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.)

Presumably you are trying to imply that our attempt to keep the Taiwan debate on track by repeating a portion of Daniel McCarthy's July 25 letter was "taking a position". The crux of the Taiwan debate is whether the principle of self-determination (vigorously defended by McCarthy and others) should or should not trump the principle of Greater Chinese sovereignty (vigorously defended by you, Gongshi and others). ATol has no position except that both views have merit and, when argued intelligently, should get a fair airing on our website. - ATol


I agree to large extent with the contents of Faraz's letter of July 27 and would like [to add more]. India was the one which tested a nuclear weapon for potential use against Pakistan. India and Pakistan have already fought three inconclusive wars over Kashmir, and a fourth one was narrowly averted because India accused Pakistan of aiding terrorism in Kashmir. Indian generals are always itching ... to launch an attack on Pakistan. As both sides now possess nuclear weapons, a ... war must be avoided at all costs; yet terrifyingly, neither population seems to understand what nuclear war really means. Indian military and politicians as well as a large majority of the population certainly seem to believe that they can defeat Pakistan on a mathematical advantage of 10:1 in reference to their land area [and] military power and amazingly are oblivious of the horrendous consequences of a such a war; or if they are [not], they [do not] give a damn as long as they can kill 10 times more Pakistanis. Arrogant and ignorant Indian generals are under the impression that it is a sort of kabadi match, which they must win. The masses have no proper education about the meaning of mushroom clouds, blasts, and radiation sickness and bomb shelters but they would be willing to go along with the wishes of their politicians and generals to erase Pakistan from the world map. It was a measure of ignorance at the top of the Indian establishment that when the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] government was in power, it let off what they called its "Hindu bomb" in 1998. There were serious proposals debated then in the party's leadership to build a Hindu shakti temple at the site of [the] explosion at Pokran, and to make it a center of national pilgrimage. Pakistan's existence is safe as long as it has nuclear capability, and the day it compromises or gives an inch to India, its sovereignty will be [endangered]. India does not want to settle the Kashmir dispute because as long as she can blame Pakistan for helping Kashmiris struggle for the liberation of their land and freedom of their people, it will have an excuse to attack Pakistan and settle her old score. Only a plebiscite among Kashmiris on both sides of the border, as ordered by a United Nations Security Council resolution of 1948, can hope to resolve the issue. Today to be a Muslim in Kashmir and in other parts of India makes them feel like a Jew in the late '30s in Germany; their status is no better that those of untouchables. As far as the ills of Pakistan are concerned, I say this with total honesty that Pakistani society is also stained and riddled with corruption and greed of many [who want] to get rich quicker and to hell with the country. Power and justice [lie] in the hands those who claim to be protectors and defenders of the law of the land but are often themselves its violators. It is still a feudal society, no doubt, where the big fish eats the small fish and the rich walks over the poor with merciless arrogance. And the reason for this slump is the rise of [a] secular middle class, which has jeopardized Islam and adopted many vulgar Western values.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jul 28, '05)


There is no justification whatsoever for killing innocent people, no matter who they are and where they are. Hurt and anger are natural outcomes in such cases and manifest in many ways, more so when the horrific tragedy is at home and in view of the threat that faces all of us in Britain today. Violence is disliked by any society - modern or ancient - as a way to express or resolve political or religious differences. Unfortunately, some people under the colonial influences have internalized the trends of violence set by the colonialists and oppressors. It is important to have effective measures to contain the threat that we British face but what is more important is to address the political violence. Talk about ["brainwashing"] and "evil ideologies" simply obscure the real issues involved. Let us also not forget the fact that people say all kinds of things, in local, national and international settings, to protect themselves or to gain recognition. Muslims are no exception. If it would be that easy to "brainwash" well-educated young British, the [House of] Commons would be full of young MPs [members of parliament]. Let us be honest and admit that the British socio-political conditions cultivate the sort of "ideological conditions" that people like [Prime Minister] Tony Blair wish to defeat but promote by the implication of their actions. Let us also be honest and acknowledge that the British and US policies in Middle East have been a failure, causing death and destruction and alienating billions of people around the world. It might be that the oil is now safe and more secure but are we, the British?
H Akhtar (Jul 28, '05)

Spengler has done well to support the Rumsfeld argument that Iraq today is different than Vietnam in the '60s [Dien Bien Phooey, Jul 26]. The essential factor is the lack of a real superpower to support the Iraqi insurgency. I have long recognized this missing key ingredient in comparing and contrasting Vietnam and Iraq. This was the reason the hawks in the White House won the argument against the realists in the first place and were able to execute the invasion. Opposed to the realists who invoke the painful memory of Vietnam, the neo-conservatives remind us that there is no Soviet technology production machine to oppose our own in Iraq. We need not have one hand tied behind our back like [US president Bill] Clinton in Somalia - we need merely exercise the full extent of the power that we have and we should be able to have our way. The neo-conservatives' calculations were correct insofar as American casualty numbers are concerned when we compare them to the [dog] days of Vietnam. Perhaps the most important of all conditions that differentiate Vietnam from Iraq in terms of American popular opinion is that conscription has not yet reared its ugly head. But [while] such contrasts, among others, cannot be denied, certain essential comparisons do stand. Our [US] soldiers, insofar as they must come into contact with the body politic in Iraq, have [few] criteria on which to differentiate their friends from their enemies. The enemy the Americans fight [is] determined, unrelenting and constantly adapting. And despite the extraordinary military technology gap between the opposing forces, the insurgency employs a brilliant strategy of Mafioso-style target killings of civilian and military leaders within the government that is attempting to root itself into Baghdad and beyond. The targeting of foreign diplomats essential to the legitimization of the new government is more than a small annoyance to American strategy. The Achilles' heel of the neo-con vision might be in the "unknown unknowns" that result from the government they are trying to establish. Our goal being to make the new Iraq strong enough to crush the insurgency, this will require the forging of an iron hand as strong as Saddam [Hussein] once exhibited. One danger among many is our own bringing into reality of a powerful ally of Iran. The limit of America's power in the Middle East might be conditioned by the same power that defined Rome's limit 2,000 years ago: Persia.
Adam Archetype
Orlando, Florida (Jul 27, '05)


Well it had to happen, I suppose. The armchair leftist hatchet man and apologist for North Korea, Gavan McCormack, has taken his swipes at Kang Chol-hwan's The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag [A North Korean at the White House, Jul 26]. Why? Because President George W Bush invited Mr Kang to the White House, and for riding his neo-conservative hobby horse of human rights ... But [this] does not take a whit away from the bone-chilling account of the 10 long years Kang spent in a North Korean labor camp. McCormack is reduced to left-wing smearing of Mr Kang. He is a class enemy, being "born into a well-to-do 'Korean in Japan' family". Well, that should damn the book, should it not? But this cheap discrediting does not work outside of the diminishing circle of rocking-chair "Marxists". Not only is he a class traitor but he was encouraged and aided and abetted by another leftist turncoat, the French academic Pierre Rigoulet, a co-author of The Black Book of Communism, which catalogued the brutal rule of [Josef] Stalin et al. And if that is not reason enough to smell a rat in Mr Kang's account, McCormack [damns] him for waiting 10 years after his arrival in South Korea to write the book. If we use this measure, what would this good professor from Australia say about Primo Levi publishing his If This Is a Man (better known to American readers as Survival in Auschwitz) almost 15 years after his liberation [from] a German death camp? And finally, as a foil, McCormack praises another book written long after Mr Kang's. He finds it more to his taste, the more especially since its author meets his class preference. The Aquariums of Pyongyang deserves wide reading, no matter to what purposes America's Christian and neo-conservative right make use of it. Lest we forget, the Soviets [made] much of John Dos Pasos' condemnation of American capitalism even after Mr Dos Pasos had become a confirmed Republican who stoutly supported America's war in Vietnam. Moreover, moral indignation has not stopped the White House from affirming the territorial integrity of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or engaging in bilateral and back-alley talks with Kim Jong-il. Dr McCormack's rule of thumb can best be summed up by the old leftist adage: "My doxy is orthodoxy, yours is heresy!"
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 27, '05)


In Sean Curtin's [Jul 22] article Yasukuni Shrine: Old wounds still fester, the nationalist justifications for [Prime Minister Junichiro] Koizumi's visits to the shrine are meticulously described. However, Mr Curtin forgot some important points when describing the moral justifications for China and Korea (and the rest of the world) to oppose these visits. Regardless of how many apologies Japanese prime ministers and others have made, the country of Japan has never made a formal, national apology for the actions taken from 1910 to 1945. Germany and Italy have both made national professions of their guilt, and have passed laws making it a crime to deny that. Japan continues to disregard world opinion, and local Asian sentiment, and hopes that people will just forget that Japan was the perpetrator, not the victim, of World War II. Japan also manages to keep its people, and especially its children, ignorant of the war. Many Japanese know nothing of Japan's aggression, and cannot understand why China and Korea feel upset. Most young Japanese (under 30) believe Japan was a victim of Western imperialism, as a result of being taught that Japan was a victim of the nuclear holocaust of 1945. When Nagasaki mayor Hitoshi Motoshima stated that Emperor Hirohito had responsibility for the war, his own party, the LDP [Liberal Democratic Party] (also Koizumi's party), discouraged prefectural political leaders from cooperating with him. In January 1989, mayor Motoshima narrowly survived an assassination attempt by right-wing hoodlums. Japan has tried to hide Yasukuni, and its own responsibility for actions during and before the war, from its own people and from the international community. It is the moral responsibility of everyone, especially Japan's victims, to keep the pressure on until Japan truly issues a national apology and teaches its children the truth.
Leung Shu Ren
USA and Tokyo, Japan (Jul 27, '05)


The article by [Daniel] Smith was right on the mark [Let's talk about war, Jul 22]. I hope that American historians will rightly label Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld one of the worst in American history. He will also rank up there as one of the most arrogant, and certainly one who has plenty of blood on his hands. His continued resistance to sending more troops to Iraq has caused terrible carnage. By now, any calls for more troops is out of the question. The American people want their troops home, not over in Iraq, serving as targets of opportunity. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice have had their turn and they've squandered goodwill, lives, and [treasure] on Iraq [and] Afghanistan. Had the United States stuck with rehabilitating Afghanistan, the entire "war on terror" would have had quite a different set of results. One might have been the capture of Osama bin Laden. The recent spate of attacks against British and possibly Egyptian targets may mean that Pakistan itself is turning into one of the safe havens for al-Qaedists. Pakistan is probably more than happy to see its own malcontents and jihadists die in Iraq. The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) agency has been a master of playing all sides in such a labyrinth of groups, agendas, tactics [and] policies. There may be a warning from Pakistan's intelligence and military leaders, to [President General Pervez] Musharraf in the recent bombings: Be careful. You've run out your rope on how long we will tolerate your kissing up to George Bush. This could have a massive effect on the hunt for bin Laden and other al-Qaedists. It could also add a new infusion of radical Muslims into the mix who haven't been there before. It's time to set a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq. During the Vietnam War, from 1962-75, had we [the US] withdrawn at the end of any of those 13 years, the outcome would not have been any different than it was in 1975. I fought there as an infantryman in 1966. I predicted in a letter to my home-town newspaper that the South [was] going to lose the war; that the North Vietnamese and Vietcong were more dedicated and willing to fight and die than their Southern cousins; and that the desire for freedom cannot be jammed down someone's throat. I believe the Iraqi people do want democracy, but they don't want the US to be the one to force it on them. More and more Iraqis do hate Americans. Time to give everyone a timetable. Maybe then, those Iraqi troops will understand that they have to learn how to defend themselves, and fight "insurgents" and "resistance fighters" themselves.
Jerry Eagan
Silver City, New Mexico (Jul 27, '05)


This is with reference to S Ehtisham's letter dated July 26. The situation in Pakistan does seem challenging for the moment and a lot needs to be done, particularly in the area of social-economic reforms. It is easy to blame the madrassas for the social ills, but they are in a way playing a positive role in a poverty-struck society, providing food and shelter along with basic education to millions. There might be a few institutions promoting militarism but for the sake of [that] handful it would a big mistake to alienate thousands of these madaris. The right step would be to regulate these and the present Mushurraf government is doing exactly the same while taking stern action against those promoting extremism, something the previously so-called democratic and corrupt leaders have failed to do. The growth of these madaris is definitely due to the rise in poverty and the rising cost of education, something the government has failed to provide [for], but what exactly are the causes? Yes, [an] extremely high level of defense spending and debt-servicing expenditures. These expenditures were totally unavoidable considering Pakistan's geopolitical situation. With arch rival India failing to accept Pakistan as an independent state since its very inception and launching continuous hostilities read (three full-fledged wars), what option did Pakistan have? The only reason Pakistan has spent billions on its nuclear program and in acquiring missile technology is the basic reality of Indian military superiority, which has haunted this nation for half a century. That India has failed to fulfill its ... promises on Kashmir resolution, has divided Pakistan into two and constantly threatened Pakistan with its military might is something that has petrified Pakistanis day in and out. The West is quick to blame Pakistan for the prevailing extremism, but then these jihadis were darlings of the West until the late '80s, with Pakistan serving as the base camp for the great jihad against the communists. How the West turned its eyes after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan is no secret, leaving Pakistan to settle with all these foreigner jihadis. Looking at the impressive economic growth and the institutional reforms I can see light at the end of the tunnel and can see Pakistan moving in the right direction. We have to be patient. President [General Pervez] Mushurraf is walking a tightrope with mounting external pressures and constant blackmailing from the Indian side and needs all support and encouragement.
Faraz
Denmark (Jul 27, '05)


This letter is in response to [Daniel] McCarthy's disinformation [letter, Jul 25]. McCarthy asserted, "The Potsdam Conference makes no mention of Taiwan or Formosa." This is grossly false. The Potsdam Proclamation states in Article 8, "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out ..." Here [are] the terms of Cairo Declaration: "All the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China ..." Now, after presenting all the facts, we can see the Potsdam Proclamation didn't mention Taiwan in name, but did set the return of Taiwan's sovereignty to China as a condition of Japanese surrender. As all can see, McCarthy's statement uses technicality to intentionally mislead readers; he is indeed intellectually dishonest. On McCarthy's second assertion, "At the end of World War II, Japanese forces on Formosa surrendered to the troops of Chiang Kai-shek, but that did not transfer sovereignty of Taiwan to China," is again grossly false. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender stated, "[Japan accepts] the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the Heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam ..." The signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender completed the legal process of returning Taiwan's sovereignty to China. McCarthy is entitled to his opinion, but he is wrong to distort the facts to suit his political views.
Gongshi
USA (Jul 27, '05)

Perhaps the more salient comment in Daniel McCarthy's letter was this: "But it would not matter in any event, since no Taiwanese were represented at the Potsdam Conference." - ATol


Thank you AL of Canada ([letter] Jul 25) for your timely and sensitive intervention. [Letter writer] Jakob Cambria suffers a delusion of superior morality and lectures us ad nauseam et ad infinitum. For his information we are in need of no lectures, especially from his ilk. If Cambria wants to forget "the hour that will live in infamy", he may do so with my permission.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Jul 27, '05)


Dear AL [letter, Jul 25]: I am not sure [of] the reason for your indignation at the Japanese atrocities against the Chinese population before and during the Second World War, but can empathize with the same. But before you go about tomtomming the righteousness of Chinese, just open your eyes about what the Chinese Han people have done to, or are currently doing to, China's far-western provinces and Tibet. Even worse, what has happened in China during the Cultural Revolution, and Tiananmen Square, or what was shown on TV networks a few weeks ago, Chinese goons clubbing away terrified residents of a rural settlement to make way for land development. Occupiers killing the occupied is bad, but why do you keep your mouth shut when it comes to the Communist Party in China? These anti-Japanese postures are nothing but a song-and-dance show arranged by Chinese communists to ensure that the anger of [the] people can be directed outside ...
Vinny
Mumbai, India (Jul 27, '05)


Referring to Kangaroo Jock's letter [Jul 25], since he has been good enough to provide his age (63), that places him in his 20s during the 1960s. That explains a lot. We're still digesting the fallout of that period: the good (civil rights and openness in sexual mores), the bad (a narcissistic desire to create and be surrounded by chaos), and the ugly (a free-floating sympathy for tyrants, despots, terrorists and communists). He should also remember that unlike the naive idealists of the '60s, this present band of "revolutionaries" are authoritarian, imperialistic, intolerant, misogynistic, and anti-gay. I suspect he would not enjoy living under their rule.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Jul 27, '05)


Further to the letter of Afaq Sher of July 25, I would like to comment. I strongly believe that President [George] W Bush is playing a puppet in the hands of the capitalists who hold his strings. The big business giants are a bigger threat to humanity than Osama bin Laden and the terrorists because it is the lust of their worldwide dominance, greed and desire to control natural resources of the Earth that lies behind their philosophy. These capricious capitalist are conspiring, hoping and looking forward to control our movements; how we spend our money; what we buy; what we say and where we go and whom we meet etc. They would like to make us into microchip humans so that they could find out everything about us any time by a remote-control button. Even nowadays, as soon as we come out of our homes, we are watched by CCT [closed-circuit television] cameras, plainclothes officers of the law, FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], MI5; our phones are bugged and conversations taped; e-mails are checked, but a lot of people are oblivious of the fact that we have become a target of [prying] eyes. American and Western capitalists ultimately desire to take away our liberty and freedom and turn us into credit- and debit-card robots so they become fatter and fatter with our money. Big oil companies, banks, and American arm manufacturers are making more profit than ever before; they are more in charge of the world economy now than ever before since the American and Western illegal and unjustified invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We see every day what is happening in Iraq because of premeditated chaos by the big powers. It was a conspiracy cooked up by the capitalists, Christian Right and the Zionists, first to crush communism from the face of the Earth and then attack Islam with the American mighty force under G W Bush's leadership along with the support of Western nations. The conspiracy is working: terrorism gave birth worldwide and is being used as an excuse to re-colonize the oil and natural resources of the Middle East and Africa. Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were the best of buddies of America and the West fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan but soon after the collapse of communism, they became the worst of enemies. It was this treachery that made Osama bin Laden more virulently against the US and others [he] considered the US's cronies. America became enemy No 1 of al-Qaeda and because of their [Americans'] dirty politics and games, thousands of innocent human beings all over the globe have been killed and are being killed in hundreds every day while people in power wear blinkers to see suffering of innocents. And why should they when they have terrorists to accuse for everything and not their own economic and foreign policies? The US has other designs in Afghanistan, to control the oil-rich northern provinces and dump Saudi Arabia; and they [Americans] are very good [at] doing that once they have in their pockets what they want. I would not be surprised if in the very near future Pakistan suffers the same destiny.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jul 27, '05)

[Re] A North Korean at the White House [Jul 26] by Gavan McCormack: While it will be easier (and the fashion of the day) to advise Messrs Bush, Cheney and Co to brush up their knowledge of world history, let's be honest [about] what kinds of governments oppress their own populations in the name of past foreign occupation. Is it a US soap-opera trial, with a person claiming parental abuse as an excuse for murdering his children? Korea was under Japanese occupation for [about four] decades of the first half of the last century and has been forced to pay [for] its sins [by] acquiescing to the rule of Kim [Jong-il]'s ilk ever since ... [Yet] most North Koreans wouldn't have been born then [when Japan occupied Korea]. Going by that logic all former colonies may be justified in having a dictatorship to atone for [their] sin of being under occupation. [US President George W] Bush may be an idiot in matters of state and I for one do fret about his ham-handedness (pig-headedness), but [on] one thing he's right: that some regimes are simply evil. Kim Jong-il, a bloodsucking maniac, may be worst of the kind, only he does not have the right tools or the brains to deal with them. [It is] about time ATol stopped being an apologist for despots of the world and campaigned for building a larger complex at ICC [the International Criminal Court at The] Hague (no help from Bush and Co needed).
Vinny
Mumbai, India (Jul 26, '05)


I have been writing to Muslim countries, asking them to speak out against world atrocities committed by evil. Just who's emboldening terrorism [Jul 26]? Satan, not the Muslims. If you care about humanity and how this is affecting all of us, please speak up. We must show we love our brothers and sisters, not condemn them. Those of you who make up your own rules will be judged by God. Let us all come together and fix the hurting and the suffering we have been witnessing. Don't forget we are to serve and there is no other way.
Cheryl
California, USA (Jul 26, '05)


I read the article titled US on Nepal's case [Jul 23] by Ramtanu Maitra. While there were some interesting insights into India's concerns about NED [the National Endowment for Democracy], I was very annoyed by the following statement: "There is little doubt that Bangladesh is fast becoming a center of orthodox, if not violent, Islamic activities. Many reports suggest that a large number of al-Qaeda and Taliban have been settled in Bangladesh, possibly with the help of Pakistan" ... Just where is Maitra getting this information from? This kind of uninformed claim does no justice to what is otherwise an informative article.
Shithi (Jul 26, '05)

It's all very well to accuse the writer of being "uninformed", but you provide no alternative information to counter his conclusions. Asia Times Online has been following for some time the shadowy activities of al-Qaeda and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence inside Bangladesh. See for example Goons or terrorists? Bangladesh decides (Mar 10) by B Raman and India looks at Bangladesh in alarm (Feb 1) by Sultan Shahin. - ATol


Syed Saleem Shahzad: I read your article [Pakistan: United militants, divided leaders, Jul 23] with a great deal of interest. Pakistan's successive governments have consistently failed to tackle any of the social/economic problems besetting the people. When there is no recourse, when the alternative to a madrassa is starvation, no education, no job, no hope, no future, what choices do the parents or their children have? Successive governments have spent 75% or more of the budget on armed forces and debt servicing - read "interest" - incurred mostly for the self same forces, in the name of national security, which the forces have abysmally failed to provide. Education, jobs, health, and all social services have been neglected and continue to be put on the back burner. Whatever little development the country has been able to achieve has been more than negated by the quadrupling of the population in the last 58 years. Since education has not been available to the vast majority of the people, mullahs have had the field to themselves, raving and ranting against family planning. Bigoted, obscurantist, irrational elements, marginalized because they opposed the creation of Pakistan, have surged ahead, because the governments have failed in their primal task of looking after public interest. How can General [Pervez] Musharraf tackle the Neanderthals in the madrassas ... when his intelligence service, his officers, his ministers, and members of the so-called national assembly come mostly from the feudal class? ... Pakistan needs structural change. Pakistan needs abolition of the feudal system. Pakistan needs downsizing of the armed forces to perhaps 50,000 soldiers, in all, to deal with natural disasters, earthquakes, floods etc, instead of the current 1.5 million ... Once we have a truly national government [in Pakistan], which can concentrate on issues of public interest, it will be able to sideline the fire-breathing mullahs. People will not listen to them because the lure of a luxurious afterlife will be less enticing. But that is the stuff dreams are made of. Reality is grim. Pakistan is in the stranglehold of the feudals, administered by, for, and in their interests, by their minions, in the army, bureaucracy, and the mullahs.
S Ehtisham (Jul 26, '05)


Kevin Mok [letter, Jul 25] made a good point over David Lenard's article Rocky waters for China's US acquisitions (Jul 21). I would like to add one more point. Any bid from a Chinese company is a success regardless of the results. We do not see many large Indian companies [make it] to American headline news, do we? At least by now, many Americans know about Haier, Lenovo, CNOOC, and TCL. Soon they will learn [of] more Chinese firms similar to [how] they know about Sony, Toyota and Samsung. Should all Asians be proud when whites and yellows are exactly equal in any area and any capacities? Should we be proud [that] whatever white people can do, yellow people can do exactly same or better?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 26, '05)


Raymond Cui's letter [Jul 25] has a few glaring holes that I'd like to point out ...
"1. Whatever political system Taiwan chose to have, it is not a country - at least governments representing 99% of the world's population think so." If the election was not sanctioned by Beijing, it doesn't matter what 99% of the world's population thinks.
"2. Until today, Taiwan's constitution and map still declare itself part of the Republic of China, which is made up of the territories of PRC [the People's Republic of China], Taiwan, Mongolia, Tibet, etc." However, if Taiwan rewrites its constitution to declare its independence, it will be under attack. What do you think the DPP has been trying to do since it came to power?
"3. Taiwan has had a trade surplus of over US$20 billion for many years with China and every major Taiwanese company is making money in mainland China." China carries a $162 billion trade surplus with the US. What's your point?
"4. Do you mean any country, city, town, village or even a household in Taiwan can declare independence from Taiwan if they so determine?" Nope. It's just that the majority of Taiwan's voters, if not under threat of bombardment back to 1949, would probably rather have a bigger say in their government.
"5. For most of the last half-century, Taiwan not only wanted to govern itself, it also wanted to govern mainland China, as stated in its National Unification Program, which had been in full force until at least the late 1990s, before the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party took power." Your last phrase shows that a majority of Taiwanese residents had sense enough to dump the KMT [Kuomintang] for a party that more realistically reflected the will of the people.
"6. When over 150 sovereign governments representing 99% of the world's population say Taiwan is not an independent country, that is a good reason it is not." If 99% of the neighborhood you lived in didn't recognize that you had bought and paid for your house, would that make them right if you indeed had?
"7. A country does not become a country because one part of it takes care of another part; they take care of each." Mainland China has never taken care of the Taiwanese except in the brainwashed minds of the mainland Chinese and the thugs [who] accompanied Chiang Kai-shek.
"8. An American living in San Francisco is an American regardless of the order of him calling himself a San Franciscan, Californian or American." Yup. If you are Chinese and live in the US with a US passport, does that still make you Chinese? Be careful how you answer that.
"9. Do you think people in the UAE speak a different language than people in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?" I'm not sure; do they? Hey, I don't know everything.
"10. The vast majority of mainland Chinese may not want to be ruled by 'China' either, if you mean the communist government by 'China', but they will certainly oppose Taiwan officially breaking away from the Greater China family." That's pretty hypocritical, don't you think? It's like saying, "We don't like our government either, but since we have to live like this, you should too." What a joke.
This whole mess is about nothing more than pride. Until there is a debate on this among nations that includes only facts and not the desire for economic gain at the expense of a fledgling democracy or threat of military force, any ramblings in this forum are simple nonsense, including this one.
JB
Greenville, Alabama (Jul 26, '05)

