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.)

Spengler responds to readers
Jakob Cambria (letter, Aug 30) insists that "there is not a whit of comparability between the history of Canada, of Quebec, and Muslim lands", and Palmer (Aug 30) claims that politics has nothing to do with demographics. But what explains the fact that the Quebec independence movement peaked just after Quebec's population growth rate fell from among the highest to among the lowest in the industrial world? That is, precisely when the long-term demographic trends undermined the viability of an independent Quebec, Quebecers elected a government committed to independence. Demographics represent the intrusion of reality into political discourse. When general staffs planned wars on the basis of the demographic tables, no one doubted that population trends were fundamental to politics. The observed evidence suggests that this still is true, albeit in more subtle fashion. The delusion of Quebec independence did not take long to dissipate, and the independence question has died a languishing death. Evidently, francophone Canadians had perceived a last chance to preserve their identity in a world dominated by English. Now they are reconciled to their fate. The Muslim world perceives a last chance to avoid cultural domination by the West and the extinction of Islamic identity, and there the comparison is legitimate.
Spengler (Aug 31, '05)


[Re Sistani.Qom: In the wired heart of Shi'ism, Aug 31]: Your best headline yet - had me laughing aloud.
Harald Hardrada
New York, New York (Aug 31, '05)


It is hard to [envisage] a more propitious opportunity for the media to express their deep-seated contempt for religion in a more guilt-free fashion than that which current developments have recently afforded. On the one hand we have Pat Robertson, fitting snugly into the mold the media [have] fashioned for all evangelicals who support George W Bush as warmongers, by allegedly implying that he wouldn't consider it a problem if a particular South American dictator posing as a democratic leader is snuffed out by US "special" forces [Hugo, Uncle Ho and Uncle Sam, Aug 26]; and on the other hand you have a grieving Bush-hater of the Catholic persuasion, spurred by the death of her own son to launch an attack upon the president's integrity by staging prayer vigils outside of his vacationing spot, calling for an end to the Iraq war [Bush, Sheehan and how words die, Aug 30]. I can recall no other time when so-called newsworthy items offered the liberal media a more serendipitous opportunity to egg two of their ideological contrarians on against one another. There was a time when the media could focus on humiliating either party on separate fronts only, so the prospect of being able to simply sit back and watch both mortal foes who share an equal burden of the media's animosity pitted against each other must be quite the exhilarating experience. Perhaps it is time for them to reflect upon their once noble calling as impartial observers and ask themselves the question: What would Peter Jennings do?
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts (Aug 31, '05)


In reference to Jakob Cambria's letter [Aug 29] regarding Ioannis Gatsiounis' review of The Myth of Islamic Tolerance [Addressing Muslim rage, Aug 27], is it not disconcerting that all calls to reform Islam emanate from non-Muslims? In other words, does it not say something about the futility of trying to impose change upon the Islamic faith when its own adherents - a quarter of the human race hailing from every nation, culture, and language - are not interested in the endeavor? Is it not oxymoronic that Western secularists promote reformation of a faith that by all democratic tradition must be an absolute untouchable? And is it not hypocritical that Western rightists thunder against Islam while their racial and Christian motivations remain in plain sight, and while they decry Muslims for hating "liberal freedoms" they themselves would just as soon destroy? What endings are we invited to from such skewed beginnings? Further, are Muslims to accept the epistemology of a West that cares not one bit for even devoutly Christian Africa or stridently liberal Latin America? Are we to pretend that the West - garlands of Enlightenment liberation in hand - waits to embrace the Arab, the Turk, the Persian, and the subcontinental as brother and sister on the other side of an Islamic reformation? Are we to ignore all rational evidence that the Enlightenment ideal itself is in its death throes? One must be deluded beyond hope to think that Muslims do not think these questions. To Mr Cambria I will submit that the Koran is not shy in shattering human arrogance and its first target was the unbridled Arab ego, from the taming of which came a global faith. However, the essence of our religion is not in the literal Koran - unless you insist on denying 14 centuries of Muslim consensus - but in the person of the Holy Prophet Mohammed, and he is no man of nihilism.
Hayder Moin
USA (Aug 31, '05)


I would like to contribute my views [regarding recent letters alleging] that religion brainwashes rationale and science is the domain of the godless as delinquent and preposterous arguments ... The Koran revealed to Prophet Mohammed 1,400 years ago is a highly scientific book and makes numerous references to natural phenomena including movements of heavenly bodies and behavior of different creatures, and it is the touchstone of our theology. Science is defined as a branch of knowledge involving systematized observation, experiment and induction, but who, what, is the source of science? Revelation is defined as direct communication from God which is held to be true by all religious people, sometimes [exclusive] of facts but without which we humans would be left with our limited imagination and perceptions and without which we could never be able to grasp the true realities of life or know about such things as life after death. The Islamic view of science and religion is very different from what many people who study Islam with squint eyes and pathological prejudicial thinking abilities [see]. Islam says that the two are separate entities and cannot be reconciled ... The Koran has repeatedly urged Muslims (at least 756 times) to meditate over the creation of the universe and to study how the heavens and Earth and all that is below the Earth has been made subservient to man. Therefore, there has never been a conflict between the faith and reason, invention and discovery in Islam ... In the end, I would say to all non-Muslims that if they read the Koran with an impartial eye, they will quickly learn that science and Islam correspond with each other fully and amicably. We should always remember the fact that the great Muslim scientists were devout Muslims and received their inspiration from the Koran. It was because of their contributions to science that the West became civilized and saw the light of knowledge when from time immemorial they lived in dark ages: in mud houses or jungles, walked with few clothes to cover themselves, ate raw meat because they did not know how to cook and spoke with sign languages.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Aug 31, '05)

Lessons for Islam from Quebec [Aug 30] is a muddle. To put it bluntly, Spengler knows not of what he speaks. Quebec is not a model for Muslim countries. There is not a whit of comparability between the history of Canada, of Quebec, and of Muslim lands. If anything, it is yet another example of the good, quiet American as a boy scout, ignorant of history, and grasping at straws of preconceived ideas. And such good intentions pave the road to hell. Such wrong-headed thinking led to Vietnam and to today's mess in Iraq.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Aug 30, '05)


Well, I just can’t let Spengler’s latest flight of fantasy go unremarked: Lessons for Islam from Quebec [Aug 30] ... Firstly, French-Canadians, being of a very proud race are just that - French-Canadians - and call themselves by that appellation – not Francophone Canadians. The “peaking” of Quebec nationalism had nothing whatever to do with Quebec’s “demographic fate”, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and everything to do with past injustices. Put simply, the French in Canada, who had been there first, were now second-class citizens in their own province and country. The French in Canada have a very rich historical background, but being Roman Catholic, were, from the beginning, kept very strictly under the control of the Church and the political system to the benefit of their own first and second estate and later to the profit of and control by the "Anglo" establishment in Quebec. That meant the production of large families, and little emphasis on real education. World War Two changed everything. French-Canadians then had productive jobs at home, and those who went overseas saw a way of life, even in wartime, that was vastly different from that in, say, Rimouski or Barachois. When the war was over and times more prosperous, the strict control of the Church and State was questioned and education became more focused. So, in the mid 1950s you had all these well-educated absolutely drop-dead gorgeous French-Canadian girls coming out of Trois-Rivieres and Lac Saint Jean to join the then Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific as stewardesses - and their brothers to join as pilots, metaphorically speaking. What a time to be young in Quebec! They had absorbed the nuances of French philosophical and political thought and thus were able to deal with the inequalities and injustices of the past in a rational way. And ... none of them wanted 14 kids. THAT was the "Quiet Revolution". The non-quiet revolution was also the product of education but of a different mind-set which appealed to those of a Marxist-socialist-anarchist bent and was influenced by Che Guevara and others. This was the FLQ (Front de Liberation du Quebec). Check the FLQ manifesto; you may be surprised: “The Front de Liberation du Quebec is not an aggressive movement, but a response to the aggression organized by high finance through its puppets, the federal and provincial governments ...” And so on. Of course the front had its radical element and in Montreal, in those days, you didn’t stand too close to a mail box if you were waiting for a bus. Sorry Spengler but some elements of the FLQ didn’t use the ballot-box. They didn’t strap on bombs but they sure as hell ruined a lot of public mail boxes. Other Spengler conclusions are equally stupid. “Culturally, Quebec belongs more to Europe than to North America, and the collapse of its faith and fertility followed the model of Spain, Italy and other European Catholic countries.” This is utter and absolute nonsense - Quebecers, and more especially the Acadian French are totally North American in their values and outlook; the real difference is that their mother tongue is French, not English and their faith Catholic, not Protestant. And their faith has NOT collapsed but only altered to accommodate 21st century thinking within the Catholic Church (or without). “The threat of Quebec secession ... Montreal, Quebec's largest city, lost nearly half a million in population.” Really? Montreal in 1971 had a population of 1.2 million; so it lost 500,000? I don’t think so. (I left because I didn’t want to shovel any more snow.) ... As it was then in Quebec, so it is now in the Muslim/Arab world. It is all about past and present injustices in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan among other countries and nothing whatever to do with demographics. (I sense, from previous articles, that Spengler has an aberrant fixation with fertility.) [Letter shortened - ATol]
Palmer
British Columbia, Canada (Aug 30, '05)


