|
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.
Please note: This
Letters page is intended primarily for
readers to comment on ATol articles or related
issues. It should not be used as a forum for
readers to debate with each other. The Edge is the place for
that. The editors do not mind publishing one or
two responses to a reader's letter, but will, at
their discretion, direct debaters away from
the Letters page.
February 2006
When you
have come to power by a people's street revolution
like the current Philippine president, it is
inevitable that when you are in power others who
don't like you will do the same [see Philippines: Military on the
move, Feb 28]. That's why the institution of
democracy and elections should always be
maintained correctly. I think [President Gloria
Macapagal-]Arroyo should follow [Thai Prime
Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's] example and declare
an early election so that people can get to vote.
Otherwise, the Philippines is constantly going to
go through these shenanigans.
History
Cycle
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Feb 28,
'06)
Thaksin's election call has
so far failed to quell Thailand's version of
"people power". See the new article Thai opposition to boycott
election. -
ATol
Eyewash. Chris
Heffelfinger's Fighting a media war against
al-Qaeda [Feb 28] is soapy water. Has he not
surfed the White House's own website? It clearly
says that the United States is winning the war
against terrorism, and [by "terrorism" it means]
al-Qaeda. Mr Heffelfinger's opinion piece is a
recycling of old bromides. He may attend endless
conferences on terrorism, but they are more like
the standard [junkets that] analysts and
bureaucrats and elected officials and university
scholars take part in, and trip the [light]
fantastic on the conference circuit. When Mr
Heffelfinger [speaks] of al-Qaeda, is he speaking
globally or, as it seems to me, more pointedly to
the failure of [US President George W] Bush and
[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [former
deputy defense secretary Paul] Wolfowitz in the
war America is waging in Iraq? Washington is
waging in the media a war in which it pours money
as though it were water in the Sahara. It uses a
megaphone when more sophisticated means are
necessary. But war against terrorism requires more
than the spin doctors the Pentagon hires as
consultants, and words. It requires the merging
and coordination of many vectors, military and
civilian, [but] in spite of the billions [of US
dollars] allotted for this effort, to date we are
witness to bureaucratic infighting, and
splintering of purpose and a holier-than-thou
arrogance: a formula for setting oneself up for
failure. Mr Heffelfinger should know better. His
article is but an example of the fluff that the
American government encourages as it beats the
drums of Pyrrhic media war victories. He avoids
speaking of ... the United States' answer to
AlJazeera, which is a sorry failure. Mr
Heffelfinger displays the
sugar-plum-and-candy-cane thinking so prevalent in
Washington and in the Pentagon. America's leaders
are at a primitive stage of thinking if [they
think it only] requires incantation and
repetitious mantras of nonsense syllables and
words to win the war against al-Qaeda.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Feb
28, '06)
Regarding Payback time in Iraq (Feb 25):
I appreciate Sami Moubayed's grasp of complexities
in Iraq, but perhaps he overcomplicates the
matter. The Shi'ite Golden Mosque in Samarra was
destroyed. The likeliest perpetrator of that crime
was American forces, or Iraqi agents paid by
American forces. Here is the reason. In the USA,
many pro-war Republicans will stand for election
in November. They will claim that their political
opponents, the Democrats, cannot be trusted to
handle military affairs, such as a civil war in
Iraq. Republicans will make this their platform
when they stand for office. Indeed, on the day of
the bombing, many of these same Republicans
appeared as guests on multiple news programs in
the USA. All of them said there is no civil war in
Iraq now, but there will definitely be civil war
within six or seven months. In other words, war
will happen just before congressional elections in
the USA. At that time, civil war will be on the
minds of average Americans, who will re-elect
pro-war Republicans to Congress. Afterward,
tensions in Iraq will be reduced to manageable
proportions once again. The attack also served the
classic strategy of "divide and conquer". If
Sunnis, Kurds, and Shi'ites were allowed to unite,
they would call for a US withdrawal. This
threatens American interests. Therefore the Iraqis
must be kept at each other's throats. [US
President George W] Bush invaded Iraq to steal
oil, and to threaten OPEC [Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries] nations that want
to change their reserve currency from dollars to
euros. The giant American military bases in Iraq
will be well protected from civil war, as will the
giant embassy. They will be self-sufficient in
terms of food, water and energy. Their purpose is
to secure oil refineries, launch military strikes
on neighboring countries, and maintain tension in
Iraq. Their personnel do not care if Iraqis kill
each other. The parties that benefit most from the
destruction of the Golden Mosque are Bush and the
Republicans, who have increasingly been weakened
by scandals and a war-weary American public. Bush
has exhausted all manner of lies to justify his
aggression, and the American people no longer
believe those lies. The only excuse Bush has not
used is that he wants to protect Iraqis amid civil
war. This excuse cannot work unless Iraq is
actually pushed to the brink of civil war. The
attack on the Golden Mosque was a major push in
that direction. If the Iraqis do not stand on the
brink of civil war just before the American
elections, then US forces will arrange more
attacks to "help" them.
Richard Wlson (Feb 28,
'06)
Guerrilla warfare is no picnic. Reading
Herbert Docena [When Uncle Sam comes marching
in, Feb 25], one has the impression of living
in a time warp. Warfare in the Muslim south of the
Philippines is nothing new, nor for that matter is
United States assistance in materiel, monies and
men. Treaties and a shared history of sorts bind
Washington and Manila. The Philippine armed forces
have been fighting a two-headed insurgency: the
People's Liberation Army and the so-called Moros
in the south. These two struggles have been going
on for decades. The PLA exists in the same way the
army of Cheng Ping did in Malaysia for a
half-century, living off the backlands. And the
political climate has turned against them after
the fall of [Ferdinand] Marcos' authoritarian
rule. The Moros have proved more resilient,
supplied as they are by Saudi millions and
assistance in kind and training from other Arab
and Muslim countries. And what is more, they find
in neighboring eastern Malaysia a space to escape
from the hands of the Philippine army.
Nonetheless, since [September 11, 2001], they have
suffered loss in leadership and divisions among
themselves. Still, this has not lessened the
dangers they represent. Moreover, with increased
emigration of Christians from the northern
islands, they are being overwhelmed by numbers.
They seek autonomy and a life according to Koranic
precepts. We are seeing a textbook case of a war
of attrition. And Manila and Washington have the
wherewithal and the determination to wear the
enemy down until he cries "uncle".
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Feb
27, '06)
[Re] When Uncle Sam comes marching
in [Feb 25]: The writer is a damn commie and
his arguments are all fallacious to
boot.
Don
Syed Saleem
Shahzad: A very interesting observation indeed [Shrine attack deals a blow to
anti-US unity, Feb 24]. I find somewhat
puzzling the juxtaposition of calls for calm from
both Shi'a Iraqi and Iranian mullahs on the one
hand and a pro-civil-war tone in Western
right-wing media on the other. "The Mehdi Army is
preparing for an attack!" shouts the Israeli JPost
(not to be confused with the Danish JPosten). The
JPost seems just as self-assuring as its previous
"warning" of an imminent biological attack by
Saddam [Hussein] three days before the invasion
[of Iraq] (no apologies have since been offered
for [the] disinformation). As for the "long war",
it finds itself stuck in a quagmire ... In such
situations whatever the player does leads to
disaster. Obviously the battle for "hearts and
minds" is so badly outdated even [US President
George W] Bush has realized that "al-Qaeda is
winning the propaganda war". Maybe it is not
[that] al-Qaeda is winning but [that] the Pentagon
PR machine badly needs an upgrade. The tactics of
ignite-and-later-regret ... are a thing of the
past.
Aryan (Feb
27, '06)
Re Musharraf losing his grip [Feb
22]: It has been noted in the Letters column that
95% of the insurgency in Balochistan has been
crushed. This information is not as reassuring as
it might appear. Ninety-five percent of
insurgencies are usually crushed to begin with.
The remaining 5% is the problem. Mao [Zedong]'s
rebellion against the KMT [Kuomintang] and the
Bangladeshi rebellion against Pakistan were also
95% crushed at some point, and further military
actions were described as "mopping-up operations".
National militaries are designed to protect their
citizens by fighting wars against militaries of
other nations. The Pakistani army learned in 1972
that you can't fight your own people and win, even
with the active support of a superpower. The
lost-grip metaphor likely overstates the problem,
but it would be wrong to take the Islamic
rebellion lightly or to seek a purely military
solution.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Feb 27,
'06)
Spengler's Devil's sourdough and the decline
of nations [Feb 22] is entertaining and
provocative as usual. One bone to pick, though.
His analysis is usually on grand, sweeping, global
themes, so why this abject ignorance of anything
other than Abrahamic world views (Christian,
Jewish, Islamic, etc)? Maybe he's being nice, so
he doesn't misrepresent other Asian - Hindu,
Buddhist, Confucian, Taoist etc - views. But due
to this limitation, his articles have limited
relevance, being by Westerners, and for
Westerners. Ironic that they get published in
Asia Times [Online], don't you think? Re
Saqib Khan's letter of February 24 on the same
Spengler article, I was quite impressed as I
started reading it, thinking those are some good
and philosophical insights in today's
materialistic world. A few issues, though. Saying
"the self, the ego in man ... distinct from other
[creatures] with a will and power of his own and
authority to decide as he wishes" seems an
immature rehash of the worn-out "God [made] the
earth and plants and creatures for man to enjoy".
The power taken (and abused) by man over his
environment need not be confused with his
self-granted "authority" to do so. Unless of
course one believes that "God" is such a poor
communicator that he only sends messages through
his "last prophets" and the "Book" is infallible,
[is] non-interpretable, and should be taken
literally. Knowledge and self-realization are a
continuous process [that] cannot be a slave to
"belief" or written words. We are a part of the
environment, and not its master, no matter how
powerful we get. One needs to transcend one's ego
to realize that. But what is man minus
egocentrism? God? But for some that's
blasphemy.
Karigar
USA (Feb 27,
'06)
Jakob Cambria's letter (Feb
24) suffers from contradictions. "After almost a
half-century of friendship, Beijing thinks that it
is time for Yangon to institute reform." Then I
suppose Beijing is also to be blamed if Yangon is
encouraged not to reform. The "Burmans recognize
the full worth of a good friend like China willing
to fund a corrupt, authoritative regime." Does it
sound like slapping the face of a Western
democratic country that has consistently done such
a thing around the world?
S P Li
USA
(Feb 27,
'06)
I need to refer to the
letter by Ray and subsequent reply by Syed Saleem
Shahzad (Feb 24). I may not always agree with Syed
Saleem Shahzad's articles but want to comment on
two things. First, the language of Ray's letter is
... impolite, uncourteous and biased, and my
appreciation to the editors for printing the
letter in its true format, demonstrating ATol's
free-speech and honest-journalism policy. Second,
Ray appears to be more involved in some kind of
personal grudge with [Saleem] and the factions
fighting in Iraq than really wanting to comment on
[Saleem]'s article. If Ray ... had a grip on
international politics, he would have known
[Saleem]'s background by reading his full name,
Syed Saleem Shahzad, instead of labeling him Iraqi
etc. I [have been] living in Canada for 12 years
and in 99% of the cases, I can tell the background
of a person reading his full name or simply by
hearing a conversation over the phone.
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Feb 27,
'06)
Your reader from Thailand,
Cha-am Jamal, claimed in his letter [Feb 21]: "The
[US] government invades the privacy of its
citizens by secretly looking through e-mail
content for offensive words and phrases and they
have asked search-engine providers to give them
access to search-query data to identify
individuals who may be searching for offensive
material. Neither country [the US or China] stands
on sufficiently high moral ground to lecture to
the other on the subject of Internet freedom or
human rights." Is that true? He does not provide
any link for readers to verify [his claim]. I hope
that when you publish letters from readers, at
least they should provide some backup for their
claims. How about my following statement: Chairman
Mao [Zedong] killed 100 million Chinese people
during the Cultural
Revolution.
Jack
Singapore (Feb 27,
'06)
The line between opinion and
claims of fact on this page can be blurry. We try
to edit out the most blatant disinformation and
any libel, but we feel that most readers of
letters to the editor, in any medium, know to take
them with a large dose of salt. -
ATol
Great website. Keep up
the good work.
Randy (Feb 27,
'06)
[Re Shrine attack deals blow to
anti-US unity, Feb 24] Anti-US unity or
anti-US resistance (whatever you call it), if any,
is unlikely to be undermined by what happened in
Samarra, simply because such a unity is more
likely to have been based on commonality of
certain major objectives than a covenant for a
surrender of individual views held by various
factions of Islam. The United States poses such a
major threat to every faction of Islam that it in
itself is a sufficiently strong force to hold all
warring factions together. The situation would
have been very different (in the event that the
Samarra atrocity had been perpetrated by Sunnis)
had there been no US in sight in the region. If
this atrocity is so divisive as it is, then it
will be treated as such by the relevant forces and
attributed to the US and/or [its] agents or a
group of some insane individuals. The ideas and
stakes that bring anti-US forces together are too
big to be compromised by such an abhorrent act of
provocation.
Rashid Hassan (Feb 24,
'06)
Syed Saleem Shahzad: I
do not believe I have seen a more silly analysis
than [Shrine attack deals blow to
anti-US unity, Feb 24] in Asia Times [Online].
Recently, we have been hearing two things out of
Iraq. First, from the Americans and their cohorts,
was that the Sunni Arabs were turning against the
foreigners and that the Tribes were fighting them.
Commingled with this was that the US thought that
they, through meetings and discussions with
Iraqis, were splitting the "terrorists" from Iraqi
nationalists. Then we heard that the foreigners
had "made peace" with Iraqis and had committed not
to attack Iraqis, whether Shi'ite, Sunni or Kurd
or others. Now suddenly, in the midst of America's
ambassador saying that no US money will be "given"
to Iraq for reconstruction (forget the fact that
they were the ones who destroyed Iraq) unless
there was a government of national unity ... the
Holy Mosque is destroyed. And what is your first
response? You buy the occupation army's gibberish,
that it must be a terrorist plot and bomb. Have
you forgotten the British soldiers who were caught
with bombs and [whom] the British army stormed and
destroyed a jail to rescue? Can you not at least
suspend judgment before blaming "terrorists" and
march lock-step with America? Who knows who is
responsible for this despicable act? I am
confident that you do not. So why then blame
"terrorists" before more facts are out? It serves
America and Britain for Iraq to disintegrate, for
a "civil war" to be full-blown, so they have ever
more reason to stay and "keep the nation calm and
together". I am disappointed in you, but then you
may just be one of those who sell out your own for
a pot of fake gold, kissing the feet of the
imperialists to get some strange access. Shame on
you and, if you are Iraqi, more
shame.
Ray (Feb 24, '06)
I am a
Pakistani citizen, but I am proud that my family
came from the southern Iraqi city of Wasit. If you
carefully read the article you will find that I
did not blame anybody but just presented various
ideas, and the fact that whoever committed the
crime, the process of anti-US unity will be
damaged by the shrine blast. - Syed Saleem
Shahzad
[Re] "spring is only a
month away, and preparations for Nauroz (the
Persian new year) ..." [Shrine attack deals blow to
anti-US unity, Feb 24]: Newroz is not the
Persian new year, it is the Kurdish new year ...
Kawa was [a Kurd] who took the head of Zauhak off,
and that is where Newroz started. However, Kawa
did not only save the Kurdish people, he also
saved the Persians all the way to Pakistan. Just
because Kurdistan still is not officially an
independent country does not mean this is a
Persian new year. Again, Newroz is [the]
Kurdish new year.
Alan Abdulkader (Feb 24,
'06)
According to Wikipedia, "Norouz
(also spelled Noe-Rooz, Norouz, Norooz, Noruz,
Novruz, Noh Ruz, Nauroz, Nav-roze, Navroz,
Na'w-Ru'z or Nowrouz ... is the traditional
Iranian festival of (the first day of) spring. It
is celebrated by some communities on March 21, and
by others on the day of the astronomical vernal
equinox, which may occur on March 20, 21 or 22.
The word comes from Avestan nava = new
+ rezanh =
day/daylight, meaning 'new
day/daylight', and still has the same meaning in
modern Persian (no = new + rouz =
day, meaning 'new day'). Syed Saleem Shahzad
responds, "I was discussing new political dynamics
of the Persian Plateau, namely Afghanistan and
Iran, and therefore referred to Nauroz." Kurds,
most Iranians, Pahstuns, Tajiks and Balochs are
all ethnic Persians and many share similar
festivals. - ATol
Re China's uneasy alliance with
Myanmar [Feb 24]: Burma, as it was [formerly]
known, occupies a favored spot in China's sun. In
the days of "rectifying old wrongs", Rangoon [now
Yangon] agreed to right the wrongs of its colonial
past by redrawing its border with China. And in a
mutual exchange of territory and a dash of ink on
a treaty, the bonds of friendship between Beijing
and Rangoon were sealed. This was in sharp
contrast to what Neville Maxwell describes in his
revealing book India's China War, based
exclusively on New Delhi's archival material.
India preferred war to settle boundary disputes
with China by defending a British-drawn line, and
on the heights of the Himalayas it met defeat; it
toppled [Jawaharlal] Nehru's government; and it
has yet to heal the open wound of India's army's
disgrace and resolve the almost 45-year-old
dispute. China may not like the rule of the
Burmese colonels, but it is odd that after almost
a half-century of friendship, Beijing thinks that
it is time for Yangon to institute reform and
[prepare] glasnostwithin. Let's not forget
the Burman majority has been at war with its
minority populations since independence in the
late 1940s. China may not worry too much about the
million or so Chinese living and working and
prospering in Myanmar, yet it may very well feel
it necessary to make an effort at Big Brother
diplomacy to quiet Western and ASEAN [Association
of Southeast Asian Nations] worries about the
intransigent military rulers, and thus make a blow
for paper change. Beijing is in a silent war with
India for influence, and will allow much in
Myanmar to trump New Delhi's influence. Although
Burmans are weary of foreigners and, lest we
forget, they encouraged the exodus of Indians and
Chinese after independence, they recognize the
full worth of a good friend like China willing to
fund a corrupt, authoritarian regime, thereby
braving the ire of the international
community.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 24,
'06)
In his analysis of Russian
geopolitics (Why Russia must be strong [Feb
24]), [Federico] Bordonaro has restricted the
geopolitical scope more than is necessary, I
believe, while at the same time being very
optimistic, or should I say Europtimistic, in
[his] vision. Russian and Chinese policy and
cooperation in the region can be better understood
in a broader Europe-Middle East-East Asia context
that is currently being rocked by US geopolitical
ambitions. The US continues to dismiss Russian
concerns about NATO expansion and US interference
in the domestic affairs of CIS [Commonwealth of
Independent States] states, and Bordonaro
dismisses the expansionist image [the United
States'] attack on Iraq and pressure on Iran and
Syria have created in the international community.
In addition, the US military presence in the
Persian Gulf - a growing concern to energy-hungry
China - and its plans to deploy missile defense
and space-based weapons are in turn driving Russia
and China to pursue their security policies more
energetically. Also, a distinction is called for
between Russia's energy-security policy and that
of the US. Endowed with huge gas and oil reserves,
Russia doesn't need to dominate Central Asian and
Caspian resources for its energy needs but is
pursuing its interests there as one of the means
to security and influence in Eurasia: resisting US
military expansion to its borders - reflected in
Americans' near-obsession with opening bases
everywhere they can - and avarice for oil and the
strategy of securing "excess" global reserves
under tight US control. While using a restricted
geopolitical scope, Professor Bordonaro nearly
includes Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in
NATO and the EU.
Leon
Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Feb 24,
'06)
The article Russia and the 'war of
civilizations' [Feb 24] states that Russia is
pursuing a path of alliance with the Muslim world
and wants to avoid being part of this "war [of]
civilizations". If [Andrei] Tsygankov is presuming
that Russia's new strategy will save it from this
war he is mistaken, Chechnya being a prime example
that the war [of] civilizations is not just
towards the West. Radical Islamists want this "war
[of] civilizations" and it encompasses both
Eastern and Western cultures, Kashmir being the
Eastern example. Chechnya is a prime example of
radical Islamic terror against the Kremlin. But
most important, the "war [of] civilizations" is
not limited to Islam [versus] the Christian West
but [is] against all non-Muslim civilizations
whether they be the Christian West, Hindu India or
even communist China, as seen in the Muslim
uprisings in China's [Xinjiang autonomous region].
The powder keg of Islamic radicalism sees no
boundary between radical Islam and the rest of the
world (including moderate Muslim governments, as
seen in the ongoing trouble in Iraq and
Afghanistan), which includes Russia as well.
Russia will have to learn the hard way that the
radical Islamists don't share the same point of
view as the Kremlin.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 24,
'06)
In reference to the article
by Spengler, The devil's sourdough and decline
of nations [Feb 22], I wish to comment. The
problem with Spengler is that he gets confusing
and complex with his interpretation of life and
his ego. If he removes confusion from his
perturbed mind, life is beautiful as long as we
plant and sow it well. Man has only to think of
the nature of his own being to understand the
nature of God. The self, the ego in man and his
own individuality and unique personality, [makes
him] distinct from other [creatures] with a will
and power of his own and authority to decide as he
wishes. Believing in God is also a mental process,
as [it is] to believe in one's own self and
existence. So why should it astonish some that
God, who is the Supreme, is also wielding his
power controlling the universe? Then there is this
mystery of life after death and what happens to
us; could any man-made theory find an answer?
Human reason is incapable of knowing the noumenal
world, as it cannot transcend the boundaries of
space and time. Space and time are not objective
realities and as they are only modes of
apprehending phenomenal realities, they are
essentially subjective and have no existence apart
from the subject. Human reason has the ability to
know only the temporal world and [metaphysics] is
an attempt to know the ultimate realities with
limitation. But there is another level,
"intuition", that is unique in its experience and
essentially different from other mode of
cognition. It is not perception or thought and
transcends to the heights of [the] unknown. It
negates logical, physical and scientific
descriptions or explanations but resides deep down
in your innermost self. Physics tells us that the
velocity of light cannot be surpassed and it is
the absolute power (energy), which is formless and
unperceivable, that controls functions of the
entire universe, which is perpetually expanding.
"Allah" as it appears in the Koran means a being
who is supreme, but hidden from the human eye;
before whose dignity and grandeur human perception
[and] wisdom become dazed; whose sovereignty
extends over the entire universe; obedience [to
whom] is a must. The greatest proof of God's
existence is the existence of the universe and the
world we live and man himself.
Saqib
Khan
London, England (Feb 24, '06)
You have in
your infinite wisdom deemed fit to publish a
private letter [Feb 23] written to you while you
decided not to publish [in its entirety] the
actual letter written to be published in these
columns. My letter that you failed to publish [in
full; the edited version appeared on Feb 21] did
not make allegations; on the contrary, it only
reproduced facts about the convicted imam of
Finsbury [Park] Mosque published by The Times of
London and the New York Times. You have
transgressed your own rules which forbid letters
to the editor to directly address other letter
writers by allowing Saqib Khan to directly address
me [letter, Feb 23]. I do not think anyone cares
to know what Khan looks like or wears. It is the
jihadi mentality or outlook that one is worried
about. No one ever defined a jihadi as someone who
has a beard and wears baggy trousers. In fact what
he said is the main worry in the world - ie, you
don't know who is a jihadi, as the well-dressed
guy next door may be a gun-totin' jihadi.- (and
Khan may fit the picture). Again my comments are
against intemperate remarks made by the likes of
Khan and the editorial discretion in allowing
them, eg words such as "idiotic" in the recent
letter from Khan. My comments are in general
against allowing anyone to write intemperate
remarks and this column should not be allowed to
be a site for religious discourse. I do not think
that the readers need 101s on any religion here,
especially Islam. My comments are more against
your editorial prowess, or lack of it, than
against any individual.
Skanda
USA
(Feb 24,
'06)
Your letter of February 23
was prefaced with the instruction, "If you find it
fit to publish I have nothing against it." As to
your letter of February 21, it is true that some
facts related to the arrest of Abu Hamza al-Masri,
who formerly preached at Finsbury Park Mosque in
London, were edited out. Because of the offensive
tone and poor construction of that part of the
letter, and the fact that in our judgment it did
not add to (in fact weakened) your main point, we
chose not to expend the effort to make it more
readable. Notwithstanding this, some of your other
points above are well taken and underscore the
fact that our wisdom is not "infinite" as you
suggest, but merely formidable. - ATol
Re India spreads its net wide for
gas, any gas [Feb 23]: Back in the 1960s there used
to be a T-shirt for women that said, "I am the
one with the p***y, so I make the rules." The SPDC
[State Peace and Development Council] generals in
Burma are now wearing the energy version of this
T-shirt. What they have is natural gas, but they
still make the rules as long as China and India
are tripping over each other trying to court them.
There is no credible way to exert pressure on the
rulers of this pariah state either through the
[United Nations] Security Council or through
economic sanctions imposed by the West as long as
they can offer natural gas to Asia's new
energy-hungry giants. If the newly developed Shwe
gas field lives up to its promise, the SPDC will
have more than 5 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas with which to play this game and billions in
foreign currency earnings with which to hunker
down for the long haul.
Cha-am
Jamal
Thailand (Feb 23, '06)
Re Iraq's kingmaker is no Bush
pawn [Feb 23]: [Muqtada] al-Sadr is a favored
person of Hezbollah and implicitly of Iran and
opposed to American bases in Iraq. SCIRI [the
Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq]
and its forces did have sanctuary (as well as
training) in Iran when Saddam [Hussein] was in
power but they are trusted in Iran due to their
Shi'ite credentials only and are seen by Iran as
well as Hezbollah as friends of [the United States
of] America. America has no intention of early
departure from Iraq or its bases. Americans are
there to stay. Sunnis do not trust any of these.
America is their enemy and they see [the] Shi'ite
regime as the one [that] came into power in Iraq
on American tanks. I would be very slow in any
hopes of a slowdown or weakening of the Iraqi
insurgency. The insurgency is more likely to
escalate in the foreseeable future because
like-minded Shi'ites are going to join it to get
rid off [the] American presence in the same way
many forces had joined together to get rid off
Saddam. Chances of any enduring peace in Iraq seem
very remote.
Rashid Hassan (Feb 23,
'06)
Re Long live Japanese sexism [Feb
23]: Princess Kiko's pregnancy raises questions.
Her youngest daughter is 11. After years of
"barrenness", she is again with child at a time of
great debate over allowing a female to ascend the
Chrysanthemum Throne. It is therefore appropriate
to wonder if the long reach of the royal-household
retainers with a devotion to traditional values
might have exerted pressure on the spouse of the
crown prince's younger brother to produce a male
heir. The announcement of a royal pregnancy has
had the effect of shelving discussion on amending
the 1947 Imperial House Law, which bans a female
from direct accession to emperorship.
Traditionalists for the moment can rest easy.
Their argument that an empress might marry a
gaijin or alien with blue eyes cuts both
ways. It is within the realm of possibility that a
male heir more likely than not might be educated
like the Crown Prince Naruhito at Cambridge, and
there might fall in love and marry a non-Japanese.
Here we are dealing with racial purity, and the
Japanese are particularly attached to the purity
of bloodlines. And that, too, has to be taken into
consideration. And if we follow the thread of this
logic, the male is more malleable and open to
pressure from traditionalists than the female,
which leads to demonizing the female, something
which is common to all cultures. Parenthetically,
it is interesting to look at South Korea, which
shares the same obsession with racial purity.
Depopulation in its farmlands has weakened this
compelling hold on Korea. Bachelor farmers are
encouraged to marry "foreigners", which are
defined as Asian, and Vietnamese women are held in
high esteem for skin color and similar cultural
values. This is not to say a Japanese emperor or
empress would marry a non-Japanese. It simply
shows how entrenched millennia-old tradition and
values obtain.
