I write to respond to those who wrote calling people like me an apologist for terrorists. I was one of those who wrote in earlier calling for the US government to reflect on its foreign policy towards the Islamic world in general as well as the Middle East so that the root causes for the hatred of the US could be determined and also examined.

But several who wrote in do not share this view. I have no problems with that. But they have also called people like me an apologist for terrorism and/or raised other spurious attacks. I am thus compelled to respond with the goal that we could all engage in reasonable discussion.

My specific reference is to three letters. They were from Terrified ('Don't try to justify acts of unknown perpetrators', Sept 18), Frustrated Humanist ('Litmus test for all', Sept 17), and Dr Stefen Tan ('US declared war on terrorists, not Muslims', Sept 18).

First, Terrified made the accusation that a call to US to reflect on their foreign policy amounts to justifying the acts of the terrorists. I don't know what is the basis of such a sweeping statement.

Even if (s)he were referring only to MGG Pillai, I don't necessary agree because, while Pillai might have brought up the subject of US foreign policy, he was arguing a larger cause for the terrorist attacks last week, i.e, the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

Others who had written in with the call for the US to reflect on their foreign policy did not excuse or justify the attacks. Don't confuse the attempt at identifying reasons with endorsing them.

Indeed, I was terribly saddened by the attacks that I fervently hope that such senseless killings would not escalate. I also fervently believe that military retaliation by the US is exactly what the terrorists wanted the US to do, bringing the US down to their level of barbarism. Such a response may even be perversely used to justify the attacks on the US to those who harbour hatred of the US and get them to continue with the madness.

Terrified is right to say the reasons for the attacks on US are still unknown. Well, you know who should get this message first and foremost? The US government and many US citizens because they already rushed in with their reason: the attacks were made by people who opposed freedom and democracy and their fingers have pointed almost from the very beginning at extremist Islamic groups and especially Osama bin Laden. What concrete evidence has been presented to make the case?

But while the world still awaits that, the US government has decided to engage in a war against people opposed to freedom and democracy. The US media have pretty much bought this and so have most US citizens, judging by opinion polls.

What is lost is any priority given to getting at the root causes for the hatred of the US. Specifically to examine its foreign policy since the attacks were carried out by peoples/forces outside of the US.

Terrified asks us to imagine being in one of the two WTC towers when the hijacked plane deliberately crashed into it. If your point is to underscore the unimaginable sufferings that had incurred, you made it. And certainly nobody deserved that.

But are we going to feel that way all our lives and let that barbarism dictate our lives from now on? Is it not important to try and determine why all that should happen and not just settle on the jingoistic reasoning that the people who committed the attacks were evil people and opposed to freedom and democracy?

Are people born evil? Or don't you believe in people being shaped to a large extent by what happened to and around them?

Terrified ended his letter by saying he is using a pseudonym not in fear of the Americans "as I'm pretty sure that they will not gun me down in the streets for my opinion regardless of what the apologists might think". But what about the barbaric backlash committed against Muslims and/or Arab-looking US citizens by some of the whites in the US? Tell it to the Indian-born US citizen who was gunned down Monday by some whites in Arizona.

Letter writer Frustrated Humanist ended his piece with this question as a litmus test for MGG Pillai, among others: "Would you rather be under the government of Saddam-led Iraq or a Bush-led America?"

I don't know about Pillai, but my answer: Neither, because I want something better. A Bush-led America may appear better but if the call to military retaliation against people opposed to freedom and democracy is the way to deal with the barbaric attacks on the US, it is very much a flawed society.

What I find distasteful about that question is the insidious implication that either you are with us or you are not.

Earlier in the letter, Frustrated Humanist accepted that the US is by no means perfect. Well, it is precisely because of this that we also need to address because all too often that means nothing more can be done since human beings are never perfect. I am not concerned with whether or not we achieve perfection. I am interested that we always try to work our best and humanely towards it, and not stop simply because it is viewed as unattainable.

As Gramsci said: Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. It speaks volumes about what it takes to be a humanist.

Finally, I turn to Dr Stefen Tan. He first assumed that the terrorist attacks on US were aimed at civilians. I am not sure.

Terrorism, as far as we know thus far, is really after major symbols. The World Trade Center is a major symbol of the US or capitalism (which are largely synonymous). The plane that crashed into the Pentagon was actually meant to hit the White House or Air Force One carrying President Bush, according to the Bush administration.

If the aim of terrorism is to attack civilians, I would think wiping out a community in the heartland of America would be the way to do it. That would really strike fear in the people. The message of the attack would be unambiguous.

Still, that may not be as satisfying (for want of a better word) to terrorists because another element of terrorism known so far is that it needs to generate public attention through the media. And the way to achieve that is something spectacular and sensational. Of course, the staggering magnitude of the attacks last week had tragically exceeded all imagination to date.

But as staggering the attacks had been, the point is that the terrorists still appeared to have the aim of striking hard at major symbols of the US. Seen in this way, I am not comfortable with Dr Tan presenting more justification for US military actions that aim at striking at the terrorists while inflicting deaths and injuries to innocent civilians, who are conveniently referred to in the chilling Pentagonspeak as 'collateral damage'.

The terminology does not hide the fact that we are still dealing with lives lost and maimed. And because of that, I would rather that critical reflection prevailed to address the root causes for the hatred of the US and then take actions based on that.

Sure, it is enormously tough to do. But consider the alternative of rushing headlong into engaging in military retaliation to satisfy the thirst for revenge. History has shown time and again that that is part of the problem not solution.

Dr Tan also stated that when the US government hit out at Saddam Hussein in Desert Storm, he cited the US concern for the lives lost in Kuwait as a rebuttal to those who sympathise with the lost of lives in Iraq.

Really, I don't know where he is going with that. If our concern is the sanctity of lives, we should practise it and cultivate it. A life for a life leads to a vicious dead-end precisely because each side always has its sympathisers and mourners.

On a more mundane level, the problem with Desert Storm is that the senior Bush administration was hiding a major reason for it, namely to protect America's interests and way of life by securing the supply of oil. All that was cloaked under the call to fight against the forces opposed to freedom and democracy. Last I checked, Kuwait still does not have a constitutional or parliamentary democratic governance.

The most curious way Dr Tan made his argument is in addressing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He went back to the Book of Genesis and the period dating back to at least 70 AD.

Problem is, when Pillai invoked the Crusades as an explanation, Dr Tan dismissed it for the mere reason that they "are of a bygone era". Surely, Dr Tan, you can do better than that for you could also be similarly faulted.

In closing, I would like to conclude with some comments on MGG Pillai.

In general, I don't have real problems with his overall message. But there are two things with which I have been uncomfortable.

First, his first article, written only a few hours after the attacks on New York City and Washington DC and showed hardly any shock and sadness over the tragic loss of life, made it unpalatable. I think a lot of people might have found him revolting, lacking in any respect for the human life.

The second problem is with his writing. It is frequently incohesive, replete with non-sequiturs , and tends to ramble. He needs to do better.