"Discussion closed so that we at ATol can get on with our real job of fomenting war between China and India" [comment under Juchechosunmanse's letter of Aug 29]. Thanks for your honesty. I hope you can close the childish comparisons between India and China too. My religion is better than yours. My turtle is faster than your hare ... When do we end? ...
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 30, '05)


Re Addressing Muslim rage, [Aug 27]: Anyone thumbing through The Myth of Islamic Tolerance edited by Robert Spencer, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, would notice it is published by Regnery, America's leading conservative publisher. If he flipped to the back leaf of the dust jacket, his eye would notice that Robert Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and an adjunct fellow with the Free Congress Foundation. His publishers add ominously that Mr Spencer "lives in a secure, undisclosed location". A glance at the contributors of The Myth will note that they are hawks and long associated with right-wing organizations, secular or religious, and ones who do not suffer Islam lightly. Saying this, Ioannis Gatsiounis has given a balanced review of Mr Spencer's book. It behooves non-Muslims who have an overly negative attitude towards the West, and on whose shoulders heap a multitude of sins and wrongs, to read deeply into the history of the Arab world, to challenge the book's conclusions ... The average Westerner has not the slightest idea of the total control of the divinely revealed Koran has on the daily life and habits of a Muslim. It is a self-contained microcosm of a universe; there is a common measure of behavior for the Muslim, and those outside of the din, or faith, suffer the fate of the politically denied and deprived and discriminated. Thus Mr Spencer's book looks at Islam with colder and less romantic eyes. It is pertinent to underscore the root of Islamic precepts which deny the existence of a civil society, since in Islam there is no separation of state and mosque ... For a good appreciation of the prophet Mohammed, a reading of the late Maxime Rodinson's Muhammad is worthwhile. Islam has common roots with Judaism and Christianity, but through millenary history, it has elaborated a way of governing which is antithetical to liberal Western democracy. Reforms arise with difficulty unless imposed with an iron fist a la Kemal Ataturk, and yet centuries-old habits of mind and manners cannot be overcome in a day. Yet the road to reform lies in assimilation of the very ideas which fundamentalists reprove, and which challenge the foundations of an Islamic state. Mr Gatsiounis is right to conclude that, despite the curled-up lip of contempt which Mr Spencer's book may provoke, it is a book worth reading to correct the sentimental pretentious nonsense which has come out about Islam. Nonetheless, as the American writer John O'Hara once observed: "People who have made up their minds about a man do not like to have their opinions changed." Still, one has to try with reasoned arguments and facts and figures. And that is, it seems, the object all sublime of Mr Spencer.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Aug 29, '05)


Re Why Casey Sheehan was killed [Aug 25]: Casey Sheehan was killed because we the citizens of the United States have elected greedy liars or gutless wonders from among ourselves to govern us. Any other reasons are mere circumstances. God save the United States.
Jody Barr
Shanghai, China (Aug 29, '05)


Thank you so much for the article The fuel behind Iran's nuclear drive [Aug 24]. With so many media pundits demonizing Iran, it is nice to find a fresh, informed perspective.
Cheryl Hutchinson (Aug 29, '05)


In response to Raymond Cui's letter [Aug 26], ATol wrote, "Xinhua said it, not Asia Times Online, as Juchechosunmanse now appreciates." The truth is, I don't. I do appreciate the fact that ATol made the effort to let us know the source of that quote; however, I don't at all appreciate the way you handled it. Like I said, you were misleading (intentionally?) the readers by taking it out of context.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Aug 29, '05)

The context was perfectly obvious. The quote was included in a package of articles on Chinese and Indian oil issues, all neatly contained between two thick red lines. And the point was simple and incontrovertible: When a Chinese firm loses a bid, it's "just business"; when it beats out Indian competition, it's a "victory". Discussion closed so that we at ATol can get on with our real job of fomenting war between China and India. - ATol


Has it ever occurred to everybody, particularly ATimes, that what Xinhua meant was probably "competition", rather than "rivalry", with India? We may have to give Xinhua the benefit of doubt as their English translator may not have realized the slight difference in the meaning of these terms.
Dennis Chua
Singapore (Aug 29, '05)

Rivalry (n): 1. striving to reach or obtain something that only one can possess. 2. striving for competitive advantage. Competition (n): the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms (Merriam-Webster Online). Pretty slight, all right. - ATol


John Steppling [letter, Aug 26], along with others, is mistaken to assert that the primary cause of political violence in Iraq is the Anglo-American occupation when it is in fact the power structure of the former Iraqi state [that] is most to blame. Many Iraqi Arab Sunnis fear a US-Shi'ite conspiracy to reduce them to permanent marginal status by denying them oil revenues through political decentralization while the Kurds and Shi'ites are eager to preserve their new-found power through decentralization. Had the Anglo-Americans launched a successful coup that overthrew Saddam [Hussein] but then [chose] to support the existing power structure, I'm sure many Iraqi Sunnis would [have welcomed] their assistance against the specter (real or imagined) of an Iranian-backed Shi'ite tidal wave. Thus the withdrawal of occupying forces would not end the incipient civil war but only shift its parameters as the Iraqi factions sought out new sponsors. Iran would certainly become the new protector of the Iraqi government. Yet John Steppling's anti-colonial outrage seems limited to pro-US Iraqis. Given recent armed clashes between SCIRI [Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq] and the Sadrists as well as between foreign jihadis and Sunni Arab tribesmen, I would expect an Iraqi civil war to be characterized by the constantly shifting alliances that characterized the Lebanese tragedy. Certainly Iraqis are tired of war, but the same could have been said of the Afghans (another group of peoples riven by faction and plainly unsuited for centralized governance) after the Soviet withdrawal, and yet what was the result but civil war with substantial Pakistani and Saudi meddling? Many who opposed the invasion of Iraq argued that it was a hubristic venture that substituted ideology for reality. Strangely enough, many of those same individuals, blinded by their cocoon of romantic anti-colonial fairy-tales, now themselves demonstrate hubris by expecting a miraculous peace process following an Anglo-American retreat.
Jonathan X
Canada (Aug 29, '05)


