On Al Baker's "Terror Trial Outside Manhattan? Possible But Unlikely"

To the editor:

In Al Baker’s article, “Terror Trial Outside Manhattan? Possible But Unlikely,” on January 22, 2010, residence worried about the trial being held in Manhattan. Baker suggested that enhanced security round 1 Police Plaza was a cause of great concern. However, many residents might be worried about the potential degradation that holding a trial against terrorists would create for their community. According to NYC’s list of demographics (http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/downloads/pdf/cd_snapshots/manhattan_cd4_chelsea_clinton.pdf), forty-four percent of Manhattan’s residences in 2008 earned $75,000 or more, while only thirty-two percent earned $34,999 and less. Many Manhattan residents enjoy the limited social generosities that come with having money. I would like to ask Manhattan people their reasons for not wanting the trials in Manhattan. Whether it is because the trials risk heightened security or because of racial disparity, the residence should voice out their reasons. Julie Menin, Chairwoman for the Community Board 1, stated her opinion in Al Baker’s article, “Bloomberg Wants Terror Trial Moved” (January 27, 2010), by asking “Why on earth would we have the trial in the heart of the financial district when it has already been attacked twice by terrorists and when our country is on the verge of trying to recover from the economic recession?” However, I cannot comprehend how holding the trial in lower Manhattan could ruin the economy nor do I understand how holding the trials in Manhattan would be more painful to the victims of September 11th. I would speculate that the victims will get justice.

Afghan Tribe, Vowing to Fight Taliban, to Get U.S. Aid in Return

To the Editor
On January 27th an article was published in the New York Times titled Afghan Tribe, Vowing to Fight Taliban, to Get U.S. Aid in Return. After the many articles about death and destruction in the Middle East this article was a breath of fresh air. This article was about cooperation between a Pashtun tribe and the United States. This type of cooperation is truly going to be a key component in this war. I also feel like many people forget about the other people involved in this war. Many times all that is shown is the U.S. and the Taliban, we forget that there are other people who want peace just as much as we do. Many of these tribes are fighting for their families just like our soldiers are and I think that everyone needs to remember that. I’m really glad that this article was published to remind all of us about the people and their families who are in the middle of this battle just like we are.

Rivalries in Iraq Keep G.I.’s in the Field

To the editor:

With activists protesting for peace globally, it is encouraging to hear that American troops are listening and beginning to take steps in the direction towards peaceful relations with our neighbors overseas. In the 26 January 2010 article Rivalries in Iraq Keep G.I.'s in the Field, Steven Lee Meyers shows what a great example our troops are being for the soldiers whose governments are volatile. I can only applaud American commanders for the efforts in "the hope [is] that cooperation on the ground will give momentum to a political — and peaceful — resolution of the underlying dispute." This collaboration in our armed forces is extremely similar to the collaboration between students in the Soliya project. Each hopes to gain a greater understanding of the other. American soldiers and students alike can hope to put an end to American ignorance of the Middle East, while American troops are providing invaluable support for the Arab and Kurdish soldiers. The more Americans seek to aid the Middle East and the less they try to change it or take over, the greater the impact we can have in the war and the closer we can get to reaching peace. Lt. General Charles H. Jacoby, Jr. :“...we keep bringing it back to focusing on: O.K., where and how do we provide the best security to the Iraqi people? And how does that create the environment that will someday allow for political process to take place?” Way to go, soldiers!

“U.S. Wrestling With Prospect of Offering Olive Branch to the Taliban”

To the Editor:
Re: “U.S. Wrestling With Prospect of Offering Olive Branch to the Taliban” (news article Jan. 27):

Perhaps we are involved in a hopeless effort against such groups as the Taliban and Al Qaeda but to begin negotiations and essentially rehabilitation programs for those who have expressed such hatred for us is not only unwise but naive. Since President Barrack Obama took office on January 20th 2009 he has encouraged others in the international forms to follow his example of dealing peaceably and with tolerance with those who are both intolerable and do not understand peace. By extending an “olive branch” to those who already despise us, we appear as weak as they judge us to be. The Taliban, at least the lower tiers of the organization, are willing to kill not only themselves but innocent bystanders for their faith. They do not surrender, why we think acting peaceably toward them will engender anything but contempt is unfathomable. What happened to the will to win? A war, any war, is fought on many fronts and first of those is in the mind, second is in the heart. If we have lost both the strength of mind and heart our chances of anything good coming from this conflict are greatly decreased. These negotiations are only surrender by another means and this is a war we cannot afford to lose.

