Can't Believe Bryk Dissed the Towers; Attack on NYC About as Serious as a Broken Leg; Slamming the "Drawer"; Reader Reaction, Pt. 3; Oh, and Armond Sucks; More

I found your cover illustration of Sept. 26 judgmental and incendiary. An American born and raised in New Jersey, I studied Islam at Brown. Just as American society is made up of interactive components, so, too, does the Muslim world practice varying ways of living and thinking. Coca-Cola aims to take over the world as much as might the three-headed serpent on your cover. I strongly hold that now is the time to practice world peace.

K. Lepetic, Brooklyn

Too bad William Bryk sees fit to trash-talk the esthetics of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center when neither they nor their architect, Minoru Yamasaki, is around to defend themselves any longer ("New York City," 9/19). He follows in the footsteps of The New York Times architecture critics and their ilk, including Ada Louise Huxtable, who unleashed a similar rant in The Wall Street Journal; their theories of art apparently do not let them proceed past the 19th century, or perhaps the Renaissance.

For a more openminded view of the WTC’s architecture and cultural significance, I recommend historian Angus Kress Gillespie’s book Twin Towers: The Life of New York City’s World Trade Center. The narrow windows Bryk criticizes as inhumane were designed for the most humane of reasons: they were narrow so that even sufferers from acrophobia (of which Yamasaki was one) would feel secure, and they extended from floor to ceiling so that workers on the interior of every floor had panoramic views. Yamasaki purposely avoided the faceless all-glass facade of the International style. The two towers were a powerful piece of abstract sculpture, iconic in their shape, subject to a variety of interpretations. Some saw them as the prongs of a magnet drawing people to our shore; they could be seen as the pylons of a mighty doorway leading to boundless opportunity; to me, seeing them catch the varying hues of the sun, they were two shafts of sunlight reaching up to the heavens, symbolizing our aspirations. They were an image of our vision of the transcendent. No wonder they could be difficult to "comprehend;" the transcendent is always "incomprehensible."

Bryk should at least get his facts straight before he criticizes. The towers were built to withstand the impact not of a Boeing 747, but a 707, the largest airplane of its day; the jumbo 747 and the 757 and 767 used in the attack came later. His calculations, as he says meanspiritedly of the architect, "are a little off."

Cora A. Sowa, Manhattan

The usually thoughtful and fascinating William Bryk fell down on the job in his last column when he suggested that, somehow, the design of the World Trade Center’s load-bearing walls contributed to the towers’ collapse. No design could have saved them from the recent attack. A "traditional" skyscraper design, with the curtain walls hung from a load-bearing steel skeleton, would not have performed any better and might have been far worse.

I don’t know if the architect, Minoru Yamasaki, really claimed the towers were "engineered to withstand the impact of a Boeing 747," but given the timing of the development of that model of airplane, which went into service around 1970, and the design of the Towers in the late 1960s, it’s more likely he had in mind the much smaller 707. And while I’m no fan of Yamasaki or the towers, the fact is that they did withstand the impact of a 767 (an aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of about 350,000 pounds, or about 10 percent more than the maximum take-off weight of the 707, about 325,000 pounds). Mr. Bryk is simply wrong to suggest that the failure of the towers is attributable to the Port Authority’s obsession with maximizing the rentable square footage and the resulting design that "discard[ed] the conventional interior support columns: the steel framework used in older buildings." The tens of thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel that spilled out of the 767s and melted the steel walls would have doomed a building with a conventional steel skeleton, too.

The comparison to the incident in which a B-25 struck the Empire State Bldg.–but did not undermine the building’s structural integrity–is fatuous. Even if fully laden, a B-25’s maximum take-off weight was only 34,000 pounds, less than 10 percent of the weight of the 767s. And, since the B-25 that struck the Empire carried no bombs, it probably weighed under 30,000 pounds.

Then there is the difference in their speeds at the time of collision. A B-25’s maximum speed was 275 mph; when it struck the Empire State Bldg., that B-25 was probably going at about 200 mph or slower. I haven’t read any estimates of the 767’s speed at impact (surely far below its maximum of approximately 580 mph), but it’s reasonable to estimate a speed in excess of 300 mph. In short, while the towers may have been ugly and soulless, they were well engineered and performed quite admirably under the brutal circumstances.

Pete Reiser, Manhattan

William Bryk replies: Two recent books on the WTC, Angus Kress Gillespie’s Twin Towers and Eric Darton’s Divided We Stand, both published in 1999, were my primary references in writing my article on the World Trade Center; I also relied upon The AIA Guide to New York City and online sources. On page 117 of Divided We Stand, Darton writes: "[World Trade Center architect Minoru] Yamasaki had engineered his towers to withstand the force of a 747 shearing into them..." His engineering didn’t live up to his expectations on Sept. 11.

So one William Bryk Esq. concludes that in the WTC "ordinary people paid the price for their rulers’ games." What games are those that justify the mass extermination of innocent ordinary people? Has everyone on the left been reduced to such brainless automatons that they can only mouth reflexive anti-American cliches? Or is that all they ever really had, and the WTC attack is simply exposing the rotten foundations of their lunatic view of the world?