I find DirtyDog's irritations [at] my animal analogy funny [letter, Aug 26]. I guess the standard applied to himself (I assume it is a he because the name used here is not DirtyB) is different than the standard applied to others. I still do not understand why criticizing India is not allowed, [while] criticizing China is? Double standard again, DirtyDog?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 29, '05)


I found Deepak Sarkar's mail (Aug 26) very economical with the truth when he said, "The scientific advancement that we see around us is merely a manifestation of crass materialism and godless civilization." The writer's assumption regarding the creation of science by godless people is surreal and tantamount to overlooking the contributions of many God-fearing folks towards the development of science. This kind of claim is ridiculous. I would like to mention the contribution of Islam towards science and other ... human endeavors. Jared Diamond, a world-renowned UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles] sociologist and physiologist who won the Pulitzer Prize for his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, said, "Medieval Islam was technologically advanced and open to innovation. It achieved far higher literacy rates than in contemporary Europe; it assimilated the legacy of classical Greek civilization to such a degree that we now know many classical books only through Arabic copies. It invented windmills, trigonometry [and] lateen sails and made major advances in metallurgy, mechanical and chemical engineering, and irrigation methods. In the Middle Ages the flow of technology was overwhelmingly from Islam to Europe rather from Europe to Islam. Only after the 1500s did the net direction of flow begin to reverse" ... Many of the traits on which Europe prides itself came to it from Muslim Spain. Diplomacy, free trade, open borders, the techniques of academic research, of anthropology, etiquette, fashion, alternative medicine, hospitals, all came from this great city of cities. Medieval Islam was a religion of remarkable tolerance for its time, allowing Jews and Christians to practice their inherited beliefs, and setting an example, which was not, unfortunately, copied for many centuries in the West. The surprise is the extent to which Islam has been a part of Europe for so long, first in Spain, then in the Balkans, and the extent to which it has contributed so much towards the civilization, which we all too often think of, wrongly, as entirely Western. And the godless people around the world watch helplessly how millions of people [are] converting to the religion of God without asking for any pelf or material wealth.
Mohd Salekun Noor
UAE (Aug 29, '05)


In response to Mohd Salek Noor's recent letter (Aug 25) in response to [letter writer] Jose Pardinas, in which he announces, "Religion taught men to reason and reflect and to explore the bosom of mysterious nature," I have to take strong objection to this highly dubious claim. The fact of the matter is that religion often (almost all major religions, not just Mohd Noor's) seeks to brainwash people away from physical reality. The dogmatic people present arguments to counter science and other religions, a hallmark of which is that their god is both assumption and conclusion. These days fundamentalists of several religions seem to have launched a new war against science. The recent attacks against evolution in the US are a classic example. I have to add here that I have nothing against belief in higher power/ultimate reality. That combined with humanistic teachings have led to a nicer society in many ways. What I [am] against is the lies, hatred, and prejudice that dogmatic adherence of organized religion has created for thousands of years. The writer claimed that it is lack of religion that among other things leads to terrorism. I think this is again a highly dubious claim. As has been evidenced in the past decades, religious identities have indeed led to terrorism. It is precisely a blind belief in religious dogma, literal interpretation of texts, the typical my-God-better-than-yours kind of arrogance, combined with a general ignorance/prejudice of other religions, that leads to a narrow viewpoint that results not only in these attacks against science and rationality, but also attacks against cultures, civilizations and religious traditions other than one's own.
Rakesh
India (Aug 29, '05)


Just a thank-you for publishing [Curtis A] White's cogent and concise look at US media and Hugo Chavez. Well, the US public and Chavez [Hugo, Uncle Ho and Uncle Sam, Aug 26]. Even in the aftermath of the grotesque Robertson comments the US media trod lightly ([CNN anchor] Paula Zahn hosted a roundtable with the question: Has [Pat] Robertson gone too far, or is he on to something?). That assassination is now a topic for consideration speaks loudly to the utter amorality of American consciousness. White's observations and historical musings are much appreciated.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Aug 26, '05)


The Reverend Pat Robinson is an exponent of muscular Christianity [Hugo, Uncle Ho and Uncle Sam Aug 26]. His words lack the charity and love of his Savior; he prefers not to turn the other cheek; rather, he subscribes to that passage in the Gospels [in] which Christ said that he came with the sword, to slay that devil's disciple that he sees in the person of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez. As frustrated [as] Robinson may be, as Curtis White points out, he says aloud what others in the marbled corridors of power in Washington whisper. Yet this good Christian who once threw his hat in the presidential ring [against] George H W Bush has [proved] an open embarrassment to the hawks and to the reactionary wing of the Republican Party. Thus, leaned on forcefully, he mouths a half-hearted apology. The Bush administration, on the other hand, has abused its power to such an extent that foci, to slip in Che Guevara's rusty rhetoric, have sprouted up here and there to oppose America's unipolar world. Saying this does not necessarily mean that opposition means armed resistance as we [currently] see in Iraq, but tightly reasoned peaceful opposition, be it by [Jacques] Chirac or [Gerhard] Schroeder or Hugo Chavez or the aged Fidel Castro, and lest we forget that evil genius Kim Jong-il. [President George W] Bush has the roar of a toothless lion. He talks of freedom and liberation but his overused words fall on deaf ears. This is not to say the United States has not the military power to destroy the world many times over, but it calls to mind, for those who have a sense of history, the words of the old helmsman of the East, Mao Zedong, [who,] faced with Washington's nuclear arsenal, dismissingly said: America is a paper tiger, and as such, there is not fear in uniting in opposition to it.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Aug 26, '05)


[Jim] Lobe makes an interesting point in his article [Democrats fumble Iraq policy, Aug 26]: Democratic leaders in the [US] Senate who hope to win their party's presidential nomination voted to give President [George W] Bush the war power to invade Iraq and now cannot voice any policy on how to end America's occupation. I submit the milquetoast leaders of the Democrats are actually just like their Republican counterparts: politicos corrupted by corporate finance who cannot say no to a campaign contribution or a defense spending bill. Both Democrats and Republicans no longer serve the utility of the American people but only the interests of their corporate benefactors. Americans need to wake up and destroy the Democratic Party and create a new opposition to the corporatists that incorporate libertarianism and social democracy. The Republican Party had to destroy the Whigs in order to end slavery, and liberal social democrats need to destroy the Democratic Party in order to end the New Provincialism the Republicans and Democrats are creating.
Geof Replogos
Phoenix, Arizona (Aug 26, '05)


I was very appreciative of the article by Aaron Glantz [Why Casey Sheehan was killed, Aug 25]. Unlike [letter writers Miguel A] Guanipa and [George] Dewey, I found the eyewitness reporting very informative because it put the uprising in context. Glantz never mentioned the reporting in the Sadr newspaper that [Paul] Bremer opposed; he stayed to the facts he knew. I recall what prompted the closure of the newspaper and why the uprising occurred. For too long, facts have been suppressed for the American people to enforce a political agenda of the few. Many have become aware of this. I thank the Asia Times [Online] for being a voice for everyone to report facts that clarify rather than confuse. I question the political agenda of the letters to the editor by Guanipa and Dewey, not Glantz. And what is wrong with Cindy Sheehan getting a book deal anyway? Isn't that the American way? She has a story to tell.
Mary Hough (Aug 26, '05)


Apropos Mohd [Salekun] Noor's letter of August 25, the writer states that human progress and scientific advancement [are] due to religion/God-consciousness. I beg to differ. Essentially knowledge is of two types, material and metaphysical/spiritual. Spiritual seekers endeavor to minimize material wants, just enough to keep the body and soul together, since the scripture teaches that we are eternal spirit souls and not these bodies. Material knowledge exhorts its practitioner to advance in the fields of eating, sleeping, mating and defending (ahar, nidra, bhaya maithun anya cha), ie, it is geared towards bodily comforts, sense gratification and its preservation. The scientific advancement that we see around us is merely a manifestation of crass materialism and godless civilization. The rocks from the moon [have] not translated into even a drop of milk [or] honey or a piece of bread, and it is highly unlikely that [they will] do so in the future. Yet the billions of dollars could have turned the consciousness of millions towards metaphysical pursuits and away from the daily struggle just to survive.
Deepak Sarkar
USA (Aug 26, '05)