Jakob Cambria
USA
(Feb 23,
'06)
James Chou's letter (Feb
22) proves the tactics of [Taiwanese President]
Chen Shui-bian after his party's crushing defeat
in January. The only recourse now is to stir up
sentiments of the deep green [pro-independence]
followers, thereby also diverting attention from
the numerous corruption scandals involving his
closest associates that are erupting into public
eye. Chen is a blatant liar and keeps testing the
White House to the limit. The world has seen many
incompetent rulers but not such a shameless
one.
S P Li
USA (Feb 23, '06)
James Chou
asks the Bush administration to take a closer look
at Taiwan's problem before it gets beyond repair.
Whose repair? Should Americans be responsible [for
repairing] Taiwan? If so, then stop complaining
that Taiwan's leader must follow the script
written for him by the Americans, so as to
preserve nothing but America's national interest
in the region. A large number of people in north
Taiwan are Chinese. Chinese people in north Taiwan
do not want to be ruled by the non-Chinese people
in the south. Can they split Taiwan, declaring
dependence?
Frank of
Seattle
Washington, USA (Feb 23, '06)
I am
appalled and astonished at Skanda's idiotic
outburst and insidious comments on the integrity
of your editorial standards in his letter of
February 22. After my long restraint and civility,
I would sincerely advise him to cool down [and]
take some sedatives ... I must tell him also that
I am an elegant, handsome and immaculately dressed
man; wear Italian suits, and expensive silk ties
and shoes. I do not look like a "jihadi" with a
long beard or ankle-length trousers. It is not
necessarily how one dresses up or looks that
speaks of one's mind but it is the innermost
strength of one's beliefs and unbending principles
of righteousness, piety, purity of mind and deeds
that constitute a personality. I deeply love my
deene-Islam and am proud of the glorious
Islamic civilization and how it educated the world
from darkness to light in science, mathematics,
medicine and arts and code of life. I never shirk
from saying wrong is wrong and right is and will
always be right because it is my utmost belief
that falsehood is bound to perish ...
Saqib
Khan
London, England (Feb 23, '06)
Iran is
ignoring realpolitik for religion. Every year,
during Moharram, Shi'as remember their historic
defeat and the killing of their imam by the Sunni
army hundreds of years ago, and express their
implacable hatred for the perpetrators. In Saudi
Arabia and large parts of the Muslim world where
Sunnis are in the majority, Shi'as are oppressed
and discriminated against. This happened in Iraq
for centuries since the founding of the Shi'a
sect, till their liberation by the US recently.
Even today Sunni militants bomb and destroy their
holy mosques and kill thousands of Shi'as.The
tension between Shi'as and Sunnis can, perhaps,
never be resolved. Shi'a Iran, surrounded by Sunni
nations, needs an ally, and many countries in the
developed and developing world would like to work
with Iran. But Iran's expressed intention of
wiping out Israel and attempts to develop nuclear
weapons make this impossible. If these barriers
were minimized, Iran would be wooed by many of the
major powers today. But the clergy which rules
Iran will not allow this happen - it is the basis
of their power over the people of Iran. So the
people of Iran will become the target of major
aggressive moves by the US and Europe. One can
only feel sorry for them. Unfortunately they
continue to support the very clergy who have
brought them to this pass.
V L
Rao
Bangalore, India (Feb 23, '06)
Spengler: You [overcomplicated] things
when you wrote The devil's sourdough and the
decline of nations [Feb 22]. You need a little
simple feminine logic. You can either be happy
with what God has made or you can be miserable
with what she has not. It is your free choice. But
Job is not about happiness. Job is about man's
relation to God, which relates directly to the
Muslims you mention last. God warned them to do
right but they chose to make enemies of each other
and livestock of women. They are now predictably
blessed with American help and the US Army is out
of my part of the world. Life is good. I am
happy.
Vinh Lee
Cambodia (Feb 22,
'06)
Spengler's columns rarely
fail to provoke reaction in me, and his latest, The devil's sourdough and the
decline of nations [Feb 22], was fun to read,
and offers the added enjoyment of rebuttal.
Spengler's main theme over the past few years has
been "spirituality is the basis for survival of
cultures". He's been ATimes' principal exponent of
Western religious conservatism and the worldwide
military projection of that conservatism. Amid all
his bombast, there are key sections of enemy
territory that have not been assaulted, and it's a
telling pattern of omission. For example, I don't
recall Spengler's exploration of the fundamental
human motives for the Renaissance - for the
triumph of reason over dogma. What Spengler
decries as our modern crisis of faith is none
other than an expression of faith in another
religion, a more adaptable and useful religion
I'll call "How Things Really Work". Another key
omission in Spengler's carpet-bombing campaign is
the 800-pound gorilla sitting right beside
Spengler in his own time: Earth's biological
carrying capacity and the load imposed on that
capacity are suddenly badly out of equilibrium,
and accelerating. The Abrahamic religions
apparently don't have much to say about this
except "go forth and multiply". In contrast, the
(large) cult of How Things Really Work acolytes
has decided that modulation of population levels
offers more promise. Spengler's condemnation of
the decline in population in some parts of the
world is perverse. The (average) aging trend of
the some of the world's cultures is a reasonable,
hoped-for result and consequence of more highly
educated, situationally aware people. There is a
long-standing, well-documented and direct
correlation between education level and family
size. Put it into perspective: the problem of how
to cope with a 30-year bulge in average age level
is much less challenging than having to find a new
world to live on. Dogma, whether political or
religious, is useful mainly for its continuity
while things remain the same. In times of major
environmental, social, and technical upheaval, as
these are, the continued promotion of demonstrably
unhelpful dogma is questionable at best. I hope
Spengler will turn his formidable intellect to the
question of how to formulate a religion, if we
really must have one, that actually solves today's
problems. Can't you just see God, standing with
his hands in his pockets, looking down at Earth
and wondering, "When are they going to start
thinking? You work all week to give them a brain,
and for what?"
Tom Pfotzer
Virginia,
USA (Feb 22,
'06)
The main theme of [Alan D]
Romberg's article [Chen risks Taiwan-US chill,
Feb 22] clearly articulates what Taiwan's leader
must do, that is to follow the script written for
him by the Americans, so as to preserve nothing
but America's national interest in the region. Mr
Romberg seems to favor a double-standard
democracy, one for the US and a somewhat limited
one tailor-made for Taiwan subject to change at
the discretion of the US administration. I
strongly suggest that the National Security
Council of the US start seriously considering the
possible scenario which would adversely affect the
national interest of the US in the long run
following the political development of the past
five years in Taiwan and that of the US-PRC
[People's Republic of China] relations. The
political landscape in Taiwan has been perceived
to be polarized between two extreme ideological
camps, namely the ruling DPP's [Democratic
Progressive Party's] pro-independence Taiwan vs
the KMT's [Kuomintang's stance] pro-unification
with China, without realizing the fact that more
than 70% of Taiwanese are in favor of no immediate
drastic change of political status. The existence
of the National Unification Council, established
illegally under the one-party-ruled KMT era, as
the name implies explicitly in pursuing
unification with China, thus symbolizes a
disservice defying the political reality of
today's Taiwan, a very lively democracy respecting
the ultimate choice of its people. The US has been
playing a double standard on Taiwan issue,
collaborating with the People's Republic of China
since [September 11, 2001], by turning a blind eye
on the PRC's continued efforts of squeezing
Taiwan's breathing space. A typical example is
that after the passing of the so-called
Anti-Secession Act last year, the US has not taken
any effective measure to counter the PRC's
provocation against Taiwan. China's continued
refusal to have a meaningful dialogue in the past
six years with the democratically elected leader
of Taiwan since the DPP's Chen Shui-bian took
power in 2000, despite his numerous friendly
gestures towards Beijing, has greatly frustrated
not only Chen but more importantly the Taiwanese
people who elected Chen to represent them. The
US-defined "status quo" of the Taiwan Strait has
been significantly tilted in Beijing's favor to
the point of endangering the sense of national
security of Taiwan. Unfortunately, the US
administration ignored the changes strategically
orchestrated by the PRC over the past decade. The
Bush administration, instead of belittling Chen
Shui-bian, must take a closer look of Taiwan's
grievance seriously before it gets beyond repair.
When Taiwan was forced to choose making peace with
the PRC, agreeing to the terms and conditions set
by Beijing, it [is] too late for anyone in the
[US] State Department or in the White House to
chastise Taiwan's leader for not respecting the
national interest of the US.
James
Chou
Vancouver, British Columbia (Feb 22,
'06)
Thanks for publishing Scott
B Macdonald's article [The passing of the 'unipolar
moment', Feb 22] as it clarifies what has been
much misused, abused, and misunderstood in
international relations: the myth of American
hegemony. Though "hegemony" is not the target of
the article, it represents, I think, the extreme
interpretation of "unipolarity". If a state is a
hegemon, it should be able to dominate the rest in
key spheres, but especially and essentially in the
political sphere. Has the US been able to dominate
Russia, China, France, etc politically, even
during the 1990s? The recent grabs for hegemony
that spring to mind are: the Napoleonic hegemony
in the all-important continental Europe during
1805-12, Germany's two drives in 1914-18 and
1939-43, and Japan in East Asia before and during
World War II. The US attempt - and I am not sure
if there was a conscious attempt at hegemony -
would be on a truly global scale, springing
outside the Western Hemisphere of the Monroe
Doctrine and straining the US economy and finances
beyond the comfortable consumerism of the
population, with domestic political consequences.
The myth of hegemony relied to an extent on
American political-military restraint across the
globe; as the current administration has been
loosening this restraint, the myth has been
eroding. Unlike Napoleonic France, Imperial and
Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan, the US has not
openly fought and defeated the other leading
powers and it is still in a situation where it can
be destroyed by a Russian missile attack - and
vice versa, of course; neither is it the only
state with a space program or [satellite]
navigation system, and an advanced
military-industrial complex. Events in Latin
America, [in] Central Asia, and around Iran are
only the more recent proof of the non-existence of
US hegemony - that is, dominance. In today's
global geopolitical environment, a state can at
best attempt to maintain a regional hegemony while
working towards a balance in other regions and,
notwithstanding the use and abuse of the
"hegemony" card by American ideologues and their
anti-American opponents, for most of the
post-World War II period it seems the US has tried
to do just that.
Leon
Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Feb 22,
'06)
"No, Musharraf is not
losing his grip" is the answer to the article Musharraf losing his grip by
Syed Saleem Shahzad (Feb 22). President Pervez
Musharraf came to power deposing prime minister
Nawaz Sharif, who treated the chief of the army
staff, General Pervez Musharraf, as a rogue and
ordered the authorities not to allow landing of
his plane on Pakistani soil when the general was
returning from Sri Lanka after an official visit.
Nawaz Sharif's final orders were to shoot down the
plane if the pilot insisted on landing. It is
significant to mention that it was a civilian
plane and carried over 200 passengers. It was a
time when the country was at a brink of bloodshed
and ... under severe internal conflict. President
Pervez Musharraf has been in power [for] six years
and from the very first day, his opponents (the
majority are the Islamic fundamentalist political
parties and their supporters) [have played] the
same tape of President Musharraf's departure. But
they always miss one established fact, that
President Musharraf is ruling the country through
a power chain, backed by the United States of
America, which further stretches to top generals
in the Pakistani army ... Syed Saleem Shahzad's
political analysis of all the four provinces of
Pakistan is totally incorrect. The fundamentalists
have legislative majority in NWFP (North West
Frontier Province), which again is not beyond the
reach of the army. Punjab is controlled by the
ruling Muslim League. Punjabis have always been
with the ruling party, especially whenever under
direct army control, because over 60% of
Pakistan's armed forces come from Punjab ...
Sindh, where the only seaport and the largest city
of Pakistan, Karachi, exist, has a big zero
activity of fundamentalists as the Muttehida Qaumi
Movement (MQM) controls the province, from a small
municipality to the governor of the province and
mayor of Karachi. The chief minister belongs to
the ruling Muslim League. The MQM is the
third-largest party of Pakistan and second-largest
in Sindh province, with over 80 legislative
assembly members in three houses, and [is No 1 in
the] coalition of President Pervez Musharraf's
civil-military government. Balochistan is the
smallest province population-wise and has been
rebellious for the last two years [under a]
handful of tribal lords who have roughly 3,000
mercenaries. These tribal lords are not in a
position to sustain even one full punch by the
central government and 95% of their insurgency has
already been crushed. Akbar Bugti and his
supporters have already disappeared. In the light
of [these] political calculations, there is no way
President Pervez Musharraf's government is in hot
water. It is important to mention that Pakistan's
economy and business activity have never been so
strong as they are today ...
Shafiq
Khan
Canada (Feb
22, '06)
This is with reference
to Olivier Immig's venomous diatribe against
Pakistan titled Pakistan's patterns of power
[Feb 22].
Amazingly this nonsense flies in the face of the
policies of [the United States of] America, and
the trust placed in Pakistan by Europe,
China and Japan. Obviously anyone who quotes
the neo-con's neo-con, Husain Haqqani, [as] an authority
on Pakistani politics is showing us his true colors. The
only real quality we see out of Carnegie is
a steady flow of Islamophobia and anti-Pakistan
rhetoric. Immig seems to have gotten some
great revelation on discussing the tripod, where the military
is an important part of any
political establishment. Almost all Third World countries
emerging from colonialism have the same
issues. Turkey, China, Singapore, the Philippines, Cuba, and
most of Latin America face strong
military presence in their governments. Even Israel has
a strong tradition of electing military leaders. Immig also
forgets to mention the simple fact [of the]
influence of foreign factors in the overthrow
of three elected Pakistani governments and
then [those foreigners'] unabashed support for
the successor governments. If the history of Pakistan
is "carefully hidden", then I recommend the 20 or
so Pakistani TV channels and the dozen or
so Pakistani newspapers on the Internet that discuss
threadbare all of these and other issues. Immig's hatred
for [President General Pervez] Musharraf is
only matched by the venom of [Ayman al-]Zawahiri
and [Osama] bin Laden against Musharraf. The
celebration upon the departure of Nawaz Sharif in
Pakistan was because the people were sick and
tired of the antics of his corrupt government ...
Pakistan has a functional National Assembly and
Senate where a robust opposition ardently displays
its varied and vibrant points of view. More than
20 TV channels voice all sorts of opinions ...
Pakistan has the second-highest growth rate in
Asia, a vibrant economy, ample foreign investment
and a government trusted by America, Europe, Japan
and China.
Moin Ansari (Feb 22, '06)
Re the
article Ahmedinejad on the warpath
[Feb 18], I wish to comment that he [Iranian
President Mahmud Ahmedinejad] is only a lamb and a
bait to be devoured by a wolf. President [George
W] Bush follows the logic "kill and then ask
questions", and as his presidency is going nowhere
and being cornered like an angry caged Rottweiler,
he is looking for a showdown in the best tradition
of a cowboy as in High Noon, and the enemy
this time is a tough nut, Ahmedinejad of Iran, who
must be punished before he gets bolder. He could
not easily be bullied as he is not an easy target;
and we have to wait for the clear weather to see
the showdown, but this time with the most
dangerous of weapons of mass destruction in
President Bush's belt, nuclear bombs. This ...
ugly scenario is increasingly becoming a
near-reality, and the Americans have done it
before. The Americans dropped their atomic bombs
on Hiroshima and later on Nagasaki to announce to
the world that the US from henceforth was the
supreme military power of the world. The attack of
September 11 [2001] announced that this power was
no longer invulnerable even on its home ground,
and the two events marked the beginning and end of
two historical periods in American history. In the
summer of 1945, American incendiary bombing burned
down over 60 Japanese cities. This time, the third
time, will be decisive, and it would not only be
for the surrender of Iran but also to give it a
bloody nose and to suppress another Saddam Hussein
emerging to threaten American interests as well as
Israeli sovereignty in the Middle East ... I hate
to see this but another [World War] and the USA
dropping nuclear bombs on Iran could not be ruled
out ...
Saqib Khan
London, England
(Feb 22,
'06)
This letter is to voice my
serious concern with the editing standards, or
double standards, that you seem to have ... There
does not seem to be any end to [Saqib Khan's]
diatribe against other religions, nor is there any
end to the treatises he seems to write on Islam.
Yet you have [seen] fit to publish this bullshit
and have never exercised your wonderful editorial
intellect that you wax about. But you have [seen]
fit to cut my objective, factual letter to size. I
understand as an editor you have the right to edit
letters and I do not mind if you edit my letters -
but extend the same to the others. You cannot deny
... that you exercised any of your editorial
prowess [on Khan's letters] that you talk about.
Instead you [make] most of your intellectual
readers yawn reading such jihadi garbage. Do you
have some jihadi sympathy or sympathizers in your
organization, or were you educated in a madrassa,
or do you feel a Muslim is an underdog (most
certainly of the virulent, violent type) who needs
help? Or are you a Muslim with jihadi instincts?
On what grounds do you even think you can publish
religious treatises in the letters to the editor
on politics and current affairs? If you think [it
fitting] to publish Saqib Khan and his boring
mullah brethren, then extend the same courtesy to
me and publish my objective comments. Are you
worried that your wonderful Islamic friends may
burn your offices down if you don't publish
[their] letters? Remember, it will not take them
much to burn your offices and houses down whether
you help them today or not help them. I would like
my objective letter to be published in
full.
Skanda
USA (Feb 22, '06)
We judged
that your letter of February 21 made its point as
published, and there was no need to violate our
general policy against religious diatribes by
publishing the specific anti-Muslim allegations
contained in the rest of the original. It is not
true that Saqib Khan's letters are not edited
substantially (in fact, the most hateful are
rejected outright). Occasionally we run his
letters more fully, if we judge that they are
relevant to a current news issue (the Danish
cartoons, for example) as they
often demonstrate an ultraconservative
Islamist viewpoint that it may be useful
for our readers to see in all its
starkness. - ATol
I
truly appreciate Saqib Khan ([letter] Feb 16) for
refusing to accept the Western values which in his
words are "decadent, immoral, vulgar,
materialistic, selfish, and racist and in
decline". And also I hope that next time he will
advise his fellow Muslims not to seek nuclear
weapons, since that also is the invention of the
same Western countries and dangerous as well. And
he should also explain why, knowing well about
Western culture, he is living in such a country
and why the Muslim population is increasing
(through [immigration]) in Europe. Perhaps he is
the kind of person who [has] found how rotten his
host is but have no qualms having lunch (staying)
there.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India
(Feb 22,
'06)
[Iranian President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad,
unfamiliar [with] his job and untrained for
diplomacy, has embarked on a dangerous course of
confrontation [Ahmadinejad on the warpath,
Feb 18]. This is something which has happened
before, in the 1930s. Back then, [Adolf] Hitler
used the difficult condition of Germany to
convince Germans that the rest of the world was
against them. Today, Iranians are likewise being
convinced by radical elements that the only way to
greatness is to have a confrontation with the ...
non-Muslim world, specifically the US, which they
see as the most visible country in the West.
Ahmadinejad is surrounding himself with his own
narrow-minded people, cutting off any advice from
people who are more experienced in international
diplomacy. These Iranian leaders apparently do not
believe in co-existence and might push [Iran] and
the rest of the world into a costly and
devastating war, from which it will find itself
pushed back further into economic misery and
national humiliation.
J
Chua
Montville, New Jersey (Feb 21,
'06)
Regarding the article Ahmadinejad on the warpath
[Feb 18], I have never read about a nation
squandering its wealth from its natural resources
into a program that has isolated it and spells
doom to its future. A responsible leader of such a
rich nation would capitalize on it to develop the
economy of the nation. [President Mahmud]
Ahmadinejad has evolved to be the very enemy of
Iran's economic future and its standing among the
nations of the world.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 21,
'06)
In The benefits of competition
[Feb 18], Siddharth Srivastava leads off by
saying, "The Indian economy is being led by the
service sector, with the woeful status of the
country's infrastructure (especially roads, power,
ports and airports) a major bottleneck to
manufacturing growth." Then he goes on to laud the
positive effects (quite correctly) seen in the
marketplace. However, his silence on the status of
infrastructure seems to betray an agenda. Since
the infrastructure is directly under the state
control with the current political setup fighting
hard to preserve its dominance, does this
criterion inhibit Mr Srivastava from being more
vocal?
Rocky (Feb 21, '06)
Re US joins the battle of Kabul
[Feb 18]: [Syed Saleem Shahzad's] analysis in
relation to the political clout of Sayeds [those
who claim direct descent from the Prophet
Mohammed] (like [Hamid] Gailani of Afghanistan) in
the non-Arab world is closer to reality. But it
misses the point. Sayeds were (and are) revered
and regarded in these parts of the world because
they represent(ed) highly "concentrated" values of
Islam that reflected in every aspect of their
sociopolitical lives. Families that retained those
original values are still revered in the Muslim
world and have retained political clout. The
retention of original Islamic values includes
competitiveness and awareness of modern education
and ideas. Sayeds who fell out with these
standards fell and are no longer considered very
relevant and have degenerated gradually. The other
important factor has been the Islamic renaissance
movements, education and free movement that
enabled ordinary people to understand Islam and
its values directly from the sources of religion
without the assistance of Sayeds, which in itself
did not necessarily render Sayeds irrelevant but
raised the standards expected of them. That's the
sort of scenario that would explain Pir Gailani's
loss to [Khalid] Farooqi (a descendant of the most
powerful and revered disciple of Prophet Mohammed,
Umar Farooq) of Hizb-i-Islami Afghanistan (HIA).
Americans cannot expect a Gilani to be taking a
"ride" in their military plane en route to Laura
Bush and retaining sociopolitical influence among
the highly skeptical ultraconservative Afghan
people at the same time. Common sense is common
sense.
Rashid Hassan (Feb 21, '06)
The
Chinese government restricts its citizens' access
to the Internet by blocking Internet content that
it considers inappropriate or politically
threatening and it has asked search-engine
providers to exclude offending sites from its
search results (China, human rights, and the
entangled Net [Feb 17]). The [US] government
invades the privacy of its citizens by secretly
looking through e-mail content for offensive words
and phrases and they have asked search-engine
providers to give them access to search-query data
to identify individuals who may be searching for
offensive material. Neither country stands on
sufficiently high moral ground to lecture to the
other on the subject of Internet freedom or human
rights.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Feb 21,
'06)
Re The clash of fundamentalisms
[Feb 15] by Ehsan Ahrari: The Americans know all
too well the correlation between the failure of
secularism and the rise of religious
fundamentalism. They saw how the Roman Catholic
clergy had offered the oppressed peoples of Latin
America a way out in the form of "liberation
theology". Not too long ago the Americans had also
believed that secular communism was failing in
China and China was ripe for the rise of Tibetan
Buddhism in Tibet, the rise of Islam in Xinjiang
and the spread of Falungong among Han Chinese. The
Americans had also seen the rise of religious
fundamentalism in Afghanistan resulting from the
breakdown of secular order in that country. And
yet the Americans want us to think that the Muslim
problems in Middle East are not caused by the
failure of secularism but by the unconnected
revival of a backward and out-of-date Islam (with
its attendant rotting Islamic culture) brought
about by the cynical and imperialistic
manipulations of mullahs. The truth is that the
rise of religious fundamentalism there is the
direct result of the failure of secularism in
these countries. Furthermore such failures,
contrary to the claims of the Americans, do not
have their roots in dictatorship or fascism. The
cause should be more accurately defined as
"puppet-ism". A better analysis would show that
political upheavals and the rise of religious
fundamentalism in Indonesia, the Philippines,
Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon and some countries in
Africa and Latin America, and revolution in Iran,
can all be traced to "puppet-ism". It is
inevitable that the presence of governments,
political parties and other organizations serving
the interests of foreign powers in these countries
will fail sooner or later and bring in its wake
religious fundamentalism. The invasion of Iraq and
the threat of invasion of other Middle Eastern
countries show the Americans to be in favor of
solving the problems of "puppet-ism" with more of
the same, by creating more American puppets in
these countries.
Chan Ah Tee
Malaysia
(Feb 21,
'06)
I have noticed that Saqib
Khan has become increasingly insulting and
defamatory to followers of other religions, and he
has really gone overboard comparing Americans to
[Adolf] Hitler and the Nazis [letter, Feb 17]. Not
too long ago he tried to tell the Hindus what they
should exhibit or not exhibit in their temples. He
constantly harps about how Islam is all for peace
and tolerance, with his head in the sand like many
of his Islamic brethren. It is time you stopped
publishing such intemperate writing. No Christian,
Jewish or Hindu letter to the editor has been
vituperative or inconsiderate as his childish
rants and it is time you stopped publishing such
blather. What he should be railing against is
Islamic violence, Islamic terrorism and Islamic
intolerance ...
Skanda
USA (Feb 21,
'06)
Saqib Khan's response dated
February 14 in which he advises Hindus to "keep
erotic statues of art form" not in temples and
elsewhere reflects nothing but arrogant Islamist
attitude. He should look at his Islamist societies
in which sexual "ills" often occur behind closed
doors ... Ancient Hindu society, in spite of the
social inequities that it had (more or less like
all contemporary ones), was quite open about
matters of sex and love. Unfortunately, that
social attitude was lost due to two onslaughts -
first Islamist, and later Victorian, prudishness.
If India is rediscovering openness about sex and
related matters, it is a good and refreshing
change. It is a sign of a society that as a whole
is realistic and more confident, and not one that
pretends it is perfect.
Rakesh
India (Feb 21, '06)
While the Scandinavian
newspaper editors and the cartoonists dared to
hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslims,
Danish and Norwegian governments did not dare
arrest or punish them because that would amount to
curbing freedom of the press. In the name of the
freedom of expression, the media men often use
insults, mockery and ridicule as weapons against
their enemies. It is a pity that the Muslims have
fallen a prey to such mischief-mongers. Like the
Hindus and Christians, when will the Muslims learn
to keep their cool and put up with such insults,
mockery and ridicule? Christianity demands that we
love equally both our neighbors as well as our
enemies. Muslims should be ready and willing to
love the evildoers (in the present case, those who
made caricatures of Mohammed) lest their hatred
for the enemies of Islam destroys them and makes
them an endangered religious community of the
world.
Omar Luther King
Delhi, India (Feb 21,
'06)
I have
long been a student of the average person's
attitudes and perceptions. In the deeply red
(Republican/Conservative) states of Louisiana,
Texas and Mississippi, the reaction to current
events can sometimes be quite humorous. For
instance, when the Iraq war was in its first
stages, and the US forces were rolling toward
Baghdad, almost every car in the city had a "W-04"
[George W Bush in the 2004 election] sticker on
its bumper or rear glass. Now that the war is
bogged down into a real mess, very few cars still
have a Republican sticker. We were at one time
inundated with cowboy regalia such as Stetson hats
and western boots. Now that the movie Brokeback Mountain has
become well known, there is not a cowboy hat to be
seen anywhere. I can't wait for someone to make a
movie about a love triangle between a male
right-wing radio host, a good old boy who chews
tobacco and drives a "dualie" pickup truck, and an
ex-US marine. My life will then be complete.
Ken
Moreau
New Orleans,
Louisiana (Feb 21, '06)
Brian Wingfield makes good
points [in] China, human
rights, and the entangled Net [Feb 17] but
misses the scope of the problem. The present
Internet allows too much international human
contact and too much domestic criticism.
Governments everywhere are acting to limit the
Internet, to segment it into separate nets, and to
monitor users. The [US] government is not a
protector, it is very much part of the problem.
The tools being marketed to China are tools
already in use in America. Americans choose to
ignore their own police state, but the rest of us
cannot afford to. The PRC [People's Republic of
China] is ahead of the USA if you make an honest
comparison of the people killed for ideology over
the past 50 years, or compare the percentages of
the population in jail. The big governments of the
world only look like
opponents; actually they stand together against
the people everywhere. George Bush "opposing"
Osama bin Laden [is] one excellent case in point,
and the present rush to protect us all from the
Internet [is] another.