We hear Michael Moore tell us that rejecting the Kyoto protocol was a factor in the "universal" hatred of America, as if fanatical Islamists attacking the Great Satan are worried about CO2 levels. Susan Sontag wails about our failure to understand legitimate grievances, as if that justifies indiscriminate slaughter. Remember, this is the Afghan cult that punishes women for leaving their homes without a male, where public hangings serve as sport and where possession of a radio can be a crime. Would it really make it okay if we understood them better? What else do we need to know? Should we feel their pain? Give them a hug? Perhaps the only positive result of this horrible event is that many of the American people who have mercifully avoided the rantings of the left are now seeing the truth about such as Bryk and his ilk: the almost lurid self-loathing; the ability to rationalize any behavior, no matter how heinous, so long as it is directed at America; and, ultimately, the left’s sheer idiocy and dishonesty. Step into the light, Mr. Bryk, that we may know you and see your true colors.

Greg Richey, San Francisco

Bravo to William Bryk for ripping Anne Roiphe ("Old Smoke," 9/26). And while I’m at it, hats off to Tony Millionaire, who continues to show himself to be a frightening, demented genius. On the downside, though, J.T. Leroy ("Books," 9/26) still doesn’t seem to the know the difference between an interview and a wet kiss. Maybe that will change with age.

Kevin R. Kosar, Brooklyn

When I was a child, my parents drummed into me the importance of taking responsibility for my actions. As an adult, I have tried to impart this sentiment to others. Imagine my surprise and ever-deepening consternation as I realize that no one–from the President and other foreign policymakers, to the American intelligence community, to the Federal Aviation Administration, to the airports, to those in charge of security and building operations at the World Trade Center (where many of those who successfully fled reported running into a number of locked emergency exit doors)–is standing up and taking responsibility for a series of stunning foreign policy, intelligence and security failures that contributed to the death of thousands on Sept. 11. As a colleague of mine pointed out recently, if a disaster of this magnitude had taken place in another Western democracy, at least one government official would have resigned in its wake. Not so in the United States, where responsibility-taking among our leaders has been replaced with the whipping up of a warmongering hysteria designed to create an environment in which ordinary Americans are afraid to question our role in this disaster for fear of being labeled unpatriotic.

This kind of critical self-examination and investigation will not, as some might suggest, weaken our country; on the contrary, coming to understand more deeply who we are, what kind of country we want to be and what our vulnerabilities are can only make us stronger.

Mary Fridley, Manhattan

Re Scott Smith’s "First Person" (9/19): Thank you for the first real laugh I’ve had in a long time.

Margaret Whitcomb, Salem, OR

If I read, hear or see another sniveling "news" report on the terrorist attack on the WTC, I am going to puke. Andrey Slivka may only be right twice a year in his writing for New York Press, but this was one of those times ("Daily Billboard," 9/25). I’d like to add this to his piece: The strangest part of the attacks has to be that many of us aren’t that overwrought by them. I hate to admit it, but as a guy who lives in the Midwest, I’m startled by the loss of thousands of lives–but not any more than I was startled by watching Joe Theismann’s leg bend the wrong way in a career-ending injury years ago. TV has made us a jaded nation, and I would be dishonest if I didn’t say that when I saw the second jet hit the towers I thought it was fake. That may be why there are so many of these disgusting "features" on the "aftermath" of the tragedy: we have too many "journalists" who, after watching the WTC come down like a long cigarette ash on a nearly dead butt, found themselves first untouched and then guilty over their remorselessness. They are now trying to prove to themselves that they are still human inside.

The sad but true fact of the whole matter may be that the people who made this happen–the guys with boxcutters willing to die to kill as many of us as possible–might hate us for the right reasons.

Frank Turk, St. Nazianz, WI

I appreciated George Szamuely’s article "They’re Our Terrorists" ("Taki’s Top Drawer," 9/26). Sadly, what you wrote about the actions and arrogance of the United States is all true. Things are especially sad for the Serbs, as nobody talks about them now and everyone tries to act as if nothing happened two years ago. It’s as if their grief and sorrow do not count.

I. Biemans, Amersfoort, the Netherlands

Re "They’re Our Terrorists": Thank the good Lord that the USA now has President George W. Bush to clean up the mess left behind by eight years of the Clinton administration. God bless America and God bless President George W. Bush. As our fine President said in his address to the Congress on Sept. 20: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Amen to that!

Nina Ledkovsky, Manhattan

I have never written to anything before this controversy over Bill Maher’s comments, which are similar to Taki’s words ("Top Drawer," 9/19). I take exception to Taki’s saying the suicide bombers were not cowards. Not only were they cowards, but stupid ones. It takes no brains to kill oneself. Only a fool would not value human life. Only a fool would believe that any legitimate religion would sanction killing. Only a fool would believe that by killing an innocent civilian he will be rewarded with 70 virgins in the next life.

To murder unsuspecting civilians who never had a chance is cowardly, just as the murderers’ organization is too cowardly to step up and take responsibility for their actions. Now that we are ready to fight, the cowards have fled like rats into their caves. So c’mon cowards...America dares you to come forward.

M.H. Harrison, Brooklyn

Diane Schwartz’s letter ("The Mail," 9/26) made me see red. It made me grind my teeth. It made the veins on my temples stand out and my knuckles turn white. How dare she use the tragedy at the WTC to slander the American left? In a time when liberal and conservative congressmen have stood on the steps of the Capitol building, shoulder to shoulder, singing patriotic songs, she still cannot stop blaming those damn liberals for all the world’s problems. When the rest of the country is striving for unity, she can’t stop pointing fingers. For shame.

She offers almost no cause and effect to support her slanderous lies, because there is almost none. Her assertion that the left’s criticism of conservative policy was directly responsible for what happened would be laughable if it wasn’t so infuriating. I guess the right can criticize policies they disagree with, but the rest of us are obligated to shut up and eat our gruel, is that it? People like Ms. Schwartz validate my worst fears regarding humanity and my country, through their unwillingness to pull together for the greater good in a time of crisis.