Dhruba Adhikary's article Monarchy stands firm (Jul 23) is no doubt a very interesting piece of writing on the thematic issue that the intelligentsia of Nepal confront today. Incidentally, the same edition also carried another article by [Ramtanu] Maitra which deals, though obliquely, with the ongoing crises in Nepal. These two authors have obviously covered a wide ... political spectrum that the country is currently [grappling] with. However, the scribes could have done more justice to their writings if they had delved a little deeper into the factors that prompted King Gyanendra to undertake [his] highly perilous political journey. Any assessment of the current political dilemma in Nepal remains incomplete if it does not shed light on the despicable scramble for power among the responsible political actors in addition to the following facts:
1. It is not the king who effected the dissolution of the elected body of the people's representatives; it is the prime minister ... Sher Bahadur Deuba, who exercised his prerogative to dissolve it under the provisions of the constitution.
2. Just for perpetuating their hold on power all the "democratic forces" of the country recommended the indefinite postponement of the general elections, which should have been held within six months from the date of the dissolution. It was a flagrant violation of the spirit of the constitutional provision under any democratic regime.
3. Prime Minister Deuba did not even extend the tenure of the elected local bodies, [to] which they were entitled under the existing laws.
4. The last but not the least is the fact that the king assumed executive powers when the Maoist rebels were virtually knocking at the door to mount their so-called "final assault" to topple the government and impose their political option on the destiny of the nation. Under such circumstances it is unfair to heap all the blames on the king for the nation's woes primarily brought about by the national politicians.
The Royal Nepal Army has a larger responsibility to fulfill than being "heavily mobilized to salvage the palace". If they were not there the country would have witnessed enormous human tragedy with more bloodshed and atrocities than what the people are experiencing today. Against all odds, the security forces are definitely committed to dismantling the war network of the heavily armed rebels and give some solace to the alarmed people. They are trying their best not to let these [Bolshevist] radicals realize their dream of establishing an anachronistic totalitarian republic in Nepal. The widely speculated but never substantiated nexus between the Maoists and the Royal Palace appears to be a fallacy cooked up to discredit the institution of monarchy. Mr Adhikary has cited the example of what the incumbent foreign minister Ramesh Nath Panday had said some years ago. Pandey is widely considered to be a big-mouthed creep [and] the country's intelligentsia never lent any credibility to what he says. Besides, the unfolding political developments in the country do not support the thesis that there could be any "working relation" between the country's two "armed forces" for the simple reason that the rebels are hell-bent on abolishing the institution of monarchy itself. Involvement of the UN for conflict resolution in Nepal has its pros and cons and could entail wider ramifications than what appears on the surface. The problem is still an internal conflict and has not taken the shape of a full-fledged civil war because the civil society has not accepted the Maoist political option. United Nations involvement could open up a Pandora's box and the rebels might go for a far-reaching political transformation which the country is not yet prepared for. As for Ramtanu Maitra's write-up US on Nepal's case, the scope of the "National Endowment for Democracy" appears to be a far-fetched proposition in the Nepali context. The scribe could have done more justice to his write-up if he had unreservedly pointed out the double standard maintained by the Indian establishment in New Delhi by always winking at the Maoist perpetrators who roam about the Indian capital with total impunity. Human rights, democracy and national interests should all go hand in hand and cannot be dealt with as separate entities. This is what the international community, including India, should bear in mind while making any assessment about Nepal. Ratna Bahadur Rai
Kathmandu, Nepal (Jul 25, '05)


[Re] Jihad without borders [Jul 22]: "This global franchise of resistance is a truth of the day." Methinks this quote of yours [from the former director general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, retired Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul], will roll around the world for a long time to come. You have pronounced in this sentence the sentence pronounced on the new-old fascists in the West by the East. Not only does the franchise extend to the youth of the East opposed to the West, but it extends to all youth who have had enough of the lies and control tactics of their elders. Viva la revolucion of the youth against both the West and the East! (I am 63 years young.)
Kangaroo Jock
Australia (Jul 25, '05)


David Lenard (Rocky waters for China's US acquisitions [Jul 21]) presumes that if a Chinese firm bids to buy a US firm and is unsuccessful, it has failed. I would like to take another view. When a Chinese firm makes a bid to buy an established but shop-worn name in the US or elsewhere in the world, the first consequence is that competing firms will be forced to pay a much higher price than they would have preferred. For Unocal probably the returns to Chevron will still be profitable though much less so because of the much higher price paid. For Maytag I believe that Whirlpool made a business error in the class of HP's purchase of Compaq. The business fundamentals that put Maytag on the block in the first place had not changed. Maytag wasn't making money. Maytag's product line is not that much different from Whirlpool's and certainly sells less well than Whirlpool's. Maytag brings nothing to Whirlpool except perhaps [to] let Whirlpool suffer one [fewer] competitor. Expect job losses and factory closures. All things considered, the Chinese firms had not really lost anything, for neither the Unocal [nor] the Maytag [bid was] in their original business plans. They were business opportunities that happened to come into the market. A successful bid for either firm made good economic sense as their acquisitions would have fit very well into CNOOC's and Haier's expansion plans. But the failure of their bids will certainly not cause either of them to fail, as overpaying for an asset or the demise of a pricey but inappropriate asset would have done. Unocal is a disappointment. Maytag is certainly an overpriced poisoned fruit Haier did well not to bite. There should be some lessons from the consequences of Lenovo's purchase of IBM's PC [personal computer] division and TCL's purchase of the Thompson-RCA group. Neither [purchase is] making money. For anyone else other than a [Chinese] company to buy them would have spelled an early demise for the bought companies plus a loss of investors' money, closed facilities and job losses.
Kelvin Mok
Alberta, Canada (Jul 25, '05)


Regarding M Ramdas [letter, Jul 22] and the article Tug-of-war over the Taj Mahal [Jul 16], although I fully agree with his suggestions about a neutral party and the welfare of Hindu refugees, I must add this regarding the plight of the Dalits and adivasis of India. Even if someone dreams [of] this proposition of collecting revenue from Islamic buildings, I would argue that before the first Hindu temple is built the vast number of Dalits, which is close to a 100 million, should be allowed into all Hindu temples, [and] they should be taught the highest and noblest philosophies of Hinduism and modern technology. Great luminaries of India have tried and failed, whether they be the Buddha 2,500 years ago or the Mahatma in the 20th century; Hinduism has absorbed from them many noble elements but has still refused to budge when it comes to the plight of the Dalits. All the treasures of India cannot equal the treasure of the minds and intellect that is lost due to tradition and even apathy towards the Dalits. If 100 million minds are given the chance that the rest of India has, it would unleash a wealth that would surpass any revenue collection from Islamic buildings and raise India's stature to a higher level in the eyes of the world. I am sure the Mahatma would agree with me that all men are equal under the eyes of God.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 25, '05)


My question to Mohammed Hussain (The dehumanizing factor [Jul 16]): Can you write another article to answer the question why most Westerners simply do not understand "why they hate us"? I was brought up in China during the Cultural Revolutionary years (1966-76) when kids were taught nothing but Chairman Mao [Zedong]'s quotations, one of which I still remember: There is no love or hate without a cause. If Taiwan's independence activists have Mohd Salekun Noor [letter, Jul 22] as one of their allies, I am afraid the independence movement is doomed. How can you get it wrong on every single one of the points you chose to elaborate on as your favorite arguments for Taiwan independence?
1. Whatever political system Taiwan chose to have, it is not a country - at least governments representing 99% of the world's population think so.
2. Until today, Taiwan's constitution and map still declare itself part of the Republic of China, which is made up of the territories of PRC [the People's Republic of China], Taiwan, Mongolia, Tibet, etc.
3. Taiwan has had a trade surplus of over US$20 billion for many years with China and every major Taiwanese company is making money in mainland China.
4. Do you mean any country, city, town, village or even a household in Taiwan can declare independence from Taiwan if they so determine?
5. For most of the last half-century, Taiwan not only wanted to government itself, it also wanted to govern mainland China, as stated in its National Unification Program, which had been in full force until at least the late 1990s, before the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party took power.
6. When over 150 sovereign governments representing 99% of the world's population say Taiwan is not an independent country, that is a good reason it is not.
7. A country does not become a country because one part of it takes care of another part; they take care of each.
8. An American living in San Francisco is an American regardless of the order of him calling himself a San Franciscan, Californian or American.
9. Do you think people in the UAE speak a different language than people in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?
10. The vast majority of mainland Chinese may not want to be ruled by "China" either, if you mean the communist government by "China", but they will certainly oppose Taiwan officially breaking away from the Greater China family.
Raymond Cui
Beijing, China (Jul 25, '05)


Unfortunately, ATol's editors need to get their history from new sources in order to make accurate statements. They wrote, "In fact, Taiwan was declared a province of China under the provisions of the Potsdam Conference of 1945, and it was transferred from Japanese to Chinese sovereignty immediately after World War II." This is false. The Potsdam Conference makes no mention of Taiwan or Formosa. But it would not matter in any event, since no Taiwanese were represented at the Potsdam Conference. At the end of World War II, Japanese forces on Formosa surrendered to the troops of Chiang Kai-shek, but that did not transfer sovereignty of Taiwan to China any more than the surrender of [Adolf] Hitler's troops in Austria to Americans transferred sovereignty of Austria to the US. Under the principles of international law, sovereignty of Taiwan remains with the Taiwanese people.
Daniel McCarthy (Jul 25, '05)

Our source for the comment under Mohd Salekun Noor's letter of July 22 was the Columbia Encyclopedia, to wit: "In accordance with the Cairo declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Conference of 1945, Taiwan was returned to China as a province after the war." We were in error, however, in the date of the Kuomintang's flight from the mainland to Taiwan after the communist rout; that was 1949, not 1947. Wikipedia offers more detail on the complexities and vagaries of the Cairo declaration and the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco regarding the Taiwan-cession question. - ATol


Mohd Salekun Noor of Fujairah, UAE [Jul 22], confuses the point I made. He may, and indeed anyone may, write anything they like, but Noor wrote from the UAE, an Arab country, on the right of Taiwan to declare independence when he could write about the right of the Palestinians to achieve independence, or more usefully, do something to help them achieve it. Why? He lives in an Arab country and should be concerned about the plight of the Palestinians who, unlike the Taiwanese, suffer attacks by jet fighters, bulldozers, troops, missiles - in fact everything that the USA and Israel can produce, which is a lot. The Palestinians only have their own lives to fight back with. However, I must confess to be the party in the wrong, because Noor is not Arab, so why should he worry about the Palestinians? Writing about the Taiwanese is the safer option. The right to declare independence is a birthright, but who had this birthright? Bangladesh did not, nor India nor Pakistan. The southern states of the USA did not, nor South Africa or Australia or Hong Kong and not even Hawaii. So why Taiwan? There is a surfeit of unsolicited opinion on Taiwan and all from people who have never fought for their independence or ever given it. Jakob Cambria ([letter] Jul 22) unfortunately wrote a little too glibly that China and Korea should not abuse history, or words to that effect. Jakob Cambria clearly enjoys writing about things [of which] he know nothing. He either forgets or does not know that the Yakusuni enshrines a legion of lies apart from the war criminals. He should read what is written inside Yakusuni. Nor are the executed war criminals the only criminals in the Japanese army. The entire Japanese army consisted of war criminals, except it was expedient to let the common soldiers off along with their god-king. Today, [Japanese] chemical and germ weapons of mass destruction are still being found in China. Jakob Cambria's country has wreaked revenge on innocent Japanese people in hurling two atomic bombs [at] Japan. This is the reason that makes Cambria so forgiving and forgetful. His parents and grandparents were not cut up alive to enable the Japanese to easily insert a mix of germs into them ...
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Jul 25, '05)


Right, let us all forget the Japanese atrocities (Jakob Cambria, [letter] Jul 22) in China and the Pacific rim during the Pacific war. They killed an estimated 30 million in China alone, including 425,000 killed in biological-warfare experiments under the Dr [Josef] Mengele (of Auschwitz-Birkenau fame) clone Shiro Ishii. Shiro-san was allowed to live out his repugnant life until he died of throat cancer in 1959. It seems to be okay to persecute every Nazi war criminal and Holocaust denier under the sun, but when we survivors of Japanese war crimes dare to open our mouths there is a whole chorus of Caucasian apologists for Japan, for [Junichiro] Koizumi, for the Yasukuni Shrine, for the revised and sanitized history of Japanese foreign adventures from 1931-45 as taught in Japanese high schools, and against the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now I am a blond and blue-eyed Caucasian and, mirabile dictu, I am a survivor of Japanese atrocities in Asia. Listen up, you guys, we can all pop an artery about the Japanese one way or another, but it will be the Chinese, and not the Caucasians, who will see this issue through. Loads of talent in China. Unpegging the yuan from the American dollar is just one symptom of their growing independence.
AL
Canada (Jul 25, '05)


I agree with Sanb [letter, Jul 22]. Asian movie industries do not need Hollywood's approval. Jackie Chan's movies are not only fun to watch, they are also promoting Asian values. I remember in one of his movies, when an English colonist commented that China should learn from India to embrace whites' rule, Jackie said that will never work. Chinese value their honor, family and traditions. They will never accept white men's rule. Jackie Chan earned respect not only from Chinese, but also from many white people who think Chinese are equal to them. If there is anything Bollywood can learn from Chinese, having a little self-respect and dignity would be the highest one on the list.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 25, '05)


I [would] like to ask Jim from the US [letter, Jul 22] if he [has forgotten the] famous American war to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the 1980s. US president Ronald Reagan and [his vice president, George Bush Sr] called all Muslims for jihad by supporting different warlords, and jihadi organizations with arms and money were routed through Pakistan. I remember news footage of vice president Bush standing in an Afghan refugee camp near Peshawar, Pakistan, telling them it was great to go for jihad and fight communist Soviets. After that goal was achieved they left that [mess] solely to blame on Pakistan, which is not acceptable. Even Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's address to the nation on [July 21] reflects on this direction.
Afaq Sher
Toronto, Ontario (Jul 25, '05)


All the while ATol has been discussing umpteen times the issue or terrorism, its glaring to note that it has completely chosen to ignore the event of Dawood Ibrahim's daughter's wedding. While the wedding is nothing to squirm about, even [though] it be of a known terrorist's family, the gathering turned out to be who's who on international crime. Particularly galling was the impunity of the organizers that flies in the face of Gulf monarchies. It's not the presence of a due process of law that has made it possible but the active connivance of Gulf elite, who spare no thought in chopping [off] limbs of petty thieves in the name of Islamic law but shrug off the presence of crime syndicates operating from [their] soil ...
Vinny
Mumbai, India (Jul 25, '05)

For some reason we weren't invited to Dubai to cover the blessed event, but we certainly didn't ignore it. In fact, we ran a preview last month (see India-Pakistan: Not a happy marriage, Jun 25). - ATol


To stop suicide bombers, we must learn more about them. We must first realize and admit that there is nothing "cowardly" about blowing oneself to bits in the pursuit of a cause or idea. To "cower" is "to shrink away or crouch especially for shelter from something that menaces, domineers, or dismays". How does making and wearing and blowing oneself up with explosives demonstrate "cowering"? No, blowing oneself up [along] with one's victims is the exact opposite of cowardice, because it shows a willingness to confront and suffer pain and immediate death in the pursuit of a goal. What "coward" could stride into a crowd of policemen with a bomb strapped to his (or her) back, knowing that he - the "coward" - was about to die? If he is unsuccessful, won't he probably be tortured to discover his secrets? Doesn't blowing himself up assure that his secrets about organizational contacts and strategies will die with him? This behavior is actually less cowardly than dropping or planting a bomb and then trying to escape with life and limb intact. In spite of their comments, President [George W] Bush and [Prime Minister] Tony Blair cannot understand this sort of self-sacrifice. These politicians send teenage soldiers to do their capricious bidding while they themselves are surrounded by bodyguards and hiding safely in bomb shelters beneath their presidential palaces. They have never served in battle and they use name-calling in the absence of effective strategies. You may revile suicide bombers, but if you call them "cowards" you cannot defeat them because you do not understand them.
Francis L Holland, Esq (Jul 25, '05)


London Police Commissioner Ian Blair defends the policy of shooting to kill suspected suicide bombers. Yes, ride the tube and if the police suspect you, you could be shot dead too. "Hey, that guy looks suspicious, let's kill him and find out." "That guy does too. Let's shoot and kill him." What about that one over there? "Shoot 'em first, then we'll find out later." All contestants shot dead will get their pictures in the papers, however, with deep regrets from government officials. What are these guys thinking? With policies like this, you don't need suicide bombers to clear people out of the tube. The police are doing it for them.
Michael
Los Angeles, California (Jul 25, '05)

It saddens me to hear talk of "winning the hearts and minds" of Iraqis [Let's talk about war, Jul 22]. Do we never learn? I heard that same catch-phrase over and over in Vietnam. Have we forgotten how "good" we were at winning the hearts and minds of Vietnamese? I was sure we didn't have any idea how to win hearts and minds when a medic assigned to a "Civic Actions" unit suggested we go into selected villages and poison their wells clandestinely, then make a show of going in and curing everybody. How arrogant we are! Do we really think we're going to win the mind and heart of someone while standing on his neck?
Ed Ashby, US Air Force, retired
Colorado, USA (Jul 22, '05)


We are once again treated to the same stuff and nonsense as Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi prepares for his annual visit to the Yasukuni Shrine during the seventh lunar month [Yasukuni Shrine: Old wounds still fester, Jul 22]. Yasukuni houses the "souls" of those fallen in battle for imperial Japan. For those whose grasp of history is slippery, Japan has fought other wars than the Pacific phase of World War II. Enshrined with the thousands and thousands of "souls" are 16 class A war criminals. These men were judged and executed for war crimes by an international tribunal; their deeds are not unknown, nor their conduct condoned. For internal reasons, Seoul and Beijing use this as a cudgel to beat Japan with. Tokyo, from emperor to prime ministers and leaders of political parties save the extreme right, [has] bowed and apologized for the crimes committed in the name of the Showa emperor, a man who escaped the scaffold thanks to America. A small tempest in a glass of green tea occurred during [US] president Ronald Reagan's visit to Bitburg cemetery where 22 SS Nazis are interred. The old communicator paid not to slightest bit of attention to the high dudgeon his visit aroused. Nor should Mr Koizumi as [he] dons the traditional Japanese robes to pay his respects during the Buddhist month of the dead in August, and on the 60th anniversary of the fall of the militaristic rule of Hirohito. One should never forget the past, but neither should China or Seoul abuse it.
Jakob Cambria (Jul 22, '05)
USA


Zafar Anjum seems to have some curious metrics for success [Snow White to hit China; Bollywood dwarfed, Jul 22]. What is his gripe about Bollywood? That they haven't managed or bothered to penetrate or market to Hollywood? If that is his [criterion] of success, then as our dog-loving F of S might say, he needs to be less of a white man's slave. Moreover, not many would accuse mainstream Hollywood (or for that matter Bollywood) of making movies of any quality. Also, Mr Anjum may not be aware that the Indian film industry is not just Bollywood; [films are] one of the larger exports from India (although not organized like other industries) ...
Sanb (Jul 22, '05)


Regarding Frank's post [Jul 21] that India's leadership should read China, Vietnam find love [Jul 21], clearly Frank is missing a key point: in order for a business relationship flourish and result in friendship, both countries must be focused on economic growth and modernity. India is doing plenty of business with China and Vietnam. Chinese, Vietnamese and Indian students are taught science, math and 21st-century skills that will help foster economic growth. They are not educated in madrassas. While India is exporting IT [information technology] professionals to the rest of the world, and China and Vietnam are exporting manufactured goods and computer hardware, what is Pakistan exporting?
Jim
New York, USA (Jul 22, '05)


I read with interest the article Tug-of-war over the Taj Mahal by Debasish Roy Chowdhury (Jul 16) and subsequent letters to the editor by Chrysantha Wijeyasingha. Even though I may not entirely agree with Mr Wijeyasingha, I sympathize with him on his anger towards the Muslims, in particular the [Uttar Pradesh] Sunni Wakf Board (UPSWB) and their outlandish claim to the Taj Mahal. Such far-fetched claims will further partition India along an already fragile Hindu-Muslim divide ... If the UPSWB has the rights to the Taj as claimed by them from the writings on the tomb of Shah Jehan, the Mughal emperor, then the Hindus have all the rights to sue the UPSWB for the countless destructions of Hindu temples and pillaging of the famed Somanath Hindu temple done by the Mughals and other Islamic invaders. A simple calculation will show that this amounts to a big chunk of change, surpassing the cost of the Taj and many other Islamic monuments. Furthermore, it is only fair that the Taj and other Islamic heritage sites be put into neutral third-party hands and all the revenues collected should go into rebuilding of the Hindu temples. And any leftover money should be used for the welfare of Hindu refugees fleeing Islamic persecution in Kashmir. I believe it is the right time for the proper Hindu organizations (and there are many) to step up and make this legal demand. Moreover, there is ample of evidence of such wanton destruction of Hindu temples, both written and physical, all over India by the Islamic invaders. I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers in India and abroad who are eager and willing to take this case.
M Ramdas
San Francisco, California (Jul 22, '05)


Even though [Chrysantha] Wijeyasingha [letter, Jul 21] seems to excuse [letter writer Steve] Martin's diatribe against "Indians" as a critique, I would like to point out that Mr Martin could have better contributed to the discussion on Tug-of-war over the Taj Mahal (Jul 16) by bringing in something more to the discussion than his low opinions of "Indians". If Mr Wijeyasingha has no problem with Mr Martin's lumping of him along with all those faceless, voiceless "Indians" as hate-mongers, that's okay, I guess. Also, thanks to Mr Wijeyasingha for a concise summary of the India-Sri Lanka cultural connections. Reading atimes.com's readers' page is always almost as instructive as the articles. A case of serendipity, one could say? (Serendipity, from "Four Princes of Serendip", an English interpretation of the word for Swarna Dweep = Golden Isle, an ancient name for Sri Lanka.) Also, no lover of Indic culture can help but be proud of Ananda Coomaraswamy for having raised the cultural profile of a still-colonized Indian subcontinent in the early 20th century. I also agree with him that [letter writer Amit] Sharma seems to have become a self-appointed judge and theoretician of "deviant desperate maladjusted unaccepted" immigrants and their tendency to "bad stuff" back home. Debates on issues are nice, presumptuously attacking "your own" to appear good in the eyes of people attacking your culture is no way to add to the several important points Mr Sharma makes in his letters. Immigrants are not all maladjusted, just because they happen to read atimes.com and enjoy a good debate.
Karigar (Jul 22, '05)

According to our favorite etymological source, etymonline.com, the actual name of the Persian fairy tale from which the 18th-century writer Horace Walpole derived the word "serendipity" was The Three Princes of Serendip. By that analysis, "Serendip" as a name for Sri Lanka descends from Arabic Sarandib, from Sanskrit Simhaladvipa (Dwelling-Place-of-Lions Island). Some sources say Walpole penned a translation of The Three Princes, but more reliable accounts say he coined the word "serendipity" in a letter. - ATol


In reply to Chrysantha Wijeyasingha (letter, Jul 21): The root of human miscommunication is the fact that people don't really listen to each other - everybody is so convinced that they are correct that they just leap to predetermined conclusions about what others are saying. The sequence of letters between you, me and Steve Martin, just like most human communication, seems to follow the scenario of the tea party in Alice in Wonderland - where everyone seems to be on their own trip, blabbering non-stop with no regard to what is being said in return. I am sorry I offended you, but if you carefully read the letter that you replied to, you might realize that there was very little need for you to take offense. It was Steve Martin, and not me, who seemed to consider your individual views as representative of those of entire India. I was merely trying to correct his perception. The reason I consider you to be "foreign" is not because one-half of your family tree is Sri Lankan, but because your letters are addressed from Louisiana, USA. Being "foreign" does not make your views better or worse than those of anyone else, but it does ensure that you have a different perspective from those who are living in South Asia - that's all. Hence the views of a single South Asian individual, living in a region far removed from South Asia, cannot be projected (using your terminology) on to a population of 1 billion-plus people. That is all I was trying to say.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Jul 22, '05)


I would like to respond to the mail of Frank Yeo from UK (Jul 21) ... If I can speak for the independence of Palestine, why can't I do the same for Taiwan? Are Taiwanese not my kind? Don't they live in the same world as I do? Taiwan has every right to declare independence, [for the following reasons]:
1. Taiwan is a democratic country, while China is a communist regime that does not value the freedom of human beings, and the grotesque display of inhumanity by the Chinese regime at Tiananmen Square in 1989 would well remind us of the atrocity China could commit against the freedom-loving citizens of Taiwan.
2. Taiwan has operated as a free and independent state for 50 years. Its declaring so is just forcing everyone, including the PRC [People's Republic of China], to acknowledge what we all know to be true. Taiwan is a separate, democratic state and not a puppet of the Chinese communist government.
3. Other than to bolster its own economic interests, there is little to indicate that China has any interest in the well-being of the Taiwanese people.
4. The right to self-determination is recognized internationally.
5. People make up nations, not land. Nature doesn't care what name a geographical area has. And if the people of Taiwan want to govern themselves, as they have done quite successfully for the last half-century, then that's their right. Even if bullyboy nations like China don't like it.
6. There is no international reason why Taiwan should not be an independent country.
7. China has never taken care of Taiwanese people, [so] why should Taiwan be part of China?
8. Every citizen of Taiwan sees himself/herself as Taiwanese first, then [Hakka], followed by Chinese [sic; probably Han is meant] culturally.
9. Ninety percent of the people in Taiwan speak Taiwanese, not Chinese [sic; probably Mandarin is meant].
10. The vast majority of Taiwanese do not want to be ruled by China.
And lastly I would like to elucidate on the historical claim of China over Taiwan. During the 20th century Taiwan was governed by China for a paltry three years. However, Japan governed Taiwan with relative civility for nearly 100 years before the Versailles Treaty awarded it to China in 1947. Don't the Japanese also have a historical claim over the island, through the spoils of war? Let's take this historical claim argument a step further. In the Han Dynasty, China controlled Korea and parts of Vietnam. Why should China stop with Taiwan and not also bully these countries back into the empire? China will not be taken seriously as a modern civilized nation as long as its childish schoolyard bullying continues. I only wish the people of Taiwan would not go the way of Hong Kong. Why would Taiwanese trade freedom and prosperity for slavery under communist masters? Therefore, I was not suffering from delusion when I wrote about the independence of Taiwan but I was fully awake with my brain functioning exceptionally well.
Mohd Salekun Noor
Fujairah, UAE (Jul 22, '05)

