In response to the article 'When grief dictates revenge' (Sept 22) by MGG Pillai, I want to point out that the statute outlining the creation of the International Criminal Court was adopted at an international conference in Rome on July 17, 1998.

After five weeks of intense negotiations, 120 countries voted to adopt the treaty. Only seven countries voted against it (including China, Israel, Iraq, and the United States) and 21 abstained.

Therefore, Pillai's comment on how "Nato and the United States choreographed the setting up of an International Criminal Court" was inaccurate as the US voted against the adoption of the ICC treaty. Also, Slobodan Milosevic is currently being tried at the International Court of Justice (World Court) and not the ICC, which has yet to be ratified by a large number of countries around the world.

Despite his attempt in trying to put his points across, Pillai's article reeks of anti-American rhetoric and nothing shines more than his acute sense of America-phobia.

The conflict between the US and her allies is not a conflict of civilisation. It is not a war between Christianity and Islam. It is a confrontation between the people who had suffered from terrorist acts and the people who allow such acts to be perpetrated.

The US did not rally behind the veil of Christianity. Therefore, it is highly unfair of Pillai to state that Bush is "invoking God's assistance". I, as a Christian, feel offended by this statement.

I personally do not believe that the use of force will solve any issues. I believe that rational human beings, with a common frame of human rights standards and decency, can resolve most issues through proper understanding and discussion. My stand on this issue is that if the US can show restraint, she is a much more stronger country.

The attacks on the US show that the people behind these acts are willing to kill thousands to prove nothing. No one knows the intentions of the hijackers who rammed the plane into the symbols of American capitalism and military might. The unknown coward who has planned all this has decided not to claim responsibility for these acts.

Therefore, I would like to ask Mr Pillai for his opinion: Does he condone violence, no matter how justified, as a means to an end? If he doesn't, he should be condemning the terrorist who carried out the attacks. If he does, there should be no reason why he is not supporting the US in using violence to stop violence. Therefore, I find his support for the bombing to be conflicting with his stand against American's reaction to the event.