbed many Sanskrit words and the Hindu faith of the north, but as time went by the Dravidian culture emerged and flowered in [its] classical dance Bharatanatyam, [its] bronze sculptures, which are unrivaled in India, including the famous Shiva Nataraga, and created empires that rivaled anything in the north, specifically the Chola Empire that at its height reached the very banks of the Ganges, and south to the central part of Sri Lanka, creating the beautiful city of Polonaruwa, and east into Southeast Asia. After them and many dynasties later came the famous Vijayanagara Empire, whose splendors were chronicled by even Portuguese travelers. To sum up, the Dravidian south had and continues to have a unique culture that in spite of the "Sanskritization" of the south managed to maintain [its] unique culture and, yes, the Hindu religion did go through a period of converting non-Hindus, whether it was [in] the south or the nations of the southeast. Remember Angkor Wat.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 27, '05)


I am not upset if [letter writers] Jakob Cambria, Daniel McCarthy, Marc Erikson [China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth?, Apr 14], Donald Rumsfeld or other Westerners think we Chinese are pathetic uncivilized barbarians. You are much richer with a louder voice around the globe, and right now we don't have what it takes to compete with you. I just want to ask you several questions. (1) Do you think Japanese officials worshipping war criminals is justified? How do you think the West would react if German officials worshiped [Adolf] Hitler every year? (2) Do you think Japan invaded East and Southeast Asia to actually "liberate" them? Do you think it is a lie that Nanjing was raped (though you can debate over the actual number of casualties)? Many women were forced into sex slavery and millions of civilians (or the word "barbarians" if you despise us) died. If yes, then I suggest all the Chinese, Korean and other Asian readers of ATol stop wasting their time arguing with you. If no, have you ever deigned to say anything, besides criticizing the Chinese communist government and the Chinese people and the Chinese culture and civilization, to suggest [that] the right-wing nationalists in Japan respect history a little bit more? (3) Do you think when the West trusts Japan but its neighbors don't [that] it must be the neighbors who are wrong and overreacting? If so, tell me why. I know you think the Chinese are not democratic so our anger must be fake or unfounded. But I can't figure out the reasons in other cases. The Koreans? Thousands of protesters in Hong Kong? The indigenous people in Taiwan who are furious over Taiwanese politicians visiting the Yasukuni Shrine? Malaysian, Indonesian and Singaporean protesters? (4) Do you think since the communists distort history then whatever Japan does with its wartime past is okay? Or ... do you believe [that] since Japan is a democracy whatever it does is right while whatever communist China does is wrong? (5) Do you think it takes a rocket scientist to tell that always blaming only one side of the row is actually a way [of] secretly encouraging the other? ... If this is the way the democratic West thinks and promotes, then it's safe to say no Chinese would want such a "democracy". You are free to despise the Chinese communists, the people or even the culture and civilization. But your obvious move to defend Japan over the whitewashing of its wartime past doesn't make you impartial and upright human beings.
Andrew H Ren (Apr 27, '05)


I appreciate the [response] from ATol editor [Apr 26] and your good memory of my previous opinions. However, I think most East Asians would prefer to struggle with the language barriers than switching to the language of white colonial masters completely. Language barrier creates misunderstandings. We can tell that from white people's letters and articles at ATol. That is why Asians from all over the world keep writing letters to express their disagreements to those white people's misunderstandings about East Asia. I hope white people will pay more attention to Asians' opinions. I hope ATol editors will not reject those Asians' opinions based on where they live. In today's world, information travels far and fast. However, only certain people can read the available information. Because of the language and cultural barriers, white people just cannot understand East Asia well. I hope ATol editor will not stamp me with that racism label anymore. I walked a long way to prove that my requests of publishing more opinions from East Asians have nothing to do with racism. I do not like label.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 27, '05)

Well, we can't go back in time and destroy the Tower of Babel. We deal with language-based misunderstandings the best we can, and we, unlike most English-language media, at least have a Chinese-language department, and some on our English-language desk are familiar with other Asian languages as well. One fact that you consistently refuse to recognize, even though you must have experienced a similar phenomenon as an ethnic Chinese living in a predominantly Western society (indeed, your state until recently had a Chinese-American governor), is that non-Asians who have lived in Asia for many years are able to assimilate the culture to a great degree, as well as learn the relevant languages. To dismiss that fact out of hand or, worse, to imply that only you have such a gift because you are Chinese and not "white" is racist. - ATol


Sri [letter, Apr 26] and his minions display a lot of hubris. The India they speak of exists only in NRI [non-resident Indian] fantasies and is created due to their inferiority complex. India is a poor country which has suffered due to the oppressive caste system. The government has been trying for the past few decades to rectify this by creating quotas for backward classes, with limited success. The oppressive caste system, female infanticide and dowry deaths are well and alive in modern India. They are a part and parcel of Hinduism, no matter how one spins it. By confronting this reality we will change it, not by spinning it. Most Indians are poor and live a tough existence; one can visit the slums of Mumbai or the rural villages to see this. India is a country rich in culture [and] generosity and [which] values modesty. It is an Asian country with strong cultural ties to the Muslim world. The [Persian] Gulf countries have supported us during the oil crisis and in giving employment to our labor. Our ties with the region go back thousands of years. So Sri, lay off the Morarji cola - you display neo-con American and not Indian values. You seek to prostitute India to a Western imperialist agenda, which is displayed by your deference to Israel and the US. I love India despite all her blemishes, not some airbrushed Technicolor fantasy.
John Daniel
Thane, India (Apr 27, '05)


It seems my mail has deeply frustrated my Hindu friends Sri [letter, Apr 26] and party. This is what I want you people to realize. Do you think we Muslims enjoy your tirade against Islam despite knowing the fact that you don't have any substantial evidence for what you utter about the beliefs of Muslims? I have the guts to plunge deep into your Veda and bring out the fault within Hinduism with clear evidence. Now if you find anything bad that may harm the society please bring out those verses from the Holy Koran and let the world know about it and then I will explain to you the verses with logic and sense. One guy speaks of [the] Prophet (PBUH) marrying a six-year-old girl but no [offers] evidence to support his claim. If he were so immoral, more than 1 billion people (which is much more than the combined population of Hinduism and Buddhism) would not follow his teachings, and Islam is the fastest-growing religion on Earth. The followers of Islam are increasing, not dwindling and diminishing as your ideal Hinduism. I believe in truth and I spoke what I felt [was] truth. I [said] earlier [that] I don't have anything [to] do with your Hinduism, and I still say it. But to blame Islam irrationally for every misery non-Muslims face is as bad as Ravana of Hinduism. Everyone is equally responsible for the chaos, anarchy and disorder in the society. One cannot clap with a single hand. So if there [is] Islamism and Maoism there is also something call Hinduism. I wanted peace and your mails suggest Muslims are like those untouchables in Hinduism, so no peace with them. Yes, I am not an idolater, I worship one true god who created you and me and the whole world. As I didn't see Him, I cannot make His idol. So I worship the unseen god and my inner faith in God is much stronger than yours - that is why I don't make idols and you make [them].
Mohd Salek Noor
Al Fujairah, UAE (Apr 27, '05)

The use of images in worship by Eastern religions was explained quite articulately by Aryan Singh Rathore in his letter of April 26. The Abrahamic faiths make a big deal about disparaging "idolatry", but in practice that term is ill-defined at best and, at worst, abused to disrespect other religions. To non-religious observers, it is difficult to see the difference between a Hindu or Buddhist bowing before an image and a Muslim praying toward Mecca, or a Catholic kneeling before a crucifix. Such symbolism is important in all major religions. - ATol


TonyS [letter, Apr 26] raised a good question and I think I should elaborate on my previous statement. The original Brahmins became Brahmins by passing a series of tests. These tests were open to anyone and [were] based upon one's wisdom. A brahmin becomes a Brahmin (notice the capital letter) by passing a series of verbal tests. A kshatriya becomes a Kshatriya by going to war school and by actually fighting. It is highly unlikely that a low-caste boy back in the Middle Ages would have [had] the time to memorize the thousands of mantras and verses that each Brahmin was expected to know and pronounce impeccably. The pronunciation of the Sanskrit verses is considered to be very important as [the] slightest deviation can, technically, lead to totally different results. Thus one needs practice or, more importantly, a good teacher and time. This was only available to certain classes. So originally the system was open to all yet over time got gradually rigid and just plain wrong. The list of Kshatriyas is even more interesting. For example, the Maurya Dynasty was of very humble beginnings and they fought their way to the top of the order with smart tactics and brutality when needed. Same with the modern-day Rajputs and Marathas who didn't become the maharajas and peshwas through blood lines, no they were further down the system and in some cases are descended from the White Huns or Scythians who literally climbed up the order or broke into it. When one has so many swords it becomes quite easy to "persuade" a Brahmin to "promote" you up to higher status. This has happened throughout history, where people on the basis of their sheer good performance have made a place for themselves as kings and emperors. So just as there are many operas about poor Chinese who managed to reach the pinnacle of their society, Indian society too has many epics about how young men who started with nothing still managed to overcome the odds and live their dreams. [Nowadays] of course caste matters a lot less. Money is what matters as people see less in terms of black or white (skin color) and more in terms of those who are green with money or those who are green with envy.
Aryan Singh Rathore
London, England (Apr 27, '05)


George Zhibin Gu is correct that Japan has unfinished business [Japan's unfinished business in China, Apr 23]. Stage 1 will be a gradual economic pullout as already pointed out by reader Jakob Cambria [letter, Apr 25]. Stage 2 will begin in the fall of 2005 when Japan will formally announce that it is revising is pacifist constitution. Thereafter, Japan will build Asia's most powerful and well-organized military to protect against all threats to Japan's national interests. And in case readers from China have not looked at a map lately, keeping Taiwan separate from China is clearly in Japan's national interest. The government of China has guaranteed this result by its uncivilized use of mob violence in a misguided attempt to embarrass Japan and create a false excuse for opposing a permanent Japanese seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Daniel McCarthy (Apr 26, '05)


[Alan] Boyd: I wish to compliment you on your article of April 8, World Bank's Laos decision damning - for some. Great! Just great! I wish that the American people could get this kind of information - things would change in our State Department. But our newspapers never publish this kind of news. Keep up the good work - this kind of reporting helps the common people, whose voices are never heard.
Zagnut (Apr 26, '05)


I just want to tell you to keep up the good work. I read a lot of news and yours is absolutely the best. You offer many different views that I can't find elsewhere. I wish you had more Pepe Escobar, though.
Scott Manesso


Mohd Salekun Noor and Saqib Khan in their letters to ATol [Apr 25] have verbally abused Hinduism and its ancient caste system, which predates Islam and of which they know little about. The caste system was introduced into ancient India as a delegation of work. Unfortunately, a few politicians with vested interests and an eye on the vote bank are exploiting the caste system. Hinduism is pluralistic and tolerant of diversity, not dogmatic. It preaches search for the truth, not a particular belief system. It has no pope or ayatollah who exercises supreme religious authority. Hinduism survived the Muslim onslaught of India because it was decentralized. Muslim rulers could not eliminate Hinduism by killing its head. In his letter Saqib Khan writes, "I would add further, it is only in Hindu theology that deities are shown naked and copulating." I suppose what he refers to are the erotic sculptures in ancient Hindu temples (the few that are spared, mainly in south India, from Islamic onslaught). I suppose with his dirty mind, he sees it as pornographic material and not just as temple art - after all, Hinduism is a way of life. But I guess it is okay if the venerated Prophet Mohammed is allowed to keep a harem of more than 13 wives and mistresses. It is disheartening to know that the youngest wife was only six years old when he married her and nine years old when the marriage was consummated.
Reetha P
Malaysia (Apr 26, '05)


[Re letters from Mohd Salekun Noor and Saqib Khan, Apr 25] Finally the mask is off, not that it was ever convincingly on. Accept Islam, accept that until AD 800 man was a barbarian, a lost soul, condemned to hell, bereft of culture and intellect, accept that only the barren lands of Arabia received the words of redemption, while the ancient civilizations of Asia were only a bunch of crap, accept his prophet as the savior of mankind and thou shall be saved (or sent in early pursuit of 72 virgins), says [Mohd Salekun] Noor. Boy, the pancake makeup of tolerance, friendship, "I love India" and "have many Indian friends" could only hold on thus long. It underscores the deep-seated prejudices that surface at inconvenient moments for Noor and his ilk. [Letter writer] Roy is Satan incarnate for asking questions for which Noor has no convincing answer. Not a pedophile? Just take Noor's words for it. Don't you dare ask questions since "your spiritual being is utterly surrounded to [sic] the will of Satan". Noor seems to have descended from a long line of illustrious witch-hunters. Wait, there is more. "How sick you are, in wrongly alleging things to the Last Prophet of God. Yes, Last Prophet, and if you have any doubt, open your Bible and read ..." As pathetic as it can get! Just not worth reasoning with. Is Islam unfortunate or what? And Saqib adds more manure with his "Islam was acknowledged and accepted by [the] indigenous population as a true message of God, and millions converted to Islam". Reading it in isolation you would be forgiven for thinking he was talking about somewhere in the Middle East in the early ages, but no, he is talking about India! It is tiring to see these guys in dedicated denial of their history and claiming with a straight face of their peaceful antecedents. It is akin to a habitual wife beater claiming to be a compassionate and thoughtful husband. It is not a case of a wolf in sheep's clothing but the wolf actually believing it is the sheep that is the problem, for it forebodes more wolfing. Come to think of it, there really were weapons of mass destruction as [US President George W] Bush said, but they [Americans] were looking for them in the wrong place. They should have only checked the madrassas that turn these guys into WMD and WSD (weapons of self-destruction).
Sri
New York, USA (Apr 26, '05)


Re Aryan Singh Rathore's (letter, Apr 25) statement that [the] Indian caste system "is a bit like the administration exams in ancient China - they were technically open for anyone but only a certain well-to-do class had the time and money to study for it and to pass it". I do not know how Aryan Singh Rathore comes to the above conclusion but there are hundreds of literature [pieces] and operas in China that illustrate that untold numbers of poor Chinese slaved away as underpaid rural teachers or in other jobs in order to save enough to go for the exam. I do not know anything about the Indian caste system but I certainly will not take Aryan's interpretation based on his lack of research on things he writes or his integrity.
TonyS
California, USA (Apr 26, '05)


So [Mohd Salekun] Noor insists on continuing his tirade against Eastern faiths [letter, Apr 25]. Some of the common assaults on Hindus and Buddhists are that we do not follow the one true God and that we are idolaters. Now let us approach this logically. What is exactly wrong with idol worship? Why are some people so scared of it? When I go to meditate at a Buddhist temple or if I go for prayers to a Hindu temple and in both cases bow before the murtis (idols), what is wrong in that? Mr Noor needs to realize that I am not saying that the idol made of stone, marble, gold or whatever is divine. I am bowing to what it represents - I don't worship the idol, I worship the ideal. It is what it represents. To me Krishna represents the ... constant struggle between right and wrong, and to me Buddha represents the need to always look for clarity and the truth. I have no problem bowing in front of the men who espoused this message, just like I have no problem kneeling in front of a crucifix of Christ, who too gave a message of peace. Is a crucifix not in a way an idol? Wouldn't Christians be angry if non-Christians stormed their churches and smashed their crucifixes and statues of Mother Mary? Muslims don't have pictures [or] representations in their mosques, but what if someone smashed the mosque itself? Isn't the building itself a symbol of the faith? isn't desecrating that bad, and wouldn't Muslims be angry if someone did that? Next we come to the question of one true faith. One of the reasons [one] has to respect the Jews, regardless of present conflicts, is that they do not impose their faith on others. They never said heaven is not open to non-Jews, they just said that there is a different path for Jews and a different road for non-Jews to God. Just like Hinduism and Buddhism say that God (or enlightenment) can be reached through various means, be it service, good deeds, devotion, meditation etc. God is such a grand concept that it seems ridiculous that there will be only one path to him. The world is so vast and that is why so many great men, Krishna, Christ, Buddha, Guru Nanak, the Sufi saiths [sic] all arrived to the same conclusions. Do not dare say that only faith or some geographical strip has a monopoly on God, as you will have much to answer to him for saying that. God is not a commodity that can be owned and controlled by a few, and the ancient Jews knew this. It is too bad the spinoffs of that faith have forgotten that. Now Mr Noor can retaliate with quotations from the Holy Koran but, seriously, what will that accomplish or prove? I am not saying that the Koran is not the word of God, but for many it isn't the only word of God, and I can retaliate with the Gita, Vedas or Adigranth and this circle of futility can continue forever. The moral of the whole story is that before one accuses others of Satan worship it is advisable to think about other people's opinions first. The path to God does not only lead through Mecca; it can lead through Amritsar, Benares, Jerusalem, Bodhgaya or anywhere as long are the person is righteous.
Aryan Singh Rathore
London, England (Apr 26, '05)


Thanks to Saqib Khan ([letter] Apr 25) for enlightening me with the virtues of Islam and how it "has and is changing the world". I do not think the crux of my earlier letter was to damn Islam, but to show him where the Muslims in India stand, and I for one do not believe in so strongly putting my religion across the board for everything that takes place in the world. His letter is derogatory and I just wonder whether through this forum we are discussing something constructive or only the negatives other religions have. I strongly believe in humanity, not in religion(s), and my views were particularly neutral judging by the way things are. To answer him, my other Indian friends are most suitable who can do it in the same length. Thanks, guys ([letter writers] Sri, Aryan, Brij etc). Finally, I do not want to talk about a religion that has no democratic values imbibed in itself, which people like Saqib believe blindly without questioning them. No wonder there is absolutely [no] democracy worth [the] name in all those societies where Muslims live predominantly. Religions divided humans and they never made them come together. If the religions do not teach us how to live amicably, then they have no place between us.
Mahesh
Ottawa, Ontario (Apr 26, '05)


I reject ATol editor's claim that [the fact that] Chinese people from Taiwan can express their opinions at Chinese version ATol is good enough. The difference between the Chinese and the English versions causes major misunderstanding of Chinese people by other races. That is the major reason I said the non-Chinese writers like Marc [Erikson] cannot understand China and Chinese people well enough. Therefore, they keep expressing their funny opinions about China and Chinese. For example, to understand [the] Taiwan issue better, it is very important to include the opinions of millions of Chinese people who live in Taiwan. If you pay attentions to the Chinese version of the media from Taiwan, you will notice that there were more people marching the streets of Taiwan against Chen [Shui-bian] than marching against China's new Anti-Secession Law. Many Chinese people in Taiwan agree with Taiwan leader Chen's adviser Hsu Wenlon, who was born and raised in Taiwan. Adviser Hsu said the Anti-Secession Law was a relief for him. However, due to English media's censorship, most non-Chinese people cannot hear Hsu's comments. This is just a typical example of many misunderstandings. These types of misunderstandings take place every day at most English media around the globe. I do not think pointing that out is racism. I hope ATol can do something for Asia to communicate more Asians' opinions to those non-Asians or to each other. That is the kind of contribution we all would appreciate. Cannot find English articles is not a good excuse.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 26, '05)

You may well be correct that the language barrier between Chinese and English (encouraged by you, by the way, as you have in previous letters ridiculed Indians and others for becoming proficient in the language of their "colonial masters") causes misunderstanding. Our Chinese department does translate articles it feels are important and submit them for publication on the English site, but translation is very time-consuming and labor-intensive, so they are limited in what they can send us. However, the onus remains on Taiwan Chinese, if they feel our coverage is inaccurate, to set us straight. If Chinese writers in Taiwan do not care enough to submit articles, we cannot hold a gun to their heads. - ATol


George Gu Zhibin's Speaking Freely [Japan's unfinished business in China, Apr 23] offers us a good tour de horizon of Japan Inc's stake in the People's Republic of China. Gu posits that Japan has more need of China than China's need of Japan. This is true the more especially since Japan Inc has sunk more than US$66.6 billion in equity, more than 14,000 enterprises and plants, and has 75,000 Japanese residing on mainland China. Yet Japan Inc holds strong cards, too. The current anti-Japanese riots, manipulated ... by the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] and government, have shaken [the] economic symbiosis between Beijing and Tokyo, the future implications of which may mean Japan's slow but calculated withdrawal from China. It implies the threat of unemployment, which is a bugbear to the Chinese leadership, and already unemployment in the countryside has brought unrest and rioting and protests against rampant party corruption. Already the protests are affecting Japanese tourism to China. In 2004, according to the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, 3.33 million tourists visited Japan. Scheduled flights to China on a weekly basis number 238. The political tempest in a teapot which the CCP has brewed will cut deeply into these numbers, with consequent whiplash on tourism, the sale of souvenirs, [and] so on and on. China has traced a line in the sand. It is pushing its advantage to humiliate Japan. Calls for negotiations and level-headedness in resolving the current flare-up in Sino-Japanese relations notwithstanding, it is very much to be feared that [the] Chinese leadership has let the four horsemen of historical nostalgia and ideology to run free. Ultimately China is pressing for Japan's capitulation, thereby crushing a rival power in Northeast Asia and more broadly speaking in the corridors of world public opinion. This bodes ill for the future.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 25, '05)


I agree with ATol editor. Racial prejudice blinds and blinds absolutely. Is that why you refuse to publish the articles from Chinese people living in Taiwan? Is that why Marc Erikson and his white supporters keep spreading lies about China? I noticed the editor's note [over] Japan's unfinished business in China [Apr 23] did not assert that the Chinese government was the organizer of those protests. Why do you change your position? Truth never changes. Lie does. However, your publishing Asian people's article regarding China deserves some acknowledgements.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 25, '05)

As we have told you 14 million times (give or take), we do not "refuse to publish the articles from Chinese people living in Taiwan". Such articles are low in number because few such people take the trouble to submit them, at least not to this site, as many Chinese writers are uncomfortable writing in English (but we do also have a Chinese-language site, on which you have never commented - can you even read Chinese?). All anyone who wishes to write for the English-language site needs to do is click on this link and follow the instructions. - ATol


[John] Bolton is the neo-conservative candidate to continue the marginalization of the UN [US hawks face defeat in Bolton debacle, Apr 23]. One neo-con spokesman on TV praised Bolton as responsible for repeal of the UN resolution which equated Zionism with racism. Bolton is clearly opposed to the UN, which has long condemned Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.
R T Carpenter (Apr 25, '05)


