The University News (Irving, Tex.), Vol. [26], No. [8], Ed. 1 Wednesday, October 31, 2001 Page: 8 of 8
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: University of Dallas Newspapers and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the University of Dallas.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The University News
Commentary
October 31, 2001 15
All's fair in terrorist war?
U.S., terrorists held to different standards
Anna Smith
Guest Columnist
Dear Mr. Bragman.
I don't presume to speak for
the entire UD politics department,
but I would like to thank you for
joining our party, even though
you are a little late. Your com-
mentary last week was indeed en-
lightening as to the state of stu-
dent opinion here at UD.
You expressed your concern
about what seems to be the new
national tendency, given recent
events, to put matters into a very
black and white perspective.
Actual ly,
when one is in a
state of war,
things do be-
come a bit more
black and
white. We have
been attacked,
and our time
would be better
used in employment other than
sitting around wondering why on
earth anyone would want to at-
tack us.
It seems to me that there is a
bit of a double standard circulat-
ing in today's view of foreign
policy. I hear all the time Ameri-
can heads of state should not re-
sort to violence in handling this
matter. Rather, they should sit
down and reason with the Taliban
forces and other Middle Eastern
regimes.
I'm sure that members of the
Taliban would love nothing more
than to have a chunk of Ameri-
can statesmen together in one
room—to shoot them in the head
rather than negotiate with them.
Furthermore, if the Taliban is
so wonderful and so obviously
entitled to rule, why shouldn't
they be held to the same standards
to which enlightened people like
you hold us?
If provisions of our foreign
policy have angered them to the
point of supporting terrorist at-
tacks, why can't they reason
things out with us? What a more
condescending person than you or
I would answer is that we are the
more civilized society, and it is up
to us to be a bigger nation in our
dealings with this matter.
This is not to say that the
Middle East does not grapple with
its share of complications The
U.S. has a problematic history in
this region, and some of our poli-
cies have not been appreciated by
If the Taliban is so obviously entitled
to rule, why shouldn 't they be held
to the same standards you hold us?
the majority of Arabic regimes.
It seemed you might say we
reaped what we sowed Sept. 11.
But by sowing an apology for the
Holocaust, for what the Jewish
race deemed to be the West's fail-
ure to uphold their rights as hu-
man beings, how do we reap the
deaths of 6,000 people?
By sowing sanctions against a
hostile nation which poses a le-
gitimate threat to U.S. interests
(sanctions which aren't even en-
forced because UN inspectors are
forbidden by the Iraqui govern-
ment to perform their duties), how
do we reap the destruction of our
national security and the disrup-
tion of our economic system?
Bv sowing an unprecedented
and bestial attack on thousands of
innocent people, who have noth-
ing to do with Zionism or sanc-
tions, how is it that terrorists and
the nations who support them do
not reap swift and powerful retali-
ation and the elimination of a very
real and dire threat to our lives?
The U.S. cannot be expected to
play nice without question in the
game of global politics because we
cannot trust the rest of the world
to play nice. When attacked, we
engage in war on no uncertain
terms. When all factors of contra-
dicting passions, patriotism and
grudges are put aside, this mess
boils down into one cold hard for-
mula: initiation of coercion equals
retaliation
Neither the U.S. government,
nor the rest of the American people
have a duty to
' take the pulse of
terrorists every-
where to under-
stand why they
perform such des-
perate acts. Our
government has a
duty to protect us,
the American
people, and no one else on earth.
The U.S. government has a duty
to seek justice in this matter, and
justice has everything to do with
ensuring that terror does not strike
again on American soil.
As for enlightened opinions, I
happen to think that it takes a bit
of Enlightenment to wade through
a turmoil of human emotional con-
cerns to reach such a black and
white conclusion.
If you're worried about getting
your facts straight, I'd suggest
going a little farther than a group
of Muslim students in Haggar.
That section of the library you
mentioned contains literature that
may contradict, even prove wrong,
what they have to say. If any of
them are missing, I apologize; I've
had a sizable chunk of them
checked out since Sept. 12.
I'm so glad you came to our
party, Mr. Brugman. Would you
like some punch?
LETTERS
Smokers want
Bran iff back
Not long ago, smoking was
banned in almost all buildings on
campus save those dormitories
which apparently were not wor-
thy of clean air. The student body,
however, did not ban smoking
from themselves and thus took
part of their way of life outside,
rain or shine, hot or cold. Students
have accepted this proclamation
quite obligingly despite the incon-
veniences it causes and the ostra-
cizing feeling that it can incite.
In this age of political correct-
ness and bandwagon-joining, the
university's policy makers feel
justified in these regulations.
Smoking is no longer widely
thought to be acceptable or, dare
I say, cool, the way that, oh, I don't
know, cellular phones, are today.