In fact, Taiwan was declared a province of China under the provisions of the Potsdam Conference of 1945, and it was transferred from Japanese to Chinese sovereignty immediately after World War II. (Versailles was the World War I treaty signed in 1919.) Taiwan was subsequently taken over by the Republic of China's Nationalist (Kuomintang) government-in-exile in 1947 at the end of the Chinese civil war. The term "Taiwanese" can be confusing when referring to language, as it can have various definitions, but the predominant Taiwanese dialect is certainly Chinese (closely related to Fujianese); aboriginal Taiwanese (a Malay language) is used by a tiny minority. - ATol


Letter writer Mohd Salekun Noor (Jul 19) should pour his anger against non-Muslims over countries that actually brought miseries to the Muslim peoples instead of China, which has been supportive of their various causes in history and around the world. The only conflict China has had with Muslims is the separatist movement in Xinjiang, which China would oppose regardless of the religious belief of those promoting secession, [as] in the case of Taiwan. On use of nuclear weapons, Noor should challenge the US, which has more nuclear as well as conventional forces, in quantity, quality and sophistication, than the rest of the world combined and [is] the only country that has used and repeatedly threatened to use [nuclear weapons] in the world (see US Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review, January 2002 [see also Double standards in US nuclear policy, May 30, '03]). China is the only country among the nuclear powers to officially announce it will not use a nuclear weapon first under any circumstances. What else do you expect China to do? Tell the world China would not even retaliate when attacked by nuclear weapons? As to your obviously ill-informed sympathy for Taiwan independence, just ask your Muslim brothers (there should be plenty in the UAE) how they [would] feel if the Palestinians were asked to give up their land to Israel so that everybody [could] live in peace forever.
Raymond Cui Beijing, China (Jul 22, '05)


On many occasions I wrote letters regarding anti-Islamic articles and letters to the ATol editor. It seems either they lack basic knowledge or [are] part of the propaganda. [Placing] the blame day in and day out solely on Islam and the followers of this religion has been nauseating. In fact they are not looking at the root cause of this problem, which is political. To these writers I will again say they need to open up their knowledge of better understanding Muslims, Islam and the long history of the West's interfering in Muslim countries. It looks [as if] they (the West) just woke up in 2003 and want to democratize Iraq. What about dictators they support in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and many more? When they will bring democratic systems [to] these countries?
Afaq Sher
Toronto, Ontario (Jul 22, '05)

India's leadership should read China, Vietnam find love [Jul 21]. Good analysis. Good article. Great prospects for Asia.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 21, '05)


Boy, Spengler must really be hard up for topics to complain about if he's reduced to whining that Harry Potter is inferior to [Johann Wilhelm von] Goethe's Faust. [Harry Potter and the Decline of the West, Jul 20]. Maybe he ought to compare apples to apples, [J K] Rowling's fantasies to those of C S Lewis and E Nesbit, Goethe's Faust to [Christopher] Marlowe's. (Marlowe will win.) On the more serious issue of civilization in decline, in every time and place in the 5,000 years of recorded history, there have been people complaining about how civilization is declining and about to collapse. Somehow, like Old Man River, the civilizations just keep rolling along. They are much sturdier than most like to admit.
Lester Ness
Ancient Historian
Kunming, China (Jul 21, '05)


Thought you might find this quote of interest, given your [Jul 20] article on Harry Potter and the ennui of life [Harry Potter and the Decline of the West] "Most of life is so dull that there is nothing to be said about it, and the books and talk that would describe it as interesting are obliged to exaggerate, in the hope of justifying their own existence. Inside its cocoon of work or social obligation, the human spirit slumbers for the most part, registering the distinctions between pleasure and pain, but not nearly as alert as we pretend. There are periods in the most thrilling day during which nothing happens, and though we continue to exclaim, 'I do enjoy myself,' or, 'I am horrified,' we are insincere. 'As far as I feel anything, it is enjoyment, horror' - it's no more than that really, and a perfectly adjusted organism would be silent" (E M Forster, A Passage to India, page 149 [1984]).
Tuor (Jul 21, '05)


Regarding Saqib Khan's letter of July 20, I'm not sure how the fact that "a number of non-Muslims, including Hindus, Sikhs, Marathas and Jats, were employed by him [Aurangzeb] in his court" shows his tolerance or sense of justice. No foreign ruler/company can ever rule/operate without employing locals, and it doesn't show any benevolence on their part. Also he was the sixth Mughal ruler, so he probably had to put up with the "legacy" anyway. Regarding "Aurangzeb did not compromise on the fundamentals of Islam, which are in fact the moving spirit of every faith," Mr Khan shows his admiration of Aurangzeb's actions, which speaks for itself. Interesting words, "fundamentals of faith", suggesting an inflexible world view and inability to live with others who, no matter how decent, do not share the same "fundamentals". I think we are being shown a window into his thinking processes. Dare I breathe the word "fundamentalist"? Note how violently prudish his characterization of the sublime erotica of the Khajuraho-type temples is. Again, he is welcome to his viewpoints, but in justifying (not apologizing for) the destructibility of the temples whose statues were/are disliked by those with an Islamist persuasion, he shows he himself doesn't believe that Aurangzeb didn't destroy temples. Historians [including] Will Durant [and] Andre Wink will attest to the widespread destruction and pillage Islamist rulers brought to India, not to mention the innumerable boastings accompanying Islamic historians who have carefully documented the "holy actions" of their kings. Not only were they brutal, they successfully used Islam to justify their horrible acts. No personal quarrel with Mr Khan and his ilk, but one hopes someday they would entertain some doubts, that maybe everything done in Islam's name is not good? Some empathy for its victims, maybe?
Karigar (Jul 21, '05)


Letter writer Saqib Khan's [Jul 20 letter] contains phraseology that will surely incense many Indians. I quote his closing lines: "With regard to the destruction of temples that the Muslim invaders smashed as alleged by the Hindus, [most of those] housed licentious statues of deities copulating and displaying whole sets of Kama Sutra in public. It is beyond the realm of human decency, dignity and morality that a place of worship or otherwise display pornographic material." Whether one considers the Kama Sutra pornographic or not, and even assuming it to be so, the act of destroying temples does not belong to the realm of tolerant behavior, in the light of modern political correctness. But we all know that modern political correctness is a funny animal - it is afraid of affirming itself for fear of ruffling feathers. Aurangzeb may have had to rely on employees of various faiths in his court, but the consensus is that he was an uncouth man who did not care for his subjects, particularly his Hindu subjects. I agree that Islam is gaining in numbers of adherents, but an Islamic apologist must provide reasons that are compatible with the message of "love for mankind" for the acts of such men like Aurangzeb if indeed, as Saqib says, [he] "did not compromise on the fundamentals of Islam". Many Muslims point to the Crusades (and modern imperialism and the many wars) as evidence for Christianity's inadequacy to answer our deepest questions. But Christians have done a remarkable job of at least making a clear line of distinction between the practice that goes under the Christian banner and the person and practice of Christ, thus offering a way of life that is different from popular thinking.
Vijay
Cochin, India (Jul 21, '05)


Once again I find myself stunned at Saqib Khan's understanding of history ... the only reason Aurangzeb had so many Hindus working in his court was [that] Hindus were better accountants and managers during that era when the tax income rose due to his unfair tax system. I guess Mr Khan prefers to ignore the fact that Aurangzeb's own son, Prince Akbar, rebelled against his father's cruel policies and joined hands with the Udaipuri Rajputs and Marathas. Aurangzeb was a man [who] imprisoned his own father and murdered his own brother (who was much more pro-peace with the Hindus) to gain the crown. What about the mosque he built in Mathura, Krishna's birthplace, after destroying the temple there? This is documented fact that he boasted about. I wonder when the Muslims will be willing to right that wrong and hand back the land where that edifice of intolerance currently stands? Wouldn't Muslims demand the land of the Kaaba back if someone built a temple in its place? ...
Aryan Singh Rathore
Somewhere in the Gulf (Jul 21, '05)


In response to Mohd Salekun Noor's letter [Jul 19], I most humbly write that he [was] suffering a delusion when he wrote that "Taiwan has a right to declare independence". Many countries have a right to declare independence but under what circumstances? Why could not the southern states declare [their] independence of the USA? Or Hawaii? If Mr Noor is truly worried about the right to declare independence, he should devote his energies to upholding the right of the Palestinians to declare independence. Instead Mr Noor wastes his talent in something that is more complicated than merely declaring independence. As for General Zhu [Chengdu]'s comment, it is obviously a personal opinion because the official policy has been for decades not to use [nuclear weapons] first. And Hiroshima may be horrific, but the Japanese had a choice, they could proceed to war or not proceed to war and they chose war, and an undeclared war at that. And the US use of the atom bomb was undeclared too. But what has that got to do with China? The Anti-Secession Law is only conditional, whereas a declaration of independence is practically a declaration of war. The USA has had a law threatening war on behalf of Taiwan for years. Why is no one offended?
Frank Yeo
UK (Jul 21, '05)


This is in response to Amit Sharma and Karigar [letters, Jul 20, re] their critique on [letter writer Steve] Martin using (probably, since I have not read Mr Martin's comments) my comments to express his comments. Both Amit Sharma and Karigar have got my background incorrectly. I wish to correct them or any other person regarding myself. Yes, my father, Dr Wijeyasingha, was a Sinhalese but my mother, Ms Mavis Asiruvatham, is a Tamil whose ancestry came from Tanjore, a bastion of Hindu Tamil culture. They were married because despite the fact that they come from different communities they were Catholic and being Tamil or Sinhalese didn't matter. Sri Lanka, though an independent nation for 2,500 years, was, is and will always be intrinsically culturally linked to pre-Islamic India. Since the arrival of Prince Vijaya from India and his 700 followers to Sri Lanka in 500 BC, who married the local queen, the Sinhala culture was born. Sinhalese is one of the oldest of all Indo-Aryan languages spoken in the subcontinent (derived from Pali, the language of the Buddha). In 300 BC Mahindra, son of Ashoka, gave to the Sinhalese people the tooth of Buddha, and wherever the tooth resided, that was the capital of Sri Lanka. Even today, Kandy is the cultural capital of Sri Lanka, while Colombo is the commercial capital created by the British. Though I may be a "foreigner" to Sharma, my Tamil connections go deep, right to the city of Tanjore. Sharma suggests that my viewpoints represent the viewpoints of 1 billion people - that is [an] absurd statement. Not [I] nor Sharma nor Karigar nor anyone commenting in Asia Times [Online] can "represent" the sum total of well over 1 billion people in the subcontinent. These were and will always be my comments, my views and nothing more. Sharma makes another absurd comment that "people removed from their culture and unable to find true acceptance in an alien land are usually the most diehard self-appointed protectors of their original culture"; that may apply to Sharma or someone Sharma knows ... Sharma portrays me as a person "alien" to the American culture. How Sharma got that conclusion is beyond me. The only conclusion I can come up with is a psychological term called "projection". Just because Sharma or her friends may feel alienated, that does not mean all people living in another culture are alienated. I who grew up speaking English and a Catholic fitted perfectly in this country [US], but that never silenced me whether I was in high school or in the university when I took classes on Indian culture to point out to anyone, be they the professor, my friends or acquaintances, if they made grave errors regarding the culture I come from ... In defense of Mr Martin, any person can critique any nation, be [it] India, China or, yes, even the USA. [These] are critiqued by foreigners all the time, and India or the subcontinent is not above the rest of the planet on this subject. Finally and most important, I would like to quote a description of a very famous Sinhalese man, Ananda Kentish Coomarawamy: "Mr Ananda Kentish Coomarawamy became the greatest of all authorities on Indian art. It was his own works on Indian art especially Indian paintings which found the basis for all subsequent criticism ... He identified all main styles and provided the criteria by which an approximate date and place of origin could be assigned to any work. The whole field of Rajput art was virtually his discovery" (page 223, India Discovered by John Reay).
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 21, '05)


I totally agree with the mail of Steve Martin (Jul 19) where he piously pointed out the arrogant display of some Indians who perpetually go on and on using vituperative remarks against Muslims on this page. Chrysantha Wijeyasingha and his pet Dirty Dog (who have been let stray for a long time by Muslims) are worst of all who seemed to have been paid by the anti-Islamic elements lurking in the West under the garb of so-called protector of "dignity of human beings". When some Muslims try to defend their religion they are accused and pushed to the forum section of ATol saying it was a debate of "my religion better than yours". Muslims find no enjoyment in denigrating what others believe but when they see someone adamantly and deliberately mock their beliefs they have no other option but defend their religion. These people are not able to see the wood for the trees and go on stigmatizing Islam as a religion of terror. All their howling against Islam would no wonder add to the benefit of the religion because people like Steve Martin get to understand who are the real terrorists and real hypocrites.
Mohd Salekun Noor
UAE (Jul 21, '05)

Our occasional suggestions that letter writers take their debates, especially those that can never by their nature reach any conclusion (such as "my religion is better than yours", or whether or not a Mughal ruler who died 300 years ago was benevolent and wise), to The Edge forum are not prison sentences. They are merely reminders that the main purpose of the Letters section is to comment on Asia Times Online articles, that submissions here are subject to editing or rejection to a greater degree than submissions to the forum, and that this page is updated only five times a week while the forum is reader-generated and updated constantly. As well, our analysis shows that The Edge gets nearly 17 times the page views of the Letters page; while that comparison is not particularly relevant because of the different formats of the two, we estimate that The Edge is at least three times as popular as the Letters in terms of readership. - ATol

[Re Harry Potter and the Decline of the West, Jul 20] I must say that, although I don't think [Spengler's] interpretation of Western culture is wrong, I do not think that it is the best focus. Balance should be the key. Our innermost feelings are of great importance; however, they should not be the defining factor. They contribute on all levels to how we overcome our personal deficiencies and learn to grow. This is not narcissism, but whole growth. Intelligence and feelings are both essential to this task. Feelings provide the power and intelligence provides the steering.
DragonDove
Texas, USA (Jul 20, '05)


There have been children's works that were both reflections of and great contributions to their times and societies. However, while I agree with the characterization of our culture as narcissistic and complacent ... I find this interpretation of Potter and crew to be overblown and to take itself far more seriously than it has any right to [Harry Potter and the Decline of the West Jul 20]. It is also off the mark. I am not a Potter "freak", but I have read the series to date (minus the last, which my partner has in an ironclad grip until she is done). While Potter may not be too small (in whatever senses one might think of that word in relation to hobbits) for his world, he is absolutely cast as a misfit, and spends years alternately living in a storage closet and being tortured by his schoolmates who have as much ability to alter their worlds as he does, all while dealing with the premature and, as he learns, violent deaths of his parents. And the books are very much about a teenage boy "striving to become what he should be". The fact that that is not the only - or even main - focus of this book doesn't negate that. Stories of magic and ordinary people who stumble on it and must grapple with it are a long and happy tradition, and C S Lewis, a very devout Christian, contributed one of its most famous modern works with the Narnia series. Again, children discover, quite accidentally, magic of a much more escapist and fanciful nature; and spend much less time sorting out their obligations and struggling with - well, anything, than Potter, than playing with animals and fauns and being kings and queens. I find it very interesting that this review is so dismissive of the "innermost feelings" of its readers, while so very full of its own righteousness, which I find at least as tiresome. Both inner feelings and concern over social entropy are valid, even essential concerns. What is ironic is that the narrowness and lack of vision the writer blames on the obsession with the former are quite evident in his obsession with the latter. The last paragraph, presumably offered tongue-in-cheek, is quite revealing. Indeed, how reassuring that someone put this kind of thinking back in perspective. There are excellent points to be made about the narcissism, shallowness and entropy of modern culture. It is unfortunate that the reviewer chose this material as a forum in which to attempt to discuss them.
Maggie Whitehead (Jul 20, '05)


Et tu, Spengler? Can self-indulgent readers expect a sequel to Harry Potter and the Decline of the West [Jul 20] coming out soon? I suspect this one was written by a defrocked Luciferian Lilliputian who successfully succeeded in releasing his inner emotions and lacing them with a voice of certainty and scholarly wisdom elevated to a point of narcissism; a hunched figure in a red wig, scrolling and scowling through his Harry Potter lenses. Spengler surely has left even the gods bowing their heads in shame as they sheepishly tuck their respective HP first editions under their robes, to be read surreptitiously later in the privacy of their upper rooms even as they chant in ritualistic devotion: "In the beginning was Spengler, and Spengler was the word; and the word was with Spengler."
Beryl
USA (Jul 20, '05)


Spengler waxes pensively superior in Harry Potter and the Decline of the West [Jul 20]. Is Harry Potter any less a Bildungsroman than, say, [Thomas] Mann's The Magic Mountain? The Chilean writer Ariel Dorfman sought to show the nefarious influence of Western culture in popular children's literature, in The Empire's Old Clothes: What the Lone Ranger, Babar, and Other Innocent Heroes Do to Our Minds. Dorfman ... reads too deeply as an adult into children's literature which the young reader's eye doesn't see. It does not absorb the secret code of imperialism or Orientalism or whatever. It is magically entranced by a rattling good yarn. Bruno Bettelheim says it all in his Uses of Enchantment. The child, by reading these stories, is guided through stages of psychological development on his way to becoming adult. Today, the world has flattened dully. The awe and wonder and fun of childhood [have] fallen under suspicion. Yet Alice, The Wind in the Willows, Winnie the Pooh - the book, not the Disney creation - Grimm's fairy tales, and many others enthrall still, and our young ones are all the richer for that.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 20, '05)


The Harry Potter phenomenon, so skillfully mastered by Spengler in his essay [Harry Potter and the Decline of the West, is very much a symptom of what is becoming of the descending generation of the Age of American Imperialism. The impending crisis of globalization is leading to an introversion of the masses. The prospect of the future according to the past looks so grim that egos let go of reality and retreat into fantasy ... Spengler's complaints about the art of the 20th century sound the same to me as [Adolf] Hitler's. Both cling to a spirit of the past. Both long to resurrect old, dead gods. Whereas Spengler never raises the tone above a sad song, Hitler was able to stir the sorrow and the fear into organized anger and hatred, thereby creating a beast to fight to the death for the last bone. Sad songs are a potent weapon of the musician, but the composer who thereafter lifts the masses with the light of the true and the wise bears the most precious gift to the race. It was European science, following out its methods of extreme skepticism that culminated in the quantum age and relativity. The boxed-in universe of [Isaac] Newton was burst asunder by the dynamic and fluid universe of [Albert] Einstein and [Niels] Bohr. Old wineskins could not hold new wine. Now it is the quantum interpretation of the universe more than anything that is responsible for [the] race to the approaching Magical Order. We are merely 100 years into the Quantum Age and people like Spengler continue to sing sad songs about a bygone era, the likes of which we should be perfectly glad to have gotten behind us ... The Muslims and the Christians and the Jews are all trying to use the new energy to prop up their old symbols, but once again, old wineskins cannot hold new wine. While the old religions continue to linger on among countless stale and dull personalities, as unenlightened dimwits are stirred into furious frenzy against the inevitable course of mankind, the creative elite will find the wholeness [of] the moment. The highest will seek a truly universal solution. That is, a new spell. Mass media and the Internet are preparing the way. Harry Potter and Star Wars are preparing the way. Now of course, these ravings come pouring out of an ego that Spengler may accuse of having too much recourse to the function of feeling. But from the perspective of history, amidst the contemporary strife of globalization, consciousness ought to intuit that something remarkable is in the works for the strange species of animal called Homo sapiens. Is not our history strange indeed? Should not our future be even stranger? ...
Adam Archetype (Jul 20, '05)


[Re] Harry Potter and the Decline of the West (Jul 20): According to Spengler, the decline of the West is caused by women, condoms, jihadis, Muslims in general, abortion, and now, finally, yes ... Harry Potter. The only thing going extinct here is you, Spengler. Please eat your meds and leave us "decadent" Westerners alone.
Emad
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Jul 20, '05)


[Self-service jihad (Jul 20) is] another of [Pepe] Escobar's [articles that are] more telling in what he does not comment on than in what conclusions he reaches. What began with the financial and military support by the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] to OBL [Osama bin Laden] and his dedicated followers in killing thousands of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, followed by promises not kept, has now grown roots outside of Asia and the Middle East. Without putting words into Pepe's mouth but still mulling between the lines of his conclusions, is the world witnessing the beginning of actions that could be termed "The Colonies Strike Back"? And since most all of the colonies were/are Muslim, is it any wonder then that those involved are of the Islamic faith? An Escobar-Spengler tete-a-tete on the potentialities of such a topic might provide ATol's readers an illuminating exposition.
Armand de Laurel (Jul 20, '05)


The article US accepts India as a nuclear buddy [Jul 20] reads like a litany of cozy friendship between India and the US blossoming all over the place. Unfortunately Siddharth Srivistava forgot to mention that the US has refused to support India's candidature for a UNSC [United Nations Security Council] seat and the US (specifically [by President George W] Bush) promises of nuclear-technology sharing will occur if Congress approves such a move and if other international regulatory bodies see eye to eye with Mr Bush. In other words, the US promises are at this stage hardly concrete. One could easily presume they are "empty promises", but the US (or Mr Bush) has given [Prime Minister Manmohan] Singh a laundry list of issues that India has to meet in order "that the strategic alliance is to progress". India on the other hand has signed up to a variety of issues regarding her nuclear program [under] international scrutiny. The US has also denied support to the UNSC seat to Dr Singh ... The US is an old [hand] at promising things to bring about alliances; whether she lives by them or not is beside the issue. Take Pakistan, for instance, a longtime ally of the US. Right now Pakistan is a political basket case and the US has come out smelling like a rose. Now India wants to step into Pakistan's shoes with the hope of taking a bite at the carrot the US is dangling in front of India. I am sure the US will throw scraps to India when it suits her and India will take the bait and return to the US bountiful "presents" in return. Indian history has shown that India can easily be persuaded by greater powers with tokens in return for India's wealth. The last time this happened it was the British, but at least the British came to India and through hook and crook was able to swallow the entire subcontinent. Now we have the leader of India going to the sole superpower of the world based on a promise for a role as a global power willing to sign anything do anything for it. The minute Dr Singh stepped on US soil the State Department went on overdrive to tie the strings to Dr Singh to make him dance to the US call, and India has accepted those "strings" without question, with Dr Singh returning to India actually proud of the "achievement" of becoming a vassal state to the US. Only time will tell how [many] tears India will have to shed for stepping into the same shoes as Pakistan did [such a] long time ago with the US.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 20, '05)


In reply to Steve Martin, New York (letter, Jul 19): I think [letter writer] Chrysantha Wijeyasingha has mentioned previously that he is of Sri Lankan, and not Indian, origin. The surname Wijeyasingha does indeed sound Sinhalese. Regardless of whether or not this is true, it is totally unfair of you to take the views of one person as representative of those of the entire population of a 1-billion-plus [population] country. There is already plenty of misunderstanding and miscommunication in this world, leading to considerable strife - please don't add any more. Besides, as I have mentioned previously, people removed from their native culture, and unable to find true acceptance in an alien land, are usually the most diehard self-appointed protectors of their original culture, often supporting the most twisted of causes in a desperate attempt to belong somewhere. As examples: the IRA [Irish Republican Army] enjoys far more support in the Irish-speaking states of the eastern USA than in Ireland itself; all the terrorist movements in India have much more backing among the immigrant communities in the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, etc than within India itself; the most ardent supporters of the Chinese Communist Party on this forum are those who have escaped its clutches for the freedoms of the West. And so too with the right-wing Hindu movement in India - it enjoys far more support among the immigrant Hindu communities outside India than among the ordinary people of the home country. So please don't selectively pick letters written by foreign-based people with Indian-sounding names and assume that this is how ordinary Indians think/feel. You could not possibly be further from the truth. What is really creating big trouble in India is the money being pumped into right-wing Hindu party coffers by many Hindus settled abroad. Apart from all this, it would be nice if well-meaning people claiming to speak for Indian Muslims actually listened to what they had to say. A good place to start would be with journalist M J Akbar's blog (www.mjakbar.org). He has also given a very nice interview with the American National Public Radio that is available online.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Jul 20, '05)


Any right-minded Indian would resent Steve Martin's words "aptly displays the hypocrisy of the Indians who every day cry on these pages of injustices visited on them by Muslims; at the same time overlooking their [own] crimes" [letter, Jul 19]. I won't bother, as his writing clearly exhibits two things: his utter lack of knowledge of the subject (trying to distinguish between "Indians" and "Muslims" when a healthy 15% of Indians are Muslims, a good majority of them proud Indians); and his ill feelings towards Indians when he tries to tar all Indians with the same feathers he uses for [letter writer] Chrysantha Wijeyasingha. The name Wijeyasingha sounds Sri Lankan (Sinhala-Buddhist) to me, and I seem to recall Chrysantha Wijeyasingha saying in an earlier letter he is not a Hindu. Mr Martin may have to accept that there are a lot of people like Mr Wijeyasingha who think that "Muslim Taj Mahal" and Muslim "right" to have worship structures built upon other religions' are not only wrong, but also encourage extremism and separatism. Ensconced in his "Western fortress", Mr Martin may do well to develop some knowledge and understanding (empathy even?) for the participants of other cultures, before deciding to sit judgment on their issues.
Karigar
USA (Jul 20, '05)

