Wednesday, June 8, 2004

Writer ignores Saddam’s previous behavior toward his Arab neighbors

Once again we have the privilege of being educated by Ms. Eska-Thedra (having watched “Seinfeld,” I think you may already get the sarcasm in my tone.)

Point one: Saddam may have had sarin gas, but it wasn’t actually aimed at us and was only meant for his own people, so what’s the big deal?

I hate to state the obvious, but here goes. First: one only needs a teaspoon of sarin gas to kill and injure thousands. Saddam had claimed all such weapons were gone. Would Ms. Eska-Thedra prefer us to have just waited for him to prove that he had it by either launching a sarin warhead on Israel, or by giving it to a terrorist to use on us (and yes, Saddam did have clearly established ties with terrorists even if he didn’t have a definitive role in 9/11)?

Her second point is one that commonly comes out of the mouths of so-called compassionate liberals: That he was only a danger to his own people and his neighbors. So, I guess we as a nation are to stand by while rogue nations torture, maim, and kill their own people. Where’s the compassion for them?

We get all worked up (justifiably so) about humiliating Iraqi prisoners, yet turned a blind eye to the atrocities of Saddam while he was in office (Ms. Eska Thedra’s precious CNN even had a deal with the dictator’s regime: they wouldn’t report the bad stuff if he would allow them to stay in Iraq; how’s that for journalistic objectivity?).

I know, I know. I can hear it now: What about North Korea? What about Syria? Well, when those countries have so brutalized their neighbors and violated international law that there are 17 U.N. resolutions against them, then we can talk. Until then, we use non-military means to bring about our goals.

Point two: (this was a real revelation) The murderers of Daniel Pearl were fighting for “restored Pakistani sovereignty.” Does this mean that their brutal slaughter was somehow okay?

That bizarre rationalization aside, last time I checked, Pakistan was still sovereign and has been so since the beginning of its creation. If the terrorists are fighting for anything, it’s to remove Pakistani sovereignty and make it another puppet state of al Qaeda. Ms. Eska Thedra, you need to get these basic facts straight if you want to be taken seriously.

Point three: it’s mean to call Muslim terrorists “Muslim terrorists” because it ignores the politico-religious complexity of the Islamic world and the struggle they wage against the oppressors of the West.

Well, what can one say to that? I mean, if someone is a terrorist (meaning they intentionally target for death non-combatants in non-battlefield situations) and states clearly and repeatedly that they are engaging in terror to further Islamic goals, then what on earth should we call them? Christian pacifists?

Liberals like Ms. Eska-Thedra have some sort of bizarre reaction to accurate labels. I don’t know exactly where that comes from, but I suspect it has something to do with their disdain of truth (“depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is”).

I don’t mean to pick on Ms. Eska-Thedra. I know she is trying to explain the world to us ignorant conservatives and that she wants peace and harmony in the world. I just wish that in her attacks and defenses she wasn’t always attacking Americans and defending the Islamic terrorists who brought this fight to our shores in the first place.

Also, I would point out one salient point which she ignores: America has gone to war three times in the last 13 years. Each war was launched to protect or free MUSLIMS from the oppression of a hostile dictator.

We are the good guys here, trying to bring real peace to the world, a peace based on mutual respect and truth, not one based on lies, false trust, and the deceit of evil men seeking to rule through force their own people and their neighbors.

Trey Hoffman

Peachtree City, Ga.

What do you think of this story?
Click here to send a message to the editor.