This refers to the article Bhutan a step ahead of Nepal by Dhruba Adhikary that appeared on April 22. Adhikary should no doubt be commended for making a close and objective analysis of the functioning of the two monarchies in the Himalayan region of South Asia with their striking differences in giving a spurious democratic semblance to their anachronistic royal regimes ... However, just by promulgating a constitution with a deceptive facade and with an ultimate aim of perpetuating authoritarian rule one should not conclude that Bhutan is moving towards a democratic and constitutional monarchy. On this point [I] beg to disagree with Adhikary. The proposed constitution is nothing but a ploy to dilute the gravity of the stigma that Bhutan has been labeled with - "ethnic cleansing of its citizens of Nepalese ancestry". As far as India's assistance in drafting the so-called democratic constitution for Bhutan, a country which has less than 30% of literacy rate among its citizens, it is simply the former's vain attempt to cover up the duplicity of policy towards the hundred thousand-plus Bhutanese who are languishing in several camps in eastern Nepal. It needs no reiteration that, as far as its policy towards it neighbor is concerned, India has always been pursuing a hegemonistic policy guided by political expediency that is devoid of any moral and ethical obligations. Therefore, resolution of the 15-year-old refugee stalemate is nothing short of fighting a lost battle for Nepal regardless of what people like former foreign minister [Narendra Bikram] Shah babble about. Similarly, India does not want to lose its long-term stake by resolving the issue once for all.
Ratna Bahadur Rai
Kathmandu, Nepal (Apr 25, '05)


The old expression "Between a rock and a hard spot" pretty much describes Iran's geopolitical situation today [A troubled triangle: Iran, India and Pakistan, Apr 22]. Consider that to the east and west they have an antagonistic, warring superpower with the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan. It should be remembered that the US ousted the Iran government of the admired Muhammad Mossadegh in 1953 and replaced that government with the definitely undemocratic dictator Shah Pahlavi. And it should be noted that the US supported Iraq in the war against Iran in the 1980s with [Donald] Rumsfeld & Co turning a blind eye to the chemical and biological weapons in Saddam Hussein's possession back then. And, of course, there is the nuclear arsenal of Israel poised toward Iran. And let us not forget the Israelis' preemptive strike against Iraq's nuclear facility, the Osirak reactor, in 1981. Other nuclear powers, perhaps a bit more benign, ring Iran's periphery, these being Pakistan, India, Russia and China, not to mention NATO and Europe. The lesson from the Cold War was that nuclear balance produced no hot war. We have seen where this imbalance, in favor of the US, leads to war. Therefore, any objective analysis would lead to a singular conclusion. Either the nuclear weapons of any nation in the Middle East or bordering environs should be completely banned or all parties involved, including Iran, should have their own nuclear weapons providing for the "Mexican standoff" that worked so well in the Cold War. As it now stands, Iran is like the kid who shows up at a gunfight holding a knife. When surrounded by bullies in this circumstance, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out what happens next.
Michael
Los Angeles, California (Apr 25, '05)


I feel compelled to write to you regarding Spengler's article of April 19 [The crescent and the conclave]. If Spengler finds [Immanuel] Kant's approach to ethics oversimplified, it is perhaps because the ethical system Spengler understands to be Kant's bears little resemblance to Kant's actual system. Kant does not argue that the root of ethics is the Golden Rule, that we should do unto others only what we would like if everyone were to do it. Rather, Kant argues that the only unconditional good is a good will, and the only good will is a will directed, not at some set of consequences, but at the form of law itself. The form of law is universality; the nature of a law is to apply to everyone within its sphere. Thus the good will acts according to rules which are consistently universalizable. This has nothing to do with whether I like the rule; I am not allowed to kill others merely because I am suicidal. The Kantian prohibition on killing operates merely because no one can, as a matter of logical consistency, will that everyone be killed; to do so undercuts the preconditions for willing anything at all. Similarly, no one can will that everyone break promises; the institution of promise-making would break down, and so promising would become impossible.
Kirby Arinder (Apr 25, '05)


This e-mail is with reference to the article by Ranjit Devraj dated April 5 with the headline Extortion a way of life in Manipur. First of all, thanks to Mr Ranjit for your effort in highlighting the issues. It was indeed useful and could have been [a] resourceful one if you had not exaggerated and avoided the irony in your comment in the ethnic struggle to replace the Bengali script by our own disused script because of the apathy by the government. Along with this let me make this clear to you that you seem to have less knowledge on the origin of Manipur and the sentiment of the masses. It appears to me that you are deliberately vying to assimilate Manipur, trying to make [it] like Bihar or Maharastra, into the Indian history by repeating the "Hindu Meitei" and the unacceptable irony on the script [by] commenting that [it] is it nothing but one of the products of Indochina - here again you are wrong, our language is known as a Sino-Tibetan language, the script as well - you can't relate the origin of the culture, tradition, language and the script to Hindi or Devangiri. If you were deeply familiar with the origin of the region, especially Meitei's origin, then you would never be writing in that way. Apart from the language you should also keep in your mind that we were not a part of India until India annexed us. If you are a novice in this field please keep your hands off, because we don't expect anyone to comment like a pundit and defile the history, for many have died and many are still suffering and the tears of many are not dried yet. Our state was a peaceful place until the Indian government imposed its draconian law. Would you sit at home quietly when brothers are slaughtered and your sisters and mothers are constantly raped by the defender of the people, the Indian army? Please look up at the human-rights records. Please don't talk like one of those shabby Indians, sincerely dishonest and always trying to take credit.
Bobo Meitei (Apr 25, '05)

What the article actually said was, "Another chauvinistic group with the muscle and bullets to back their diktats, the Meitei Erol Eyek Loinashillon Apunba Lup, has ordered all local newspapers to switch from the Bengali script - which is regarded as Indian - to Mayek script that resembles Burmese but ironically is also of Indian origin, as all scripts are in the Indochina region." Burmese is also a Sino-Tibetan language but, as the article suggested, all non-Roman alphabetic writing systems in Indochina derive from Indic systems, as does the script of Tibetan itself (the other branch of the linguistic family, Chinese, uses a non-alphabetic system of its own invention). The sharing, adoption, adaptation and cross-breeding of different writing systems was common in Asia for many centuries, which is one major reason modern attempts at linguistic chauvinism are difficult to support logically. - ATol


[Mohd Salek] Noor seems to have a totally wrong idea about the caste system [letter, Apr 22]. The caste system came to be after the great flood that left Manu and his tribe isolated and one of the few remaining humans left on the planet (sort of like the Hindu Noah). In order to survive in this hostile world where animals and monsters roamed freely, society [was] structured to ensure maximum efficiency. Thus the smartest people were given the rank of Brahmin - they were the teachers and had knowledge which was essential to human survival; they were also the smallest group and thus had to be protected at all costs. Next came the Kshatriyas, who were the strongest in fighting and administration, and since it was such a hostile world out there, they too were essential to society's survival. Next came the Vaishyas, who were the traders and craftsmen and were important to ensure that supplies were always available in war and in peace. Then came the Shudras, who were the artisans and did other odd jobs; last came the untouchables who did the jobs that no one else cared to do. The caste system is not hereditary. If a child was born smart then he was to become a Brahmin; if he was strong then he was to be trained as a Kshatriya. Only later on, once people had vested interests, did the divisions become solidified. It is a bit like the administration exams in ancient China - they were technically open for anyone but only a certain well-to-do class had the time and money to study for it and to pass it. Most importantly, the caste system was based on what one is capable of doing, not what one is born as. To know more about this I suggest you read the Mahabharata; after all, Krishna himself was a "low" cow herder. Furthermore, the caste system is smriti - smriti means "changeable laws". Smriti is a law that is to be in [effect] for only a certain age, after which it must be discarded. The caste system was to be in use till the world was tamed and it was safe for humans. Unfortunately again, the vested interests [changed] the caste system from smriti to shruti, which means "unchangeable laws" (such as don't commit murder) or laws that are to be adhered to for all of time. The rubbish preconceptions that people have about the caste system and which they use to attack Hinduism [are] a flawed line of argument. The problem the world faces today is the issue of smriti versus shruti - in Islam the same battle is being waged. There is that which needs to be changed, yet many people prefer to keep many questionable practices and elevate them from smriti to shruti. The ancient rishis of Hinduism and Buddhism understood this thousands of years ago; we unfortunately with all of our PhDs and technology seem to have forgotten it. Laws and religion have to change with time. Hindus accept that they have certain problems within their faith; others don't even have the guts to admit the problem and instead keep on harping about "religion of peace" when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
Aryan Singh Rathore
London, England (Apr 25, '05)


[Mohd Salek] Noor's all-over-the-map response [letter, Apr 22] illustrates why there are so many Indians finding employment opportunities in the [Persian] Gulf. After reading his trivia on the caste order in Hinduism, I went back and read through the thread of letters to see if that was the focus of the "discussion" and verified that the poor comprehension, obfuscated thinking, inability to concentrate on the issue and pent-up frustration that made up his puny attack on Hinduism underline the limited capabilities that cause Gulf employers to look outward to get the job done. There was nothing remotely in his verbal diarrhea that had relevance (nor accuracy, but that is another matter) to what I said and it does not need to be dignified by a response. If indeed Hinduism were as shallow and rigid as his fanciful portrayal it would [have] died a quick death even without the sustained onslaught for centuries that it faced from other "pure" religions. That it has endured goes to expose the lie in circulation from Max Mueller ... and sundry colonial acolytes that is a popular source for those trying to undermine Hinduism. Hinduism neither seeks to expand nor encroach into another's space unlike the morbid missionary lust that defines Christianity and Islam. As long as Islam is tottering between the mullahs and confused Noors, the only peace it can hope to secure for its followers is, as the jihadis say, in the afterlife.
Sri
New York, USA (Apr 25, '05)


I would like to make some comments on the letter (Apr 22) by Mohd Salek Noor. Let me explain, Mohd Noor, the caste system you are talking about doesn't exist in India now. It is a social system followed in Aryan society (around 3000 BC), assigning each work to different groups. Shudras had neither been objected to [for entering] the temple nor had there been a massacre as you claim. Vedas only tell about the Aryan society when they were written and it is not the ideal society "prescribed by Vedas". Even the schoolbooks in India tell this. The caste-related issues in India now are more related to the exploitation of illiterate poor by some feudal landlords, and that too in some socially backward states. It has nothing to do with Hinduism.Your letter shows how confused you are when it comes to Indian history. Mohd Noor seems to have a strange ideology that all the problems Muslims face are inflicted by other religions, although there has never been a renaissance in Islam, unlike all other major religions. The creation of Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) and Pakistan happened just because the Muslims wanted a separate Islamic state led by [Muhammad Ali] Jinnah and not the other way. Hindus never asked them to move out. How do you explain this? Is it because of the attitude of Hindus toward Muslims? If some fanatics with political interest massacred Muslims in Gujarat, it is pretty strange that you blame Hinduism for that and argue the other way about [the events of September 11, 2001]. Whatever perception you have about the secularism in India, it is far better than the human rights and religious freedom [that exist] in almost all of the Muslim countries.
HK
Kochi, India (Apr 25, '05)


The mail of unethical, unabashed, dimwitted, highly prejudiced, unlettered, sedately satanic and immoral Roy (Apr 22), who seemed to be clearly misinformed about the Last Prophet (PBUH), has got my mind revolving. It seems poor Roy is very badly misled by his biased media in America against Islam. Do you have any evidence about the Last Prophet (PBUH) being a sexist, warmonger and pedophile? Will you be kind enough as to let me know the divine source from which you have derived these unholy verses? Is it from The Satanic Verses [by] Salman Rushdie? If you don't have any knowledge about the Prophet (PBUH), send me your e-mail ID and I will let you know about him with unadulterated truth and clear evidence. Yes, I agree you are a materialist but your spiritual being is utterly surrounded to [sic] the will of Satan. For your kind information, Mohammed (PBUH) never married any nine-year-old girl, neither was he a warmonger or sexist. How sick you are, in wrongly alleging things to the Last Prophet of God. Yes, Last Prophet, and if you have any doubt, open your Bible and read, "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deuteronomy 18:18). If you think the Prophet mentioned in the above verse was Jesus, not Mohammed (PBUH), then prove it by using all your intelligence, and if you can't, then accept the Last Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was from God and believe in him. We Muslims don't need any evidence about Jesus being the Prophet of God because Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) already confirmed that ... All three religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, sprang forth from the sons of Abraham. Muslims, Christians and Jews are the worshippers of one true god. We are not idolaters. It is true there exist some differences between us but that should not compel us to respect violence. Extremism exists in every religion ...
Mohd Salekun Noor
Al Fujairah, UAE (Apr 25, '05)


I am appalled and saddened by some the very nasty comments made by Mahesh [letter, Apr 20] and Brij [Apr 22] about Islam, reflecting their total ignorant and illiterate views about the glorious Islamic civilization. If Muslims were [as] bad as the two writers mentioned tried to portray them, then why in their over thousand-year rule in India did they not impose or force Islam on the majority of the Hindu population? Because it was spread by Muslim holy men. Islam was acknowledged and accepted by [the] indigenous population as a true message of God, and millions converted to Islam. Hinduism ... transcends to [the] heights of philosophy and life but at the same time falls deep into cow dung with its theology - worshipping of man-made objects, cows, elephants, monkeys, rats, snakes etc - but worst of all, it preaches discrimination of another human being because of its caste system. As far as I know and have read, no other religion teaches this in its scriptures. I would request [that] people of Hindu faith look deep into Hinduism with open minds and tell me that so many frivolities that they see in their spiritual rituals make any sense. I would add further, it is only in Hindu theology that deities are shown naked and copulating.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Apr 25, '05)


Not too long ago in the pages of ATol there were some articles and Letters to the Editor on the topic of global warming. It was basically your everyday cavalcade of gloom-and-doomers, pissing in their pants over a topic for which they really have next to no serious comprehension. George Carlin is a comedian, and one of America's national treasures. His common-sense, politically incorrect view of the human impact on the planet is essentially this: The planet is fine, the people are f---ed. 
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Apr 25, '05)


Jews claim that Palestine belongs to them because their ancestors lived there 2,000 years ago. Unashamed Israeli expansionism backed by [US President] George W Bush is exactly [Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon's objective; the USA should not have a policy but apply Israel's policy in the Middle East. Mr Bush's policy pronouncements are perhaps the ... oddest reflection of his administration's incorrigible and blinkered partnership in favor of Ariel Sharon. Israel defies international laws and cares a dime for the world opinion and is doing a lot of things against the Palestinians that [Adolf] Hitler did to them [Jews]. Israelis are so ignorant of learning any lesson from the history. Israel refuses to sign [the] Non-Proliferation Treaty and bars international [weapons] inspections. It has seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force, which it continues to occupy in defiance of UN resolutions. It has defied 69 UN resolutions and has been protected in more than 20 of these cases by a US veto on the Security Council. It has disposed [sic] more than 4,000 Palestinians by demolishing their homes, has created nearly 800,000 refugees, [and] refused them permission to return to their homes, farms and businesses. It has used a WMD [weapon of mass destruction] - ie a "smart bomb" - on a densely populated civilian area, killing women and children [and] bombed Palestinian streets with gunship helicopters, F-16 fighters and tanks. Every day Palestinian children wake up to the misery of oppression that is all around them: the building of illegal settlements, barrier walls, restriction and blocking [of] their movements, destroying their houses, and suffering humiliation of 3 million people is enough to make them intolerant towards Israel. The Jews claim to be persecuted but the reality is that Ariel Sharon's treatment of the Palestinians is no less [bad] than Saddam Hussein's of Kurds. It is such a shame that President Bush's blindfolded vision cannot see the atrocious crimes committed by Ariel Sharon against the defenseless and innocent majority of Palestinian people.
Saqib M Khan
London, England (Apr 25, '05)


Thanks to Andrew J Bacevich for his Front Page piece The normalization of war [Apr 22]. Given that the only way to persuade the US to have second thoughts on any of its many warring ventures is to have a counter-force of considerable proportions, I fear that a new arms race is inevitable and its consequences for all nations likely catastrophic. The US is not a power for good. Quite the opposite. I feel sorry for all of us and feel considerable anger toward that nation.
Jim Cowan (Apr 22, '05)


Well done, John F Robertson, on [the] article Cooling the rhetoric on Tehran [Apr 22]. The good news is that I do notice a cooling of passions these past months. [US President George W] Bush's best move at this point is to maintain diplomatic pressure against nuclear weapon development but absolutely, positively no American or Israeli military action. That's the worst thing America could do. The young, moderate, pro-Western generation in Iran must not be offended by such provocation. It's Iran's moderate youth upon which the West's hope for a stable Middle East largely rest. To radicalize this generation of Iranian youth is more dangerous than an Iranian nuclear-weapons program. Bush knows all this. No, there will be no military strike against Iran.
Chris
USA (Apr 22, '05)


You have started to post pro-American articles which are portraying the Western powers in a positive manner. I was an American until the Iraq fiasco. Do some research and you will figure out that this is a massive disinformation campaign to start the war on Iran. Stop posting these articles. They will bring more death and destruction in the Muslim world.
Zameer H Mir (Apr 22, '05)

Have you actually read any of our articles, or is this a form letter fired off at random at English-language media? - ATol


It seems my call for peace and co-existence (in harmony) among Muslims and Hindus in the subcontinent didn't appeal to people like AP and Sri ([letters] April 21). And if any turmoil at all occurs in the name of religion, they will be ahead of everyone to put the blame on Muslims. According to Sri, Muslims are responsible for all the turmoil in India and his beloved Hindu countrymen are angels from heaven who [have] done nothing to Muslims. Come on, Sri, be a moderate Hindu and call a spade a spade instead of mindlessly blaming Muslims for everything. I don't want to mention the caste system in Hinduism (still prevails in India, though on January 26, 1950, when the constitution of India was adopted, the caste system was abolished), which left many innocent Shudras ruthlessly abused and massacred by upper-caste people like Brahmins. (Let me describe what is Shudra: The Vedas classified everyone into four castes. The ideal society prescribed by the Vedas is known by the name Chaturvarna. Such a society, according to the Vedas, must satisfy three conditions. It must be composed of four classes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras, the lower caste. The interrelations of these classes must be regulated by the principle of graded inequality. In other words, all these classes are not to be on equal level but to be one above the other, in point of status, rights and privileges. The Brahmins were placed at the top; the Kshatriyas were placed below the Brahmins but above the Vaishyas; the Vaishyas were placed below the Kshatriyas but above the Shudras and the Shudras were placed the lowest of all. The Shudras' occupation was to do menial service for all the three superior classes. A Shudra enjoyed no rights or privileges. He was not permitted to perform any sacrifices ... read or learn the Vedas or recite the mantras. A Shudra could marry only another Shudra. He was not allowed to enter temples and could only serve the upper three castes as a slave, barber, blacksmith or cobbler. I hope you don't want me to mention ... the Untouchables!) When you don't spare your own brothers in Hinduism, how can I expect you to be kind and generous to Muslims? So your venom-filled letter against Mahesh, who is a moderate Hindu, and [me] (whom you call unworthy) little surprised me. Next time correct your own house before rectifying the mistakes of your neighbors. I don't have anything to do with your Hinduism but please do [us] Muslims a favor, leave us alone! Thank you Sri and Mr Brij for letting the world know how desperately you people want to eradicate Muslims from India and proving yourselves the true Hindu extremists.
Mohd Salek Noor
Al Fujairah, UAE (Apr 22, '05)


Mohd [Salek] Noor writes [letter, Apr 21] that "there is nothing called Islamism, and if you want to know about true Islam then go and read the Holy Koran". The very idea that the Koran is not to be questioned is Islamism. The notion that the Koran should guide every aspect of the life of a Muslim is Islamism. The belief that no truth exists outside of the Koran is Islamism. But above all, Islamism is a willingness to impose the Koranic beliefs on everyone, even against their will or consent - by violent force if necessary. The unquestioned liberty to destroy the freedoms (of worship, for example) and properties (idols or temples) of others is Islamism. And it does exist. Are all Muslims Islamists? No. But here is what you fail to fathom - the perspectives of individuals are irrelevant to the policies of the states (or of the terrorists). Just like [George] W Bush manipulated opinion in his country to gather support for war on Iraq, so have the Islamist rulers (and terrorists) used the Koran throughout history to motivate their nations into invading their neighbors, oppressing "kafirs" and destroying others' liberties and properties. And this continues today in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. "Good" and "bad" are measured not by using objectively humanist and measurable parameters (like one man - one vote, or equality before law) but by using subjective interpretations of "compatibility with the Koran". That is Islamism. As for reading the Koran - yes, I have read parts of it. Like all the other religious books originating or based in the Middle East, it is full of dangerous suggestions and factually wrong information. In conclusion, I want to say that the idea of what is God is, like beauty, in the mind of the individual. And that is where it should stay. And that is secularism.
Brij (Apr 22, '05)


Jakob Cambria [letter, Apr 21] obviously didn't listen to [US Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice's talk on the Echo of Moscow radio show - Rice barely speaks Russian, and as with most "Russia experts" in the US, their education and readings are based on American versions and American texts. Rice's quips about democracy are meant for American ears; few in the Russian leadership take them seriously since they know - as only a few Americans who get their news about Russia from sources [in] Russian publications know - that numerous newspapers controlled by the oligarchs criticize and incite against the government on a daily basis to an extent unimaginable in the US media while problems, shortcomings, and policy failures are discussed even in the pro-government press. If US citizens are convinced that democracy is the main US concern, then all the better for the imperialist elite that has taken and will take them on adventure after adventure. If Jakob Cambria thinks Rice will conceal US plans from Russia, he should read any of the numerous articles in the daily news or monthly and bimonthly journals in Russia. And what is this American economic presence in Central Asia? In Chechnya, the way to kill any chance of democracy is to allow dozen armed clans to "rule" over the land, as Russia did in the second half of the 1990s. As for the appeal of democracy, why should it stop short of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Crimea, Luhansk and Donets regions or the Hispanic regions of the US?
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Apr 22, '05)


ATol editor's comments are very funny. Asians all over the world thousands of miles away from China can tell those protests in China were not organized by the government. The so-called old Asia hands cannot. Why is that? Why do they lie? They certainly will not lie for Asia. Ignorance and bigotry exist. In many cases, they exist for a purpose. In Marc [Erikson]'s case, it is for the advantages of his own race. I may show some bigotry attacking a certain small portion of people from Asia. However, I would like to repeat what I mentioned multiple times before. China looked up to India 1,200 years ago. I would like to see that ancient Asian civilization restored and keeps going the way it was 1,200 years ago. I hope other Asians can push for the same restoration in China. Asia benefited from two largest ancient independent civilizations co-existed in peace for more than 5,000 years. There is no reason why that trend cannot continue for another 5,000 years. Please do not truncate my full comments. Please try to contribute for Asia's resurrection, not destruction.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 22, '05)

Once again, you are hoist on your own petard. Thanks for underscoring our point, that racial prejudice blinds and blinds absolutely. - ATol


I just wanted to thank you for all of your articles. It's so difficult finding articles that tell the truth (like yours) lately. We need you, so keep your nose to the grinder.
Scott Manesso
Vancouver, British Columbia (Apr 22, '05)