Now these students face another
banned smoking area, the front of
Braniff
It is insulting enough to have
to go outside to smoke when
there is a foyer with a good 35 feet
of smoke-diluting air overhead.
Now the university has pushed
smokers out the back door as if to
hide this ugly blemish from the
face of school
John Russell's email states the
new zoning is due to "air intake
vents that pull outside air into the
building," Ah, yes, those vents
that were suddenly and quietly put
in last week. Just because Mr.
Doctoral Student complains, a
large contingent of students must
be herded to yet a more distant
holding pen? Outside is one thing,
but outside in an obscure location
is another, and I will not stand for
it.
A wise professor of mine once
said that though he does not
smoke, he likes smokers, as they
tend to the be fuel upon which the
fire of discussion and argument
burns at this school. As smokers
are pushed out of social areas, so
is the spirit of discussion on which
much of this school rides.
If a small handful think '"ai r
pollution" is a problem, maybe
they should go to the priory side
of Braniff and give those smokers
who have been pushed around for
the last decade a break.
Timothy W. Amorella
Junior
Katherine Cook
Left of the middle
Petty propaganda
drops US to bin
Laden's level
What are we doing? I mean really...at the risk of incurring
more of "Publius " wrath, what do we think we are doing? I
understand the need to defend our country, but we don't have to
do it with petty and offensive propaganda?
The idea that Osama bin Laden is the vil-
lain is already clear.
So why do we need merchants and humor-
ists to convince us through an explosion of t-
shirts, video games, curses on radio stations
and bumper stickers?
Are Americans so dependant on
the media we need them to articu-
late our feelings toward terrorists?.
Are we not convinced enough of the
nature of our situation?
What is gained by tasteless pictures of Osama bin Laden at-
tacked by rabid dogs?
The state fair of Texas has pictures of bin Laden up instead of
bulls eyes at the shooting games. What does this accomplish?
You can download your very own version of the game "Yo'
Mamma Osama" from www.twistedhumor.com.
In this game you shoot bin Laden duck hunt style and dodge
the slurpees he uses as weapons. Funny, perhaps, but the un-
derlying message is hardly healthy: hate him because he is not a
real person.
I will be curious as to how much the net profits are for "anli
bin Laden" paraphernalia this year. When did this menlaility
begin, and how did it escalate to the tacky display that it has
become?
I can't imagine Spartans back home during the battle of
Thermopylae wearing tunics that said, "Beat the hell out of the
Persians!" and "Xerxes blows!"
Somehow I don't see the Romans putting stickers on their
chariots that said, "Hannibal wears women's underwear!" It
seems rather incongruous, but now, we see these kinds of taste-
less and crass displays everywhere.
Do we rationalize our attack on Afghanistan through carica-
tures and un-witty slogans of distaste? This playground mental-
ity of name calling and mud-slinging brings us down on so many
levels: intellect, class and taste, to name a few. If this is what it
takes for Americans to feel just, what are we doing?
I support our actions in Afghanistan, even though I don't
own a "Kick Osama's Teeth In" t-shnt. I support the action of
our government, but I still admit real people are affected.
We cannot let ourselves be desensitized by buffoonish im-
ages that lead us to believe that we are attacking a cartoon char-
acter, or a villain so inhuman his death does not matter.
The people who sell this merchandise are capitalizing from
thedeathsofSept.il. I find that highly objectionable. Resist
the urge to buy into the hype and purchase the ""anti-Osama'
paraphernalia. What good does it do?
We sit here and curse bin Laden and talk about all the prob-
lems we see in the Taliban. We flaunt our rights of free press
and free speech,yet we try to control the opinion of our own
populace through propaganda. We are using openly offensive
language to incite people to hate, and create the desire to harm
someone.
How is that any different from the Taliban? Because we are
right? The Taliban thinks they are right too. Because they called
names first? That is petty and childish. There is no good reason
to justify this action of Americans.
We cringe when we see Palestinian children screaming they
hate the USA. But we laugh when we see kids at the state fair
shooting at an Osama bin Laden target to win a stuffed bear
There is a gross inconsistency here.
Instead of falling to the level of desensitizing propaganda, it
would be better to leave the fighting to the armies. Let civilians
keep their opinions on an intellectual level - and off their t-shirts.
If we support the abundant hate messages, we do nothing but
line the pockets of carpetbaggers and open the door to the same
mentality as the regime that we curse.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Watson, Thomas & Danaher, Julie. The University News (Irving, Tex.), Vol. [26], No. [8], Ed. 1 Wednesday, October 31, 2001, newspaper, October 31, 2001; Irving, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth201349/m1/8/: accessed March 29, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting University of Dallas.