Moral High Horse

Betty Wiggins’s letter “Shedding Innocent Blood” (Sept. 7) has demonstrated that if anyone has the right to point an accusing finger at the Arabs, it certainly isn’t a Westerner. Betty, a loyal churchgoer, piously explains to us that, “In all the years I have been going to church, not once have I ever heard or read anything that would give the indication that it was all right to murder.”

Betty, I advise you to watch the actions that represent the words that you’ll never hear. For example, it was the Christian Churches that blessed and sanctioned the bloodbath of World War I. It was also the same church that informed the faithful that the Vietnam War had God’s approval and those two examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

Leaving church, Betty proceeds to ascend the moral high ground where she lectures us thus, “Personally, if all terrorists were white, belonging to the same faith I belong to, I would be upset enough to try to find out why.” Betty, what do you mean “if” and “were”? Accuracy would be well served had you said, “Most terrorists have been, are and continue to be white.”

I call upon any honest-hearted person to review the history of the white West. Start from 1512 when the good white Christians of Spain began their genocide of anyone walking on two legs in the “New World”.

Follow the course of that stunningly bloody history and mark well the proceeding 400-plus years of genocide and slavery, along with widespread environmental destruction and the driving into extinction of hundreds of birds and beasts in that on going rampage.

So, Betty, are you now “upset enough to find out why”?

Betty opines that, “putting the blame on America and Israel is a copout” Conversely, I opine that putting the blame on America and Israel has a degree of merit. I must call everyone’s attention to the amazing fact that it wasn’t Saudi Arabia that put the murderous Shah of Iran in power, it was America. Will anyone be surprised when I state that it wasn’t Syria who put Saddam Hussein in power? That credit goes to America once again. And who was it that trained Osama Bin Laden to do those things he does? It wasn’t the United Arab Emirates — it was America. As for Israel, what about that latest spy scandal, Betty?

Steve Corcoran • Alkhobar published 15 September 2004

Blaming STC

The story “Penny-Wise STC Holds Up Subscriber” (Sept. 9) reported the case of an STC employee who told a subscriber that he could not cancel his connection, unless he settled the bill in full including the five halalas left outstanding after the customer had paid SR400. The way the story was reported gave the suggestion that the STC employee had done something shameful. Had he? Was it really STC’s fault? I think not.

In fact, the report does say much more about the attitude of us Saudis — assuming the customer, Abdullah Al-Oufi, was a Saudi — regarding taking responsibility and our habit of settling dues. I am sure that the “additional” amount of five halala was mentioned in the bill received by him. Let us be honest and be clear about who was at fault here.

K. Alwassia • Jeddah published 15 September 2004

Insight Into Terrorism

In his article “The Word ‘Terrorist’ Has Lost Its Meaning” (Sept. 9), Dr. Mohammad T. Al-Rasheed has once again shown the sort of insight that many of us have forgotten in this mad world of ours. By breaking issues down to their simplest form, and by providing us uncompromising rational thought, he offers reality, truth, guidance and hope.

David Benaim • United States published 15 September 2004

Insight Into Terrorism [2]

Well said. However, it will not excuse us from helping the Chechens find peace, nor from stopping Putin from the self-serving elimination of moderates in Chechnya he seems determined to pursue. This way, he always has someone to go to war against. Say what you will about America, in comparison we’re trying our best not to eliminate moderates in Iraq. I for one will not go anywhere near Russia until Putin and his ilk are gone. All that attacks like Beslan do is prolong the rule of ridiculous ex-KGB officers like Putin, which is a shame. Good luck in tackling this issue; I do not envy your challenge in this. Ask us for our help if we can give any.

Brian Torri • United States published 15 September 2004

Insight Into Terrorism [3]

The horror in Beslan was everything Al-Rasheed said. But what he did not say was that it had not come out of the blue. It came in response to larger horrors that had gone unreported because the children killed were not photographed and did not matter because they were poor, dressed in tatters and were not fashionable.

Ten years ago Chechnya had a population of two million. Today it is 800,000. The others were killed or are refugees, fleeing Putin’s reign of terror, or have simply disappeared, often in the night. At least 200,000 Chechen civilians have been killed, including 35,000 children. Another 40,000 children have been seriously injured, 32,000 have lost at least one parent and 6,500 have lost both. When revulsion at inhuman cruelty comes only when victims belong to a particular ethnicity, nationality, religion, economic class or whatever other grouping there is, that revulsion is equally revolting — because it does not come from conviction but from prejudice or, still worse, a desire for applause.