Regarding the article Playacting over Kashmir [Apr 21], the views of these Islamic terrorist groups are given plenty of voice. But seldom do I read the voices of the Kashmiri Hindus. Considering the fact that India's first prime minister and some of [its] most luminous prime ministers such as [Jawaharlal] Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi [were] Kashmiri Hindus should give voice to the thousands of Kashmiri Hindus now living as refugees in various Indian cities. Any consensus regarding Kashmir must not be coveted by the Islamic rebels but also their victims the Kashmiri Hindus. [Not] until both parties' voices are fully heard [can] a proposition for a decision regarding Kashmir be [made]. I am still waiting to hear the voices of the Kashmiri Hindu pundits.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 21, '05)


[Syed Saleem Shahzad: Syed Ali Shah] Gillani is a sick individual. I am glad you agree with this fact [Playacting over Kashmir, Apr 21]. You don't need to call him names that he deserves. He ought to pack his bag and move to some Middle East country just like Benazir [Bhutto] did and would be better off there.
Thesharma (Apr 21, '05)


[Re] Rice stirs Russian pot [Apr 21]: Dr Condoleezza Rice wears many hats when she comes to Russia. She speaks Russian. She read Russian studies at the university and, as such, [is] an expert of the old Soviet Union. She comes with the school-ma'am-ish task as America's secretary of state, of lecturing Russia on the virtues of democracy and of the excellence of capitalism. She comes to smooth the way for George Bush's visit to the land of the czars, Lenin, and [Josef] Stalin. Beneath the public relations hype lie the soothing words to allay Vladimir Putin's worst nightmare: Washington stepping too heavily on Moscow's turf in the former Soviet Central Asian republics. This is justified, says she, the more especially since Russia is a valuable ally in the war on terrorism. Mr Bush's trip will affirm, under Vladimir Putin's cold smile, among other things, the United States' military and economic presence in Central Asia's northern tier of former Soviet republics, whilst at the same time Washington is willing to turn a blind eye to Moscow's reasserting czarist claims to these very lands. The appeal of democracy stops short at the right of, say, Chechnya to be a sovereign and independent republic; nor the rights of Georgia or Azerbaijan to maintain an independent course of action. Mr Bush is coming to Moscow to seal a division of spoils in Central Asia. And Dr Rice is there to conceal the real designs of his trip to the Kremlin.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 21, '05)


Words are defined in the dictionary in multiple ways and the thesaurus definitions with all of the synonyms are too many to post for "conversion". Two dictionary definitions: conversion 1. an event that results in a transformation 2. the act of changing from one use or function or purpose to another and conversion as defined in the Bible, (Acts 15:3) the turning of a sinner to God. I appreciate Rabbi [Moshe] Reiss pointing out the possible gains of assimilation which can be had without converting to another religion or changing scripture in his article Benedict's two great challenges [Apr 21]. As a parent who has experienced the terrible twos and beyond and was able to see the innocence of my child in the difficult formative years, I have experienced God's guidance towards lost innocence. So, I believe, is the way of all religions where assimilation takes its place behind (to borrow from the new pope, quoted by Rabbi Reiss in ATol) the one covenant that God made with every religion. To Spengler, who set off what I think were unnecessary alarms with his article The crescent and the conclave (Apr 19), I say, with friends like you what does Pope Benedict XVI need of any enemies? And to everyone else I say, shanti (means "relax" in Hindi).
Beth Bowden (Apr 21, '05)


This is my first letter to ATol, though I have enjoyed reading it for some time now. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the crew for a truly refreshing news outlet that ATol is. However, Spengler's mind is getting to be a mass of confused mess with his rantings and ravings about Islam [The crescent and the conclave, Apr 19]. I am not a Muslim, but find Spengler intolerable for his unreasonable antagonism to one religion while extolling the non-existent virtues of the others. All organized religions, no matter what name they take, really are meant only to appeal to the deepest anxieties of human minds, as pointed out by Spengler in his other writings. But his explanation for religion's focus on afterlife being the central theme is questionable. Afterlife had to be the main theme of religion, millennia ago at the time of their origin, because they were mainly directed towards the dispossessed, the oppressed, and the subjugated masses, suffering intolerably in their earthly existence. The only way to give them succor and solace was to devise a mechanism that reversed their fortune, at least in the other world. That is why religion (Christianity especially) came up with such ideas as "those who are last here, will be the first in the kingdom come" and "those who are poor now will be kings and the rich on Earth now will be poor in the kingdom come" etc. No religion is better or worse in fooling vulnerable people into believing in all sorts of non-existent afterlife structures and situations. Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism or any other for that matter.
Nara
USA (Apr 21, '05)


Re The crescent and the conclave by Spengler. To all you religious zealots (Muslims, Zionists, born-again Christians, Tibetan Buddhists): Although I believe I am both a material and spiritual being, I tend to be secular and find fault with both Islam and Christianity. With Islam, the principal flaw is Mohammed, the leader/founder, the so-called last prophet to save humankind. Compared [with] Jesus Christ, who possibly lived a life with little or no sin/crime, Mohammed was arguably a warmonger, a sexist, and a pedophile. And don't tell me the crap that marrying a nine-year-old was a symptom of the times. A prophet's actions should transcend time. With Christianity, the flaw is in the followers of Christ, hypocrites who repeatedly steal, lie, kill, and molest with no remorse. Christians operate mostly under the Old Testament, not the New Testament. In short, Islam is lost, follows a false prophet, and is 10 centuries behind. Christianity is a harbor for hypocrites. Many of you are either religious lunatics or have never taken the time to study whether you religious heritage duped you. Maybe the concept of one person leading a religion, found in all Eurasia, needs some questioning?
Roy
USA (Apr 21, '05)

Uh oh, why are those guys erecting a stake in Roy's front yard and surrounding it with wood and gasoline? - ATol


Spengler in a supposed response [letter, Apr 20] does not really respond at all. If the alleged discovery of a Yemeni paper grave and an Ibn Warraq - as absurdly un-Arabic of a pseudonym as it is patently Orientalist - are supposed to signal scandal, then I will question both Spengler's academic sincerity and his motives. Examining the historical integrity of religious source texts was a business that consumed whole generations of scholars and imams, or super-scholars, for the better part of the first 400 years of Islam's appearance. Not backed by an established church, nor assured permanent safety from overbearing kings, these scholars debated doctrine, theology, and spirituality in an open market of ideas and by consensus and laborious effort established orthodoxy, or Sunni Islam. It is historical fact that Sunni imams were regularly detained, tortured, and even martyred by rulers whose ear an "Ibn Warraq" of that time would have, but Sunnism prevailed because it made sense to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. "Textual criticism" is not a "radical problem" for Sunni Muslims, their predecessors having put to rest the issue a millennium ago. It may also be noted that nine out of 10 Muslims in 2005 are Sunni. Spengler's intent is not altruistic, despite his insistence otherwise. He considers Catholicism a "sepulchral, old-world cult" and Islam a pagan death cult, which leaves us with roughly 3 billion humans who may or may not be cultists depending on their degrees of loyalty to Spengler's incoherent world view.
Bilal Saqib
USA (Apr 21, '05)


Regarding the article The waxing of the Shi'ite crescent [Apr 20], I don't think Sami Moubayed really has much to worry about, or look forward to (depending on what his own hopes or fears are). The Iran revolution was a revolution in the true sense, which had the drive and force to see it spill over to neighboring countries. What happened in Iraq is nothing of the sort. Talking about the Shi'ites of Iraq, he says: "After 25 years of underground struggle, this community succeeded in toppling Saddam [Hussein]." I would like to ask, "What world does this guy Sami live in?" The Shi'ites did not topple anyone. Comparing Iraq to a revolution is insanity. They have no revolution to export, all they have to export is oil - or American soldiers. Ajai Sahni, you call your [Apr 20] article The realities of 'peace' in South Asia, but put the entire burden of this peace on Pakistan and its president - [General Pervez] Musharraf, with Indians obliged to do nothing more than to "be there" so that this dish (called peace) can be served to them? If you really believe that any lack of breakthrough in bilateral negotiations demonstrates only the failures of Musharraf, and that time is running out for Musharraf alone, then you are a fool. And if the majority of Indians or Pakistanis think like you, then we are sure to go to war again. And war is not like a game of cricket where you can register your dissatisfaction by throwing bottles on the pitch.
T Kiani
London, England (Apr 21, '05)


Kosuke Takahashi's Creative thinking on the Kurils (Apr 20) overlooked several solutions. One creative solution is the Svalbard model of joint sovereignty, in which both nations use the territory. Since 1920, Norway and Russia have successfully shared sovereignty over Svalbard Island in the Barents Sea, even during the Cold War when they were active in opposing alliances (NATO vs Warsaw Pact). Svalbard is a demilitarized island, but each nation has a right to settlement and to economic exploitation. Each nation has a community, generally ignoring the other, but helping during times of crisis, for example, when a Russian airliner crashed. The power difference between Norway and Russia is immense, all in Russia's favor. But even at the height of Russia's power, under the Soviet dictatorship of [Josef] Stalin, the Russians have been reliable and forbearing partners in their sharing of Svalbard. Another creative solution is the Mohawk model on the US-Canada border, in which both nations agree to give use of the territory to the aboriginal community. In this case, the Mohawk have semi-sovereignty including control of local laws and rights to cross-border transit. In the Kurils, the Ainu are the original historic owners. Ainu culture and language are nearly extinct, but there are Ainu descendents in Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and Kamchatka. Neither Japan nor Russia [is the] historic owner of these islands, and neither nation needs these islands. Both nations have historically been abusive to the Ainu, and it would be justice to now give the Ainu a chance to recover. Another creative solution is the Ecuador-Peru model of mutual withdrawal, in which no one uses the territory. They made their disputed territory into an ecological conservation area which both nations agree to leave wild, undeveloped, and demilitarized. Each nation retained transit rights. This was the solution reached in May 1999, ending 60 years of dispute that had included three wars and many smaller military engagements. Japan and Russia have reputations for over-exploiting natural resources. It would do both nations good, including good for their own fisheries industries, to declare the Kuril Islands and the surrounding seas to be off-limits to settlement and exploitation. The most obvious "creative solution" to the Kuril Islands dispute is that both nations actively seek to generate many and varied creative options. The Ecuador-Peru solution came originally from Johan Galtung, a Norwegian peace researcher of considerable renown. There are now many institutes of peace research and conflict resolution in the world, and their creativity in conceiving of possible solutions to conflicts is unlimited.
Floyd Rudmin
Professor of Social Psychology
University of Tromso, Norway (Apr 21, '05)


[Re] Ukraine and Russia in spat over Turkmen gas [Apr 20]: [Roman] Kupchinsky doesn't consider that it's only through Gazprom that Ukraine can buy Turkmen gas. An alternative pipeline to Ukraine would have to go through the Black Sea. The latter case would make the price of gas unaffordable for Ukraine, as anything even nearing European prices is for that region. This project is very unlikely. Meanwhile Gazprom can buy the growing quantities of Uzbek gas production and shut off Turkmen access to the Central Asia-Center pipeline altogether if [Turkmen President Saparmurat] Niyazov doesn't keep the agreement. It surely is a sign that Ukraine agreed to pay $58/1,000 cubic meters of gas while Gazprom will pay the old price of $44, albeit in cash - something it has plenty of and can generate even more with this deal. In 2006 Gazprom is contracted to pay $60/1,000 cubic meters for Turkmen gas. In light of this, how would Ukraine's grudging acquiescence to $58/1,000 cubic meters look to Niyazov?
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Apr 21, '05)


While appreciating Mahesh's [letter, Apr 20] (who seemed to be a true Indian) I have to stop at Brij's [Apr 20] to give him a piece of my mind. Having finished my schooling in an Indian school here [United Arab Emirates] I have always loved India. I read the memoir of Mahatma Gandhi, who was an embodiment of non-violence and a messenger of peace. He loved Hinduism and respected other religions and, as an intelligent and kind person, he chose secularism for India, so that religion would not play bring any havoc to the growth of the nation. But do you think, Mr Brij, India is secular where thousands of people are dying in the name of religions? The very person who chose secularism over Hinduism was shot dead ([in] the first place) by fanatic Hindus. And the fanaticism among Hindus still continues unabated. Agreed, [some] Muslims are extremists and they kill Hindus, Christians and Jews, but you all are civilized and humanists - why then do you persecute innocent Muslims? If you feel more than 2,000 Muslims persecuted by fanatic Hindus during the Gujarat riot in 2002 were extremists, or thousands of innocent Palestinians who had been killed by the Zionist regime [were] the product of Islamism, or innocent Muslims of Iraq and Afghanistan were terrorists whom ruthless American soldiers have killed, then prove them [such] by providing evidence or else accept [that] extremism and fanaticism exist in every religion. There is nothing called Islamism, and if you want to know about true Islam then go and read the Holy Koran translated in English, and I am sure you will find Islam a religion of peace. Nowhere in the Holy Koran can you find that God allowed Muslims to kill innocent non-Muslims. Jihad does not mean killing innocent people irrationally but it is allowed only when innocent Muslims [are] being targeted by non-Muslims, to protect women, children, and old and religious men and women from enemies. If some supposed misguided Muslims are responsible for the destruction of the US Twin Towers [New York World Trade Center], you cannot blame the whole religion, can you? The Holy Koran strictly prohibits disparaging of gods or goddesses of other religions, and if someone did it by painting nude Hindu gods for his own selfish motives, you cannot blame Islam for it. How can you think Islam, the fastest-growing religion on Earth, [to] be so rude, ugly, full of terrorists, extremists and fanatics? Please stop following biased media and do some research by yourself and know the truth. I am a Muslim and I have many Hindu friends with whom I go out, eat and enjoy my days and I never felt I couldn't exist with them. I don't despise your religion the way you despise Islam. You say, "The Babri 'mosque' was built upon the ruins of a temple." And so you justified the destruction of Babri Mosque so easily; but you seem to be a good Hindu: Is it written anywhere in the Gita to destroy the places of worship of other religions? And that too after many years just because you feel it was built on ruins of a temple? Don't you feel it is extremism in any way? But you claim to be a national of secular India. According to the Oxford English Dictionary "secular" means "not concerned with religion" - why then is Hinduism meddling in the affairs of secularism? If you want your India away from Bangladesh and Pakistan, please tear it away and place it [on] some planet where there are no Muslim nations besides you. Your mail speaks how arrogant and extremist you are. If you love your neighbors you can expect them to love you. But here you despise them; how then can you expect love and friendship from them? I am a Muslim and my Islam taught me to love everyone and yes, my heart bleeds for those innocent non-Muslims who were being persecuted by some extremists from Islam, but you have no right to blame all the Muslims for the sin which they never committed.
Mohd Salek Noor
Al Fujairah, UAE (Apr 21, '05)


Mohd Salek Noor's letter [Apr 19] reminds me of the maxim "be careful what you ask for". For talking about the despair and despondence of Indians and how well the Arabs treat them, I imagine, he is ready to wash dishes and the Arab dirty laundry. It also makes me wonder how the Arab children would fare as camel jockeys and prostitutes in your entertainment centers in Fujairah. And if enough of them are not forthcoming, perhaps he will show similar kindness and abduct Iraqi children to mount those camels with opportunity to be maimed for life. Since we are talking about kindness, perhaps, the writer has forgotten how Hindus were kind enough to employ pathetic and despondent Arabs as sailors, orderlies and so forth all along the west coast of India before Sheikh Zayeed knew what the word "oil" meant.
AP (Apr 21, '05)


This is with reference to Mahesh's response [letter, Apr 20] to Mohd [Salek] Noor. It is this national malaise to fall over oneself to apologize on behalf of another Indian's "perceived mistakes" that is funny and tragic and probably the reason why Indians are considered pushovers by most other people. Pakistan thumbs its nose at the international community over the nuclear peccadilloes of its "national hero" [Abdul Qadeer] Khan (the fall guy for the rogue army). If this had happened in India we would have as a country fallen on the sword, probably dismantled our defense forces and demanded to be re-colonized. If Mahesh disagrees with Chandan [letter, Apr 18] he can say so, but no, he is this lofty individual. He has to apologize on behalf of Chandan (who gave him the right?) before coming around to refute Noor's prejudiced and totally incorrect opinion about Indians in the [Persian] Gulf and getting naively preachy. He beats his breast over Babri Masjid and Gujarat as have so many other sanctimonious Indians (a stick every Muslim gleefully uses to beat India with while blissfully glossing over the millions of Hindus [who] have suffered under Islam) but never pauses to wonder in his unbalanced moral world why no Muslim has ever apologized for his blood-soaked history in India in over 50 years of modern India's existence. This is the reason why a criminal like [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf, who prates on his website about having "taught the Indians a lesson in Kargil", is welcomed in India and lauded as a statesman while his terrorists wait to sneak across the border. Kargil happened not only because of an intelligence faux pas but also because history has taught subcontinent Muslims that they can take many things for granted about India, primarily a suicidal restraint in the face of blatant aggression and hostility, a lack of national self-esteem, and a glorious ability to overlook repeated betrayals while extending the hand of friendship. To Chandan, while I don't agree with what you said about having a separate section on India on ATol, I apologize to you for your pompous countrymen whose blind "morality" causes them to indiscriminately prostrate at the feet of every unworthy Noor while disagreeing with them.
Sri
New York, USA (Apr 21, '05)


I hope ATol editor [reads] your own published articles and letters. Let us read what Marc Erikson's white supporters have to say and then judge if they come out of the hearts of hatred or love. "China is both unprepared and unwilling to behave in a civilized and responsible fashion." Please tell me if that accusation will promote love in Asia. You are spreading the lies for white colonial figure Marc Erikson and refusing to publish articles from the Chinese people in Taiwan. Please educate me why that prejudice will not promote hate in Asia. I appreciate the ATol publishing articles criticizing China for the purpose of pushing for improvements. I cannot understand why you are publishing fraudulent fabrications for white colonists for the purpose of diminishing China. Every reasonable Chinese can tell the lies from Marc Erikson's articles, regardless where they live. Your constant publishing such white colonist treachery will frustrate and anger even more Chinese youth. I do not think any of you or your readers will like the outcome.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 21, '05)

We are not denying that ignorance and bigotry exist - among people of any race - or that hateful or otherwise degenerate commentary sometimes appears in this space. (Certainly you have taken up a lot of that space with your offensive tirades against Indians, for example.) The only bone we have to pick with you is your allegation that you can see events more clearly that are happening thousands of kilometers away from your comfortable home in America than old Asia hands who are actually here can, merely because of your superior racial characteristics. For another example of intelligent criticism that relies on research and verifiable fact rather than propaganda and racial slurs, read the following letter by Jay Liu. - ATol


To support claims that Japan has already repeatedly apologized for its war crimes against China and other countries, numerous writers at ATol and elsewhere offered a 1985 statement by then Japanese prime minister Tomiichi Murayama in which he expressed his feelings of "deep remorse" and his "heartfelt apology". However, it was widely reported and commented at the time that the Murayama statement was quite remarkable because it was the first time the word "apology" was ever used in any official Japanese statements with respect to its wartime history in Asia. No other Japanese officials since then have actually repeated the Murayama apology except to say that the position expressed in the Murayama statement remained official. Unless other official documentations can be cited, there is no evidence that Japan has apologized repeatedly. More importantly, due to his frequent use of personal pronouns (see a direct quote from [Daniel] McCarthy's letter, Apr 20), even the Murayama statement itself has been regarded by many in Japan as his own personal statement instead of an official position on behalf of his government or the Japanese people. It is also worthwhile to point out that Murayama was from Japan's left-wing Social Democratic Party, which was in power for only a short period of time in a long history of power monopoly by the more conservative Liberal Democratic Party, presided [over] now by the current prime minister, [Junichiro] Koizumi. Actions speak much louder than mere words. What Japan has done since 1985 demonstrates that it has essentially gone back on its words of apology since it has been trying very hard to deny its responsibilities for crimes committed in World War II.
Jay Liu (Apr 21, '05)


Daniel McCarthy [letter, Apr 20], please show us what history textbooks being used in China cover the period of the '60s? It is one thing for a Japanese prime minister to apologize, but another for the present Japanese government to approve textbooks that actually refute what a previous prime minister said regarding Japanese atrocities during World War II. Do you understand this difference? Does it require a high level of intelligence to understand?
David (Apr 21, '05)


I wonder if Daniel McCarthy would forgive, love and trust a man who killed his father and brothers and raped his mother and sisters after he said, "Sorry, Dan, for the past, let's look ahead," and then turn to his kids: "Dad didn't do all that. The guy fabricated all the stories." If McCarthy's answer is yes, then the entire 1.3 [billion] population of China should really, really feel ashamed for their incorrigible narrow-mindedness and intolerance. Further, if the man is running for judge of the town where McCarthy's surviving family lives, will he vote Yes? Of course he would, given his God-endowed graciousness. Only trouble is, most human beings on the Earth, white, black or yellow, happen to have a memory span a bit longer that McCarthy might like and are uncivilized enough to learn a lesson or two from history.
Raymond Cui
Beijing, China (Apr 21, '05)


Whatever Jakob Cambria ([letter] Apr 19) may write or think, it is as insignificant as that four-letter word which begins with an S. However, I am compelled to state with authority, because I have just read the BBC write-up on Unit 731 in China operated by the Japanese, that Jakob Cambria is a suitable candidate for experimentation in this unit by the very skillful Japanese lab technicians as he find the Japanese so benign. It is a tragedy that the Americans only confiscated the records of these germ-warfare experiments on live human beings and [did not experience] it themselves. They could have made a greater and more useful and revealing discovery.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Apr 21, '05)


John Steppling wrote on April 11 as follows: "Lives are not saved when one takes lives. Bombing Hiroshima didn't save lives - it took lives." Obviously he was not serving in the Pacific Theater of Operations in 1945. I was. My unit had been participated in the invasion of Leyte, Philippines, where about one-third of our unit were killed. We were scheduled for the invasion of Japan and were equipped, ready to go, and within a few days of being aboard ship when the war ended. The scheduled casualties for the initial invasion force was, as I recall, 93%. Our leaders at the time had the track record of determined Japanese resistance to aid them in making the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They had casualty results from the invasion of Okinawa - 38,000 Americans wounded, 12,000 Americans killed, 107,000 Japanese military killed, 100,000 Okinawan civilians killed - to aid in reaching a decision as to the cost in lives that would have resulted from our invasion of the Japanese mainland. They had the losses from the invasion of Iwo Jima - 6,821 Americans killed, 19,000 Americans wounded, an estimated 20,000 Japanese military killed - to assist them. I believe it was estimated that some 1 million Japanese military and 2 million Japanese civilians would have been killed had we invaded their home islands. On top of that there would have been something like 400,000 American causalities - killed and wounded. I, who would have been part of that bloody mess, find it difficult to fault president [Harry] Truman's decision to use the bomb. Steppling shows little appreciation of facts when he writes of saving lives.
Robert A McCallister
Winchester, Virginia (Apr 21, '05)