In a June 27 letter, Chrysantha Wijeyasingha indicated that he is "a Christian from South Asia". - ATol


I wish to respond to Hindu as well as non-Hindu writers that the Islamic law ordains justice to, and observance of certain rules regarding, the non-Muslims ... The conception of nationality in Islam is based neither on an ethnic source nor on place of birth but on the identity of ideology, ie religion. The Islamic law categorically forbids any recourse to compulsion for converting others to Islam and maintains rigorous discipline on its adherents in case of transgression ... Islam is gaining ground In Europe, North and South America, Africa [and] Southeast Asia and it is not because of the sword as many diehard opponents say but because of its excellent message of love and peace for mankind ... Islam seeks to establish a world community where every individual makes a constant effort for spreading good and preventing evil. Muslims have been on the receiving end of so many accusations since [September 11, 2001] and it has almost become a commercial trade for many to sully Islam [at] every opportunity: for some to gain higher status or capital gains of one sort or the other; for the Western press and media to increase their circulation and ratings on the air, and I am afraid to say [that] for many Hindu writers, it has become a hobby and sport of delinquent verbosity. Aurangzeb is being portrayed as an orthodox and intolerant ruler of India by many Hindu writers, which is factually incorrect. A number of non-Muslims, including Hindus, Sikhs, Marathas and Jats, were employed by him in his court. Aurangzeb did not compromise on the fundamentals of Islam, which are in fact the moving spirit of every faith. Historical facts must be interpreted in their true and objective spirit and not subjectively as expressed by the Hindu writers ... I have read somewhere that he even sanctioned grants for the restoration of Hindu temples. With regard to the destruction of temples that the Muslim invaders smashed as alleged by the Hindus, [most of those] housed licentious statues of deities copulating and displaying whole sets of Kama Sutra in public. It is beyond the realm of human decency, dignity and morality that a place of worship or otherwise display pornographic material.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jul 20, '05)

In William Fisher's article Charlie's war, act two [Jul 19], the author argues: "But in Charlie Wilson's War (2003 Grove/Atlantic), [George] Crile notes that the US-financed war against the Soviets in Afghanistan also helped create the political vacuum that was filled by the Taliban and Islamic extremists, who turned their deadly terrorism against the US on September 11 [2001]." The error in Afghanistan was not the US support of the mujahideen, but the lack of support for the emerging political and social system once the Soviets departed. This was the shortsighted failure of the Bush I administration. The world agrees that the Soviet departure created and left a vacuum. Had the US led an effort to rebuild the nation, the Taliban would not have come to power. The extremists would not have had a safe haven to plan their radical agenda. It wasn't the action that led to our current problems, but the inaction.
Scott (Jul 19, '05)


After reading the essay Charlie's war, act two [Jul 19], I could not help but remember being told in my youth, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I guess at this point I should ask, "Are we there yet?"
Elizabeth Telson (Jul 19, '05)


[Re] Charlie's war, act two [Jul 19]: In promoting his book on CNN ... George Crile stated rather emphatically in 2003 that Charlie Wilson had given Soviets their own "Vietnam". Unfortunately, he said it way after [the] events of [September 11, 2001], which instantly made him look quite silly. Emotions aside, the Vietcong had never firebombed the Kremlin, and never waged worldwide jihad against its former benefactor - and that by itself is more than enough to dispose once and for all of any shaky parallels being contemplated around the subject. As things stand these days, we can - with the benefit of hindsight - declare the West's "victory" in Afghanistan to be the most Pyrrhic one in all of human history, so much so that it's starting to look [like an] outright deferred defeat, a catastrophe in disguise. I'm pretty sure that Charlie Wilson himself would wish nothing more than to forget the whole "damn thing", let bygones be bygones. And that is entirely understandable - who in the world wants to be remembered as the father of the "mother of all blowbacks", from now on and into eternity? Even the self-proclaimed master of [the] global chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinsky himself, who in 1990s and up to September 11, 2001, was never caught missing an opportunity to remind everyone that it was actually him who lured the USSR into the Afghanistan trap, prefers today not to mention the pesky fact. I can only hope that we'll see more interesting and profound books about Afghanistan in the future. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a watershed event, not a "Charlie's war", the consequences of which will reverberate in the world for decades to come.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Jul 19, '05)


[Re] Charlie's war, act two [Jul 19: William] Fisher failed to report about the Soviet achievements in Afghanistan: elections and women's right to participate in politics and universal education, which the US-backed mujahideen destroyed and what the Bush regime uses to justify its present semi-occupation.
Geof Replogos
USA (Jul 19, '05)


Re Harry Potter and the Decline of the West [Jul 19]: Spengler needs to loosen up. He's giving away a strong hint of his age. It's just a fact of life that every generation's elders [disapprove] of the indulgences and behaviors of their youth. Harry Potter is nothing worse than this generation's version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I've read his essays; he really should concentrate on convincing Europeans to have more children, not bothering with repressing the existing ones' imaginations.
Andrew MacDonald
Canada (Jul 19, '05)


Mohammed Hussain's article [The dehumanizing factor, Jul 16], sadly, is a cliche-ridden haze of nonsense from beginning to end, reading more like an Islamist propaganda piece than the satire it pretends to be. Western governments are against "political" Islam? What in the world is this so-called "political" Islam apart from the Islamism that has fathered the Frankenstein of global terror? The West would not be in its right mind if it were not against this pathetic Marxist ideology that imposes its tyranny on the whole Muslim world. There are more political freedoms today in London, Paris, and New York than there ever were in Umayyad Damascus (7th century) or Abbasid Baghdad (8th to 13th centuries). And that is actually why the Islamists have not been quashed yet. Now everyone is talking about "moderate" Islamists, as if such a species even exists. We have been here before and we have been tormented with this "political Islam" drivel for some seven decades now. Please stop the smugness, the rotten arrogance, the debilitating hate, the literalist stupidity.
Hayder Moin
USA (Jul 19, '05)


Martin Young: I cannot tell you how thrilling it was to read your story about finding the USS Lagarto [Wrangle over US wreck, Jul 15]. My father, Bill Azbell, served with Captain [Frank] Latta on board the USS Narwhal. When the captain was transferred to the Lagarto, my father begged to go along - as did others. When Latta left the Narwhal, his last words to my father were, "Bill, it's up to the gods on whether you will join the boat later." That transfer was not to be. My mother and I were always grateful; but my father would have gone down with the boat to be with Captain Latta. The degree of loyalty Latta's men had is just unimaginable ...
Shelley Azbell Garvey (Jul 19, '05)

Ms Azbell Garvey is interested in learning more about the relatives of those who served on the Lagarto, "especially, of course, Captain Latta's son". If readers have information that can help her, please contact Asia Dive Site. - ATol


Of the five arguments that Wu Lei and Li Xue-Jun (Oil and the yuan, Jul 15) give against revaluation of the yuan (read appreciation) for the time being, two are half-right in that they have some elements of truth. Of these two, the one on price in relation to supply and demand is obvious, well-known and hardly controversial, and the other concerning oil price hikes as a result of a more expensive yuan may but need not be correct. The issue here is the impact of the revaluation of the yuan on oil prices and the consequences for world economy.
First, while it is clear that a revaluation of the yuan would lower the cost of oil import, there is no reason to believe, as the authors assert, that a stronger Chinese currency would allow the country to purchase more oil for the same amount of US dollars. This is due to the simple fact that oil is priced in US dollars. Nor is there reason to suppose that a higher value for the yuan could have a positive effect on China's oil supply security, ie China will get more oil for the same amount of renminbi it pays out. In fact, it is far from clear this is in China's interest. If the Beijing leadership decided to take advantage of the rising purchasing power of its currency by importing more oil (for example, to build infrastructure for the long term), then it would certainly drive up oil prices. This would immediately have drastic consequences not only for the world economy but also for China's as well. It is therefore strange that the authors reach the same conclusion in apparent contradiction to their earlier claim (two paragraphs back) that a yuan revaluation could have a positive effect on China's oil-supply security.
Second, it is hardly controversial that high oil prices are a direct consequence of supply not being able to meet demand. Oil supply is clearly finite and vulnerable in an increasingly unstable world. On top of that is the antiquated world refinery system that cannot keep pace with the rapid demand for oil in ever-expanding economies like China's and India's. Also not to be overlooked is the fact that the oil industry is by no means a benevolent party in these times. It is no secret that the oil-producing countries and oil corporations have made handsome profits in the last few years. From the perspective of the oil industry, there is every reason to artificially maintain high oil prices. For the business sector, oil is just another commodity to make money out of, and now is just the right time.
Third, depending on what China wants to do with its having higher purchasing power, an appreciation of the yuan does not necessarily lead to higher oil prices and thereby negatively affect the economy of the rest of the world. If China slows down its economy, ie to export less and correspondingly import less oil, easing the price pressure on the oil supply, then the rest of the world economy would benefit most. Thus the gains that the United States and the European Union will benefit from the appreciation of the yuan do not necessarily go down the drain. The question is then whether China is ready to accept the loss of the annual economic growth of close to 10% that almost all other countries can only dream of.
Fourth, for the same reason, a higher value of the yuan need not lead to negative growth for the oil-producing countries. They need not purchase the same amount of goods from China, and hence need not pay more. But it is quite obvious what the impact this has on the Chinese economy. It thus seems that China would have little to gain in revaluating the yuan, or in significantly slowing down its economy. The alternative in which China would have nothing to lose is to maintain the current status; after all, what can be easier than doing nothing? This explains why, despite wild cries from politicians of the developed world, China has not been keen on revaluing its currency. China's state-controlled economic policy has worked very well. It weathered the Asian financial crisis in 1998, and [then] emerged as an economic powerhouse in Asia. The world economy, especially that in Europe, has not completely recovered from the recession of the turn of century. Yet China's economy keeps growing. There is thus no reason for China to reconsider its currency policy.
Fifth, trade frictions happen all the time, and they can be resolved by negotiations. Lower oil prices may leave some more room for maneuvering, and they will continue to exist in some form or another. The key to negotiations is less greed and readiness to compromise. International image problem? Compared [with] the United States, China looks like a saint in the eye of much of the world.
Paul Law
Berlin, Germany (Jul 19, '05)


[The Jul 18] letter by Chrysantha Wijeyasingha is extremely disturbing; he seems to be threatening the Muslims of India if they decided to claim the Taj Mahal as their cultural heritage. Wijeyasingha nonchalantly alludes to the destruction of the Babri Masjid and the slaughter of thousands of innocent Muslims by Hindu mobs. I recall Wijeyasingha as being one of the chief proponents on this site for the use of force against Muslim people and countries for their alleged intolerance. He aptly displays the hypocrisy of the Indians who every day cry on these pages of injustices visited on them by Muslims; at the same time overlooking their [own] crimes.
Steve Martin
New York, New York (Jul 19, '05)


One of the Chinese top military generals recently said that China was ready to enter into a nuclear war, if need be, against the USA over the Taiwan issue. It is very unfortunate that a country that is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can raise the danger level of nuclear threat to such an extent. China considers Taiwan a "renegade state" that she wants to annex once and for all. And a new push in that direction was evident in the recent passing by China of an anti-secession law, which was a virtual threat of war against Taipei in the event of it choosing to declare independence. The law allows Beijing to use force to thwart any secession move. The sayings of the general suggest that China would use nuclear weapons against Taiwan and her allies in the event of a war. Taiwan has every right to declare Independence. The recent economic development and progress in every spheres of human endeavors show that Taiwan by now is a developed country and all these are the fruits of her hard working citizens. Why would she join China? What for? Taiwan has proved she can stay independent of Chinese supremacy. Therefore, it would be better for the greedy Chinese to leave Taiwan alone. The nuclear threat that China used is surely a matter of grave concern for all the nations of the world. It may trigger another world war. Did the general ever think of the destruction of innocent human lives owing to the nuclear war? The pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would well tell the horrific effect the nuclear weapons had on human beings. Is Chinese materialistic greed better than the lives of thousands of innocent civilians? China is a non-Muslim nation and as the world assumes that all the non-Muslim nations are civilized and non-violent, why would China contradict the world opinion? [If] Muslims are savages, then what are non-Muslims who threat others by nuclear weapons? Muslims are terrorists who blasted the twin towers [of New York's World Trade Center] and are responsible for the London blasts [of July 7], but what are Christians who killed more than 150,000 innocent Muslims, destroyed the livelihoods of their surviving kith and kin, and wiped out most of the infrastructures by aerial bombings in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? We must review our opinion on Islam and start focusing on Christian and other terrorism ...
Mohd Salekun Noor
Al Fujairah, UAE (Jul 19, '05)

General Zhu Chengdu has claimed, and the Chinese government has affirmed (albeit rather meekly), that his July 15 remarks about a nuclear response were his "personal views" and not necessarily reflective of government policy. - ATol

Mohammed Hussain in his article The dehumanizing factor [Jul 16] is correct to point out how war and terror are to a great extent self-perpetuating. It does not take a pacifist to note that in order to fight a ruthless enemy, one must also become ruthless, and that casts a dark shadow over any war, no matter how righteous the cause. Just as the Second World War and the Cold War saw the Western Powers engage in atrocities in the course of struggle against undeniably atrocious enemies, so, unfortunately, will the current transnational counter-insurgency against radical Islamists. But his criticism of liberal values as the panacea to terroristic warfare reveals a major flaw in his case. Certainly liberalism is flawed and one should not discourage civilized efforts to improve on it. But is that to say Westerners (and other non-Muslims) should stand mute before a radically illiberal and barbaric adversary? Islamism, as [it] has been put into practice in a number of Muslim countries, does not need Western liberal capitalist machinations to discredit it. The regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan, among others, all justify (to varying degrees) horrendous despotism in the name of enforcing virtue, as though their peoples were slaves who had to be whipped into good behavior. Mr Hussain's statement that "only Islam is capable of providing a different, viable and distinct ideological model in comparison with the concept of Western liberal democracy and capitalist economics" is highly questionable from multiple perspectives, in addition to flying in the face of the pluralistic line that his article appears to advance. It is absurd to claim that a religious tradition alone, however rich, can provide a comprehensive guide to all walks of human endeavor. What one sees of the contemporary West cannot be accurately termed as simply Judeo-Christian (neither, for that matter, was medieval Islamic civilization strictly Islamic in its heritage). It also ignores the fact that the most stable polities and successful economies outside of the West are not in the Muslim world. In a way, Mr Hussain is correct to disparage the use of Islamism as the replacement adversary for communism. The latter had millions of adherents all over the world in many different cultures. But it is highly unlikely that the vast majority of those East Asians, Europeans, Latin Americans, etc, critical of Western liberalism will embrace Islam as the alternative. In its current prevailing forms, Islamism will remain a regional movement condemned to exile, with a few Nietzchean overman-aspirants from the West joining in. Islamic civilization cannot be done with a pat formula of "Islamic learning for the base, Western learning for technical use". And finally, for the sake of argument, Hollywood's most common stock villains are not Muslims but Germans. Perhaps this is due to the widespread belief, apparently strongly shared by Hollywood, that the German national past cannot be redeemed as a national past, and thus one can stomp on Germans without the charges of racism and ethnocentrism that would accompany similar views towards darker-skinned peoples. Recent movies that have portrayed Arabs/Muslims positively or have had their storylines changed to avoid portraying them negatively include The Mummy, Hidalgo, Kingdom of Heaven, The Sum of All Fears ... we could go on.
Jonathan X
Canada (Jul 18, '05)


Amen and amen to Mohammed Hussain for his excellent article, The dehumanizing factor [Jul 16]. He says pretty much what I've been thinking too.
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (Jul 18, '05)


In How London brought terror on itself [Jul 16], B Raman's presentation of Muslims, more specifically Pakistanis, as a common threat to Jews and Hindus ("a series of attacks on Hindu and Jewish targets"), repeating the Indian government's official line of "Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir" without a remote reference to India's killing of over 100,000 Kashmiri Muslims, and the slanting line of arguments that Free Kashmir is a hub of terrorist activities seem to reveal that B Raman has not retired from his position as additional secretary with the government of India. Presenting him as an independent analysis will only harm the objectivity Asia Times [Online].
Mohammad Aslam
Toronto, Ontario (Jul 18, '05)


In your July 16 article China to get first crack at Russian oil: Putin by John Helmer, an Indian person is quoted as follows: "We don't shoot people in India, as the Chinese would have done if a Chinese investment had secured one of [the] world's largest oil and gas reserves for Indians." What kind of prejudiced and hateful statement is this? Is this Indian person sure that Chinese shoot their own people for business failures? Or is it a projection of his biased view that Chinese are less humane than Indians? Unless this Indian person presented proof to support his hateful statement, I think Asia Times [Online] should have used journalistic judgment and deleted his/her prejudiced view from your article. Responsible journals do not help spread mindless hatred.
Robert Wu
Hong Kong (Jul 18, '05)


Regarding the article Tug-of-war over the Taj Mahal [Jul 16], the fact that Shah Jehan's taxes to build the Taj came mainly from his Hindu subjects, the fact that the majority of construction and artisans to the Taj were Hindu, the fact that the Taj itself is so unique that no building in India or outside measures up to it, in her particular style and the fact that the Taj style is a fusion of both Hindu and Islamic architecture makes the Taj a building that belongs to all of India. But if the Muslims want to claim it for themselves and disown the Hindus of her heritage, so be it. The Hindus have shown what they can do to Muslim buildings such as the Babri Masjid. If they are culturally alienated from the Taj, extreme elements of Hinduism wont see any moral problem in demolishing this controversial building. [Re] Why Indians love America so much [Jul 7]: Maybe true, but one will have to wait and see how the US treats India once this so-called "alliance" between the US and India gets going. The US's "coolie" perception of India has not gone away. Just read the average US newspaper or watch the US media - India is barely even mentioned. The US does have a strategy for India but it will be a strategy that will serve the interests of the US first and last, whether it is to India's detriment or not. Then let's see how the Indians really "love" the US.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 18, '05)


Jim Lobe's article Bush's 'brain' leaked: Did Bush know? [Jul 15] is interesting in the fact that it goes to show how cunning [White House adviser Karl] Rove actually is as GW's brain. Just when the Downing Street Memo was gaining traction with some of the "tabula rasa" journalists and [US President George W] Bush was hearing calls for him to be impeached, Rove valiantly [threw] his body into the line of fire with his involvement in the Valerie Plame affair. Now we are better able to understand why this investigation is two years old: just one of many tricks Rove kept in his bag for that rainy day. Instead of having congressional hearings on the lies leading up to the illegal invasion of Iraq and the war crimes being committed by the White House - which are both a definition of impeachment grounds for high crimes - journalists are on the trail of Rove for what will turn out to be a minor breach of federal law. Sure, in the end, the press corps might get the corpse of Rove on a silver platter, but they won't kill the brain. Rove will retreat to Texas and still fire the synapses in Bush's brain, not unlike the character in The Wizard of Oz who hid his true identity behind a curtain and used a menacing prop to frighten Dorothy and company. The fact that Rove is so easily able to manipulate both the press and public opinion and deflect legitimate questions about Iraq away from his boss shows how skillful this modern day Machiavelli truly is: he has no peer. Meanwhile, we [Americans] are still killing, imprisoning and impoverishing Iraqi civilians at an alarming rate. But in a country that sends 2,200 reporters to cover the sordid Michael Jackson trial, don't expect any rational, intelligent debate about the high crimes and misdemeanors being committed on a daily basis by the Bushies. Or how America has become a nation of war criminals.
Greg Bacon
Ava, Missouri (Jul 18, '05)


What is [Mary McLemore] smoking? It must be some very good stuff. [Her] letter on Jim Lobe's article Bush's 'brain' leaked: Did Bush know? [Jul 15] was full of blatant right-wing propaganda lies that are being parroted on Fox News. "Rove told a reporter that [retired] ambassador Joe Wilson's wife 'apparently' worked at the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] and that's how Wilson had gotten his trip to Niger." Wilson was asked by the CIA officials, not his wife, [to] go to Niger. This is common knowledge. Referring to the [addenda] in the Senate Intelligence Committee report is ludicrous. These are just the personal thoughts of the right-wing leeches on the panel. Not fact, but opinion or fiction. "There's no evidence [Valerie] Plame was covert, and much to suggest she was not: If you're covert, do you go to an office at Langley and have foreign agents take your picture daily as you pass?" Looks like no one knew Valerie was covert, [so] apparently she was very good job at being covert. What knowledge does [Mary McLemore] have [of] CIA protocols, were you in the CIA? Joe Wilson did not lie about anything, The Niger documents are forgeries, no one tried to get uranium. Who made the forgeries is a better question. Accusing Joe Wilson of lying is just an attempt to change the subject. Basically, Joe Wilson outed the neo-con lie, and Karl Rove wanted revenge. Unfortunately, he committed perjury, and treason. This story is not about Joe Wilson, it is about Karl Rove, George Bush and what lies they have been telling the American people. Jim Lobe is an outstanding writer, and I have never found anything he has written to be unfounded or unsupported by fact. That Fox News channel will rot your brain.
Bob Van den Broeck (Jul 18, '05)

Because of a formatting error, Mary McLemore's letter may have appeared to have been signed by Chrysantha Wijeyasingha when the July 15 letters were first uploaded. The error has been corrected. - ATol


Armed with egregious tales of betrayal and deceit that range from possible breaches of national security that could lead up to federal indictments to selling out loyal allies who are no longer essential, the [US] Democrats are descending upon [White House adviser] Karl Rove with unmitigated fury, by desperately trying to put some legs on the story of his involvement in the disclosure of a CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] agent's identity, with the willing help from ... all-too-compliant media [Bush's 'brain' leaked: Did Bush know?, Jul 15]. But if, as has been claimed by the Time magazine reporter [Matthew Cooper], Mr Rove is only one of the alleged sources, why are the other sources not persons of interest to the media? Will Karl Rove alone get the bulk of the so-called impartial media's wrath and indignation? And who, pray tell, are the other sources? It looks more like the Democrats so loathe Mr Rove that they are willing to pursue another Tom Delay-style witch-hunt against their nemesis, by engaging in this type of character assassination, even though their motives are becoming increasingly suspect, and the best they could attain by beating this dead horse is a posthumous victory against the architect of their embarrassing defeat back in November. Their efforts would probably yield more interesting fruit if they were to join those poor deluded souls who are still counting votes in Ohio.
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts (Jul 18, '05)


I read many sources of news on the Internet, and must say you're about the most anti-anything-American found. That includes communist mouthpieces from various countries. Perhaps you should rename your site, like "Down with Imperialist America".
Daniel Tanner (Jul 18, '05)


This is in response to the mail of Geoff Sherwood (Jul 15). First of all I would like to clarify the huge misconception the writer has about the Islam. The imaginary war that you have visualized in your vitiated mental horizon between Islam and the West is nothing but balderdash. If Muslims hated the West to the extent of killing each and every Caucasian, why did Muslims help America in her war against terrorism? And if you feel terrorists are attacking only the West, why then have there been terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, killing Muslims? Terrorism has no religion; it is but a deadly vision of the disgruntled people of our society. And the term which you fondly used, "Islamist terrorist", no doubt resulted from the constant stereotyping and bashing the media [give] Islam. When a gunman attacks a mosque in the name of Judaism, a Catholic IRA [Irish Republican Army] guerrilla sets off a bomb in an urban area, or Serbian Orthodox militiamen rape and kill innocent Muslim civilians, these acts are not used to stereotype an entire faith. Never are these acts attributed to the religion of the perpetrators. Yet how many times have we heard the words "Islamic", "Muslim fundamentalist" etc linked with violence? Politics in so-called "Muslim countries" may or may not have any Islamic basis. Often dictators and politicians will use the name of Islam for their own purposes. One should remember to go to the source of Islam and separate what the true religion of Islam says from what is portrayed in the media. Islam literally means "submission to God" and is derived from a root word meaning "peace". Islam may seem exotic or even extreme in the modern world. Perhaps this is because religion doesn't dominate everyday life in the West, whereas Islam is considered a "way of life" for Muslims and they make no division between secular and sacred in their lives. Like Christianity, Islam permits fighting in self-defense, in defense of religion, or on the part of those who have been expelled forcibly from their homes. It lays down strict rules of combat, which include prohibitions against harming civilians and against destroying crops, trees and livestock. Nowhere does Islam enjoin the killing of [the] innocent. The Koran says: "Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors" (2:190). "If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in God for He is the One that heareth and knoweth all things" (8:61). War, therefore, is the last resort, and is subject to the rigorous conditions laid down by the sacred law. The term "jihad" literally means "struggle". Muslims believe that there are two kinds of jihad. The other "jihad" is the inner struggle of the soul, which everyone wages against egotistic desires for the sake of attaining inner peace ... Let me also remind you that the biggest terror-supportive nation, the USA, helped the rise of al-Qaeda. Why did the US support Iraq and provide her with deadly weapons against Iran? Why did the US soldiers train Saddam's army during the Iran-Iraq War? Why did the US help the rise of a dictator like Saddam Hussein who later killed thousands of innocent civilians? Why did the US help the Afghan mujahideen against the former USSR? Who taught the Muslims guerrilla warfare? Islam is not a religion that respects racism. "Islam replaced monkishness by manliness. It gives hope to the slave, brotherhood to mankind, and recognition of the fundamental facts of human nature." - Canon Taylor, Paper read before the Church Congress at Walverhamton, October 7, 1887; Quoted by [T W Arnold] in The Preaching of Islam, pp 71-72.
Mohammad Saleh
Saudi Arabia (Jul 18, '05)