The underlying logic is that it does not matter when these people bury their children in tens of thousands; but when they cause their killers to bury their children in hundreds, the whole world must sit up and howl. This is a logic that we have become familiar with in recent times. When American civilians, working in offices, are killed, it is terrorism. But when Americans kill Afghan civilians working in their farms or Iraqi civilians foraying for food, it is collateral damage. Sure, America is fighting a war — where it has no business to be. Osama Bin Laden also was fighting a war — where he had no business to be. Both are convinced that they had orders from High Above to reshape the world and begin the effort with a regime change. Both were taking human lives dismissing it as a collateral damages. Both killed innocents — Bush more than Osama. When innocents are killed on any side, it should be either terrorism or collateral damage. It can’t be one thing for the goose and another for the gander.

And what is the point of the fashionable wail, “Nothing justifies this”? Nothing justifies the other either. If the other is justified, this also is. Terrorism will be defeated only when all terrorism is targeted. Those who argue differently have other agendas.

Suhail Abdullah • Jeddah published 15 September 2004

Insight Into Terrorism [4]

I totally agree there is no absolution for the nihilists who now command the militant conservative wings of all world religions. Beslan was horrific in the sheer number of dead and innocent children. But those who blow up school buses, places of worship and discos in Israel or India or Pakistan, or a daycare center in the Murrah building in Oklahoma City in the name of a “political” deity are equally damned.

Vikki O’Connor • United States published 15 September 2004

Insight Into Terrorism [5]

The massacre was just wrong. To talk about the Chechen struggle in conjunction with it serves to blur the lines between what is morally right and what is morally wrong. As for Chechen separatism or any other kind of separatism, a nation such a Russia or the US would be foolish to allow regions to secede. It would just lead to everyone else wanting to do the same thing. Muslims should take note that while all Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslim. Islam needs to stand up against those who are responsible for what it has come to represent in the eyes of the world.

A.B. • United States published 15 September 2004

Remembering Second Part

The recurring theme of the Sept. 11 remembrance ceremonies was the neocon cry “Never let them forget what they did to us” repeated time after time throughout the day — the “they” being Muslims and Arabs. Of course, no one said, “Remember what we did to them first.”

Ed Friedemann • Texas, US published 15 September 2004

Oil Politics

“The Need for Rational Thinking in a Troubled World” (Sept. 9) was an excellent article. I think the last line, where Miriam Al-Oraifi points out, “For the US to forcefully seek Gulf oil can only be seen as an imperialist move whereas Gulf states’ defense of their oil resources is a moral duty,” really comes to the crux of the matter.

The world is powered by hydrocarbons, and the US will ensure that it has access to that resource until subsequent technologies render hydrocarbons cost-inefficient. It will use alliances where possible, mild coercion if necessary, and its military prowess if nothing else works. This is a strategic interest, and the US is willing to pay any price in blood and treasure to protect that interest. That said, there is nothing to prevent the Gulf countries from benefiting handsomely from their natural resources. The current US economy withstood $50-a-barrel oil without much trouble. And America’s strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia reduced the price back to a more manageable $40 a barrel. The US has friends as well as enemies in the Gulf. There’s no need to do something rash and ruin the standing arrangements.

Arnold Zamorano published 15 September 2004

Pak-India Peace

That peace efforts by Pakistan and India, given a new lease of life in recent times, have not yet come anywhere near solving the Jammu and Kashmir issue should surprise no one. The solution to a dispute as complex as this, with all the historical baggage it carries, will need much time and wisdom as well as magnanimity and flexibility on both sides. Until now, despite all the declarations of good intentions we have heard from both sides, there has not been much progress precisely because both sides find it hard to leave the entrenched positions they have occupied for the last 50 years and also because the same people, whose “dialogue” in the pre-thaw days never went beyond bickering and abuses, are dealing with the problem. A change of attitude will come only after a change of faces. Frankly, it will be surprising if we have a solution during the tenure of the present governments in Pakistan and India. It will linger on as both sides try to wear each other out.

The only way to move forward is for the two governments to look ahead, not behind. Let their plans for the future be based not on the wrongs and grievances of the past, but on what an early resolution of the dispute will mean to their two peoples in the future and on how eager the people of their countries are to enjoy the benefits of peace which will bring security and prosperity to the region. The Kashmiris, of course, must play a major role in the process. We will have no peace if they do not get what they want. Following the course charted out by the many UN resolutions on Kashmir is the only way to solve the issue.

Zafar Raja • Alkhobar published 15 September 2004