Spengler responds to readers
Regarding The crescent and the conclave (Aug 19): A series of essays available on the Complete Spengler page addresses the issues raised by letter writers Mahmood Ahmad, Bilal Saqib, Armand de Laurell and others. Islam: Religion or political ideology? (Aug 10, '04) is a good place to start. To Mr de Laurell's point, the Koran occupies a different role in Islam than the Torah in Judaism or the Gospels in Christianity, as it is itself a manifestation of the Divine on Earth, the uncreated word of God, perfect down to the individual letter. It is more like the Book of Mormon, discovered upon golden tablets by Joseph Smith and translated by the Angel Moroni, according to the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Judaism and Christianity can digest the documentary hypothesis (multiple authors of the Hebrew scriptures), as well as textual revisions. Islam has far more difficulty with this. That makes the discovery of alternative versions of the Koran in a Yemeni paper grave (for example) an embarrassment, and makes Koranic scholars in the West very cautious. There is a huge literature on this subject; a selection of academic articles has been collected by the writer who calls himself "Ibn Warraq" in What the Koran Really Says (2002) and Origins of the Koran (1998). I offer no comment on the validity of the Koran or Islamic revelation as such. Whether one believes the Koran to be valid "to the end of time", with Mr Ahmad, or considers it a "parody of revealed religion" (Franz Rosenzweig), it is a matter of fact and not interpretation that textual criticism presents radically different problems for Islam than for either Christianity or Judaism.
Spengler (Apr 20, '05)


Re The waxing of the Shi'ite crescent [Apr 20]: I am an avid reader of the Asia Times [Online], and I think it is a wonderful paper. I was more than a little bit shocked by this article by [Sami] Moubayed. There are a string of errors and/or embellishments which call into serious question Mr Moubayed's understanding of the Arab Shi'a. It seems that Mr Moubayed is scaremongering and using Asia Times [Online] as his podium, I think that Asia Times [Online] should be a little more discerning about whose articles it prints. Of particular interest to me were the following: "This 'Shi'ite emancipation' was first done in Lebanon, through the charismatic cleric Musa al-Sadr, who was funded and supported by the mullahs of Tehran in his 'Movement of the Dispossessed' and its military branch, Amal, created in 1974 and 1975, respectively." This is interesting because I would like to understand how the "mullahs of Tehran" funded and supported Musa Al-Sadr, when they did not take power in Tehran until quite a bit after his disappearance (death?) in Libya in 1978. "They are first-class citizens, and occupy several senior posts - as Syrians, however, and not as Shi'ite Syrians." I am confused as to the purpose of this statement. Shi'a Syrians? First-class citizens? I just wonder why mention Shi'as but not Alawis, like Bashar Al-Assad and the ruling class in Syria. By the way, Allawis are Shi'a as well; I guess the author didn't want to go into details on the different branches of Shi'ism. "On March 26 this year, shortly after it was confirmed that [Ibrahim] Jaafari was the new prime minister of Iraq, 80,000 Shi'ite demonstrators came out in Bahrain to demand a new constitution giving them more rights, among which was electing a prime minister, and not having him appointed by the king. In the past, demonstrators in Bahrain carried photographs of Iraq's [Grand Ayatollah Ali al-]Sistani and Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran." I would like to understand the connection here, aside from the author's amateur propaganda effort to put [forward] two unrelated events and hope that the reader will connect them in his/her own mind. Bahraini Shi'a have been demonstrating for their rights since the 1970s with several major flare-ups and sometimes violent crackdowns. Sistani and Khamenei are both considered to be Maraja or sources of guidance for religious Shi'a. It's like saying Catholics in Ireland marched carrying pictures of the pope, who is German (Benedict XVI), nudge nudge, wink wink ... "Only a few days after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, Sheikh Hasan al-Saffa, a leading Saudi Shi'ite reformist, appeared on satellite television to demand an end to the injustice done against the Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia." The correct spelling is Al-Saffar. In any case, he came on television because he was invited and the author should have bothered to do some research and would have found that Sheikh Hassan Al-Saffar had been calling for reforms years before Saddam Hussein was toppled, and what he said on television is the same as he said on television before the invasion. "The Saudi Shi'ites, it must be noted, refused to cooperate with Iran when it called on them in 1980-88 to rebel against the House of Saud. " And the same should be noted for the Shi'a of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Oman and Iraq. Special note for Iraq, not only did the Shi'a not rebel, they fought and died in large numbers for Iraq. "In Yemen, the Shi'ites, who are 30% of the country's 20 million, have also been highly influenced by the Iraq debacle." Again, the Shi'a of Yemen are a different branch than the Shi'a of Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and the [Persian] Gulf and have few religious ties to mainstream Shi'a or Jaafaria. The author should have at least bothered to add a paragraph or two discussing the different Shi'a branches/offshoots. It seems that Mr Moubayed knows his history, but is trying a tiny bit too hard to force fit a square peg into a round hole. The Shi'a are no more united than they were in the 1980s when many died fighting each for either Iran or Iraq. They are no more tied together and have no more common purpose than Protestant Christians in Germany and France. His scaremongering is more appropriate to [Joseph] Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda than to the Asia Times [Online]. I could not believe that your fine publication would ever print something so vile and twisted as these utterances of a confused and obviously scared man, his fear is the same fear that the current war on terror feeds on, the fear of the other, the foreign. This is the same poison spit out by President [George W] Bush and his neo-con supporters when they launched America's "crusade" to meet "the Islamic threat" ...
Osama Alburaiki (Apr 20, '05)


Bhaskar Dasgupta's assertion that Pakistan did not have much in agriculture when it was created is ridiculous [Pakistan and Israel, twins after all, Apr 20]. Pakistan grabbed the fertile land of Punjab by driving out all the Sikhs and Hindu farmers and in East Pakistan agriculture remains the main occupation of the people. The height of stupidity in the article is labeling Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a "liberal and secular" when this person wholeheartedly was bent on vivisecting a nation on religious grounds. Well, Jinnah and [David] Ben Gurion may claim to be the "official" fathers of Pakistan and Israel respectively. But the fact remains Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler were instrumental in creating these new nations and can well stake a claim to the honorary title.
Srikanth
Boston, Massachusetts (Apr 20, '05)


In your article Pakistan and Israel, twins after all [Apr 20] the writer tells us that "democracy is well established in Israel, and that allows differing opinions to be handled in a non-violent, structured manner". I think the writer is unaware of the type of "democracy" enjoyed by Jewish people but causing suffering to Palestinians. It is apartheid, supported by the US.
Nusrat Iqbal
UK (Apr 20, '05)


Zhiqun Zhu [South Korea as honest broker, Apr 20] takes words at face value. President Roh Moo-hyun has floated an idea that South Korea "could" serve as an "honest broker". Dr Zhu has put his finger on the operative auxiliary verb "could", which sends Roh's wishes to the Greek calends. Professor Zhu would stand on firmer ground had he spoken of international investment banks [that] see in South Korea a regional financial center which would act as an "honest broker" between South Korea and China, or the United States, or Japan, or even North Korea, the maritime provinces of Russia, [or] Mongolia. There he would be on, and with, the money. Dr Zhu's sanguine assessment of Seoul as a regional, political "honest broker" has a touch of Voltaire's Candide to it. South Korea lacks the political clout; it is in a state of war with China; it is a territorial dispute with Japan. Domestically, Mr Roh's Uri Party is in trouble, and more likely than not, the smart money is that the next government will be headed by the opposition Grand National Party. Zhiqun Zhu believes that since Mr Roh's wish list of things to come has the blessing of Beijing and Washington, it is a fait accompli. As a student of the United States, Professor Zhu should take to heart the plain spoken wisdom of Harry Truman: "The only new thing in history is that you don't know."
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 20, '05)


I am wondering if Marc Erikson [China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth?, Apr 14] lives in China, why he cannot understand that those well-organized protests in China were not organized by the government, but by the common Chinese people. Actually, those protests put Chinese governments in a very difficult position. Not being an Asian is definitely a major factor for Marc Erikson's blindness. Amazingly, all his supporters are white men at ATol. Why? I hope pointing that out to you and your readers is not going to make me a racist. Your support of this kind of blind accusation makes Chinese people and their government impossible to correct their mistakes. If you were accused of doing something you never did and therefore impossible to correct, would that make you frustrated and angry? Marc Erikson and his white supporters have their rights to express their white opinions about Asians. I hope Asians can also have a chance to speak up for themselves at ATol regardless of where they live. Instead of trying to promote hate in Asia, please try to do something constructive.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 20, '05)

In other words, produce articles that ape the opinions formed in Frank's comfy Seattle armchair. Anything that does not measure up to that exacting standard, created not in Asia but in the shadow of Mount Rainier, is "hate". - ATol


The plethora of letters decrying Marc Erikson's fine article (China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth?, Apr 14) seem to have a common thread: anti-Japanese feelings in China are genuine. I have no doubt that is true. However, your letter writers miss the salient points that (1) the PRC [People's Republic of China] government has carefully nurtured and fostered anti-Japanese feelings among the Chinese populace, and (2) the PRC government is now fanning the flames of anti-Japanese nationalism for its own political purposes, ie, to keep Japan off the United Nations Security Council. This has absolutely nothing to do with Japanese textbooks, since Chinese textbooks completely misrepresent and distort history but no one protests about that. Examples of defects in Chinese textbooks include failure to mention China's attacks on India and Vietnam, and the People's Liberation Army's slaughter of students around Tiananmen Square on June 4/5, 1989. Further, Japan has repeatedly apologized for its war crimes against China. For example, on August 18, 1985, Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama said Japan had followed a mistaken national policy of colonial rule and aggression that caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, in particular those in Asia. He then said, "In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humanity, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology." On the 50th anniversary of Japan's surrender, Chinese president Jiang Zemin welcomed Japanese prime minister Tomiichi Murayama's apology for Japan's past aggression. So why do ATol's letter writers and the Chinese press deny that an apology (actually multiple apologies) has been offered?
Daniel McCarthy (Apr 20, '05)


Mohd Salek Noor (letter, Apr 19) writes about Indians in the UAE. To put things in proper perspective, let me ask him this: How would he feel if Hindus carved up his country to establish Hindu theocratic states where Muslims were treated as second- or third-class citizens - where Muslims could legally be put to death just for claiming that Allah is the only god or for saying that Shiv was not a god at all, while you lived in a country where Hindus, belligerent or not, had equal rights as any Muslim. In India, a Muslim painter paints Hindu goddesses in the nude, offending hundreds of millions of Hindus, and the law cannot touch him. There is a newspaper called The Hindu which is a communist-leaning paper that disparages anything Hindu. Noor mentions the JKLF [Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front], ULFA [United Liberation Front of Assam] and the Khalistanis - they all have a common connection: Islam. While Khalistanis were aided by an Islamist Pakistan, JKLF actively persecuted Hindus in Kashmir, and ULFA despises the illegal Bangladeshi Muslims living in Assam. The Babri "mosque" was built upon the ruins of a temple. If there is to be peace in the Indian subcontinent ("South Asia" conceals more than it reveals, and even Korea has a separate section [in Asia Times Online]), then Pakistan and Bangladesh have to adopt secularism and pluralism. If your heart does not bleed for the victims of Islamism, Mohd Noor, then you have no right to preach peace to others. Ever since the British left, India has had to contend with two malicious ideologies: Islamism and Maoism. India's response was to use secularism and democracy. While Maoism has weakened (Nepal excepted), Islamism has strengthened in India's neighborhood - primarily from the consequences of the Afghan war - and led to terrorism inside India. Experience shows that Islamism has developed resistance against secularism and even democracy. It can now only be countered with military force (like in Afghanistan), with money (like in Pakistan) or with a new ideology to motivate young converts. From what I know of the UAE, it seems to be the most liberal among the Arab states. And I am not so naive as to disregard the possibility that you may be a Bangladeshi or a Pakistani writing from the UAE. But to defend Pakistan and Bangladesh (countries based on the idea that Islam cannot co-exist with other religions as equal) by abusing Indians is something I would expect from a radical Islamist, and not from a humanist individual.
Brij (Apr 20, '05)


This is in response to Mohd Salek Noor's Apr 19 tirade against Indians. I very well understand his anger and I feel the writer who wrote (Apr 18) about "inconsequential entities [as] Pakistan [and] Bangladesh" is too naive and possibly doesn't understand how to live with thy neighbor. It was simply stupid to say that and, of course, arrogant. As another Indian I apologize for it but wish to tell him that all Indians (read Hindus) are not like him (to which ATol has replied properly). The so-called luxuries Indians earn in [Persian] Gulf countries is not because they are Hindus, but because that they are capable. I also wish to tell my friend that the pathetic state in which the Muslims in India are in is their own making. They do not have leadership (except mullahs) who can lead them to progress. Education is open to all and if they don't think that it gives them a benefit, its their problem. I certainly condemn what has happened to Babri Mosque or what has happened in Gujarat, but wish to tell my fellow Muslim countrymen to find their roots in India and not elsewhere based on religion. We all strongly feel that our country is before our religion and we wish Muslims would follow suit. And let's not talk about the separatist movements in either India or Pakistan, and the whole world knows which got further divided in the '70s, although it was founded on the basis of a religion. Expressing separatism we accept as a right of any individual or a group in a democracy (however flawed it may be). That only shows how matured our democracy is.
Mahesh
Ottawa, Ontario (Apr 20, '05)


Geoffrey Sherwood writes: "I'll await [Joseph] Nagarya's 'proof' that [Torturer-in-Chief] Bush had been planning an invasion of Iraq prior to September 11, 2001." The full history on this point is both substantive and substantial, and therefore lengthy. And relatively well known. The neo-con[artists] in the Poppy Bush administration believed he erred during the first Gulf War by not going all the way to Baghdad and removing Saddam Hussein; therefore, during the years of the Clinton administration, they formed a group - "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC) - and set out their goals for "correcting" that "error". Mr Sherwood should read - it is available online - the "PNAC" document, composed as said during the Clinton administration, and detailing its authors' (including [Richard] Cheney and [Donald] Rumsfeld) intents for Iraq. In addition, "PNAC" sent a letter to [president Bill] Clinton during 1998 urging him to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It has also been generally - and openly - discussed in the US media, from time to time, most prominently as an outcome of the "investigations" of the allowance of [the events of September 11, 2001], that the Bush gang was intent on and planning to invade Iraq from the moment they stole their way into office. One additional credible source for these facts is anti-terrorism expert Richard Clarke. As for Mr Sherwood's continuing mockery of the rule of law: the 2000 US presidential election was stolen, with the assist of a US Supreme Court which violated separation of powers - in the face of which he urges we reject the rule of law. [President George W] Bush lied the US into illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq - in the face of which Sherwood urges we reject the rule of law. As part of his war against the rule of law, domestic and international, Bush authorized the war crime of torture - in the face of which Sherwood urges we reject the rule of law. I could, of course, add more examples to that list; suffice that, by contrast therewith, Sherwood claims he voted for John Kerry, though the core of Kerry's history in the Senate has been the upholding and enforcing of the law. In the face of his mockery of the rule of law, his urging that we all reject it, and his dishonestly revisionist efforts to whitewash Bush's actual public history, I think we all know the word for his claim to have voted for Kerry. To ATol editors: The only matters between nations to which I speak are those which involve the US; that is my business as a US citizen. I govern myself, engage in exchanges with, and defend myself against others' aggressions; others do the same (the term for which is "individual responsibility"); all the rest is like Sherwood's pettifogging efforts to obscure or distract from that which is actually and obviously occurring. But, not having been born yesterday, when a Sherwood shows what he is both in and behind his self-serving and sociopathic rhetoric, I both put my hand on my wallet, and distance myself from him: what he urges as acceptable for the Bush War Crimes Family he also considers acceptable in his own behavior. Those who reject the rule of law do so for "advantage" against everyone else; thus they also reject the rights of others which stand against those illegitimate advantages and predations. As for ATol's "we don't see that you have the right to project that disqualification" - ie, commenting, especially negatively, on the politics of foreign countries while ignoring the same in one's own country; or attacking and denigrating the form of government of another sovereign nation, which is the business only of the sovereign nation: I do have the right to not only criticize the hypocrites, but also to expect, request, and remind of individual responsibility: if one is to criticize others, one should be certain one isn't doing that one is criticizing; that includes requirements and demands that others conduct themselves in specific ways while exempting oneself from those requirements.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Apr 20, '05)


While Catholics all over the world were sending their prayers to pope John Paul II, Taiwan had a different stake on pope's death. The discussion in Taiwan was whether the Vatican would terminate its diplomatic relations with the Republic of China in Taiwan and recognize the People's Republic of China as the "real" China. No offense to pope John Paul II and all Catholics around the world. Taiwanese government was probably more than relieved after Taiwan's current president, Chen Shui-bian, was officially invited to the pope's funeral in Vatican City. Italy's informal embassy in Taipei quickly issued President Chen a special visa to grant him privileges that most international leaders are granted when they travel to Italy. This act by Italy rapidly made headline news in Taiwan. Taiwan has not been treated like a middle-power country but a poor country around the world since its withdrawal from the UN in 1971. Taiwan does not have the same diplomatic status that the other two Asian little dragons - Singapore and South Korea have internationally. Taiwanese need a visa to visit nearly all countries across the world, except for few countries Taiwan actually has formal diplomatic relations with. These countries are mostly Pacific island, Central and South American countries. The Taiwanese government has been accused of using "money diplomacy" with these small countries, which is to provide them with billions of US dollars as monetary aids. Vatican City is Taiwan's lone friend in Europe. The Taiwanese government was more than afraid that the death of pope John Paul II would officially end diplomatic relations between Taiwan and Vatican. There was a rumor saying that Vatican City had sent messengers to China to discuss future diplomatic relations with China. However, President Chen's visit to Vatican City has discreated [sic] this rumor for now. It is pathetic that Taiwanese were concerned about their diplomatic relations with Vatican City after the pope's death while more than 1 billion Catholics were [mourning] for pope John Paul II. The legacy of Taiwan's withdrawal from the UN will forever haunt Taiwan and force her to "live with its enemy - China" in every aspect, including religions.
Lawrence Lee
San Francisco, California (Apr 20, '05)


Spengler shows not only his flair for drama in his [Apr 19] piece but also a flair for comedy by scripting in the saucy Italian cab driver who ended his tale, The crescent and the conclave. I, too, have a flair for drama as well as comedy (of the cornball kind). Spengler's saucy ending made me order spaghetti for dinner and think of the ancient mariner, The Flying Dutchman, who, imbibed with liquor, defied and cursed God as he fought and lost to a terrible storm at sea and was doomed to forever sail the seas, cursing those who look upon his ghostly ship. Since Spengler won't listen to the moderns, I thought I'd let James Russell Lowell speak to him from his poem "The Flying Dutchman" (copyright 1848):
O dread fellow-mortal, get newer despaches to carry, or none!
We're as quick as the Greek and the Jew were
At knowing a loaf from a stone
Till the couriers of God fail in duty,
We sha'n't ask a mummy for news,
Nor sate the soul's hunger for beauty
With your drawings from casts of a muse.
Beth Bowden (Apr 19, '05)


It's saddening that Spengler blurts words without verification, which sometimes almost appear intentional [The crescent and the conclave, Apr 19]. Spengler's understanding of Islam goes only to the shallow depths of one held by a so-called extremist Muslim aka terrorist (there is nothing such as an "extremist" Muslim since Islam is a religion of moderation). Why does Spengler make unfounded comments: "Islam surrounds traditional society with a spear-wall, and proposes to extend the realm of traditional society, the ummah, by dominating the world around it through jihad"? How many of the over 1 billion Muslims are being held hostage by these so-called spear-walls? Does he not realize that the spread of Islam was primarily through trade? Does he not remember that during the time of the Prophet (SAW), Jews, Christians and others were provided freedom and protection? And if he wants recent history, he can look to Muslim Spain, where Christians and Jews were afforded protection and roles in government. And let's not mention the barbarity of the Crusades or the Holocaust; besides, the Jewish claim of racial superiority is alien to Islam. How many times have Christian nations turned "the other cheek"? "Unlike the Christian and Jewish scriptures, revealed to men who heard the revelation in their own voices, the Archangel Gabriel dictated every word of the Holy Koran to the Prophet Mohammed." Do you know what revelation means? Revelation is a communication mechanism between God and his servant through a medium (vision/aperation [sic; perhaps "apparition" is meant - ATol] or through messengers-angels). So if Christian and Jewish scripture was revealed to men in their own voices, did the angel Gabriel speak English and the Prophet (SAW) had to get it translated? If Spengler means by "their own voices" that they were mere words of other men, then I can assure him that the revelations to the Prophet were far superior in quality and accuracy. I hope you drink at the source and not downstream? Perhaps the reason why John Paul II kissed it (a whole chapter of the Koran is dedicated to the Virgin Mary). This brings me to the "to historicize the Koran would in effect delegitimize the whole historical experience of the Muslim community" point. The Koran is not a storybook of history, it is a code of conducting our day-to-day life. For instance, is there a clear law of inheritance outlined in the latter scriptures as is in the Koran? Do they discuss with detail the evolution of a single-celled organism to an embryo to a fully conscious human? Unfortunately for Spengler, the Koran may have been revealed over 1,400 years back, but its message and its guidance remain modern to the end of time, unless we evolve into some other life form that can no longer relate, brain shrinkage perhaps. If Christian Europe is on the verge of demise, so is Jewish Israel. With the exception of kibbutzniks, the vast majority of young Israeli Jews are in line with Christian European trends of annihilation. It's materialism, stupid. Think about it. Survival is the key. Jewish kids come back from school and pack the nearest shopping mall licking ice cream and buying the latest in fashion, while the Palestinian kid picks up a dozen rocks on the way home so he can pelt the occupier and may have less then an ice cream for dinner. Hardship is a blessing in disguise - hardship increases survivability. But again, Spengler's comments may be prophetic and deeper then we think. Perhaps he is subconsciously referring to the Mohammedan Messiah, prophesied by the Holy Prophet (SAW), who is to be the uniting force that would bring (convert) Muslims, Christians and others into the fold of the true Islam.
Mahmood Ahmad (Apr 19, '05)