Vinh Lee
Cambodia (Feb 17, '06)
Re China, human
rights, and the entangled Net (Feb 17) about
the backlash from US members of Congress over the
practices of Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Cisco
Systems in China: In a January 26 press release
about US companies' Internet censoring in China,
[Congressman] Christopher H Smith wrote: "China's
policy of cutting off the free flow of information
is prohibitive for the growth of democracy and the
rule of law." I agree completely, but I also saw
that in a press release about granting
most-favored-nation status to China a few years
back that Smith called the Chinese government "a
dictatorship that needs to be taken to the
woodshed". US Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey
Graham continue their call for a 27.5%
across-the-board tariff on Chinese goods until
China changes its monetary policy. US legislators
need [to] work with Chinese leaders and give them
incentives to advance human rights and free trade,
not rebuke and rhetoric. My generation cannot
afford another Cold War.
Thomas Foley
Decatur, Georgia (Feb 17,
'06)
Reading Jim Lobe's article on
the International Crisis Group (ICG) [US struggles
with a mutating insurgency, Feb 17] brings to
mind Gillo Pontecorvo's film Queimada or Burn [aka The Mercenary]. The ICG
posits that the Sunnis "appear increasingly united
and confident of victory". Which brings me back to
Pontecorvo's film. Marlon Brando played the role
of a British agent who foments the overthrow of a
corrupt regime; he helps instill more pliable
pawns for his masters in England; they prove
incapable, and an uprising rages which threatens
British interests. Brando returns, and he directs
a war which burns everything. Today, we call it
"scorched earth". And he crushes the rebellion in
the backlands. Confident as the insurgents are,
they neglect the determination and the confidence
of the occupying American and British troops in
Iraq. Washington and London are in there for the
long haul, let us not forget.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Feb 17,
'06)
I have
read Spengler for a long time, and once I realized
that one has to take what he says with a pinch of
salt, I have enjoyed his (sometimes outrageous)
contrariness. He often lets one peep under his
petticoats to get a sense of what he really may
think, and you realize that this is a bright and
talented guy who gets his kick out of "cocking a
snook". The article War with Iran on
the worst terms [Feb 14] was the first time I
have seen him adopt such an unbalanced and almost
naive position. The American responsibility for
Middle East tension, and for the spread of nuclear
ambitions, is nowhere even hinted at. The current
regime in Iran is a direct response to US imperial
aggression in the Middle East. That doesn't make
the new government in Iran the kind of guys one
would invite to tea; but that goes much more
strongly for the guys in the White House. Lousy
article, silly sentiments, and more than anything,
nothing to enjoy. Was this a Spengler substitute ?
It was almost mainstream US corporate media stuff.
I hope that is not too insulting.
Lee
R
Scotland (Feb 17,
'06)
As a
service to our North American readers, we will
save you the trouble of doing an Internet search
on "cocking a snook". It means "thumbing the nose"
(according to Merriam-Webster Online). - ATol
Terence Redux: If you read the
Business Week article [linked to in Redux's letter
of Feb 16] you will see that it also talks about
the decline in fertility in Iran over the last two
decades and attributes it to government policy.
The same goes for the article that you cite.
Here's a line that's cited from an authority
within it: "One of the main reasons for the
fertility decline in the second half of the 1980s
is the implementation by the Islamic Republic of
effective policies in favor of social and economic
development in rural regions which had previously
been ignored by the former regime." In the
response [letter, Feb 15] that I wrote to Spengler
[War with Iran on
the worst terms, Feb 14] you might again note
that I write that Iran has just been more
successful than others in bringing (through
changing public policy) its population boom under
control. A developing country being able to curb
its population boom, ie China [or] Iran, through
public policy is generally understood to be a good
thing, a case example of managed development. It
is quite a different matter with demographic
decline in industrialized states, worst of all in
former communist states like Russia, which in fact
runs counter to government attempts to boost
fertility. Fertility decline, especially when
directed by public policy, is not at all the same
thing as demographic decline, which is what
Spengler was insinuating. That though was just one
mistake in his article. What about all the rest?
Trust me, the guy doesn't know what he's talking
about.
D Moshfegh (Feb 17,
'06)
I am
so tired of hearing about China's "string of
pearls" strategy as stated in China's pearl
loses its luster [Jan 21]. This "string of
pearls" strategy is not unique to China. China too
is surrounded by powerful nations that are rivals
... Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the various US
military posts in that region, and now, after the
strategic alliance with the US, one can add India
to the list too. So if China has its famous
"string of pearls" strategy, so does its
rivals.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 17,
'06)
[Re
the] comments by Julian [letter, Feb 16], I would
like to say that I was stunned at his
self-indulging infectious verbosity and infertile
notion that all that is good in the American
junkyard is necessarily good and should be dumped
on [someone] else's garden: typical Northern
Hemisphere mendacity. Though Julian is Canadian,
amazingly, he is as ignorant and conceited as his
next-door neighbor and wishes to lecture us, the
Muslim, about the advantages of following Western
culture, which is lewd with its degrading
morality. What an audacity and propensity to deny
that Islamic civilization has for the last 1,400
years advocated and adopted progressive traditions
and maintained its tenets, as was manifested in
the realm of Islamic empire ... Many in the Muslim
world have an equally negative image of the West,
that it is nothing but a society of commercialism,
greed, violence [and] promiscuity and [is] in
decline. Many people are also well aware of the
debt the West owes to Islamic culture: the
foundation of the Renaissance was laid by Muslim
Spain. The irony is that the Islamic world has not
recovered from the kicking it got in the colonial
and post-colonial period and has not evolved
viable political systems, and after they were
de-colonized, they were pulled into even greater
dirty game and allowed to remain under
dictatorships and corrupt monarchies and
boot-licking rulers that the West could control.
May I also remind him that President G W Bush's
rhetoric on human rights [and] teach-yourself
democracy at the touch of a button in Iraq and
Afghanistan and now Iran have become hopeless
pronouncements as we are witnessing daily in Iraq.
He should not give us his silly lectures and
instead try looking into his devil's mirror and
the Western values he so dearly loves:
condom-carrying youths, society notoriously rich
in crime, murders, drug addiction, unwanted
teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted
diseases, nudity and open-air sex, binge drinking
and every other imaginable degrading act of
immorality. Is this what Julian reckons Muslims
should follow? Islam is more rigid and more
puritan than other systems and non-Muslim
societies. Since Islam attaches particular
importance to morality, it suppresses promiscuity
by every means. We have strong aversion and hatred
against the Western vulgarities as we wish to
adhere to physical as well as spiritual piety,
purity and virtue of righteousness and nobility of
mind. "Because you the Americans desire to conquer
the world, it does not necessarily follow that the
Muslim world desires to be conquered by you." The
West wants that the Muslim world adopt its values
... but why should we follow Western culture and
their way of life that is decadent, immoral,
vulgar, materialistic, selfish, and racist and in
decline? The Americans and the West have become
the judges, jury and executors of justice as it
suits them and are the cause of the most of the
evils that inflict our world today. In simple
words, they are terrorizing the weak and become
[the most] notorious terrorists since [Adolf]
Hitler.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Feb 17,
'06)
No one
is suggesting that Muslims adopt negative "Western
values" such as drug addiction and teenage
pregnancy, any more than sensible Muslims urge
Christians or Jews to blow themselves up on
crowded buses or fly jetliners into
skyscrapers. - ATol
Interesting reading, Kim Myong
Chol's article [Sanctions on
Pyongyang will backfire , Feb 16]. Rhetoric by
North Korea's spokespeople is no longer
threatening or even close to being a
saber-rattling gesture. Now it is only comical. In
2007 North Korea is going to surpass England and
France as the fourth-most-powerful nuclear power?
Hmm, seems like Mr Kim is overdosing on the
narcotics produced in North Korea. And in a war
North Korea will have nothing to lose while the US
and Japan have a lot? Apparently Mr Kim does not
seem too frightened about the prospects of North
Korea ceasing to exist. As with most things
involving Korea, both North and South, Koreans
sure are great at talking the talk, but rarely
walk the walk. Sometimes I think it may not be a
bad idea to just totally ignore North Korea,
pretend we don't care if they never talk to
anybody again, and let's see how North Korea copes
with that. If the US, drastic though it may be,
decides to ban imports from China, would you think
China would still consider providing economic
support to North Korea? Moreover North Korea
should come to realize that nuclear weapons no
longer provide the threat that they used to,
purely because so many countries now have the ways
and means to make nuclear weapons, making them no
longer an "exclusive secret weapon". As the
collapse of the Soviet Union clearly illustrated,
it's the economics. Even Russia and China,
although it took them a very long time to realize
it, have come around to the idea that whoever
controls the money controls the world. No, North
Koreans aren't stupid, they just act so, to make
us believe they're dangerous. Koreans are famous
for screaming, shouting, raising a tantrum like a
baby, but you'll be surprised how quiet they
suddenly become once they get slapped in the
face.
Len Sheridan (Feb 16,
'06)
American diplomats should
judiciously [weigh] Dr Kim Myong Chol's words [Sanctions on
Pyongyang will backfire, Feb 16]. He has his
finger on the pulse of Pyongyang, and in his
"unofficial" capacity you can say he is the voice
of Kim Jong-il. He is a frequent visitor to the
United States; he has not only cultivated
Americans from all walks of life, but he himself
is courted by former high- and middle-ranking
civil servants, legislators, ambassadors and
intelligence agents, not to speak of professors
and high-flying journalists. Stripped of Dr Kim's
bombast and boasting, it does not take a rocket
scientist to recognize distinctly the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea's attitude towards the
latest and failed Bush administration's ploys to
force North Koreans back to the six-power talks.
Kim Jong-il's government's position on the talks
... is well known and fully documented. A simple
Google search immediately brings up books on
negotiating with North Korea, and some are most
instructive. And it should not come as a surprise
to those within Washington's beltway [that] some
writers like Scott Synder actually sat at the
negotiation table with North Koreans during the
Clinton years. Were the current Bush
administration less rabidly ideological and more
traditional in its approaches towards
international affairs, flaming and flaring tempers
on the questions of North Korea would cool. And
then serious, patient work would begin on working
out a framework on cool-water nuclear reactors; on
modalities for dealing with outstanding issues of
more than a half-century old; on setting out
instruments for integrating Pyongyang into the
world community of nations; and exercising the art
of diplomacy that a Talleyrand would find
acceptable and appropriate.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Feb 16,
'06)
I
[would] like to thank Asia Times [Online] and
Francesco Sisci for the fantastic article Beijing takes on
local-government mafias [Feb 16]. Very
insightful indeed. You don't get this in the
mainstream media at all.
J Veehan
Australia (Feb 16, '06)
Regarding The clash of
fundamentalisms [Feb 15] by Ehsan Ahrari: Any
day of the week I will take our alleged "secular
fundamentalism" and its record of achievement
since the days of the Enlightenment - that is to
say, most of the world's important scientific
discoveries, inventions, administrative systems
and other instruments of human progress - over the
religious kind, which has nothing to offer the
world and is indeed a major cause of its possible
destruction. Blaming the Bush administrations's
terrible errors and crimes in the Middle East and
elsewhere on "secularism" is garbage, quite
frankly. If you haven't noticed, George and Co
also claim to be religious fundamentalists doing
God's work. As for the Raging Prophet Cartoons
controversy, to the Islamic world I say, get a
life. It will never progress and solve its many
problems - most of them self-inflicted, despite
the "imperialist victim" pose it takes - if this
is how it reacts to some scribbles on a piece of
paper. Why isn't all this furious protesting
energy being directed into something more
constructive? There are certainly many challenges
to meet in today's Muslim societies. I respect,
however, Islamic civilization's great achievements
of the past. And guess what - the defenders of
freedom of thought and free expression in the
Western world are serious, even though the current
clash is ostensibly over some dumb-ass cartoons,
and we are as deeply committed to our beliefs as
any religious person is to their prophet or god.
And no, I will never capitalize those words, they
don't merit it. The biggest difference is, we
don't choose to be martyrs - that choice is forced
on us by our opponents, like the religious creep
who murdered Theo van Gogh, and many others who
have fought for a cause that really is worth dying
for, and has done more good for the world than any
god or prophet. I am sure you are an erudite and
educated man, [Dr] Ahrari, but yet again
when the religion comes out the brain shuts off.
Many of us are getting really tired of so-called
"secularism" being under attack and blamed for
problems it did not create. It offers only
solutions. History is my witness. Perhaps "common
sense and reason" would be a better term. I don't
see much of that on the Muslim side of the
equation in this and other controversies. Yes, you
are right, it is "common sense" not to insult
someone's religion - but only out of fear of the
kind of over-the-top reprisal from the religious
we are seeing today. Furthermore, it seems that
almost anything one says about Islam is perceived
as an insult by someone out there. So what the
hell, may as well start at the top. And don't tell
people like me that we are ignorant about the
Islamic world. I devote a lot of time trying to
understand it, and the opinions expressed above
are quite mild compared [with] the enlightened
self-criticism I read on many moderate and
dissident Muslim websites ...
Julian
Canada (Feb 16, '06)
I wish to comment on the
article The clash of
fundamentalisms [Feb 15], and also found Perry
Bone's [letter of Feb 15] biased and misguided.
Since [September 11, 2001, the US] view of the
world has changed beyond recognition: its
alliances have changed, its foreign policy has
changed, its diplomatic priorities have changed,
[former] foes have become friends and many foes
turned into best of friends. America dumps friends
when they are not needed and throws them to rot
for the vultures to finish off, as in the case of
al-Qaeda, mujahideen and jihadis. When they were
fighting against the Soviet Union during the
West's Cold War, they were best of chums and
buddies, but soon after the collapse of the
Soviets empire, they were given another label,
"terrorists, fundamentalists, fanatics", and
targeted for elimination. The Soviet Union was an
enemy of the West when it was occupying
Afghanistan but now that America and the West are
occupying Afghanistan, they are best of friends.
China is still occupying Tibet with ruthless
brutality and is one of the most repressive
regimes in the world, with total disregard for
human dignity and human rights of its minorities
and those dare to speak the truth about their
government, but [it is a] lucrative trade partner
of the West; [petroleum]-rich arms-purchasing
Saudi Arabia and anti-democratic Kenya are all
partners in singing American songs. Indeed, it is
this hypocrisy of the Americans and the West that
explains hatred mostly against the United States,
especially in the Muslim world but voiced openly
by many others. It is evident that President G W
Bush has abandoned all ethical morality of sincere
and honest diplomacy in favor of his own principle
of judging friends and foes in a traditional
cowboy fashion, "Either you are with me or against
me and if you are not with me, I will hit you
before you hit me." When President Bush talks
about war against "terrorism with a global reach",
he does not mention fundamentalist IRA [Irish
Republican Army], Spanish Basque terrorists, Tamil
Tigers, Assam Liberation Front in India, and
Nepal's Maoists, etc, but is quick to mention
Hamas [and] Palestinian, Chechen and Kashmiri
freedom fighters and Iraqi insurgents who are
labeled sometimes as Sunnis and other times Shi'as
as it suits the invading forces. Fundamentalism
... in fact Islam forbids it and preaches ummatum wassatun (middle
path), and to refrain from any excesses in the way
of Allah. In fact, the Muslims believe in
[devotion] to Islam, and the concept of
fundamentalism is simple: adherence to the
fundamental tenets of Islam, nothing more or less
...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Feb 16,
'06)
Is
Spengler serious [War with Iran on
the worst terms, Feb 14]? Given the success of
the US in Iraq, how can any sane person truly
advocate a war against Iran?
Kevin
Lanaghan (Feb 16, '06)
In response to David Moshfegh
of Berkeley, California: I read your letter [of
Feb 15] and decided to take you up on your
challenge to Google "Iran demography". Here was
the first hit [Iran: Perfect
demography, lousy economy, Business Week, Jan
31, '05]. The article agrees with Spengler's
presentation of the current demographic situation
in Iran [War with Iran on
the worst terms , Feb 14]. The article says
nothing about future demographics, so it neither
corroborates nor refutes Spengler's claims. If one
stops reading here, one might be inclined to
agree with your interpretation of these basic
facts. However, if one were to return to
Google and scroll through the remaining search
results, one would start seeing an
interesting phrase appear over and over again, and
that is "the decline of fertility in Iran". A
Google search on "the decline of fertility in
Iran" fetches some fascinating studies into the
subject. I would suggest you start reading these
before accusing Spengler of not having done his
proverbial homework. Here's one [The fertility
revolution in Iran (pdf file), Population
& Societes, Nov '01] to start your research.
Enjoy!
Terence Redux
USA (Feb 16, '06)
I found it ironic that the US,
Europe, India etc, whose [governments are] elected
by the people, are being criticized as hegemonic
and warmongers while Iraq and Iran, which have no
democratic credentials (I regard a country as
democratic where [an] elected leader holds
complete authority), find many supporters even
among [the] educated. On the face of it the
Americans', along with Europeans', effort to
prevent the [Persian] Gulf countries from having
nuclear weapons, since they have the same, may
seem unjustifiable. But we cannot call every crime
a crime per se. Some can be justifiable, and some
we cannot even avoid. Someone said, "Being
fortunate is also ... unfortunate." If the Gulf
countries are lucky [in] having oil, the same
wealth makes [those] countries vulnerable to world
pressure. As Perry Bone ([letter] Feb 15) rightly
observed, if we slap our erring children to
correct them, someone can say it is crime against
children, but the intention is just to guide them,
though unwillingly. I also found it ironic that
whenever Muslims [are] criticized for their
misdeeds they simply cite few noble verses in the
Koran and say, "How can you criticize Islam, which
has set such an ideal path to follow?" If that
were the criterion to judge Muslims, then I would
like to remind the Muslims just to read the [US]
constitution and you too will find how noble [a]
path they [Americans] also have set to follow. Or
perhaps Muslims want that Islam should be judged
just by reading the Koran, but the Americans have
to be judged by what they do on the ground.
R
Shivanantham
Cuddalore,
India (Feb 16, '06)
Ehsan Ahrari: I enjoyed your
article [The clash of
fundamentalisms, Feb 15]. While it is critical
of the Iraq invasion, which I support, it is
thoughtfully written and does you much credit. I
think that the Iraq invasion was a bold but
correct move that has in it a strategy for 20,
even 50 years down the road. We can all agree that
the issue of Islamic fundamentalism is going to be
with us for a very long time. I think that the
Bush administration correctly understood that we
could no longer wait for the Islamic world to
advance because the status quo was creating
terrorists that would stop at nothing to destroy
the West. We Americans have to understand that
this fanaticism was in part created by our
propping up of fascist-type dictators in our own
interest of regional stability and oil. I believe
that the Bush administration sees this as a
horrible mistake and genuinely is trying to lay
out a strategy to fix it. The Islamic clerics
don't want change because that will remove their
easy lives of being regional dictators. This is a
battle between them and the West for the hearts
and minds of the masses of the Islamic world. It
is kind of like when a parent drags a child
kicking and screaming because the parent knows
best. It is not that the West is intellectually
superior but that the Islamic world is backward
and uneducated to the point that it is dangerous
to world civilization. There is no easy fix and we
can either see our soldiers die there in tens or
our civilians die here in hundreds. Sure we could
disengage, but in 10-20 years Islamic
fundamentalism would be back on our doorstep. I
disagree that Nordic media poking fun at Islam was
unwise. Muslims have to learn that all their rants
amount to nothing, [that] no amount of praying
hellfire on the West [will] change anything. I
think that Western worries about democratically
elected Islamic fundamentalist governments is not
so problematic. We can see this with the Hamas
victory. Hamas has left the "playground" and will
now have to answer to the world for its actions.
No longer can they hide and collect sympathy as
disaffected politically powerless freedom
fighters. If they as a government sponsor
terrorism, then Israel and the West have an
address to bomb. The Islamic masses then will see
the weakness of these governments and the
suffering they will bring on their own people, and
in time they will be replaced by more moderate
ones. Of course this is going to be a history
written in blood, lots more blood. That more blood
will be shed is the only thing that is certain.
Perry
Bone (Feb 15, '06)
Could someone please tell me
what is new and worth reading in the article The clash of
fundamentalisms [Feb 15] by Ehsan Ahrari? It
appears your regular writers have run out
innovation and creativity and are beating the
bushes over and over. I foresee ATol might lose
[its readership] base substantially if the
monotonic voice [persists]. The tone of articles
by your regular writers demonstrates that they
force themselves two to three times every week to
write something for Asia Times Online. The ATol
editors may kindly remember that the readers are
the best judges to make not only impartial
comments but to analyze how the paper is going.
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Feb 15, '06)
We agree with your last point,
which is why we welcome criticisms such as yours
on this page and on The Edge forum. Incidentally, January
readership numbers were among the best in the
history of Asia Times Online, and the statistics
are looking good so far in February as well. - ATol
I
disagree with Spengler's February 14 article, War with Iran on
the worst terms. There is nothing inevitable
about a 30-year war. The past examples of the
European wars are not inevitable, they were caused
by the greed of the involved governments who would
not accept equality with others and stay in their
own space. Nobody stood up and said no to their
leaders who wanted more. Those were not victims,
those were volunteers. I was a target in the
American 30-year war against Indochina and I can
assure you that war was as spectacularly
unnecessary as are the current Afghan, Iraq and
[potential] Iran wars. We never had weapons or
technology to attack America and Indochina was a
free and firm ally of the USA prior to the
surprise USA alliance with France to reconquer the
colony. That American war allowed Lyndon Johnson
to double taxes, Richard Nixon to increase
government controls, and their associated middle
management to make a good percentage of the cash
flow, without any public discussion. That war was
a total loss to the people of both nations in
blood and in money, and a gain only to the ruling
class who paid nothing. The same profile of
killing inoffensive foreigners to support
government actions at home is painfully visible
today. I see the same "new history" and the same
imaginary intelligence reports. Use a little
common sense, [Spengler]. If you have an adult's
memory, you already know that any WMD [weapons of
mass destruction] that Iraq or Iran might have
originated from the USA or from their associates
in Europe. There is nothing at all inevitable
about war in Iraq or in Iran. These are American
decisions. It is not the inevitable will of God,
it is simply the choice of humans who bear the
responsibility for their actions. This issue was
settled at Nuremburg.
Vinh Lee
Cambodia (Feb 15, '06)
Initially I found your
Islamophobic columnist, Spengler, quite amusing
[War with Iran on
the worst terms, Feb 14. But [his]
warmongering drift and attitude to incite [are]
becoming scary and disconcerting. [His] dislike
for the Islamic world is thinly veiled, and his
admiration for warmongers such as [US President
George W] Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony]
Blair is quite menacing. Spengler's [commentary]
is anything but fair and his flowery detail of
history [and] the private and intimate
conversations of Western and Christian
decision-makers fall flat as far as [his] being a
credible and objective writer. The scenarios he
sketches are often not even accurate, and it is
obvious why he or she is using a non de plume. My request
is not to censor Spengler in any way, but I would
like to see a renowned source of news such as
Asian Times [Online, which] represents a
completely different news angle [to what] we in
the West are so used to, offering a counter-view
to that of a pseudo-analyst [whom] history will
prove wrong anyway.
Al-Ameen Kafaar
Cape Town, South Africa (Feb 15,
'06)
Spengler writes with great
historical perspective and with a deep demographic
understanding of the underlying causes of conflict
in the world, and in the Middle East in
particular. How can we, the readers, determine if
he is accurate [in] his calls to engage in
military conflict with enemies our leaders
identify as a threat to our Western societies? We
can determine Spengler's intent with the people of
authority he uses as references who desire such
conflict. I am referring to Spengler's use of US
National Intelligence Director John Negroponte as
a source of information about the severity of
Iran's threat to the US [War with Iran on
the worst terms, Feb 14]. Negroponte should be
spending the rest of his life in prison for crimes
against humanity he committed while serving US
imperialism in Central America in the 1980s. Just
as the socialist revolution of Nicaragua posed no
threat to the US, Iran's nationalist posturing and
support of Shi'ite Iraq poses no threat to the US
or Europe today. It is appalling that someone as
knowledgeable as Spengler would use such a
horrible human being as a source to advocate for
war against a country that poses no viable threat
to [Western] security. If Spengler were truly
interested in avoiding a worldwide conflagration,
he would call for the removal and imprisonment of
the ruling regime of the US and a worldwide oil
boycott of the US until it has been accomplished.
That he does not should alarm readers about the
integrity of the reporting and goals of Asia Times
Online.
Geof Replogos
USA (Feb 15, '06)
Spengler writes of the coming
war in the Middle East in his article War with Iran on
the worst terms [Feb 14]. Spengler makes a
mistake when he compares the wars fought in Europe
from 1648 to 1948. During this period Europe's
power was great. There was no world body like the
UN and by 1948 most of the non-Western nations
were colonies of Europe and had no say in what
[was] taking place in Europe. Now the world has
evolved to contain the UN and the creation of
[strong] regional powers. I have no doubt that
major unrest will occur in the Middle East, but it
will not be like the wars fought in Europe.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 15,
'06)
Re War with Iran on
the worst terms [Feb 14]: Because of President
[George W] Bush's propensity for rejecting good
intelligence, 19 terrorists defeated [him] on
September 11, 2001, with penknives. It is a shame
that he could not defend his country and his
people because of his failure to act on the
intelligence available at the time, [and more
than] 3,000 innocent people lost their lives. He
could have saved a lot of American lives on
September 11 if he were a smart commander-in-chief
but he and his administration were caught napping.
Instead, he attacked Afghanistan to get rid of
Osama [bin Laden], which he has not done as yet
but in the pursuit has killed over 40,000 innocent
Afghanis and destroyed their country to pieces. He
then invaded and occupied Iraq for various motives
but also because he hated Saddam Hussein, and
believed in the flawed intelligence to destroy WMD
[weapons of mass destruction] that never existed;
he knew this and we all know it now. During [the
Hurricane] Katrina natural disaster, he was caught
napping despite enough warning given by God [and]
he failed again. His initial sluggish and
unconcerned response was the litmus test of his
presidency that opened the sleepy eyes of the
Americans to see for the first time the
incompetence and worthlessness of the man ...
Personally, I believe that the man refuses to
believe in any good intelligence provided to him
but instead believes in the intelligence he
considers right. He probably seeks pleasure in a
sort of a war computer game by invading Muslim
countries ... Unfortunately, a similar scenario is
building up, this time against Iran, and the only
intelligence he is going to believe [is that]
provided by the Israelis, and he is going to
reject others cautioning him that over 100,000
civilians will die if he attacks Iranian nuclear
installations ...
Saqib Khan
London, England
This is on Spengler's War with Iran on
the worst terms (Feb 14). Your use of the
pen-name Spengler is interesting, but your grasp
on history, not to mention the conclusions you
derive from it, are shaky ... Wrong history No 1:
the Peace of Augsburg, by leaving the question of
religion to the ruler, merely delayed the
inevitable showdown of the Thirty Years' War
because the principle did not stop religious
persecution in Spain or France, etc. Baloney. The
Peace of Augsburg was a solution only for the Holy
Roman Empire, not for Europe. And after the Thirty
Years' War, virtually the same principle embodied
in the Peace of Augsburg became the norm in all of
Europe, and Europe has not, for what it's worth,
had a religious war since. Wrong History No 2: The
Shi'ites are emerging from millennia of
humiliation to a moment of self-assertion and
imperialism for which they lack the necessary
cultural/economic/political power. You know much
less about Islamic history than [even] about
European history. Shi'ism has been something of a
state religion in Iran at least since the Safavid
dynasty in the 16th century ... Iran's demography
is the dream of the world. All of the Islamic
world - since the US brought this world into being
after September 11 [2001] - is in the midst of a
population boom. Everyone knows at least that
much. Iran has just been more successful than the
rest in bringing the boom somewhat under control.