I share with Juchechosunmanse (letter, Aug 24) his aversion to a few reporters specializing in digging for anything to support their illusive proposition that India and China are hostile competitors. ATol's citing of a China Daily news report in support of the rivalry theorem would in no way blot out the obscure mindset of those people and pales before hundreds of reports (including all major Chinese language news sources) that did not even mention India or only cited Western sources on ONGC's [Oil & Natural Gas Corp's] role in the PetroKazakhstan case. China Daily is a small English [language] newspaper read only by foreign expats and tourists in China with no influence whatsoever on the general Chinese public. I also tried Google and the world's largest Chinese language search engine Baidu and found not a single phrase to the extent of "Chinese victory over India on PetroKazakh" out of hundreds of Chinese language reports on the event. Nevertheless, I am sure someone would be able to dig up an out-of-context quote from the zillions of Internet info sources to "prove" almost any outrageous theory, including LBJ murdered JFK or Hillary Clinton has an adopted son from Mars. Explosive information, Internet and search engines have made it too easy to assemble subjective-looking research papers, complete with 500 cited sources, to promote the author's own agenda or theorem and fool people who do not care to do their own in-depth research. But this is journalism in its worst form, more despicable than outright propaganda and fabrication because they are more deceivable with all the quotes and official sources. If those people are so keen on China-India comparisons, their times can be more valuably spent on exploring and comparing the cultural, social and historic origins and evolutions of the two great nations and show how they can learn from each other in developing and modernizing their societies and economies.
Raymond Cui
Beijing, China (Aug 26, '05)

Xinhua said it, not Asia Times Online, as Juchechosunmanse now appreciates (letter, Aug 25). - ATol


Your response to my letter [Aug 23] and your response to another letter writer, Dr Jose Pardinas [Aug 24], beg a response from me. You announce a new article in your journal's constitution to disallow disparaging articles about religions. But in the same breath you state that you will allow dispassionate theses on religions. Who is to determine that a letter is disparaging and an article by Spengler dispassionate, except you as judge and jury? As reader Dr Jose Pardinas pointed out, making out Spengler's [articles as] dispassionate and mine disparaging is disingenuous at best. While your ruling to stop inter-religious sniping is welcome, you have not so far made any attempts to stop publishing religious sermons coming from some of your letter writers from the Middle East. Most often these articles are of the quality "my religion is better than yours" inviting rebuttals from others. More than one reader has pointed out that it's time to stop it, but yet you allowed it to continue until recently. The same situation applies to letters from ... Frank, which seem to be always negative and disparaging of Indians and India. Even after many letters from me and from other readers you continue publishing his drivel, especially the most recent one hankering for animal analogies. To allow one-sided religious sermons will make your site a repository for jihadi literature and allowing animal analogies will make it a site for backstreet name-calling. May we invite more rigorous editorial oversight to keep readers and writers focused on content to make ATimes the quality sight for analysis and commentary it has been for a long time. Keep up the good work.
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (Aug 26, '05)

Thanks for the compliment, DirtyDog. We're not sure how we can apply "more rigorous editorial oversight" without being "judge and jury", but be assured, all "my religion is better than yours" submissions are barred, as of August 22. - ATol


I would say to Bill Thompson, since he asked in his letter of August 22, how we could stop this hatred and violence engulfing our world ... I always considered [former US] president [Bill] Clinton a man of great intellect and a good fellow but he had a serious flaw, that he could not resist female fatal attraction and was caught in his zeal by leaving a few spots on his underpants, which was a good enough reason for his impeachment. He did not harm any human being but his own sperms, but President [George] W Bush has been responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I ask Bill, which is a lesser or a greater crime? Secondly, I will advise my fellow Muslims of all ages to know the fact that teachings of Islam are based on good character-building, educational activities, spiritual and intellectual enlightenment and, above all, "peace", which is the article of Islamic faith, and those who do not follow the teaching of the Koran have failed Islam.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Aug 26, '05)

Aaron Glantz [Why Casey Sheehan was killed, Aug 25] is all wrong. If Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has a history of standing up to tyranny, then why did he not use his fighters against Saddam [Hussein]? ... If [he had,] all of his millions of followers and [he] would be dead in a heartbeat. But unlike Aaron Glantz, Sadr realized this and that we [Americans] are not the bad guys, and it is better to fight with ballots than bullets.
Lars (Aug 25, '05)


Cindy Sheehan should grieve as the mother of a brave soldier who died heroically during combat in Iraq, and she is free to stage a protest against the war by camping outside the president's ranch while he is on vacation [Why Casey Sheehan was killed Aug 25]. But one has to wonder about the rationale of a woman who calls the terrorists infiltrating Iraq "freedom fighters". Call me old-fashioned, but when I think of bloodthirsty criminals, who would prefer to be governed by a murderous regime instead of a budding democracy, and who have no qualms about blowing themselves up in an area crowded with innocent civilians, the term "freedom fighter" is not the first thing that comes to mind. If Mrs Sheehan supposes that her statement honors the memory of her son, not to mention the rest of the brave men whose lives have already been sacrificed in the process of ending the curse of terrorism, she is more deluded than I thought. If I didn't know better, I would wager that she is already in the process of enlisting the services of a well-qualified ghostwriter for what promises to be a very intriguing account of her journey as a grieving mother who believed bringing shame to the memory of her heroic son and becoming an enormously useful tool of the liberal media would make good summer reading.
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts (Aug 25, '05)


It would be nice to open your site and read "reporting", not "political writings" that belong in the editorials, not the Front Page. Aaron Glantz's article [Why Casey Sheehan was killed Aug 25] was no more than political editorial work, not reporting. That's fine in the correct forum - I guess what I am trying to say is, I enjoy reading facts and coming to my own conclusions and opinions. I don't need a writer penning in his venom and exuberance. As a reader, I'll do that. If Asia Times [Online] is a "rag" tabloid, so be it, I go elsewhere for my news.
George Dewey
USA (Aug 25, '05)

We specialize in news analysis and commentary, not hard-news "reporting" per se - there are many thousands of other quality media that do straight "objective" reporting, and readers should look to them for their hard news. We expect our readers to peruse our articles thoughtfully and skeptically, and to participate in the debate they stimulate by also reading - and contributing to, if they wish - this page and The Edge forum. - ATol


Re Malaysians embrace English [Aug 25]: Downgrading the use of English as a language of communication with the larger world outside of Malaysia was a deliberate political decision. It was the logical offshoot of a determined policy to discriminate against the Chinese and the Indian communities, and favor the advancement of the sons (more than the daughters) of the dust (bumiputra). In consequence, the command of English among the Malays declined precipitously, but not among the children of the narrow stratum of the rich and the powerful. Dr Mahathir Mohamad did not forcefully push for the return of English as an international language of instruction; on the contrary, he boasted that Malaysia's future lay in trade with China, and for a short while in the media appeared puff pieces on learning Mandarin. Now, in 2005, the Malay middle class has grown larger, but hardly their command of English, and among the lower classes of bumiputra has come the realization that knowing English is an escalator to social mobility. The Malay elite have sacrificed two generations in the pursuit of a shortsighted policy which has caused a brain drain among the discriminated [against] Chinese and Indians. However, knowing English is not enough; it is generally common, and shared, wisdom that the Malays have to change a laissez faire, laissez aller attitude towards life, and adopt Western work habits. On the other hand, touting Malay values has nurtured a narrow, parochial Weltanschauung which raises the green flag of Islamic values.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Aug 25, '05)