"The pseudonymous Cristoph Luxenberg, who showed that the sloe-eyed virgins promised to Islamic martyrs actually were raisins ... Koranic criticism has disappeared from the radar screen. No news outlet has so much as mentioned the name of Professor 'Luxenberg' in recent months." - Spengler, The crescent and the conclave [Apr 19]. That is because Professor Luxenberg did not know what he was talking about. "Raisin" in Syriac and houri in Arabic may be derived from a common Semitic root, but the two words need not have the same meaning.
Lester Ness, acquainted with several Semitic languages
Quanzhou, China (Apr 19, '05)


Spengler always was a bigot and after reading his [Apr 19] piece [The crescent and the conclave] I find myself straining to believe that that might ever change. Of course, with the desperation of a madman straight from Dr Strangelove, Spengler wishes the whole enterprise of Islam would disappear off the face of the Earth, so I don't think I'm terribly off the mark. I should thank Spengler, though, for clearing up some confusion about which is holier to people like him: Europe or God. Many would be delighted that Europe leads by a comfortable margin.
Bilal Saqib
USA (Apr 19, '05)


Spengler's commentary [The crescent and the conclave, Apr 19] is either (a) a rah, rah piece in support of Cardinal [Joseph] Ratzinger getting the nod to become pope; (b) a further flowery elaboration of his oft-repeated disdain of Muslims and their Koran; or (c) a combination hatchet job as proof of his purely intellectual affiliations to so-called Judeo-Christian beliefs. My question to him is: What specifically distinguishes the "dicta" (Koran) of the Archangel Gabriel from the claim that Moses made when he appeared with the "Ten Commandments"? And my question to ATol is: Why are no Muslim, Hindu or other Spengler-like writers given an equal opportunity to the writings of Spengler? After all, as your offices always remind one, ATol is primarily focused on Asia. Does the number of Judeo-Christians in Asia warrant a Spengler while the non-Judeo-Christians in Asia do not?
Armand de Laurell
USA (Apr 19, '05)


[Re] China-Japan flames scald business [Apr 19]: China has no qualms [about] seeing its trade with Japan disrupted during the ongoing anti-Japanese protests which began three weeks ago, and are continuing unabated. From Beijing's standpoint, Japan has the weaker economy, one plagued by more than a decade's doldrums, whilst China's is in plain expansion and growing stronger by the day. Japan cannot suddenly pull out its multibillion-dollar investments in China. It has more than 14,000 businesses on the Chinese mainland. Japanese banks can call in loans, but the majority of which are bad, and unlikely to be repaid but 10 cents on the dollar. So to paraphrase Lord Keynes, Japan remains a prisoner of China's economic ties. Moreover, China's foreign minister has even [seen] fit to publicly scold his Japanese counterpart in front of rolling television cameras. China has the eyes of a poker player who knows that he has a winning hand. And Beijing is no generous winner. It has inflicted on its neighbor a stinging loss of face, one which Tokyo will not swallow easily. China watchers, Chinese or foreigners, have sliced the current imbroglio in 36 ways, but they have, it seems to me, missed the grand symbolic apotheosis that the Chinese Communist Party and government are rising to like a might crescendo in grand opera fashion, and the denouement of the present crisis. The protests will continue till May 4. And May 4, 2005, marks the 85th anniversary of the May 4 movement when Chinese students descended into the streets of Beijing to protest the victorious Allied powers at the Versailles Peace Conference's awarding the former German concessions to Japan. A date which marks the birth of modern Chinese nationalism and national renewal and China's entry into the modern world. A date whereby the students - the future of the new China - opposed other powers dictating her history.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 19, '05)


B Raman must have run out of material to write about and so it seems that ATimes [has] run out of stories to write about. Can someone please tell me the rationale behind writing [Baloch shadow over China-Pakistan ties, Apr 19]? The author has written a story trying to prove that [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf's government is having a tough time by giving quotations as old as March 18, 26, and 30 by various players. Is nothing new happening in Balochistan now? If not, then why repeat the old, old stories? Do he (Raman) and you have any ax to grind against Pakistan by keeping the old stories alive? I thought it was the prerogative of the US newspapers only. You too are indulging in the same abominable practice of repeating old stories to incriminate someone. Shame on you.
Abdul R Khan
Arlington, Texas (Apr 19, '05)

Okay, enlighten us: What major changes have occurred in Balochistan since last month that Raman missed but your all-seeing eye in Texas did not? - ATol


Marc Erikson [China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth?, Apr 14]: Hong Kong was once full of your kind, the ultra-raciest colonial British. Now it is replaced by semi-knowledgeable white superior Chinese haters. You think the Chinese population are so stupid they cannot organize themselves. Only the white colonials can organize. I once met a white woman in Beijing. She worked for the Swedish Embassy, spoke Chinese. However, her remarks on China and Chinese people showed how [little] the Western world knows of China. A Chinese-speaking embassy worker indeed! The reason may be the Western people, just like the Japanese, do not treat Chinese as human beings. For your benefit: Do you know there are instant messages in China? Do you know there are Chinese-language chat-rooms? I can assure you China does have the Internet and is the second-largest coming on the largest [Internet user]. The Chinese population through the Internet knows what is going on around the world. Beijing can filter some but not all. A lot of anti-Chinese media like the Wall Street Journal, Far Eastern Economic Review and Times/CNN can be accessed in China. This may be a surprise to you but many Chinese youth can read English. As a Westerner you think Western culture is superior. So does [Japan,] which regards itself as Western and is superior to all white culture and on par with the USA. Try to move yourself into the 21st century. Chinese people are human and do have human feelings like the Western people. Most of your kind violated Chinese human rights with insults and degradation. Next time try to treat Chinese with respect, dignity and human rights ...
Raymond Lee (Apr 19, '05)


[Re] Marc Erikson's China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth? [Apr 14]: These demonstrations by the Chinese populace are real feelings of anger and frustrations on the shallowness of Japan's contrition. Japan started the war in Asia emulating [Adolf] Hitler's horde in Europe. Japan at that time [was part of] the Axis of evil with Germany and Italy. How short [are] our collective memories? Germany and Italy have come clean. Japan's half-hearted 17 apologies by words do not square with [its] actions. Therein lie the anger and frustrations of many people in Asia over Japan. The anger by China is only the tip of the iceberg. If Japan is smart, she should follow Germany's high road before all of Asia pours out the hate of Japan. [Its] atrocities committed on the general population in Asia were horrendous. Mass killing and rapes by those marauding soldiers. Women were raped and then bayoneted. Babies were thrown to their death. Prisoners of war were treated like commodities, used and discarded. They attacked Pearl Harbor without provocation just like they attacked most of peace-loving Asia. Their justification was that they wanted to free Asia from their white colonial masters to [be replaced] with their own brand of evil. What a bunch of crap they spewed then and continue to spew now by asking China for an apology. Japan thinks that by donating heaps to the United Nations [it] can buy respect. The Western world, to assuage [its] guilt of the twin atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, most probably forgave Japan. Asia, however, is still waiting for Japan to see the light.
Steven
Toronto, Ontario (Apr 19, '05)


I am not quite convinced by ATol's defense [under Vincent's letter of Apr 18] of Marc Erikson [China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth?, Apr 14] that he is light-years away from being a street guy out there cheating money with his USA brand of conspiracy theory plus China-bashing combo spiced with a China experience featuring a three-hour shopping tour in Shenzhen. The day his article was posted on ATol, I knew Erikson would be taken care of by the readers and I spared myself of a breath arguing with a bigot (after all, my two-year-old was peeing). ATol's half-veiled defense, though, is much more disappointing. A serious online political magazine should at least make sure its contributors do not produce anything that ridicules themselves. Erikson tried to portray a sharply different mentality of the people of Shanghai from that of other rioting Chinese cities because he must have assumed that the more civilized citizens of China had a different view of the anti-Japanese fury (which of course he shares). Much to his disappointment, the people of Shanghai staged the most violent protest/riot just three days after Erikson's article. The lesson for ATol: have the likes of Erikson travel at least a few hundred miles or a couple of days deeper into China before telling the world that coals in China are white because they look black.
Raymond Cui
Beijing, China (Apr 19, '05)


Despite your perception of [Marc] Erikson's "unrivaled knowledge and experience of East Asian affairs", I found his treatment of this issue very disturbing [China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth?, Apr 14]. I am also cynical of the politics behind the recent protests in China; but in spite of my background, being a third-generation overseas-born Australian Chinese who is unable to speak or read Mandarin, with no affections for or ties with the present Chinese government, I do feel incensed when the Japanese prime minister visits the [Yasukuni] shrine, which houses war criminals. The textbook revision that tries to exculpate, to various degrees, Japan's war crimes is a clumsy but nevertheless shameful attempt to distort history for misguided self-aggrandizement. How can we not forget when our own ancestors bear the ugly scars of the deaths of their loved ones, of torture and brutal rapes? Do the Japanese leaders have a monument to visit in Japan for those millions of non-Japanese people who died and suffered? How sad to hear that the Japanese government is treading a path that renews and reinforces such anger and distrust. Sad because I really enjoy Japanese culture and visiting her country and meeting her beautiful people. Another equally or perhaps more troubling thing to know is American hypocrisy. America's destructive foray into Iraq, based on the now thoroughly discredited intelligence, emphasizes for us that the democratic government of United States is both unprepared and unwilling to behave in a civilized and responsible fashion, much to the disappointment of the international community. Broken windows, door and panes are not a match for widespread sexual abuse, torture and deaths in prison camps and of course, the loss of lives of women and children, and wanton destruction of properties through "collateral damage".
Victor Lee
Singapore (Apr 19, '05)


The [Apr 14] article [China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth?] from Marc [Erikson] and letters from his white supporters indicate the white people know nothing about China. Their blind hatred and perjury are exactly the reasons [angering] so many Chinese youths. ATol editor's support of such blind hatred and perjury will for sure breed more extreme nationalism in China. I suggest ATol publishes more articles authored by Asians. They know more about Asia than those white racists who obtain information about either from other people's recycled baskets in America.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 19, '05)

Er, excuse us, but it is you who are in America, not Marc Erikson. He was in Shenzhen with Chinese colleagues and based his report on what he observed, not what he wished he had observed. It is easy to brand uncomfortable observations as "racist", but your oft-stated prejudice - that only Asians (especially Chinese) can see things clearly, even if they are not actually in Asia where events are unfolding - is itself blatantly racist. Take a lesson from the more reasoned letters above, especially Raymond Cui's; writing from inside China, he agrees with you, but makes the effort to counter Erikson's views with actual evidence and thoughtful counterpoint, rather than copping out with the old, lazy, tiresome line of "I disagree with you so you must be a bigot." - ATol


Doug Baker's letter [Apr 18] commenting on my neglect to mention Haiti in my latest in the World Order series is on the mark (A history lesson for the 'war on terror', Apr 14). However, it is not a case of having "gone simple" or "just enjoying a bout of historical amnesia". The matter was covered in another article, Banking Bunkum Part 3a: The US experience [Nov 16, '02]:

The most significant achievement of the Jefferson presidency was the Louisiana Purchase. In 1800, the Treaty of San Ildefonso secretly transferred Louisiana from Spain to France, which presented the United States with the alarming prospect of a vigorous and expansionist European power controlling the mouth of the Mississippi River to block the westward expansion of the US. James Monroe was sent to Paris to negotiate the purchase of Louisiana from a willing Napoleon Bonaparte, who earlier had sent an expeditionary army to Haiti to put down a black slave rebellion with subsequent plans to occupy New Orleans to exercise French control over Louisiana. The decimation of the French expeditionary army by yellow fever, the need for more troops for renewed Napoleonic wars in Europe, and the difficulty of running the British naval blockade convinced Napoleon that strengthening the United States as a potential ally under a pro-French Jefferson and as a potential rival of Britain might serve French interests.
France agreed to sell Louisiana in 1803 for US$15 million, including in the package an immense territory extending northward as far as Canada and westward to the Rocky Mountains, covering more than a million square miles. The purchase was financed through the then four-year-old BUS [Bank of the United States]. But according to a strict construction of the constitution, the federal government did not have authority to acquire new territory or, as provided under the treaty with Napoleon, to grant full citizenship to its inhabitants, not to mention the chartering of a national bank. Jefferson swallowed his scruples about the constitution, became in effect an "implied powers" advocate and lobbied energetically for Senate ratification of the Louisiana Purchase.

When the article was reposted on an Internet mailing list, a reader with a pen name of "bon moun" wrote:

Just to set the whole record straight ... White historians are very reluctant to point this out, but yellow fever was only part of the equation, and a part factored in by the general who defeated Napoleon's troops on the battlefield - Jean Jacques Dessalines, a former slave. And that "slave rebellion" translated into a successful revolution for independence, the first black nation, the first independent nation in Latin America, and the second independent nation in this [Western] Hemisphere. The reluctance of white historians to tell this story is based on the fact that it shattered once and for all the myth of white supremacy.

My response: "Thank you for setting the record straight. You are right that we are all victims of white cultural hegemony. Just for the record, can you suggest a more objective source?"
Bon moun: "The Black Jacobins [by] C L R James."
As for depleted-uranium weapons, it is dealt with in my next installment.
Henry C K Liu (Apr 19, '05)


I grow weary of Daniel McCarthy ([letter] Apr 18), period. It is time that he reveals his agenda. He has a one-track mind and he regurgitates his limited vocabulary over and over again. [Regarding] his assertion that "China is both unprepared and unwilling to behave in a civilized and responsible fashion, much to the disappointment of the international community", presumably McCarthy's definition of a "civilized and responsible fashion" is to carry out biological experiments on live human beings and to behead captives and herd women and children [into] POW camps, and white women at that. I have to bow to his greater knowledge of "civilized and responsible" behavior as the USA is built on stolen land, stolen labor and stolen natural resources. I wonder if McCarthy will take responsibility for all this civilized behavior?
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Apr 19, '05)


Chrysantha Wijeyasingha in [his] April 18 response prescribes the right sentiments for the Indian foreign policy thinkers vis-a-vis China. Focus on commerce for a positive relationship while working away at strategic parity and balancing on a number of issues to contain the threat from China. India has so far shown no muscle to play the strategic balance card vis-a-vis China on both Tibet and Taiwan. [Indian prime minister Jawaharlal] Nehru accepted China's claim on Tibet for no reciprocity from China a long time ago. Times have changed. It's time for India to demand some reciprocity. It could demand the same for any acceptance of China's claim on Taiwan while building relationships with Taiwan. Meanwhile, India ought to be building a necklace of secure relationships around China with Japan, and the junta in Burma, and reinforcing the warmth in ties with Russia.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Apr 19, '05)


Referring to Chandan's absurd comment (April 18) ... where the letter writer finds it disrespectful to Indians to be under South Asia with "inconsequential entities [as] Pakistan [and] Bangladesh": It seems your forum is used very adroitly and unabashedly by Indians to degrade and despise Muslims. I am from the United Arab Emirates and I know how [despairing] and despondent Indians take shelter here. Indians form almost two-thirds of UAE expatriates, and we Muslims treat them with kindness, where they enjoy a luxurious life with freedom and equality, but when it comes to Muslims, the Indians are very quick to use their clever tongue and dirty intelligence to tarnish our image in the world. If Indians are so full of aversion for Muslims, why [do] millions of Indians choose the Muslim Gulf to earn their livelihood? Indians are merely taking advantage of [the September 11, 2001] incidents to whip Muslims. They easily forgot how terrible and barbaric they were and are, when they killed thousands of Muslims in Gujarat (2002) or when they razed the Babri Mosque or when they kill thousands of innocent Muslims in Kashmir. If killings of innocent people are terrorism, then Indians too are terrorists. India would not be India once Pakistan and Bangladesh joined the USA and China to destroy her growing influence in the region. In fact the USA had already asked for Saint Martin Island of Bangladesh to set up an US military base but Bangladesh politely refused. Within India itself there are states like Punjab (Kalistan group of Punjab), Assam (ULFA [United Liberation Front of Assam]) and Kashmir (JKLF [Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front]) [that] are rebelling against Indian government for their respective separate homelands. India is on the verge of disunity and destruction because "pride comes before the fall". I wonder when will Indians leave their arrogant attitude towards Muslims and India's neighboring countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan to make the region free of war and hatred. Indians are nothing but messengers of hatred.
Mohd Salek Noor
Al Fujairah, UAE (Apr 19, '05)


ATol commented [Apr 18] on the Sherwood-Nagarya spat, "For the love of God, enough!" (But in much more diplomatic terms.) Good timing. You've been patient to indulge us for as long as you have. I'll await [Joseph] Nagarya's "proof" that George W Bush had been planning an invasion of Iraq prior to September 11, 2001, which he should feel free to post in the War and Terror discussion (there's no "Fiction/Fantasy" section) within The Edge forum. I'll post my responses to his questions there also. I get a headache when avoiding ad hominem with zealots, so maybe The Edge will be The Cure.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA


Jakob Cambria writes [letter, Apr 13]: "If anything the Chinese [communist] rulers fear ... the wrath of [their] own people, the more especially in [these] rapidly changing times: ... with huge disparity in wealth, yawning differences between town and country, unchecked corruption among the ruling classes and their progeny ... China's bullying will only encourage constitutional revision in Japan, ultimately resulting in a rearmed military ..." Substitute "United States" for "China" - and for "China's bullying" "Bush's bullying" - and your description would be as accurate about the US (excepting perhaps so far the wrath bit); it would also have the virtue of actually being your business. Patrick Cummins writes [Apr 13]: "It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that [Bush et al] will not tolerate a truly independent Iraqi government." From assisting Saddam Hussein into power, and backing and supporting him with provision of weapons even while he was "gassing his own people", and establishing 15 military bases across Iraq - deceptively called "embassies" - it is impossible to avoid the obvious fact that [US President George W] Bush et al are opposed to an independent Iraqi government. Unlike in the past, however, that fact is unignorable; everyone knows it; so will not work. Even with the Negroponte-established death squads aimed at the elimination of all dissent - and, thus, of democracy. To Rachel Hassold [Apr 13]: Thanks for the support. And I have an excellent sense of humor, at all times, which not coincidentally helps to sharpen my serious points. As for living under Torturer-in-Chief Bush, his torture architect Alberto Gonzales as top domestic law enforcer, and Bush's hope to get war criminal [John] Negroponte confirmed as head of all US intelligence, including domestic, and [John] Bolton as ambassador to the UN so he can feed Negroponte's faked intelligence to the UN, and endeavor to bully the UN into submission, in the Bush drive to next war against Iran. You suffered under Bush's rule than [sic] I, and for that you have my liberal compassion. And I heed your warning (re the domestic terrorism shaping up under [Karl] Rove-Bush). I do from time to time worry about that - should I speak, or should I be silent this time? But we are where we are because too many didn't speak up when it most mattered. That Bush's policies have suddenly been all failing gives me cautious hope that his reign of terror - for that is exactly what it is - will fall of its own inner rot.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Apr 19, '05)

If you do not feel qualified to comment on the politics of foreign countries, that is up to you, but we don't see that you have the right to project that disqualification on to others (though your points about nationalist hypocrisy are usually well taken). As for your repeated allegation that the "permanent" bases set up in Iraq by the US have been "deceptively called 'embassies'", we have been unable to find any confirmation of this (and it seems unlikely that even the United States would feel able, or even want, to set up 15 embassies in a single country). Can you enlighten us? Or are Iraqi affairs "none of your business"? - ATol


Re Marc Erikson's [China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth?, Apr 14]. There is one other possibility of what is behind the Chinese government's tacit support of the anti-Japan protests. Besides the particular political machinations, it could be Beijing has been watching how [US President George W] Bush and the Republicans have used single-minded protests to advance their agenda and China is taking the idea for a test drive.
Barry Brown
Toronto, Ontario (Apr 18, '05)


Marc Erikson's article [China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth?, Apr 14] should appear in the Letters section, instead of being treated as a main piece in ATol. He invented some ludicrous theories on why the Chinese authorities fanned and manipulated anti-Japan protests. He might as well put forward some other theories on the Korean attitude toward Japan. Had China not tried to contain and constrain these protests, they would have spread across the whole country like wildfires. True, the countrymen and their grandmas of Mr Erikson's country were not slaughtered or raped by Japanese soldiers during the last world war. He therefore can become mindless over distorted history texts that try to perpetuate falsehood and misinform people all over the world. For Mr Erikson, the past is past; let them say whatever they want. Imagine the reaction from the Jewish and all other fair-minded people in the world if Germany did not own up to what had been done. Germany deserves a lot of respect in this regard while Japan is utterly shameless. To me and millions of other people, these protests, whether spontaneous or officially instigated, are fully warranted.
Li (Apr 18, '05)


Marc Erikson's article China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth? [Apr 14] emphasizes for us that the communist government of China is both unprepared and unwilling to behave in a civilized and responsible fashion, much to the disappointment of the international community.
Daniel McCarthy (Apr 18, '05)


Jakob Cambria of the USA in his letter of April 13 writes his usual biased delusions. If the Chinese are demonstrating, it is certainly not to elicit sympathy from the likes of the said Jakob Cambria or his like-minded Americans or Australians, whose memory is so short-lived that they forget the beheading of Australian soldiers and the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. I as a Chinese in the UK, having been far removed in time and geography from the atrocities of the Japanese biological experiments on living human beings, am still incensed that the Japanese are now strutting and posturing after a short period of obsequious subservience to any American they meet. Jakob Cambria has a stuck needle ... [Re] China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth? [Apr 14] by Marc Erikson: I cannot but call Erikson's piece a little too insolent. So the demonstrations were too "contrived", but that is to be expected as the experts in demonstrations are in the Los Angeles race riots and the London poll-tax riots and the English coal miners' demonstrations of a few years ago. I am surprised there are so few of them in China.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Apr 18, '05)


I strongly do not agree with the article China's fury doesn't wash, but why the froth? [Apr 14] by Marc Erikson. He knows nothing about the Japanese war crime in Asia, or is he an American agent (propaganda agent) that purposely plays down the feelings of the Chinese around the world? Is he well versed in Asia/China's history or just a lay [person] from the street who writes nonsense articles to cheat money [from] Asia Times Online? Please ask him to shut up and reject all his writings. This article really hurts the feelings of the Chinese around the world. Please screen all the writers' qualification before posting their articles. It seems that Asia Times [Online] just wants to meet quota for online articles instead of reporting facts. The public do not want bullshit articles. His article really give Asia Times Online a really bad name.
Vincent (Apr 18, '05)

Marc Erikson's views are often controversial, but his experience in and knowledge of East Asia are unrivaled. We cannot reveal more than that, but rest assured, your suggestion that he is "just a lay [person] from the street" is light-years from the reality. - ATol