If you don't believe me, just Google "Iran's
demography" and see what comes up. In fact, Iran's
demography is in the minds of most people the most
hopeful thing it has going for it; everyone knows
the progressive thinking of the young in the
country, and they can't be ignored forever.
Finally, the whole thesis of your piece,
preemptive wars to prevent future bloodbaths, is
not only wrong-headed but dangerous. The previous
century was a long stalemate - remember the Cold
War - between two camps who skirmished on the
margins, but never got down to World War III. You
would have probably preferred an invasion of the
Soviet Union right after the end of World War II.
The reason Iran is bent on nuclear power is that
it doesn't want what happened to Iraq to happen to
it. What's changed in the world is not some new
Shi'ite imperialist bid for power. What's changed
is the United States, which has basically up-ended
300 years of European-based inter-state relations,
which viewed state sovereignty, whether of small
or large states, as paramount. The United States
with its notions of preemptive war - it will be
the guarantor of other states' sovereignty - has
changed the solution of the Thirty Years' War
(state sovereignty as the ultimate arbiter of all
internal affairs without foreign interference).
You're seemingly falling in line with this
thinking without knowing where it might lead, and
using history to justify it is frankly laughable
since it is changing history and who knows what
the result of that will be?
David
Moshfegh
Berkeley,
California (Feb 15, '06)
I really wish you would get
rid of Spengler. His warmongering, racist,
Islamophobic rantings under the guise of a
pseudo-intellectual columnist only detracts from
the otherwise high standards of ATol. The Spengler
forum comments (from Spengler himself as well
as the rednecks he attracts) also affect the
quality of your site. The Web has plenty of forums
to cater for this type of rabble-rousing
demagoguery ...
Derek McGhee
Sydney, Australia (Feb 15,
'06)
I
think Siddharth Srivastava should be thankful he
is staying in India and not in an Islamic country.
If he wrote an article like [When a Muslim
paints nude Hindu gods, Feb 11] he probably
would have gone underground by this time. I think
people like him are [a] real problem in India and
definitely not the solution. First they are
diehard ... liberals. Second, they are very quick
to talk about the evils of Hindu fundamentalism
and rarely touch violence, destruction of minority
human rights, huddood
laws, terrorism [or] lack of democracy to name [a
few problems] in Islamic countries. These bleeding
hearts totally ignore [the] silent invasion from
Bangladesh. They do not want to hear or talk of
Islamic terrorism in India. They have no say about
the actions of Pakistan. They do not want to hear
the anti-Hindu activities of Christian
missionaries. In the name of freedom of the press,
they rap Hindus all the time. They can do us a big
favor if they could [emigrate to] Iran or Saudi
Arabia or Pakistan and try to live as a Hindu. No,
they will not do that favor to us, but they
condemn our defenses. Can we declare people like
him enemies of [the] Indian state? Maybe.
Dr G S
Shankar (Feb 15, '06)
Saqib Khan [letter, Feb 14] is
free to characterize Indian temple art as he
wishes, but can he please loosen up a little? "I
hate Indian culture" is his refrain, we get that.
"Islam is great" - we have heard that one often
too. Now he'd like to mind other people's business
too? Why can he not shut off the TV set at home,
where he must be seeing all those programs?
Regarding the article United states -
minus United States [Feb 10] by Ehsan Ahrari:
Here is a simple thought from someone neither of
Islam nor of the West, but from a tradition that
has historically not sought to construct a
"cohesive" identity, ie India. While Indians have
an excellent understanding of who we are, we have
since time immemorial not felt the need for
"cohesiveness" and homogenization in our identity.
This is because every "cohesive" identity is
constructed only if a defined "other" exists. Once
the Other is operationally defined, the rest is
history, of Islamic conquests and plunder, or
European-style colonialism. Notice that according
to highbrow European and Islamic scholars, Indians
do not possess a "sense of history". We have our
own traditional way of keeping track of time, and
evolution of people and ideas, called itihaas, and feel happy
not to have either the Western/Christian nor the
Islamic sense of history. It is also quite
incorrect for the author to imply that somehow
"East" is represented by Islam.
Karigar
USA (Feb 15, '06)
In response to Tong Huang's
complaint [letter, Feb 10] about the biases for
the selection of letters, you mentioned a few
attributes of a good letter to get published in
this column. One of the attributes is that a
letter should not be "gratuitously offensive". Do
you not think it involves a degree of
subjectivity? For me, the recent letter of Saqib
Khan (Feb 14), particularly the line "the lewd
display of licentious orgies of statue-deities in
the Hindu temples", is highly gratuitously
offensive. I can realize it being a Hindu, but not
by Saqib Khan being a Muslim. The best action one
can take is just to smile over the lack of
perception of Hinduism by a Muslim - is it not
true that [an] unclothed breast of a woman is a
source of life for an infant, but lewd for others?
Again, it is subjective - an infant versus an
adult male.
Shekhar Mehta
Chicago, Illinois (Feb 15,
'06)
Of
course letter selection and editing are
subjective, which is one reason we try to keep
commentary about religion to a minimum on this
page. While apologists for any religion like to
argue that their particular faith is tolerant and
"peaceful", their words usually belie that claim.
However, when we run articles dealing with the
religions of Asia, some reaction and commentary
from our readers must be accepted, and we are
often forced to make decisions on what is
"gratuitous". - ATol
As so often, Spengler is
mistaken [War with Iran on
the worst terms, Feb 14]. It is not the
Iranians who have imperial ambitions, but the
Bushians. As for why not yet, Ronald Reagan had an
astrologer choose favorable moments for him.
Perhaps [US President George W] Bush is waiting
for a prophet to give him the go-ahead from the
Almighty. However, the Almighty has been known to
play tricks on rulers who insist on asking the
wrong questions - cf the story of Ahab and the
lying spirit in I Kings 22.
Lester
Ness
Kunming, China
(Feb 14, '06)
The latest by Spengler [War with Iran on
the worst terms, Feb 14] can be best described
as what happens when someone falls into the snake
pit one dug himself. The following rationale then
must be that so-called terrorism has been given
added raison d'etre
since its status now has been elevated by the
leading nation of the West. As they say in New
Orleans, Louisiana, "Laissez les bon temps
rouler."
Armand De Laurell (Feb 14,
'06)
Jim
Lobe has a finger on the pulse of a reviving
corpse [Insider
reignites Iraqi intelligence war, Feb 14]. As
the Bush/Cheney gang sloughs towards the sunset,
older reflexes within the houses of Congress, the
military, the intelligence community, the retired
diplomats, and disgraced or forced-out Bushies are
showing some stiffening of the spine in
criticizing a regime known for playing hardball,
brooking no opposition, and bashing hard any
criticism. Nonetheless, the awakening is slow in
coming, and Americans at large are not raising
voices of concern at outright lying [and]
distortion of the simplest of truths ...
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Feb 14,
'06)
Re Delhi and
Beijing tread warily [Feb 14] by Mohan Malik:
It seems to me the title to this article is
deliberately coined to mislead. This article is
not an analytical study of the present
relationship or the future evolving relationship
between these two Asian giants but a passionate
advocacy of an Indian alliance with the US. This
propaganda piece is studded with gems of starkly
biased interpretations of events and unsupported
conclusions made on still-evolving developments
and trends on the Asian continent. Readers would
be bored to death if each and every one of these
charges of Chinese "expansionism" is rebutted. It
is enough to say that after reading the entire
article I came away with the impression that Mr
Malik's unstated conclusion can only be that
India's future is so bleak that the only way for
India to escape being smothered by China is to
quickly sign up for the premier membership of an
"axis of containment" made up of the US, Japan,
India and Australia.
Chan Ah Tee
Malaysia (Feb 14, '06)
Re When a Muslim
paints nude Hindu gods [Feb 11]: I was told
once on ATol that the lewd display of licentious
orgies of statue-deities in the Hindu temples
represents sublime art-form erotica but please, I
request, do not house them in your temples where
you worship but keep them in the privacy of your
homes. This kind of Kama Sutra display is catching
[on] fast in the Indian films and on their TV
screens; and erotic videos have become a pride of
Indian export ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Feb 14,
'06)
Syed
Saleem Shahzad: I am trying to confirm some
information regarding the missile strike in the
Damadola region of Pakistan on January 13. I would
like to know if you stand behind your reporting:
"But the fact is that Pakistan knew in advance of
the US raid in Pakistan on Friday aimed at killing
al-Qaeda's No 2, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was
believed to be in the area. Instead, 18 civilians
were killed near the village of Damadola in the
Bajur tribal area on the Afghan border" [Pakistan's
misplaced ire over US misfire, Jan 18]. I've
checked other sources and cannot confirm anything,
other than what [Pakistani President General
Pervez] Musharraf says, [that] there were some
al-Qaeda killed in the strike, but there is not
any hard evidence of anything. I suspect there is
a lot more going on here than they want to
publicly state ...
Ted Weaver (Feb 14,
'06)
Only
one thing is confirmed, that Pakistan informed the
US in advance about a possible presence of Dr
Zawahiri in the area. However, the timing
mentioned in the cable was wrong, therefore the
missile missed Zawahiri. Contrary to Musharraf's
statement, the fact of the matter is that Zawahiri
did turn up in Bajur, stayed for lunch and left
the place soon afterward. Many hours after that
meal, the missile was fired. - Syed Saleem Shahzad
You have a great online
newspaper. The headlines are large enough for an
old man like me, but the articles are in too fine
a print to read. It is possible either to use
larger letter type or provide an option to
click-on for enlarging the [text size]?
Sherman
K Cheu (Feb 14, '06)
Most browsers have the ability
to enlarge or reduce text size. In Firefox, which
we recommend for PC/Windows users, you can
increase the size by typing Control + repeatedly
until the font is satisfactorily large (or go to
the View menu and change the size manually).
Safari, the built-in Mac OS X browser, has two
text-sizing buttons ("enlarge" and "reduce") on
the toolbar. With Internet Explorer, go to the
View menu and select "Text Size", where you will
find a few options. - ATol
In all
the so-called news revelations about Iran's
so-called quest for [nuclear] weapons, where is
the hard questioning of the "fixed" intelligence
which the USA could very well be using against its
old "enemy", Iran? Who in hell believes the USA's
word these days? Not the media - I hope. USA talks
tough - no hard questions. Iran talks tough - all
kinds of questions. Give me a break! Come on, you
news folk, start being consistent.
Serrao
(Feb 14, '06)
I take this [When a Muslim
paints nude Hindu gods, Feb 11] as an
offensive article. Ignoring M F Husain's paintings
is wrong. This man should be made accountable for
what he has done. It does not portray his artistic
skills. It shows his sick mentality. What he does
cannot be justified. He is only doing this to
malign the Hindu community. He should be banned
from publishing his so-called "art". Now by
painting Bharat Mata in the nude, he has crossed
his limits. Every patriotic national should be
opposing this. If the Danish newspapers crossed
their limits by personalizing the Prophet
Mohammed, then M F Husain has crossed all
civilized limits by his [abhorrent] pictures.
Please do not defend him and malign those who
protest.
Rashmi R G
United Kingdom (Feb 13,
'06)
Siddharth Srivastava's article
[When a Muslim
paints nude Hindu gods, Feb 11] brings out the
inherent dangers of Hinduism being misrepresented
by the very cadres who claim to be its vanguard.
It is to be noted that M F Husain has never
portrayed an unclothed Muslim woman in his
paintings, but it is also to be noted - as Mr
Srivastava points out - that traditionally
Hinduism has always been rather open about matters
pertaining to erotic art and nudity. The protests
should have been aimed at questioning the double
standards in Mr Husain's paintings, and whether
they arose out of certain prejudices, and not that
they offended Hindus per se. All the protests have
achieved thus far is portray Hinduism has "yet
another religion" averse to free speech, when
India has one of the strongest argumentative
traditions alive on the planet. On a different
note, Draupadi is not a Hindu deity, Mr
Srivastava. She was the main woman character in
the epic Mahabharata.
Aruni
Mukherjee
University of
Warwick, England (Feb 13, '06)
It is all too apparent that
Siddharth Srivastava has a poor understanding of
Hindu thought or opinion [When a Muslim
paints nude Hindu gods, Feb 11] ... It is
shameful at best to compare the peaceful reaction
of Hindus to the denigration of Hinduism by a
Muslim painter, to the violent, conditioned ...
response of Muslims in general to the Mohammed
cartoons. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
The painter M F Husain, living in a Hindu-majority
country, had the audacity and the insensitivity to
paint a Hindu goddess as well as Mother India in
the nude in compromising poses. He did that only
because he knew that he could take advantage of
the incredible tolerance that Hindu society in
general has. The flip side that Srivastava fails
to realize is, why did he not paint any Muslim
figures in the nude? If he [had done] so he would
have been killed long ago ... No Hindu ever raised
any reaction to his painting, which was done some
years ago, but seeing the violent protests that
Muslims have made regarding the publication of the
Mohammed cartoons, Hindus have decided that it is
time that they pruned their incredible tolerance
to a reasonable depth. No Hindu ever demanded the
life of the painter for his stupid act. Srivastava
is intellectually dishonest or downright ignorant
when he claims that the reaction to the painting
was from extremist Hindus. Most moderate Hindus
have felt insulted by the gratuitous pornography
that Husain painted, and that is not extremism. As
per the likes of Srivastava, when Muslims kill and
riot it is moderate response, and when most Hindus
are hurt and peacefully express their outrage it
is called extremism ...
Skanda
USA (Feb 13, '06)
Re When a Muslim
paints nude Hindu gods [Feb 11]: Truth be
told, this is not the first time that the
internationally known and highly regarded painter
M F Husain has incurred the wrath of Hindu
fundamentalists for painting goddesses of theirs
in the nude. However, this time, the threat of
virulent protests has pinched Mr Husain in the
purse, the more especially since his paintings
command millions, and he has to withdraw them from
sale at fashionable auction rooms.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Feb 13,
'06)
Siddharth Srivastava belongs
to the content-free-but-controversial
headline-writer category [When a Muslim
paints nude Hindu gods, Feb 11]. As usual he
misses the mark. I have seen the paintings that
are in question by M F Husain where he has
portrayed Hindu gods not just in nudity but in
fornicating positions. They are tasteless. They
are no comparison to the graceful sculptures on
the walls of Hindu temples that have for centuries
depicted the same. In fact he has a painting of a
Hindu god doing it to a bull. The question to be
asked is, "Can a non-Muslim paint one of these
about a Muslim godly person and get away with it?"
As you can see, the Islamic world's response has
been one of "no reason" but only death and
violence to the non-Muslim world for the slightest
intellectual provocation. It's not the Hindu
extremist but all Hindus that I have talked to who
are up in irritation with M F Husain taking
liberties. Mr Srivastava is all about [provoking]
Hindus. He is not about intelligent reporting. Let
us remember Hindus are not advocating violence
like the Muslims are doing towards the Danish
cartoons but [for] the rule of law to take
over and stop M F Husain. Let me remind you that
Hindus are a socially liberal and cultured people
like Europeans are when it comes to art. The issue
has never been one of the religion of the artist.
I myself possess some paintings of M F Husain's
nude paintings of Hindu gods. I believe he is a
third-rate artist and I found these paintings
cheap and so I bought them. But it does not offend
me. But the new paintings are of a different breed
and the response of the Muslim world to
intellectual provocation to cartoons is a
different breed. Hence Hindus will demand some
respect for their religions.
Dirtydog
San Francisco, California
(Feb 13, '06)
This is on the article by
Siddharth Srivastava When a Muslim
paints nude Hindu gods (Feb 11). I have no
problem with M F Husain painting Hindu gods naked.
In a deeper sense they are just deities, not the
cosmic form of god as understood. In Hinduism
there are two ways to communicate to God - either
by "Gan Marga" (through knowledge) or "Bhaji
Marga" (love and prayer). Painting deities for
either ways in vision to reach God is fine.
However, in general, masses are hurt, without
knowing the sentiments of the painter, but the way
they are projected in the media. Being hurt and
protesting is perfectly fine, unless you take law
and order in hand or threaten someone for the
revenge in unlawful ways ... Hinduism has survived
longer than any other religion in the world
without trying to spread it.
Ayush
Orlando, Florida (Feb 13,
'06)
Had
Ronan Thomas [Blasts from the
past: Bikini 60 years on, Feb 11] read Robert
Wilcox's Japan's Secret
War: Japan's Race against Time to Build Its Own
Atomic Bomb, he would know that the third
atomic-bomb test was Japan's - too little and too
late to change the outcome of World War II. And
had he read Ken Silverstein's book on David Hahn,
The Radioactive Boy Scout,
the true story of a boy and his back-yard
nuclear reactor, he would not claim a "huge
financial cost" to join the nuclear club ...
Doug
Baker
Alameda,
California (Feb 13, '06)
It is very interesting in the
article Hamas's lesson
for Indonesia and the US [Feb 11] [that] where
democracy has been planted by the US, the voters
seem to vote in the radicals and, in the case of
Palestine, even a terrorist group, Hamas, to run
their country. This is a victory for the electoral
process. No longer can the average Muslim claim he
or she, given the chance, would not vote in the
most theocratic, anti-Western radicals and at the
same time try to claim they are "moderates" in
this ongoing global Islamic terror.With democracy
their electoral votes will reveal to the world
exactly how the average Muslim expresses his/her
true thoughts.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 13,
'06)
Re China's energy
insecurity and Iran's crisis by Kaveh L
Afrasiabi [and] Making the
bamboo bend by Michael Chang [both Feb 10]: At
different times the Americans have ratcheted [up]
the tension over the so-called "China threat" and
demanding that China "prove" to the satisfaction
of the US that it is not working to challenge the
supremacy of the US in Asia or anywhere in the
world. And depending on its need to intimidate or
cajole China, the US government had used terms
like "congagement", "strategic partners" or
"strategic competitors" to denote the
Sino-American relationship. China reacted by
making some concessions, but no major policy
change over major issues like those relating to
North Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc has ever taken
place. During the period of the ascendancy of the
neo-cons the Americans had tried to convince China
and the world that they would be willing to turn
the world upside down in the pursuits of their
national interests and their "mission" to free and
democratize the world. So far China does not look
like it is convinced. North Koreans, Venezuelans,
Iranians, etc [have] called the bluffs. The reason
is simple. The Americans are continuing to reap a
hugely disproportionate share of benefits from
this "globalization". Yes, it is greedy for more,
for sure, but it is neither desperate nor is it as
sure of its own strategy as it would like the rest
of the world to believe. Both the alarmists and
the US-worshippers have been played. The American
is not like the scorpion in the age-old story
which stings the tortoise to death while it is
being carried across the river on the back of the
said tortoise and thus seals its (scorpion's) own
fate. As one character in the Shakespearean play
Hamlet has it, "There
is art in his madness!" The neo-cons may appear
mad to some, but they are not mad enough to commit
suicide.
Chan Ah Tee
Malaysia (Feb 13, '06)
Lora Saalman introduces her
article Smoke signals
from BAT's North Korea venture (Feb 8) by
informing us that DPRK [Democratic People's
Republic of Korea] leader Kim Jong-il recently
traveled by luxury train all the way to south
China. How does she know it was a "luxury" train,
and did she expect him to spend 24 hours sitting
in the hard-seats section of a jam-packed Chinese
train? This slipshod prose sets the tone for the
rest of the article, which is a farrago of
unfounded accusations and malicious innuendo.
Saalman offers not one single shred of evidence
for any of the charges of wrongdoing against the
DPRK. We are regaled with "accounts of
money-laundering", "allegations swirl", "implied
misconduct", "alleged WMD" (ring a bell?) "what
appeared to be", "drugs thought to have come from
North Korea", "Daesong is suspected of",
"purported involvement", "alleged ties between",
"indirect ties to Macau suggest", "reported to
have been involved with", "suspected military
assistance to", "they could be aiding and abetting
financing that is alleged to". It gets worse: We
are informed that the DPRK has a "poor track
record of allocating resources to its people".
Says who? "Sogyong boasts circuitous and often
indirect ties ... to proliferation and
money-laundering." In which forum does Sogyong
[do] this boasting about illegal activities? And
if they're circuitous and indirect, how did
Saalman find out about them - especially in light
of her bleating further on that "nothing is
clear-cut in North Korean business relations"
because of a "lack of transparency"? Furthermore,
there is a "legion of obstacles impeding
transparency in North Korea". This opacity is
presumably to blame for Saalman's not knowing that
there are no private business companies in the
DPRK (apart from the foreign side of joint
ventures). They are all organs of the government.
So it is pointless of her to complain about
"shared contacts" which have been traced through
the joint use of the same fax numbers. The
contacts are not shared with competitors or
rivals. Saalman is downright irresponsible when
she spreads rumors about British American Tobacco
and Banco Delta Asia. Again, no evidence; just
insinuation. Briefly: "A direct connection between
Daesong-BAT and the sinewy Daesong franchise has
yet to be established." So there's no evidence of
any such connection. "Banco Delta Asia may have
three degrees of separation [whatever that means]
between it and Sogyong. This does not preclude
cooperation." It doesn't preclude the moon from
being made of green cheese, either. Saalman cites
as authorities on the DPRK's alleged [I'm falling
into the habit now!] misdeeds "European expert
monitors", with no clue as to who they are, but
one assumes that they are not fazed by North
Korea's "lack of transparency", and the CIA [US
Central Intelligence Agency]. For crying out loud!
Even the US president doesn't believe what the CIA
tells him. From the sublime to the ridiculous:
there are parts of this article which give off a
whiff of illiteracy. For instance, Saalman uses
"belies" when she means "underlies", making
nonsense of that particular sentence, and she
talks about North Korea's "fishbowl of finance". A
fishbowl is a metaphor for clarity: you can see
everything that's going on. Not what she meant,
obviously.
Paul White
Editor, Korea Business
Review
Beijing, China (Feb 13,
'06)
With
all due respect to the Spengler column [Why can't
Muslims take a joke? Feb 7], Jews have always
had a higher literacy rate than the rest of the
population, and that includes the Dark and Middle
Ages in Europe, never mind the Near and Middle
East. And that included females, too.
Wolf
Terner (Feb 13, '06)
In trying to dismiss fears
about the negative consequences of a US-led attack
on Iran, Mohan [letter, Feb 10] makes a number of
shaky claims. He writes: "This time around [in
comparison to the war on Iraq] the USA is getting
involved in this dirty business in tow with its
European allies; the only ones who might be left
out will be Russia and certainly China." Mohan
seems to have forgotten that Europe was indeed
initially supportive of the USA in confronting
Saddam Hussein, but balked when the US opted for
military action that Europe saw as precipitate. In
the case of Iran, the dynamic is not terribly
different - Europe is confronting Iran yet has
expressly stated a desire for diplomacy and an
opposition to military action. If the US does
launch an attack, it is hardly clear that Europe -
with its citizens already mistrustful and
embittered at the US over Iraq - will follow
along. Furthermore, while Europeans are indeed
alarmed at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran,
many Europeans are equally uncomfortable with the
possession by the USA itself of thousands of
nuclear weapons, since Armageddon-obsessed
Christian fundamentalists are prominent in US
politics these days. Mohan takes an obligatory
swipe at China ("the Western press will simply
ignore its rantings") even though China has
largely taken a cautious, nuanced line thus far on
the issue; Mohan is attacking his own straw man
here. Finally, Mohan ludicrously suggests that the
US could simply conduct limited, surgical air
strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and
eschew a more intensive, ground-based military
campaign - even though US military leaders
themselves, in their mock war games as reported in
The Atlantic Monthly in late 2004, have noted that
such limited strikes would be unsuccessful due to
the Iran nuclear program's dispersion and poor
intelligence, and that a longer, far more painful
military campaign would be necessary. For Mohan to
then state, "I guess the USA and Israel will come
out with only a little scratch," is sheer fantasy.
This war, if it were to occur, would be hellish
for both sides.
Mike Kroft
New York, USA (Feb 13,
'06)
The
September 11 [2001] attacks tarnished the image of
the Muslim community in the sight of the world.
Instead of regaining its lost image or mending its
broken image, it is doing more harm to itself by
taking recourse to violent protests against the
publication of [cartoons depicting the] Prophet
Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. Aggression against
life and property shows the Muslims in a bad
light, or rather in their true colors. As one born
in a Muslim family of Assam, Muslims are my best
friends and their welfare is my prime concern.
Hence this advice that my Master gave me I give to
them: Love your enemies, do good to them who hate
you, bless them who curse you and pray for them
who mistreat you.
Omar Luther King
Delhi, India (Feb 13,
'06)
Violence being perpetrated
these days by Muslim zealots for ideological
reasons that concern the Prophet Mohammed goes
well beyond the protests against the Danish
cartoons. Concurrent with the cartoon protests
that have captivated the media's attention,
inter-sectarian violence among Sunnis, Shi'as and
Ahmediyyas is being waged on a large scale in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Indonesia. It appears that Islamic fundamentalists
are volatile and intolerant by nature. Their
violent eruptions based on arcane distinctions in
Islamic ideology are almost normal but go mostly
unnoticed until the West becomes embroiled in some
manner.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Feb 13, '06)
Americans seem beholden, in
their profoundly disaffected credulity, to view
Islam as one among many of the rich threads which
make up the beautiful tapestry of cultural and
religious diversity in [the United States]. They
forget that most Muslims are equally vexed by a
different moral imperative that spurs them to view
the rest of humanity, Americans in particular, as
part of a great evil force upon humanity that must
be radically transformed or gotten rid of, at all
costs. Hence the wildly extrapolative chants of
"down with the US" in response to a parodied
depiction of their esteemed Prophet by a Danish
publication that had no ties whatsoever with the
United States. The question that probably lingers
in many people's minds after witnessing this
arguably disproportionate response to a few
provocative doodles is: if Islam is truly the
peaceful religion those who continually defend it
say it is, why aren't more peace-loving Muslims
(who presumably constitute the majority who vouch
for this assertion) openly condemning these
violent acts in the name of their religion? Why
have so few Muslims in positions of leadership
found the incentive to vigorously decry these acts
of violence?
