Black and Asian organizations

In “No double standard” (Nov. 5) Francis Andrew says that he has always wanted to have nonwhite people as members of the British National Party. That position is hard to reconcile with the fact that the BNP opposes nonwhite immigration to the UK. And, if someone doesn’t oppose the presence of nonwhites, then why did he ever join the BNP, which does oppose the presence of nonwhites?

Second, Andrew listed a number of associations in the UK, which he says deny membership to whites. This isn’t true. Groups such as the Black and Asian Police Association were set up to address specific issues that affected black and Asian policemen, not as an anti-white racist organization. Whites have never been denied entry to any of these groups based on skin color. It would be a simple process for anyone to e-mail the groups listed by Andrew and ask about their membership qualifications. As for the BNP’s stance on global warming, anyone can type “Nick Griffin Global Warming” into their Internet search engine, and have a long list of speeches by Griffin, the leader of the BNP, telling what he thinks.

Wilson R. Raj, Alkhobar published 12 November 2009

Texas shooting

This is regarding your editorial about Texas shooting (Nov. 9).

For a large number of Americans to assume that Maj. Hasan was a terrorist is wrong. But that wrong is no worse than your assumption that it wasn’t terrorism. The “act of terror” will be evaluated by many agencies and in the end, the truth will be known. No one at this point can honestly say why he acted as he did. What we all should say is we feel remorse and sorrow for the victims of his actions.

Lorin Berry, By e-mail published 12 November 2009

Texas shooting 2

Overall your editorial does not make any sense. When a white person in America kills a number of people, we can only assume that he/she’s Christian, because America has Christian roots. The same would happen in Saudi Arabia. If a Saudi killed a number of people, no one would be speculating about his religion.

Mart, By e-mail published 12 November 2009

Texas shooting 3

The insane action of Maj. Nidal Hasan killing 13 and wounding 30 fellow soldiers and other military staff have been vehemently condemned by all sections of US society. Initial reports indicated that he was unhappy with his scheduled deployment in Afghanistan but could this be a justification for such an act? What is the difference between killing people in a war and killing your own colleagues to make public your opposition to war?

This is not the first time that someone has refused to join a war on moral grounds — as a conscientious objector. In 1960s boxer Muhammed Ali Clay preferred being stripped of his boxing title to fighting an unjust war in Vietnam. History will remember Muhammed Ali for his courage in standing for a just cause. However, Maj. Hasan will go down as a murderer.

At the same time the US needs to rethink why its actions in the name of the war on terror are not producing the results it wants. Sometimes it appears that the terrorists and the US are working hand in hand or complementing each other’s actions. I refer to the statement of the head of the US Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (Nov. 6) admitting that events in Guantanamo had been used as a recruiting tool by terrorist groups. It was also reported on Nov. 7 that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui had surrendered her right to appear in person in the court because she does not want to go through the full body strip search and other humiliations she must face every time she is taken to the court. I am not questioning US prison rules which may need to be obeyed by every inmate. But don’t the authorities think that such treatment would inevitably be used by the terrorist groups to drum up support for their evil ideology? Can Americans think out of the box and beyond their noses? Their arrogance, disrespect for others human rights and stereotyping different communities based on skin colors and beliefs are not very helpful. All this will only help terrorists advance their unjust cause.

Masood Khan, Jubail published 12 November 2009

Texas shooting 4

The crazy man in Florida did not bring religion into his killing spree — the crazy man at Fort Hood did. He is the one who should be blamed for bringing religion into this — he shouted “Allah-o— Akbar!”

Stephanie Bowlick, By e-mail published 12 November 2009

Monorail project

I have been following the monorail project for months now and several of my friends want to know whether this will be a monorail by definition or if it is a dual steel rail elevated line? Monorail is a single beam that supports the entire train and unusually the train wraps around these beams. Nowhere in any news reports, are the trains described or what brand they are. I am familiar with Scomi, Bombardier, Hitachi and a couple of other Japanese trains.

Don Gallagher, By e-mail published 12 November 2009

Black Stone

The Saudi government is making tremendous efforts to make the Haj hassle-free. I am a Pakistani and had the honor to perform Haj and Umrah and am very much impressed with the efforts going on to make Haj easy, especially during the ritual of stone throwing. Here is a suggestion. It is not at all easy for everyone to kiss the Black Stone each time or even once before starting tawaf so we raise our hands from a distance and glorify Allah. But later on, some men somehow manage to force their way to the Kaaba and kiss the Black Stone. Women can’t and don’t want to do it. So here the authorities can do something similar to what they have done in the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah. In Madinah two hours are exclusively reserved for women for ziyarat. In the same way women should be allowed to form a queue and kiss the Black Stone during a two-hour period without interference or hindrance by men.

Ozma Tahir, By e-mail published 12 November 2009

Obama’s biggest mistake

This is in reference to your editorial ‘Obama’s woes’ (Nov.5). I was pleased to read that you had expressed the same view I had since Hillary Clinton was appointed secretary of state. All along I had thought that President Barack Obama has made his biggest mistake in giving this important position to her. Bad as the administration of George W. Bush was, his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Bush said the same thing. There was consistency, right or wrong, whether it was said in Jerusalem or Cairo, Islamabad or New Delhi.

Now, with this lady who falsely dramatized her visit to Bosnia fabricating a “sniper fire” fiction that was proved totally untrue within 48 hours, during her campaign to win the Democratic nomination, we hear contradictory statements from various capitals. In Islamabad she says things to please the Pakistanis and just the opposite in New Delhi. She is playing this dirty game wherever she goes, whether Jerusalem or Cairo. She is the most unreliable secretary of state in recent US history.

I have no doubt that Clinton will run for nomination again, if the president decides to go for a second term. I also have no doubt that until then, she will try to do the maximum to tarnish Obama’s image in the US and abroad. For Obama it is a case of “tiger by the tail.” All in all, Obama looks like nothing more than a “one-term president” with this biggest mistake he has made. I am sure that he must have realized his mistake by now but it is too late.

S.H. Moulana, Riyadh published 12 November 2009

UN mission

This is regarding your editorial (Nov. 6) on the attack at a UN compound in Kabul that killed eight people, including five UN officials.

The UN was formed on the assumption that all people love peace and life more than violence. When there is one particular group that insists on using violence and terrorism to advance its agenda, those who embrace peace cannot prevail. Until all nations, all international organizations, all “cultures” sincerely and forcefully condemn violence and terrorism, this world will continue to be under the shadow of the sword, under the shadow of evil.

Chris, By e-mail published 12 November 2009