Antal E Fekete [Dismal monetary science, Apr 14] makes a few interesting observations about the current disorder, nay, dysfunctional monetary system which currently exists in our modern world. However, he fails to get to the root of the problem. Though he mentions the free coinage practices of earlier America, a time when people could bring in their own metals for coinage for a small fee, he does not mention the most vital component, and indeed, the most obviously corrupt aspect of the world financial system. The problem is simply that all these banks are privately owned, make money from nothing, and charge people the production of real value and services to pay for this money at interest. This is a giant drag on the economy, annihilating easily over 30% of all human productivity. The story of America is the story of the government vs the private banks of Europe. When Andrew Jackson said: "The bold effort the present [central] bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it." he was deadly serious. The power to coin money and dictate the rate of interest, and ultimately inflation, was considered by early American presidents to be more dangerous to liberty then standing armies. Nowadays, we have a corrupt system whereby fiat money can be speculated on, often to the detriment (even devastation) of weaker countries. This should be entirely disallowed. All national currencies should have an equivalent worth. It's simple and true. This would stop all distortions made by markets, and prevent attacks by the super-rich on vulnerable economies. It's the people's money, it's [the US] Congress's responsibility to administer it, and that is a moral and financial fact. No human being on Earth should be allowed to print money for nothing, lend it 20 times over, and expect people to produce real value to pay for it. That is simple crime.
Stephan Larose (Apr 18, '05)


Has Henry C K Liu gone simple or is he just enjoying a bout of historical amnesia (A History lesson for the 'war on terror', Apr 14)? His discussion of "Bourbons, Bonaparte and Bush" covers The Little Corporal's forces' adventures in Spain but not Haiti, where the failure of his Imperial troops led to terror and Napoleon's selling Spain's interests west of the Mississippi River to the USA. More recently, our little shrub had a democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, of Haiti kidnapped so American interests would be served using the United Nations troops from China to El Salvador to enforce our will. With depleted uranium [DU] having a half-life of four and one half billion years, the atomic wastelands memorial to presidents [George H W] Bush, [Bill] Clinton and little Bush will last much longer than the American republic. As the Romans salted Carthage, our DU users have brought atomic waste to Japan, Panama, Serbia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UK and the US. And with our bracing of our NATO and SEATO [South East Asia Treaty Organization] pals with DU weapons of mass destruction there is no telling who will get nuked next.
Doug Baker
Alameda, California (Apr 18, '05)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Your article [Pakistan covers its bets on the US, Apr 14] is very interesting. The state of Pakistan must be very lucky indeed. It has India on one side and USA on the other side [exerting] a lot of pressure. On top of it, there is a large segment of people who now openly say that the creation of Pakistan was a wrong decision.
Nasim Hassan
Delaware, USA (Apr 18, '05)

It is becoming more evident with the passage of time that perhaps it was the division of Indian Muslims into three regions (Pakistan, India and Bangladesh). Taking billions of rupees of evacuee properties of Indian Muslims in account, it becomes an added woe. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


Re It's not the yuan, silly [Apr 14] by Francesco Sisci: To add more support to this article, readers must note that the US has been using a deadly weapon: "anti-dumping tariffs" as applied to a "non-market economy" against China. Washington-based Cato Institute calls the US anti-dumping policy toward China "unabashedly bellicose". The "Foreign Market Access Report" by Beijing makes the same point. And so, how can the same mouth (US government) simultaneously demand a free currency and reject market economy status? Ultimately, Beijing must do as Francesco Sisci suggests - gradual loosening of the peg coupled with banking and legal reforms.
Roy
USA (Apr 18, '05)


[Re India sits pretty with US and China, Apr 13] In China's relations India fully understands that as far as military alliances China sees India as a rival and "stirs the pot" with her ongoing military alliance with Pakistan. That paradigm is not going to change in the near future, neither will China fully relinquish her claim on Arunachel Pradesh which she claims but is controlled by India and the area of Kashmir which India claims but is controlled by China. The only gain, and it is a significant gain, is on the commercial relationship, [on] which India should make as much hay while the cozy "China/India" sunshine shines. India can count on the USA for the military alliance; in addition India should keep a "trump card" with Russia, her longtime military ally. India should not stop there but cozy up to Japan as well. Since China has all the intention of blocking India's military growth with Pakistan on one side and China on the other side, India must also form alliances that are not conducive to the security of China's well-being while at the same time develop the commercial end of the Sino-Indian relationship. If India plays her cards just right, for every noose China throws around India's neck, India should add another "Damocles' sword" over China's head. India, China, the US and Russia are big boys now and India is metamorphosing from the proverbial elephant into a mammoth and while China has being playing the dagger in one hand and the dove of friendship in the other hand so could India.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 18, '05)


ATol, You have [proved] the authenticity of tolerance by tolerating the fact that I have made no distinguishable point in this discourse and yet you have published my thoughts. Perhaps this implies that toleration is not without purpose? Rabbi Moshe Reiss stated in his article Identity, tolerance and the virgin seekers (Apr 8) [that] "tolerance does not require respect". Here is where I disagree with him - for tolerance to be lasting and have a sense of authenticity, respect along with the flip side of the coin, a recognition of equality must be present in the party which is tolerant. Without these two principles, tolerance is as useless as the teenager who tells [his or her] ailing mother, I hope you get well, Mommy, because the house is a mess.
Beth Bowden (Apr 18, '05)


I simply cannot believe that India does not merit a separate section in your online edition. It's incomprehensible that India, a rising economic power, a billion-strong democracy, the oldest continuously existing civilization and pillar of stability in the region is being clubbed under the heading South Asia with such inconsequential entities [as] Pakistan [and] Bangladesh. If you are really serious about attracting a wider Indian audience, give the coverage India is entitled to in an exclusive section. Anything less will simply mean a lesser Indian visitor count, thus making a mockery of your intention of showcasing Asia.
Chandan (Apr 18, '05)

Our current format is designed to appeal to a broader-minded readership, one not so quick to dismiss India's South Asian neighbors as "inconsequential". - ATol


I think this Letters section is probably not the forum for an ongoing debate between myself and AL of Canada. Suffice it to say that AL seems perilously close to anti-Semitic in his [Apr 13] rant ("Court Jews"?), and simply irrational on the rest of this topic. I know where I live, AL. It is a death-of-irony moment to be debating the use of nuclear weapons, and I suppose it speaks to the current age of barbarism we live in. One must trace back who supported European fascism before [Adolf] Hitler simply became unmanageable. A recent model is to remember who supported Saddam Hussein for over a decade, and who helped put him in power. History is worth examining in these discussions. Revisionist history is popular with the Empire - and happens real time, almost, these days (demonizing Arabs, [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez, etc) - while words like "democracy" are trotted out to justify colonial adventure and to describe quisling regimes. Some things never change. I have to wonder, as [Vincent] Maadi does [letter, Apr 13], about some of the writings coming from AT Online these days. His points are well taken.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Apr 18, '05)


Geoffrey Sherwood writes [letter, Apr 13]: "Joseph Nagarya commented on [Torturer-in-Chief] Bush's motives for going to war in Iraq: 'No one ever said [personal revenge] was the only or primary unfounded excuse or lie for the illegal invasion and occupation.' ... The assumption that [President George W] Bush wanted revenge (who wouldn't [I, Mr Sherwood, would not, despite your continued pushing of your unfounded, and contradicted by actual evidence, assumption that the Hussein threat against Poppy Bush actually occurred; and in view of the fact that I am ethical, thus would not descend to that repudiation of democracy and the rule of law essential thereto]) tells us [tells you] nothing about whether ... he acted upon that emotion." He did mock, at a press conference, Karla Faye Tucker's plea for mercy - he obviously thought it really funny to abuse a person with vastly less power than he, and no means of defense against him. That is an [index] of "character", Mr Sherwood - not one that it is flattering. Will you now argue that it was necessary for him to authorize the war crime of torture - and thus remove legal protections from our own troops - against Iraqis who had not been convicted of anything other than being Bush's detainees in a prison, in order to protect our troops? Bush has a lengthy history of actions which lead one to conclude that he is a petty, vindictive bully and sadist who seeks opportunities to abuse not only power but also those with less power than he. "Nagarya's evidence of Bush's character flaws" - his mockery at a press conference of Karla Faye Tucker is on the record, Mr Sherwood, as objective evidence. That he authorized the war crime of torture against Iraqis without bothering to consider their innocence unless and until proven otherwise is objective evidence. The fact that the authorization removed legal protections from our own troops - while the contrary specious claim is that it was intended to develop intelligence in behalf of the troops - is objective evidence. As is the fact that torture does not produce useful intelligence. Thus the actual purpose of torture is to abuse and terrorize. Last but not least you write: "What is not objective is the leaping [to the] conclusion that the evidence means that Bush probably went to war to exact revenge on [Iraqi president Saddam] Hussein." I said no such thing; moreover, I included numerous other lies Bush told in order to illegally invade and occupy Iraq which have greater weight than whether he also did it for revenge. It does not surprise that you would distort by exaggerating my "emphasis" on the issue of revenge - it was Bush himself who dragged it in as an - un-Christian - excuse - in order to avoid all the other lies I included as a means of providing context and perspective. I do not jump to the conclusion that revenge was his sole motive; but I do make the obvious point, based upon the objective evidence, that it would be in keeping with his "character" to include and even emphasize revenge as, for him, an overriding excuse. Reminder: torture is expressly, unequivocally, defined as being a war crime in law the US authored. Your effort to minimize and avoid that uncomplicated fact says more about your character, in common with Bush's, than it does your claims to have voted for [presidential candidate John] Kerry, etc.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Apr 18, '05)

Non-US readers may not know who Karla Faye Tucker was. She was a convicted ax-murderer who, while on death row in Texas, became a "born-again" Christian and appealed for clemency to George W Bush, then governor of that state. Despite an appeal by pope John Paul II, Bush denied the clemency and reportedly mocked Tucker during an interview, pursing his lips in a whimpering impersonation of the condemned woman: "Please, don't kill me." On February 3, 1998, Tucker became the first woman to be executed in Texas since 1863. A total of 152 criminals were executed under Bush's 1995-2000 governorship, the most under any US governor in modern history. - ATol


Joseph Nagarya wrote (letter, Apr 13): "As we now know ... from the moment [George W] Bush stole his way into office he was looking for any excuse to invade." If true, that could undermine my view that Bush's primary motivations were related to terrorism and the new sense of vulnerability in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. For a person such as Mr Nagarya - acutely sensitive to matters such as due process, rules of evidence, and violations of the Ten Commandments - to say he "knows" that Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq prior to September 11 implies that he has proof. What is your proof, Mr Nagarya, and does it live up to American or international standards for proving premeditation? I'm talking about proof of desire to invade - which is how you characterize it - not the more general, well-known desire for regime change, which was merely the continuation of earlier president Bill Clinton's policy. And just in case you are tempted to stray from your self-styled ethically, morally, historically, and legalistically exacting standards: George W Bush is not Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. Forget about the guilt-by-association trick. Let's put your zealous worship of the law to a simple test. Are you just a pedantic proselytizer, or do you really practice what you preach? Proof is worshipped in your cathedral of law, is it not? Well then, let's have it. Let's see the proof that prior to September 11 Bush "was looking for any excuse to invade" Iraq.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Apr 18, '05)

Until you guys either call a truce or take this slanging match to The Edgeforum, we can't run your letters on other subjects. - ATol

In March, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and now in April China'[],,[> India sits pretty with US and China, Apr 13]. Similar arrangements have been made by India for Japan's Premier Junichiro Koizumi to come to India during the next few weeks. Normal diplomacy, one would say. Pakistan's military ruler President [General Pervez] Musharraf publicly asked for an invitation to watch a sporting fixture, any one game of cricket between India and Pakistan being played in India. Out of courtesy, the Indian government sent an invitation to President Musharraf to see a cricket match and promptly he, his government and "His Master's Voice" media hyped it into a virtual political summit, contrary to all normal diplomatic behavior. Indian government, again out of courtesy, informed Pakistan that it is prepared to consider all ideas except redrawing of boundaries on the basis of religion directly or indirectly and another partition of India. President Musharraf is always interested in scoring media points and PR hype. General Musharraf's commando tactics actually undermine the dignity of the great position of the president of Pakistan. It would never happen in India, as the sovereign people and independent media would, in similar circumstances, give the president or the prime minister hell for bringing the great Indian democracy into disrepute. In addition, President Musharraf lacks credibility because he has not kept his promises to India to stop cross-border terrorism into Indian Kashmir and dismantle training camps and infrastructure for militants in Pakistan-controlled areas. He has dishonored his promise to [the] people of Pakistan and to the international community to give up his military uniform. It is almost impossible for India to trust him. And finally [there is] the Baglihar Dam being built in Indian Kashmir. Due to the differences between the countries, Pakistan has gone to the World Bank. Reports from World Bank sources indicate that Pakistan's case was based much more on political grounds and very thinly on technical facts and that Pakistan has been advised to review its position. India has graciously asked Pakistan to return to the negotiating table to save its face. It should be noted that even during wars between the twins and in spite of Pakistan's support for cross-border terrorism into Indian Kashmir and elsewhere, India has never deprived Pakistan of its share of the water.
Vipul Thakore
London, England (Apr 13, '05)


[Re India sits pretty with US and China, Apr 13] Good article, great analysis. Please keep it up.
T Raman
California, USA (Apr 13, '05)


In a perceptive article (Old Iraqi nemeses, deadly demands [Apr 13]) Ehsan Ahrari mentions, "To enhance its legitimacy, [the future Iraqi government] must quickly prove that it, indeed, is independent of the Americans." He adds: "However, the new government ... faces a major challenge from the Iraqi insurgency. Consequently, its reliance on US forces also will continue out of necessity." The best way to overcome this problem is to engage politically the Sunni nationalists [who] form the most important component of the insurgency. This is exactly the course that the new Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has indicated he wishes to pursue with his proposal of an amnesty for Iraqi insurgents. [Tellingly], the American response to Talabani's initiative was negative. Richard Boucher, spokesman for the US State Department, said, "I think as a general proposition, no, we don't think it's appropriate to give amnesty to people who have killed American or coalition forces, or Iraqi forces for that matter." It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Americans will not tolerate a truly independent Iraqi government. They can be expected to oppose any genuine plan to bring Sunni nationalists into the government. This is because the sine qua non for national reconciliation in Iraq is the eventual and complete departure of Americans from the country. This is the last thing that [US President George W] Bush and his advisers want.
Patrick Cummins
Victoria, British Columbia (Apr 13, '05)


[Re] Beijing blacks out anti-Japan protests [Apr 13]: Well well, Chinese censors are burning the midnight oil by imposing a news blackout on the violent anti-Japanese protests that China's irresponsible leadership had unleashed. Prime Minister [Junichiro] Koizumi has rightfully made the proper diplomatic demarches to China about the unruly mobs which Chinese police and military authorities have allowed with lackadaisical public spirit - itself highly suspicious. It is not surprising that world sympathy favors Tokyo. Chairman Mao [Zedong] had the annoying habit of reminding foreigners: you raise a big rock to throw at your enemies, but by its size and weight, it falls on one's toes. And that is [precisely] what is happening today in China. For if anything the Chinese [Communist] rulers fear ... the wrath of [their] own people, the more especially in [these] rapidly changing times: in a strong developing economy with huge disparity in wealth, yawning differences between town and country, unchecked corruption among the ruling classes and their progeny. So one has to ask, why has Beijing relaxed ever so slightly the choking reins of control? The textbook protests which caught on like a prairie fire [are] a pretext. China fears a countervailing power to challenge its own expansionist pretensions and to the awakening of its unbridled nationalism and arrogance. Japan's [permanent seat] in the United Nations Security Council, China fears, [would] perhaps diminish its presence there. China's bullying will only encourage constitutional revision in Japan, ultimately resulting in a rearmed military, which is the prerogative of [the] country to protect if from foreign interference in its internal affairs. China's irresponsible behavior, too, should be a wake-up call to its neighbors of China's imperial pretension, and to its American and European trading partners that such expansionism ... is nothing but a copy of the aggressive behavior of an imperial Japan or imperial Germany in the early 20th century. And by unleashing the frustrated, pent-up energies of the Chinese masses, Beijing should remember two things: you reap the whirlwind you sow, and a single spark can spread a prairie fire.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 13, '05)


The Philippines' nasty little war [Apr 12] was a very sad article to read. No wonder the Tausugs and other Muslim groups from the southern Philippines don't want to be Filipinos - just look at what the [Philippine] government and military have been doing to them. The violence and terror inflicted on the people of Sulu by the Philippine government and military make it clear who the real "terrorists" are. This article is further proof that the current ruling elite in the Philippines is morally bankrupt, incompetent when it comes to dealing with socio-economic issues like eliminating poverty, and hopelessly corrupt. The ruling elite is brazenly greedy, and they need to be removed from power. The only thing they have going for them is their puppet status for the Bush administration and for US neo-imperial interests generally ...
Gugurang
Ithaca, New York (Apr 13, '05)


I refer to the article [Pirates mock Malacca Strait security, Apr 9] written by Ioannis Gatsiounis concerning the Malacca Strait security and am perplexed as to the militaristic nature of the proposed solution. [In my opinion] it is essentially a law-and-order problem and not part of the "war on terror". Rather than requesting relatively few high-tech foreign navy patrol boats to guard against what essentially are armed gunmen in motorboats, wouldn't it be easier for companies to just employ armed (local) security guards to protect these multimillion-dollar shipments? I am not sure about insurance policies on shipping, but I believe insurance companies should look more kindly on "self-help".
Omega Lee aka Clement
Melbourne, Australia (Apr 13, '05)


[Re The myth of an Israeli strike on Iran, Apr 7: Kaveh L] Afrasiabi may be correct in asserting that political objections from Iran's neighbors would deny Israel the use of their airspace for an attack on Iran; but there are credible reports that Israel now has as many as nine submarines capable of launching missile strikes from the ocean, thus obviating the need for use of other countries' airspace. Of course these subs were made available through US aid and agreements.
Robert Clarke
Chicago, Illinois (Apr 13, '05)


Joseph Nagarya (letter [Apr 12]) commented on George W Bush's motives for going to war in Iraq: "No one ever said [personal revenge] was the only or primary unfounded excuse or lie for the illegal invasion and occupation." Please see Frank Yeo's letter to ATol dated April 8. The assumption that Bush wanted revenge (who wouldn't?) tells us nothing about whether or not he acted upon that emotion. Nagarya's evidence of Bush's character flaws may or may not be objective. What is not objective is the leaping conclusion that the evidence means that Bush probably went to war to exact revenge on [Iraqi president Saddam] Hussein. What line of reasoning could possibly lead someone to believe that because a person is in favor of the death penalty, or other typically Republican stances, the person is therefore likely to intentionally sacrifice thousands of American and Iraqi (and other nationals') lives for the sake of a personal vendetta? Nagarya exposed my moral complicity in Bush's "war crimes". I buy things made in China, so that makes me a supporter of communist one-party rule. I'm a pro-choice baby-killer. I voted for [2004 Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry, and [2000 Democratic candidate Al] Gore, against Bush, so I'm a pinko. And I'm for teaching evolution as science, and keeping creationism in the realm of religion, which means I'm a godless human secularist. And to top it off I'm in cahoots with a war criminal. I'm in the express lane to hell.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Apr 13, '05)


Geoffrey Sherwood writes [letter, Apr 12]: "As [Jim] Lobe admits, even US president Bill Clinton was convinced that Saddam Hussein was behind the [alleged] attempt to assassinate [Poppy] Bush ..." Which does not, of course, make the allegation true. "There is scant reason to think that Bush Jr was not similarly convinced" - especially, as we now know (and was clear long before), from the moment [George W] Bush stole his way into office he was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq; and as we now know, he was not concerned with whether they were true. "The Saddam Hussein regime had built up a reputation of wanting nothing more than to be pals with the US, if Jim Lobe and Charles Duelfer" - and the history of the Reagan-Poppy Bush-Rumsfeld relations with Hussein, including provision of weapons to him before, during, and after he "gassed his own people" - are to be believed. We believe the evidence, Mr Sherwood; your ideological task is to falsify the facts in effort to suppress the evidence against your non-existent-high-moral-ground pro-Bush effort. In addition: Bush appointed Charles Duelfer to find Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] precisely because Duelfer, exactly like Bush, unequivocally "knew" Iraq had such weapons, thus could be relied upon to find exactly that conclusion, regardless the actual evidence. Instead, Duelfer got conscience and honestly and objectively reported the actual facts as he found them. And those facts were exactly the same as cited by Scott Ritter before, and during, Bush's lying of the US into illegally invading and occupying Iraq. You fool no one: your efforts to lie away the facts are bound to fail, because the world knows the facts in spite of the efforts of such as yourself to falsify history.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Apr 13, '05)


[Joseph] Nagarya, I share so many of your views about the Bush administration, and I applaud your bravery in expressing them with such conviction, even as I curb my outspokenness while scanning the horizon for black helicopters. I live in a place where there are lots of those. I enjoy your posts, but I feel obligated to caution you about their tone as the US is no longer a "free" country ... Regarding the Terri Schiavo incident, you are correct that the obvious political maneuvering by [President George W] Bush in Washington and by [Governor] Jeb Bush in Florida was sheer hypocrisy, as [George W] Bush signed legislation in Texas that authorized just what he was arguing against, and in fact just shortly before the Schiavo matter, an eight-month-old baby had its life support disconnected by doctors against the wishes of parents, and that is standard procedure in Texas. As ATol once pointed out to me, Bush is what we've got, and so we will have to stomach him until God stops telling him to do awful stuff, which isn't likely any time soon. The late pope John Paul, representing the god he worked for, once told Mr Bush, "If you go into Iraq, you go without God," and we all know how that turned out even as "Dubya" managed to hog copious attention at the pope's funeral accompanied by dutiful looks of sadness smeared across his ungodly kisser ... Please forgive me if I seem to be speaking with forked tongue in passing on caution to you since I speak out against the administration as well, although somewhat more moderately. And so, coupled with my pro-China stance on most issues, I will likely be placed in a cell across from yours at the appropriate time, if not in an internment camp for designated sinophiles. (I'll be the one wearing the cowboy hat.) Perhaps, though, you might consider my view that this doesn't matter much, since you and I have enjoyed the best of life in these United States during times when freedom meant something more than "nothing left to lose". We must maintain our sense of humor to tease us away from madness at times, n'est-ce pas?
Rachel Hassold
Waco, Texas (Apr 13, '05)