The Chinese state media [are] mistaken in [their] conclusion of a "victory" over India in the PetroKazakhstan deal [India irked by China's gloating on PK deal, Aug 25]. India's ONGC [Oil & Natural Gas Corp] is not enmeshed in the state apparatus like CNPC [China National Petroleum Corp] - it is an autonomous navaratna public-sector company. In fact, some analysts have criticized the Petroleum Ministry in Delhi for not intervening to help out [ONGC] Videsh in its bid. Beijing on the other hand has showered its blessings on CNPC. However, that is not how it's done in India. Rules are rules, and they are kept. As a Petroleum Ministry spokesperson made clear, unless [ONGC] officially asked the ministry for some kind of lobbying, it would be impossible for them to intervene. In any case, their jurisdiction is limited.
Aruni Mukherjee (Aug 25, '05)


Busted. Ooops. You got me [editor's note under Juchechosunmanse's letter of Aug 24]. Thank you, ATol, for showing us the source of that quote. However, after carefully reading the source material, I still believe the way you handled it was misleading at best. It reads, "It marks a victory for China in its rivalry with India, another of the world's most populous and energy-hungry nations, for overseas oil and gas reserves." I am not the managing editor of China Daily, but I can tell they were defining this "rivalry" in the context of competing for "overseas oil and gas reserves", rather than a rivalry in the geopolitical sense. The "rivalry" thing was a little taken out of context, don't you think? Do water those office pot plants!
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Aug 25, '05)


Juchechosunmanse asks [letter, Aug 24], "Is Asia Times Online trying to promote hostility between India and China? ATol responds: "Here you go, straight from Xinhua, eighth paragraph down. We're too busy doing this sort of thing to water the office pot plants, let alone engage in geopolitics." Really? Let's look at the facts. (1) The [Xinhua] article header is "CNPC bid for PetroKazakhstan accepted", not "A victory for China in its rivalry with India". The latter statement about rivalry is buried deep in the eighth paragraph. (2) Here is the whole sentence for context: "It marks a victory for China in its rivalry with India, another of the world's most populous and energy-hungry nations, for overseas oil and gas reserves." Clearly this rivalry is limited to a resource that the two most populous nations desperately need from others just to survive economically. A far cry from rivalry over Taiwan or Tibet or nuke missiles. (3) China has interest in jointly bidding with India for resources to reduce the cost to both herself and India. It seems to me that ATol just sensationalized this whole thing about India-China rivalry. Aren't you too good for that?
Roy (Aug 25, '05)

ATol itself has reported on China-India cooperation: India, China: Comrades in oil (Aug 19). - ATol


Okay, well, final thought(s) [on Ashraf Fahim's article Iraq at the gates of hell, Aug 20] ... I think my point is really that with no rule of law in Iraq (the US can't even get from the airport to the Green Zone without attacks, and the average Iraqi is under constant threat from several different directions) the notion of quoting [Zalmay] Khalilzad and [Iyad] Allawi, without pointing out their compromised roles, is not good reporting. Fahim does say Khalilzad is paid to be optimistic, but that's not the same as saying that he speaks for nobody except Halliburton and the Pentagon. Khalilzad and Allawi are, in the eyes of most Iraqis, collaborators. The constitution is meaningless without the occupying army (and its bases) gone. I understand your desire for diverse reporting, but it needs to come with a better awareness of who is being asked to comment.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Aug 25, '05)


This is in reference to the mail of Jose [R Pardinas] from Miami (Aug 24). I was least surprised regarding the writer's sullen and morose remark on ATol banning scruffy religious obloquy. No wonder, the scrimmage of religion provides ample bliss to the people who already renounced the existence of God and attract many to fall in the ditch of recantation. I wonder where were the writer and his philosophy when the entire Europe was fluctuating in the realm of the Dark Ages. I also wonder where was his intellect at that time when men turned into beasts and utter obfuscations and disdain for knowledge prevailed in the vast territory of human cerebellum. I would like to inform the writer that the progress men accomplished in science and society [is the product] of religion. Religion taught men to reason and reflect and to explore the bosom of mysterious nature. No society would have been civilized without the presence of religion and the fear of God. I hope the writer [will] excuse me for my peccadillo if I say it is the absence of religion that helps human degradation, immodesty, carnage, disorder, anarchy and terrorism. The world witnessed two great world wars fought owing to the lack of understanding of God and still bears witness to the many wars wrought, many human societies obliterated and many innocent people ruthlessly massacred in the name of secularism and materialism. Mr Philosopher appears to obviate religion by substituting religious ideologies with his notion of atheism and Darwinism. Will he explain to me why didn't he take birth a thousand years back and why would he die? Will he let me know why cannot he continue to live forever? The obedient people who follow religion sought to understand the reason behind all creation, creation of heaven and Earth and above all human beings and those who seek knowledge did/do not swim in the sea of self-delusional bunk but students of nature who can distinguish between light and darkness.
Mohd Salekun Noor
UAE (Aug 25, '05)


ATol editors are incorrect that you have simply banned inter-religious sniping. You have also banned using animal analogy to criticize human behaviors, which is a very common practice in making a point. You also looked for excuses not to publish articles from Chinese people living in Taiwan. You are not that fair and open. None of us is. We all try to find ways to silence the opposition. That includes those so-called free media. However, I appreciate that you give many Asians a chance to speak their own minds. Most mainstream Western media would not do so. White media think Asians need white spokespersons. That is the major difference [that sets] you apart. Not the fairness part.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 25, '05)

When did we ever refuse to publish an article by a Chinese person living in Taiwan? If you really believe in "fairness", you need to back up your accusations with evidence. - ATol


I think Frank [letter, Aug 24] should heed his own advice when it comes to being a good neighbor. Let's see, he says India seeks to dominate the Indian subcontinent and that India is a big bully. Now let us take a look at reality and history. China has fought wars with all of its major neighbors and has funded violent groups in many different countries. Remember the fighting with the Russian comrades? The Korean War, the war with India, the assault on Vietnam, the constant saber-rattling over Taiwan, and let us not forget the annexation of Tibet. You yourself say China has a "one China" policy and that all the lands that were once part of any Chinese empire are to be part on the communist empire now whether the people living there like it or not. Now India doesn't have "one India" policy. Why can China have the right to pull all of its neighbors into the Chinese communist theocracy but India doesn't? If we really were the slaves to the white master like you say, then we would be declaring all former British India lands to be ours and trying to engulf Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma and Pakistan. Even after the 1971 war India did not annex Bangladesh and even after the coup in Nepal in the '50s [Jawaharlal] Nehru didn't say yes to the Nepalese monarch's offer of a union with India. So Frank, do us a favor and heed your own advice. Stop comparing India [to] China, as there is no comparison. India will go on like it always has, despised by a few and appreciated by most, while China will rediscover only the worst expansionist elements of its ancient heritage, which will eventually turn all of its neighbors against it. By the way, how is the lifestyle in the land of the ultimate white master?
Aryan Singh Rathore
The Gulf (Aug 25, '05)

I am a little alarmed by Asia Times [Online's] response to DirtyDog [letter, Aug 23] on the subject [of] religious criticism. What will Asia Times [Online] disallow next? Will it also proscribe criticism of other people's political, social and economic beliefs? Quite frankly, in our times, religion has become just another bulwark for political activism - usually by conservatives on the extreme right. Consequently, criticism of religion must be part and parcel of political criticism. For example, note [coverage] in the New York Times about the on-air call by American evangelist Pat Robertson for the assassination of a lawfully elected foreign leader, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Also, with all due respect, to characterize Spengler's "analysis" of Islam as dispassionate is extremely disingenuous to say the least [The demographics of radical Islam, Aug 23]. And, to conclude, what about people such as myself who feel quite strongly that all religion is essentially detrimental to intellectual, political and social progress? Who want to combat the fundamentalist onslaught on science and rationalism? Who feel that all religion is self-delusional bunk? Don't you think that we should also have the right to express our opinions?
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Aug 24, '05)

