Posted November 18, 2002

Chinese Progress

The article "Jiang's Theory is a Smokescreen" is wrong [and] ... based on distorted perception.

I would urge teacher/columnist Matuszak to have to a serious study of the 3 represents theory. That would help his teaching as well as article writing. From what I read of his article, I can surely say that he just doesn't understand it at all. You can make jokes about it. But it is not a laughing matter! Laughing at something that you don't understand makes you yourself laughable. And it proves nothing but your ignorance!

I strongly disagree the notion that (as Matuszak claims) the Chinese live in great hardship. Rather, over the past years, our condition has improved to a degree beyond the wildest dreams of many people! More people can afford a larger house or a house, on average most of the working population make more. More kids can go to university even if tuition is charged. I can list many more examples. Matuszak can be excused for ignoring these solid facts as he has not lived long enough (I would assume) to observe the dramatic change for the better in the livelihood of the Chinese. But, would you agree with me when I say the American people, or British people live in great hardship just because there are people sleeping in the street of New York or London?

Sure, we have problems, many of which are serious. But I would challenge Matuszak to name a place where we would not find serious problems in this world!

Be a bit fair, man!

~ Hao Bin

Back to Life

Regarding "He's Alive!" by Justin Raimondo:

It looks like they kill him [bin Laden] when their objectives are achieved and bring him back to life when they want their objectives to be achieved. Putin wants support so he can do what ever he feels like in Chechnya. Bush wanted his vote in the U.N. and so goes the story until he is killed again.

~ Mohammed Nawaz, New Orleans, Louisiana

Internationalism

I hope we can begin to attack the fortress of myths that destroy the only real hope we have for peace, return to the mind-your-own-business wisdom of America First, and Monroe Doctrine-like tolerance for other people's back yard.

The communists were internationalist, with no respect for other people's backyard – being a "world movement for all mankind." That is the feature that made them dangerous, not their absurd ideas on economics. That's why Trotsky was more dangerous to the world than was Stalin.

Osama is dangerous because his is a world vision. Lets not also become dangerous to everyone because we believe the swan song of global capitalism. To the extent that other movements are global, they will eventually incur the wrath of the people of the world.

If we lead by example, and they see that the US is removing troops from its bases around the world including Saudi Arabia and Kosovo, Japan and Germany, South Korea, parts of Africa etc. , the true threats to the peace of the world will be clear....

We can argue about the merits of what a great world power might do in its back yard, but basically the idea of minding ones own business is a firebreak against tyranny. ...Australia intervened in East Timor, what I consider basically its own backyard (the internationalist Osama uses this a one of the excuses for his crusade). Russia has their problems with the Chechnya rebels. That's basically their own backyard, and again Osama is right there, everywhere in the world. Everything Moslem is his business. The US has some global tentacles at work too in its support of Israel and its misadventure in Iraq. So does Osama. Lets pull out of NATO as well and get out of Russia's face. Lets not go over to the dark side here. Try to stand for the one recipe for world peace, a return to minding our own business.

~ HR

Propagate Worldwide

Last night, while really considering some of the creative options we might, as human community, have to address Iraq, I realized that no matter what we do, we must think outside the Bush.

I truly desire the phrase be propagated world wide. It's my rather simple contribution, but chanted from here to there, will strengthen the resolve worldwide, not to play.

~ Richard P.

Looking for Intellectual Capability

I think I read on CNN a few days ago that the USA would be looking for "the intellectual capability for weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. I ... think this means identifying individuals who are capable of the levels of physics/maths and project management that would be required for a nuclear program. Most of them are known because they graduated from US and UK universities.

What is the US/UN going to do with these people? Will it be murder, illegal incarceration? We need to know.

~ Barry Holland, UK

Got More Martyrs Than Holako Had Tartars

Regarding "He's Alive!" by Justin Raimondo, I feel that Justin missed the real "money quote." It falls about half way down the printed text of the statement and reads as follows:

"Here's Rumsfeld, the Vietnam butcher, he killed over 2 million people in addition to the injured, and Cheney and Powell are responsible for more killings and destruction in Baghdad than Holako of the Tatar."

What?! Holako of the Tatar? Who the heck is the "evil one" comparing Cheney and Powell with?

I had to briefly educate myself on Medieval Middle Eastern history. After Genghis Khan died in 1227 AD, the Mongolians continued their expansion with invasions of Middle Asia, Russia and the Ukraine. They attacked Poland and defeated the German and Scandinavian armies and thrust deep into Europe. They also headed to the Islamic world and took Turkestan, Afghanistan, India and Persia.

The Mongolians were very ruthless and merciless with the countries they occupied. Their savagery and barbarism were well known. They were winning battles not only by force, but also by the psychological fear they instilled in the minds of their enemies.

The Muslim kingdoms at the time were fairly weak, so it was easy for the Mongolians to defeat entire Islamic armies and take over their kingdoms.

Thereafter, the Mongolians under Sultan Holako took Iraq. They besieged Baghdad, the capital of the Abbasid dynasty, which was suffering from great weakness and internal dissent. Baghdad fell at the hands of the Mongolians in the year 1258 AD. For 40 days, the Mongolians massacred the people of Baghdad. Ibn Katheer states that there were more than 800,000 dead and some commentators say as many as 2,000,000 Baghdadi citizens were slaughtered! It is said that the Caliph of Baghdad at the time was put in a bag and kicked to death!

The source of this information is "Palestine in Islamic History" www.palestine-info.co.uk/history/palesinsileng.html. That article goes on to state that Europe was much relieved by the Mongolian invasion of the Islamic kingdoms and tried to coordinate with them against their common enemy. They also tried to spread Christianity amongst the Tartarians themselves. They partially succeeded at first, for it was known that the Holako had an inclination towards the Nastorian Christians, and his court was full of many of them. One of his main generals, Katbaga, was a Christian. Holako's wife was a Christian, too. She played a major role, in diverting the Mongolian march from Europe and directing it instead at the Islamic world. The Christian influence was so great on the Mongolians that one priest described the Tartarian invasion as "a Crusader campaign in the full sense of the word -- a full Nastorian Christianity." The West even hoped that Holako and his leader Katbaga would eliminate the Muslims entirely. Hatoon the First, the king of Armenia, and Bohemond the Sixth, the prince of Tripoli, along with the Crusader princes in Sour, Akka and Cyprus, made an alliance with the Mongolians that stressed the elimination of Muslims in Asia and the return of Jerusalem to the Crusaders.

More interestingly than this history lesson was my discovery that Syrian state television is preparing to run a historical panoramic series: "Imru'u Al-Qais, Imar Al-Khayyam, Al-Mutanabbi, and Holako" during the month of Ramadan. (This information comes from www.syrialive.net.)

According to that website, the series touches on important historical characters and roles, such as Al-Mutanabbi, Omar Al-Khayyam and Holako. The production, compares imperialist attacks of United States in the region with similar military campaigns led by Holako, and seeks to provide historical lessons of the impact of foreign invasion to the region.

Is it a coincidence that bin Laden's statement coincides with this revival of interest in Holako or is there a connection?

~ Vijay Venkataraman, Louisiana