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts
(Feb 13, '06)
[The] New York Times said it
all [this week] on page 1. Leaders of 57 Muslim
nations in December 2005 decided to arouse the
passions of the Islamic world by banging the drums
loudly on the issue of months-old cartoons
satirizing ... Mohammed. To deflect the rage of
internal dissent against tyrannical Muslim
governments, these leaders sought an easy target:
Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper in which
these caricatures first appeared. This
orchestrated campaign had an undesired effect in
that it began the healing of divisions among
Western nations, to stand up against blind
passion. Not since ayatollah [Ruhollah] Khomeini's
fatwa denouncing The Satanic Verses and its
author Salman Rushdie has the world seen
exhibitions of lawless behavior in the name of
religion. Thus in spite of Ehsan Ahrari's
discourse on the wrongs and evils of Western
nations vis-a-vis the Arab or the Muslim world [United states -
minus United States, Feb 10], we see an
exercise of flummery and distortion of nations who
are afraid of change and of their own people, and
thereby find a ready and quick solution in blaming
others but not themselves.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 10,
'06)
Many
writers have overlooked some important
implications of the response of the Bush
administration about the cartoons that have
downgraded the Prophet and Islam. Historically,
Marxism did not succeed in the Muslim world
because it was against religion. Consequently,
many nationalistic movements appeared to lead the
struggle against imperialism and colonialism, and
many countries were able to have their political
and economic independence. The Bush administration
by not condemning the cartoons has really given
many Muslims the clear impression that [the United
States of] America and capitalism are
anti-Muslims, given that capitalism and America
have no such hatred toward Islam. In other words,
many Muslims will think that democracy is against
Islam. This thinking about the nature of Western
capitalism and democracy will have more dangerous
consequences for America and the West than the war
in Iraq. The Bush administration has to rethink
its decision about the cartoons; otherwise,
America, democracy, and capitalism will be equated
in the Muslim countries with communism, and many
of them will turn against these institutions that
the Bush administration has been trying to
establish. The second implication is that the
acceptance of the cartoons as a form of freedom is
a misleading statement. It is misleading because
ideology has been manifested in these cartoons
which in turn reflect an action that hurts other
people, namely the Muslims. The damage may be
physical or emotional or both. In my opinion the
action has similar consequences as the act of
terrorism. Since we reject the latter, people have
to condemn and categorically reject the former. If
we do not, then the case against terrorism is
lost. Many people will consider the rejection of
terrorism and the acceptance of the cartoons as
another form of a double standard, where the
powerful groups impose their will on the weak. The
third implication is that many governments
friendly to the Bush administration will have a
fundamental problem in convincing their people to
be at peace with those who downgrade their
religion. That is to say, the Bush administration,
for example, is asking too much from the king of
Jordan and other heads of state. In short, I think
the Bush administration has made a grave mistake
by not rejecting the cartoons, and this action, if
it is not corrected, will have greater negative
consequences on capitalism and freedom, as people
will consider them as means to loot their physical
and spiritual wealth.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Feb 10,
'06)
The US
government has not condoned the Jyllands-Posten
cartoons. President George W Bush said this week
that press freedom comes with "the responsibility
to be thoughtful about others". Speaking at the
same White House media briefing, visiting King
Abdullah II of Jordan said: "With all respect to
press freedoms, obviously anything that vilifies
the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, or
attacks Muslim sensibilities, I believe, needs to
be condemned." The Bush administration has not
contradicted that stance publicly. - ATol
I am
becoming a loyal reader of ATol. I would like to
comment on the violence resulted from the Danish
cartoon. I am not a Muslim hater. However, I would
like to remind the readers [that] a few years ago
a Muslim country was shelling a Buddha statue. I
was upset but none of the Buddhists set fires
anywhere in the world. I wonder if that was a good
reason to convert everybody to Buddhism. I also
want to comment on letter writer Jakob Cambria. On
the surface he is non-biased, bashing everything.
But he is consistent with one thing: pro-Japanese
and anti-Chinese. I consider he might be endorsed
by ATol since he is always on this board and
apparently a lot of other letter writers got
edited out (see Aseem Shrivastava's response to
readers on Feb 10).
Tong Huang
Beijing, China (Feb 10,
'06)
Jakob
Cambria indeed writes frequent letters, but the
reason most of them are not "edited out" is that
they are usually not gratuitously offensive,
too long, or so poorly written as to be
incomprehensible. Aseem Shrivastava was referring
to e-mails sent directly to him, not to Asia Times
Online. - ATol
I see
a lot of people predicting a huge disaster or a
failure on the lines of Iraq [for the] USA if it
attacks Iran. I think these people are missing
some points. This time around the USA is getting
involved in this dirty business in tow with its
European allies; the only ones who might be left
out will be Russia and certainly China. So
whatever goes wrong here (in Iran), no one is
going to cry foul over the USA, since everyone is
involved, and [as] for China, the Western press
will simply ignore its rantings. The second point
is, the USA [is] not getting involved to have a
regime change in Iran - there are no Ahmad
Chalabis guiding the Americans here. The basis for
UN intervention in Iran is strong and acceptable
(to prevent Iran from enriching uranium, which it
might secretly [use] to develop nuclear weapons)
and the intervention will most probably be in the
form of sanctions and, more important, swift
surgical strikes on suspected nuclear plants and
defense installations rather than protracted
warfare as in Iraq (everything will be over even
before Iran blinks its eye) and painful rebuilding
measures. [As for the] follow-up process of aid
and restoration of Iran's prestige, [that] will be
done by the UN with all its orderlies. The most
important bonus for the USA will be distancing
Iran from countries like India and Japan - India,
[which carries] considerable diplomatic weight in
the NAM [Non-Aligned Movement], and Japan by way
of it aid. This will affect Tehran in two ways,
one financially and diplomatically. So, when you
consider these points, I guess the USA and Israel
will come out with only a little scratch.
Mohan
Germany (Feb 10, '06)
I just wanted to take a minute
to tell you that I really enjoy your paper and
read it daily. Articles written from an Asian
perspective instead of an American perspective
enhance my understanding of world events. Keep up
the good work.
Dan Michalski (Feb 10,
'06)
Aseem
Shrivastava responds to readers
I have received a huge number
of (predominantly positive) responses (more than
50) to my article The misplaced
defense of free speech (Feb 7). I also notice
that there are several people who have written
letters to the editor. Many of the questions and
concerns expressed are common. So, instead of
responding to each one separately, I have written
up a response. To read it, please click
here.
Aseem Shrivastava (Feb 9,
'06)
Reading the Gareth Porter
article US fuels Iran's
nuclear policy (Feb 9), I was pleased with the
common-sense logic that if it is pursuing nuclear
weapons, Iran may be pursuing major weapons to
deter attack from a belligerent USA. Mr Porter
just gives us some facts to back up the common
sense. As Nelson Mandela pointed out, the USA is
the most dangerous country in the world today. Mr
Mandela's comment was again common sense, since
the USA has by far and away the largest military
arsenal, the greatest interest in capturing world
resources, and the worst administration in
decades. (And by the way, Iran says its nuclear
research is peaceful and that may indeed be so -
but, of course, that doesn't fit the USA's agenda
for capturing Mideast oil.) Reading the Pew
Research Center (for the People and the Press)
article Iran a growing
danger, Bush gaining on spy issue (Feb 7),
referenced on [ATol's Front Page], I was dismayed
to learn that a USA poll showed an 18% increase,
from 9% to 27% over four months, of citizens who
think Iran is a major threat to the USA. A major
threat to what? The USA's hegemonic dominance in
the world order? To your Aunt Matilda down the
street? To what? (Remember we're talking about a
danger to the USA, not to Israel or other
countries.) Mr Porter's article and the Pew Center
article, taken together, really do depress me. The
actions of the USA are possibly the cause of
Iran's actions. Yet 27% of people of the USA
perceive Iran as a growing threat. Excuse me? If
the USA is causing Iran's actions, shouldn't logic
point to the USA as the problem? Haven't we got
this the wrong way around? Why am I depressed?
It's because I have a growing perception that the
citizens of the USA have become docile,
directionless puppets (maybe apathetic puppets?)
in the cynical hands of manipulating or
manipulated USA media. Where are these great
American minds, high-minded philosophies, and
active citizens that the USA used to boast of?
Gone - back in the next generation (maybe). (PS:
After the Pew document, I can hardly wait for the
headline article: "USA Declares War on Oil
Addiction", in which the USA declares that it's
someone else's fault that the USA is addicted to
oil and the USA had better bomb them to make them
stop ...)
Jonathan
United Kingdom (Feb 9,
'06)
In [US digs in for
'Long War', Feb 9], Ehsan Ahrari says, "Thanks
to the US invasion of Iraq, al-Qaeda became less
of a threat as an organization." Why do you post
Mr Ahrari's thoughts? Why not go straight to the
Pentagon? Or is it Mr Ahrari's role to carry the
propaganda can now that Judith Miller is hors de combat?
Harald
Hardrada
New York, New
York (Feb 9, '06)
Re Fighting on all
fronts [Feb 9]: In 1964, Fred J Cook's The Warfare State came
out. It was an indictment of America's
military-industrial complex. The Bush
administration's 2007 proposed budget, which
generously favors the Pentagon and Homeland
Security, is but another example of turning the
United States permanently into a state of war
readiness. The Bush imperial doctrine of
preemptive war requires the strangling of civil
society for the benefit of the arms merchants ...
We are not in Bernard Shaw's Major Barbara. There
Undershaft grandly boasts of the beneficence of
the merchants of war: homes and social benefits
for workers, money for education and the arts.
[President George W] Bush stays from distributing
such benefits to Americans at large. Instead he
looks to cut funds for education, housing,
Medicare and Medicaid. His hand is ready to
redistribute the economic pie to his class of
coupon clippers and industrialists and the
financiers. His new budget will further stretch
the ballooning debt, and in the end shake the
pillars of the capitalist temple, for he is a
Samson shorn of locks. It is further proof that
the legacy Mr Bush hopes to leave behind will be
as lasting as Ozimandias' in the sands of time.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Feb 9,
'06)
The
article The misplaced
defense of free speech (Feb 7) by Aseem
Shrivastava was excellent indeed. I might add some
rather interesting happenings so dutifully
forgotten by the mainstream media, [but which
would] give billions of people further insight
[into] what and why things go so horribly wrong.
(1) Iraq switched from the US dollar to the euro
for its oil before being liberated from the euro
dominance by the US, UK and the "willing". (2) The
new petroleum exchange in Iran, due to start
operating next month. [This third exchange in the
world after New York and London will] take the
euro as payment. [For the answer to] why there
seems to be such a taboo on the issue, one needs
to ask our free press. Anything else, regardless
how remotely connected to the black gold, is
endlessly repeated over and over again. It appears
it's just not politically correct to let us know.
Do I detect a [hairline] crack in the coating of
free speech and information ... ?
Leo
Berger
Bern,
Switzerland (Feb 9, '06)
Asia Times Online contributors
have examined the Iranian oil bourse issue from a
number of perspectives. See for example What the Iran
'nuclear issue' is really about (Jan 21) and Killing the
dollar in Iran (Aug 26,
'05). - ATol
Spengler [Why can't
Muslims take a joke? Feb 7]: Beautiful article
(as usual). I shall join you drinking and eating
only Danish beer and pastries until the ridiculous
boycott of Danish products in Arab countries is
over.
Safa Haeri (Feb 9,
'06)
I wish
to comment on Why can't
Muslims take a joke? [Feb 7] and I would like
to add to what Chan Ah Tee wrote [letter, Feb 8],
which I found relevant to the point. First, let me
express my repugnance at the ongoing violence
causing so many deaths, injury and destruction of
properties around the Muslim world. It was caused
by ugliness of mind in publishing those hideous
cartoons and the effect was deliberately setting
fire to a very dry forest and watching the fun. I
believe firmly that the invasion of Afghanistan
and Iraq and subsequent killing of over 150,000
innocent Muslim men, women, children and elders
and destruction of their homes and way of life by
the American and European troops [have] a lot to
do with the quiescent anger now demonstrated by
the Muslims of all ages and ignited by the
perfidious proclivity [of the] Western press. The
fact of the matter is that you cannot push 1.3
billions Muslims against the wall and tell them to
shut [up] or die; there is a limit to tolerance
and endurance as there is a limit how to express
yourself, which is also so strictly observed by
ATol when our letters are rightly or wrongly
censored. I would like to say to a lot of readers
of ATol that what a Muslim does and what Islam
preaches are two separate issues: a Muslim has no
right to be called a Muslim unless he believes in
peace (as-salaam),
love, harmony, hope and mercy by reflecting piety
and righteousness in their deeds. We believe that
the aim of the creation of man with the dual
capacity would remain unfulfilled if he does not
maintain a harmonious equilibrium between the
requirements of body and soul simultaneously. The
basic of Islamic nationality is religious and not
ethnic, linguistic or regional ...
Saqib
Khan
London, England
(Feb 9, '06)
Why can't
Muslims take a joke? [Feb 7] Spengler asks.
The short answer is that given [US President
George W] Bush's slaughters in Iraq, it isn't a
joke.
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (Feb 9,
'06)
Adduce
religious evidence (Spengler at
least thrice, Jan 10, Feb 1 and Feb 7), but at its
inadequacy slip not into claiming the mere
sociological. Set before us is asymmetry stacking
Jewish and Christian versus Islamic. This can
equally be accused of sighting telescopically
through the wrong end, for the Islamic and Jewish
stack just as well, [though] differently, versus
the Christian in terms of revelatory affinities.
(As usual, the Jewish is stuck in a possible
tug-of-war; would that today's Muslims pull a bit
nicely.) Considering world political
configurations of today, it is almost unbearable
to look through either end of the telescope. One
need not fear treading murky unsafe "monotheisms",
and these three must be gotten through, as it
were, so the grand trialogue can occur, with
players not as most would suspect, but [among]
serious Chinese, Indian and Jewish
traditionalists. All three bear great wisdom of
great antiquity, but there is great delay in not
absorbing what's due from Islamic sources. Better
data, better sociology even.
D
Vernon
Toronto, Ontario
(Feb 9, '06)
Syed Saleem Shahzad says [in
response to Rashid Hassan's letter, Feb 8], "In
his daily life, a serious Muslim would always
think, 'What would Mohammed do in such a case?'
and then interpret the idea." Perhaps if Muslims
actually did what Syed Saleem Shahzad says they
do, there wouldn't be these riots and these
demands that Denmark apply Muslim taboos to their
own society. What if Denmark demanded that all
Muslim countries respect their taboos on Holocaust
denial? National sovereignty means that just as
the US has no right to insist on democracy in
other countries, Muslims in Lebanon or Afghanistan
have no right to tell Danish newspapers which
taboos to respect. Basically, each society has the
right to its own taboos, hypocritical or
otherwise, but no society has a right to tell any
other society how to organize itself.
David
Choweller (Feb 9, '06)
Comments and criticism are
still on regarding the blasphemed caricature of
the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). It
appears most of the people (other than Muslims)
don't understand the real issue here. Some are
saying, "Islam has been hijacked by the
fundamentalists and terrorist group." Some say,
"It was simply a cartoon, why Muslims can't take a
joke?" And some label Islam as rigid [and]
old-fashioned and [say] Muslims are still living
in the Dark Ages. Without offense to anyone, I
have to remind those critics and commentators that
they are not qualified to comment on this issue
unless they are not aware deep down of the basics
of Islam. Without going into detail, I would ask
people from other religions to read the five
"pillars" or fundamentals of Islam. One is
"believing in the oneness and omnipotence of God
and Prophet-hood of Mohammed (peace be upon him".
Let me tell you worthy readers, the first pillar
is so indispensable that if any Muslim deviates
even one-billionth part of an eyelash, he is out
of the religion and would be considered an
infidel. You can't compare the Prophet Mohammed
(peace be upon him) with [Adolf] Hitler, [Ariel]
Sharon, the Holocaust, Israel, President [George
W] Bush or any other person or institution so you
can draw cartoons or make jokes on the David
Letterman late-night show. The unrest and reaction
after the publication of the cartoon, which
brought umbrage to the Muslim world, has nothing
to do with a handful of terrorists or
fundamentalists, but this is one solid voice of
over 1 billion Muslims around the globe. This is
not the first time Muslims all over the world have
reacted so intensely against the desecrated of the
Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) and the Koran
but have also demonstrated the same kind of
outrage even before [September 11, 2001] and the
words "fundamentalist" and "terrorist" were
introduced to the civilized world. What about
Salman Rushdie's The
Satanic Verses, which rocked the Muslim world
almost two decades back?
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Feb 9, '06)
Re Iran and the
jaws of a trap [Feb 3]: Paul Levian seems to
be living in utopia. All of the USA's overseas
adventures have been disasters. Why has it not
dealt with Pakistan, a known sponsor of terrorism
and a peddler of nuke technology? When will people
like Levian realize that the USA is a spent force
living on the earnings of other nations?
Sandran
Karupaiah (Feb 9, '06)
Syed Saleem Shahzad: I think
you are right about the impact of the cartoons [Stoking the
jihadi fires, Feb 8]. Whether it is cartoons
or bombing of Bajur, such unfortunate incidents
are only going to play into the hands of jihadis.
You seem to be very interested in [a] "summer
offensive" and I think the time might be right to
make a formal application to be embedded [with the
jihadis] to be able to give a first-hand account
of when they do launch the offensive, exactly in
the same manner as members of other media do in
the conflicts in the oil-rich areas.
Rashid
Hassan (Feb 8, '06)
The West has to understand one
basic thing: Muslims do not simply love Mohammed
as a character from history books. He is made
ideal by the Koran. Therefore Muslims refer to his
life and traditions in their routine life. In his
daily life, a serious Muslim would always think,
"What would Mohammed do in such a case?" and then
interpret the idea. If the West tries to play
around and satirize this kind of an ideal,
problems will definitely emerge. - Syed Saleem
Shahzad
[Re Stoking the
jihadi fires, Feb 8] On the CBS Evening News in the USA,
[former Pakistani ambassador to the United
Kingdom] Akbar Ahmed was asked, while the offense
[taken at the Danish cartoons] could be
understood, why the level of violence? Mr Ahmed
replied that it was analogous to the desecration
of [the US] flag or of Jesus or Moses. There the
interview ended with no one pointing out that in
the Muslim world desecration of the American flag
occurs on an almost daily basis, that Jesus and
others are satirized in movies and comedy shows,
but no one can point to an occasion in the West
where anybody was killed or a building burned or a
riot started over it. Freedom in the West, unlike
"freedom" in the Muslim world, is freedom for all,
even those who offend us ...
Ico Uce
(Feb 8, '06)
Regarding Axel Berkofsky's
article Japan, North
Korea all talk, no action [Feb 8], it could be
said that even [Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro]
Koizumi's initiative to visit North Korea two
times was a temporary action for Japan to solve
the issue of the abducted Japanese citizens by
Pyongyang. Engagement with North Korea and opening
talks to normalize relations with this country,
however, [have] never been a part of Japan's
foreign policy and it is also not expected to
happen before settling the abduction issue. That
is why they [have not been] able to get any result
in all negotiations they have conducted so far.
Shirzad
Azad
Tokyo, Japan (Feb 8,
'06)
Re How Malaysia
sees Thailand's southern strife [Feb 8]:
Borders are porous. Malaysia with its majority
Muslim population has to tiptoe around the
question of Islamic fundamentalist guerrilla
warfare in southern Thailand. Saying this, Kuala
Lumpur is not between a rock and hard place; it is
ambivalent in fighting [Islamist] terror lest it
arouse the discontented fundamentalists among its
own population, and in particular in the state of
Kelantan which borders on Thailand: a state which
has imposed sharia law and where strict Muslims
held the majority in the state government.
Kelantan serves as a backland for the Thai Muslim
terrorists. There, the Thai Muslims take refuge
and rest and find aid in kind and armaments. If we
have not forgotten, Kuala Lumpur has never been
hot on the trail of Islamic terrorists: it has
housed those from Indonesia and in its [schools]
and Islamic universities; it has offered haven for
fundamentalists from Indonesia and even the United
States.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 8, '06)
Question for Spengler: Is it
greater literacy or loss of religious beliefs that
leads to declining populations? Until his latest
article [Why can't
Muslims take a joke? Feb 7] he has always
argued the latter. Has he changed his mind or is
he equivocating? How does he explain the
gargantuan population of secular/literate mainland
China?
Jose R Pardinas (Feb 8,
'06)
Re Why can't
Muslims take a joke? [Feb 7] by Spengler: As
the popular saying goes, "You can't be a little
pregnant. You are either pregnant or you are not."
My prognostication is that as far as religions go
you either believe in them or you don't, period.
According to Spengler both Christianity and
Judaism have been taken apart by the secular
intellectuals over the centuries. And as such they
have been "reformed", modernized and made
adaptable to modern life. I can't agree. In my
opinion what they did were mere tinkerings. The
continued existence of both religions in modern
societies owes little or nothing to such
tinkering. The need for a religion in certain
individuals has little to do with his literacy and
intellectual sophistication or lack of which. A
religion is believed in whether it is "modernized"
or not ... Mr Spengler, can you get more converts
to Christianity by telling them that God was an
intelligent alien being from outer space who had
injected his sperm into the virgin Mary and then
delivered Jesus, the infant, by means of a
Caesarean operation? (Remember, all these have to
be done in a stable.) This is true "modernization"
compared to the numerous tinkerings of religious
texts you implied in your article. My point is
[that] Mr Spengler and other arrogant Westerners
should get down from their high horses telling
Muslims that they should "modernize" their
religion to the satisfaction of the West.
Chan Ah
Tee
Malaysia (Feb 8,
'06)
The misplaced
defense of free speech (Feb 7) was perhaps the
most pathetic excuse of opinion-based journalism I
have read in quite a long time. The
Western-bashing by Henry C K Liu's [five-part
series] Money, Power and
Modern Art [Dec '04-Jan '05] doesn't hold a
candle to the nonsense of [Aseem] Shrivastava -
and I have followed ATimes for a while, and
usually find it insightfully critical of the West.
At least Mr Liu took the time to back his
perspective with historical perspectives generally
perceived as truth-based, however rose-colored ...
The word Mr Shrivastava was looking for in his
"little philosophical preamble" was not
"malapropism" of his characterization of current
Western values, but "weak propaganda" dripping in
completely unsupported contentions. His madness
continues with the innocent "Why is it so hard to
understand that there are millions of people
living today who still have not lost their faith,
who are not prey to wealthy nihilism and its
frivolous excesses, who still run their lives
along disciplined religious lines?" Show me where
[the Koran approves] of the posture by the radical
clerics and protesters - supposedly believers of
Islamic law. And I notice nothing in the article
which even explains why there is a "misplaced
defense of free speech". He should have just
stated he approved of the violent response to
those cartoons ... There is nothing quite like the
blind preaching hate-mongering to the blind. Today
that includes Asia Times [Online].
Mark
Jetmir
Los Angeles,
California (Feb 8, '06)
Thank you for Spengler's,
Ehsan Ahrari's [and others'] coverage of the
Mohammed cartoons. What is missing from the
analysis and debate is some background and
research on who is benefiting from and perhaps
exacerbating this conflict. It is striking that
these cartoons were published in September 2005,
but are becoming a major global debate and
conflagration months later. The origin of the
cartoons was in response to a children's-book
author being unable to find an illustrator for a
book about Islam. The illustrators were afraid for
their lives. My sense is that the issue or even
the cartoons are not what is behind this global
terror-reaction. It may be coincidence, but since
the Danish cartoons were published, there was a
massive earthquake calamity in Pakistan that seems
to be a humanitarian failure of catastrophic
proportions. Much more recently, and almost as
usual again, hundreds of pilgrims have again died
making their hajj
pilgrimage to Mecca. The cartoons' violent
reactions began in earnest after the hajj ended this winter. My
sense is that certain extremist and pro-violence
elements are taking advantage of Islam to turn
attention away from the failure of Saudi Arabia to
peacefully and efficiently manage the hajj and safeguard the
holy sites of Islam. It is much easier to incite
spectacular protests and violence to distract the
public from the failure of a nation to safeguard
its pilgrims, and the failure of the world to
assist desperate Pakistanis in their time of need
while oil economies reap record windfall profits
due to the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, right-wingers
in Europe and the US, as well as liberals, get to
cluck-cluck about how our civilizations are
inevitably clashing. The real clash is rapacious
greed, using propaganda to distract and divide the
publics of the world to the benefit of the
security-military-oil-industrial complex, while
the rest of us pay higher prices in blood or
money.
Enzo Titolo (Feb 8,
'06)
I have
to comment on Saqib Khan's [Feb 7] letter about
the [cartoon] controversy. First and foremost, I
do not defend the cartoons. They are clearly not
in good taste. There is nothing wrong in
peacefully protesting against them. The violent
way in which some Muslim masses are reacting,
however, is actually doing harm to their case. On
a related note, I have to speak out against
self-righteous and almost arrogant essays
emanating from Saqib Khan. This time he yells
about the "evil" directed against Islam. The kind
of things he says about people of faiths other
than Islam is disturbing. He asserts: "The trouble
with the West and people of other faiths is that
they cannot stomach the truth that Islam teaches
nothing but piety [and] righteousness and aims to
guide its followers both politically and
spiritually and prepares them for a better life
hereafter." Wow! What an audacious and arrogant
claim about us "kafirs"! He would have us believe
his Allah ... bestowed true wisdom and light
only on Saqib Khan and his co-religionists. I
hope he realizes that dogma-based exclusivity is
dangerous. Looking at the bad state of affairs in
the Middle East, perhaps he should be trying to
reform these societies [rather] than chiding us
for not "stomaching" his "truth".
Rakesh
India (Feb 8, '06)
Mohammed was a historical
person. What he did or what he preached is
history. Since this has a bearing on human society
(how many did Mohammed kill who refused to accept
Islam?), it should be perfectly all right if
someone draws a caricature or depicts what
Mohammed did. This is everybody's choice from [a
historic] point of view, not from [a religious]
point of view ...
Jambalakibamba (Feb 8,
'06)
I just
finished reading Paul Levian's Speaking Freely
submission Iran and the
jaws of a trap [Feb 3] ... There is no logic
to his assumptions on British and US military
might. He forgets that it must all be paid for by
a public that is fed up with the Iraq fiasco
already. British and US military spending [is]
already way, way over budget. Troop morale is down
in both countries. Some soldiers have started
their third tours in Iraq. While British and
American forces are redeploying, who will keep the
areas they are redeploying from in control? A
worldwide crusade of the West versus Islam is not
desirable. Perhaps Germany would join the Brits
and Yanks on this offensive against Iran. Isn't
there a large Muslim population in Germany
already, for that matter all of Western Europe?
China sees Iran as its gas station and after
losing out to the Americans in Iraq, [it] will not
suffer a second incursion. A Chinese general has
already stated that the US should worry more over
Los Angeles and Seattle than what is going on in
the Middle East. Yes, China could nuke the entire
USA's western seaboard in retaliation for the US's
attempt to hurt China's rise as a world leader
...
Bob Van den Broeck
American now living in Canada
(Feb 8, '06)
As a Muslim, I am seriously
offended by the article Why can't
Muslims take a joke? [Feb 7] by Spengler. The
title of the article is so offensive [that one
hardly needs] to talk about the contents of the
article itself. The title refers to cartoons and
jokes about the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon
him). [Westerners] who think themselves superior
and superhuman in all walks of life because of
their scientific and technological development and
richness can't understand the very simple logic
that there are [a] few things which Muslims can't
tolerate under any circumstance: disrespect and
desecration of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon
him) and the holy book the Koran. Muslims might
have 40 sects but on one subject they are united:
they can't stand offense of their religion and
pillars of Islam ... I would say two things to
Spengler and other Christians: (1) If you think
the pages of Muslim history are 1,400 years old
and thus are obsolete, don't you see what is going
on in today's world [among] Muslims? I condemn all
kinds of terrorist activities by a handful of
Muslims but what they are doing is a result of the
plight of same 1,400-year-old history and the
Koran. What part of Muslim religion you don't
understand? (2) If someone pretends he doesn't
understand Muslim psychology, Muslim blind faith
in God and his Prophet and plight in their
religion, then think for a moment about 1 billion
Muslims in 55 Muslim countries and other
territories on the planet, who can't be crazy
altogether [in] how they have reacted after the
publication of the cartoons. No one can force or
dictate their terms to 1 billion Muslims how to
live and behave. People like Spengler, Danish
cartoonists, Salman Rushdie and hundreds of
millions of Christians and other hate-mongers of
Islam should understand the difference between a
handful of Muslim terrorist groups and 1 billion
followers of Islam ...
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Feb 7, '06)
Re Why can't
Muslims take a joke? [Feb 7]: There is no
incompatibility between Islam and scientific
values if that's what modernism is about. The
movement of Islamic renaissance is much stronger
in societies with the highest literacy rate, and
as a matter of fact during the past 70 years or
so, ever since the movements of renaissance
started, they were started and galvanized by the
highly educated elite of Muslim society. Scholars,
doctors, engineers, scientists, teachers and
lawyers form the core of modern Islamist movements
worldwide. Islamic movements flourish with the
spread of literacy, and that's why Islamic
movements are mainly urban-based and that's why
Islam has been so appealing to literate North
Americans. Egypt has one of the highest literacy
rates in the modern world and therefore it is not
only the birth place of the Muslim Brotherhood,
but also it is Egypt where this movement is
strongest. See the recent election results.
