Opinion
Page 9 • Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Pointing the finger
1$ international terrorism continues y people must stop blaming world leaders
aker,
irbedJ
3 1
8E
HI.))
n.)
IT WASN’T
feP-
T he terrorist bombing in Madrid on
March 11 and the recent passing of
the one-year anniversary of the start
of Operation Iraqi Freedom has brought a
recent surge of global opposition to the War
on Terrorism. The New York Times reported
that, last Friday, a crowd of as many as
100,000 people gathered to protest the war
in Iraq, with similar demonstrations occur
ring in Vancouver, Seville and Rome. But
instead of rebuking the terrorists who mur
dered thousands of innocent people on Sept.l 1 and
March 11, they blame world leaders such as George
W. Bush and Tony Blair, two of the few men bold
enough to assert moral courage to defend the free
dom that these terrorists seek to destroy.
The news of American sol-
diers dying daily in Iraq is heart
breaking for those back home,
and though they take an oath to
uphold the U.S. way of life at the
possible cost of their lives, no
one wants it to come to that.
These protesters claim to love
peace, but they have to realize
that if they truly love peace, they
must understand what peace
requires. Every rational individ
ual wants peace, but groups such
as al-Qaida are not leaving us
that option. The mass graves
unearthed in Iraq will not be
undone by simply desiring peace
— to uphold peace, the world
must be rid of those who seek to
destroy it.
And yet, even days after the terrorists attacked
Spain, the Spanish did not become angry at those
who murdered them — they blamed their leader for
inviting the attack by supporting the United States,
and elected his rival, Jose Zapatero, who the Toronto
Star reports vowed the withdrawal of 1,300 Spanish
troops from Iraq.
One cannot help but wonder where the world’s
sense has gone when people are killed and protesters
don’t blame the murderers but instead blame those
who are trying to fight them.
"Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates
terrorist violence and invites more violence for all
nations,” Bush told representatives from 83 countries
at the White House last Friday. And he’s absolutely
right — by allowing the terrorists to achieve their
goal in backing out of your defense against them,
you give them victory. Killers who deliberately tar
get the lives of innocent men, women and children
do not deserve victory — they deserve to be rightly
MIKE
WALTERS
* ^These protesters daim
a love of peace, but they
must understand what
peace requires. ... A
coward surrenders to
the lesser enemy in a
fight in defense of the
innocent... .
blamed for their acts, and they deserve utter
annihilation as punishment for them.
“It is only as retaliation that force may be
used and only against the man who starts its
use,” novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand once
said. “No, I do not share his evil or sink to his
concept of morality: I merely grant him his
choice, destruction, the only destruction he
had the right to choose: his own.”
Some disagree with the U.S. invasion of
Iraq on the grounds that it was not openly
and directly attacked, but this is an ignorant stance.
The thousands of Iraqis unjustly slaughtered at the
hands of Saddam Hussein proclaim the evidence of
his guilt. His crimes against humanity are just that
— crimes — and an affront to those who value
human life.
The old saying of “what is
right is not always popular,” has
never been more true when look
ing at the thousands who attack
Bush and Blair for their stance in
seeking an end to Saddam’s
reign of terror and for trying to
bring democracy and peace to a
country that has seen neither in
decades. Deciding one year ago
to not go to war in Iraq would
not have brought peace to that
country — it would only have
meant more mass graves to be
dug and filled. Some realize that,
and now it’s time for the protest-
ers to come to that same realiza
tion. As Martin Luther King Jr.
said, “True peace is not the absence of tension, but
the presence of justice.” Justice must be brought to
regimes of tyranny if world peace is ever to be
achieved, and justice also means blaming those who
have committed a crime.
A coward surrenders to the lesser enemy in a
fight in defense of the innocent, of the U.S. way of
life and of all this nation holds to be morally right.
And while innocent people do get hurt and killed in
even the most moral of wars, it is a mistake to
equate those acts with the deliberate targeting of
innocents as terrorists do. To fight against these
leaders instead of fighting the terrorists is even
worse. These protesters must either decide that they
are pointing their fingers in the wrong direction, or
acknowledge that peace is not really what they want.
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.
Graphic by Paul Wilson
)FF\|
jff" 1 '
negations against athletes
lemish University’s image
MAIL CALL
nwd
ometimes the opportunity to recruit for Texas
A&M comes at the strangest times. For me, it
occurred on Saturday while eating lunch at the
lorthgate McDonald's when a black woman walked in
ith her daughter and asked for directions to particular
toon the A&M campus. She said her daughter was
tested in the engineering program. She then asked
lutthe campus in general. Were there many blacks
e? Were they treated well?
Considering the incident over spring break involving
oA&M football players, Geoff Hangartner and Cole
ith, allegedly shouting racial epithets at a group of blacks, I
know how to answer her.
Regrettably, A&M football players being arrested has been a
imon occurrence since September. But
allegations related to this particular
idem are so serious they deserve sepa-
te commentary.
On his Web site, coachfran.com, head
coach Dennis Franchione said
ith players have denied making the racial
s. Hangartner went as far as to take a
lygraph, which he reportedly passed.
|ut no matter how this incident plays out,
s reputation has already suffered
parable damage.
Hangartner was charged with a DWI
d Smith with public intoxication, but the
ory garnered national interest because of
iracial angle. The drunken driving
targe levied against Hangartner is
(tremely serious. Unfortunately, drunken
illege students stupid enough to drive
eall too common. However, what put this story on the front
ige of popular Web sites such as ESPN.com and SI.com are
ie allegations by the blacks in another car that Hangartner and
shouted racial slurs at them. A College Station police
Seer also wrote an affidavit claiming he could hear the slurs
m across the street.
The potential consequences of this incident are far-reach-
ig.This incident will hurt A&M’s recruiting efforts. It is too
isyforA&M’s athletic rivals to pull up this story from the
Dernet and show it to minority recruits. It will also undoubt-
ly hurt A&M’s academic recruiting efforts for more minori-
students. In turn, the stature of A&M as a world-class
diversity will suffer.
The A&M community’s reaction to these events is just as
This inddent will hurt
A&M's recruiting efforts... It
will also undoubtedly
hurt A&M's academic
recruiting efforts for
more minority students.
In turn, the stature of
A&M as a world-class
University will suffer.
important as the incident itself. Frankly, some of the
reaction by Aggies to this incident has been disturbing.
On the Texags.com football boards, some posters have
argued that there are even acceptable times to use a
racial slur. It is important Hangartner and Smith are
treated fairly and given due process, but the Aggie fami
ly must vigorously condemn any prejudicial attitudes
and redouble A&M’s diversity efforts.
Some might fear this involves instituting affirma
tive action into A&M’s admissions policies. While
this is not necessarily true, it certainly involves
Aggies telling other students to stop acting like fools and
embarrassing this school.
Perhaps the only positive incident to come from this story is
its potential to instigate a serious dialogue
about racial relations on the A&M cam
pus. The question that should be consid
ered is why some Aggies still harbor dis
gusting, outdated attitudes. I once received
an e-mail calling me the “n-word” from a
student who was upset over an article
regarding diversity. Nothing hurts more
than being told by a fellow Aggie that you
are less than human, unworthy of respect.
It should upset Aggies everywhere
that enrolled minority students have a
more negative perception of A&M than
non-enrolled minorities, according to a
study by the Race and Ethnic Institute at
Texas A&M. This means minority stu
dents have negative experiences that
solidify their perception that A&M is a
racist school.
It seems every semester there must be
some racial incident that conveys the message that minority
Aggies are not welcome here. Whether it is a “ghetto” party
planned on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, an offensive comic that
appears in The Battalion or controversy over the election of a
black yell leader, minority students are tired of being the butt
of so many racial incidents on this campus. This must stop
immediately. If that comes at the cost of two of A&M’s foot
ball players facing serious consequences, then so be it.
Abortion can't be judged on appearance
In response to Cody Sain’s March 22 column:
I was surprised, at the end of Cody Sain's March 22 editorial
"Opening the Casket on Abortion," to find that Sain is a philosophy
major. Judging from the content, I am forced to conclude he cannot
distinguish between rational arguments (and there are many to be
made against abortion), and logical fallacy.
Sain's first "point" is that "one should be able to decide from the
pictures if the fetus is indeed a ... person." If personhood is deter
mined by visual judgment alone, would Sain grant legal autonomy
to a particularly realistic computer rendering of a man? Early-stage
fetuses of primates and other higher mammals are virtually indis
tinguishable to the layman. Shall we then grant chimpanzees per
sonhood based on how their unborn look? These absurd examples
demonstrate that argument from appearance is hardly a firm base
for a moral stance.
His second "point" claims that abortion, if a normal medical proce
dure, should not induce repulsion. This is both appeal to emotion and
a strawman. Comparing suction aspiration and dilation cutterage to
something as mild as stitching a cut to prove a moral point is blatant
intellectual dishonesty. Plenty of medical procedures are beneficial,
yet horrifying to look at. The effects of chemotherapy on children, for
example, can be visually devastating. Yet I don't see any picketing at
the oncology wards of children's hospitals. I doubt many have the
stomach to watch a bone marrow transplant. Shall we condemn lipo
suction because it makes us go "Eww?" Of course not!
To morally judge something based on appearances and emotional
reactions is to throw away all semblance of reason. If the only argu
ments you and “Justice for All” can offer on behalf of the pro-life camp
are these assertions, I implore you to step aside before you harm
your cause any further.
Josh Shamburger
Class of 2006
Collins Ezeanyim is a senior
computer engineering major.