We have simply banned inter-religious sniping. The arguments are going around in circles, as they must and as they always have, and frankly, they're getting boring, despite the increasing heat and invective they are generating. Yes, you have a right to express your opinion that all religions are self-delusional bunk. Thanks for keeping it short. - ATol


Is Asia Times Online trying to promote hostility between India and China? Is Asia Times Online collaborating with those whose agenda is to make a rivalry out of China and India? One would think that's the case after seeing how you reported China National Petroleum Corp's acquisition of PetroKazakhstan Inc. According to ATol on August 24 [Kazakh oil coup for China, India cries foul], Chinese state media describe CNPC's winning bid for PetroKazakhstan as "a victory for China in its rivalry with India". I looked it up on PeopleDaily.com.cn, Google News, Sina.com and Xinhuanet.com and didn't find anything like that at all. Most of the news articles from Chinese media reporting this story in either Chinese or English didn't even mention the competing bidder, India's Oil & Natural Gas Corp. ATol is the only publication that I have seen who is making this deal sound like another contest in the so-called China-India rivalry, probably besides the Indian media. If China-India rivalry truly exists, it certainly doesn't exist in the minds of the Chinese. Where did you get that quote from? Are you sure it is not from the Indian press? What's your agenda? Shame on you. I would like to have you point out the source of that quote for all of us. Otherwise, ATol is risking its journalistic integrity as a credible and professional publication.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Aug 24, '05)

Here you go, straight from Xinhua, eighth paragraph down. We're too busy doing this sort of thing to water the office pot plants, let alone engage in geopolitics. - ATol


I am wondering on what [basis] India can regard the entire South Asia as its turf. Who gives Tarique Niazi [China's foot in India's door, Aug 24] the right to judge China's efforts to make friends in its neighborhood? ... It is time for Indians [to think about joining] the neighborhood as a peaceful equal member. I hope Indians can realize that they cannot think they can bully the neighborhood and set up tents inside other people's yard without invitation anymore. Those good old times for Indians and their white masters [are] over ...
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 24, '05)


China National Petroleum Corp has pulled off a coup de theatre in buying in cash PetroKazakhstan for US$4.18 billion [Kazahk oil coup for China, India cries foul, Aug 24]. It pulled out the rung under India's Oil & Natural Gas Corp's offer. One thing is sure, CNPC's access to liquidity and ties to international stock exchanges makes it a formidable competitor. China has well-defined energy goals; it will stop at nothing to assure future economic growth which presently continues at almost double digits. Beating out India will only sharpen the age-old rivalry between two Asian tigers. New Delhi no doubt questions the ink China put on agreements signed this year, and take for lip service Beijing's words of friendship and cooperation and pursuit of projects of mutual interest.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Aug 24, '05)


I am a fellow journalist and I have to say that I am soooo tired of people just wanting to complain about President [George W] Bush and the war with Iraq [A dose of realism, Aug 23]. Don't we have more important topics to discuss? Get over it! It's very sad and pathetic that all people especially journalists want to do is bitch about what they disagree with. Are you ever happy or satisfied? There are worse tragedies in life. Focus on that.
G (Aug 24, '05)

You're a journalist?! - ATol


Jim Lobe's excellent analysis (A dose of realism, Aug 23) needs further elaboration. What is appalling about the Bush administration is that after two and a half years in Iraq, it still does not know what it does not know and hubris and ignorance continue to be its foreign policy for the Middle East and Iraq. For example, it does not know that it is the occupation that fuels the insurgency and no amount of Pollyannaish statements will change that. The people of Iraq need to be assured that America does not have a design on their country or their oil. This administration does not know that with its incompetent conduct of the war, it has turned Iraq into a great training ground for terrorists. And it does not know that with its mismanagement of the reconstruction - lack of water, electricity, fuel, security and health - it is contributing to the rising anger and resistance of the Iraqis.
Fariborz S Fatemi
McLean, Virginia (Aug 24, '05)


As with all his observations, I certainly enjoyed Spengler's The demographics of radical Islam [Aug 23]. However, unless one knows the assumptions underlying the demographic projections, it is difficult to evaluate the article. Indeed, as is often the case with such projections, none of the predictions may come to fruition. Like me, others may not [be] impressed by the UN cachet.
Stuart Perkins
USA (Aug 24, '05)


This is, really, just a question [for Spengler, re The demographics of radical Islam Aug 23]. How did the sanctions on Iraq - and now the current carnage - affect Muslim stats on fertility? Same for Afghanistan.
JS (Aug 24, '05)

Spengler nailed it! The demographics of radical Islam [Aug 23] shows there are simple underlying causes of current problems and indicators of future ones. Europe take heed!
Robert (Aug 23, '05)


Here goes Spengler again with demographics, figuring "Muslim", the name of peoples from all nations, cultures, and ethnicities following a spiritual faith, in the same league as [the] USA, China, and Germany, geographic entities on Earth's temporal plain [The demographics of radical Islam, Aug 23]. What does it say of the "impartiality", not to mention integrity, of a social commentator when they do not even permit Islam the privilege of self-definition? As for population increases/decreases, it behooves not religious people to pretend having control over who stays relevant in God's universe and who vanishes. As 13th-century Mongols devastated the heartland of Islam and sacked Baghdad with unimaginable thoroughness, many Muslims considered the end of their faith near, but we now know the end was not then. More recently, an unstoppable colonialism had again managed to instill great doubt as to the survivability of Islam, and now look how Spengler bemoans the Muslim presence in the very cradle of Europe. More to the point, if God has actually chosen Muslims or any other religious or ethnic group for extinction, then there is just no aborting that eventuality. Spengler is right that humans are instinctively afraid of death, but there is a greater fear than even death for a person of religious conviction, and that is being on the wrong spiritual path. All this hot and cold about existentialism in fact masks that deeper terror.
Hayder Moin
USA (Aug 23, '05)


You have been generous in publishing treatises on Islam by faithful religious followers such as [letter writers] Saqib Khan and Mohammad Saleh. Could you oblige publication of a different point of view by those who are not followers of Islam to give a balanced perspective? ...
DirtyDog
California (Aug 23, '05)

Um ... no. As of today, a new article has been added to terms and conditions for contributing to The Edge, and it will apply to this Letters page as well. It states that disparagement of religions or of other people's religious beliefs is not permitted. DirtyDog, "balanced perspective" means you may write about your own religion, not criticize other people's, as the edited portion of your letter went on to do. Dispassionate analysis is another matter, and Spengler has discussed Islam in depth. - ATol


Daniel McCarthy ([letter] Aug 22) writes: "When Henry Liu [Trade wars can lead to shooting wars, Aug 20] writes such fantasies as 'The US Navy is now dependent on Asia, and eventually China, to build its new ships, and eventually the economics of trade will force the US Air Force to procure planes made in Asia and assembled in China,' he undercuts anything legitimate that he might have had to say. Does he actually think about what he is writing?" Below are sources of the fantasy alleged by Mr McCarthy. It must be embarrassing to be so aggressively wrong. US Navy made in China by Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration:

The outsourcing mania has hit the Pentagon, and China will soon be supplying the ships for the US Navy. The Pentagon, seeking lowest cost, is pushing defense contractors to outsource offshore for more materials, components and systems. This means the end of US shipbuilding capability. Component suppliers to American shipbuilding are already skeletal thin, with most components only having sole suppliers. For example, Manufacturing & Technology News (July 8) reports that 80% of the components for the Virginia Class submarine come from sole sources. With not enough US Navy ships being built to support even an industry of sole suppliers, Asia is fast becoming the only source for US Navy ships.