Estelle S.
Denver, Jan 29, 2010

“France: Parliament Weighs Ban on Veils in Public”

To the Editor:

On January 22^nd, an article entitled “France: Parliament Weighs Ban on Veils in Public” was written to summarize and explain a full ban on veils in public in France. While the article does a good job of explaining the European aspect of this ban, little is said on behalf of the Muslim rationale behind the veils.

The veil is something that many women have worn not out of force, but out of devotion towards the Islamic faith. The veil can represent many different things to many different women, spanning the gamut from obscuring the face to make decisions reliant not on beauty but on charisma and character of the individual; to being reverent towards Muhammad’s wives, for whom the veils were initially created; to being forced to wear them due to male oppression in Muslim society. The veil is symbolic and means many different things to many different women, and asking for a blanket ban on such a diverse issue is unethical in that it will be forcing Muslim women into choosing either their religion or their government. A decision like this should only be made after a good deal of deliberation and before all other possibilities have been sought after. This law will not only be very difficult to enforce, but also provide strained relationships with Muslim women both in France and abroad.

Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change

To the Editor:

In the article "Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change" I found a remarkable amount of fallacies spoken by Bin Laden regarding American soil. The case made regarding our worldly climate change is ridiculous. As far as I am concerned, the climate change is affected by all nations, not solely America. Bin Laden himself said "All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.” So why does it make any sense to blame America for the entire world climate? China it seems has quite the industrial exchange, and I am sure that its people greatly contribute to the climate issues.
Also, it seems that rebuking the American dollar as a main source of the problem is an extensively wild gesture. Condemning U.S. currency alone cannot stop Global Warming. If all industrialized countries truly bear responsibility for the crisis, boycotting American goods does the world no good. If we choose to end the dollar and move to, say, the yen, will the problem cease? Or will the perpetrator simply change? If we are all to blame, then let us examine ourselves and not point the finger.

"U.N. Aide Seeks Revision of Terroist List for Talks"

To the Editor:

Whilst I agree that cooperative action is the best solution to solving many problems, the circumstances leading up to them are just as critical as to what comes out. In regards to the 25 January 2010 article ("U.N. Aide Seeks Revision of Terrorist List for Talks"), it is uncertain how letting some of the men off the terrorist "blacklist is beneficial to U.N./Taliban peace negotiations. It is a huge risk for the U.N. to clear some Taliban leaders from the list because the potential costs outweigh the benefits. There is absolutely no certainty that the Taliban will even honor their word to begin talking with U.N. officials, let alone come to a peaceful agreement. If anything, more attacks are likely, as a perceived demonstration of Taliban power over U.N. forces. After President Barrack Obama's December 2009 announcement to increase troops by 30,000, the Taliban responded in saying they would also continue to fight stronger. Under these premises, it is more likely that those taken off the "blacklist" will rejoin their compatriots and continue to fight. It is understandable that the U.N. needs to find other ways to try and end the conflicts, but I do not think that giving the Taliban back some of their possible terrorism resources is the best solution nor end anything any sooner.

Kellye T.
Greeley, Colo. 29 Jan. 2010

Coordinated Attack- concern for foreigners.

To the Editor:

In the article on the 26th of January 2010 titled, "Coordinated Attack in Baghdad Strikes Hotels Catering to Foreigners", not only does the author Anthony Shadid and John Leland illustrate the three bombs that were unleashed on Monday, they also highlight the current security issues that Baghdad is experiencing. The article claims that insurgents had a goal of destroying the small sense of security and authority over the region that the new government has been trying to instill. While the main attraction of the article was that the attacks where set off near hotels of foreign reporters and broadcasters, it also shed light on just how faulty the security in Baghdad is.

