Ali’s anti-American views unfounded
Though I’m sure we have not seen the end of ingenuous
“war is bad” essays, Mujtaba Ali’s contribution
(“Innocent
Afghans don’t deserve attacks,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Oct. 19) could serve as an archetype for unabashed
sanctimony posing as rational discourse. Like the classic Trojan
Horse, Ali’s work arrives under the grand pretense of
humanitarian concern. Once welcomed into the public forum, his
disguise falls away, unleashing a rant whose language is as bilious
as the worst war-mongering hawk. Preaching logic, he contradicts
himself almost immediately, claiming the U.S. failed to provide
even “minimal evidence” to implicate Osama bin Laden
and his Taliban hosts. He then dismisses this previously
non-existent evidence as “merely circumstantial.” Ali
flaunts words like “justice” and
“evidence”, trying vainly to maintain the charade of
rational argument. He cites original sources. He knows how much
bombs weigh and what type of planes dropped them, but when it comes
time for Ali to reveal himself, it is with a flourish of
unsupported, emotionally-charged abstractions. To quote Ali, the
U.S. is “directly responsible for the deaths of millions of
Iraqi children.” American policy is “imperialistic and
unjust” as well as “self-serving” and
“corrupt.” Like any good ideologue, he makes certain to
subvert opposing views, pointing out that “exhibiting
patriotism reveals severe naiveté among Americans,” and
then panders to his student-audience: “Young
intellectuals,” he says, are so “educated, inquisitive
and therefore aware.” ““ how could they possibly
disagree? Ali’s self-proclaimed theme exemplifies his
reliance on platitude and generality. “Violence begets
violence” is a nice, albeit vapid thought. “Military
retaliation is not the universal solution to foreign
problems” is equally vague. If Ali is unaware of what
violence as a “universal” solution looks like, he
should study the policies of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and that of the
Taliban in Afghanistan. Ali has such a grasp on corrupt American
policies. I ask him: how many more defenseless lives need to be
lost here and abroad before we, who have the power, do something
about it? If economic sanctions starve innocent children and cruise
missiles sometimes go astray, how do we address a group of people
who have as little respect for their own people as they do for
Americans? If I ever find myself on a highjacked flight, I hope to
God the passenger next to me is a Mark Bingham, who will inspire me
with his courage to fight and protect others even at the cost of my
own life, and not a Mujtaba Ali, who will probably lecture me on
how it is my own corrupt nature and not a murderous hand that
steers us to our doom.
Greg Sumi Westchester
Watson right on facts, wrong on reasoning
Professor Robert N. Watson begins his derision of Joel
Schwartz’s letter ("God,
religion did bless our nation,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Oct. 17) by pointing out errors in Schwartz’s interpretation
on history (“Time
to think, not debate on religion,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Oct. 22). He is probably right that Schwartz has his
history wrong. However, Watson extends the history lesson, pointing
out that the same environment that led our forefathers to America
exists today: “The framers fled here from a country where
people were killing each other by the thousands because they each
trusted in their version of God.” This is where
Watson’s reasoning goes awry. He asserts that because the
hijackers carried pious letters from their ringleader, we should
eschew prayer ourselves. If he followed his own line of reasoning,
he would recognize that the framers fled and then declared war in
the name of freedom on those who killed in the name of religion.
The United States has also declared war in the name of freedom on
those who kill in the name of religion. Our forefathers
indisputably still stayed close to God and emerged victoriously,
and we should do the same. I salute President George W. Bush for
calling on Americans to pray ““ to whatever god they believe
in ““ for the victory of freedom. I believe that this is the
key to the eventual victory of freedom. I do not see my
“fellow creatures as … pawns in a game between our deity
and its evil adversary.” My God wants the freedom of His
children throughout the world, whether they believe in Him or
not.
Mike LeBaron Graduate student Anderson School of
Business