US Navy is removing life support for shipbuilding industry, Manufacturing News, July 8:

The United States shipbuilding industry is on the verge of losing most of its component suppliers due to severe cuts in naval shipbuilding budgets and Department of Defense procurement rules that encourage acquisition managers to buy products from the lowest-cost commercial suppliers overseas, claims the American Shipbuilding Association ... "The Department of Defense has been working to repeal and weaken laws that require ships and certain ship components to be manufactured in the United States," said [association president Cynthia] Brown in prepared testimony to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. "The reliance on US manufactured equipment is dissipating in response to pressure from DOD to open competition to foreign sources and to lower military specifications in an effort to reduce costs. DOD has been urging defense contractors to rely more on commercial off-the-shelf systems rather than systems built to military specifications. This emphasis on contracting with the lowest-cost producer is forcing all member companies of the defense shipbuilding industry base to source more of its material, components and systems foreign." While the direction of the US naval shipbuilding industry remains on a downward slope, the situation is the opposite in China ... "More and more manufacturing of ship components and systems will migrate to China as DOD encourages foreign sourcing in its efforts to find the cheapest sources," says Brown. "This has already begun with regard to materials for naval components. The manufacture of entire components and systems will migrate to China in the next several years under current DOD policy with respect to outsourcing."

Henry C K Liu (Aug 23, '05)


Let me make myself clear(er), since it seems I was not [letter and ATol comment, Aug 22]. Here is another quote from the article [Iraq at the gates of hell, Aug 20]: "It is telling that even the new US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, who is paid to be optimistic, recently broke a self-imposed American taboo by speaking openly of the possibility of civil war. But Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, emphasizes that the die is not yet cast. 'There are the signs of civil war, but it's not inevitable that civil war will come,' Hiltermann told Asia Times Online. 'Steps can still be taken to prevent it.' Hiltermann stressed the importance of training the Iraqi security forces and bringing Sunni Arabs fully into the political process. 'If things get out of control here it's going to be a bloodbath that will be something we cannot imagine, of a scale we cannot imagine.'" Now again, since the invasion [of Iraq] is the root of all this, and the occupation the direct cause of resistance (in its many guises, and with many factions taking part), it seems disingenuous to quote Mr Khalizad (and earlier [Iyad] Allawi, the head of this Vichy on the Tigris - as someone put it - government). And as for Mr Hilterman, what steps is he talking about? Unless he means withdrawing troops, I don't see what is being addressed. [Ashraf] Fahim does give clear awareness of the US invasion being behind the chaos - but only up to a point. The occupation trumps the negotiations about a constitution, put together by a puppet regime in a country under foreign control. Fahim should focus his attention on US military bases, not on what various factions might do - when they can really do very little except resist. Certainly in terms of economics, Iraq is a sold-off country. Jerry Bremer saw to that. I can see how my first letter seems harsh on Fahim, but my point, even if poorly made, is that the entire nightmare is connected to occupation and the US control of resources. Permanent military bases signal permanent foreign soldiers on Iraqi soil. A civil war is the result of occupation - nothing much else. The constitution seems of little practical importance. Mr Fahim is mostly correct in his analysis of the factions mentioned. But I would refer to Rahul Mahajan again, at [his blog EmpireNotes.org]. Once troops are gone (which isn't likely for a long while), then the chaos begins to subside. Iraqis are weary of endless bloodshed, and even the hardliners have indicated some flexibility in discussions - if the US is gone. If I have misread Mr Fahim's article, I apologize. I will, however, stand by a criticism of his focus. The clear implication is that the US might still solve this fiasco - without withdrawing. Is this not correct?
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Aug 23, '05)

Please refer to Ashraf Fahim's August 6 article, Basic questions about bases. Without wanting to make a big deal about this, or presuming to speak for Mr Fahim, we feel that citing diverse opinions - Amr Moussa, Iyad Allawi, Joost Hiltermann et al - is good, balanced journalism rather than poor focus. - ATol


Thank you [letter writers Mohammad] Saleh, [Mohd Salekun] Noor, Mike, Bill [Thompson] and Karigar for listening to me with attention and patience. I am not going to jump from my fourth-floor window and fly with elation, though I do feel obliged to your kind expressions. I believe firmly that it is charity and even sacrifice to guide others and to struggle (jihad) for dispelling the ignorance of fellow-beings without compelling anybody to any belief whatsoever - such is the attitude of Islam. The basic principle of Islam as mentioned in the Koran (2:256), "There is no compulsion in the religion; the right direction is henceforth distinct from error; and who rejecteth the Devil and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm hand-hold which will never break; Allah is the Hearer, Knower." I have always tried to say what I believe to be true because there is nothing common between true and false and the two are totally opposed to each other. If we allow evils of falsehood to reign, it will transcend all evils so it is our responsibility and duty to eradicate it with soft touch of persuasion and never violence: I will use my pen as long as my fingers allow me. My beautiful and sublime Deen (religion) of Islam of love, compassion, tolerance mercy, justice is being hijacked by few dim hacks of distorted persuasion and mentality and used for perverted ideology. The Western media [are] having a field day selling it, which profoundly saddens me. I urge my Muslim brothers to understand the truth that Islam advocates peace and calls it "the path of places", and even Prophet Mohammed subscribed to the concept of peace and waged no wars but only in self-defense; rather he himself was subjected to violence and atrocities ... Every good Muslim should always strive for peace even in the face of provocation and aggression because terrorism and violence breed hatred and trigger more violence and animosity amongst peoples. The events of [September 11, 2001, July 7, 2005] and what is happening in Iraq have nothing to do with Islam but [are] political intrigue of great immensity that [are] serving well the pockets of destructive forces in [the United States of] America, oil producers, arms manufacturers, big building contractors, gun lobbyists and Western subcontractors begging and fighting for leftovers.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Aug 23, '05)


Re the letter by Mohammad Saleh, Saudi Arabia (Aug 18): There is no Aryan race; the term "Aryan" is derived from ur, the plow used in early farming. Way back when the agrarian revolution was unfolding 12,000 years ago those who were initial adopters of farming and cultivated settlements were the Aryans (from "Ur") while the others remained hunter-gatherers. The cultivating agrarian settlers became successful and wealthy in terms of land, cows and women and other resources, while the hunter-gatherers who came in later became serfs. There are so many dark-skinned so-called "Aryans" to make Aryan as a race a misnomer. The "hereditary" caste system, of course, was an unfortunate social dogma. Every society has the same four categories of class of people: Brahmins (knowledge workers); kshatriyas (military, administrative, political class), vaishyas (merchant class) [and] shudras (labor class).
Nara
USA (Aug 23, '05)

The word "Aryan" has had several meanings over the ages, and etymological theories vary; some of these are based on myth or ideology, others on linguistic scholarship. As an example of the latter, Etymonline.com traces the word to the Sanskrit arya-s, meaning "lord", with the connotation of benevolent dictator. The Aryan rulers of that time adapted the word to describe themselves as "noble" or "honorable". In that sense the word was adapted by ancient Persians into the self-designation that ultimately gave us "Iran". - ATol

In Ashraf Fahim's article [Iraq at the gates of hell, Aug 20], one wonders if he understands that it [is the] US invasion, and now occupation, that is the cause of the violence. Iraq didn't erupt for no reason, and Mr Fahim seems unaware of the various factors for which the US military is responsible; ie the colonial mindset of the US government, the involvement of mercenaries (private security firms, sorry) ... Rahul Mahajan has written persuasively on the question of civil war. His theory [is] that if US forces leave, the various factions are likely to work out some of compromise over most issues. Again, let's remember that the US helped put Saddam [Hussein] in power, and supported him for a decade - and then imposed draconian sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands. The ... handling of this occupation probably couldn't have been worse - and then we have the question of permanent military bases. How are the people of Iraq to view the construction of these bases, the biggest built anywhere in the world since Vietnam? The US is to blame for this fiasco (and we haven't even discussed the depleted-uranium questions) and I doubt any puppet regime's constitution is going to mean much - at least not until the army of occupation leaves.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Aug 22, '05)