Geoff Sherwood, New Jersey, USA, wrote (Jul 15), "No Muslim ever organized an al-Qaeda to attack Iraq and Iran for fighting a 10-year war that killed exponentially more Muslims than have died in the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where was the Muslim world's sanctimonious political grievance during that horrific war? The hypocrisy of Muslim anger against the West will always ring hollow in [the United States of] America. To claim that this anger is primarily political is sheer idiocy." By that same logic no Christian organization ever organized an attack against European countries for butchering each other's Christians on a scale unheard of in history (two World Wars, apart from several European wars). The hypocrisy of Western anger against Western-spawned terrorism will always ring hollow in the Third World, which has had a thousand times more victims than the rich white countries. To claim that terrorism is primarily due to religion (Islam) is sheer idiocy. Terrorism requires extensive resources to sustain - the kind of resources that only a state or government can provide - hence it is always political in nature. Religion is just one piece of the puzzle. Western countries have encouraged terrorism in the past for political reasons, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Jul 18, '05)


Saqib Khan's bubble deserves to be pricked [letter, Jul 14]. He implies that in Islamic civilizations, people of other religions always enjoyed religious freedom and equal rights. When one reads chronicles of destruction of Hindu temples in Gujarat (or even present-day Pakistan, which was overwhelmingly Hindu, a fact that most Pakistani Islamists would love to either forget or wince at) by Muslim invaders along with the slaughter of priests, certainly religious freedom and tolerance [seem] to have dumped for political/military supremacy and material greed. As Karigar pointed out in his response [Jul 15], Aurangzeb, the last powerful Muslim Mughal to rule India, was known to have followed extremely discriminatory and outright genocidal practices against Hindus. Quite expectedly, Aurangzeb is adulated among fundamentalist Muslim circles of South Asia, particularly Pakistan, even though his persecutory practices led to the rise of non-Muslim forces (Marathas in the west and Sikhs in the north) that eventually destroyed the Mughal empire. Aurangzeb is of course just one of the several anti-Hindu Muslim monarchs. If there is tolerance enshrined in Islam, a significant number of medieval Muslim rulers of the Indian subcontinent seemed to have conveniently ignored them out of sinister or selfish motives. The only period in north Indian history when we see genuine tolerance toward other religions by Muslim monarchs is the reign of the Mughal emperor Akbar (son of a Hindu mother and Muslim father), who was promptly vilified by contemporary mullahs for doing "un-Islamic" things. The argument that Muslim rule in India was an embodiment of tolerance because India is still overwhelmingly Hindu is a non-starter, because there are 400 million Muslims in South Asia, most of [whom] are not descendants of any of the Islamic invader clans. People like Saqib Khan, and Islamists in general, need a new mantra other than vilifying sacred practices of other religions, undermining science and stifling free thought and creativity. It is the dangerous and highly self-serving belief that only Islam and Muslims hold copyrights to salvation/heaven/nirvana that helps in generating violent jihadis with a wicked mindset. If there is a personal God, there is no logical reason He (or She) would prefer good people of Islam over good people of other religions.
Rakesh
India (Jul 18, '05)


The letter by Saqib Khan from London, England (Jul 14), in which he states, "People of different faiths were never forced to accept Islam and we can see the evidence: in India 85% of the population still practice Hinduism and over 95% of the Europeans are Christian, 18 million Coptic Christian still live in Egypt despite ruled by the Muslims for long periods" is absurd. Every day, Egyptian Copts, or rather those who still survive, face persecution, kidnapping and forced conversions at the hands of Muslims ... Visit the website of Jubilee Campaign, a Christian human-rights group, to learn more about forced conversion of Christians to Islam in Egypt. Copts themselves will tell you that their problems are as old as when the Muslim invaders first conquered Coptic Christian Egypt. In Pakistan, Christians are habitually charged with violating section 295(c) of the Penal Code - which mandates death or life in prison for anyone who blasphemes "the sacred name of the holy Prophet Mohammed", by being tricked into saying they don't believe Mohammed was a prophet while being coaxed to convert to Islam. According to Professor Jonathan Philips, author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, "Christians and Jews who lived under Muslim rule were never treated as equals or accorded full rights as citizens, and always suffered under various forms of institutionalized discrimination and harassment." That certainly is what my Indian friends tell me about their historical experiences with Muslim rule, where millions of Hindus and Buddhists were slaughtered by Muslim invaders ... In Southeast Asia, where I used to live, the only Catholic country in the region, the Philippines, watches helplessly as jihadists snatch away their south in order to created a Muslim homeland, because Muslims there cannot tolerate the idea of co-existing with or being governed by people of another faith. Thailand appears equally powerless to do much about its problems with Muslim separatists in its south. Moderate Muslims, which I assume Saqib Khan would say he is, who write letters claiming Islam has a blameless past and Muslims are tolerant of other faiths ignore their own history and refuse to come to terms with their past, as Christians have done ...
Steven
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 18, '05)
 

The revelation in [Jim] Lobe's article [ Bush's 'brain' leaked: Did Bush know?, Jul 15] about [New York Times reporter] Judith Miller's close association with the neo-conservative war hawks and her consistent spreading, in the run-up to the war, of stories about Iraq's alleged WMD [weapons of mass destruction] puts her in an interesting light as far as the grand-jury investigations are concerned. Maybe the special counsel, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, is on to something other than just who "outed" the identity of Valerie Plame. He has been particularly merciless about obtaining the testimonies of [Time magazine reporter Matthew] Cooper and Miller. Cooper gave his on July 14. Interesting days ahead!
Giri Girishankar (Jul 15, '05)


Jim Lobe has a few things wrong [ Bush's 'brain' leaked: Did Bush know?, Jul 15]. [Karl] Rove told a reporter that [retired] ambassador Joe Wilson's wife "apparently" worked at the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] and that's how Wilson had gotten his trip to Niger. There's no evidence [Valerie] Plame was covert, and much to suggest she was not: If you're covert, do you go to an office at Langley and have foreign agents take your picture daily as you pass? If you're covert, do you send your husband on a trip which covers your area of expertise? I know the CIA has slipped, but that doesn't even pass the laugh test. And ambassador Wilson "outed" his own wife on his bio on his website, which you'd think he'd be smart enough not to do. And isn't it funny that everyone is after Rove for telling a reporter the truth - that Wilson's credibility was suspect, since we now know Wilson lied about a number of things, and not just his conclusions about the yellowcake. Add to that the couple's violation of government nepotism rules, and Ms Plame's violation of election law by giving false information with a campaign contribution, and they don't look like such fine victims anymore, do they?
Mary McLemore
Pike Road, Alabama


The globalization of Islamist terrorism is not going to elevate Islam to a higher sense of respectability in the world's eye [ War comes to the heart of Europe, Jul 15]. As a matter of fact the more they indulge in this extremist form of Islam, Islam itself will be engulfed by this extremist attitude. Even with a billion Muslims the world is too large and diverse to bow down to the extreme forms of Islam. The more I hear news of Islamic terror now occurring in almost all the continents, the more I feel that Islam as the religion we know will [implode] under the pressure of these extremists and ... I don't just mean the philosophy of Islam, but the practitioners of that faith ... The worst thing a major world religion could face is ostracization, and I believe Islam is running down that path.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 15, '05)


The war that Islamist (or, as some may fancy them, "Qutbian") terrorists are waging is not essentially a "political war", as Toni Momirowski [ So you want to stop the suicide bombers?, Jul 12] and others claim. Theirs is a profound misreading of jihadist motivations, identical to the grotesque dumbing down of the motives of [Adolf] Hitler and [Josef] Stalin by their apologists, who claimed they were mere politicians, acting out their political beliefs. In a recent courtroom scene, a jihadi told the mother of one of his murder victims that he could not feel anything for her because she was an "unbeliever". That is not a political statement. When Islamic terrorists and their apologists cite any and all perceived iniquities against Muslims (while ignoring all crimes committed by Muslims) as an excuse for Muslim rage, they are not making a political statement - they are exposing the bigotry that is aided and abetted by their religious leaders. There are all sorts of clever pseudo-intellectualisms parading around these days explaining Islamism as a "search for identity", or as a predominantly political response to encroaching Westernization and globalization. New terminology is invented, such as Olivier Roy's "deterritorialization". All high-minded. All empty. All dancing around the obvious: What starts as legitimate political grievance mutates into something truly evil when molded by religion and bigotry. It is religion, and bigotry, and ideology that are the final ingredients of the witch's brew that results in the dehumanization of the enemy. Political grievances alone rarely result in dehumanization, unless they are combined with the emotions that are triggered by appeals to race, nationality or religion. No Muslim ever organized an al-Qaeda to attack Iraq and Iran for fighting a 10-year war that killed exponentially more Muslims than have died in the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where was the Muslim world's sanctimonious political grievance during that horrific war? The hypocrisy of Muslim anger against the West will always ring hollow in [the United States of] America. To claim that this anger is primarily political is sheer idiocy. The political grievances are genuine, but they are the veneer covering the deeper motivations, which are racial, ideological and/or religious, in varying degrees depending on the individual jihadi.
Geoff Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Jul 15, '05)


I wish to respond to your comments added to my letter of July 13 regarding So you want to stop the suicide bombers? (Jul 12) You are correct that in the Arabic language the word jihad may be interpreted to mean "struggle", and has more than one context. What you fail to mention is that Arabic is not the language in which the Koran was originally written and that the Koran is overflowing with exhortations to invade, kill and forcibly convert non-Muslims within the context of jihad. To justify their actions Islamic terrorists always refer to the Koran and the sayings of Mohammed, and no leading Muslim leader has ever renounced this by fatwa. While you like many others cling to the notion Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by extremists, and try to understand other faiths in multicultural embrace, no such reciprocity exists in Muslim lands because that is contrary to Islam. It is ridiculous to think that Islamic terrorists in Western lands could go about their deadly business without some of your so-called moderate Muslims knowing what they are up to, yet no effort is made to stop them. So much for moderate Islam. The argument Islamic terrorism is payback for Iraq and Palestine is incongruous because jihad war is a constant of Islamic history. European multiculturalists may not wish to offend the sensibilities of Islamic immigrants by talking about Islam's crusades, which saw Muslim invaders camped outside the gates of Vienna in 1683, but that is their choice. As an editor, you should know better. In the case of "Palestine", please refer to the recent statement by Hamas leaders declaring that the ongoing Gaza withdrawal won't stop armed conflict until Jews also leave the entire West Bank and all of Israel. Your comment [that the name] "Palestine" dates to the Philistines may be factually correct but not in the context of it being a Muslim land. The Philistines you refer to were Jews subjected to brutal armed jihad conquest that lasted for over six centuries. When Israel was "born" in the 1940s the majority of the acreage comprising what is now called Palestine was, for the most part, barren scrub visited only by nomadic herders. Modern-day Muslim "Palestinians" are predominately of Egyptian and Syrian descent. If anyone has a right to claim the land of Palestine it is the Jews who had it taken from them. But don't take my word for what Muslims really believe; after all, I am not a Muslim. Go back to 1981 and look at the speech Iran's revered [ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini made on the birthday of Mohammad. "Why do you mullahs only go after the ordinances of prayer and fasting? Why do you only read the Koranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing? Koran says: kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God. There are no moderates [among Islamists]."
Lek
Singapore (Jul 15, '05)

We have never denied that violence has been committed in the name of Islam throughout its history, but there nonetheless exists now a peaceful stream within the religion, and a core of educated Muslims who encourage it and decry jihadist violence (see Why thugs can hijack 'jihad', Mar 6, '03). As for your contention that "Arabic is not the language in which the Koran was originally written", even if that were true (which it is not), we're not sure what your point is. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, you are also incorrect about the original Philistines being "Jews"; they were not even Semites, having hailed from somewhere in the Aegean region, possibly Crete. The Israelites were their enemies. In any case, we did not say or suggest that the Philistines were Muslims; they died out as an identifiable people centuries before Mohammed was born. - ATol


In response to Saqib Khan's letter [Jul 14], all one can say is that when a human being so strongly identifies with a particular ideology (in this case Islam) that he defines the whole world, its people and their actions based solely on that ideological yardstick, he is well on his way towards extremism (ie, an "us vs them" approach). Many of the world's refugees may be identifying themselves as Muslims, but that may or may not be the reason why they are refugees (natural calamities, fear of massacre by militias such as the Junjuweed "Arab Sudanese", etc). It depends on how one looks at the issue. Economic reasons cannot be ignored either. Also, Mr Khan may be entitled to defend Islam against many of the charges, but to say "Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus and other people of various beliefs enjoyed religious freedom and equal rights" under Muslim rule is taking things a bit too far. Zoroastrians would not have fled Persia in huge numbers to India if that were true. Compare the minuscule population and profile of the Zoroastrian community in its Islamized Persian homeland versus its high profile and good size in India (a respected and loved minority after a millennium [long] stay). Also the general Hindu population stayed Hindu not because of lack of efforts on the part of the ruling Muslim elite, but because the way of life was and is too strong to be uprooted like the Christianization of the American hemisphere. Compare the Mughal emperor Akbar (regarded [as] a heretic by conservatives partly because of his comparative tolerance of Hindus) with his great-grandson Aurangzeb (who wanted "pure Islam" and went to great lengths, including massacres of Hindu subjects, to achieve his ends). Most Muslim rulers were closer to Aurangzeb than to Akbar over their thousand-year history in India. Not being a Koranic scholar, I can only comment that enough people have used that and the Hadiths to justify oppression and killing of non-Muslims the world over.
Karigar
USA (Jul 15, '05)


The London bombing suspects are people of Pakistani origin. It is amazing how Pakistan has done everything which President [George W] Bush has accused Saddam [Hussein] of doing: (1) WMD [weapons of mass destruction, (2) proliferation ([Abdul Qadeer] Khan network) [and] (3) links [to] al-Qaeda. The trail [from] every terrorist incident leads to Pakistan, including funding to [the September 11, 2001] terrorists [and the] Daniel Pearl killing. In fact [Osama] bin Laden and [Ayman] al-Zawahiri are rumored to be there. Am I the only one who thinks there is something fishy going on there? And yet Pakistan gets away with everything. How difficult is it for a military dictator with vast resources to capture Taliban/al-Qaeda suspects in a few-hundred-square-kilometer area? I don't know how the world community lets Pakistan get away with a "pardon" for A Q Khan.
Kiran
USA (Jul 15, '05)

Your article [ How the Pentagon targets teens, Jul 14] claims that the Iraq war is highly "unpopular" with the American people. That would be true if the person finding this information gets [it] from left-wing Bush-hating media and the left wing itself. I as an American see exactly an opposite point of view. I see Americans supporting both the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. The problem with the US, as in the case with the UK, is the "enemy within". These are the people who see terrorists as "freedom fighters" [and] appeasement as the only solution to people bent on killing non-Muslims and destroying Western culture. These are people who call [US President George W] Bush "a Hitler" and compare Guantanamo Bay to the tortures of Nazism, Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime and the gulags of Russia. These are also the same people who see absolutely no wrong in the sawing off of heads by Islamic terrorists, and if there is wrong it is to be placed at the feet of President Bush. Many empires, kingdoms, and now nations can be brought down by the enemy within. If teenagers are buying into this left-wing propaganda and don't sign up and think that appeasement to all terrorists will bring peace and harmony to this world then the enemy within is already helping the Islamic terrorists. This would never have happened during World War II when the US entered the war and the press and, yes, even Hollywood supported the US entry into the war, [with] the result [that] the US and her allies won the war.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 14, '05)

The only reason American teenagers might find themselves fighting terrorists in Iraq is that the Bush administration decided to invade that country. There were few if any terrorists there before the invasion, and even the Central Intelligence Agency - not known for its left-wing views - has acknowledged that under US occupation Iraq has become a breeding ground for international terrorism, similar to Afghanistan under the Taliban. The US entered World War II only after it was attacked by Japan; the US-led invasion of Iraq was undertaken "preemptively", ie without any such provocation. - ATol


The stick has not worked, so now Washington is offering a carrot to Pyongyang [ More power to Korean talks, Jul 14]. Let's look at some recent events: A North Korean high official by the name of Li Gun attended a private meeting on New York's Park Avenue of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy. There Joseph DeTrani, the [US] Department of State's North Korea expert, had discussions with him. This high-powered committee was founded by the late German refugee political-science professor Hans Morgenthau. Among the luminaries on the committee's A-list are George Kennan, Paul Volcker, William Flynn, and George Schwab. So under its protective, hush-hush umbrella, Li and DeTrani worked out the steps that would lead North Korea back to the six-party talks in Beijing, which Pyongyang stayed away from for more than a year. Consequently, during her stopover in China, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced publicly that the United States recognizes the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as a "sovereign and independent state". She went on further to reiterate what the assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs had told the DPRK's deputy foreign minister, Kim Gye-gwan, that Washington has no plans to attack North Korea. Thus the road to the talks is open. It is worth noting that there is a steady stream of visitors of high political and social and financial profile going to Pyongyang. The latest is Arthur Sulzberger Jr, the publisher of America's foremost newspaper [New York Times]. Squelched for the moment is the prattle about the "axis of evil", as though like a put-off suitor, the Bush administration is assiduously courting Kim Jong-il. The current "suppleness" out of the White House is a further indication that [President George W] Bush is very much in need of pulling a plum out of the diplomatic pie. His allies in Seoul and Beijing have put up roadblocks to slow down the strong-armed tactics of the Bush team. Since Mr Bush and Co are inconsistent in pursuing goals in East Asia, it remains to be seen what the soon-to-be-resumed talks will bring.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 14, '05)


I do not suffer from any guilt complex for being a Muslim; the opposite is the truth. I am proud to be born in Islam and wish to remain [for] eternity but do not beat my chest [about] it. I feel hurt, perhaps more than anybody else, when I see around the world: 90% of the Muslims in the world are in low morale because they believe Islam is being sullied by the non-Muslims; 90% of the trouble spots are in the Muslim world; 90% of the refugees are Muslims; 90% of the onslaughts going are against the Muslims - Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Chechnya and some other countries. The Muslim world is so divided and considered so poor, so small and has become so irreverent and backward because of our corrupt leaders and governments. The Muslim world has enormous oil wealth and resources but it is the West that controls it. The fact of the matter is that even the tragic event of [September 11, 2001] is used by them for economic strategy in order to re-colonize the oil resources of the Middle East. We are painted as [enemies] of the West, Jews and Hindus, and with the tag of terrorism labeled against us, we fall into the fishnet for the taking. I abhor terrorism by an individual or by any state for killing of innocent human beings. I do not need to defend my case ... Islam has progressive traditions and Islamic civilization has in the past proved capable of extraordinary feats of tolerance. Under the Muslims, medieval Spain became a haven for diverse religions and sects, and the allegation by some that Islamic civilization is inherently less capable of tolerance is absurd. Magnanimity is very much admired by Muslims and it is considered a sin if we ill-treat or harm an enemy at our mercy; it is our religious and moral duty to protect him from all harm. In Islamic civilization and rules, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus and other people of various beliefs enjoyed religious freedom and equal rights. This reflected the teachings of the Koran, which is pluralistic scripture and affirmation of others' traditions. As far as the secular view, Ottomans were considered history's longest-lasting major dynasty; their long reign must have had some relation to their ability to rule a multi-faith empire when Europe was hanging different varieties of Christian believers. People of different faiths were never forced to accept Islam and we can see the evidence: in India 85% of the population still practice Hinduism and over 95% of the Europeans are Christian, 18 million Coptic Christian still live in Egypt despite ruled by the Muslims for long periods.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jul 14, '05)


The death of all these people in London last week was indeed sad. But there are two ways of looking at it. We can look at it as a single horrific incident and judge it accordingly, or look at it as one incident in a series of horrific acts which started long before that and will not disappear as long as the leaders of the so-called free world keep convincing themselves and their people that "we hate them for who they are ...", instead of asking themselves if perhaps they may have done things that upset these people and brought [us to] where we are today. I tried in the aftermath of the London bombings to bring myself to send some form of condolence to my English friends, but since they lost 50 of theirs, countless Iraqi civilians have died, many of them at the hands of trigger-happy US soldiers at army checkpoints. I saw the pictures of a car that was shot at by US soldiers, killing both parents in front of their four kids, and it hit me that these deaths do not get more than a few minutes of coverage in Western media. The London bombings, on the other hand, [dominated] mainstream media for days. And why are these bombs more savage than the US "smart bombs" anyway? Their dead are innocent victims and ours are collateral damage. And now I wonder, are our countless dead in Iraq and Palestine less human than their 50? Leaders of Muslim communities have been bending over backwards to condemn those bombings [in London]. They do not speak in my name, I do not feel any guilt.
KF
Montreal, Quebec (Jul 14, '05)

Do Pepe [Escobar ( Blowback )] and Toni Momiroski [ So you want to stop the suicide bombers?, both Jul 12] really believe that jihad will stop if the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan and there is a settlement for Palestine? How, then, to explain why jihad began before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or perhaps why is there no historical mention of any nation or people called Palestinians prior to the creation of Israel? Or why the utter lack of interest in "Palestinians" by most Arab Muslims until [Osama] bin Laden made an issue of them in 2001? I suggest that Pepe and Toni actually read the Koran and the communiques of the terrorists themselves. The Koran clearly states jihad is an eternal and ongoing duty of all Muslims and is not to cease until all non-Muslims are subjugated or converted to Islam. This is the central duty of all Muslims according to their own teachings and it is the stated aim of the terrorists themselves. The few remaining Christians and Jews of the Middle East, animistic natives of the African continent, Buddhists of Central and South Asia, Hindus of South Asia, [and] Christians in Indonesia and the Philippines would join me in reproaching the blind assumptions presented by these two writers as dangerous and illogical thinking that diverts and confuses others who are in the sights of terrorists around the world and clueless to the fact they are in a war they did not ask for and do not understand. And is it reasonable to ask whether these articles might be another example of how anti-American and multicultural bias colors contemporary liberals' thinking with regard to Islam?
Lek
Singapore (Jul 13, '05)

The Arabic word jihad means "holy struggle", a concept found in nearly all religions in terms of the eternal battle between good and evil, and only occasionally used to justify actual physical violence (eg the Crusades and the campaigns of al-Qaeda). See The concept of jihad (Dec 20, '03). Toni Momiroski's article suggested that suicide bombing in Iraq - not jihad - would stop if the occupiers withdrew. The modern use of the name "Palestine" dates from 1920, and the Romans called the region Palestinia when it was a province of their empire. The Roman name was derived in turn from the ancient Semitic name "Pelesheth", transliterated in English as "Philistia" or "land of the Philistines". - ATol


Apropos [ Why Indians love America so much (Jul 7)] by Siddharth Srivastava and the letter to the editor from John Kelly [Jul 11], I would like to comment that the main reason for this love is the fact that [the United States of] America was and still is a source of inspiration for the upcoming young generation of India. India painstakingly provided quality education to a couple of generations who were willing to work hard. The poor raised themselves to middle and upper middle class through their education. Thus India built up an affluent middle class. I was one of them. As we got more and more educated the admiration for America also grew. India's nuclear, space programs and other science and technology programs are all inspired by America's innovation and success in these fields. We look at the United States as a country to which humanity owes a lot. This is irrespective of the diplomatic relations the two countries had in the past.
Ajith K Gopinathan
Sharjah, UAE (Jul 13, '05)


In regard to Vincent Maadi's letter [Jul 12], "... Asia Times [Online] is a serious journal but it is being turned into a less than a serious journal by gutter and hate-filled journalists like Spengler, [B] Raman and other Jewish and Hindu writers to your magazine," I want to point out that I am an Asia Times Online contributor and a Jew. As such I challenge him to name one article where I have displayed hate toward Muslims, or anyone else. Since he will not be able to, I suggest he take a deep breath and stop indulging in claims of victimization where none is happening.
David Isenberg (Jul 13, '05)


I challenge Saqib Khan [letter, Jul 12] to prove that the bombings in New York [on September 11, 2001], Madrid or the latest one in London were carried out by Muslims. If none of the authorities or the courts of law in the affected countries have so far produced any guilty verdicts, where does Mr Khan get his information implicating Muslims, and if he has that information and knows who have done these acts of terror, then why has he not submitted that information to relevant authorities? So far from all the news reports and cases that have come up in America, Spain and elsewhere no one has been convicted of these crimes. Muslims who were arrested in Germany, Spain, Australia and other countries have been let go quietly after the initial headlines. Recent decisions by courts in Kenya and Tanzania have also [proved] that none of the Muslims [who] were arrested for the bombings in East Africa had anything to do with those acts of terror. All the suspects were let free and none were charged with the crimes in question. Similarly courts in Germany have dismissed several cases against Muslims there. In nearly all cases, after the immediate initial hysteria and media campaign against Muslims, no evidence has surfaced to convict anyone of those acts of terror. With hundreds of millions of dollars that these countries spend on their police forces and intelligence services, not a single case of terror has been [proved to have been] carried out by Muslims. Media headlines do not count as proofs ... It appears that every time there is a bombing, Muslims like Khan, who suffer from guilt complex and who are trying to protect their own status in Europe or the USA, take it upon themselves to start apologizing and implicate all Muslims and drag the name of Islam through the mud. These self-hating Muslims must stop speaking on behalf of the Muslims of the world who are being set up as sacrificial lambs by warmongering American, Israeli and British governments.
Vincent Maadi (Jul 13, '05)


