By Mark Burgin
In their article “Proper
retribution entails more thought, less force” (Daily
Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct. 9), Mitra Ebadolahi and Shirin Vossoughi
claim that “responding to one crime against humanity with
another exacerbates a dangerous pattern of violence to which there
is no foreseeable end.”
This statement conceals an essential and dangerous
misconception. To equate the outrageous crime of terrorists with
actions of the American government and its military is turning
everything upside down.
Terrorists strive and succeed in killing children, women and
other peaceful people. In contrast, America protects these innocent
people from deadly abuse by terrorists. To consider such actions as
identical or even similar is to call them both assassins, despite
one is killing innocent people and the other is defending his
family.
To write that their actions are even similar is to substitute
falsehood for truth. Even more, it eliminates distinctions between
good and evil because it leaves the good unprotected from the
evil.
Yes, it is true that human life is precious. However, there are
situations when we have to choose between eliminating a force that
threatens the lives of our children and sacrificing our children
because we are afraid to deal with it. So, before jumping to
conclusions, it is necessary to make a correct evaluation of the
real situation.
Yes, it is true, in general, that peace is much better than war.
However, if somebody attacks you, kills your relatives, and wants
to continue killing many more, how can you have peace with such
people?
It is our duty to defend our relatives and ourselves. At the
same time, such reaction does not justify hate crimes, which are,
as a rule, aimed at innocent people and similar to terrorism.
This helps us to understand that there are many sides to the
retaliation undertaken by the American government and military. The
most important is that our actions are in self-defense and for the
defense of other decent, but not as strong people and nations.
In addition, even if we don’t react forcefully to protect
our lives and the lives of our relatives, what we have is not
peace, but a dangerous illusion. This is what must be seen by those
who blindly fight for peace without an evaluation of a real
situation.
It is irrelevant and immoral to leave people unprotected under
the pretext that “companies … will reap billions from our
defense budget” as claimed by Ebadolahi and Vossoughi.
Besides, most of these billions will be used as worker
salaries.
If anyone wants to criticize somebody or something, it is
necessary for them to base such criticism on correct and relevant
information.
They also write that “despite Bush’s claim to
support Afghans, Arabs and Muslims alike, one Tomahawk cruise
missile shatters a presidential promise of brotherhood and
solidarity.” I do not believe President George W. Bush meant
that America is going to help Afghan, Arab or Muslim criminals,
especially the terrorists. A clear distinction needs to be made
between decent people and the criminals in any nation or
religion.
America’s policy is a vivid example of making such a
distinction: decent people in Afghanistan receive humanitarian
help, while terrorists and their supporters are attacked.
In such a critical situation as we have now, it is essential to
understand that those who support terrorists are also terrorists,
much like a person who pays someone to commit murder is also a
killer.
I suggest that everybody think about even more complicated
problems. In the situation with the current war, we have to protect
ourselves. However, there are cases when the small and peaceful are
offended by the strong and ruthless. This was the case when Saddam
Hussein’s army occupied Kuwait. There we encountered the
question: what should a decent person or nation to do in this case
““ protect the weak and needy or not interfere? What is worth
doing when an assassin is hiding behind children and women, killing
from their midst?
Proper evaluation of a situation entails more thought, less
claims.