We're not sure why you are worried about Ashraf Fahim being "unaware". As he himself wrote, "Two years ago, Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa predicted ominously that an invasion would 'open the gates of hell' in the region ... [he] was nothing if not prescient. The invasion unleashed unspeakable horrors - cities bombed to ruin, gritty urban combat, gruesome beheadings, apocalyptic car bombings. Civil war, however, would truly complete Moussa's prophecy. It would be a tragedy to dwarf Iraq's current blood-soaked chaos ... " - ATol


Though I have [been] critical of the way war has been fought [in Iraq], Cindy Sheehan does not represent the views of most Americans [Now it's political, Aug 20]. I do not agree that America is not worth dying for. Think of where the world [would] be today if it wasn't for US leadership. Asia would not have freedom now nor would [it] have prosperity.
Ron Phife (Aug 22, '05)


The USA wants to teach the Iraqi troops how to fight. I think it is like teaching fish how to swim. Just think [of] the eight years of war between Iran and Iraq in the past.
Lu Ning
China (Aug 22, '05)


When Henry Liu [Trade wars can lead to shooting wars, Aug 20] writes such fantasies as "The US Navy is now dependent on Asia, and eventually China, to build its new ships, and eventually the economics of trade will force the US Air Force to procure planes made in Asia and assembled in China," he undercuts anything legitimate that he might have had to say. Does he actually think about what he is writing?
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 22, '05)


Spengler [Why nations die, Aug 16] has no journalistic or even ethical consistency, and the detractors of fundamentalist Christian evangelism and Zionist Judaism, either or both of which Spengler appears to be an adherent of, would argue that I am only understating the matter. Just a few months ago, Spengler, chiding Ann Coulter, insisted that he was not a bigot. And yet in his latest piece he writes that Crossroads to Islam "argues convincingly that the Byzantines ceded frontier territories to Arab foederati in the mid-7th century and that the famous battles of the Islamic conquest in fact never took place." How exactly does hyperbole written for the consumption of rightist ethnic Europeans and old-school Orientalists "convince" the wider world? William Collins of the Library of Congress writes concerning the same book: "The authors present specious arguments ... [and] betray a lack of understanding of Islam and an unwillingness to accept the limitations of archaeological evidence. Similar arguments have appeared before regarding Moses and Jesus. Judged by its own standards, this work reflects its authors' motivations and limited knowledge." Now, since Muslims generally lack the niceties of modern religious discourse, still couching their critique of anti-Islamic rhetoric in medieval terminology, any objections raised to what is naked racism is immediately itself branded obscurantism and censured to no end. Thus the only Muslim voices noticeable remain the most deplorably extremist ones and these reliably provide reassurances of the barbarism of the uncouth Arab and the "accident" of an Islamic civilization he first put in motion. We cannot respond in any constructive way to Spengler's outlandish assertions, except to say that no religion, including the one he espouses, is concerned with incontrovertible empirical proof of its own validity. Religion requires that we lose our sensual selves in transcendent realities for the sake of spiritual ascension; the religion of Islam, at minimum, is no different than any other world faith in this respect.
Hayder Moin
USA (Aug 22, '05)


[Saqib] Khan's reply [Aug 19] to [letter writer] Mike is elegant and scholarly and Mr Khan easily earns my respect for his erudition and his style. But I must, sadly, side with Mike. "A few bad apples," while it is indeed plain English, translates into unending carnage and barbarity. And then there is the rhetoric. I check memri.org and read other transcripts of pronouncements of Islamic leaders who urge death to infidels, the violent rejection of democracy and eternity in paradise if one kills a non-Muslim. How many is "a few"? I don't know. But there are many out there who are intent on violence. This is a tragedy for the peaceful Muslims. I ask Mr Khan if he has any advice on concrete and practical ways of ending the hatred and the violence that [come] from it.
Bill Thompson
Norfolk, Virginia (Aug 22, '05)


I listen respectfully to the preaching of Saqib Khan (letter, Aug 17) on the glories of jihad and Islam, and tolerate "Hindus" being lumped with other "despicable" types. I even try to understand the glib characterization of "good" and "evil" (put away your intellect, just refer to the "book" and it will tell you how). And how do I trust someone else's interpretation of "Allah's command"?) My simple response is, "Hinduism", or Sanatana Dharma for followers, is not and never will be an "organized and conquering religion" with commands and Commandments like Islam and Christianity. It is essentially an unfolding of civilizational evolution, [as] other Asian schools of thought [such as Confucianism, Taoism], etc are. Regarding Sufi saints "converting" Hindus, most of the Sufi saints he mentioned are respected in India as they are perceived good teachers, and "men of God". I and other Hindus accept them and their teachings (not commands) with open hearts, since they harmoniously add to the teachings of many Hindu saints of yesterday, today, and the ones to come tomorrow. I hope this does not have to be taken as "accepting Islam" (essentially meaning repudiating and hating everything our indigenous culture stands for, and "becoming a believer" in the Abrahamic mold). Live and let live is the concept. Regarding [Mohammad] Saleh's "reminder" about the Aryan Invasion Theory [letter, Aug 18], this colonialist theory created in the mid-19th century to justify the "white man's burden" is now pretty much shown as false and ideology-driven, without any shred of real evidence. The ancient Indian literature spanning a few thousand years squarely places itself geographically in the Indian subcontinent, without a single word anywhere even suggesting a foreign origin (compare with Muslim rulers and poets who constantly sang the glories of Persia and Arabia even after hundreds of years in India) ... Also it is as convenient to one imperialistic ideology (political Islam) as it was to another (European colonization) to demonize a culture it is attempting to break up and replace with itself. The "caste system" is one such social ill (which society in the world, past or present, does not have hierarchies?) forcibly misinterpreted as "based on Hindu ideals". Varna in Sanskrit is merit-based classification, and jati is hereditary clan groups. Both have been collapsed into the (Portuguese word casta for class) caste as commonly understood today. The idea of "fair-skinned" Aryans and "dark-skinned" Dravidians can be seen as another brilliant mapping of Western black/white (slave/master) categories on to Indian society. Anyone who has seen "very high caste" south Indian Brahmins (with skin color as black as could be) would understand how irrelevant skin-color-based classification is to India. People with open minds have dialogue, but who can convince minds already made up? (Blame it [on] the "evil Brahmin".) I also note that my respect for their religion and its viewpoints is completely one-sided, without even small reciprocation. It is also interesting how the "victims of the West" play pretty much the same games with their own "victims".
Karigar
USA (Aug 22, '05)


... If [Jody Barr, letter, Aug 19] and [Daniel] McCarthy [letter, Aug 19] will only read my letter again, she will find that all I wrote was that the subject of China and India has been dissected to death too many times and that rather than "tortoise and hare", the title should be "chalk and cheese". Am I not entitled to intelligent readers reading my letters ...?
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Aug 22, '05)

Dr Yoichiro Sato makes a wise observation in Losing heart and Seoul [Aug 19]. Japan's influence, though attenuated, remains on the Korean Peninsula, north or south, in spite of the unhealthy obsession of revenge Koreans harbor against Tokyo. The ties that bind stretch into Japan by the very presence of a Korean presence with divided loyalties to Seoul and to Pyongyang. And the influence of Japan has taken root and branch on subliminal levels [of] which even Koreans themselves remain unaware.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Aug 19, '05)


Some readers should attack the message and not the messenger. I explicitly stated in my piece [