Algeria is another country where the literacy rate
was highest back in early '90s, and it is there
that Islamists had almost swept into power and
were unable to do so due to non-democratic means
used by [a] semi-literate military inspired by
global forces. Islam is a very practical and
scientific faith, try it!
Rahid
Hassan (Feb 7, '06)
Regarding Spengler's Why can't
Muslims take a joke? [Feb 7], he slips in his
analysis as well as historicity when he writes,
"It is as defenseless before the bacillus of
skepticism as the American aboriginals were before
the smallpox virus." It is pertinent to recall
that at the "discovery" of the New World, the
Europeans had Christ and the aboriginals the
continent, but 200 years later it was decidedly
the other way around. Christianity is not as
liberal or rational as postulated. If Jews dare to
publish a cartoon showing Jesus in sodomy with his
disciples, I am quite sure the gas ovens will be
dotting the European countryside once again. I
write this as a Hindu and do not presume to
interfere in the Semitic internecine discourse.
Carry on.
Sanjay Kumar
Canada (Feb 7, '06)
Spengler, there are certain
things you don't joke about [Why can't
Muslims take a joke? Feb 7]. Can Jews take a
Hitler joke with regards to the Holocaust or maybe
even the denial of it? Or can Catholics take a
joke of child molestation and rape attributed to
the pope? Or do you laugh at a funeral or poke
jokes at the deceased in front of their family?
Even though I don't agree with some of the
methods, such as violence, being employed to make
their anger known, the Muslim ummah has an inalienable
right to defend its faith and its founder through
peaceful protest and boycott. If men don't stand
up for certain principles, they are just as good
as zombies. Islam is not a dead faith like others.
Also, you don't need to feed us with the obvious:
all religions, movements, cultures [and peoples]
go through phases of rise followed by a fall, a
process inherent in virtually every aspect of life
- it is how the universe was designed. There is no
constant except for Allah. Having said that, like
Christianity and Judaism, Islam will see
prosperity at the level or even beyond the level
Christian nations have, or should I say had as
[history has] seen. But decline is inevitable
...
Mahmood Ahmad (Feb 7,
'06)
My
labeling Spengler's latest [Why can't
Muslims take a joke? Feb 7] as a declasse commentary in no
way condones the burning of embassies or other
acts that bespeak non-cultured behavior normally
associated with the makers of either Carlsberg,
Bud, Miller or Coors beers. The world could be a
better place if all mankind lived in societies
that did enjoy humorous and/or satiric bons mots while imbibing
imported beer. One would like think too that
non-Muslims would appreciate such humor as
purported to be in those Danish cartoons if the
Muslim media would use similar cartoons depicting
Judeo-Christian icons. What would be hilarious too
would be the admission by certain Muslims that
they too have made use of both Jewish and
Christian "holy" books on their physiques. If
there is an uproar among Carlsberg drinkers, then
they too can claim that freedom of speech and
democracy can only be exemplified by following the
standards set by the likes Spengler. Muslims need
to hurry up and become part of the free and
humorous world so that they too are able to see
and witness how well the Judeo-Christian will
react to their jokes.
Armand De Laurell (Feb 7,
'06)
More
important, Carlsberg should be made available
again in Thailand, where ATol's letters editor
resides. It was taken off the market a couple of
years ago, which put him in a rather ill humor. -
ATol
Conjoining the provocative
(yet enjoyable) Spengler's repeated sense of the
tragically inexorable (most recently expressed in
Why can't
Muslims take a joke?, Feb 7) with the
biblically prophetic might be less than apt, but
as his topics have so much involved the religious,
we might gain comfort by adding some further
Jewish traditional clothing to his skeletally
bleak accounts, more interesting than that barely
offered by him (eg re "Edom"). It might also
enhance our appreciation of the best of Aseem
Shrivastava's piece (The misplaced
defense of free speech, also Feb 7).
"Invention" of the humor in question greatly
predates Jewish catastrophe at Roman hands. In
arguably the most humorous biblical moment,
Israelites apparently facing annihilation at
ancient Egyptian hands exclaim, "Not enough graves
in Egypt, so you had to take us to die in the
wilds?" This far more ancient attestation to a
certain state of heart-mind, a place between
"belief" and "doubt", engendering a most
intelligent if desperate humor, invites
consideration of sources of human alienation even
more overarching than those dating (merely!) from
Roman times. It is, we are traditionally told,
Ishmaelites who would have (albeit unwittingly) an
indispensable hand in the Israelite descent to
Egypt for instructional suffering in the first
place. (Another traditional source notes Arabs'
already regular trading in great antiquity in
fossil fuels, substances unpleasant enough that
the sensitive Joseph, who preceded his Israelite
family into Egypt, was as a merciful exception
carried captive in a caravan with only more
fragrant wares.) ... We should appreciate the
admixture of all peoples in all, with good lessons
from all for all ... Let these impasses resolve as
peaceably as possible before our engagement with
what awaits, a prerequisite being genuine learning
from Islam. Even beer-drinking can alcoholically
deflect from listening to a Muslim (and Jewish)
message.
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario (Feb 7,
'06)
Just
make one joke about Israel. Then we will see
freedom of speech.
Farid Lodhi
Mississauga, Ontario (Feb 7,
'06)
Aseem
Shrivistava [The misplaced
defense of free speech, Feb 7]
anachronistically chose words of the great Danish
philosopher Soren Kierkegaard as a way of
introduction to a lecture on forgotten European
culture. It is not surprising that in his nod to
the god of irony [over] the current Islamic rage
against caricatures that appeared in
Jyllands-Posten he whimsically opposes a Dane
[against] a Dane. Mr Shrivistava's European
education has served him well. By appealing to the
authority of Kierkegaard, he walks the aimless
road where objectivity and truth hold no sway.
Human reason and law have no place in his world,
for man, if one follows the thread of Aseem
Shrivistava's argument, has usurped the rights and
privileges and prerogatives of the gods. So when
the reader wades through his verbiage we find that
we poor humans, and particularly Westerners, have
set ourselves up as false idols. If Mr Shrivistava
had learned his lessons well, it would not be
without reason to remind him of Prometheus, who
stole the fire from the gods for man. And
metaphorically with light came reason. It may
disappoint him to learn that Western culture and
civilization [are] alive and in good health. The
brouhaha against the Danish caricatures exploits
the inner turmoil of a culture which is being
dragged screaming and kicking into the modern
world, like it or not.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 7, '06)
The article The misplaced
defense of free speech [Feb 7] was excellent
(and free).
W
South Carolina, USA (Feb 7,
'06)
Four
grave issues arise from the Islamic furor about
cartoons. These are their (a) highly selective
outrage, (b) total lack of proportionality, (c)
methods of protest, and (d) rights as inhering in
citizens or residents, not in private/voluntary
societies or faiths. As regards (a), which Muslims
protested publicly, if not violently, about any of
these 12 murderous bombings by the fanatical
Islamic jihadi fringe: Casablanca, Istanbul, Bali,
Madrid trains, London Underground and bus, Shi'a
mosques in Iraq, mosques in Pakistan, Lower
Manhattan Twin Towers, Sudanese massacres in
Darfur, Beslan school massacre, Nairobi, and
visitors at Egyptian pyramids? Or the murder of
young Arabs (along with young Jews) in a Tel Aviv
disco in 2001? Or the mass murder of 5,000 Sunni
Kurdish Muslims whom Saddam gassed at Halabja? Or
the murder of a Muslim president - [Anwar] Sadat?
Or the attempted [murder] of another in Pakistan?
Which imams traveled the world to stir up passion
about any of these crimes - not least months
afterwards? Re (b), does the deliberate murder of
innocent civilians, including Muslims, never
produce the same level of heat and even violence
as this worldwide reaction to drawings in an
obscure paper that almost no one heard of, even in
Denmark, or had seen? What are the real priorities
in modern Muslim morality? Is there even one crime
which, when committed by Muslims, can generate the
same heat from Muslim protesters? Or is much of
this really hysteria, carefully orchestrated by
some within Islam with their own hidden agenda? As
regards (c), when London "protesters" carry
placards with "Behead those who disrespect Islam"
or "Mock today and die tomorrow," or appear
dressed as a suicide bomber, we have simply
criminal intimidation which needs urgent and firm
police action - as we had with the Iranian fatwa threat to murder
[Salman] Rushdie. As regards (d), Islamic or
Jewish or Hindu rules, or Roman Catholic Canon
Law, these are of no more concern to, or binding
force in, any free, democratic civil society than
golf-club rules. There never was any right, much
less some absolute or overriding one, in the Irish
constitutions or laws, the UN Declaration of Human
Rights, or the European Convention, to freedom
from challenge, rejection, disrespect or ridicule,
be it for any individual, official, preacher,
politician, or even celebrity. Or for any body of
such. And the dead - of any faith - cannot be
libeled. We throughout Europe either hold firm in
the face of this orchestrated, global campaign of
escalating intimidation, or we lurch into an
Islamic theocracy.
Tom Carew
Dublin, Ireland (Feb 7,
'06)
Considering Graham Allison's
comments that reappeared [in Kaveh L] Afrasiabi's
article [Sideshows on
Iran's frogmarch to the UN, Feb 7], I
would say that Japan, with its third-largest
defense budget in the world, very well-trained and
equipped military forces, and a highly
sophisticated high-tech defense industry, is
already a de facto nuclear power. Japan has the
technological capabilities to develop nuclear
weapons in a short time, within a few months of a
decision to produce. But as long as Japan has a
so-called democratic system and can meet its
master's expectations well, no one in the United
States, Europe and their obedient servant, IAEA
[the International Atomic Energy Agency], will
consider Japan even as a potential threat.
Shirzad
Azad
Tokyo, Japan (Feb 7,
'06)
Greatly enjoyed Kaveh L
Afrasiabi's joke skit Sideshows on
Iran's frogmarch to the UN [Feb 7]. This would
make a very good traditional Chinese play, with
many dragons.
Sean Shalor
Re Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms' [Feb 4]: Forget the
globally sensitive Danish cartoon controversy for
a moment. Let's say another cartoonist did a
picture of a man dressed in a loincloth, nailed to
a couple of massive wood planks whose structural
signature defines a cross. He's nailed to those
beams and the blood on his hands and feet are not
of his own making. Let's say too that two lesser
crosses surround the man in the loincloth. The
cross on his right holds a big man wearing an even
larger wide-brimmed black hat. Call him Abramoff.
The man on the third cross looks like Abramoff's
sidekick, Stein. Two robbers indeed and loincloth
man (who shall respectfully remain nameless)
addresses the other two in a caption below: "So
what are you 'up' for?" Could be as offensive to
one religious community as the Danish royal farce
is to another. If you are religiously sensitive or
offended, makes you want to hang the virtual
cartoonist here maybe? But you won't. Killing,
kidnapping, firebombing embassies; threatening
ugly acts of violence all across the globe speaks
only to the nature of some of those so violently
offended, and such violent response only succeeds
in reinforcing, subliminally or stridently, the
messages implied in the offensive cartoon. Good
caricature as comic stage with its own form of
embedded truth can serve as secondary relief for
some. Good caricature can be a catharsis of sorts
when an overpowering global theater performs acts
of fear, hate, bloodshed; a world overburdened
with too much tragedy already - and otherwise
beyond laughter.
Beryl
Minnesota, USA (Feb 7,
'06)
Re Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms' [Feb 4]: The Danish
cartoons that have caused so much protest,
violence and death of many Muslims around the
globe are the direct effects of the Western
ignorance, antipathy and propensity to evil
mischief-making in order to misinterpret Islam.
The ignominy of these cartoons is that they are
stupid, offensive and creation of the evil-minded
12-13 cartoonists who were commissioned by the
cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose,
to test "limits of self-censorship in Denmark". An
evil and stupid idea of a man who possibly is as
ignorant of Islam as would be an ass to musical
notes, and I have no doubt that for the rest of
his life, he is going to have nightmares and this
sordid idea would haunt his intelligence for life
and [he will] feel guilty for the deep hurt that
it has caused to the feelings of 1.3 billion
Muslims but also for ... his government's loss of
respect in the Muslim world and for the boycott of
Danish products costing millions to his country's
economy. How much more stupid one could be by
losing all sense of responsibility, direction
[and] decency and [ignoring] respect for the
deeply held beliefs of the Muslims and their
absolute love and reverence for their beloved
Prophet Mohammed (SAW) ... Muslims abhor images
and have no such ritual and [they] are totally
forbidden in Islam for the simple reason that they
insult and degrade human intelligence and
degenerate into idolatry. The trouble with the
West and people of other faiths is that they
cannot stomach the truth that Islam teaches
nothing but piety [and] righteousness and aims to
guide its followers both politically and
spiritually and prepares them for a better life
hereafter. I am afraid to say this kind of filthy
freedom of expression that was mendaciously cooked
up for profit to sell newspapers and to
inadvertently helped to advertise Kare Bluitgen's
book on Mohammed is nothing but dragging
journalism to the lowest denominator of human
dignity and respect.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Feb 7,
'06)
Freedom of speech means
freedom to speak the truth, not freedom to speak
lies.
Omar Najmul (Feb 7,
'06)
Re A kick in the
eyeballs [Feb 4]: The cartoon episode is a
sign of today's society and its lack of civility.
Are you aware of what transpired in the US several
years ago? Where "artistic" views/interpretation
was expressed by a display of the mother of Jesus
covered in feces and the Holy Cross in a container
with urine? The big [difference] in reaction to
that display was that no buildings were torched,
no one was beaten and no one was killed. No one
was arrested. That is a far cry [from] what is
being perpetrated by the Muslims. No religion must
be mocked, neither the follower of that religion.
However, we now live in a degenerate world and
such lofty ideals will be just that, ideals.
Henri
(Feb 7, '06)
I refer to the article Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy [Feb 2] and must
question how well informed and serious Ramzy
Baroud is. While I agree that depicting the
Prophet is in bad taste and some of the cartoons
were Islamophobic, writing "to portray [Mohammed]
... as a pig" gives the game away. Jyllands-Posten
published a portfolio 12 cartoons, none of which
can remotely be considered to resemble pigs. The
cartoons were published in September; the uproar
only began recently because Imam Ahmed Akkari
traveled to Cairo's Al-Azhar University to present
a dossier including three other obscene
caricatures - including the pig one - to
representatives of the Arab League, Egypt's grand
mufti and other high-level Arab officials. It was
thus not, repeat not, Jyllands-Posten, on which
Baroud vents his spleen, which published that
cartoon. The initial publication in support of
freedom of speech would have been consigned to the
dustbin of history were it not for yet another
Islamist manipulating the facts and the mob.
[References to] "images as those ... by a
cartoonist" ... "an unimportant cartoonist " ...
"a Danish cartoonist" [show that] Baroud obviously
thinks that the portfolio was by one cartoonist,
whereas each drawing was by a different artist. A
teacher of mass communication should ascertain his
facts. Included in the portfolio were:
A schoolboy writing on the
blackboard, "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a
bunch of reactionary provocateurs."
Another labeling the
exercise a publicity stunt.
Another lampooning
Westerners' inability to distinguish Muslims.
Another with a reasonable
Muslim - looking at the paper - telling a mob,
"Easy, my friends, when it comes to the point it
is only a drawing made by a non-believing
Dane."
Of course, one could
say the last one labels the Muslim "street" as
being volatile, ill-informed and capable of
torching embassies and boycotting innocent
factories. As to the cartoons depicting bombs in
turbans, sword in hand, suicide bombers, alas,
that is a perception which the Muslim silent
majority has, through its silence, contributed to,
to say nothing of the rantings from Iran. This
perception is also reinforced by the propaganda
and manipulation through disinformation and
misinformation of the Akkans and Barouds of the
world which unfortunately out-shrill the voices of
moderation and of reason. Baroud is clearly
abusing freedom of speech and using the
unfortunate incident as a pretext to stir up
animosity and to spread his anti-Israel and
anti-USA (neither of whom were involved in the
incident) propaganda. Exactly who is irresponsible
and intellectually inept? ...
Colin
Braude (Feb 7, '06)
If I could have one more crack
at convincing the people who have written letters
in support of the cartoons (Re Punishing
Denmark, The wrong enemy, Feb 2): The point is
that you are dealing with another culture - the
rules are not the same everywhere. One example is
the treatment of native American symbols in [the
United States of] America. The college governing
body has ruled that most schools have to give up
their native American names, symbols, ceremonies
etc. The University of Illinois [has] a little
ceremony before all college games where a student
dressed up as a native Indian does an "Indian
dance". Now, this is done without any intention of
mocking native Americans - every care is taken to
give respect to their culture. But guess what,
native American groups say, "Thanks for all the
respect, now please stop doing it." Americans just
can't seem to get it that what is deemed
appropriate in one country or region might be
deemed totally inappropriate in another. My
home-town newspaper ran a cartoon with a priest
with his head bowed saying, "Now let us prey"
(prey, instead of "pray", get it?). Would they
have used a picture of Christ instead of a priest?
Not a chance! (I think other countries need to
check out all incoming "priests" - the [Catholic]
Church has hidden these pedophiles before, no
reason to think they will stop now.) [In] all of
these years I have not seen one cartoon mocking
Mary (I am sorry, I simply cannot wrap my brain
around a woman who is married, gives birth to a
baby and is still referred to as a virgin). One
other thing to consider is balance. Yes, I have
seen cartoons and movies making fun of nuns and
priests, but it is more than balanced by showing
great love and respect to these same people in a
greater number of cartoons, movies and TV shows.
But unfortunately when it comes to other faiths
and religions you only get the ridicule. I have
lost count of the number of times the "Hare
Krishna" people have been ridiculed in American
movies and TV shows - not once have I seen any
respect shown towards these people.
Jayanti
Patel (Feb 7, '06)
[Hisane] Masaki: [Sunset for
Japanese chip makers? Jan 27] is an
interesting article about the world of global
chip-making competition ... As you have
illustrated in the article, [South] Korean
memory-chip manufacturers currently enjoy the
largest market share in the chip segment. However,
if I remember correctly, [in the 1970s and '80s]
Japanese makers were in the process of undoing
memory-chip-making because manufacturing memory
chips required enormous capital and labor to
invest in comparison to its profitability. The
technology of making memory chips was not regarded
as high-valued technology [but] rather labor
[intensive] low tech. Therefore Japan was actually
following US chip makers who initially abandoned
memory-chip-making ... So now [South] Koreans are
doing the dirty work of cheap memory-chip-making,
and Japan [is upgrading] itself to more
sophisticated and high-margin designer chips. Do
you think Koreans will eventually learn lessons
from Japan that China and Taiwan or [others] would
follow the chain reaction of memory-chip-making
takeover and abandonment, which was originally
triggered by US memory-chip makers in the early
'70s? Or that original abandonment and losing
memory-chip markets to a less advanced nation like
[South] Korea and perhaps China in the future were
serious mistakes and miscalculations made by US
and Japanese counterparts? ...
A
Reader from California (Feb 7, '06)
Ehsan
Ahrari responds to readers
To all those who praised and
criticized my essay Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms' (Feb 4), thank you for
your support. To my critics: What surprised me is
that a number of you spent so much time in
drafting detailed letters, but you said nothing
new or thought-provoking. I responded to some of
you (see below), but have neither the time nor
energy (above all, no interest) to answer a whole
lot of comments that are based on sheer ignorance
and hatred. Your mind is made up and you will not
listen to reason. As a general principle, I was
not defending the violence and hatred perpetrated
in the name of Islam. In fact, if you have read my
columns in Asia Times Online and elsewhere, you
know where I stand. I was criticizing the
irresponsible exercise of "freedom of expression".
The US Supreme Court once took a marvelous stand
on the issue many years ago when it declared that
someone's freedom to swing his or her fist ends
where someone else's nose begins (or something to
that effect). That is what is at stake here: can
we reach a balance between someone's freedom to
swing his fist and someone else's freedom to have
an unbroken nose? In an increasingly volatile
time, we have two choices: either we operate on
the basis of "live and let live", or keep on
hating each other by harping on the misdeeds of
the followers of all religions, including Islam. I
have made my choice by pleading for cooperative
engagement. It is up to you to choose your own
template. Long live freedom of choice!
Ehsan
Ahrari, PhD
Alexandria,
Virginia (Feb 6, '06)
Ehsan Ahrari: Yours is a very
level-headed article (Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms', Feb 4). Indeed, some may
and should feel offended by the Danish cartoons in
question, but I think the "clash of civilizations"
theme (something common to the
armchair-quarterback commentators seen elsewhere
in Asia Times Online) is not appropriate, and we
should see the situation for what it is. The
subsequent riots and protests are simply the
result of some regimes (indeed, the more desperate
ones) and religious-political groups organizing
their "brownshirts" to take to the streets, to
push this issue to the forefront for as long as
they can and promote the idea of "the West is at
war with Islam". In all political spheres, there
are those groups who survive by stoking
nationalistic or religious sentiment. This is more
of the same. It may be magnified by the context of
recent events and headlines elsewhere in the
Middle East (choose whatever influencing factors
you wish), but you should clearly see that this
case is simply promoted by some of the more
reactionary elements in specific countries, simply
for political gain.
Paul Rath (Feb 6,
'06)
Ehsan
Ahrari: "They even sympathize with his depiction
of the West (mostly the US) as the chief villain
for supporting the highly corrupt and inept
political order from Morocco to Malaysia" (Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms', Feb 4). Hello? Malaysia?
You are doing a disservice to this country.
"Morocco to Malaysia" [alliterate] for the
purposes of your commentary, but that's about all.
Read about Malaysia and try to write out of your
comfy armchair, please Mr Ehsan.
A
Malaysian (Feb 6, '06)
Here is what Transparency
International has to
say about your country: "Mahathir [Mohamad] sacked
his heir apparent, Anwar Ibrahim, from his posts
as deputy prime minister and finance minister in
September 1998 after a disagreement over how to
deal with the country's economic problems. In
defiance, Anwar launched a reform movement
attacking the government. The prime minister then
jailed Anwar, who was beaten and convicted on
trumped-up charges of corruption and sodomy. In
October 2003, Mahathir retired after 22 years in
office. His rule led to his country's enormous
economic growth but was also characterized by
repression and human-rights abuses." Your current
prime minister is an upstart, but the jury is
still out on him. - Ehsan
Ahrari
It is
interesting that Ehsan Ahrari claims the right not
to be offended in a globalized world [Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms', Feb 4]. Upholding this
right would mean a worldwide consensus about what
is and is not offensive. In a world full of
different religions and moral systems, however,
there can never be such a consensus. One person's
deepest conviction is the other person's insulting
blasphemy. Taking away the freedom to insult other
people means taking away the freedom to express
your own religious beliefs. It is not a
coincidence that most Muslim countries impose
heavy restrictions on both the freedom of speech
and the freedom of religion. Unlike Ehsan Ahrari's
claim, Muslims often are deeply insulting to
believers of other religions, to competing
branches of Islam or to non-believers. The
destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan,
Mahmud Ahmadinejad's speech about the destruction
of Israel and the recent defense in the Dutch
court by the murderer of the filmmaker Theo van
Gogh that it is the duty of all Muslims to kill
infidels are only some examples. Shouting "fire"
in a crowded theater is never a good idea. As most
analogies go, however, this one does the situation
justice. A better analogy would be someone
shouting "fire" in a small teahouse in Denmark. A
couple of hours later, some upset people phone a
crowded theater in Iran to pass on the message. As
the message spreads, the crowd starts to panic,
with tragic results. Personally I find both the
analogies extremely insulting to Muslims. They
seem to regard Muslims as incapable of exercising
restraint. Since all non-Muslims are expected to
possess this fine quality, the burden of
exercising restraint falls solely on them. The
Muslims I know fortunately are more than capable
of dealing with insults in a civilized way.
Muslims have every right to feel offended by the
cartoons in the Danish newspaper, just as
non-Muslims have every right to feel offended by
some publications in Middle East newspapers.
Unlike in the Middle East, though, Muslims in
Europe are given a number of ways to react to the
publications. They can write letters to the
newspaper, they can demonstrate peacefully, they
can go to court and they can try to be elected in
parliament and change the laws. Threatening with
murder is unacceptable in a democratic society.
Muslims seeking a limitation in the right of
speech should be warned, though. One of the first
results could very well be a limitation for
Muslims in the expression of their own
religion.
Henk Helmantel
Netherlands (Feb 6,
'06)
Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms' [Feb 4] by Ehsan Ahrari is
so slanted it's practically horizontal. I would
highlight the frequent and virulent anti-Semitism
in the Muslim world media and the story that said
that Christian soldiers were harvesting Muslim
people's body parts in Iraq as just two examples
unmentioned by him of the bigoted filth in "his"
world. Plenty of Muslims are yelling "fire" too,
Ehsan Ahrari ...
Milo
Canada (Feb 6, '06)
[Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms', Feb 4] was a wonderful
article - very thought-provoking. I am a Hindu and
would like to add my perspective to the subject.
In Hindu philosophy, every person is allowed to
pursue his/her own way of worship. The paramount
principle in Hindu holy scriptures [is] that we
are directed to follow dharma - that is, we are
to perform only the right kind of action. The
scriptures direct everyone to "help ever, hurt
never" ... Ego is prohibited in the Hindu
religion. In fact it compels everyone to destroy
the ego, which hampers the person's spiritual
advancement. So if we understand this philosophy,
no one will hurt anyone, because we are all one
irrespective of various differences. You have
stated, "Muslims make a point of not insulting
Christians about their faith. As a quid pro quo, a
similar courtesy is warranted toward their
religion" ... Muslims and Christians should also
not insult Hinduism, whose followers are 1 billion
people, or Buddhism or any other major religion of
the world, so that we all work together and
respect each other's faith. If this is followed,
will this world created by the Almighty not become
a peaceful paradise?
Ravi Krishnamoorty (Feb 6,
'06)
The
reason I singled out the Christians in my
observation that Muslims don't insult their
religion is that the subject of my article
was those cartoons that were published in a
Christian land. As a general principle, Islam
absolutely disallows insulting any religion.
However, those Muslims who don't follow that
particular tenet of their religion - and
unfortunately there are a whole lot of them - are
in the same boat with their Hindu counterparts, or
followers of other faiths, who indulge in similar
activities. - Ehsan
Ahrari
Ehsan
Ahrari: I congratulate [you on] your article [Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms', Feb 4]. You rightly
pointed to the fact that for example in Austria
... there is no total freedom of speech. You are
not allowed to "insult" the Jews by denying or
even belittling the occurrence of the Holocaust.
But it is ostensibly allowed to defame religious
feelings of over a billion people. What
hypocrisy!
Joseph Bodenhofer
Austria (Feb 6, '06)
In his article [Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms', Feb 4], Ehsan Ahrari
compares the cartoons about Mohammed and Islam to
hate speech such as denying the Nazi slaughter of
6 million Jews before and during World War II. In
the first place, the reason some countries have
made broad public denial of these mass murders
illegal is that the Nazis' machine-like efforts to
kill off all the world's Jews has no parallel in
history. No one has seriously tried to exterminate
all the world's Muslims, for example. It is also
true that while mass-publicizing a denial of the
murders is illegal in some countries, holding
those beliefs is perfectly legal. It's like some
discussions about decriminalizing marijuana -
possession is okay, but selling is not. Second,
Islamic outrage would be taken more seriously if
all Islamic countries refused to tolerate and
stopped encouraging anti-Semitic diatribes,
cartoons and commentary. Third, what makes the
cartoons distinct from hate speech is that they do
not call for the hatred or destruction of Muslims,
however much some pious Muslims may feel offended
by the perceived desecration of their Prophet.