Dear Saqib [Khan]: Your last sentence of your letter [Jul 12] stating "the cancer of terrorism will never be eradicated by bombs or by bullets but [by] finding its root cause and working on it" sounds awfully similar to words from a general-turned-dictator of a large Islamic country. I am talking about General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. He said the same words when the sore issue of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir was brought to his attention while in Agra, India. His response in shorthand meant that cross-border jihadi terrorism will not stop until Kashmir is solved to his/Pakistani satisfaction. Here you are asserting that Islamic terrorism will not stop unless the Israeli/Palestinian issue is solved. And to whose satisfaction, may I ask? What other root causes do you have in mind for the dissatisfaction of your Islamic brothers besides Israel/Palestine? You also tend to be loose in your comparisons, especially the comparison and justification of the acts of political militants such as Tamil Tigers, Basques and IRA [Irish Republican Army] to religious militants. Except for the Islamic militants who claim to wage war against all others in the name of their religion, none of the other outlawed organizations that you name brought God into the picture. If you are factual, why don't you provide us with the facts of your assertions, ie (1)Tamil Tigers have committed more suicide bombings killing civilians than Palestinians; (2) IRA commits suicide bombings etc. Though you denounce suicide bombings by Islamic militants you tend to overlook what the rest of Islamic society does. Spengler points that out in his article Do Muslims worship idols? using passages in the Middle East quarterly which quotes as follows: "Muslim clerics and other commentators justify suicidal attacks on political, moral and religious grounds. Attackers who bomb and kill women and children are hailed as martyrs for their heroism in confronting the enemy." What do you say to that? ...
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (Jul 13, '05)


Seiko Zeto [letter, Jul 11] bemoans the "disrespect" shown to Taiwan by China. In fact, the former should show gratitude toward the latter for propping up the Taiwanese economy. If [Taiwanese President] Chen Shui-bian's government goes for direct sea and air transportation across the strait, it will further strengthen financial gains for the Taiwanese. What "respect" does Taiwan now command, kowtowing to big daddy America and big brother Japan? Chen is a shameless politician, yet he is smart enough to make fools out of some of his fellow Taiwanese.
Seung Li (Jul 13, '05)

Both Shithi and Khaleefa Mahmood [letters, Jul 11] have either misconstrued my arguments or failed to understand the crux of my article [ A twist in the 'war on terror', Jul 9]. As far as Shithi's argument goes, it was outside the scope of my article to take sides in the "war on terror". That state-sponsored terrorism is bad or whether some of it is done to protect national integrity are questions which I never set out to tackle in the article anyway, and as a careful reader she should have picked it up. My fundamental point was that the attacks in London will only widen the "civilizational gap" between the two sides and make any prospects of a multilateral solution bleak. As far as Khaleefa's point is concerned, it is a non-starter. I only mentioned Pakistan once in the article and that too not critically. That he fails to see the palpable fact that Pakistan, as a home of rampant jihadi emotions, has been under pressure from the United States to rein in the same is surprising. It is only logical that Pakistan will come under ever more pressure to stop the prevalent anti-Americanism among its extremist circles.
Aruni Mukherjee (Jul 12, '05)


I wish to comment on the most dreadful tragedy and stomach-churning atrocity of July 7 that took place in London. I could easily have been a victim or any of my loved ones since we travel on the same routes every day. It was a stark reminder that the terrorists are subhuman scum who kill because they have no respect or regard for an innocent life. They are in fact timid and cowards who are not brave enough to fight for their cause on a battlefield but, like a snake, kill any innocent passer-by to release [their] venom. I am certain that 99.999% [of] peace [loving] Muslim fellow citizens of the UK and around the world condemn this atrocity with utmost disgust and pray that the culprits are apprehended soon and caged for life. But I would like to take the argument further and would like to ask all the political leaders of the world why in the name of God, we, the innocent people, have to bear the brunt of terrorism when they live and sleep contently with their loved ones in their safe homes? Is there some sort of mendacious plot that the ordinary public is oblivious [to] and these powerful world leaders, therefore, play roulette with our lives? It is about time that these questions are boldly asked and answers given by them. Terrorism is breeding fast all around the world because of the failure of our governments to find the root cause or the motivation that [makes a terrorist tick] and find a solution. I am afraid that until then, this cycle of violence will become a common scene as we used to see in cowboy movies: "Kill your enemy before he kills you." I have no hesitation in rejecting a misconception many have in the West that Muslim bombers or terrorists kill because they become martyrs and enter paradise, forgetting the fact that the Tamil Tigers have been responsible for more suicide bombings than the Palestinians so far. I firmly believe that it is lunatic rage rather then religion that makes a terrorist tick. Throughout history, political extremists of all faiths have willingly given up their lives simply in the belief that by doing so, whether in bombing or in other forms of terror, they would change the course of history or at least win an advantage for their cause and people. IRA [Irish Republican Army], Basque terrorists or the Tamil Tigers are not Muslims but they still blow themselves up and terrorize innocent people. The attacks of [September 11, 2001] and in Madrid or in London on July 7 are not compatible with the Islamic teaching which cautions soldiers "in the way of Allah" to fight their enemies face to face without harming non-combatants, women [or] children and also forbids [them] to harm their livestock; and also, killing of an innocent human being is like killing of entire humanity. These new [breeds] of terrorists or suicide bombers are very sophisticated, educated and bent upon destroying any opposing ideology that threatens their existence; it proves my point that in its indiscriminate pursuit, terrorism destroys the best and the brightest in a man. These terrorists are always motivated more than anything else by the rage of injustice; suffering of their people and cruelty inflicted upon them, loss of dignity, and being deprived of their nationhood and land which rightly belonged to them. In simple terms, their rage is against their oppressors and [their] cronies. If we can find tangible and everlasting solutions [to] the root causes of their grievances, then we can stop these mind-boggling atrocities. The big and the wealthy nations have to treat the underdeveloped and poor nations and their people with some respect and stop making them a playground for their hidden agendas and manipulating intentions. The American and the Western governments must change their partial attitude towards Israel. The cancer of terrorism will never be eradicated by bombs or by bullets but [by] finding its root cause and working on it.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jul 12, '05)

For other recent letters on Islam in a modern world, click here. - ATol


Since you are censoring my responses to Spengler, [B] Raman and other Muslim-haters, I am requesting a favor from you. In all fairness to us Muslims, please publish this article by Professor Karen Armstrong. Asia Times [Online] is a serious journal but it is being turned into a less than a serious journal by gutter and hate-filled journalists like Spengler, Raman and other Jewish and Hindu writers to your magazine.
Vincent Maadi (Jul 12, '05)

Thanks for alerting us to Professor Armstrong's Guardian article. It is indeed a good analysis of how Muslims are victimized by fanatics committing crimes in the name of their religion, and the challenges the media face trying to cover such events fairly. ATol readers are invited to click on the link above. - ATol


I am wondering if Seiko Zeto [letter, Jul 11] knows the official name of the Taiwan government. It is very funny to say that the Republic of China is not China. I would like to ask those who are supporting splitting China, what if the Chinese people in Taiwan do not want to be ruled by Taiwanese? Can they split up Taiwan too?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 12, '05)

A twist in the 'war on terror' [Jul 9] by Aruni Mukherjee is nothing more than a journalistic summary of the situation - and a very superficial one at that. He fails to recognize that a lot of what's happening is a result of flawed foreign policy and for India - a very brutal internal policy where BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] supporters during the Gujarat riots committed unspeakable crimes against fellow Indian Muslims. When the state/government-sponsored policies are so cruel I don't think we can use the word "terrorist" to represent only one side. Not when Hindu hardliners are out there douching and mutilating pregnant women with petrol before setting [them on] fire.
Shithi (Jul 11, '05)


I have just read the article [by] Aruni Mukherjee called A twist in the 'war on terror' [Jul 9]. I was very surprised to read [in] the article how negatively Aruni thinks about Pakistan. We are living in the 21st century. Almost every country in this world [is] facing many problems ... Whatever happened in London [on July 7] was unjustified [by] any means. On the other side of the world, hundreds of people are dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Kashmir, Pakistan on a weekly basis. Western countries do not care about it because they know they are responsible [for] the current situation in this world. Pakistan had been affected badly [by] the suicide bombers' attacks. Before [putting] blame on someone, we should be very realistic about the real problems that we are facing. We are all human. We all should try to get together on one platform and should make our heartiest effort to eliminate the factors that are responsible. We should always be positive, not negative by pointing fingers at someone else. One should not take advantage of the situation. I hope that Aruni will be able to understand this and will be careful in writing these kind of articles again.
Khaleefa Mahmood (Jul 11, '05)

Why, did this one contain inaccuracies? If so, what were they? Or should Aruni Mukherjee simply "be careful" about writing any articles critical of Pakistan? - ATol


Kathleen Ridolfo's article Al-Qaeda at home in Europe [Jul 9] takes the position that bombings like those in London were done by terrorists, and can be dealt with effectively by increased surveillance made possible by wiretaps after the French model. That the French have been successful so far in the prevention of such activity is almost certainly more a result of their refusal to take part in the multinational operations of occupying armies in Iraq and Afghanistan (operations which Ms Ridolfo points out to be the root cause of so-called "terrorist networks") than a result of increased, invasive surveillance of suspects in immigrant communities. In reality such networks demonstrate the move to the strategic level of warfare like that mastered by the US terrorist bombardment of civilian populations during World War II. Bombings like those which took place in the US, Bali, Madrid and London were the response of the weak against state-sponsored terrorism, occupation, and support for dictatorships. The bombers are no more terrorists than the bomber pilots who target weddings or the bulldozer drivers who demolish homes. Those who died in these blasts deserve no more expenditure of grief than any Iraqi man-in-the-street shot in the back by a bellicose and hectoring marine. If one does not feel the same shock at what is happening to the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan as what happened to New York City firemen or Tube riders in London, then one is not paying attention. The issues are political and military, and the attempt to deal with them on the law-enforcement level will only result in the increase of police-state tactics against non-immigrant and peaceful-dissent groups. The measures Ms Ridolfo suggests are just those the states sponsoring terrorism would like to see in the consolidation of power and control over their own citizenry. But what else would one expect from Radio Free Europe, the voice of the US government?
Gregorio Kelly (Jul 11, '05)


I am writing on behalf of Abdul Barri Atwan, editor-in-chief of al-Quds al-Arabi, the London-based newspaper which [an RFE/RL] correspondent [on Jul 9] wrongly refers to as "Islamist" in a front-page article about the London bombings [ Al-Qaeda at home in Europe ]. This is not only inaccurate but misleading since it implies that al-Quds would somehow be sympathetic to the perpetrators of this, the biggest terrorist bombing on British soil, which has killed and wounded so many innocent people. Al-Quds al-Arabi is a pan-Arab independent newspaper with no political or religious affiliations. As such it is one of the few platforms for free speech and real news in the Middle East.
Susan de Muth (Jul 11, '05)

Asia Times Online apologizes. The article has been emended. - ATol


This is in response to B Raman's write-up, UK knew it was coming [Jul 8]. The former additional secretary of the cabinet secretariat, government of India, is back in his old habits of accusing Pakistan for anything that he can lay his hands on. Now from [his] old hat [he] takes out the name of Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, the computer expert who was arrested by the Pakistani government on suspicion of links with al-Qaeda. On the basis of information received from him, Pakistani authorities deduced that the cell was planning a terror attack in London. However, the British authorities did not concur with the findings of the Pakistani government ... The British authorities did not concur with the findings of Pakistani authorities because Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan was a mole of the international secret-service agencies and he was on their payroll. The British knew very well. Hence no credence was given to the findings of the Pakistani government on which Mr Raman has based his entire argument ...
Syed Rashid Husain (Jul 11, '05)


B Raman has done it again with his UK knew it was coming (Jul 8). While Scotland Yard is still clueless, he has somehow attributed the blasts to Pakistan. Well done, Mr Raman, you are so predictable now. Keep it up. You are still good at using the propaganda skills you learned during your years with Indian intelligence.
Faraz
Denmark (Jul 11, '05)

Islam in a modern world
The London bombings added fuel to a debate that has been in progress on the Letters page about the nature and practice of Islam. We have now created a separate page for this debate, and for the latest letters, please click here . - ATol


[Re Zarqawi: Everywhere and nowhere, Jul 7: I believe Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi is a mere fabrication by the Bush administration, created to maintain the level of fear in Americans needed to continue this war [in Iraq]. Maybe the "Christian South" will come to their senses and think, if Judas could turn in Jesus Christ for a mere 30 pieces of silver, wouldn't it make sense that a lineup of Iraqis would be pushing each other to turn in Zarqawi for [US]$25 million? They would - if he existed. Terry Nazar
Canada (Jul 11, '05)


A recent survey of major nations by the Pew Foundation found that Indians - like most non-Muslim Asians - had a generally favorable opinion of the USA. An article in your paper [Why Indians love America so much, Jul 7] examined this and gave many reasons for Indians having a positive but realistic feeling toward America. There are, I think, other reasons for this that I see as an American and may not be obvious to most Indians, especially those who have not spent much time in the USA. In the first place except for a relatively small number of Punjabi Sikh farmers who were brought to California - Sacramento and Imperial Valleys - around 1,900 to teach Californians how to use the newly built irrigation canals and channels, few people from South Asia came to [the United States of] America until the past generation ... Unlike Britain with its legacy of colonialism, Indians ... are a new and previously unknown people in the USA. In our nation "minority" groups are legally classified and because so few Indians were in the USA when these "racial groups" were codified in the late 1960s, Indians were not included. Since they are not of African, East Asian, native American ... or Latin American origin, they are in fact not a legally protected racial minority. Also because most of the Indian immigrants were highly educated people with advanced degrees in medicine, the sciences and engineering, they immediately were middle-class or even upper-middle-class. Those who were not highly educated most often became shopkeepers of various sorts, people who were viewed as lower-middle-class by Americans ... India may be following Italy where, quite apart from any passing political or foreign-policy question, most people have a warm regard for America as a country that has been "a good home" to Italian people, where immigrants were allowed to work and many became wealthy far beyond the dreams of their family back home in Naples or Calabria. Honestly, as an observer and the godparent of a young Indian-American, I can attest that many Indian-American parents often feel that their children fit into American society too easily and like other upper-middle-class Americans the young seem to acknowledge their Indian heritage on only a few holidays, much as the Irish-Americans do on St Patrick's Day and American Scots on St Andrew's Day.
John Kelly
Los Angeles, California (Jul 11, '05)


I am not a religious person. What I think of superstitious miscreants of the world's religions I keep to myself. Articles in Asia Times [Online] by Rabbi Moshe Reiss [ Jihad knocks on House of Saud's door, Jul 7] I do not read. I can get the same garbage in the Jerusalem Post.
Bob van den Broeck (Jul 11, '05)


Spengler, once again, manages to lose his way when speaking of Islam [ Do Muslims worship idols? Jul 6] ... First, almost all religions have sects of fanaticism. The Crusades were certainly not the image of tolerance and (so-called) Christian values (nor is the cluster bomb-Lockheed Martin war machine of the Bushite fundies). Second, the suicide bombers in the Middle East are expressing political anger rather more than religious. This is not to say many aren't also co-opted by fanatic fringe sects, because they are - but the survey Spengler cites (and it appears this survey was not limited to Muslims in the referenced countries) is more about the neo-colonial occupation of Iraq, and about the draconian Israeli policies toward the Palestinians (blindly supported by the US) than about anger toward Christians. Spengler would do well to examine the history of petro-dollar colonialism, about the occupation and annexation of Arab lands over the last 200 years, and worry less about what a doltish medievalist pope has to say on the subject. I see precious little difference between a Pope Rat, a Jerry Falwell, and the, say, Taliban leadership. All promote backward-looking misogynistic and pleasure-hating visions of authority. The pathology of suicide bombing didn't just fall from the sky. It also isn't, in the least, inherent in the teachings of Islam - it is the response of a deeply frustrated and humiliated population that sees endless injustice in the Israeli/Palestinian relation, and in the US policies of propping up repressive regimes like the House of Saud or Islam Karimov's in Uzbekistan. Look to ExxonMobil, and Shell, and their role in the Middle East, before you try [to] cook up apologies for this toxic new pope by way of demeaning Arabs.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Jul 11, '05)


Re Speaking Freely: The American hand in Iran (Jul 6): Trish Schuh has provided an incredible and piercing analysis which no "scholar" of Iranian politics has been able to match. On the subject of Iran, emotions run deep. The line between reality and fantasy are often blurred. But Trisch has done a superb job of solid evidence analyzed brilliantly. Asia Times [Online] has accomplished what no American-based US [medium] has been able to achieve: independence of mind and freedom of expression. The evils of hate-filled evil men like Jerome Corsi who wish Iranians so much pain so they make a few quick bucks is simply disgraceful. And it must be exposed. Besides many other brilliant points, this Schuh article is one brilliant expose of the venom which Mr Corsi spits daily against Iranians. I thank Asia Times [Online].
Nader (Jul 11, '05)


[Daniel] McCarthy (letters, Jul 7 [and] Jul 5) seems to be confusing Market-Leninist China with fascist Italy. To argue that there is [at present] a Chinese plan to invade Central Asia is ridiculous. China may very well become a great power in the decades ahead, and it has been the policy of both the Hu-Wen leadership and, for at least most of the time, the Jiang Zemin leadership, to convince neighboring countries that China's ascent will be peaceful. The bellicose policy towards rival claimants to the Spratly Islands that characterized Jiang's early years in power was toned down in his later years, and the new line has been maintained by Hu Jintao. Despite all the media buzz about a rising Chinese superpower, China's leaders know that their country is still quite weak. Its military forces are still very backward (against Taiwan it doesn't rely on missiles for no reason) and its economy has yet to overcome key structural problems (high-tech sector still dominated by foreign firms, etc). A belligerent China at this point would simply produce a US-Japan-Russia-India-Central Asia-Vietnam alliance that Beijing could not hope to defeat. That said, Juchechosunmanse (letter, Jul 7) should not suggest that regional fears of China are simply the normal suspicions that every country has of every other country, especially if China does indeed become a great power. True, the Chinese empire was generally much less oppressive of its vassals than those of the Europeans and the Japanese, but that is not to say that it was the model of enlightened rule. The Qing Dynasty, though traditionally much-maligned by Chinese nationalists, was one of the most militarily vigorous in that country's history. It is true that many if not most Chinese military expeditions had a strong defensive element to them, but so did those of the Romans, and look how their neighbors fared. Furthermore, imperial China, believing itself to already be the center of the universe, did not have the revanchist sentiments that contemporary China does. And of course there is the Taiwan issue. Beijing basically argues that the historical status of Taiwan as part of the Republic of China also grants a sovereign claim to the People's Republic of China. It is a valid point, but it cannot alone trounce the possibility that Taiwanese voters might choose secession, or the near-certainty that they would expect a considerable degree of autonomy within China. Since neither option is currently acceptable to Beijing (the latter would see Taiwan become a haven for all dissident Chinese elements to operate in, and if the Taiwanese were really impressed with the Hong Kong model, there would already be overwhelming support for immediate reunification, which there clearly isn't). Despite all the professions of support for the "one China" principle by visiting foreign leaders, it is highly doubtful that any of China's neighbors would be happy to see Taiwan forcibly reincorporated into the mainland. Latent territorial issues still abound and the resolution of any of them by Chinese might would send shock waves throughout the region. The only peaceful course of action is for both Beijing and Taipei to buy time. But therein lies the danger. With mounting domestic problems, restraint abroad tends to further erode the popular legitimacy of the Chinese regime. Recent anti-Japanese protests clearly show that many young mainland Chinese see their leaders as insufficiently nationalistic. These same Chinese are usually well aware of the gap between the cheerful official pronouncements and the real domestic situation, even if they at the same time present a proud face to critical foreign visitors. With the CCP's [Chinese Communist Party's] rigid authoritarianism and murky process of succession, it is entirely possible that a combination of internal (growing unemployment, discontent at corruption, ethnic-minority uprisings) and external factors (bloody and unsuccessful war against Taiwan-US-Japan, Japanese ultra-right stupidities, American protectionism) could produce a lurch to xenophobic imperialism in the future. In this respect, contemporary China may be usefully compared to Weimar Germany under chancellor Gustav Stresemann, a state that was clearly the strongest regional power and on its way to peaceful re-ascension, but with internal difficulties (illiberal bureaucracy and army, communists, Nazis) and external problems (Great Depression) allowing it to be driven on to a radically different course.
Jonathan X
Canada (Jul 11, '05)


Your frequent [letter] writer Frank wrote on July 7, "Why do you always apply this kind of double standard on China? If Taiwan can be allowed to split up from China, then the same principles can also be applied to the other countries." To make sure that ATol readers will not be misled by his statement, Taiwan is not a part of China and will not separate from it, as Frank tries to make the impression that the island is already a part of the regime trying to split up. In fact, recently the Taiwanese National Defense Department has proposed a few bills attempting to acquire offensive weapons in order to counterattack any invasion attempts from the communists regime [on the mainland]. In contrast, your dedicated [letter] writer Daniel McCarthy has made several good points earlier about China [including] Kazakhstan on its map. Indeed, China has endlessly been trying to occupy territories and enlarge [its] ever-satisfying [sic] empire. Very often they [Chinese] start claiming things that do not belong to them. For example, the recent case of the Taiwanese company BenQ acquiring Siemens mobile division is being described by the People's Daily as "China Taiwan company BenQ acquiring Siemens mobile division" and categorized all the Taiwanese products as "made in China", which is really offensive to the Taiwanese (what on earth is "China Taiwan" anyway?). If China cannot learn to respect others' existence, then I guess it's not hard to understand why the Taiwanese are so distasteful of them.
Seiko Zeto
Taipei, Taiwan (Jul 11, '05)


Henry C [K] Liu: Would you please stop using the term "neo-liberals", because many American people confuse it with "liberals"? I think better terminology would be "extreme right-wing Republicans".
John Borowski (Jul 11, '05)

The word "liberal" has had many meanings over the years. In economic terminology, it tends to refer to a philosophy favoring freedom ("liberty") from regulation, with reliance on market forces. The political use of the word to refer to a philosophy favoring social progress is primarily found in the US, and its pejorative use is almost exclusive to that country. The economic term "neo-liberal" refers to an economic philosophy that takes liberalism beyond mere laissez-faire and deliberately expands and imposes free-market fundamentalism. Not all neo-liberals are Republicans, or Americans at all; nor can they necessarily be classified as extreme right-wing in the political sense. - ATol


I came across your site recently and must congratulate you on your excellent work. The site is well laid out and presentation is very good.
Partha Wodeyar
Australia (Jul 11, '05)


I wish to thank you for insightful, important, articles and editorials. They are food for thought in a world where the mind starves. I have the greatest respect for you and the information you provide. I am thankful for having found you on the Internet. Keep up your excellent work.
Mary Ann
USA (Jul 11, '05)

I am wondering what [B] Raman's thinking is [UK knew it was coming Jul 8] regarding the London blasts. While references to similarity to Madrid will be duly made, to me it seems eerily familiar to the Bombay blasts that happened in the '90s. It seems that since then, the techniques have been more refined but essentially unchanged. Finally, does Mr Raman believe these blasts will cause some behavioral change among the Brits? After all, numerous Indians facing criminal charges in India, the music director Nadeem [Saifi] being one of the more infamous personalities, seem to find residence in UK. Will the Brits be less hospitable to these chaps now?
Rocky (Jul 8, '05)


Regarding B Raman's UK knew it was coming (Jul 8): Maybe true since the UK and the US are prime targets for the terrorists. The British are partly to blame that they allowed all those mullahs [to] preach in broad daylight the destruction of the Christian world, Britain, the US and the Jews. There were many who were preaching such doctrine on the streets of London but unlike [in] the US they don't get arrested, thereby adding flame to their hateful fire. I hope this incident will make the British change their attitudes about people who preach the downfall of the host nation etc. I hope Scotland Yard [will] stretch [its] hands more deeply in the Muslim and even the street gangs (as many of them are becoming recruiting grounds by [Islamist] terrorists).Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 8, '05)

"Changed attitudes" about such secular values as free speech are precisely what extremists hope to achieve, and it is precisely such changes that British and other freedom-loving people have vowed to resist. - ATol


Dear DirtyDog [letter, Jul 7]: As a Muslim, I must defend the true Islam. The only Islam I have in my mind is the ideal one that is outlined in the Koran and by the Prophet, as opposed to the sensational one that media love to report. The effects are obvious to any intelligent person; a bad name for the true/ideal Islam (like one bad apple giving the whole family a bad name), terrorists get instant front-page coverage, superpowers create/use/discard radical/mujahideen/terrorists at will after furthering their strategic or tactical agenda and corporate greed has a convenient bogeyman to satiate their thirst. The victims are innocent bystanders (the majority, regardless of race or religion) who just want to lead a normal life. The sad and tragic events in London are a fresh example.
Mahmood Ahmad (Jul 8, '05)


Is Todd Crowell speaking tongue-in-cheek in suggesting that the United States nationalize Unocal [Why not just nationalize Unocal, Jul 8]? CNOOC's chairman Fu Chengyu is very American business-savvy. He knows how to work the room with white-shoe lawyers and publicists. He has cut his teeth in the United States in the oil and gas industry. Yet in making an unsolicited bid for Unocal, he is stubbing his big toe on America's national interests. He very well may imagine that he's playing by the rules, yet he forgets that his bid has a highly political coloring even though he says to whoever wants to hear him that CNOOC's bid is strictly an economic venture. Nonetheless, he seems to have forgotten a cardinal Maoist principle: politics in command! Chevron is in a bind should it absorb Unocal. The market it is aiming for is Asia, and there, it will have to compete with CNOOC [China National Offshore Oil Co] and the Chinese communist government. The Bush family has sentimental and business ties with Beijing, so it is possible that a pis aller solution may emerge whereby China's sensibilities are not too badly bruised. President [George W] Bush may very well make a Solomonic judgment after allowing Congress to wax oratorical. But that is in the future, and maybe not in the tarot cards of politics. On the other hand, America has to go back to the days of Harry Truman's Square Deal in looking for a precedent for nationalization of a key industrial sector: to wit, the steel industry. Quickly the matter was dealt with and Big Steel returned to its own private realm of action. Even during the war-weary beginnings of World War II, profoundly capitalist America did not nationalize the private sector. It simply imposed tight controls. Take for example the aircraft industry. Walter Ruether of the United Auto Workers petitioned the FDR [Franklin Delano Roosevelt] administration that Detroit's auto works [be] used for the building of airplanes for the war effort since conversion of machinery to military planes would cause little disruption and outlay of capital. Instead the FDR administration decided to create public funding for supposedly private aircraft companies, by digging deeply into the public trough. Today, were it not for huge outlays of public [taxpayer] dollars ... Boeing [and] Martin Marietta would be seizing the courts for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Ostensibly, they are public or national corporations but run as private corporate, social [entities]. It is always worthwhile repeating that America, and especially the present administration, [is] rock-ribbed capitalist. As such, the system works to [strengthen] and fortify and privilege the private sector either through tax breaks or subsidies.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 8, '05)


