Discussing terrorism
I am writing in response to your editorial ("Search for the truth, not a scapegoat," Sept. 13, Page 8). I have no intention of getting into a debate with your newspaper with respect to your view about US policy in the Middle East. That is a topic that is controversial even among Americans.
The view presented in your editorial is therefore certainly nothing new, for I have read and heard similar views before. Of course, this view comes mostly from people of European countries who colonized the Middle East before World War II. It is certainly understandable that they would hold a view different from Americans when it comes to their former colonies. It was just a little surprising hearing that view from a Taiwanese medium usually considered sympathetic to the cause of Taiwan's independence.
I don't know whether you realize this or not but in the eyes of many Americans, US intervention in the Taiwan Strait would be just as excessive as its intervention in the Middle East. These Americans are simply sick and tired of getting into quarrels with countries such as the Arab states and China over other people's affairs, and wasting US tax payers' money on military activities involving these affairs. Despite all this, your view was certainly thought-provoking and to be respected.
I guess the only problem that I have with your editorial is the hint that the terrorists who carried out the New York attacks were not "technically" cowards. Again, I see the logic behind this view, as ordinarily we would not call people willing to give up their lives "cowards."
I hope to draw your attention to one thing, however. Studies conducted on the mentality of terrorists have established that one factor that makes them so willing to carry out suicidal missions of this nature is a portrayal of themselves as heroes and martyrs, giving up their lives for higher causes. Many psychologists have suggested therefore that efforts must be made not to give them any reasons for others in any way to associate their acts with courage and bravery. This way other terrorists might have less motivation to commit similar acts in the future.
Of course, it very possible no terrorist ever reads the Taipei Times or cares about how the Western media perceives them. Nevertheless, don't you agree that we must do our small part to reduce any chance of this type of suicidal attack from happening again? Don't you agree that this is the responsibility of any media group? In particular, I think calling people who killed innocent and unarmed American civilians (including women and children) "cowards" is entirely justified.
Barbara Sherwood
Taipei
I cannot imagine the anger and grief of someone who lost a loved one in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Your editorial does ask a question that is rarely asked, let alone pondered. Certainly, TV coverage has not touched upon it (from what I've seen) and Canadian public radio (CBC) has only done so to a limited extent.
I am a high school science teacher. In my comments to my students, I noted that it would be useful for them to understand what would draw someone to such an evil, hateful act. I recalled my experience discussing the subject of Israel while I was in high school in Calgary with a Lebanese student and a Palestinian student. When I turned my back after the heated debate, the Lebanese student kicked me in the rear. Imagine. This was in a high school in western Canada 17 years ago.
Beyond the Palestinian question, perhaps, the West should consider the consequences that abandoning or watering down the Kyoto Accord would entail. Do thousands of lives lost to changing weather patterns matter any less than the horrific losses of last Tuesday? And this is just one example of the G7's self-absorbed policies.
Thank you for daring to ask such a relevant question. Lest we forget, bin Laden's network originated from the CIA-sponsored Mujahadin freedom fighters of Afghanistan's civil war. Some of your wording may have been insensitive, but you do offer a valid argument. We should all strive to seek a greater understanding of each other and not fall into the trap of self-righteousness.
Leslie Ruo
Saskatoon, Canada
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS