With regards to Jeff Gorman's opinion column of Jan. 30, 1995 ("Islam at war with outer world for survival, not expansion"):

Mr. Gorman writes that "the Clinton administration should quietly condemn" the revolution in Chechnya. Why "quietly?" Perhaps because the Chechen people are justified in their cause.

Mr. Gorman then writes that Boris Yeltsin "is now seen to be a dangerous and foolish drunk" who "betrayed the heroic virtues that made him stand on top of a tank and defeat the August 1991 coup against Gorbachev." Who wouldn't want out of a government in such a sorry state?

Mr. Gorman continues by writing that the fall of the Russian government could result in a "cementing of legitimacy for Islamic radicalism (comparable to Christian radicalism, i.e. shooting receptionists)." By making such a statement, Mr. Gorman commits the same fallacy that the media commit time after time. That is, he judges the intentions of many by the actions of a few (who aren't even Chechen). The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not radicals, just as most Christians don't shoot receptionists.

By trying to label the Chechen Muslims as radicals (or future radicals), Mr. Gorman has contradicted his thesis, namely that the Muslim world is fighting for "survival, not expansion." And since the Chechens are fighting for their survival, aren't they justified in revolting? By supporting the Russian government on this matter, Mr. Gorman supports the Chechens' demise. He should realize that the Chechens, like everyone else, have a right to their identity.

In his concluding paragraph, Mr. Gorman writes that world peace depends on the quelling of resistance along Russia's south border. It seems that Mr. Gorman is afraid of Islam, just like so many others who don't realize that Islam preaches peace and condemns war except when survival is at stake. It was once written that fear and ignorance walk hand in hand. Indeed, they do.