[Daniel] McCarthy [letter, Jul 7], let me tell you something: It's not surprising to learn that some in Kazakhstan are wary of China and its intentions; you can probably find people in Vietnam, Mongolia, Russia and India echoing those Kazakhs. There is nothing new about it. Countries are always wary of others' presence and intentions. The Russians and the Chinese are not particularly thrilled about the inroads the US has made in Central Asia and their neighborhood. You don't see the Russians or the Chinese making up stuff such as "map showing the Russian/Chinese State of the United States". Many people around the world aren't too happy about what America has become. Does that mean America has plans to take over the whole world? By the same token, the fact that some Kazakhs aren't too happy about China's interest in Central Asia doesn't automatically translate into a Chinese invasion plan. By the way, judging from what Murat Auezov said about China ("As a historian, I'm telling you that 19th-century China, 20th-century China and 21st-century China are three different Chinas. But what unites them is a desire to expand their territories"), I can tell he is not a serious historian ... As a matter of fact, for the most part China didn't expand territories in the 19th and the 20th century; on the contrary, it lost huge a chunk of territories (to Russia and Mongolia). I understand where he is coming from, but like many people (especially those in your country, Mr McCarthy), he is a bit too paranoid. Mr McCarthy, you'd better come up with something better if you want us to believe your propaganda.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jul 8, '05)


Mohammed Saleh [letter, Jul 5]: To add to what the AToI editors wrote, and before you make the unsuspecting reader fall head over heels with selective quotes from the pages of history on the supposed catholicity of your chosen religion, I must remind you that there is a yawning gap between the precepts and the current-day practice in Islam. In fact it has become standard practice for people like you to react in knee-jerk fashion and quote liberally from your scriptures, but the ground reality is far from this idealistic situation. The pains with which you meticulously draw upon bygone eras actually prove counterproductive, given the strident laws prevalent in Saudi Arabia, and the religious strife that characterizes avowedly Islamic places like Afghanistan, southern Thailand, Pakistan or Bangladesh to name a few. Can you explain the purpose of jizya tax? Why should apostasy be punishable by death in Islam? What moral right did the strictest of Islamic regimes, the Taliban, exert to protect the Buddha statues which belonged to pre-Islamic Buddhist Afghanistan? What happened to the great Buddhist University of Nalanda or the University of Alexandria in Egypt? What was the earlier status of the Sophia mosque which stands at Constantinople? What is happening at Darfur in Sudan? You make your conclusions. Saqib [Khan, Jul 6]: You again did not respond to my questions and instead your whimpering is indeed vacuous bleating in wilderness. If you thought by trying to distract and provoke, you could hide your pronounced inability or unwillingness to comprehend logic, my deepest commiserations are for you. The questions which I posed you on secularism and the scope for enquiry in Islam assumed you as neither Muslim nor me as a Hindu. But you go off on a tangent and then jump into conclusions about my religious identity and get into a pedestrian but still a Pavlovian reflex of attacking Hindu gods for questions on evolution. You expect me to take the bait and take the predictable route of giving it back with religious profanities so that you can then in a very prosaic but smug way try to prove your professed religion's superiority with quotable quotes from your holy book and mouth abuses on my imagined religious identity. But that will be a boring stalemate which will need intervention from the referee here, AToI editors, and which is easily avoided since I have nothing to prove to the Semitic in you and have better things to argue ...
Sree
India (Jul 8, '05)

Saqib Khan's last letter as originally written was extremely long and had to be cut, so it is possible that he did in fact answer your questions but these answers were edited out. As previously, however, the "boring stalemate" you correctly allude to has been reached and we recommend that if it is necessary to continue the debate, it be moved to The Edge forum. - ATol


ATol editors claim that they take no position for or against the internal politics of any country. However, [on] many occasions, you promoted splitting China. Did you not? Hypocrisy? Double standard? Or else. Please explain.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 8, '05)

Sorry, we can't explain your self-delusions. While individual writers hold and have expressed opinions on Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, the South China Sea etc, Asia Times Online itself is neutral. Perhaps it's the nature of a free press that you are having trouble understanding; try logging off Xinhuanet for a few minutes and purchasing copies of the Seattle Times or Post-Intelligencer. - ATol

Asia Times [Online] is one of the most Islamophobic sites I have come across. The rants of Spengler are followed up by the [bile] of Zionists and Hindu fanatics. You have overstepped the bounds of debate of facts and become a venue of slander. Having a Zionist such as Rabbi Moshe Reiss, [Jihad knocks on House of Saud's door, Jul 7] hurl accusations at Islam and Wahhabis is ludicrous. I as a Westerner lived in Saudi Arabia for more than 10 years and enjoyed my time there and faced no animosity. Muslims/Wahhabis do not and have not any ill-will towards non-Muslims. I do not see anywhere in the world Muslims attacking people to convert them to Islam. Do you? The only people who subscribe to religion-based racism are the Zionist Jews. Zionism was declared a racist ideology by the United Nations until 1991; it was under duress from the United States that this was withdrawn. Israel is the very embodiment of racism. The belief that the land is only for Jews and that it should be held in trust for Jews from all over the world. The reason the Palestinians cannot be allowed to return to their land is because this would disrupt the Jewish majority. The good rabbi's time would be better used helping us understand the Talmud and Zionism. So please, as you frequently admonish in your letters to the editor, stay away from slander and stick to facts.
Steve Martin
New York, New York (Jul 7, '05)

Steve Martin need only look with both eyes and he will see a large number of Muslims among our writers. Once again, a reader has latched on to a few articles that he disagrees with, used them to generalize about the whole website, and then lecture ATol and other readers about "facts". It's our mission to present a variety of points of view, including those of Steve Martin and Rabbi Moshe Reiss. - ATol


I read the article Where terror and the bomb could meet [Jul 7] by Amir Mir. It is a pleasing surprise to see such an article from a Pakistani journalist. I hope that the people of South Asia will realize the danger of hidden cooperation or secret deals, [which] the author highlighted, in the area of nuclear proliferation. It is difficult to imagine the situation [in which] terrorists or unruly governments get control of WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. I hope ATol will bring out more articles on this subject.
Shekhar
Chicago, Illinois (Jul 7, '05)


Dear Saqib [Khan]: Your July 6 response to Sree seems like a tirade against Hindus [and] Christians and a Course 101 on Islam. I see that you and a few others are cheerleaders for Islam. Though I have no problems with that, I do see in your letter your potshots at other religions, such as calling Hindus idol and animal worshippers and Christians as racists. In a world that is increasingly fearful of Islam and Islamic-inspired militancy and intolerance, your words serve to deepen the fear of your religion. For instance 94.6% of suicide terrorists in Iraq were from Saudi Arabia and in most instances had been educated in religious schools or madrassas. Amir Mir's article Where terror and the bomb could meet [Jul 7] shows madrassas in Pakistan are no Eaton. They are schools of hate, not of an all-around education. If your ultimate objective was to face-lift Islam, you fail miserably with your letter ... Dear Mahmood [Ahmad]: In your July 5 response you argue Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It seems like you are talking about an ideal Islam that exists in your mind disconnected with reality and history. In history it has been in conflict with other religions. And in today's world a radical, violent Islam is taking shape in every major Muslim country, not just in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Even countries like Indonesia that a decade ago were relatively free are very much contending with militant Islam, which has become synonymous with terrorism. Instead of splitting hairs [and] being defensive, time would be better spent if you were to speak against the effects of radical/militant Islam.
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (Jul 7, '05)


Dear Saqib [Khan, letter, Jul 6]: I just hope people like you don't represent the "silent majority" we hear of all the time. If you wanted to provide your opponents any proof, you really did your best. I wonder how many "educated" and "peace-loving" Muslims like you live in this world? I shudder to imagine what kind of education you have received (with all that communist and monkey rambling). PS: Ganesh is not a monkey god.
Shekhar Nitin (Jul 7, '05)


The letter by Saqib Khan, London, England (Jul 6), contained too many inaccuracies to refute all, but here are a few: Ganesha is not the monkey god of Hinduism - that would be Hanuman. Ganesha is elephant-headed, but with human form. Laksmi is not the goddess of money, but of wealth - there is a difference between the two. She is supposed to represent the abundance of mother nature. The Theory of Evolution did not begin or end with Charles Darwin - he simply got credited for openly proposing what had become painfully obvious to other scientists in the European world, but which nobody was stating for fear of the Church. Later scientists have proved its validity beyond doubt to all those who choose not to remain in a perpetual state of denial. The concept of evolution is plainly visible to anyone who has ever bothered to really look at the natural world, and in fact it was obvious even thousands of years back to sages and scholars in the Orient (and surely other places too). The Hindu religion, being nature-based, has incorporated evolution as an undisputed tenet in several ways. First, very little distinction is made between animals and humans - we are just another species on this planet: everything in it was not created by God for our use/exploitation. Although we may pretend to be superior to them, we are hardly that much better than the animals that we have evolved from/with. Second, the concept of reincarnation involves progressive evolution of the soul over several births (both human and animal) until nirvana (escape from the cycle of birth and death) is attained. Last, even the incarnation sequences of some gods and goddesses seem to follow an evolutionary pattern. For [example], the god Vishnu first appeared as a fish, then a tortoise, a boar, etc. The progression from fish to amphibian to mammal is apparent. All in all, Khan's letter smacks of the standard "my religion is better than yours because it was revealed to us by the only true god (our god)" philosophy. Incidentally, such an obsession with revealed knowledge is described as circular logic/reasoning in the world of science. All religions that rely on a single revealed source of knowledge claim that God exists because the holy book says so. And how do we know that the holy book is correct? Because it contains the word of God! Science and logical reasoning have no place in such a system of thought because there is no way to prove or disprove anything - either you suspend all brain function and become a believer, or you get stoned for being a heretic. Before you accuse me of being an Islam-hating Hindu, I would like to state that this doesn't just apply to Islam but also to any other religion or philosophy that states that there is only one "truth" - ie, it also applies to Christianity, patriotism, communism, free-market capitalism, and plenty more.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Jul 7, '05)


This is in response to the thick-headed theology indulged in by Saqib Khan, in his letter of July 6. His desperate attempts to pull Hindu divinities into the evolution debate shows how ignorant he is (or wants to be, in order to protect his own conception of Islam). Laksmi and Ganesh are just two of the (albeit more popular) manifestations of the divine present in the Hindu pantheon of divinities. They are not "money" and "a monkey" but they represent physical and worldly economic power (Laksmi); and wisdom (Ganesh). Of course it is hilarious that Ganesh (represented as a man with a wise elephant's head) is called "monkey god" by him but that could be a topic for another tutorial on Hinduism. It is a combination of European and Islamic misinterpretation that people like Mr Khan suffer from, by characterizing Hindu deities as separate "gods" that the supposedly "polytheistic Hindus" worship. Hinduism recognizes One Ultimate Reality of existence, going beyond Abrahamic (Judaic, Christian and Islamic ) concepts of the duality of the "One God" and his creation. (What is the basic building block out of which God created ? Out of himself?) Hinduism says often enough that the world is a manifestation of God/divine, and everything real comes from, always is, and returns to God, or to use the correct Sanskrit word, Brahman - ie, ultimate reality. Modern science, quantum physics etc, owes a debt to Hindu philosophy which helped (as acknowledged by them) [Werner Karl] Heisenberg etc to conceptualize the "wave-particle duality" of matter etc. Since we humans cannot deal comfortably with formless abstraction and paradox ... the numerous devis and devatas, ie female and male manifestations that Hindus "worship", are essentially reminders of the numerous manifestations of the ultimate reality. A far cry from "polytheism", being essentially "monism". We have no quarrel with the higher truths expressed by other religions, especially because we do not have a "founder" who declared his was "the only way" and all others were wrong. Regarding evolution, Mr Khan (probably of Afghan, Pakistani or Indian descent), unless it is beneath him, might want to brush up by even picking up an amar chitra katha kiddies' comic book on Dashavatara. This is about the concept of the 10 manifestations of divine ... These concepts, developed millennia before [Charles] Darwin, could be called a kind anticipation of modern evolution theory. It might serve all of us well to try to understand our fellow humans, their culture, [and their] point of view before jumping in to attack with preconceived notions of one's own.
Karigar
USA (Jul 7, '05)


Once again we find ourselves locked in the epic battle between reason and blind, illogical faith. Saqib Khan's lack of understanding of both science and different religion is amusing and disturbing at the same time. Mr Khan [letter, Jul 6] claims to be avoiding blind faith but again the typical Islamist attitude of deriding all that is no Islamic, be it political or religious in nature, rears its ugly head. I won't go into defending why certain things are portrayed as they are in Hinduism since I do not feel it is my job to enlighten the ignorant masses that feel it makes sense to bow to some rock in a black tent in the middle of the desert in Arabia and yet claim to be the pinnacle of civilization. I guess when Hindus bow in front of a statue to focus ourselves that is idolatry, but when Muslims do it to the Kaaba then it is all kosher - sorry, halaal. So Allah has given us permission to explore this universe that he has created - amazing, I am thankful. I want to ask Mr Khan this: If I have the permission to use logic, then logic would dictate that I should be suspicious of some self-claimed prophet who went to a cave one day and came out with a set of scriptures that he claimed were from God himself. If Mr Khan has the right to question many things about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and communism, then why does he get upset when non-Muslims do the same to Islam? Mr Khan sits in the secular comfort zone of the non-Islamic world and spews his version of "logic" at others yet is content in the fact that those living in the Islamic world cannot do the same to Islam. Therefore all science, all logic, all enlightenment should not cross the boundaries set by Islam and the self-proclaimed guardians of it. We shall see what sort of eventual triumph Islam will enjoy if this is the sort of science it wants to pursue and use to overtake the infidel in knowledge. Keep in mind that the secularist is no less devoted to his cause than the Islamist. The only way to end it all is for Islam to stop trying to expand at the expense of others and soothe its bloody borders.
Aryan Singh Rathore
Somewhere deep in Arabia (Jul 7, '05)


[Re Do Muslims worship idols?, Jul 6] Jewish Europeans are immigrating to Arabia. Arabs have their homes demolished, land confiscated and leveled for the new homes to be built for the Europeans. From 1967 to 1980 Arabs presented their case to the world including the United Nations in what is the clearest indicator of the Arab's patience and hope for peace and fairness in the world but to no avail. Arabs pick up stones and throw them at the European Jews and the European Jews respond with their high-tech weapons from European Christians. Arabs start developing their own home-made weapons but due to the lack of technology, they are unable to use their weapons except by strapping [them] to their bodies and blowing themselves up. Are they committing suicide? Yes and no. Yes because the suicide bombers gave up on life. No because in most cases there is no hope for them. The Koran says in one of its verses that God swore as [this] age comes to an end, man is at loss, except those who keep their faith and commit good deeds and support each other by righteousness and patience. This is what God tells us in his book, but the suicide bombers didn't listen. They are aware that innocent lives are being taken with them but why do they do it? Why did they give up their religion and worship their own idol instead of God? Ask why Christians gave up on God and killed each other. Ask why Jews exchanged the real God for a bigger idol, Zion ...
Luay Ashadawi (Jul 7, '05)


I would like to point out the [hypocrisy] of ATol editors. Why is breaking up Philippines bad and breaking up China good? Why do you always apply this kind of double standard on China? If Taiwan can be allowed to split up from China, then the same principles can also be applied to the other countries. That should also include Taiwan itself.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 7, '05)

If you are referring to the comment under Gugurang's letter of July 6, once again you either did not read it carefully or are deliberately misrepresenting what was said. ATol takes no position for or against the internal politics of any country, although our writers take various stances. - ATol


It seems I have caused letter writers to feel both offended and fearful with my frank response to his inquiry about China having designs on Kazakhstan. Mr J [Juchechosunmanse, Jul 6] (continuing to hide behind a pseudonym) would do well to actually read ATol's articles rather than just reacting like a trapped animal. For example, in the ATol article titled The Dragon In Central Asia Part 1: The hunt for friends, and oil [Nov 23, '04] by Jeremy Bransten and Michael Lelyveld (and pointed out by ATol editors), the authors write, "Not everyone in Central Asia is happy about China's interest in the region. There is a latent fear, especially in the countries bordering China, that Beijing is hungry for land." So perhaps this concern is not merely a fiction conjured up by a China-basher as Mr J would have us believe. The Kazakh establishment seems to think the issue is one to be taken seriously, as stated by Murat Auezov, a former Kazakh ambassador to China. "I know Chinese culture. We should not believe anything the Chinese politicians say," Auezov said. "As a historian, I'm telling you that 19th-century China, 20th-century China and 21st-century China are three different Chinas. But what unites them is a desire to expand their territories" (this quote also from the Bransten and Lelyveld article).
Daniel McCarthy (Jul 7, '05)


While Brendan Diamond is to be commended for his concern about unfair stereotyping in his letter of July 6, I disagree with his general approach to the issue of Islam and terrorism. It does not matter a great deal whether ideal Muslims can or cannot support suicide bombing when the fact is that many, if not most, individuals today who identify themselves as Muslims do support it if it is used against Israelis, Americans, Russians, and other peoples perceived to be oppressors. Whether such support primarily stems from a sense of regrettable necessity or of ecstatic glee is not the central issue. Ideals may be beautiful, but to paraphrase [Soren] Kierkegaard, the most beautiful intellectual palaces cannot actually be inhabited by real people. I wonder what Mr Diamond would say if his Muslim friends accused the majority of Christian laity and clergy in the Middle Ages of supporting the Crusades. Regrettably, many Christians (mostly in the West), while correctly recognizing the often messy history of their religion, manage at the same time to insist on an idealized approach towards Islam. There was a time when many Christians adopted dhimmitude usually out of acceptance of the superior military strength of Islamic rulers. I find it curious that many contemporary Christians would intellectually adopt a similar attitude, at a time when Islamic civilization as a whole is, relatively speaking, both much less powerful and much less impressive.
Jonathan X
Canada (Jul 7, '05)


In response to Mohammad Saleh's letter [Jul 5] to Sree in which he paints a nice utopian picture that is sadly way different than reality: Islam may on paper include ideals of tolerance that he tries to underline, but the problem is that except perhaps at the period that is considered [at] the helm of Islamic glory (the time/places wherein free thinking, arts, science and alternative paths such as Sufism flourished), these ideals have hardly ever been followed by the Islamic monarchs and the controlling orthodox mullahs ... What Sree has brought up in his previous letters regarding secularism, science and freedom of thought is worthy of contemplation by all Islamists and fundamentalists whose knee-jerk reaction is to yell "blasphemy" and brand others [as] kafirs, which seems to keep the jihadi fire burning. The writing is clear on the wall - there is a need for a significant socio-political reform in the Middle East, and that cannot happen by imposing unilateral military action as is being done in Iraq. The initiative for change needs to come from within these societies, but that is unlikely to happen if the "my religion better than yours; my God better than yours" mentality (that writers like Mohammad Saleh have demonstrated time and again) continues to prevail. Also, that Israel follows "oppressive" policies in Palestine cannot be an excuse for the rulers in other Muslim countries to not reform. Israeli brutalities (real, semi-real or imaginary) should not be allowed to serve as a distraction from the path of democracy and secularism.
Rakesh (Jul 7, '05)


A few days ago, China demanded that [the US] "Congress corrects its mistaken ways" and stop interfering with CNOOC's bid to acquire California-based Unocal oil corporation. The warning came after some representatives warned that the Chinese bid risked putting US national security at risk and called on the US administration to order a full review of the Chinese bid - a bid that Chinese political and economic authorities consider fair business. CNOOC [China National Offshore Oil Co] is proposing [US]$18.5 billion to buy the company, almost $2 billion more than its Chevron competitor. The tough language of some US representatives and pundits, weary to see China (labeled as a potential enemy of the United States in certain quarters), may have upset the Chinese government. However, the strongly worded message shows the Chinese government has to learn about the ways of the US government. It all begins with the separation of powers. The US government is organized in three, separate but equal branches of government: legislative, executive and judiciary. None is superior to the others. Per the constitution, Congress is the first branch of government. It collects taxes, raises armies, declares war, regulates commerce, approves nominations and provides for the general welfare. Congress takes its prerogatives very seriously and is particularly keen on showing and maintaining its independence. China's "demand" that Congress corrects its mistaken ways had the effect of a red carpet on the bull's eyes. Congress does not take orders from anyone; not from its own government, much less from a foreign one. This episode also underscores that the Chinese government has much to learn about the ways of the US governmental system. A representative is free to speak his or her mind. What he or she says is not necessarily US government official policy and is not necessarily endorsed by the executive branch, even if it does not say anything. Hence a few representatives speaking against the CNOOC buyout does not mean that it is official US policy. As it sounds right now, the White House has not taken a public stance on the offer and there is substantial pressure from all corners of the political spectrum to let this play out in the marketplace. Ultimately, that's where CNOOC's bid will be considered.
Pascale Combelles Siegel
McLean, Virginia (Jul 7, '05)

Well, that's the theory. For another viewpoint, see the latest installment of Henry C K Liu's Coming Trade War series, Trade in the age of overcapacity. - ATol


I've thought about it and it seems that the only thing we are lacking in America is bigger-than-life statues of GWB [President George W Bush] that can be pulled down by tanks when the US collapses under the weight of Wall Street's greed by Russian and Chinese military forces when they come to liberate us. Do you think they will rape our women to the extent that we raped Iraq's women? We do have more oil than Iraq. There's a plus.
Ben
USA (Jul 7, '05)

Regarding E San Juan's article [US designs on the Philippines, Jul 6], I agree that it appears that the US government is involved with the plan to oust Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as president of the Philippines. Arroyo removed the Filipino troop contingent from Iraq (an embarrassment for the Bush administration), and she had been strengthening the Philippines' strategic relations with China. Add this to Arroyo's plunging popularity, and it all makes sense why the US government would seek to play a role in this regime change. The Bush administration seeks to replace Arroyo with another elitist who will remain complicit with American hegemonic and militaristic ambitions in Asia. In this sense, I fully agree with E San Juan. But I believe that San Juan's solution to the Philippine crisis is flawed at a profound level. He believes that an armed leftist movement based on Filipino nationalism is what should be done. It is time for us to realize that Filipino nationalism has been at the root of the problems of this archipelago. Filipino nationalism expects conformity and homogenization from an extremely ethno-linguistically diverse archipelago. We must pretend that all of the people of the islands have one common heritage, culture, language and so forth; that they are all "Filipinos". It is time to get real. Tagalogs represent less than a quarter of the population, yet it is the language of the Tagalogs that the rest of the people of this archipelago are forced to speak, while many of the rest of the over 100 beautiful languages of these islands risk extinction within a few decades. By succumbing to the propaganda of Filipino nationalism, we forget how the Tagalog and Pampango nations allied themselves with the Spanish colonizers, and that this powerful alliance went on to colonize the archipelago. We forget that the Manila elite collaborated with the US imperialists after the brutal US invasion. This same elite collaborated with the Japanese upon their invasion, and then returned their loyalty to the US after the American re-conquest - and it has remained so ever since. By pretending all of the peoples of these islands are united as "Filipinos", we fail to see how imperialism has been a local phenomenon, not just one perpetrated by foreigners. E San Juan portrays the genocidal policies against the Muslims and other indigenous people as the result of one imperialism - US imperialism. This perspective is to have us believe that the Manila ruling elite are merely puppets. They are not a bunch of mindless puppets; they are smart and ruthless. They knowingly choose to sacrifice the sovereignty of this archipelago because they get to maintain their rich and glamorous lifestyles and their monopoly on power. Filipino nationalism causes us to forget the autonomous crimes and abuses of Imperial Manila. The fact is that numerous nations are trapped and oppressed within the arbitrary fabricated nation-state known as the Republic of the Philippines. Imperial Manila exploits the resources and people of the numerous nations that it keeps imprisoned within its domain, such as the Cebuanos, the Maranao, the Ilocanos and the Ifugaos, to name just a few. It forces these diverse peoples to speak its own Tagalog language, disguising this language as "Filipino". The current crisis of the Philippines is not just due to US neocolonialism; it is the result of a "collaborative enterprise" between foreign and local imperialists, the former being the United States, and the latter being Imperial Manila. Filipino nationalism is not the solution to the crisis; it will only lead us on a false path, one that will never bring true justice. The people of this archipelago must look back to their roots, relinquish the false nationalism that has been imposed on them, and rediscover their true heritages. They are not "Filipinos", the children of the murderous bigot King Felipe II of Spain; they must give up this horrid colonial identity that Imperial Manila knowingly imposed on them. They must free their nations from Manila's stranglehold and embrace their true identities - as Warays, Kalingas, Tausugs, Bicolanos and Ilongos. They must speak their languages loudly and proudly, including Tagalogs, who risk losing their beautiful language to "Taglish". As David C Martinez says in his book A Country of Our Own: Partitioning the Philippines, it is time to dismember this horrid colonial creation known as the Republic of the Philippines.
Gugurang
Quezon City, Philippines (Jul 6, '05)

Balkanization of the sort you suggest is itself a form of nationalism. There are already large numbers of "independent states" in the Pacific that find it impossible to survive without large injections of aid from their former colonial masters. Breaking up the Philippines would add to their number and could well make the archipelago even poorer. While multi-ethnic federations in the region such as the Philippines and Indonesia are far from success stories, there is no evidence that splitting them up would improve the lot of their citizens. - ATol