I write in response to Chrysantha Wijesyasingha's April 12 letter. Mr Wijesyasingha has ignored the specific points I raised in my letter of April 11. I would love to have received a response to Fact 2 of my letter. There is no absurdity in my comment that sites that are dominated by Hindus are full [of] hatred for Pakistan and Muslims in general. Look at the ATol forum relating to India-Pakistan. I can refer you to many other such sites. One would conclude from reading those comments that all Hindus were extremists. An onerous conclusion I know. But many onerous conclusions are made about Muslims too. Here is an absurd conclusion often drawn by most intelligent of people: one Muslim kills a non-Muslim, therefore all Muslims hate non-Muslims. Here is another absurd conclusion but one that Muslims do not generally come to: Hindu mob slaughters Gujarati Muslims, therefore all Hindus hate Muslims. This is absurdity, sir, and you will find this in real life. My comments are not absurd but based on overwhelming evidence. I quite agree with you: Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent may be ethnically the same but religiously "poles apart". I disagree with you, sir: The Hindu and Muslim migration to India is driven by economic, not religious, factors. As economic migration has gone on from time immemorial, Pakistani Hindus and Muslims are not doing anything strange by moving to India. But [the fact] that most of the "untouchable" caste of India is abandoning Hinduism and converting to Christianity is caused by religious persecution by higher-caste Hindus. No Hindus are persecuted in Pakistan. The following point has been quite educational for me, and I thank you for that, sir, that there is a mosque in Varanasi, the holiest Hindu city. It says a lot to me about the tolerance of the Muslims and Hindus alike. Why have things changed now? Is it because the Hindu society is in the grip of Hindutva? Yes, Mecca does not have any temples; that is because Islam forbids idol worship. Since Mecca is a holy city, temples for idol worship would not be allowed. Would the Vatican allow a mosque in Vatican City? If you would like to read about Muslim tolerance, then may I respectfully suggest you read the Muslim history in Spain and how Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony under Muslim rule. Remember also that Jews persecuted by European Christians always found a safe sanctuary with Muslims. Also when Muslims were persecuted they found sanctuary in Christendom. That's tolerance. The Taliban were wrong to tear down the Bamiyan Buddhas. That is not just my opinion but that of most Muslims. Islam, although it does not allow idol worship, categorically forbids tearing down of religious symbols of other faiths. In fact I remember reading a report around that time in a UK daily that the destruction of the Buddhas was a Taliban response to American intransigence. So it was do with politics. No justification though. Some mullahs of Islam (not all), like "mullahs" of other religions, may be genetically linked. I am talking of those mullahs who preach hatred and intolerance in the name of religion. Islam has its fair share of such people. Allama Iqbal, the great philosopher, thinker and poet, was also called a heretic by some mullahs just because he disagreed with them. Therefore this is not a strange phenomenon to me. Just because some mullahs are intolerant does not make Islam intolerant. Now if the source of your knowledge [is] Western books you may not have heard of Allama Iqbal ...
A Sultan
Manchester, England (Apr 13, '05)


Chen Shui-bian is the president of a "sovereign" nation? Daniel McCarthy [letter, Apr 12] seems to have more authority than former secretary of state Colin Powell, who said Taiwan was not a sovereign nation. Could it be just a bigger mouth?
Li (Apr 13, '05)


John Steppling of Krakow, Poland [letter, Apr 11], you live 60 kilometers from Auschwitz-Birkenau and in a country where 3 million Polish Christians were murdered, and 3 million Polish Jews. The Jews begged and pleaded to bomb the gas chambers, the crematoria and the railway lines leading to Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1943 and 1944. If the Americans had had the atomic bombs in 1943, the atomic bombing of Berlin, or preferably the city where [Adolf] Hitler was busy screwing up his Russian campaign, would have been totally justified, in my opinion. This would have ended mass murder in Europe and would have impressed [Japanese Emperor] Hirohito. You live in a country where all the extermination centers were located. You live in an area where ultimately 6 million European Jews were murdered and 20 million European Christians. Japanese atrocities in Japanese-occupied Asia resulted in 30 million innocents murdered. You say that the murder of 30 million in Asia, which came to an abrupt halt after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did not justify the use of atomic bombs. In your reply of April 11 you state that the atrocities I described were lurid and melodramatic and were simply not the issue, that all wars are cruel and that the Americans dropped the atomic bombs only to impress [Soviet leader Josef] Stalin. Such drivel. You have forgotten your admonitions to ATol about Hiroshima. It was the issue. Currently, the Court Jews in the Court of Robber Baron Dubya and the leadership in Israel are faced with a huge problem: How to protect the ghetto which is Israel from the millions of hostile western Asians surrounding them. Should they contemplate a preemptive nuclear strike before mass murder takes place? They would be the pariahs of the global community forever. And if they maintain the status quo with Jewish settlements, established as a result of religion-driven geopolitics (their god promised them this real estate), will Israelis eventually be forced into exile from western Asia? John Steppling of Krakow, Poland, ask your hosts a rhetorical question: What do they think of the usefulness of an atomic bombing on Germany in 1943/44?
AL
Canada (Apr 13, '05)


ATol, which is otherwise a superb medium of very objective reporting, is being turned into a platform for a Zionist (Spengler) and a Hindu fanatic (B Raman). Both these writers cannot complete a sentence without introducing some hate-mongering against Muslims and Islam. This is the real terrorism and not the perceived terrorism ascribed to Muslims. If you take all the writings of Spengler, Raman and their ilk, you will find that they have written volumes of hate-filled material which has led to this so-called clash of civilizations and set up the Muslims of the world as sacrificial animals at the altars of Zionist and Hindu gods. ATol should stop promoting these writers and work towards a better understanding of civilizations and give more space to writers such as Henry C K Liu, Syed Saleem Shahzad and Pepe Escobar. Why not invite Israel Shamir to write for ATol?
Vincent Maadi (Apr 13, '05)


ATol, you make forgiveness sound as yucky as I make tolerance sound. Aren't we a pair!
Beth Bowden (Apr 13, '05)

There is nothing "yucky" about forgiveness if it is offered to someone who has genuinely offended. Our argument all along has been that exercising one's freedom to choose one's religion is not, from the secular point of view, an offense, and therefore there is nothing to forgive - unless and until, as you have rightly suggested previously, this "freedom of religion" is perverted into antisocial behavior such as suicide bombing or other indiscriminate violence. - ATol


Francesco Sisci wrote, "This item illustrates two serious brush-offs that the Vatican, the most ancient and careful diplomacy in the world, gave Chen: 1) It didn't give him the right to represent China, but only his island, Taiwan" [ China, Catholic Church at a crossroads , Apr 12]. Yes of course, Mr Sisci. Chen Shui-bian has repeatedly made clear that he is the president of a sovereign and independent nation, Taiwan, operating under an outdated name (Republic of China) imposed by a foreign dictator (Chiang Kai-shek). News flash for Mr Sisci: President Chen has never purported to be president of China, nor does he aspire to be. It is fundamental misunderstandings of the facts such as this which render Mr Sisci's writings useless in terms of analysis, but humorous nonetheless.
Daniel McCarthy (Apr 12, '05)


Re China, Catholic Church at a crossroads [Apr 12] by Francesco Sisci: Rather than messing with some distant expansionist Eurocentric theology saddled with modern criminal abuses and historically imperialist structures, China should bring in the Dalai Lama for talks on transforming China to become a true multi-ethnic but peaceful and united nation. Frank of Seattle writes [letter, Apr 11]: "China is not going to follow India's instructions of giving up their friendships with their neighbors ... Dragons never die. Elephants do." Well, well, India is China's neighbor, and so you are contradicting neighborliness with hostility. Frank of Seattle, I have supported your dog analogy to be applicable to all non-Western peoples. However, you seem to be degenerating. Beware of your arrogance, because dragons are mythological whereas elephants are real.
Roy
USA (Apr 12, '05)


Joseph Nagarya writes [letter, Apr 11] that I've misquoted him as a "supporter". Well, when in his original response to my letter regarding Spengler's column Ratzinger's mustard seed [Apr 5], Mr Nagarya wrote that he "largely agree[d] with [my] critique" I took it as an expression of support. Maybe my English has gotten a bit rusty, so I apologize. At any rate, he argues that philosophy trumps religion since the former achieves the closest proximity to real objectivity and the latter only huffs and puffs in self-satisfied grandstanding. (Not much length can be granted here in ATol's Letters section, so I am taking the liberty to summarize.) But since no religion has ever acquiesced to be on an equal footing with philosophy, no religion can be described as a mere human endeavor (not least because well over 90% of humanity believes in God), unless philosophy would violate its own tenets and insist on its position irrationally. The architects of modernism have chosen the latter option consistently for the last two centuries - crowning Relativism as the new god and dressing it with humanistic, sometimes traditionally religious, terms to construct ideology. Naturally, what has transpired in the real world is unprecedented bloodshed and reversion to prehistoric tribalism, and yet the pretension at the start of the journey was that the warm, rational world we were headed for away from the loathed priests and clerics would be a humanist utopia. The arrogance, or extreme denial, after two global wars and nuclear proliferation is that religion is still the bad guy. Regarding Spengler's [Apr 12] column [Africa, Islam and the next pope], it is a stretch asserting that the world's two largest faith movements, with a combined number of followers totaling over half of humanity, cannot find common grounds for dialogue and peace. To justify his convoluted logic, Spengler stretches Cardinal Ratzinger's words and implies that African Catholics aren't really Christian - the specter of racism such an implication raises is evidently no big deal. As for the "anti-incarnational" aspect of Islam, could one of Islam's mainstream, established theologians like Imam Al-Ghazali or Ibn Rushd be quoted before the fate of 3 billion humans is sealed? Or is that too much to ask from our bigotry-free friend Spengler?
Bilal Saqib
USA (Apr 12, '05)


Ioannis Gatsiounis' article Pirates mock Malacca Strait security (Apr 9) is written from a typical American perspective, judging the East with Western eyes. Pirating was the side-income of the natives long before the first colonizers entered those waters. The Southeast Asian countries keep their areas pretty well under control, unlike the Americans with their typical crimes, which are a multiple higher. Another point is that Asian pirates usually don't kill. If Gatsiounis feels unsafe he should return to New York and make a general comparison of crime in Asia and America. Perhaps he should also compare the number of inmates in the US, Asia and the rest of the world. Under no circumstance should any Western powers be allowed to police Asia - they are the cause of all the troubles in the world. I would also recommend the ban of US movies [that] terrorize the world with their crime scenes and ... are the cause for many copycat actions.
Max
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Apr 12, '05)


ATol, we are both discussing the same thing, I hope, Identity, tolerance and the virgin seekers by Rabbi Moshe Reiss (Apr 8). I just want to be sure because your comment, that I am implying that the forgiven party did something wrong, kind of threw me. Let me clarify that so that I am no longer implying. The forgiven party, the suicide bombers and Yasser Arafat, did something wrong. I need to point out something here, however. They are all dead. I know that forgiveness is sometimes hard but in the case of forgiving the dead, it is very easy. Call it my suggestion for a first step in their new plan for peace between Israel and Palestine. I realize that they have many more steps to go but taking that first step is the biggie.
Beth Bowden
USA (Apr 12, '05)

Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, just as not all Catholic priests are child molesters. We were questioning the validity of a philosophy that denigrates "tolerance" of ordinary, non-bombing, non-perverted people going about their daily lives without "forgiving" them first for choosing the wrong religion. - ATol


While this debate is better done in the forum section, I am compelled to respond to A Sultan [letter, Apr 11] because of some glaring inaccuracies. My problem was with Sultan Shahin, a supposedly Indian "expert" of Muslim origin, taking liberty to write what I term as left-wing propaganda. (You are free to educate yourself of other points of view, for instance from this book by Rafiq Zakaria, another Indian of Muslim origin.) To begin with, he citing no hatred for Hindus in Pakistan is a little naive considering that Hindus were [ethnically] cleansed in Pakistan 50 years ago and considering numerous Pakistani terrorists coming to India (and not the other way around). Furthermore, I believe what you are saying regarding Hindus (and Indians) being freely allowed to visit Pakistan. Great! Now convince the army and mullahs that run your country to allow more air and bus services and throw in some trade as well. After all, the Hindu banias [merchants] will pay for hotels and meals, so it is not such a bad deal for Pakistan. Finally, since you brought [up] the Gujarat word, I would like to remind you that Hindu train passengers, mostly women and children, were burned alive by a Muslim mob (with strong underworld and Pakistani ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] ties). Considering Dawood Ibrahim runs his underworld empire from Karachi/Islamabad, considering every al-Qaeda terrorist arrested in Pakistan was actually found is some army house, I imagine the link of Pakistanis, drug running, criminal activity etc is not entirely specious.
AP (Apr 12, '05)


[A] Sultan's statement [letter, Apr 11] that the comment section is dominated by "Hindus" whose cause is to denigrate Islam at every turn is absurd. First of all I am not a Hindu nor [a Muslim], I am a Catholic who learned by reading history books written by Western writers about the history of the subcontinent. I learned that the Mughal empire was one of the most illustrious empires of its age. I also learned that many of the emperors did not follow the strict teachings of the Koran in their art. That is why we have human figures in the miniature paintings, which is forbidden in Islam - even the zealot Aurangzeb was portrayed in miniatures (whether to his liking or not). Islam came peacefully to India around the 7th century and by the 11th century became an invading force. That is why the 3,000-year-old Hindu holy city of Varanasi does not have a temple that dates before the 16th century. As for Muslims and Hindus being "cousins", ethnically yes, but religiously they are at opposite sides of the pole. As for Pakistan being the same as India, it seems strange to me that the population of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh [has] steadily decreased, many choosing to go to India, while in India the Muslim population has steadily increased, [they] preferring to stay in India than migrate to either Pakistan or Bangladesh. Varanasi, the holiest Hindu city, has a large mosque in it while Mecca, the holiest Muslim city, has no other building belonging to any other religion except mosques. Does that say anything to you about Islamic tolerance, Mr Sultan? If the extremist Taliban feel quite "holy" in tearing down a world heritage site of the Bamiyan Buddhas, should the Muslims in India set fire to all those miniature paintings done by the Muslim emperors because they, like the Bamiyan Buddhas, depict the human form? Would that be "civilized" enough for you? As for those enlightened emperors, have you also read what the Muslim clerics of their time thought about them? They considered them heretics. Yes, heretics except for (the temple-destroying) Aurangzeb. If you ever get to see any of the miniatures where he is portrayed, he has a halo. How nice.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 12, '05)


Chrysantha Wijeyasingha from New Orleans in [his] letter of April 11 says that "Pakistan is a tinderbox of extreme Islamic movements". We all know the source of these popular myths and those who do not have much contact with Pakistanis readily take such myths to be the gospel truth. It will therefore surprise many when I say that Pakistan is a moderate Islamic state. Pakistan does have more than its fair share of extremists but so [do] India, Israel, America, Europe etc. Just because the international media [give] too much prominence to the extremist voices in Pakistan does not make the whole nation extremist. Fact 1: India had a fundamentalist Hindu government in the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party], and I do not need to reiterate here the slaughter of the Gujarati Muslims under its auspices. We also know that extremist Hindus of the BJP and RSS ([Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh or National Volunteer Corps] the militant wing of BJP) are primed to target Indian Muslims and their property. We have an extremist Jewish government in Israel. It is never out of the news for its atrocities against Palestinians. In the background of the Bush government [of the US] we have the Christian extremists called the neo-conservatives. We all know what their agenda for the Muslim world is and it has nothing to do with democracy. The world therefore seems to be in the grip of religious extremism. Fact 2: Would it have been possible for the USA and Europe to get the Russians out of Afghanistan without the "Muslim extremists"? I think not. It was the "tinderbox" of Muslim extremism, Pakistan, and the Pakistan army and its military strategists including, yes, the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence], that drove the Russians out of Afghanistan (with American help of course). These "Muslim extremists" laid down their lives to protect the oil and therefore our liberty. More than half of the world would have been communist and the West would have lost its oil. The 21st century would have belonged neither to China nor India. The world owes a favor to Muslim extremists and Pakistan, if you try to put things into proper context. An unbiased analysis, I suppose, is out of fashion in these "modern times".
A Sultan
Manchester, England (Apr 12, '05)


Frank's arrogance and the accompanying dim-witted humor are amazing [letter, Apr 11]. He proclaims [that] elephants die, but dragons do not. Huh? Doesn't he realize that dragons are ugly fire-spitting monsters? They have a bad attitude, and do things by brute force. Who the heck cares whether or not they are eternal - they are mythical anyway. Frank has never been able to swallow the fact that Indian FDI [foreign direct investment], when counted the Chinese way, turns out to be much greater than what it otherwise is. As a saying goes, truth is often bitter, and given Frankie boy's history of loudly denying known facts simply because he doesn't like them, his reaction is not surprising. Just like a bad-tempered child. Frank claims that Indian leaders realize that arrogance will not bring peace, but as expected his highly selective lens does not capture the fact that the Chinese leaders themselves have gradually climbed down from their arrogant pedestal and have started talking to India on border disputes, which is of course a positive development - but certain petty-minded hypocrites will try to paint everything that happens these days as a grand victory of their divine Chinese regime. As far as China not following other people's instructions in 2,000 years ([I] am quite clueless how one can arrive at this number), what about the fact that the Chinese people are following the instructions of a small number of self-ordained and often arrogant "representatives"? Who should be ashamed of that (assuming Frank is still up to his old shame game that he seems to have a never-ending appetite for)?
Rakesh
India (Apr 12, '05)


Regarding Frank's letter [Apr 11, re] "Dragon and Elephant", I would like to agree with you on this. I would also add that in order to understand the dragon, you need to fill the shoes (or claws) of the dragon - become a predator yourself. Indian leaders were wimps in dealing with this dragon and still are dismally pathetic. The leadership has already sacrificed Tibet and got nothing from China. China annexed [parts of] Kashmir and India is just crying about it. China claims Arunachal Pradesh while India is begging China to rest its claim on it. If India were to play the dragon with fire, it would have refused to accept Tibet as Chinese territory until China were to concede Aksai Chin, Pakistan conceded Kashmir and Arunachal. Tibet is a landmass [of] approximately 1.2 million square kilometers, while Sikkim is 7,000 square kilometers. The only way to get respect from a dragon is to play fire with fire. I cannot [understand] why Indian leaders do not see how this dragon has taken them to be stupid. Recently, Wen [Jiabao was] in India to announce that India and China can dominate the global IT [information technology] business. Sorry Wen, India is already there. What about tie-ups in manufacturing? Why cannot the Indian leaders pitch for this sector? China wants a FTA [free-trade agreement] so it can dump its goods in India - what would be the Indian gain? Raw material from India and the "failed states" will move to China and finished goods will flood their markets. Indian leadership has always been spineless; it dreams more than what reality can offer; it talks more than it can really deliver.
D J Bhattacharya (Apr 12, '05)


So, dogs are out and elephants are in. Maybe that is the animal they are currently teaching in whichever school the clown from Seattle [letter writer Frank] is attending. His writings lead me to deduce that he was born in the "year of the monkey". It is amusing to see the handiwork of the pen that functions independent of the brain as in "dragons don't die, elephants do". To most folks dragons signify something hideous, destructive and malignant that ought to be slain. The dictionary defines the dragon as a "mythical monster" (alluding to the commies in China, perhaps?). True, dragons cannot die, for they are fictional, as are most of his fanciful claims, while elephants are as real as India's economic growth. Dragons are more often than not found in comic books, which seem to be [a] decisive source of this clown's facts. It is hard to think that ATol editors are unbiased since they repeatedly publish this idiot's notes, which seem to have no merit other than silly comparisons with the "animal of the day". Is it a deliberate move to liven up the Letters column or [is] there some bias that is showing up despite all the holier-than-thou homilies to impartiality?
Sri
New York, USA (Apr 12, '05)

We banned Frank's caninical ravings because they were tedious and increasingly offensive. Dragons and elephants (especially the latter; see Thailand's clash of the titans, Sep 15, '04) are fun, so we hope they do not suffer a similar fate. - ATol


Geoffrey Sherwood writes [letter, Apr 11]: "Frank Yeo's belief that George W Bush went to war in Iraq to avenge his father is based entirely on a single out-of-context comment that ... Bush made ... I was unable to find anyone who uses the quote to impugn [his] motives and provides the full context and the quote." I have and do impugn election-thief Bush's avowed motives in every area, including that of his illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq - and use that revealing instance of his anti-"Christian" vindictiveness along with others at least as revealing. As with that Iraq invasion and occupation, and the lies upon which those were and are based, his claim that Saddam Hussein "tired to kill [his] dad" was never backed up with a shred of evidence, despite requests that he provide it. Exactly as he provided none to back up his lies about Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. "I will ... assume that Bush was not saying that personal revenge was the primary raison de guerre" (for the illegal invasion and occupation). No one ever said it was the only or primary unfounded excuse or lie for the illegal invasion and occupation; but it was persuasive for those who live for revenge as substitute for actual justice under rule of law. "There is nothing about the character of [Torturer-in-Chief] Bush that indicates to me that he would sacrifice his primary responsibility for the safety of 280 million Americans for personal revenge." Where his character is lacking, and therefore lacking as "evidence", there is much in the objective evidence that says he would: his mockery, at a press conference, of Karla Faye Tucker's plea for mercy. His record number of executions as Texas governor. His failure to prevent [the events of September 11, 2001] because he both viewed terrorism as a "Clinton thing", therefore not valid, and his exclusive foci before then on "Star Wars", tax cuts for those needing them least, and an energy policy based upon invading Iraq - and the intensive effort to find excuse for that illegality; and his authorization of the war crime of torture without bothering with your "technicality" of democratic due process to determine whether the torturee was guilty of anything. And then there's that little thing of supporting US involvement in Vietnam - but not showing up for duty for sufficient length of time to be, as defined in law, AWOL [absent without leave], which is a court-martial offense; his claim to be a "Christian" - while his actions are directly contrary to the Commandments on which that claim is based; and his recent drive to exploit the private Schiavo tragedy for political gain - about as sleazy, characterless, and necrophilic as one can get. You fool no one, Mr Sherwood: you object to mention of law because it reflects adversely upon your phony hero, the leader of the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory. It nonetheless remains the fact, Mr "Character", that those who support, defend, and rationalize Bush's petty vindictiveness, criminality, and war crimes are morally complicit in them. Are you also, like him, for shoving Bush-style "Christian" "values" down the throats of captive public-school children, in total disregard of both the constitution and their parent's wishes? ...
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Apr 12, '05)