Craig Stallone, Queens

God, is there no end to your America-bashing? George Szamuely’s article ("Taki’s Top Drawer," 9/26) is just the latest example of blaming the victims for their own deaths. I wish all of you who keep bashing the U.S. would go to Afghanistan and leave the rest of us to mourn in peace. Or better yet, go to hell.

Diane Schwartz, San Diego

Taki: Yours was a terrific column outlining how we have been helping the enemy in recent years, particularly our outrageous support for the KLA in Kosovo ("Top Drawer," 9/19). Hopefully, this will wake us up. I just hope that we don’t overreact right now and make things much worse than they already are.

Tom Pauken, via Internet

I enjoy reading Taki (but he is rather a shit, isn’t he?) and the other contributors to "Top Drawer." I am a subscriber to The Spectator in England where bigmouth and general braggart Taki also has a column, on a regular basis, to his credit.

I have a reasonably good memory. Not too long ago the poor little Greek snob, namedropper, jailbird, anglophobe and fair-weather friend to all and sundry contributed an article to The Spectator extolling the virtues of his very good and much maligned old friend Osama bin Laden...who else!

Although amusing, this rather loudmouthed admirer of the SS and other dubious organizations involved in recent wars has the unhappy knack of forgetting what he said in former utterances. That is a great pity. The boy has talent. Boy is the word, and the self-advertised and self-opinionated judo blackbelt, tennis ace, deep-water yachting expert, ski-master nonpareil, talented but aging chaser of lissome maidens (from the right families, of course), grand sommelier de splitting hangovers and superpatriot americain...at least for the time being...should rather take early retirement and confine himself to a cell in Mt. Athos where he could regale a supremely bored Almighty with tales of what a fine fellow he is. I somehow think that neither the incumbents in Mt. Athos nor Taki’s "Gott mit uns" Creator would want much truck with him...shame, he can write; can’t he?

Noel Moore, Lisbon

Get rid of Armond White. Need I say more?

Name Withheld, Manhattan

What should we rebuild? Safer buildings, of course. "Greener" buildings, of course. More artful buildings, I would hope. The New York City skyline needs a replacement spire where now there is a gaping hole. Aerial walkway bridges between the new buildings could be visually suggestive of a group embrace and provide additional structural stability. In the plaza before the skyscrapers, transplant two giant redwood trees from California, memorializing the old Twin Towers and symbolizing coast-to-coast national unity, growing inside a huge geodesic dome greenhouse symbolizing planetary unity. The architecture should be characterized by lots of light and openness, like the plans for the bioshelter extension of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and the new parliament building in Berlin. The stark trinity of eerily twisted gridwork fragments merits preservation as a memorial shrine to the victims.

Cary G. Robyn, Parksville, NY

I would highly recommend that Scott McConnell take a course in history, or at least read a newspaper. His arguments are specious at best; the most revealing of his scant grasp of the facts is his blaming the U.S. for not overthrowing Saddam during the Gulf War ("Taki’s Top Drawer," 9/19). The U.S. would have loved to do so, and in fact heavily lobbied the Gulf War coalition to extend its mission for such an end. The other countries fervently disagreed, and it was obvious not only that our coalition would not support the overthrow, but that to do so would have alienated most other Middle East governments and people. Please edit McConnell’s articles more carefully in the future. He reflects poorly on your publication.

Heidi Shafer, Memphis

In his piece "God Bless Our Attack Dog" ("New York City," 9/19) Matt Zoller Seitz makes a reference to the "few brave and crazy male passengers [who] decided to rush the hijackers and sacrifice hundreds for thousands." Please note that the group of passengers who rushed the hijackers included at least two women (Linda Gronlund and Sandra Bradshaw). It may seem like quibbling, but all those who rose up against the hijackers did a heroic and brave thing, and they should all be recognized for it.

Michael Burnett, Manhattan

What!? No more Claude? This is an outrage. He’s the best thing to happen to your paper since the recurring Crossroads Liquor ads. Who do I need to talk to?

Andre Clausen, Manhattan

I was going to let it go, but the ridiculous letters are just too much. New York Press is great, and I always thought that maybe the majority of its readers were doing something right, maybe had one up on the rest of the population. Why is it, then, that you get these insane questions about the identity of Claude La Badarian? Even worse are the letters from people who apparently take Claude to be an actual person. I had set out to unmask Claude in this letter, but fuck it. If those poor souls don’t know, I will give them nothing but my pity.

Bill Manning, Manhattan

I’m in the United States Air Force, currently stationed in Croatia, and was greatly heartened to see New York Press resume operations. Growing up in Missouri in the 70s (and being a diehard Royals fan), I pretty much loathed all things New York. But after discovering your publication this past year, I have come to appreciate a different perspective on New York, one not seen on the dominant media in flyover country.

In the days following the events of Sept. 11, I grew concerned when your website was unavailable. I have never been to New York, and I do not know anyone from New York, but, as ridiculous as it sounds, I found myself worrying about people I have never met: the staff of New York Press (even those I disagree with), as well as MUGGER, Mrs. M, MUGGER Jr. and MUGGER III. I was greatly relieved when I learned everyone was well, and that your publication was carrying on.