Re Do Muslims worship idols? [Jul 6] by Spengler: As a good analyst, you need to first define what an idol is. There is the obvious dictionary definition; however, the more religious definition of idolatry is the worship of anything material such as wealth, living organisms, [and] objects of any kind, including extraterrestrial ones and human ability. Regardless of religious affiliation, people worship one or many of the above. A large part of the worldwide Muslim community lacks direction and leadership. Due to the overwhelming influence of the mullah, they have failed to understand the message of the Koran and the holy founder of Islam. No movement, religious or otherwise, has [survived or] can survive without visionary leadership and direction. God in His infinite wisdom has assured the victory of Islam by continually sending warners to guide the ummah [community]. The holy founder of Islam (SAW) warned his ummah of the dangers ahead and the remedies to these dangers. By denying this message, a large part of the Muslim ummah [have] set themselves upon the path of other dying religions such as Judaism and Christianity. The example of suicide terror is one that is in clear defiance of the edicts of the Holy Prophet (SAW). Can the mullahs give me even one incident where, during the defensive battles in early Islam, the Holy Prophet (SAW) encouraged suicide tactics? In fact there is an incident of a Muslim who was fighting in a manner that was so abhorrent; the warrior was using tactics akin to a wrecking ball, he later killed himself by driving his own sword through his heart, [and] the Holy Prophet (SAW) denounced this practice as abhorrent and evil. As I mentioned in an earlier response, modern suicide terror is the brainchild of the Tamil Tigers and has unfortunately only in the past few years been practiced in the Muslim world. Suicide of any sort is totally rejected and abhorred by Islam. The Holy Prophet (SAW) said: "Do not kill any old person, any child, or any woman" (Abu Dawud). "Do not kill the monks in monasteries," or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal) ... How can any mullah condone and practice tactics that include bombing of mosques, innocent men, women and children? The people that practice and condone this brutality have not only created hell in this world but, according to the Holy Prophet (SAW), will be inmates of hell in the hereafter and not martyrs. In Islam, the one we learn from the Holy Prophet (SAW), martyrdom is only achieved when you are killed fighting for your faith or country while conducting yourselves with righteousness according to the rules set out by the Holy Prophet of Islam (SAW). Any other interpretations will assure hell and will not lead to any sustainable victory. Now you know why the small, ill-equipped army of Mohammed (SAW) was always victorious over the well-armed, larger armies of the aggressors. Muslims must understand that encouraging and admiring suicide terror is akin to idolatry of the worst kind: the worship of the human ability. This condemnable practice is bound to fail as it is prohibited by Allah ...
Mahmood Ahmad (Jul 6, '05)


In your article [Do Muslims worship idols?, Jul 6] the author claims, "The great majority of Muslims, and particularly Muslim clerics, support suicide bombing." I have no idea where exactly this sentiment comes from. If your author had taken the time to do the smallest amount of research, he'd have found that no true Muslim can support suicide bombings. Why? Because taking one's life is one of the most grievous offenses against God; according to Islamic teaching, since our lives are God's and not our own, no human has the right to take his or her own life. I am not a Muslim, but I have many Muslim friends. Your article, whether or not it was intended in such a way, once again furthered the stereotype that all Muslims are either terrorists or support terrorism. I am disgusted with you as fellow Christians. You have borne false witness against your neighbors.
Brendan Diamond (Jul 6, '05)


I hate to write this, but the book review by Dmitry Shlapentokh [Changing perceptions, Jul 2] fell far short of Asia Times [Online's] reviewing standards. The inelegant, often redundant, writing begins right with the first sentence - and continues unabated. Consider this excerpt: "All these statements, while undoubtedly true, are very original. Yet the book is interesting reading. Though it is not a source of much information or original thought, the book is an important landmark in US intellectual history." Is that muddled and vacuous or what? Please, Asia Times: Don't fall for the reviewer's academic position or otherwise; carefully read the review for quality and depth before publishing it. Restore your older reviewing standards.
Cho Noa (Jul 6, '05)

Editing articles by non-native English speakers is always hazardous, but we really blew it here. The sentence you cite, "All these statements, while undoubtedly true, are very original," should have read "... not very original". The piece has been corrected. - ATol


Talk about paranoia and xenophobia! Haven't you, Daniel McCarthy [letter, Jul 5], given us a vivid display of what a victim of paranoia and xenophobia talks like? What better example could have we asked for than you, Mr McCarthy? When asked to back up his claim that China allegedly has plans to invade Kazakhstan, citing a map showing "Kazakhstan province of the People's Republic of China", McCarthy told us that it "was covered in detail in a National Public Radio broadcast in my locality in the United States". Ha! That's it? Has it been confirmed by the Pentagon or the State Department? Has anyone else, besides your local NPR station, talked about it in detail? America's press might be free, but no way does a free press automatically translate into a true and reliable press. Your press airs and prints whatever drives sales and profits, not necessarily the truth. Yes, the Chinese press might disseminate more propaganda than genuine news, but the Chinese public has learned to cope with it, that is, not to trust everything that comes out of the press. However, many people like McCarthy in the "free world" might blindly take whatever [is] out there as absolute testament of truth, without ever questioning the substance. Now, with that being said, Mr McCarthy, exactly who fits the "underdeveloped analytical skills, a skewed and factually inaccurate knowledge of history, politics and geography" profile better, an average Chinese like myself or a self-proclaimed prophet, ie Daniel McCarthy? I don't blame you, Mr McCarthy, I blame your education system, which could have been a role model for China, but I guess China isn't interested in a system that churns out paranoid and xenophobic idiots. McCarthy, seriously, don't fall out of your chair and go beat up a Chinese person on the street next time when you hear your local NPR station saying China has plans to take over America and make your beloved USA one of its provinces.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jul 6, '05)


I would like to respond to Sree's letter of June 28. As I am a new entrant to ATol, I have so far enjoyed reading most of the letters published and taken delight in participating and expressing my views in a civilized manner. But I regret to say that the majority of the Hindu writers have inherent inclination and virulent mentality to accuse and abuse the Muslims and mendaciously target Islam as the No 1 enemy of Hinduism and other religions, which is a totally prejudicial and unfounded hypothesis ... I would like Sree to solve for me these puzzles: who came first, egg or hen; monkey or god Ganesh? If he could solve them, then he would have discovered [Charles] Darwin's origin of species. Darwin miserably failed to have any scientifically founded answer for how man evolved from ape-like creature. I never doubted the fact that Sree would bend over backwards to defend Darwinism; otherwise, there is no ground for him to worship the monkey god, Ganesh. If Sree had read Darwin's "Difficulties [of the] Theory" [Chapter 6 of The Origin of Species], he would have known that Darwin admitted and was aware of a great many facts that invalidated his theory. He hoped that someone else in future would take over and find solutions, but advances in science have refuted his claims one by one, and I would like to remind Sree and Fabricio [letter, Jun 28] another significant feature of evolution, which Darwin failed to explain, [the] origin of life on the planet. As we know that science is concerned with disproving unseen things rather than proving them, there is no scientific reason not to believe in these things that science cannot disprove. In order that we come to some agreement, we should divert our attention to tangible matters; the signs in creation and especially scriptures that claim to come from the Almighty. Here, we find that the Islamic view of science and religion is very different from [from what] many people who fear Islam say, that the two are separate entities and cannot be reconciled. We Muslims firmly believe that Islam is a complete way of life and science is regarded as a subset of larger set of Islam; the two are inseparable. As a matter of fact the Koran invites us again and again to reflect on His Creation and investigate the world Allah has created in order to benefit from the bounties and more fully appreciate his glory and mercy ... Sree and Fabricio are like two blind men who tried to lead each other and both fell into a ditch: Sree, for his ethos of idol worshiping of man-made objects, monkeys, rats, snakes, cows elephants and money (goddess Lakhsmi), and Fabricio, for his misfortune of being born in a communist state where human beings are forbidden to use their brains to reason and considered as robots for production lines, and made to listen to long boring speeches of their aging senile dictator ... I would like to tell Sree that I feel safer to live in Britain and practice my faith rather than live in secular India and [be] killed by a Hindu saffron mob ... I would like to tell Sree that according to my fair judgment of world history, secularism was an invention of Europeans' lust for materialism and of colonizing of the non-European nations, and a pivotal factor hidden in it is and was racism, superiority of the white race and survival of the fittest, which was supported and disguised by their Christian missionaries, who were mostly racists. It later on became a stunt for their invasions and conquests and even these days, we see President G W Bush with a Bible in his pocket has invaded the Muslim countries of Afghanistan and Iraq illegally and without any justification, killing over 150,000 innocent people. When all his excuses failed, [he] found a new one now: the slogan of secularism, democracy and freedom, but people of intelligence know it [is] purely greed and materialism that motivate him ... I follow Islam not with blindfolds on; not at all, but in the Koran, Allah tells us that those who follow the faith and His message through reasoning and scrutiny are better than those who accept it with blank minds ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Jul 6, '05)


Asia Times Online, being in Asia, observes American holidays, because [a] "majority of our readers are in the United States". During these holidays why do the fools still work for New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc?
Li (Jul 6, '05)

Because they have huge staffs. ATol's statistical records show poor readership numbers on US holidays. - ATol


July 4 a holiday in Asia? Since when did this begin?
Gary Dean (Jul 5, '05)

Asia Times Online started taking US holidays a couple of years back as a majority of our readers are in the United States. - ATol


CNOOC's automatic call on [the] Bush administration to review its merger shows ... that there [is] no strategic intention that could aim at the national security of the United States [CNOOC-Unocal deal might ease pressure on yuan, Jul 2]. Nevertheless, if the White House, out of political considerations, tries to block the deal, it could cut off its nose to spite its face. For one thing, free trade ... is a fundamentally global principle to which Americans have been devoted; if the block took place, the conduct could seem to be breaking what Americans would otherwise commit [themselves] to. And for another, any block like this could set a precedent for political decisions against [business deals]. If there is some chance in future by which Americans may bid for Chinese companies, the Chinese government could naturally invoke it as a reason to block American mergers. Any political block of any trans-nation merger involving no national security could wreak havoc with the world trade systems. Chinese are willing to understand American emotional concern over security [issues], and Chinese will stop short of doing business for the sake of harming American security interest. The point, however, is that China National Offshore Oil Corp's [proposed] merger with Unocal has shown no matters related to security issues over which Americans have concern.
Zhang Jixuan
Central University for Nationalities in China (Jul 5, '05)


The article Japan and China face off on energy [Jul 2] ignores an important point. Since the end of the Second World War, Japan has refused to take part in the development of Siberia and the eastern part of Russia because of Japanese anger over the refusal of the Soviet Union (and later Russia) to return the "Northern Territories" (small islands to the north of Japan). There was also deep-seated anger among the Japanese over what was considered betrayal by the Soviet Union by arbitrarily ending the No War treaty signed when Germany and the Soviet Union were engaged in a bitter war. This happened near the end of the war in the east when the US atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the defeat of Japan became clear. To this day the Japanese government and people demand the return of the Northern Territories. The Soviet Union and later Russia have resisted this demand, and the Japanese have retaliated by quietly refusing to take part in the development of the Russian territories in Siberia and East Asia. The Japanese have recently shown their eagerness to take part in the development of these areas, when it became clear that China was about to do so. It appears that, like the Japanese, the Russians have not forgotten the past and are now favoring China in the development plans, leaving Japan out in the cold. Japan, now facing a looming energy crisis, thus finds itself blocked out of the nearest oil and gas fields, those in Siberia and eastern Russia. One would hope President [Vladimir] Putin, who has played his cards well with President [George W] Bush and European leaders, will not ignore the enormous resources the Japanese can bring to bear in the development of the eastern territories. This is a good time for Russia to end the submerged enmity between the two peoples and to come together to help each other.
V L Rao
Bangalore, India (Jul 5, '05)


[Dmitry] Shlapentokh may wax enthusiastic about Ian Buruma's and Avishai Margalit's Occidentalism as a crack in the ice floe of left-flowing post-modernist thinking in America' s academic circles [Changing perceptions, Jul 2]. Yet he does recognize that this study of the West in the eyes of its enemies is a slim volume of less than 200 pages, and says that it provides little new information or sophisticated analysis. It is worth noting that David Cannadine's Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire has hardly made a ripple in academic post-modernist and post-colonial thinking. Cannadine tried to displace the center of Marxist class analysis towards a strategy in the jewel of Victoria's crown, to an elaboration of outward privilege and prestige of the powerless princes and kings. By stressing the ornamental, Cannadine fails to subvert Edward W Said's Orientalism. Said's Orientalism has a coherence and an appearance of truth which requires a book of substance and weight which challenges it argument by argument. Said's Culture and Imperialism, however, is easier to argue against, for he offers a seriously flawed reading of literature and opera. More to the point, the shift in thinking in America's academia comes from ... the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, and the rightward tilt of the United States' political establishment and culture, [rather] than to the easily dismissed but earnest Occidentalism.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Jul 5, '05)


Regarding the article India, Singapore ink pact [Jul 2, this] will be a major boost for both economies as stated in the article. The age-old fear of the manufacturing sector that India "will be swamped with cheap Chinese products" may be true. But I remember when Japanese goods way back in the '60s broke down within a couple of uses. But Japanese [manufacturers] learned from [their] mistakes and now Japanese goods and their company logos are household names the world over. Chinese manufacturers have not reached world logo recognition but their CEOs are producing top-of-the-line items at affordable prices. Maybe the Indian manufacturing industry should stop [its] "yellow streak" of international competition and learn the success stories in Japan and now China. Your article India's Afghan nightmare [Jun 28] centers a lot on the withdrawal of troops and the re-emergence of Islamabad in Afghanistan's affairs. According to this article the US is fully aware of the implications. This does not need to be an "Indian nightmare" as long as the world realizes that Pakistan is not the center of the world. Islamabad may believe that when Pakistanis decide to revolve so does the world, but both the US and India can easily arm-twist Pakistan to the point of not resurging the ultra Taliban factor. India can give aid and support to the Balochis who are very discontented with Islamabad and want an independent nation, and more importantly the US can threaten Pakistan with a whole host of things - from sanctions, to fully supporting India's fight [against] the Islamic terrorists in Kashmir, from supporting India's claim to Kashmir in the UN to even stricter laws regarding Pakistani immigration to the US. If both India and the US arm-twist Pakistan, she will have no leverage other than to capitulate.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Jul 5, '05)


It is rather unfortunate that [Gaurang] Bhatt through his article [Hobbesian hell in the making, Jun 29] has offended a large number of people of various religious backgrounds. His attack on Islam and its holy founder is rather vicious and highly offensive. What makes it even more disappointing is that he has made these vicious claims and false accusations without backing them up. I have to question his judgment as a so-called professor. He claims "Islam has never been a religion of peace. Mohammed, unlike any other prior prophet or future one, resorted to arms as a means to spread his doctrine." I am sure it didn't take a lot of research for you to write such a statement other pure and unadulterated hatred of Islam. How can you attribute force and violence to the spread of faith in general and Islam in particular? Isn't faith a matter of winning hearts and minds? Can you give me an example of any doctrine, including religion, being spread by lethal force and happily accepted by a people? Wouldn't there have been mass revolution and rebellion as a result of such brutal tactics that you attribute to the Prophet of Islam (SAW)? We are all living through the "flowers and candy" invasion of Iraq, go figure. You cannot attribute the actions of people to their faith and founders of faith in particular? Are you suggesting that the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust [and] two major world wars [were] Jesus' fault because Christians were predominant in these actions? Or that Lord Shiva is responsible for the razing of mosques and the rape of Muslims in India? No, both Jesus and Shiva taught us tolerance and "turning the other cheek" ... Why the sudden upsurge in violence in Muslim lands? "The unfortunate truth is that energy resources are primarily in lands with Muslim majorities and rule" - a good start by Mr Bhatt. Now follow this trail back before the creation of the so-called State of Israel and before the discovery of Arabian oil. You will begin to see violence unfold. You will see how frustrations of people living under puppets and stooges planted by Western governments become the source of violence of a people with vast resources. You will see suicide bombing tactics, a brainchild of the Tamil Tigers and only recently used by Palestinians and now Iraqi insurgents. By the way, suicide of any sort is totally prohibited in Islam. But who is to stop a populace under the influence of illiterate, self-serving mullahs? About divine revelation, how can a man who didn't know how to read or write "write" a pure and uncontradictory book such as the Koran? Isn't that miraculous? I bet Mr Bhatt doesn't believe in the God and His revelations to man, but rather chance or accident. Perhaps he will start believing that a fully functional 747 can come into being after a tornado sweeps through a junkyard. It's all chance, right?
Mahmood Ahmad (Jul 5, '05)


I will keep this one short. Even I am getting tired of complaining about Spengler [Iran: The living fossils' vengeance, Jun 28] - but, but, one has to make at least two comments. First, the people of Iran did not vote for poverty. They apparently voted against the encroachment of Western values and empire. They voted against McDonald's and Barbie Dolls. The idea that embracing the West will somehow lead to prosperity is simple-minded and demonstrably wrong. I live in the former Eastern bloc and can tell you that globalization has destroyed traditional community links (as, to a degree, did communism) and left a widening gap between the rich and poor. Such Western paternalism as displayed by Spengler is typical of a historically myopic bias and lack of broader cultural awareness. Second, why is traditional society past its sell-by date (per Spengler)? Is this a kind of weird Fukayama trope of neo-lib chauvinism? One wonders. The West and its pundits have a hard time understanding why a poor country would refuse the alleged virtues of the global market - cell phones, VCRs, and pornography. I may not want to live under the mullahs, but I also don't want to live under the World Bank and American hegemony.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Jul 5, '05)


I am wondering why DirtyDog [letter, Jul 1] wants to focus on Islam and Iran [and] not the British Empire. Most of today's Asia problems are connected to what [the] English did to Asia. That includes all the problems of Iran, India, and Iraq. [The] British deliberately separated Kuwait and Iraq; Bahrain and Iran; Pakistan and India based on the concept of divide and conquer. Those divisions cause bitterness among the local people. The bitterness creates problems in the region. So why cannot we talk about British Empire's evil doings in Asia? ...
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Jul 5, '05)

Anti-British rhetoric is your obsession, and not necessarily DirtyDog's. - ATol


Once again, the weakness of China's education system is made all too apparent through the publication of a letter [Jul 1] from Juchechosunmanse (a person with so little faith in his own opinions that he will not even place his name beside them?). In his letter, Mr J wrote, "Does China have plans to invade and annex Kazakhstan? Although I can't speak for the Chinese government, I can tell you such a plan has never been heard of by myself and those more politically conscious and savvy Chinese folks. McCarthy, would you provide the source of this information please? Is it a prank?" With underdeveloped analytical skills, a skewed and factually inaccurate knowledge of history, politics and geography, and served by a press that disseminates more propaganda than genuine news, perhaps it is not surprising that Mr J would fall back into his comfortable paranoia and xenophobia whenever faced with information that is new to him. Without going into more detail on those points, let me answer his question directly. Kazakh discomfort regarding Chinese territorial ambitions, and the map which showed the Kazakhstan province of the People's Republic of China, was covered in detail in a National Public Radio broadcast in my locality in the United States. If China had a free press, Mr J could have listened to that news report as well. Daniel McCarthy (Jul 5, '05)

For a first-hand, objective look at China's relationship with Kazakhstan, see the two-part series The Dragon in Central Asia (Nov '04): PART 1: The hunt for friends, and oil and PART 2: Fighting thirst, and militants. - ATol


I would like to provide the much-needed answer to Sree ([letter] Jun 30) who was delirious to have not found the response in the mail of Saqib Khan to his question "whether Islam would allow the casuistry of the sort that [the] Bible was subjected to by Christians or which other religions of the East always permitted its followers to indulge on their respective sacred texts. Second, can secularism be genuinely part of the ethos of Islam, notwithstanding all your tall claims on this fastest-growing religion?" There is always a misconception in the minds of non-Muslims that Islam was spread by the sword and intolerant of other faiths. I would like to clarify the issue, which has so long been left unanswered. Many social-studies textbooks for students show the image of an Arab horseman carrying a sword in one hand and the Koran in the other conquering and forcibly converting. This, though, is not a correct portrayal of history. Islam has always given respect and freedom of religion to all faiths. The Koran says: "God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just" 60:8). Freedom of religion is laid down in the Koran itself: "There is no compulsion [or coercion] in the religion [Islam]. The right direction is distinctly clear from error" (2:256). Christian missionary T W Arnold had this opinion on his study of the question of the spread of Islam: "Of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism ..." It is a function of Islamic law to protect the privileged status of minorities, and this is why non-Muslim places of worship have flourished all over the Islamic world. History provides many examples of Muslim tolerance towards other faiths: when the caliph Omar entered Jerusalem in the year 634, Islam granted freedom of worship to all religious communities in the city. Proclaiming to the inhabitants that their lives and property were safe, and that their places of worship would never be taken from them, he asked the Christian patriarch Sophronius to accompany him on a visit to all the holy places. Islamic law also permits non-Muslim minorities to set up their own courts, which implement family laws drawn up by the minorities themselves. The life and property of all citizens in an Islamic state are considered sacred whether the person is Muslim or not. Racism is not a part of Islam; the Koran speaks only of human equality and how all peoples are equal in the sight of God. "O mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another. Truly, the most honored of you in God's sight is the greatest of you in piety. God is All-Knowing, All- Aware" (49:13).
Mohammad Saleh
Saudi Arabia (Jul 5, '05)

That's a nice history lesson, but as a resident of Saudi Arabia you know better than most that in strict Islamic societies tolerance of other religions, or even of variations within Islam, pales in comparison with common practice in secular societies such as most European countries, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong etc. Many non-Muslims are not concerned with what the Koran teaches; they are worried about how Islam is actually practiced. - ATol


Ahmed Zaheer [letter, Jun 28] may feel smug on the issue of his erstwhile countrymen in Bangladesh supporting Pakistan over India but that only reflects on the Islamic attitude. It is also reflected in the exodus of Kosovo Muslims to fight against the US in Iraq in the name of jihad, which led the US media to wonder why. In other words, sooner or later Islamic attitudes will triumph over other discardable values like loyalty, etc etc. Ahmed should also explain why the Hindu population stands at 1% and 8% in Pakistan and Bangladesh from their base independence figure of 12% and 30%. Surely that's another proof that the "religion of peace" can't co-exist with other faiths.
Michael
Adelaide, Australia (Jul 5, '05)


There are four groups of people who were utterly disappointed at the [US] president's speech on Iraq [Bush's mission implausible, Jun 30], and who are simply outraged that the president did not address their pressing concerns in the manner in which they would have liked: cave-dwelling terrorists, the media elite conglomerate, fire-breathing Democrats, and soon-to-be-unemployed system administrators at moveon.org. That in itself should be deemed as sufficient evidence that the president is on the right track.
Miguel A Guanipa (Jul 1, '05)


[Re] your answer to Bob Hu's letter on June 30 regarding whether the paths to the Kingdom of Heaven are many (John 14:2) or only through Jesus (John 14:6) - [these] are not the only passages in the Bible [that cause] a lot of confusion. In Ephesians 2:8-9, it says the Kingdom of Heaven is a gift of God: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Please remind Gaurang Bhatt [Hobbesian hell in the making, Jun 29] that he shouldn't write what he has no knowledge of.
SY
Aarhus, Denmark (Jul 1, '05)

Some suggest the Bible is deliberately confusing to remind us that it is up to us to solve our own problems and sort out how to live in peace and prosperity, without relying on the musings of long-dead sages. - ATol


Dear Frank [letter, Jun 30]: You don't like to let the sleeping dog lie. You have no problem with what I said but you are speculating on what I did not say. What makes you think I am going to comment now? I certainly do not wish to open a second unnecessary front with Spengler, who was focused on Islam and Iran, not the British Empire [Iran: The living fossils' vengeance, Jun 28]. Your juvenile attempt to be pejorative with my screen name is only indicative of the frivolousness of your posts, which by the way have been already highlighted by many a reader, like Sun King and Sree, etc. I am sorry I don't have much time for you, and may I add that you are barking up the wrong tree.
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (Jul 1, '05)


I wonder if [letter writer] Daniel McCarthy always makes up stuff as he goes along in his great crusade of China-bashing. His [Jun 30] accusation [is that] "a map has been circulated in government offices in Beijing showing the 'Kazakhstan province' of the People's Republic of China", which sounds unbelievably unreal to me. Does China have plans to invade and annex Kazakhstan? Although I can't speak for the Chinese government, I can tell you such a plan has never been heard of by myself and those more politically conscious and savvy Chinese folks. McCarthy, would you provide the source of this information please? Is it a prank? I have seen maps on the Internet showing China being divided and becoming part of "Corea" and "the Great Japanese Empire" - I laughed it off. I believe neither Japan nor Korea has plans to invade China. Did you take some prank too seriously, or did you just make it up, McCarthy? Or perhaps you mistook China for the US, [which] actually has plans to invade another sovereign nation, Iran? McCarthy, it must be fun to be a full-time China-basher, isn't it? Do you get paid by Bill Gertz and the Washington Times?
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Jul 1, '05)


Faraz, in his June 30 letter, makes the amusing suggestion that India should act against its own self-interest and abridge its sovereignty because of a UN resolution. Given what the UN has become, a corrupt debating society [composed] mostly of dictatorial and unrepresentative regimes, I think the people of India, as a democracy, are better arbiters of their own actions.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Jul 1, '05)


This is with reference to my letter (Jun 30) and your subsequent reply. We can argue about the definition of balanced coverage but surely continuously giving ample space to old rhetoric lines, unbacked by any evidence and promoting single-track [viewpoints], does constitute partisan journalism which, sincerely speaking, may hamper the credibility of your fine publication. It's also not a question of pointing out inaccuracies in these articles but of expecting a balanced editorial policy from your side - a policy which discourages disinformation.
Faraz
Denmark (Jul 1, '05)

We not only discourage disinformation, we are in the business of debunking it. However, errors occur from time to time, and when our readers point them out we correct them, or, if there is an honest difference of opinion, we air those differing views on this page and The Edge. But if the only criticism of an article is that the reader did not approve of the writer's nationality, there is nothing we can do about that. - ATol