My letter supporting the Taliban blasting ancient idols was criticised by the so-called tolerance preachers ([#1]Taliban right to destroy statues[/#], March 6). However, I still stand by my opinion based on the following facts.

Firstly, no genuine offer to buy the statues has been relayed to the Taliban although an American museum has shown interest. Unfortunately, it is not possible for any American museum to buy them as the Bush administration forbids any transfer of finance to the Taliban government whom it considers as terrorists.

Secondly, there is no similarity with the destruction by hardliner Hindus of a mosque in India. There are almost 100 million Muslims in India, but there are no Buddhists in Afghanistan. Buddhism has long perished in Afghanistan.

Thirdly, no outcry came forth when the multi-national force that liberated Kuwait destroyed the world's oldest archaeological site in Iraq. Iraq is known as the cradle of civillisation yet no country cared enough to preserve the ancient sites there.

Last of all, the United Nations has imposed sanctions upon Afghanistan at a time when the people are suffering the worst drought imaginable. Yet, the United Nations is sending its envoy to persuade the Taliban not to go ahead with its planned destruction of the statues. So, save the statues but let the people starve. Is this what the so-called tolerance preachers advocate?