If I may, I beg your indulgence for some observations from my travels of the past few years. During my time in the Air Force I have been stationed in Korea and Italy and have traveled through many other countries. There are always the fashionable radicals who are quick to condemn everything American, but the majority of people I have interacted with express admiration of America. Not a starry-eyed, hysterical slobbering, but more of a low-key, tacit acknowledgment that they wish they could live as we do. This is true especially among the older generation, as they are the ones who remember the hardships their countries faced before and that it was America that helped them in their hour of trouble. Even though America does not always get it right, it is my opinion that there are far more people who appreciate America than those who do not.

Ronald E. Shouse, via Internet

Since your columnist Alexander Cockburn is advocating context in the understanding of the terrorist motive, I find it odd that he didn’t mention Iraq’s mission to develop and use weapons of mass destruction against its Middle Eastern neighbors and Israel ("Wild Justice," 9/26). Perhaps his refined type of anti-Semitism cannot face the certainty of another holocaust if Saddam gets them? I understand the emotive power of the sanctions against Iraq among leftists, but does Mr. Cockburn lack the imagination to predict what would happen if Saddam were left to his business unhindered and we cut loose from the Middle East?

A more thorough contextual analysis also would include the suffering of ordinary Chinese, Cambodians, Cubans, Ukrainians, et al., under various "socialistic" regimes such as the one the Soviets were to impose on Afghanistan. One can argue honestly about the merits of the intervention, but not, I am afraid, without that "context." Cockburn’s analysis isn’t even original, but his concern for the polloi involved in the attacks is clever, albeit cynical. Although he would recruit them for the cause posthumously, context would suggest that the "typists and messenger boys and back office staff" may have a better understanding of the stakes here than elitist opinion.

Michael Collins, Chicago

Alexander Cockburn’s article does nothing but prove that those who observe America’s mistakes of the past will use them as an excuse to condemn us to inaction. Christopher Hitchens’ basic point was to accept mistakes America has made and attempt to correct them. The assertion that the "little people" in the towers knew nothing of the errors of America’s past or why such a thing would happen is such a perfect example of the esteem that the "educated class" holds itself in. I agree with most of Mr. Cockburn’s analysis of past events–but so what?

Thomas Paynter, Las Vegas

Alexander Cockburn makes a perfunctory criticism ("by the way") of the attack on the World Trade Center followed by a catalog of American wrongs. Just as Jerry Falwell believes that America was punished for its sexual immorality, Cockburn believes that America was punished for its political immorality. Except that Cockburn does not have the nerve to say it directly, so he implies it: We had it coming.

Kevin O’Connor, Manhattan

I just read Chris Caldwell’s article in New York Press. I quote the following: "...but I hope that, not too many years down the line, we’ll give Serbia the apology it is owed. The Kosovo campaign was to military affairs what the Lewinsky scandal was to politics" ("Hill of Beans," 9/19).

I have already mentioned this column to several friends in New York, people who work in the arts and in government, and they don’t believe that someone would actually write such dribble. The Serbs and Milosevic definitely satisfy the needs of your ilk. Keep on pushing your revisionist history of Serbia, Caldwell, as I mark your every word and spread it around here in New York. Soon you will notice how your comments will begin to bite you in the ass, bigtime.

Name Withheld, Forest Hills

In his column, Christopher Caldwell asserts that "The WTC attack runs the risk of being pivotal in the way that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was in 1914. We’re going to war, as we must" ("Hill of Beans," 9/19). That’s exactly what the Austro-Hungarian Empire did when the Archduke was assassinated. Does anyone at the Press know what then happened to that empire? Your columnist Scott McConnell called it exactly right in his column of Oct. 6, 1999: "We are a nation with a shrinking military that nonetheless keeps thinking up more reasons to insert ourselves in the middle of local conflicts, whether or not they directly affect American interests... Surely when we shoot our cruise missiles hither and yon, puffed up with the rhetoric of our virtue, we are creating many enemies. As small states or terrorist groupings find it increasingly possible to acquire their own nuclear or biological weapons, ordinary Americans may one day pay a fearsome price for Washington’s promiscuous use of military power." To this, the only thing that needs to be added is a moral from James Thurber’s 1940 classic Fables for Our Times: "He who lives another’s life, another’s death must die."

John Boardman, Brooklyn

C.J. Sullivan confused two New York City Roman Catholic saints ("New York City," 9/19). Elizabeth Bayley "Mother" Seton (1774-1821; canonized in 1975) was the first American-born Roman Catholic saint. She was born into a prominent New York family (her father was health officer for the Port of New York and professor of anatomy at King’s College, today’s Columbia University), but she did most of her ministry in Baltimore, and she is buried in a shrine in Emmitsburg, MD.

Frances (Mother) Cabrini (1850-1917; canonized 1946) was the first American citizen to be canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. She was born in Italy, but came to New York City in 1889 to help the struggling Italian immigrants here. She founded many schools, hospitals, orphanages, and her remains (encased in a wax replica) today rest in a crystal coffin at the Shrine of Mother Cabrini at 701 Ft. Washington Ave. at 190th St. in upper Manhattan. In 1950 the Vatican named Mother Cabrini the patroness of all immigrants.

Edward F. Bergman, Manhattan

Re the letter "Time to Reassess Our Priorities," written by David DiBello of Manhattan ("The Mail," 9/19). I have never in my life read words depicting my thoughts and feelings so perfectly. What I did get from Mr. DiBello’s profound letter is the refreshing message for all of us to slow down and be human again. Nevertheless, I see how people today are being very human by giving of themselves: when they volunteer down at Ground Zero to search through the rubble, coming 3000 miles to do this, plus giving blood as well as food, clothing, medicine, time, money, etc. This tragedy seems to have had the opposite effect of its intended purpose. Instead of terrorizing the U.S., it seems to have galvanized us all.

As a 53-year-old member of the generation that followed Mr. DiBello’s great generation, my generation may have stopped an unjust, 12-year war in Vietnam and we brought the boys home. We did nothing like this generation today. I’ve never been prouder to be a New Yorker using a wheelchair than today.

Steve Ferchak, Manhattan

Thank you, Ned Vizzini, for including Pagan Pride Day in your "Since When?" column (9/26). Even given the ironic style of the column, you managed to accurately portray the overall character and intent of the event. (I laughed out loud at the crack about "how to tell real Wiccans from annoying girls who listen to Orgy.") One tiny detail, though. Pagan Pride Day isn’t an "only-in-America fluke." It’s a truly international event, this year sponsoring more than 80 festivals worldwide, in Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK, Portugal, Brazil, Australia and New Zealand.

Bob Bruhin, regional coordinator, PPD, Philadelphia

Russ Smith: I am glad to see you back. Now, on your piece on Rudy ("Daily Billboard," 9/27): While I agree with you most of the time, this is one time I will disagree. Rudy Giuliani should step down when his term is over. Yes, he was masterful as mayor and he met his moment on Sept. 11, showing why he was an effective mayor. Democracy is bigger than one man and the city should be transcend one person. Rudy may never find a finer moment. He not only has the appreciation of his city but has put himself in a position to move up the political ladder, with the voters ready to vote yes.

For Rudy to overturn term limits would only tarnish his image. Allow the process to work and hope that Bloomberg and Green learn the lessons of the Rudy years. Maybe the real lesson that should be learned from Sept. 11 is that New York is bigger than the politicians, is a city dominated by good people who are capable of great things and great efforts. The future of New York does not lie in Rudy’s hands, or Green’s hands or Bloomberg’s hands, but in the hands of those individuals whose courage was on display on Sept. 11.

Tom Donelson, Marion, IA

I was glad to leave New York City this summer after visiting for the first time in three years. My two-week return quickly reminded me why I left after 40 years–more cellphones, more tattoos, more boutiques...more and greater concentrations of the very crap that finally drove me out in the first place. Two months later, I was more than eager to return. It was a helluva price to pay, but it seems New York finally got a piece of its soul back. I hope it never returns to "normal."

Stan Banos, Tucson

This is a tribute to all those victims who died in the terrorist attacks on the 11th of September. Their names will not only be engraved on tombstones, but also in our hearts. They all died like heroes and now they belong to the ages. May the good Lord bless each and every one of them, and may He also bless all Americans, regardless of race, color, or creed.

Bennett Annum, Bronx

MUGGER: I agree with your opinion of Sports Illustrated –but what took you so long? I dropped it back in the mid-1980s, disgusted by its nascent but evident left-wing worldview (8/29). I still don’t know how left-wingers can be sportswriters. And yes, Fenway opened in 1912, but it has only been a black hole into which the rosy dreams of egghead fans from Halifax to Hartford have been sucked since 1919, the year after the Red Sox won their last (that is: "final," not "most recent") World Series, the first year of the second administration of Woodrow Wilson.

Rob Stiles, Charleston, WV

MUGGER: I hope you had a chance to visit neighboring Beaufort during your visit to South Carolina (8/22). We’ve got 10 times the charm, beaches and the exact same climate and geography. The one area in which Hilton Head soundly thrashes us is with its restaurants. We have a handful of good ones. Hilton Head probably has 20 or 30 great ones. Hope to see you soon.

Keith Strawn, Beaufort, SC

America is now focused on responding to the terrorist attacks of a few weeks ago. Our leaders have made it very clear that the United States is going to take this event as the beginning of a real war. The anger of our citizens has been focused on a single man who is living in a faraway region called Afghanistan.

Many people are afraid or angry or just sad. It will be difficult for many people to deal with these emotions. One question has been placed into our minds and all the bridges away from this question have been burned. Where is Osama bin Laden?

I deal with world events from the global scale. To me, Afghanistan is simply six degrees to the left of north and 35 degrees from vertical. Basically a spot on the ground. And when I am thinking of our government’s response I know that my hopes and prayers are focused in that direction. When I feel or think I feel anger toward America from these terrorist organizations I again acknowledge that the head of these people, the one financing these operations, is again from another part of the planet. I can place a candle on the ground and stand so that I can picture myself standing on the planet looking at Afghanistan. I don’t expect bin Laden to be on my street, or a guy entering a bar. So my frustration isn’t focused on some random person.

What if everyone in America knew where Afghanistan was located? What if everyone was paying attention when our military did their thing? If I want to wish someone well, I like to be face to face. If I am mad at someone, it only feels real if I am face to face. And if they are miles away and I think of someone, I turn toward that direction. I think we all do or wish we could. Direct your emotions for this war at the correct part of the planet. It makes much more sense then acting like you are looking for bin Laden in the United States. He is in Afghanistan and soon many of our troops will be in that part of the world. Personally, I wish them all well. From New York it is 34 degrees to the right of north and 41 degrees from vertical.

Stephen Weber, Palo Alto, CA

For nearly a decade, I’ve sworn that I’d never write to you, no matter how much I loved or hated any piece you published, because any sort of response constitutes support of your publication, which generally appears to promote contrariness and exhibitionism rather than honest expression. Sept. 11 changed everything, though, and has made many of us take stock of our lives, our beliefs and our commitments. A force of hatred and evil made a statement on that day, and now all of us must speak out, in whatever forums are available.

In the past two weeks, for the first time in my life, I’ve written letters of gratitude and (qualified) support to the President and Vice President of the United States, our New York Senators, the Governor and the Mayor; and I encourage your readers, whatever their perspectives, to express themselves–peacefully, respectfully and intelligently. As the forces of hatred and evil among us (and by "us" I mean humanity) seem to need reminding, that’s one of the vital things that freedom in the United States allows us to do.

I’m writing today specifically in response to what you’ve published by your writers and your readers regarding Mayor Giuliani’s performance since Sept. 11. How can I put into words what it’s meant to me, as a New Yorker devoted to living and working in peace and with as much unity as our citizenry can muster (while, I hope, still keeping my/our edge), to have the Mayor visible and vocal every day since that most terrible day? It’s meant everything to me. What has he done? He’s lead us strongly, stably, sensibly and compassionately; he’s worked together with our elected representatives, city officials, businesspeople and volunteers; and together with all of them, he’s provided an example for us to follow. A few days after the 11th, I tuned in NY1 news first thing in the morning and there was the Mayor, standing at the site, saying that he couldn’t believe they did this to his city, and he was speaking for me and the people I know as surely as if he’d read our thoughts.

I’d always admired Giuliani for his individuality and his disdain for party politics, even while I abhorred many of his positions and decisions, and now I’m a gushing fan. He’s the kind of remarkable person you want to have alongside you when the suicidal terrorists try to take over your plane or when your city falls prey to attack. As Lana Cheng, a New Yorker and a very patriotic American, who came to this country from Hong Kong about 30 years ago, put it: "And they said there were no heroes anymore. It’s especially touching that young people, in the wake of this atrocious crime, having seen all who risked their own lives to help others, finally have found real heroes they can look up to and perhaps emulate someday." Thanks for giving me this forum, and here’s to a truly free press.

Kurt Wildermuth, Manhattan

On Friday, Sept. 21, I participated in an antiwar march that commenced at Union Square and concluded at Times Square. This "walk for peace" was from its inception destined to provoke public contempt, mixing the best and the worse of our emotions as New Yorkers remain angry, fearful, saddened, vulnerable, hurt, and yet, defiant. For a moment, I was encouraged with the effort as I read some of the signs, from the sedated "Books Not Bombs" to the poignant "Our Despair Is Not a Cry for War," to the more Gandhian "An Eye for an Eye Leaves the World Blind."

But opposition to this march began minutes after we left Union Square, as bystanders spontaneously manufactured slogans with which to counterattack ours. One woman shouted, "You’re all stupid! Stupid!" and a man cried, "War! War! War!" At the 23rd St. and Broadway junction, another individual chastised some of us by saying that we should "go live in Afghanistan." And it is impossible to discard the words of one of New York’s finest at Times Square, who declared that we seemed to have forgotten "that people are still down there" (Ground Zero) and that we all were "the reason" Sept. 11 occurred. It became clear to me that "an eye for an eye and a soul for a soul" is here to stay until those responsible for the tragedies are eclipsed, and even thereafter.

I eventually departed from the scene and headed to the subway alone, pulverized by innumerable emotions, but essentially divided between tribute to those killed and a reluctance to witness more innocent deaths (as distinct from those of Al Qaeda members). I became very sensitive to the fact that I carried a sign whose message most New Yorkers abhorred intensely. Equally, I realized that I could easily become a target for anti-Arab retaliation since I was Indian and could be taken for someone Arabic. The sign I had held aloft to the public mere minutes before had suddenly become a kind of albatross; less anxious to carry it openly, I folded it and quickly tucked it under my arm, hurrying to leave the city.

I fear it seems as if there is no place in America for peace today.

Rakesh Rampertab, Manhattan

Scott McConnell’s "Why They Hate Us" ("Taki’s Top Drawer," 9/19) would be a good article if it had any basis in truth. Just for the record, I’m a half-breed German and Ponca from an Indian reservation in South Dakota. I’m not a Republican or a Jew, but I lived in Israel for a year between colleges. That said, let’s point out some mistakes by "The Conformist."

"After the death of Oslo we’ve had futile attacks on Israeli settlements, Palestinian homes bulldozed, political leaders killed from the sky, orchards uprooted. Per capita water usage (Gaza’s scarcest resource) is almost 7-1 in favor of the Israeli settlers." Why did Oslo die? Because the Palestinian Authority wanted more than the Oslo accord was giving them. Why is water scarce? Because the PA closed the Israeli-built and -owned de-salinization plant in Gaza.

"Cut to September 2000, as Ariel Sharon, accompanied by a thousand armed paramilitaries, trudges to Jerusalem’s holiest Muslim site to demonstrate Israel’s exclusive sovereignty." He went there because it’s the site of the Temple Mount. For all the of the PA’s saying the Temple Mount is a holy place for everyone, they start an uprising because one man goes there.

"We have begun with Clinton and Gaza, but might have instead told the story of America’s Iraq policy, where the United States followed up its successful Gulf War campaign not by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq (which risked more than a handful of American casualties) but by trying to embargo the Iraqi government into submission."

That’s not accurate for a number of reasons. The sanctions are in place because of the UN. The United States wanted tacit approval to invade and take out Saddam, but the UN dragged its feet, mostly because of the Chinese, the Soviets and the Arab League.

McConnell’s article is all nice revisionist history, but it’s just inaccurate.

Mark Buchholz, Portland, OR

Taki discussed the origins of the Assassins, but omitted some pertinent information ("Top Drawer," 9/19). The Encyclopedia Britannica fills in some gaps. There were five tiers of rank within the brotherhood with the lowest, or uninitiated, fedais (the devoted ones) called upon to do the dirty work. Blind obedience was extracted from them. When the ruling sheik required the services of his killers, he would intoxicate the selected with hashish. Then the anointed were shown the sheik’s garden and every sensual pleasure was made available. This foretaste of paradise persuaded the fierce believers to satisfy the slightest command of the sheik.

What was somewhat strange was that the top management did not believe in what the naive fedais did. They feasted, debauched and scoffed at their ignorant charges. Public piety and orthodoxy maintained order. Does this seem similar to the behavior of Saddam Hussein or the Saudi royal family?

For all their reputed viciousness, the order would refrain from open battle as they generally were slaughtered. The Assassins overreached when they attempted to intimidate the Mongols. Hulagu, the great chieftain, was affronted and besieged them in northern Iran. The Mongols slew 12,000 of these creatures. Later in northern Syria the Mamelukes killed most of the remaining faithful.

Taki must know that the Middle East fosters crazed believers. In A History of Israel Howard Sachar, who headed Brandeis University’s Hiatt Institute in Jerusalem, devoted six lines to the efforts of the Stern Gang to partner itself with Nazi Germany in World War II. Otto von Hentig, German envoy in Vichy Syria, scornfully rejected them. One may hazard a guess that one reason this is not well known or discussed in New York or the provinces is that the last leader of these thugs was Yitzhak Shamir, later an esteemed prime minister of Israel. The Stern Gang did not fight the Germans during the war, but confined their attacks to the British. One strongly suspects that Mr. Shamir was much more of a hindrance to Allied victory than John Demjanjuk. Perhaps Taki will take it upon himself to serve his adopted country by making a citizen’s arrest of Shamir, who is most certainly by today’s standards a war criminal. The thanks of a grateful nation will fall upon him.

Richard Earley, Springfield, PA

In a way, the events of Sept. 11 destroyed not only the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon, but many of the presuppositions of the "Blame America First" crowd, whether on the anti-American left or the anti-Israel right. This intellectual continuum includes moral midgets such as Susan Sontag and Harold Pinter and Jew-baiters such as Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran.

Yes, the above are harsh words, but are they slanderous? Let their own actions and words be the judge: It is Sontag who has called the white race the "cancer" on history; it is Buchanan who reminded us that boys with names like McElroy, Brown and Jones are sent into wars by those with names like Goldberg, Cohen and Steinberg. Pinter and his ilk tell us that the real enemy is poverty; Sobran assures us that if we weren’t so favorable to Israel, Islam would revert to the warm, fuzzy religion it always was.

How can anybody believe such nonsense anymore? In fact, thanks to this, the most horrific of all terrorist acts, nobody in his right mind–liberal or conservative–does anymore. That the U.S. has always tilted toward Israel is true; that Arabs have taken issue with that fact is equally true and understandable. But make no mistake, Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is not the issue: the "Zionist entity" itself is the issue. Jews have no more right to exist in "Palestine" than did the Byzantine Christians or the Crusader states. This land is, in the views of Muslims everywhere, "their" land. This despite the fact that they themselves overran this land several centuries ago and have decimated the native Christian population piecemeal. Any historian will tell you that Egypt, Syria and most parts of North Africa were Christian lands from the time of Constantine till that of Charlemagne. As recently as the middle part of the last century, Christians of all ethnic groups made up anywhere from 10 to 40 percent of the populations of the lands we now know as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and "Palestine," to say nothing of the ancient lands of Egypt, Morocco and Iran. The Crusaders are rightly castigated for their bloodshed, but why do we criticize them for trying to take back formerly Christian lands? Why are we not equally dismissive of Islamic efforts to subjugate Spain for eight centuries or the attempted conquest of the Byzantine Empire? What was the Siege of Vienna about or the Battle of Poitiers, when the Muslims were turned back from overrunning Europe? What moral blindness views the Muslims as victims but the Greeks, Serbs, Bulgars and Romanians as nonentities with no grievances of their own?

This is not a "bash-Islam" diatribe. Though I am an Orthodox Christian, I take no pleasure in my bigoted, anti-Muslim upbringing, I happily and unreservedly denounce it with every fiber of my being. As an historian, I am more than aware of the glories of Islamic civilization, of their relative tolerance for Christians and Jews and of my own faith’s inability to emulate the wisdom and sagacity of the Caliphs. I am more than ashamed for my coreligionists who tried to ethnically "cleanse" Kosovo of the native Albanian population, admittedly at the behest of the atheist Milosevic and his leftist regime. (At this point, I may ask, where is the outrage at the cleansing of the native Serbs, to whom this region rightfully belongs? Let me press the point further: where is the gratitude of the Islamic world for the West’s coming to the aid of the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo? Where indeed?)

No, in wars of religion, in clashes of civilization, there are no heroes, only victims, but to argue that these evil men were perfectly justified in taking thousands of innocent lives because of their perceived victimization at the hands of the West flies in the face of all reality. Such a view can only be held if one is willing to stretch the truth and contort facts in a way that only a Hitler could do. The actions of these terrorists are an unmitigated evil that can never be justified. Let us be equally clear about the real modus vivendi that animates these evildoers: a hatred of the West, pure and simple. If all of Israel converted to Christianity tomorrow, it would still be hated. If indeed all of Israel converted to Islam tomorrow but was still committed to running its government on the basis of open, pluralistic, liberal and democratic governing principles, the suicide bombers would not stop. What Israel, whether Judaic, Christian or whatever, represents is a salient piece of Western influence and that is why the war against the West is being escalated to the West itself.

Robert Conquest has called this paranoia "hesperophobia," a dread or fear of the West. As to why this exists in the first place, one must understand the Muslim mindset. According to the tenets of Islam, Mohammed was the final prophet; he received the fullness of the revelation of God. This means that those who are part of the Umma, the community of Muslims, are superior to those who preceded them. If the faithful are superior theologically, then it stands to reason that they are superior in every other aspect as well.

For a time, this was by and large true. The Caliphates that governed the Islamic empires that stretched from the Atlantic in the west to the Pacific in the east were very advanced states, at least in comparison to Catholic Western Europe (though not necessarily the Byzantine east). When the infidel ferengi (Franks) showed up in the Crusades with vast armies and technologies at their disposal, the Arab-Muslim states were shocked, to say the least. A crisis of faith ensued for many: how could these barely literate infidels inflict such military defeats on us, the Chosen? It was not possible.

Six hundred years later, when the descendants of these same Crusaders showed up in the Near East with all the refinements of civilization and technology (and female emancipation) at their disposal, the decrepitude of the once-proud Islamic civilization suffered an even greater blow. (This was not exclusive to the Muslims: the Chinese, who were even more convinced of their racial and cultural superiority, have still not forgiven the West.) There were basically only two ways to deal with events: make some accommodation with the West (as did the Japanese) or retrench into a fantasyland of nostalgia (a la Khomeini’s Iran or Nasser’s Pan-Arabism).

The first may be simplistically called the "secular" option, the latter (equally simplistically), the "religious" one. Many Arab nations and intellectuals opted for an accommodation with the West via the heresy of Marxism, which was viewed as the antithesis of capitalism, which as everyone "knows," is a brainchild of the Zionists who created the state of Israel. In college 20 years ago, I personally knew many Palestinians who could quote scripture and verse from the Marxist canon and who viewed the Soviet Union as their incipient champion in the coming war against Israel. All their eggs were put in the Soviet basket and when it imploded, the secular option for all intents and purposes imploded with it.

Hope dies hard, however. This left the "religious" (or more accurately, the nostalgic) option. It is religious in the sense that a retrenchment to supposedly Islamic ideals and a rigid adherence to them will finally cleanse the Near East of the hated West and all its pernicious influence. This of course is misguided as in our technological age there is no way to escape the influence–pernicious or otherwise–of the West. In a sense the leaders of this group recognize this and have opted to take the war to us, hoping that in our righteous anger we will become more like them. Who knows? We may, in their mind’s eye, even reevaluate our relationship with Israel. At the very least, we may become like the Europeans: always looking over our shoulder, worrying about the reaction of the Muslim states before we take any international measures. If nothing else, this would be a victory of a sort. They would enjoy some check on us via the terrorist option, if not an actual checkmate. In this, though, I believe they have misjudged. The Americans are not Europeans (culturally anyway). We are a surly, still-masculine nation despite the massive Oprahfication that our wretched media elite has tried to cram down our throats these last 30 or so years. We have come together in the past to fight more courageous and tenacious warrior-nations such as Imperial Japan and we will come together–for as long as it takes–to eliminate these child- and women-killers even if they have no fixed address. We do not like to live in fear and will refuse to do so.

I will venture a prediction about our European brothers: I think that, for once, the Europeans have had enough. Make no mistake, the attack on America was not merely a destruction of American lives and property: the nationals of many many other nations likewise lost their lives. This was more than mere destruction: the entire civilized world saw for a brief glimpse what the world would be like without the United States of America and it sent a shiver down the spines of people everywhere. Even in Iran, ordinary Muslims held demonstrations in remembrance of the innocents who died. Honest, decent people everywhere, even those who have legitimate gripes against America and the West, imagined what their lives would be like if the Talibans of the world succeeded.

There is much to decry about the West: our pornography, our homosexualization, our reliance on abortion and so on, but the alternative to a strong, vibrant United States is unthinkable. Even the Iranians, who live in a theocracy, fear the idiotic, violent excesses of the Taliban. Muslims everywhere, despite their envy of the West, have been given a chance to stare into the abyss and have a choice to make. They can choose to stand with the West (or at least appear neutral), or participate in the destruction of their societies. This destruction, ironically, will not come from the West, but will be self-inflicted; it is the Taliban, after all, who have driven millions of Afghans into refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, it is they who have alienated significant remnants of their nation with their blasphemous adherence to a civil-religious code that was never practiced anywhere in the entire history of Islam. Those Muslims who cheered in Ramallah, in Nablus, in Cairo and Islamabad indeed have a frightening choice to make. Will they let their actions be ruled by emotional anti-Westernism? If so, there will be hell to pay and they will have only themselves to blame when America and Europe close their borders to them.

Finally, we in the West must never forget that what happened three weeks ago was not merely an atrocity, but a call to righteous anger. A line was crossed Tuesday, Sept. 11, and millions of people all over the world know it deep in their hearts. The United States is justified in using any tactic whatsoever in righting this horrible wrong and the bastards who did it and their supporters everywhere know it as well. There was no justification for such a heinous act. The options available to us were given to us by the terrorists themselves. And they will have only themselves to blame. That they may continue to wallow in their ignorance and blame everybody but themselves is their problem, not ours.

George C. Michalopulos, Tulsa