In response to the series of MGG Pillai's columns concerning the terrorist assaults on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, and the discussions arising from them, I would like to make a few comments.

I totally agree that our minds should not be colonised, and an American death is not necessarily more horrific than an European death, or both far more horrific than that of an African or Asian.

Nevertheless, while we are strongly against US hegemony and condemn the innumerable atrocities and deaths caused by the same all over the world, we should make it a principle that no innocent civilians should be targeted regardless of whether they are the oppressed people of the Middle East or Americans. All lives are precious.

It is undeniable that US terrors in the past could be the cause of the recent attacks, but the former cannot justify the latter, simply because two wrongs do not make a right.

Therefore, it is unbecoming to say that "when terror is part of public policy, as in the US, it must accept retaliation in kind".

In other words, though the related US policy could be blamed and the US government could even be held indirectly responsible for the massacre, it is definitely incorrect to presume that American civilians must accept retaliation in kind.

"Whoever planned yesterday's events had decided that unless this global terrorism is brought to Washington's doorstep, nothing would change," said Pillai.

This could be the philosophy of the terrorists, but it should not be propagated by justice-and-peace-loving people. Terror against terror, in a nutshell, is the crazy strategy of lunatics.

There is no doubt that the oppressed have a right to fight a just war against their oppressors, internally or internationally, but terrorist assaults on innocent civilians cannot be justified.

Discarding rationalism

It seems that many are reluctant to unreservedly condemn the terrorism in the US assaults, due to their anti-US hegemony stand and empathy with the struggles of the related oppressed people and nations. Some are even greatly exalted by the fact that the assaults had effectively dealt a great blow on the ugly superpower and the myth of its invulnerability.

The assailants were even regarded by an editorial in a party organ as idealist and devout fighters, Recently, I had a small debate with a friend who openly stated his sympathy for the above-mentioned assailants, whom he believes were fighting for the cause of the oppressed Muslims.

These examples show that in realpolitik, ideological and religious sentiments sometimes can go against rationalism.

To assert that the present situation is but a continuation of the Crusades and to liken President Bush's declaration of war against Osama bin Laden and his patrons to the Crusades, one wittingly or unwittingly, harps dangerously Samuel Huntington's theory of the 'clash of civilisations' - which would harmfully fan the religious sentiments of the related parties.

It is highly irresponsible and anti-Islam for anyone to commit terrorism under the guise of ' jihad ' (holy war), and it is equally irresponsible and anti-Christianity for any one to launch a retaliatory war under the name of the 'Crusades'.

It is important to point out that terrorist organisations are not limited to any particular race or religion, and so are the victims of terrorism.

Even if the terrorists involved in the American assaults were incidentally Muslims who were given shelter by Islamic countries, and that Bush has unilaterally decided to launch a military retaliation against the 'prime suspect' Osama and Afghanistan, it is by no means a clash of civilisations or religions per se.

It is also self-contradictory when Pillai on one hand strongly criticises Bush for declaring war against Osama and Afghanistan while on the other hand, he also deems it wrong to root out terrorism as a criminal act.

He even advises US to root it out as the Allied Forces did Germany during the World War II. Does Pillai encourage US to launch a full-fledged war?

Superpower hegemony

One malaysiakini letter writer opines that only power - diplomatic, economic and military - wielded by other nations, not terrorist bands, can ultimately overthrow American hegemony.

He further suggest that only China and/or Russia have the willingness and the capacity to ultimately challenge and topple American hegemony, and this means to exchange American domination for Chinese and/or Russian domination.

Why there must be there be a hegemony of this or that superpower?

Why can't the superpowers free themselves from becoming hegemonies, or the oppressed people and nations all over the world unite to free themselves from the domination of any existing or would-be hegemony?