Fourth, and this is perhaps key, the whole idea of
blasphemy is itself a blasphemy. To judge what is
blasphemous or offensive to God - the [judges]
must put themselves in the role of God. To my
knowledge, most religions, including Islam,
consider this pose very blasphemous. The idea of
blasphemy also depends on a notion of a God so
insecure and neurotic that being the Supreme
Being, Creator of all, omnipotent, omnipresent and
good is just not enough. Anyone who titters about
God behind His back (is that possible?) must be
tortured and murdered for the holy one to be
appeased. I'm sorry, but as a devout believer in
God, the idea that He is so weak and shallow seems
as close to blasphemy as I can get without
acknowledging there is such a thing. And I do not
single out the Muslim community here. Israel has
its problems with dictatorial and racist rabbis.
Fundamentalist Christianity is likewise
overpopulated with preachers who dump on other
religions in order to push their faith as superior
...
Barry Brown
Toronto, Ontario (Feb 6,
'06)
I
appreciate Ehsan Ahrari's wish to educate the
non-believers about Islam (Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms' [Feb 4]). His article
mentions that (1) for Muslims nothing is above
Islam; (2) no one should be allowed to be
disrespectful to Islam. Muslims can certainly
uphold whatever they want in a Muslim country. But
let them not question the traditions of a
non-Muslim country - traditions such as free
speech, the right to publish satire, the right to
publish cartoons, and the right to respectfully
debate any issue. When you land in Saudi Arabia,
they confiscate any holy book other than the Koran
[and] any pictures of your god, and they do not
allow you to have any places of worship to your
god - that is intolerance and disrespect of the
highest extreme. How come Ehsan ignores that and
never questions that? Why don't Muslims learn
something called tolerance, joking back, satire,
instead of violence? This furor over some cartoons
smacks of hypocrisy. There was hardly any sympathy
from the Islamic world over the 3,000 deaths of
innocents on [September 11, 2001], over the 300
people killed in New Delhi by Islamic terrorism or
the 200 killed in London, again by Islamic
terrorists. I think the freedom of the press has
to be upheld and is not to be held to ransom by
fanatical thinkers. If my god is defiled by a
newspaper, I might just shrug my shoulders and
walk away. But the Muslim world seems to have a
conditioned, blinkered thought process where they
collectively revolt against the remotest insult -
of course the reaction is selective - events such
as September 11 perpetrated by them are ignored.
Do you really think the non-believers would have
any sympathy for Islam?
Skanda
USA (Feb 6, '06)
Whether it is taboo, tactless
or irresponsible, people and publications should
be able to print and say what they want [Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms', Feb 4]. Christianity is
constantly ridiculed and mocked in the US and
Europe and people write letters, get angry and
move on. They don't surround the embassies of
foreign governments firing guns, burn their flags
(could that be insulting to the people whose flag
is being burned?) and threaten their citizenry
with harm or death. I and any others should have
the right to ridicule any subject or person no
matter how sacred to anyone without the fear of
intimidation or physical violence. So write or
draw offensive things about Christ or the pope,
because nothing will come of it (except those 10
angry letters!). Ever see Life of Brian? Boycott,
march and sue, but don't threaten and run riot
shouting "Death to Denmark" (which is really funny
considering it is one of the most open and free
societies in the world). And guess what, the
Holocaust actually happened. Denying it is like
denying any historical fact, just plain incorrect.
Apparently someone at the newspaper in question
got tired of walking on eggshells and decided to
print something controversial to see the reaction
in his country (and what a reaction it is). Is it
against the law to yell "fire" in a theater if
there is one?
Jason
Atlanta, Georgia (Feb 6,
'06)
In his
Asia Times Online article Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms' [Feb 4], Ehsan Ahrari
compared insulting Muslims to yelling "fire!" in a
crowded theater. Ahrari's comparison assumes that
Muslims have no control over their own emotions
and bear no responsibility for their emotional
reactions. Not only is this assumption false, but
it also disparages Muslims themselves as if they
were irresponsible animals or little children.
This argument is consistent with a typical unhappy
minority mindset. It's a classic mentality of low
self-esteem ... The minority seems to buy into the
dominant group's message about them and then plays
out the dominant group's predictions with
disturbing accuracy, thus giving the dominant
group justification (and permission) to continue
to assert control over them. Asia Times Online
editors made a good point that the flag-burning
and death threats over the cartoons play right
into the stereotype of Islam as a violent
irrational religion [A kick in the
eyeballs, Feb 4]. Other minorities make the
same mistake of embracing their negative
stereotypes. (I use "minority" here to refer to
the non-dominant group, not actual numbers.) ...
Sure there are various curbs to free speech in
Western society. Muslims could point out laws
against preaching violence and inciting riots. But
these laws are shameful to the nations that make
them. These laws are an admittance that the people
are too weak to handle full freedom of speech. The
people give up power and put themselves down when
they allow these laws to be passed. Muslims need
to learn the meaning of true power. They should
stop acting as others direct them to act. They
should stop playing the underdog role. Having to
demand respect indicates weakness. Strong people
command respect through their way of being. Gain
true respect through your actions. Reactions will
only result in you being treated with resentful
tolerance at best, like a pain-in-the-ass problem
child. Don't get me wrong. The dominant people
also have a responsibility to stop participating
in this oppressor-underdog drama ... A good leader
gives followers ways they can improve their own
condition with dignity and grace. We all must
learn to handle power better.
Zay
USA (Feb 6,
'06)
While
I commend the decision of the editors of Asia
Times Online to not publish the offensive cartoons
[A kick in the
eyeballs, Feb 4], I will never accept the
arguments put forward by Ehsan Ahrari [Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms', Feb 4]. His is exactly
the utter self-righteousness put forward by
Muslims intellectuals, clerics, scholars and
laymen both in their native lands and those
residing in the comfort of the Western and other
secular environments. Let us take a look at the
happenings in Islamic world. I will not get into
the anti-Jewish, anti-Christian materials spewed
out [there], which are only too well covered by
the media that care to. Take a look at the bile
that is spewed out like a festering boil on a
leper regarding Hindu and Buddhist religions,
especially in the supposedly holy land of the
Muslims - Saudi Arabia - and in the purest of all
lands, Pakistan. Mind you that a billion people
follow the Hindu religion and more than a billion
people follow the Buddhist religion too. Hindu
gods and goddesses are regularly portrayed as
incarnates of evil Satan. Hindu practices are
denigrated as evil worship. I have personally
attended Friday prayers in Saudi Arabia some years
ago and have witnessed these ... Muslims are great
[at] playing victims. While they never extend
tolerance towards non-Muslims in the lands where
they rule, they are the first to demand special
rights in lands where they are minorities. Even
the most educated sophisticated intellectual
Muslims join the bandwagon ...
Rajasehgaran (Feb 6,
'06)
Ehsan
Ahrari (Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms', Feb 4), Jayanti Patel
([letter] Feb 3) and Mahmood Ahmad ([letter] Feb
3) raised some very pertinent points. The
publication of caricatures depicting the Prophet
Mohammed as a terrorist by the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten and other European newspapers is
crude and insensitive. They would not think of
publishing caricatures of Jesus Christ as a
pedophile or stories that deny or make fun of the
Holocaust. Their thin veil of upholding the
sanctity of free speech belies their hypocrisy.
They have earned free speech but lost their
self-respect and the respect of fair-minded
people. The first newspaper may be forgiven for
being ignorant and insensitive, but the rest who
rushed in to show their solidarity with
Jyllands-Posten demonstrate their utter lack of
judgment. The reactions by the Muslim communities
are equally regrettable. Their quick temper only
reinforces the stereotype in the eyes of
non-Muslims that they are overly sensitive,
insecure and [prone] to violence. Razing embassies
in protest of such a remark, blasphemous [as] it
may be, is uncalled for. Do not forget Muslims
themselves have been responsible for some of the
most egregious acts against other religions, the
destruction of the Bamiyan statues being the most
recent. Did we see Buddhists all over the world up
in arms in calling for the destruction of
Afghanistan or rise up against Muslims in
general?
S K Wong
Malaysia (Feb 6, '06)
Thank you for posting the
articles by [Ehsan] Ahari [Cartoons and the
clash of 'freedoms', Feb 4] and [Ramzy] Baroud
[Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy, Feb 2] - we need
calm analysis of this horrible situation. A
cartoon depicting a spiritual leader as a
terrorist is hate speech. It is time to
investigate why hate speech is allowed against
Muslims. Whoever drew this should have to explain
his actions and if he was working alone. Why did
so many other papers run this cartoon? This is not
just a Muslim issue, it is an international issue
of incitement. It is wrong and needs to be firmly
stated. No one would ever get away with calling
this kind of cartoon freedom of speech if it was
against Israel or Christ.
Mary
Hough (Feb 6, '06)
Re Ramzy Baroud's Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy [Feb 2] and various
responses to it: How would the West have reacted
if someone drew a cartoon of Jesus sporting a
swastika and a Hitler mustache, implying that
Nazism is somehow inherent in the Christian
faith?
Dr V L Velupillai
Germany (Feb 6, '06)
[Re] Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy by Ramzy Baroud (Feb
2): "What sort of input to humor or intellect is
it to portray a man who has contributed to the
spiritual composition of a large portion of
humanity as a pig?" This conception might be
caused of the alleged circumstance that the Danish
imams from the Danish Islamic Community on their
"road show" in the Middle East they didn't thought
Jyllands-Postens 12 images was juicy enough so
they spiced up their portfolio with some seriously
offensive stuff. Three really abusive pitchers.
Those Danish imams seems to be saying one thing to
the Danish media while saying the opposite to Arab
media.
Lars K (Feb 6,
'06)
What
sort of freedom speech is this, which create chaos
and outrage? ... European newspapers, in the name
of freedom of the press, reprinted some of the
blasphemous cartoons, including the French daily
France-Soir, Germany's Die Welt, and a Norwegian
evangelical Christian newspaper. These are the
same 12 cartoons published on September 30, 2005,
that included portrayals of a man assumed to be
the Prophet Mohammed as a bearded terrorist
wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lighted fuse
and showed him as a knife-wielding nomad flanked
by shrouded women, and another placed him at the
gates of paradise shouting to suicide bombers,
"Stop, stop. We have run out of virgins!" Running
of the blasphemous cartoons by many European
newspapers was a deliberate provocation. It's no
longer a matter of freedom of thought or opinion
or belief. It's a plot hatched against Islam and
Muslims, the preparation of which began many years
ago. They promote their hatred under the pretext
of freedom of expression and turn a blind eye to
the crimes that are committed in the name of
Christianity and, more dangerously, Judaism. If
practical concerted measures are not taken, the
campaign will become more ferocious.
Shabnum
Khan
Nagpur, India
(Feb 6, '06)
Your [articles] on those
cartoons [are] not very convincing. While it is
true that one should always be polite and tactful
in one's behavior, cartoons mocking the endemic
violence in all Muslim political reactions are
called for. Do you deny this endemic resort to
violence by Muslims? Do you think it is a lie that
Muslim crowds resort to violence to advance their
demands? Of course you don't. As a keen reader of
ATimes, and promoter of it to my friends, I have
noticed that you are not remotely concerned with
the difficulties faced by Christians dealing with
Muslims in Muslim countries. Where is your
sensitivity to the lack of churches for the
million-plus Christian expatriate workers in Saudi
Arabia? Where is your sensitivity to the endless
scabrous anti-Jewish cartoons published daily in
Muslim countries? Does your sensitivity only start
in the year AD 570? The hysteria being promoted in
relation to these cartoons is basically an assault
on the Western principle of separation of church
and state, as well as freedom of expression. Islam
does not have either of these building blocks of
progress, so it is vital to grind them down in the
West to enable real Islam to function in the West.
I wonder what you would say to a fatwa delivered to all
Western media, including ATimes, that no comments
of any description can be made or published by
non-Muslims about the Koran. Clearly, you would
fall into line. If this organized hysteria on the
cartoons is successful, we can fully expect
further demands of some sort. Why shouldn't they
make further demands? With the ATimes to back you,
who knows what victories are possible?
Mike
Davis
Sydney, Australia
(Feb 6, '06)
Dairy exports to Saudi Arabia
are vital to Denmark's economy, and a boycott of
their products is their main concern, as I
understand. However, this issue does not approach
my concern: why do Danish dairy exports to Saudi
Arabia have longer expiration dates than dairy
products sold in Denmark? As for the former
concern, let's not confuse freedom of expression
with mediocre newspapers trying to boost sales by
publishing insults, or confuse defending
Mohammed's legacy - peace be upon him - with crazy
rioters expressing anger by burning foreign
embassies. The Danish government's refusal to
censor the media due to pressure and the Saudi
people's voluntary boycott of Danish products are
both peaceful expressions of freedom of thought
and trade. I can sympathize if the publishers are
punished for compromising Denmark's security and
economy, but rioters burning embassies get no
sympathy for burning Mohammed's message of peace.
On the other hand, buying Danish dairy products
again will only happen if my concern above is
addressed.
Luay Ashadawi
Saudi Arabia (Feb 6,
'06)
The
scenarios of a conflict with Iran are terrifying -
an attack with atomic bombs in Iran, and at the
same time Israel attacking Lebanon [and] Syria and
"taking care" of the Palestinians [Iran and the
jaws of a trap, Feb 3]. The author of such a
doomsday scenario is an ex-secret agent from
Germany, and obviously knowledgeable about the
possible war between the USA-Britain and Iran.
However, it is necessary to keep in mind that, for
instance, [Adolf] Hitler began his war with great
success, and that the USA used all its power in
Vietnam to be defeated in the end. In Iraq and
Afghanistan, the situation is far from a happy
conclusion. In the case of Israel, this country
retreated from Lebanon and Gaza. Thus far, the US
and Israel are having serious problems in the
Middle East. We need to consider, [as] the German
agent does not, what is the economic situation
today: the USA is running the biggest federal and
trade deficits in its whole history; the American
army is having serious problems [with] recruiting,
and the prognosis for 2007 is far from optimistic.
Yes, an atomic conflict with Iran is possible, but
the outcome of it will not necessarily [be] a
victory for the attackers.
Luis
Cervela
San Francisco,
California (Feb 6, '06)
I am very disappointed that
the editors of Asia Times printed the article by
[Paul] Levian [Iran and the
jaws of a trap, Feb 3]. It is nothing but
misinformation supplied by Mossad for propaganda
purposes. Asia Times [Online] should be more
careful and have more respect for its readers.
Marshall Harlan (Feb 6,
'06)
[Re The IAEA and the
new world order, Feb 3] In this poker game, I
believe Iran never counted on Russia or China. But
the biggest losers are going to be China, Russia
and India. Why? If Iran is subdued, then energy
needs will controlled, and so will economic
progress. If Iran becomes a winner (which I as a
layman can see), then it will have clout [over]
trade. China, Russia and India will be out for
sure.
S Bhaloo (Feb 6,
'06)
Re Reviving the
China threat [Feb 1] by Gregory Clark: Mr
Clark has really said nothing new. It is the
responses to his article that are revealing.
Nothing is more ridiculous than to imply that the
Chinese government is fermenting ultra-nationalism
and instigating anti-Japanese sentiment and
behavior. In fact every incident of the eruption
of anti-Japanese feeling was a groundswell from
below. For examples, the heated protests against a
Chinese actress for wearing a flag of the Japanese
navy; the protest against the Japanese sex tour in
the southern Chinese city of Zhuhai on September
18 (a date of shame in the minds of Chinese
because of Japanese aggression in history); the
protest against the demolition of a building in
Nanjing which had housed the infamous comfort
women; the protest against the building of a
Japanese skyscraper in Shanghai in the shape of a
samurai sword, etc. The Chinese people can
tolerate the needling of the Americans which was
and still is responsible for the recalcitrant
behavior of their compatriots on the island of
Taiwan but to have the Japanese, an obvious puppet
of the Americans, parroting aggressive remarks
about "peace" in the Taiwan Strait being a
Japanese concern is more than the Chinese can bear
(it implies possible Japanese intervention). After
all, the US was not responsible for 33 million
dead Chinese. The PRC [People's Republic of China]
government has just banned the showing of Memoirs of a Geisha for
fear that it might stir up another anti-Japanese
incident because the lead role in the film is
played by a Chinese actress. In fact the Chinese
government dearly wishes that both the Americans
and the Japanese would do nothing to make its job
with the Chinese people more stressful. Any
flagrant anti-Chinese speech or act from those two
quarters would oblige the Chinese government to
take a tough stand if only to avoid adding to the
anti-government feelings among the Chinese
people.
Chan Ah Tee
Malaysia (Feb 6, '06)
As a [Briton] and an
Australian of Indian extraction, I've been a
longtime reader of your paper. I have a question
regarding India's international standing on the
Iran issue: Would it not have served the supreme
national interest better to abstain rather than
cave into strong-arm tactics from the US? This is
disappointing from the founder of the Non-Aligned
Movement.
Sona (Feb 6,
'06)
Re The nuclear
watchdog and the new world order by Kaveh L
Afrasiabi and Iran and the
jaws of a trap by Paul Levian [both Feb 3]:
These authors have said what is in the minds of
many mainstream observers, namely, the current
world order is not ripe for change, at least not
in the way [Iranian President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad
imagines that it would. Neither the big powers not
the Third World countries are in favor of a
showdown with the US right now because they have
too much tied up with the status quo order. I
believe it will be the US which will bring about a
collapse of the old world order as we know it
because the Americans under the neo-cons have a
well-thought-out plan just like the Nazis and the
Japanese expansionists before them, and they have
the gumption to see it through. Two scenarios are
likely to evolve over the Iranian nuclear
stalemate. The first [is that], with the
appeasements of the Russians and the Chinese, the
resistance of the Iranians collapses. This will
embolden the Americans to play out their strategic
ambitions in West Asia and the Far East. At a
certain point the mood of appeasement of the
peoples or the governments in those two regions
will be overtaken by their desires to resist and
confront the US based on the need to protect their
vital national interest. The outcome of this
confrontation, which would involve major powers
like China and Russia, would be anybody's guess.
The second scenario would most likely play out
like this. Just like Mao Zedong and his small
Communist Party took to forcing the weak and
"rational" government of the Nationalist Party
(Kuomintang) to declare war on Japan over its
invasion of China, you may yet find the Iranians
and the Muslims in the Middle East deciding to go
it alone, with or without the UN sanctions, with
or without the support of the big powers. When the
Chinese started out they did not expect to suffer
33 million casualties, 3 million combatants and 30
million civilians. Are the Muslims ready to "bear
any burden and pay any price" to regain their
independence?
Chan Ah Tee
Malaysia (Feb 3, '06)
It seems to me as if [Paul]
Levian is imagining a computer war game that does
not necessarily reflect what it's going to be like
[in an] actual conflict [Iran and the
jaws of a trap, Feb 3]. Iran has had long
experience of war with Iraq fought [against a
US-supplied] arsenal and Hezbollah has had [the]
recent direct experience of Israel. This war is
going to be very different. If [Osama] bin Laden
has nuclear weapons already then it's naive to
think that much more resourceful Iran hasn't.
Attacking Iran I think would be a big leap toward
a conflict of World War III proportions and may in
fact trigger it.
Rashid Hassan (Feb 3,
'06)
[Paul]
Levian nicely describes a very possible, even
likely, scenario of war with Iran [Iran and the
jaws of a trap, Feb 3]. It is without question
a story of frontline armies and classical warfare
of the 20th century. Few people doubted the
victory of frontline armies in Iraq and indeed it
didn't take very long in classical terms to land
on an aircraft carrier and declare the victory of
such. The problem is that the US today is not
reeling from the wounds of frontline army tactics
in the sense of combat, economics or propaganda.
And to complement any references to Vietnam, it
was the Vietcong problem that was not answered so
easily in classical terms and to take it further,
the Soviet Union also conquered Afghanistan
momentarily in classical terms. So combat in
classical terms is at best a preliminary entry to
a far larger conversation in the Middle East. What
the heck are we going to do when we need a 10:1
soldier advantage in asymmetric warfare after the
aircraft-carrier photo shoot? The US is bogged
down with only 20% of the population of Iraq. No,
it isn't likely that the 60% that appear to be
philosophically aligned with Iran will stop a
frontline army maneuver in an outbreak, but there
will be an afterwards. If it were not true, it
would be and have been more obvious than it is in
Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Would anyone like
some heroin? To posture this scenario strictly in
terms of classical, frontline armies represents
the paradigm that produces one's own Achilles'
heel. Simply put, this is exactly the mindset that
furnished the current nightmare that requires the
entire political orchestra to insist that's it's
not an outright failure. The frontline army part
of this conversation is not the part we're worried
about, it never was. Iraq wasn't a huge oil
exporter under the [oil for food] program,
relative to the amount of oil in the ground. [It
is] exporting even less oil today and nobody
doubts the victory of the US frontline army. The
"jaws of the trap" have no hesitation to close on
both sides, even if by different means.
David
Canada (Feb 3, '06)
The [Feb 3] article of Paul
Levian [Iran and the
jaws of a trap] ... is simply misleading
to the readers ... He was advocating nakedly a
successful war against Iran, but we saw the weak
Iran against Iraq ([and] rest of the world) in
1980-88 was doing [well]. Besides this, what the
USA did in Iraq is just losing money and manpower.
How much money does the USA have now to [wage]
another war? Besides this, Mr Levian miscalculated
the Iranian capacity. The war may destroy the
whole Middle East, Levian's dreamland Israel, as
well as the USA and Europe before Iran is
[vanquished] ...
Willi Reitz
Sao Paolo, Brazil (Feb 3,
'06)
I read
Iran and the
jaws of a trap [Feb 3] by Paul Levian with a
smile. Some speculate that Iran may indeed be in
the jaws of a trap, but quite possibly a trap with
Iran as the bait, not quarry. I am also somewhat
intrigued that none of the fine authors I have
been reading on ATimes has examined the
possibility that Iran may already possess nuclear
weapons. On the presumption that even before Gulf
War I Iran and Iraq had similar and parallel
nuclear weapons programs, and given that Saddam
[Hussein] was close to his goal at the time of
Gulf War I, and also given that large underground
facilities are not made in a day, can we really
presume there was ever a genuine halt in the
Iranian nuclear program, or that it has not
already achieved its main objectives?
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Feb 3,
'06)
We all
must pray very hard for the citizens of Iran who
have been kidnapped and are being held hostage by
a mentally unstable leader who is intent on
isolating them from their fellow man throughout
the world. They will suffer tremendously in the
coming years.
Erich (Feb 3,
'06)
[Re]
the article Bush running out
of energy [Feb 3]: In my opinion Jim Lobe
sounds like a jerk. This is the first president
that we [Americans] have had [who] has stood up to
the riffraff assholes who like to intimidate,
terrorize and blatantly kill people worldwide.
This last speech by President [George W] Bush is
the first speech to ever lay out our energy
problem which the USA has committed on itself. I
do not believe the American people even think we
are responsible for our own predicament.
MS
(Feb 3, '06)
Re Wanted: A new
Middle East initiative (Feb 2) by Jephraim P
Gundzik: Since the landslide victory of Hamas in
the Palestinian election, there has been much
speculation about what the principal players -
Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, the US -
may do. What is or should be puzzling about all
this comment is the tacit understanding that no
one else - not the UN, not the EU, not the
(former) unaligned nations, not the (former)
socialist bloc, not the newly minted reform
governments of several South American countries,
not the Arab states, not the otherwise vociferous
Iran - will play any role. More particularly, what
is strange is that the world as a whole is, in
practical terms, ignoring the violations of
international law by Israel in its now 38-year
occupation of Arab lands. At the UN's urging, the
International Court of Justice issued an advisory
opinion in 2004 condemning Israel's wall and
settlements within occupied territory. The world,
upon hearing this all but unanimous declaration of
the law, suddenly dropped the issue like a hot
potato, perhaps in favor of the "golden calf" of
cozy relations with the US. One really wonders
that no state desires to live in a world ruled by
law sufficiently, or wishes to tweak the US
sufficiently, to take any practical step (such as
a boycott of trade or commercial flights with
Israel) to compel Israel to comply with
international law at least to the extent of
removing the wall and the settlers from all
occupied territory. Is the international
humanitarian law, crafted since 1945, to be
abandoned on all sides? Is Hamas' terrorism to be
decried and punished, but Israel's violations of
Geneva IV to be ignored? Is the world order now
one in which, as in dictatorships of all times and
all places, the law is what the dictator may, from
time to time, be pleased to say it is? It used to
be a women's-rights-denying dictum of
Anglo-American law that a husband and his wife are
one person and the husband is that person. Today
it seems to be a human-rights-denying and
national-rights-denying dictum of international
law that the nations of the world are one nation,
and the US and Israel are that nation.
Peter
Belmont
Brooklyn, New
York (Feb 3, '06)
I support the writer in this
[Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy, Feb 2]. There are
two things wrong with this newspaper's
[Jylland-Posten] attitude, though the writer
touched on only one. Why use Mohammed to make a
point? Why not any Muslim cleric or the favorite
whipping boy, OBL [Osama bin Laden]? Couldn't the
cartoon get its point across by using the above?
Let's use an analogy. Everyone has heard of the
pedophile problem in Christian churches in
America. I have seen some cartoons and jokes about
the priests but none using the pope. Why not use
his likeness? After all, the abuse happened under
his watch, whereas Mohammed has been dead and gone
all these years, why connect this with him? When
it comes to our religion, the rules change? When
it comes to their own religion, everyone knows the
limits, the boundaries. If a Christian cartoonist
comes up with an idea, he can bounce it off his
family, friends or the friendly reader who
threatens to cancel his/her subscription, and
that's why you see an unknown priest but not the
pope. But when it comes to another religion, you
don't have these checks and balances. Anything
goes. They don't know where to stop. How about
this for a joke? "Have you heard of this poor guy?
He is married to this woman but she won't let him
touch her. Wait, it gets worse. She gets involved
with this other thing and gets pregnant and
delivers a baby! But wait, she is still a virgin!
What's up with that? Get your head around that
kind of logic." Is that a joke? Now, I am a Hindu,
does that change things? Am I now mocking
Christianity? That's the second point. When one
makes a comment about another faith or culture,
one has to be discreet. It's simply good manners,
not censorship. Make jokes or comments about your
own culture or faith, you know the boundaries. But
exercise discretion when it comes to others. As a
Hindu living in America, every time Hinduism is
mentioned on TV or in a movie, I now cringe,
because I know what's coming. Something mocking,
something abusive and bad. No wonder this kind of
filth comes out of a Christian country.
Jayanti
Patel (Feb 3, '06)
Re Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy [Feb 2]: As
unfortunate as the cartoon may be in depicting the
Prophet (SAW) as a warmonger and terrorist, God
forbid, the response has been equally unfortunate.
While mullahs are allowed to throw verbal filth on
people of other faiths and fellow Muslims of other
sects, these cartoons are quick to light a fire in
their hearts. If they truly love the Holy Prophet
(SAW) they need to first cleanse themselves of the
hatred of others. They have over the years set
themselves up for such attacks by hijacking the
religion of Islam in their so-called jihad of
killing and maiming instead of using the pen to
reply to such nonsense. Reap what you sow. To the
Western media outlets that carry out these sorts
of stunts, I think it is rather shameful that you
do such an irresponsible thing that could fracture
the society you live in - you cut the branch you
sit on. Freedom of speech is good but it should
not override everyone's responsibility towards a
peaceful co-existence. I say shame on both sides
of this stupidity.
Mahmood Ahmad (Feb 3,
'06)
Re Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy, Feb 2] When it comes
to Islam, Westerners are ignorant as cabbages.
They will swallow bilge in one gulp from Muslims.
Take representations of humans which both the
Torah and the Koran forbid. No graven images! And
thus no paintings of the Seal of the Prophet
Mohammed should appear on canvas ... On the other
hand, the Arab press does engage in caricature but
not of the kind which pokes fun of religion. The
reasons are very much in view: censorship;
security; and out of fear that such pictorial
exaggerations would enflame the discontented who
would fan the flames of revolt against autocratic
and corrupt governments. The current brouhaha over
caricatures in Jyllands-Posten has burst a
blister. It stings and once again shows the Middle
East and the West separate at the twain of freedom
of liberty, of ideas, and of the press. It is
ironic that the opposition press to the Saudi
royal family has found fertile ground in England;
that the ayatollah [Ruhollah] Khomeini found aid
and comfort in [republican] France, and opponents
of the regimes in Algeria and Tunisia live openly
and relative security in France. The current rage
of the Muslim street serves the clear aims of the
fundamentalists who aim for power in their
respective homelands.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 3, '06)
If I understand the point of
Kyda Sylvester's letter [Feb 2], it is this:
There's too much racism and intolerance in the
Muslim world, therefore the proper response is to
be racist and intolerant towards Muslims.
Peter
Handler
New York, New
York (Feb 3, '06)
I am completely appalled by
the stance of your readers. Are there no taboos in
our so-called "free and democratic" societies?
Will we allow and applaud a cartoon that depicts,
say, the Jewish religion as a personification of
predatory avarice, to quote a highly offensive and
sensitive example? Indeed not. The publisher will
be at the receiving end of a deluge of anger, and
a large majority of people of the Jewish faith
will feel rightly insulted, aggrieved, not to
mention the memories of pain and trauma from the
long history of ugly stereotyping and
discrimination. Do we tell them, "It's free
speech, live with it"? Now that the West has been
shamed into making anti-Semitism a taboo, we have
decided that a new religion is fair game because
we do not like the way some of its adherents have
been fighting our invasion, colonization and
occupation of their land and exploiting resources.
Neither the Koran nor the Prophet advocates
killing, certainly not more than the Torah or the
Old Testament. Moreover, while it is one thing to
engage in nasty stereotyping of a Muslim militant,
it is another to directly insult their religion,
which amounts to collectively "punishing" all
adherents of Islam innocent of bloodshed. Tally up
what they have done to us and what we have done to
them for the past century, [and] the cartoonist
should feel intense shame. Does freedom of speech
mean lies, slander, libel or hate speech would be
tolerated and accepted? Obviously not according to
the law. I am stunned by how your letters forum
has been overrun by self-righteous right-wingers,
from China-bashers to Muslim-haters. Your
editorial tone has become less progressive and
analytical, but more aggressive. The unwarranted
saber-rattling will turn a lot of your liberal
readers off. I would like to add that it matters
not at all whether non-Muslims find the cartoons
"mild" or "harmless" - they are not the intended
target. Taboos are culture-specific - while a
German man might find humiliation by a woman
merely titillating, to an Iraqi man, it is
psychological torture and is thus used. Since the
anger is unanimous amongst whole populations of
Muslims, it is fair to assume that the cartoons
are deeply offensive, so accept that they are ...
L
Kirchhoff (Feb 3, '06)
For more on ATol's "editorial
tone", click
here. - ATol
It is
not enough, as Sanam Vakil wrote (Playing to
Iran's strengths, Feb 1), to include Iran in
regional security arrangements. Iranians must be
assured that the ultimate motive of the United
States is not regime change. For it was not too
long ago, 1953 to be exact, that the US with the
help of its British allies helped to overthrow a
freely elected constitutional government led by
Iranian national heroes Dr Mohammad Mossadegh and
Dr Hussein Fatemi. This is a deep wound in the
heart of every Iranian that has never healed and
still resonates strongly today. If President
[George W] Bush really means what he said recently
that he hopes the Iranian people "will be in a
position to have democracy based upon Iranian
customs and Iranian traditions", then he ought to
apologize to the Iranian people for that sordid
action that has brought so much anguish to the
Iranian people in the last 50 years. This act of
contrition on behalf of the United States would go
a long way in starting a dialogue to resolve the
many differences facing the two nations.
Fariborz S Fatemi
McLean, Virginia (Feb 3,
'06)
Re Iraq was invaded
'to protect Israel' - US official [Mar 31,
'04] by Emad Mekay: You guys are good! One of a
small handful of publishers that enjoy any degree
of objective credibility.
Charlie (Feb 3,
'06)
In
response to [Tom] Esensten's gross
[misrepresentation] of the Korean War [letter, Feb
1], I have to assert that it was the US who forced
China to go to North Korea. One point needs to be
[made clear] first: the Korean War started as a
civil war. The north invaded the south, just as in
the American Civil War. No foreign powers should
enter a messy civil war. Back to the main topic,
when US/UN forces routed the North Korean army,
China did join the fight. Only when US forces
crossed the 38th parallel and was rapidly
advancing towards the Chinese border, China warned
the US literally more than hundred times that such
action would bring China into the war. In its
arrogance, [General Douglas] MacArthur and the US
government totally disregarded China's warning.
[As a result], China had no choice but to enter
the Korean War to stop the US threat. To say the
US was not a threat to China as it rapidly closed
in on the Chinese-Korean border is an outrageous
lie. Are you saying China should trust that the US
would not invade, because it had said so? The
history of China's encounter with the West
certainly tells a different story. To China, the
US didn't invade China only because it was stopped
by the brave PLA [People's Liberation Army] in
Korea. Those days were gone for China to trust its
defense on the "goodwill" of the West. After all,
why did the US risk going to war when the Soviets
wanted to put some missiles in the sovereign
country of Cuba? In 1950 it was fresh in Chinese
memory [that] only 20 years [before] (1931) Japan
had started the invasion of China from its
conquered territory of Korea, [after] which tens
of millions of Chinese lives were lost. It was
China's right to enter Korea to stop an impending
invasion, perceived or not. As long as China has
the means, China will never allow a foreign power
to station its troops along the Chinese-Korean
border. Regarding your allegation of Chinese
prisoner abuse, I have to demand evidence.
GongShi
USA (Feb 3, '06)
Re Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy [Feb 2]: I have seen
the cartoons and find them mild indeed compared to
some of the filth depicting Jews and Israelis that
emanates from the Muslim "press". Did you ever
stop to consider that perhaps the cartoonist
depicted a bomb-toting Mohammed because so many
Muslims have strapped on bombs designed to kill
and maim innocents at the direction of and in the
name of Allah? ... By all means, do return
the "collective energy" of the Muslim world to
those really important endeavors - destruction of
the Great and Little Satans. And good luck with
that.
Kyda Sylvester (Feb 2,
'06)
The
[Feb 2] commentary by Ramzy Baroud Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy [was] rather comical.
Why doesn't Mr Baroud ... also highlight the
damage done by the prohibiting of the Bible or the
wearing of a cross in Saudi Arabia? The Bible is
the book of Jesus Christ. Prohibiting it is every
bit as slandering as any newspaper cartoon. Maybe
he can explain it, and also post a commentary on
why this shouldn't be. Or maybe he believes it
should be. Furthermore, it isn't just a
Muslim-West thing he speaks of. It is a
Muslim-everyone-else thing. From Ethiopia to China
to the Philippines to Indonesia to Thailand to,
well, Eastern Europe to Central Asia to South Asia
to Western Europe to North America to Africa - it
permeates. Don't try [to] sugarcoat it by
relegating it to a West-Muslim thing, because
nothing could be further from the truth ... I
applaud Denmark, France and Norway printing these
cartoons. This is what free press is all about -
something the Muslim world might think about
embracing.
Steve B
Boise, Idaho (Feb 2,
'06)
I
would like to correct one [item of] serious
misinformation about the 12 illustrations of the
Prophet in Jyllands-Posten in September. In [Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy, Feb 2] you [wrote]:
"What sort of input to humor or intellect is it to
portray a man who has contributed to the spiritual
composition of a large portion of humanity as a
pig?" Jyllands-Posten or any other paper in
Denmark has never printed that. The drawing was
[added] by the Danish delegation of imams that
chose to make this an international issue rather
than the Danish issue it was. Some of them have
also been misinforming with stories about Danish
papers bringing daily pictures of the Prophet. It
is simply not true, and most people in Denmark
respect the Muslim faith. What the Middle East has
to understand is that our [European] media and our
governments are not closely tied together. Here
the media [are] rather in opposition to the
government in order to secure as much transparency
as possible.
Thomas Petersen (Feb 2,
'06)
I have
just finished reading Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy [Feb 2] by Ramzy
Baroud. I would just like to point out that he is
incorrect when he states, "What sort of input to
humor or intellect is it to portray a man who has
contributed to the spiritual composition of a
large portion of humanity as a pig?" ... The
Danish newspaper did not print any picture that
depicted Mohammed as a pig. This picture was
created by Islamic terrorists who deemed the
original pictures not offensive enough to get the
Muslim population upset. Considering the fact
these satirical cartoons were first published in
September of last year, I think your writer should
have done a little more research before insulting
Europeans as some sort of hatemongers.
Oisin
Concannon (Feb 2, '06)
The original series of 12
cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten indeed do
not appear to include anything depicting Mohammed
as a pig. According to reports in some European
media, three more cartoons - including one of a
pig-snouted Mohammed - were added by persons
unknown to a compilation of the offending pictures
circulated among Muslims by clergy. A Danish
Muslim spokesman reportedly told the tabloid
Ekstra Bladet that the three drawings had been
added to "give an insight in how hateful the
atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims". - ATol
This e-mail is directed to
Ramzy Baroud, regarding his commentary Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy [Feb 2]. I think that
one could argue that the cartoons in question were
in very poor taste for a reputable paper to
publish, but Mr Baroud has missed the whole point
of the commotion. Many items are published, in
print and cartoon form, in the civilized world,
which offend and infuriate readers. Many gross and
disgusting things are written and pictured about
Christianity, or [Judaism], or Hinduism, or
Buddhism, or any other ism. The difference, and
the problem the rest of the world has with Islam,
however, is perfectly exemplified by the
hysterical response by Muslims to these harmless
pictorial insults - including, among other
inanities, death threats.
Tony
Routledge (Feb 2, '06)
While I agree with the core of
your essay [Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy, Feb 2] I wonder why
you don't point out the only nation [that tries]
to resist Western domination on important matters
[is Iran]. Is it related to your [use of the term]
"Arabian Gulf"? I know the Arabian Sea in my
geographic books but no Arabian Gulf. Do you mean
Persian Gulf? What is your aim, to obliterate Iran
and its history? There is no "collective energy of
the Muslim". The one thing Arab countries are able
to [do] is to stab their own [co-religionists] in
the back ... And your essay seems a good
demonstration [of] it.
Jean Sabras (Feb 2,
'06)
Dr
Ramzy Baroud [Punishing
Denmark, the wrong enemy, Feb 2] calls the
body of water in southern Iran "Arabian Gulf". The
word khalij (gulf) is
an Arabic word, and Fars is the Arabic
pronunciation of Pars. Hence Khalij Fars (Persian
Gulf) was the name given by Arabs to that body of
water. In other words, Arabs have acknowledged,
for centuries, that the gulf belonged to Persians.
Then why does [Dr] Baroud insist on calling it
Arabian Gulf? Maybe he detests the fact that a
non-Arab country (Iran) is leading the Muslim
nations in their struggle against the Western
aggression and Israeli expansionist ambitions. But
he conveniently forgets that Iran does what Dr
Baroud expects the Arab world to do. He also
prefers to forget that, without the Iranian
Revolution, Israel wouldn't be routed out of
Lebanon. He forgets that Iran was the first
country to seriously raise its voice against
Israeli aggression and support the Palestinian
cause. And he prefers to be oblivious of the fact
that it was after the Iranian Revolution that many
Muslims dared to raise their voices against their
puppet governments.
Dr Suri Dalir (Feb 2,
'06)
The noose
tightens around Iran [Feb 2] by Ehsan Ahrari -
is this an "article" or a "news report"?
Shafiq
Khan
Canada (Feb 2,
'06)
Not
sure. Let's ask reader Marc Forlenza. - ATol
[Ehsan] Ahrari: Your article
[The noose
tightens around Iran, Feb 2] is the only one
I've read that clearly lays out Iran's predicament
vis-a-vis its decision to ignore the international
community's concerns over its development or
nuclear energy, aka nuclear arms. I can only hope
that [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad's power base
within Iran is beginning to crumble. If there
exist elements within Iran that are willing to
accelerate Ahmadinejad's ouster, then that would
also be an option Iran could use to extricate
itself from its current self-inflicted isolation.
Clear reporting by journalists such as you can
only contribute to the desired peaceful conclusion
of this renegade nuclear policy being pursued by
Iran. Keep up the good work.
Marc
Forlenza (Feb 2, '06)
Jephraim Gundzik [Wanted: A new
Middle East initiative, Feb 2] might as well
wait for the Greek kalends. Change is not
forthcoming from the White House. No new
initiative of substance is in the cards for the
Middle East. How could it? Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice in a shocking admission of
incompetence admitted that no one could have
foreseen the triumph of Hamas at the [Palestinian]
polls. If any further evidence is needed, cast a
cold and stern eye on the ignored memo of August
2001 which spoke of an imminent terrorist attack
on the United States; on the lackadaisical concern
about dire warnings of a Force 5 hurricane heading
for New Orleans; on the negligent handling of
reports to strengthen the dikes of New Orleans;
and on the manipulated intelligence on WMD
(weapons of mass destruction) which did not exist
and which provided cover for the disastrous war
America is waging in Iraq, so on and on. As Mr
Gundzik uneasily notes, the decline of
Washington's influence in the Middle East has
allowed its satrap Israel to take the initiative,
and Israel failed in "managing" the Palestinians.
Tehran is happy thumbing its nose at [US President
George W] Bush because it full well knows that
Washington cannot attack Iran nor impose onerous
sanctions. America's relative decline is
symptomatic: look at East Asia, where it uses
China as its surrogate. The slippage in prestige
is notable in Latin America with the endless
taunting [by] Hugo Chavez of Venezuela [and] the
recent election of Evo Morales in Bolivia and
Michelle Bachelet [in Chile], thereby confirming a
leftward drift in our [United States'] good
neighbors. It is useful to point out relations
with Old Europe are problematic. Mr Gundzik has a
wish list. He might as well mail it to Santa Claus
[at] the North Pole, for Washington has its own
agenda.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Feb 2, '06)
This is in response to Michael
A Hill's letter dated January 27 [which asks] "Is
the US the only source of nuclear technology to
which India can turn?" Actually no, as said by
[Ehsan] Ahrari, but the reason India is courting
the US for its nuclear energy is that the USA is
the only power which can make and break any rules
(whatever the rules may be) including this rule
[Non-Proliferation Treaty] - the other powers just
have to accept that and make the most out of the
USA's actions. This is clear from all the nuclear
powers (including Canada and to some extent China)
paying lip service to the USA's proposal so that
they can sell their nuclear technology to India.
Other reasons may be the historical nuclear-energy
cooperation between India and the USA and both
being democracies ... "Are the issues of nuclear
technology and the gas pipeline related in some
way?" I guess, and most people guess, the two
issues are indirectly related to each other. Just
think, the USA wants to build up pressure over
Iran by whatever way it can and it sees India
seeking strategic energy ties with the Islamic
Republic. This might have alarmed the White House,
since an Iran with markets for its goods (oil and
gas) can earn hard currency and scuttle any plans
by the US to impose crippling sanctions. So this
might be a reason to relate both issues
indirectly, plus, once India establishes a
strategic energy relationship with Iran, it will
be in no mood to dance to the US's tunes. So the
US throws the nuclear-energy carrot to dissuade
India from courting Iran. "Personally, I have not
been able to figure out how the US can offer
nuclear technology to a country that has nuclear
weapons and is not a signatory to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereas Iran has no such
weapons and is a signatory to the treaty and,
therefore, has every right to enrich uranium for
peaceful purposes." The nuclear technology offered
to India is in the form of advanced nuclear
reactors, safety systems, and other goodies to
improve efficiency and, more important, a secure
supply of nuclear fuel. It doesn't matter if India
has nuclear weapons or not, it desperately needs
nuclear fuel and advanced technologies in the
civilian sphere ...
Mohan
Germany (Feb 2, '06)
Gregory Clark, [writer] of the
commentary titled Reviving the
China threat [Feb 1], seems to be on the
payroll of the government of the People's Republic
of China.
Hemraj (Feb 1,
'06)
I am
very disappointed that you chose to publish
[Gregory] Clark's [Feb 1] article Reviving the
China threat. My dispute is with his history
lesson of the Korean War that gives the impression
of limited Chinese involvement. North Korea
invaded South Korea and pushed US and South Korean
troops down to the Pusan peninsula. After the
Pusan breakout and Incheon landing, the North
Korean army was decimated, pushed back above the
38th parallel, and found themselves with their
backs at the Yalu River. At this time, US military
[personnel] were given specific instructions not
to approach the river nor to fire their weapons
north across the river [into] Chinese territory.
As Mr Clark stated, hordes of Chinese troops did
come down into North Korea, pushing the US, UN and
South Korean troops below the 38th parallel. These
estimated 1 million troops were not "volunteers"
as the Chinese politely refer to them. They [were]
well-organized and well-armed Chinese military
troops. Given the condition of road and rail
systems in China at that time, the amassing of
these troops would have required at least two
months. So much for last-minute volunteers. I
agree with Mr Clark that there was more extensive
involvement of the Soviet Union [than] the world
powers like to talk about. I vehemently disagree
with his attempt to characterize China's
involvement as limited or secondary. Because China
chose to enter the war, a conflict that would have
lasted six months lasted three years. Deaths of
all military personnel and civilians easily topped
1 million. There was never a US or UN threat to
the Chinese. In fact, while Chinese MiGs flew from
[airfields] north of the Yalu, US pilots were
forbidden from attacking these sites because of a
US fear of expanded conflict. My father was
captured and held by the Chinese from November
1950 until October 1953. Three thousand US
military personnel died in those camps, mostly run
by the Chinese. Ninety-eight percent of them died
from intentional starvation, disease, torture and
execution. As a physician, he personally buried
1,600 of them in the rocky hills of North Korea.
Perhaps Mr Clark should get a little more balanced
understanding of history before he spouts
politics.
Tom Esensten
California, USA (Feb 1,
'06)
Gregory Clark (Reviving the
China threat [Feb 1]) may wish to pay a bit
more attention to the newspapers. If he did, he
would know something of China's threats to
attack/invade Taiwan, and China's threats to use
nuclear weapons on Los Angeles if the US
intervenes. Mr Clark may also wish to take a look
at an "official" map of China published in the
People's Republic of China which purports to show
over 1,000 miles of international water all the
way down to the shores of Malaysia as being
China's domestic territory. There is also the
issue of the map of China being circulated in
government offices in Beijing last year that
showed the "Kazakhstan province" of the People's
Republic of China. To date, China has bluffed
about these spurious territorial claims, but
according to China's own military and government
officials, the bluff will not last forever. I
advise Mr Clark to awaken from his neo-liberalism
dream and face the reality of a China preparing to
use military force to expand its borders.
Daniel
McCarthy (Feb 1, '06)
There is a certain Schadenfreude that
Westerners of a certain age luxuriate in when it
comes to Japan. Gregory Clark [Reviving the
China threat, Feb 1] is of an age [at which
he] has lingering memories of the Pacific theater
in World War II. Consequently, to him, democratic
Japan will ever remain blemished for never
apologizing for the crimes committed in the Showa
emperor's name during the long war imperial Japan
waged from 1941 to utter, unconditional surrender
on August 15, 1945. It is documented the number of
times the Japanese government and the emperor have
made profound bows of regret to China for Japan's
militarism. It is equally documented the stage
shows China put on to humiliate Japan as Beijing
began flexing its economic muscles against its
former enemy and its economic rival. It is well to
recall that Mao [Zedong] and Co came hat in hand
to Tokyo for aid and infusions of foreign capital,
and that Zhou Enlai announced that the page of
history, although not forgotten, had been turned,
thereby ushering in an era of peace and
friendship; it is not to be forgotten that a
damaged China suffering from the excesses of the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution needed much
help to avoid internal collapse and at the same
time to isolate its No 1 enemy of the day, the
Soviet Union. Times have changed and China, thanks
to investment capital, raises its dragon mane and,
surging with renewed economic strength and will to
political dominance in a geographic configuration
of old vassal states, has chosen to trump its old
rival Japan in the most humiliating of situations.
Proud that it may be, Beijing forgets, as does Mr
Clark, that the Japanese are a proud people, and
one who will not suffer indignities in ways
Beijing has choreographed in the last year. Thus
we have [Taro] Aso, the current Japanese foreign
minister, calling upon the Crown Prince to pay his
respects to the fallen at Yasukuni. The Chinese
Communist Party, fine practitioner of the Marxist
dialectic, has forgotten the most elementary
lessons of its own history and the old buzzwords:
humiliation of other people engenders resisters.
And Japan can give as good as it gets.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Feb 1,
'06)
The
march of imperial Japan through Asia began long
before 1941 and the attack on Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, which finally brought the US into the
fray. - ATol
[In] an industry where entry
itself is marked by discrimination, how come the
entrants expect to be treated fairly [Asia's
discriminating airlines: No dragons allowed,
Feb 1]? Question 1: How many males make it to
cabin crew vis-a-vis females? Question 2: How many
ugly (I will settle for average-looking) female
flight attendants are there? It's a simple case of
having your cake and eating it too. The incumbents
make it into the industry based on their looks and
now are whining to keep their positions no matter
what.
Vinny
Mumbai, India (Feb 1,
'06)
I
cannot disagree with Sanam Vakil's article Playing to
Iran's strengths [Feb 1]. He concludes by
saying, "If the Bush administration included
rather than than alienated Tehran ... [it] could
result in the further co-optation of the Islamic
Republic." First it was Iran that alienated itself
against the West by refusing the IAEA
[International Atomic Energy Agency] in inspecting
her nuclear facilities. And the notion that Iran
just wants to be a regional power in its own
rights cannot start with the leader of that nation
threatening to "[wipe] out Israel". Since it is
impossible for any Middle Eastern nation to "wipe
out" Israel using conventional weapons, Iran's
statement could only be interpreted that it is
building non-conventional weapons and has already
threatened the existence of another country. If
this is the road Iran wants to develop its
regional power, the question should be asked:
After Israel, who will be the next nation that
could face a similar threat if they are an
impediment to Iran ambitions?
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 1,
'06)
Spengler: I am an avid reader
of your essays, which I find interesting and
thought-provoking. Unfortunately, I must take
issue with the paragraph in your [Jan 31] piece
that sweepingly equates the incarceration levels
of black American males with the reduction of the
aboriginal population ... and the killing of a
substantial fraction of military-age males from
the south during the American Civil War [No true Scotsman
starts a war]. You don't state the time period
in question, which makes the comparison very
vague. You also don't mention how many are serving
life or very long sentences, nor do you even
discuss what crimes they have committed. Perhaps
you are referring to incarceration rates in the
last couple of decades, and perhaps you have in
mind incarceration for drug felonies, as opposed
to, say, murder, rape and robbery. Of course, none
of these distinctions enter into your sweeping
statement, so we really don't know exactly what
you meant. In any event, it is safe to say that
these incarceration rates are the product of
individual criminal behavior and individual
punishment according to racially neutral laws
adopted and applied on a racially neutral basis.
Many of the individuals in the class will serve
the prescribed terms and will be released. This is
very different from a mass killing or detention or
imprisonment of a class on the basis of their race
or ethnicity (ethnic cleansing, for example). You
offer no evidence to show that black American
males in recent decades have been subject to
unlawful or arbitrary roundups, nor do I think you
could. I also do not think you could back up any
suggestion that the criminal laws in the past two
decades or so have not been adopted and applied on
a racially neutral basis. On the whole, it appears
to me that your claim that the US has recently
destroyed a significant part of the black American
male population appears to be very ill-founded and
overheated.
Jeff Shapiro (Feb 1,
'06)
I
refer to the article No true Scotsman
starts a war [Jan 31]. One of President
[George W] Bush's Yale pals said once that many of
them were dumbfounded when he became president
because [most] of them considered him [to be] a
benign dunce. He was never interested in ideas,
books or causes, did not travel [or] watch news
and probably was the only person who grew up never
expecting to be the president of the United
States. President G W Bush once said, "There is
book wisdom and there is practical wisdom," and
the latter is of interest to a manly man such as
him. One of the effects of Bush's presidency has
been an explosion of unprecedented feelings of
empowerment amongst the dim hacks in the world and
unearned intellectual superiority demonstrated by
Spengler. I have said it before and will say it
without hesitation that wisdom is as alien to
President Bush as are slippers to a snake, and to
prove my point I would ask the readers to listen
to President Bush during press interviews and
judge his depth of wisdom. He has no sense of
direction of leadership or of history or of [the]
newly found concept of democracy. His meager
perception of world history is misleading and now
that he championing his own concept of democracy,
it has given him a bloody nose in Palestine with
Hamas winning the election. The trouble with
President Bush is that he wears blinkers and
blocks his ears with wax so he remains oblivious
to the fact that democracy cannot be imposed nor
[can] it be dictated as wished by him; and it is
not a tasty dish cooked by him, tasted by him,
judged by him and laid down on a table for others
to swallow forcefully. I fail to understand his
logic that all ills in the Muslim world could be
sorted out by his dictated version of imposed
democracy. President Bush's presidency is becoming
a joke and everything he touches turns into a
rusty misadventure of history.
Saqib
Khan
London, England
(Feb 1, '06)
Armer Spengler, he cannot
even do French as well as Heinrich Heine did [No true Scotsman
starts a war, Jan 31]. Where is a good
Gymnasium education when we need it? The word,
Mein Lieber Herr, is metier, not "metiere". Or
to quote Heine, on his deathbed, "Of course God
will forgive me; c'est son
metier." That's the other thing our Oswald
[needs], a sense of humor and acceptance of human
frailty. I think Pope Benedict is doing better
than his bulldog on your site. Hochachtungsvoll,
Vivian Lewis
New York, USA (Feb 1,
'06)
Typos
happen in any language - c'est la vie. The faux pas has been corrected. - ATol
"Long Live North Korean
Self-Reliance" (the English translation of the
Korean slogan "Juchechosunmanse")
misunderstands the meaning of "language of
instruction" (letter, Jan 31). Uighur is taught as
a foreign language to curious foreigners in China,
and also to specialists. This is of no use to the
Uighur people, who already speak their own
language. No classes on history, math, sociology,
or any other subject are taught in a Chinese
university using the Uighur language. Therefore,
Uighur is not used as a "language of instruction"
in any Chinese university. Juchechosunmanse
writes, "This is the same guy who claimed that
there are no more Uighurs in Beijing [letter, Oct
13]. People should really take his opinionated
observations with a grain of salt." What I
actually wrote was that the Uighurs were once a
very prominent sight in Beijing, but are no longer
so due to crackdowns on street vendors and migrant
workers in Beijing. Finally, I take it that
Juchechosunmanse sees nothing worth criticizing in
David Gosset's sycophantic praise for the
communists' miraculous policies in East Turkestan
[Xinjiang and the
revival of the Silk Road, Jan 26].
G
Travan
California, USA
(Feb 1, '06)
Never been to your site
before, got here by accident. My gosh! What are
you smokin'? Your paper reads like some commie
dream of what the world should be. Can you cram
any more "hate Bush - hate the USA" in one page?
Let me give you a sobering thought: we, the USA,
have done more for freedom and liberty than
anybody, ever, in the history of the world. We
have helped more people than the rest of the world
combined. Savvy? Oh that's right, you're a commie.
You know nothing about freedom, rights or helping
people, do you? One more thing. Keep it up and
we'll do what we do best here in America. Kick
your ass.
Joe DeWitt (Feb 1,
'06)
Congratulations, you are the
2,200th member of the ATol Fan Club. Members are
eligible for a one-way trip to Baghdad, a month's
supply of freedom fries, and a copy of Andrew
Bacevich's The New American Militarism: How
Americans Are Seduced by War (see review, The specter of
two 'isms', Jul 9,
'05). - ATol
January
Letters
|