The ATol editors wrote [under Geoffrey Sherwood's letter of April 11]: "For a look at [George W] Bush Jr's and Bill Clinton's responses to the allegations of Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate former US president George H W Bush, and an analysis of the validity of the allegations themselves, see So, did Saddam really try to kill Bush's dad? (Oct 21, '04) by Jim Lobe." That's an article that I did catch first time around and remember well. As Lobe admits, even US president Bill Clinton was convinced that Saddam Hussein was behind the attempt to assassinate former US president George H W Bush during Bush's visit to Kuwait in 1993. There is scant reason to think that Bush Jr was not similarly convinced, regardless of whether Hussein was involved or not. The Saddam Hussein regime had built up a reputation of wanting nothing more than to be pals with the US, if Jim Lobe and Charles Duelfer are to be believed. Lobe embraces the view of Duelfer, of the "Iraq Survey Group", who stated that between 1994 and 1998 Hussein's emissaries of love expressed a desire to be Washington's "best friend in the region bar none". This was not long after the attempted assassination of George H W Bush, and Clinton's reprisal attack in 1993. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi experienced a similar epiphany and became a really nice guy after the Lockerbie incident and subsequent reprisal attack. That's the main stanza of the lullaby, anyway. If it is true that the US double-crossed Saddam Hussein, promising not to interfere if his army wandered into Kuwait (with no intention of making good on the promise) as an inducement to fight a godawful fight against Iran (the 1980-89 war), and then awkwardly, ambiguously reneged on the deal (remember the "fall girl", April Glaspie - the US ambassador to Iraq on the eve of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? She was drawn and quartered for sending Hussein mixed signals when, in fact, she was almost certainly unaware of the earlier "understanding", if such an "understanding" existed. Maybe a pug-nosed journalist will one day get to the bottom of it), then I think that the US State Department's Larry Johnson is more convincing than Lobe and Duelfer when he posits that Hussein was simply following his "gangster" ethic and that "personal honor was involved" in his attempted assassination of George H W Bush.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Apr 12, '05)


[Re Revival of the Taliban, Apr 9]: Let's wish them the best of luck - they're such heroes.
Steve Crall
Arlington, Virginia (Apr 11, '05)


[Regarding] the article Sino-Indian ties marred by the 'P' word [Apr 9], I would like to say that Indian leaders have never had restraint in voicing their objections, whether to the UN or other major nations. [India's] silence, then, is very telling. It illustrates to me that the Indian leaders do not need to drag in the Pakistan issue with China when India has hardly any leverage with either country. It would be better to observe the saying "silence is golden" and glean from the ongoing Sino-Pakistani relationship what India needs to know to defend herself and influence the world at large. China's choice for an alliance with Pakistan looks good on the surface but Pakistan is a tinderbox of extreme Islamic movements, a dictatorial regime and the growing US influence over Pakistan. After all, [President General Pervez] Musharraf never snapped to his heels [nor did an] about-face with China the way he did with the USA after [President George W] Bush had a "strong conversation" with Pakistan about [its] support of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Here lies a part of India's strength, the poor and slippery partner China has chosen to counter India. Remember, there is always the US lurking around, and at this time Indo-US relationships are at an all-time high.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 11, '05)


The recent "Dragon and Elephant" articles [Sino-India ties marred by the 'P' word; Promise and problems, Apr 9] are getting more realistic. There are no more large mouths and huge lips to move up India's FDI [foreign direct investment] by tenfold or flying cars zipping ahead in the future state of India. It seems like eventually, Indian leaders realize arrogance will not bring peace for India. China is not going to follow India's instructions of giving up their friendships with their neighbors. They never followed other people's instructions before in the last 2,000 years. And they never will in the next 2,000 years. Dragons never die. Elephants do.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Apr 11, '05)


Ioannis Gatsiounis' article [Pirates mock Malacca Strait security, Apr 9] simply spins anew an old yarn: Pirates have haunted the Malacca Strait for centuries. They have roamed the seas with impunity, it seems. They are a plague that is best ignored until the pirates violate centuries-old customs of live-and-let-live. And when they do, in concert or alone, Malaysia or Singapore or Indonesia will search them out. Western Malaysia's coastline is dotted with mangrove swamps which are impossible to patrol. Draining them in an effort to deny pirates a safe haven, too, is a task which would bankrupt oil-rich Malaysia.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 11, '05)


I want to say about the review (The road to amity [Apr 9]) by Sreeram Chaulia on the book Indian Muslims: Where Have They Gone Wrong? by Rafiq Zakaria [that] it is a very thoughtful and thought-provoking review. I do believe that Indian print media give undue coverage to the parochial leaders such as Syed Shahabuddin and Imam Bukhari. I wish [that] electronic and print media in India [could] highlight the message of books and the facts such as Shivaji, the Maratha warrior king, had one-third Muslim soldiers in his army. The supreme commander of his navy was a Muslim. At the same time, Aurangzeb, Mughal emperor, against whom Shivaji fought the war, had ... Hindu soldiers, and one of his major commanders was Hindu - Jai Singh, the king of Jaipur. The Great Akbar had a large number of Hindu soldiers, and Man Singh was one of his major military commanders.
Shekhar
Chicago, Illinois (Apr 11, '05)


Re Sultan Shahin's article Pakistani heavyweights take their pitch to India [Apr 8]: In the interest of accuracy may I suggest that Sultan Shahin relabel his article "Pakistani political lightweights take their pitch to India". The world knows that excepting General [Pervez] Musharraf's top brass, everyone else is a lightweight in Pakistan. I can understand if a Pakistani writer chose to depict these underlings as heavyweights (though even Pakistani journalists like Ayaz Amir have nothing but scorn for Shujat Hussain). But Sultan is an Indian journalist. He does not stop with Pakistan. His description of a criminal lightweight like Lallu Yadav as the pillar of Indian government begs the question, does it not then make the government criminal? I also find it insensitive for a journalist to record the boredom of Pakistan's polity with state-sponsored terrorism compared to the anguish, pain and suffering that it has cost families of over 100,000 Indians both civilian and military who have died in this proxy war sponsored by Pakistan. Further, how does Pakistan's denunciation of the attack in Srinagar mitigate its military's active involvement in Kashmir terrorism? Every Kashmir expert knows that the spigot of terrorism is firmly in the hands of Pakistan's military and it can stop or start with its whim or fancy. The request for talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is for Musharraf to turn the heat of an all party rally in Pakistan (to be held on the day he visits India) into a public relations success. That should not be difficult given the inarticulate and television-unfriendly PM that we have in Mr Singh. Not to mention a political lightweight.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Apr 11, '05)


Frank Yeo's (letter [Apr 8]) belief that George W Bush went to war in Iraq to avenge his father is based entirely on a single out-of-context comment that George W Bush made to Bob Woodward, which appears in Woodward's book Plan of Attack. The quote is that Saddam Hussein "tried to kill my dad". I was unable to find anyone who uses the quote to impugn Bush's motives and provides the full context of the quote. No surprise there. Without checking the context myself, I will go way out on a limb and assume that Bush was not saying that personal revenge was the primary raison de guerre. There is nothing about the character of George W Bush that indicates to me that he would sacrifice his primary responsibility for the safety of 280 million Americans for personal revenge. That's not to say that personal revenge could not have sweetened or eased his decision. Whatever one may rightly say about his past sleazy, unethical business dealings, his personal character in other regards - as a father and husband, as a real hit with the kids as a volunteer working with poor inner-city youth, and as a youthful stickball player urging his fellow jocks to cheer the most awkward, unathletic player to make him feel welcome - shows that he is little different from most of us. Unless all the people who corroborate those events are lying, and everyone who knows otherwise has mysteriously remained silent, I think reasonable people would agree that it is almost impossible to imagine Bush going to war for purely personal reasons. If my understanding is correct, there are several compelling reasons for the war in Iraq, none of which have been publicly acknowledged by the Bush administration, except that there was some genuine concern for the existence of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq and the possibility that they may be given to al-Qaeda. Admittedly, the evidence for the continued existence of WMD in Iraq was clearly doctored in order to build American and international support for the war. It was recognized almost immediately following September 11, 2001, that al-Qaeda was intent on getting and using WMD. Not long thereafter it was also recognized that al-Qaeda was too amorphous to be defeated militarily. The Bush administration also understood that it had little leverage over the Saudi benefactors of al-Qaeda (evidenced by the refusal of Saudi authorities to fully cooperate in the joint Saudi-FBI [US Federal Bureau of Investigation] investigation of the Khobar Towers bombing, among other things). Lastly, it is understood that American "homeland security", while much improved, will always be full of holes. Americans cannot stop thousands of Mexicans from coming across our borders every day. It is unlikely that we will be able to stop a handful of highly motivated, well-trained, intelligent al-Qaeda terrorists from infiltrating our nation. The logic for war flows from these facts. With a little work, and a little patience, the dots can be connected if one bears in mind that this is as much a psychological war as it is a war of bullets and bloodshed.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Apr 11, '05)

For a look at Bush Jr's and Bill Clinton's responses to the allegations of Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate former US president George H W Bush, and an analysis of the validity of the allegations themselves, see So, did Saddam really try to kill Bush's dad? (Oct 21, '04) by Jim Lobe. - ATol


[Iqbal F] Quadir [letter, Apr 8] wants us to believe that Aurangzeb, the man who killed his own brother and imprisoned his own father and a man famous for being an Islamic zealot, donated money to Hindu mandirs on the average of one per day, every day for the 49 years of his rule. He wants to believe that apartheid-like regimes facing constant external and internal threats could easily have converted a hostile population to its belief system. Aurangzeb actually "vastened the gulf between Hindus and Muslims. Restored Jaziya, the tax on non-Muslims. Razed temples, built mosques on their foundations. Forbade building of new temples, banned music at court, abolished ceremonies, persecuted Sikhs in Punjab." Some people just want to believe in the fantastic even if it is absurd. Mr Quadir might as well also believe that Oscar Schindler was really Adolf Hitler in disguise. Delusion is a prerequisite for a theocratic state, or a conscience-less state of mind.
Brij (Apr 11, '05)


I am writing in response to AP's letter of April 8. Most articles or letters written by Hindus that I have read in Asia Times [Online] and other subcontinent-related newsmagazines and websites have the following themes in common: (1) extreme hatred of Pakistanis; (2) Hindus are kind and civilized, Pakistanis are savages and terrorists; (3) All problems in India are a creation of Pakistanis and ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence]; (4) India is a democratic and secular state with no human-rights issues. The audacity is that they then go on to blame the Pakistanis for hating the Hindus. Here is a surprise for you, sir. You will not find a Pakistani Muslim hating a Hindu because he is a Hindu. But you will find many Hindus hating Muslims just because they are Muslims. That is a fact you must accept because the reality on the ground proves it. The evidence lies in your own mother, Indian soil. Search and you shall find, but only after you have discarded the blind hatred of Pakistanis and Muslims in general. Prejudice is a savage beast that cannot distinguish between friends and foes. AP asks: "How about Hindus being allowed to visit Taxila?" Sir, what stops you from visiting Taxila is the baseless and agenda-driven official propaganda against the Pakistanis and Muslims found in your media and the Hindutva ideology. Come out of that shell, visit Pakistan and Taxila, mingle with the Pakistanis, open up your horizons and be amazed at the Pakistani generosity, which after all is the same as Indian generosity, for are we not "cousins". No. We do not consider the archeological finds in Taxila as something to be destroyed just because it is infidel-owned. It would mean going against the Koranic teachings. The word "infidel" was used by Christians to refer to Muslims, but in Islamic teachings it has a very different meaning than the one you associate it with. I am beginning to believe that AP is influenced by the Hindutva speculations. Why would a "mullah-instigated Muslim mob" rape or kill a Hindu visiting Taxila? You cannot equate a "mullah-instigated Muslim mob" with the Hindutva-instigated and state-supported Hindu mob that ran rampant in Gujarat killing, raping [and] burning Muslims. For what you might call a fundamentalist Muslim such savagery would be unthinkable. Thank you for recognizing that we are cousins. But such hatred amongst cousins! We lived together for more than 600 years; surely enough time to understand each other. My comments are not intended to hurt or annoy anyone, but to show that if you dig deep enough you will find enough dirt to hurl at the "other". No one society is perfect. But of late and particularly after September 11, 2001, the Hindu media [have] borrowed the tones from the Western media and preached hatred of Muslims. I shudder to think what the next generation of Hindus, who have been brought up on such propaganda, will be like. Are we condemning the people of the subcontinent to the never-ending cycle of violence and hatred? The purveyors of hate take note.
A Sultan
Manchester, England (Apr 11, '05)


Bilal Saqib writes [letter, Apr 8]: "Thanks to Joseph Nagarya for his support." You misunderstand: I was not writing in support of your view; I was, rather, establishing necessary distinctions you failed to make - and in your "response" continue to not make. If there are limits to philosophy - humans, being finite and imperfect, therefore limited - then there are limits to every human endeavor, including "religion". Repeating the alleged words of an alleged prophet does not cure that human condition, though it does tend to inflate the ego to the degree that one tosses out all humility and thereafter goes about "perfectly" criticizing everyone but oneself for not having the "True Religion". Can one "possess" truth? "Religion" claims it does; philosophy proves it does not. Thus you either miss, or avoid, that point, by inventing opportunity to again express your individual "religious" view, in "response" to a "support" I most clearly did not express. It doesn't matter the "religion", despite your clear bias for yours, and against Judaism and "Christianity": Israel is controlled by its "religious" mores, and as such is governed by "Judaic" extremists; both Islam and "Christianity" are based upon Judaism, and we see not only Islamic and "Christian" extremism, but also, in the US from the "Christian" "conservatives", a raw and undisguised hatred of anything not itself based upon the alleged "Word of God". "God" thus is the excuse for all sorts of bad - and evil - behaviors. Beth Bowden [Apr 8] coincidentally asks if tolerance even exists. It is certain that "religion" preaches tolerance as necessary ("Nothing needs reforming so much as other people's habits" - Mark Twain), while entirely missing almost every opportunity to demonstrate its meaning in its actual words and deeds. Tolerance does exist; but it is arrived at by philosophical reflection, not by means of "religions" which as practiced are only tolerant of their own views, and of those who succumb to them. "God" is an excuse to unleash one's totalitarian impulses - it's all "word of God" or words of "the Prophet", after all, therefore cannot be wrong, thus not to be argued against, or even critically, objectively examined. By contrast, philosophy says, "Wait a minute" - for which reason philosophers are among the first exterminated by "religious" totalitarians as "heretics" and "blasphemers" and "infidels". Or "witches", or "godless heathens", or "atheists". By contrast, genuine humility is honest, and makes relevant distinctions: it does not mistake belief, which can be erroneous, or faith in the belief, for knowledge, or truth. Philosophy ferrets out and corrects error; "religion" worships error, so long as it is "tradition" and can be wrapped in "God's word". ATol's editors respond to my letter [Apr 8]: "John Steppling likes to use the term 'outside the box' when criticizing Spengler," - as do I - "as a dig at the editors. In response to a query of his ... about why [ATol] doesn't dump Spengler, we used that phrase ..." I also responded critically, in the same exchange, to its use regarding Spengler, and gave detail: his thinking is not "outside the box", or even new; it is essentially nihilism, obscured by his naive and enthusiastic "playing with" and expressing of the neo-con[artist] "point of view", apparently based upon an even more uninformed love of "American Christianity", about which he is about as completely and perfectly wrongheaded as is possible for a finite, imperfect human. And which "Christianity", with a modicum of reason and discernment, is seen to be without merit, and without redeeming features, unless one is opposed to majority rule, and democracy ...
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Apr 11, '05)

Our comments about Spengler were not meant as a philosophical exhortation about his place in the universe, but only an observation about the little world of Asia Times Online. We noted the phenomenon that although nearly all of the correspondence we receive about Spengler is negative, he epitomizes what ATol, and its readership by extension, are all about: writing and reading controversial ideas in order to challenge and be challenged. Though neither you nor John Steppling will admit it, our most loyal readers keep coming back to ATol because of, not in spite of, provocative writers like Spengler, Escobar, Shahzad and Liu. - ATol


This is in reference to comments made by Yu Shiyu [letter, Apr 7]. Frankly, I don't see anything inappropriate from [Henry C K] Liu. First, as Mr Yu mentioned, it is a matter of public record and I don't see Mr Liu has tried to hide anything. Secondly, all things Mr Yu mentioned are either based on friendship or relationships of Mr Liu's relatives and I never see anyone, neither from the New York Times nor from the Washington Post, disclose similar type of relationships. Would you, Mr Yu, disclose any relationship you and your family may have in relate to your column in Lianhe ZaoBao, even just friendship? Mr Yu's conclusion that Mr Liu's views have lost [their] relevance because he has never lived as an ordinary Chinese is simply ridiculous. I, by any standard, am an ordinary Chinese and find that Mr Liu's articles are very intelligent and provocative. I don't agree with a lot of his views, but that doesn't prevent me from appreciating his knowledge and intelligence. A lot of Chinese I know share the same view. Please, Mr Yu, stop acting like you represent the ordinary Chinese. I think ordinary Chinese have more in common with Mr Liu than with you. To Mr Liu: keep up the good work. I enjoy reading your articles a lot.
AW (Apr 11, '05)


ATol, I would like to thank you for responding to my letter (Apr 7). I have two rhetorical questions for you. What is it that I offer no justification for, that there is no such thing as tolerance or that forgiveness and mercy are embedded in the soul? If your answer is that there is no justification for my suggestion that there is no such thing as tolerance, then you are quite right. After all, "tolerance" is a word in the dictionary. Oxford American Dictionary; "Tolerance - willingness or ability to tolerate; forbearance. Tolerate; 1. allow the existence of or occurrence of without interference. 2. endure (suffering etc)." I also would like to thank you for letting me know that I may be alarming the religionists. That news was music to my ears because the religionists have been alarming the secularists for years upon years. Turnabout is fair play. My second question to you is, if it is the secularists that "tolerate" because of their non-belief in a need for a supreme being to "embed it in their souls", why is it that "toleration" from the secularists feels nice while toleration from the religionists feels so yucky? I suggest that it is because the supreme being has no need to be believed in, He just is. I also suggest that it is about time for the secularists to stop tolerating the religionists and begin to guide with mercy and forgiveness, the religionists in the Middle East towards peace. I have one more suggestion for you. I suggest that you pay heed to the old adage: "Don't judge a book by its cover."
Beth Bowden (Apr 11, '05)

You are correct, we were challenging your conclusion that there is no such thing as tolerance. You seemed to be saying that forgiveness is all that is required of a right-thinking person, but "forgiveness" implies that the forgiven party did something wrong. - ATol


AL [letter, Apr 7] attempts to justify the dropping of the atom bomb on two Japanese cities by listing a string of atrocities committed by Japanese forces, and sanctioned by the Emperor. (Just a thought here; would Iraq be justified in nuking Washington to stop the endless killing in its occupied country?) First, I am sorry AL's family lost lives in the war. I am sorry when anyone loses a life pointlessly. However, this litany (lurid and melodramatic as it is) is quite simply not the issue. All wars contain atrocity. So, we ask, why are these wars being fought? The answer is usually quite complex and, in the case of World War II, it is particularly complex. It is usually a good rule of thumb to examine who profits from these exercises in destruction. In halting fascism in Europe, the US happened to serve a good cause. Check US involvement over the last 50 years and see if you can find another "good cause" to which it has lent its substantial military might. To imagine the US war with Japan as a simple one-dimensional affair is to misread history. The ruling class usually determines [the] war agenda, and usually has the poor of its country go and fight those wars. One has to at least try [to] trace back all the reasons, economic and political, that lead to conflict. Lives are not saved when one takes lives. Bombing Hiroshima didn't save lives - it took lives. I know it's pedantic of me to have to point this out, but there you are. It is far too simplistic to demonize a particular person and nation when discussing these things. For example, [Theodor] Adorno pointed out that [Adolf] Hitler was only the legator of an inheritance created long before his rise. Same with a George Bush - if he didn't exist, he would have to be invented. He is the logical outcome of bigger forces. My point was that Spengler is increasingly reactionary and I simply wonder if [Asia Times Online] sees this. I mentioned Hiroshima, and his support of the bombing, as part of his reductive approach to history and geopolitics. Dropping the bomb sent a message to [Josef] Stalin - that was the major motive. One really must question all the reasons for war, what might have prevented open conflict, and again, who profited. Spengler likes to talk about hating dictators, and yet refuses to seriously examine history and find out who supported those dictators and what purpose they served.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Apr 11, '05)


Saudi Arabia is hosting what it has dubbed the "Islamic Games" (April 4-20) in the main cities in the Hijaz region, Mecca, Medina and Taif. 6,000 participants will be representing 55 Muslim states, but there will be no women athletes or spectators. This apartheid system of exclusion and segregation is imposed in the name of Islam. The Saudis and other Muslims blame the West for not recognizing Islam as a faith of "peace and equality". There is nothing in the Koran or Sharia, Islamic law, that prevents women from competing in sports, working side by side with men or driving a car. The Saudi-Wahhabi interpretation of the Koran and Sharia is fully responsible for defaming Islam, for the creation and nurturing of religious extremists, sexism and ... the rejection of democratic systems which provide protection for all citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity and religious orientation. The "un-Islamic Games" that exclude women is the real defamation of Islam and its 1.2 billion adherents. The fact that the Saudi ruling family is hosting and paying for these exclusionary games is a further testimonial to the Saudi government's utter contempt for the true tenets of Islam. Saudi women are the victims of the Saudi-Wahhabi misinterpretation of Islam and empowering Saudi women will lead to the empowerment of Muslim women worldwide. Empowering Muslim women will lead to the disempowerment of religious extremists' domination over every aspect of Muslim women's lives and lessen terrorists' threats to the world community.
Ali H Alyami, Executive Director
The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia
Washington, DC (Apr 11, '05)


Sultan Shahin makes a great deal about Pakistanis realizing the "futility" of supporting terrorists operating in India (Pakistani heavyweights take their pitch to India [Apr 8]). It is like saying that your brother who has been stealing from you to support his drug habit has finally figured out that drugs are doing him no good. Okay, so what about the mess Pakistan has created in India? Did these heavyweights accept their responsibility for it? If no, why does that not surprise me? Finally, all this talk still is done by viewing this issue from a Muslim mind. I of course am a Hindu, and if Pakistanis are allowed to visit Ajmer, how about Hindus [being] allowed to visit Taxila? By the way, who owns the properties in Taxila and Mohenjodaro-Harrapa which Muslims (Indian or Pakistani) consider to be infidel property and therefore to be destroyed? Next time some of our Pakistani cousins are around, please pose these questions to them. The day when a Hindu Indian can take a bus to Taxila or drive up to Hindu Khush Mountains (destroyer of Hindus) without fear of being raped or killed by [a] mullah-instigated Muslim mob, we can talk of normalization. Till then, this is just pep talk to educate our Pakistani cousins.
AP (Apr 8, '05)


Rabbi Moshe Reiss tells us in Identity, tolerance and the virgin seekers (Apr 8) [that] for tolerance to be real, it must be embedded in one's soul. Jewish scripture speaks volumes about God's law on Earth, and in the New Testament Christ tells us that He came to uphold the law. My conclusion is that forgiveness and mercy [are] embedded in one's soul even as the law of God is fulfilled. What place does tolerance have? Is there even such a thing as tolerance? I think not.
Beth Bowden
USA (Apr 8,