At security checkpoints that are meant to check for bombs were reported to be useless and that the British company that had created them sent out a recall because of findings that they were not as effective. The attacks in Baghdad prove this theory, but installment companies in the area still fight that they work. But how could three bombs have passed checkpoints that are stationed at every intersection in the city? These attacks also come a few weeks before the vote takes place and many believe this is a sign of retaliation against Prime minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's stance on banning a vote from Baath Party supporters. With security lacking and insurgents having demonstrated the faults in the system, I believe that the violence will only escalate closer to voting day.

"Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change"

To The Editor:

The United States, as far as the public knows has not heard from Osama bin Ladin in four months as of yesterday. Today a message has been publicly unveiled and discussed in the January 29th article "Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change". This is bin Ladin's second message to the United States within a week, the first commending the Detroit bomber.

Nowhere in the article does the author refer to the fact that these messages have just drastically increased, and what this increased communication could mean. Instead the author chooses to treat the subject lightly saying "Mr. bin Laden veered away from his traditional vows to inflict death and destruction on the United States, and instead discussed climate change, globalization and monetary policy". To me and many other Americans, this is no laughing matter. While we are not being directly threatened with terrorist attacks in this broadcast, Bin Laden is denouncing other aspects of our society. In the September 11th attacks, bin Laden was not attacking our financial institutions, but other aspects of our society. So isn't this new message as serious?

Hannah N.

"Netanyahu Says Some Settlements to Stay In Israel"

To the Editor:

In the article on January 24, 2010, “Netanyahu Says Some Settlements to Stay in Israel,” Isabel Kershner writes that Israel and Palestine are about to reenter peace talks. However, Israel is jeopardizing the talks by refusing to remove communities from the West Bank and adamantly demanding that Palestine become a demilitarized military state. Palestine is not pleased with these conditions, and they may threaten the peace talks.

This conflict has been going on since just after World War II and the creation of Israel. It has involved most of the countries in the Middle East. In order to try to resolve huge issue, both parties need to come to the table with open minds and willing to compromise. This conflict has gone on for far too long and too many lives have been lost for either party to walk away from negations before they have even begun.

A Hinterland in Iraq

To The Editor:
"From Reeds to the River, A Village From Iraq's Past," was an article printed in today's New York Times, however I'm not quite sure why it was mentioned. It emphasizes the primitive lifestyle lived by the 200 residents, which has seen little change, but much poverty, in the remote city, Halaichiya, Iraq, which is only accessible by boat. The people long for a school and paved roads, though only one village member owns a vehicle. They envy the Americans, though nobody has ever seen one, not even a soldier. Was this article published to show that there are still normal lives being lived in Iraq? Or is it to stress the fact that these Shiite people are in dire need of civilization?; many can not even recognize the face of Iraq's Prime Minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. I also wonder that if they knew the state Iraq was in right now, would they prefer a more civilized, but dangerous life, or the despairing on they currently live?

corrupt government

When I read the first page of the New York Times International section issued on January 20th, I first saw it as just another bombing in Afghanistan, but soon learned otherwise. The article that drew my attention talked about an attack on a mall in Kabul resulting in the death of five people and it made me realize just how much we as Americans take our government for granted. The article concluded that bribery was the main reason for the attack. The attackers were said to have bribed government officials at the security checkpoints into the city. This, for many, is quite likely considering bribery makes up one fourth of Afghanistan’s Gross Domestic Product. Many people in the city are not surprised by this, but other locals believe a conspiracy was carried out by Americans to justify being in Afghanistan. To me, this shows two things: one, that their government is so corrupt they cannot even protect their own citizens from themselves and two, the government is now trying to brainwash citizens into thinking of Americans as the bad guys. There are many issues with our government, but at least we don’t have to worry about our buildings being destroyed as a result of a government’s negligence and corruption.

Loyalties Unclear

On January 22, 2010 an article entitled “Loyalties of 4 Killed in Afghan Raid Remain Unclear” made some interesting points on the events that are taking place in Afghanistan. One thing that was extremely disturbing was that a boy was killed during the night raid. The thing that stands out the most was that the officials could not even agree on the age of the boy that was killed. It is amazing that the people who are involved in the senseless murder of civilians cannot even determine if those they are killing are insurgents or innocent civilians. This is a problem that cannot be solved overnight, but rather needs specific, controlled governmental assistance. By creating a new system of night raids and eliminating the use of live rounds during these raids we can eliminate unnecessary civilian deaths.