Don't forget to wipe

What flies through the air, dispenses sanitary tissue and can empty a commuter aircraft in 15 minutes? That's right, a toilet-paper roller. It's the latest high-tech terrorist technology. Have we all become naive, paranoid and illogical victims of terrorism?

If the objective of terrorism is to inflict terror, then we are letting the terrorists win by subjecting ourselves to ludicrous measures of protection. Locks on cockpit doors: good, evacuating airplanes because of broken sanitary devices: bad. National security is essential and paramount, but many security precautions taken since Sept. 11 seem to have only illusionary effects. We play the "what-if" game too often. What if that broken toilet paper roller had been a wire linked to a bomb? Well, what if the newspaper you are reading right now is coated in anthrax? Society must smoke a lot of pot; we are a paranoid bunch.

Christopher Marcum
sociology sophomore

Be tough on crime, not guns

As usual, the body of murder victim Esperanza Hernandez was barely cold before the anti-gun vultures like Wildcat columnist Kendrick Wilson swooped in to politically feast on her tragic death in his March 28 column.

First, let me say that it is a particularly sick kind of irony for a man who is a "liberal" to try and use the murder of a pregnant woman to elicit sympathy for his political agenda. Presumably, Mr. Wilson is like most other liberals who interpret the U.S. Constitution in such a bizarre way that they believe it guarantees a pregnant woman the right to kill her unborn child. Where does it say that? He then has the gall to mock people who believe that the founding fathers meant exactly what they wrote in the Second Amendment. It is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms ..."

The rest of Mr. Wilson's column was a combination of incredible ignorance and outright lies. He claims there is no way he or anyone else can know whether or not background checks could have stopped Esperanza's killer, John Brown. You can believe that, or you can read the Aug. 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. In this issue are the results of the only independent, three-year long study of the Brady anti-gun law. The results were that the Brady law had (no exaggeration) zero percent effect on reducing violent crime. So an excuse was invented to explain this failure.

The "gun show loophole" has allowed criminals to avoid background checks. This is nothing short of a total lie. There is no loophole. All federally licensed gun dealers must perform background checks regardless of where or when they sell their guns. So how did a vicious murderer like Kajornsak Prasterphong with a criminal record manage to buy a gun at a gun show? The answer is simple; He did not. In a recent prison cell interview Prasterphong said under oath "I have never purchased any firearm at a gun show." So why should we expand a program that is a total failure?

The answer is not so simple. What all Americans, particularly my fellow conservatives, need to realize is that gun control is not about crime or public safety. It is about civil rights. Gun control laws are written and enforced by leftist bureaucrats and politicians so that they can harass, intimidate, persecute and even prosecute people who oppose their agenda, i.e. gun owners. Meanwhile, criminals remain free to commit more atrocities in order to terrorize the public into surrendering the rest of their rights.

Frightened and defenseless people are all too eager to embrace ideas like national ID cards, video cameras on every corner and broader police powers of search and seizure.

This is why anti-gunners use emotional ploys and phony statistics rather than reason and honesty to gain support from decent people. This is why Mr. Wilson wants people to focus on the propaganda issue of "gun crime" rather than just crime in general. Don't be fooled by his phony attempt to seem moderate by claiming that he, too, wants to get tough on criminals. He only says that because he is secure in the knowledge that his comrade Caitlin Hall is working to ensure that Brown and Prasertphong live to kill again. In this way, he and his fellow political vultures are guaranteed a constant supply of tragedies to exploit.

Gavin Murphy
history senior

Israeli military 'does not intentionally target civilians'

Armand Navabi, in his April 2 letter, is just plain wrong. First off, it is very appropriate to compare the United States to Israel, for one big reason: they are both democracies. Like it or not, it's true.

Mr. Navabi is right: the Israeli military has killed civilians. The major difference between IDF actions and Palestinian terrorists is that the IDF does not target civilians intentionally. Israel does not use F-16s to attack a nightclub where teenagers are waiting to get in. Israel does not send soldiers into hotels where holiday meals are taking place and order them to shoot up as many Palestinians as possible. Palestinian suicide bombers, snipers, whatever, target civilians intentionally; unless mothers and children waiting on the side of the street are military targets, they are civilians.

The Israeli military does not intentionally target civilians. It's that simple. Palestinian civilian casualties are unfortunate - a father and child caught in the crossfire, or a civilian near a building targeted by F-16s or helicopters killed as a result of a military action - but those and many more situations like it are not intentional killings.

The practices of the Israeli military do often amount to humiliation, and yes, the occupation does cause hopelessness and frustration. But we should not forget that Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not the only cause for terrorist attacks against Israel, because terrorists infiltrated Israel and carried out attacks in Israel proper while the West Bank and Gaza were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation from '48-'67. And Mr. Navabi, really · I haven't seen one instance of the Israelis using F-16s to attack rock-throwing children. Come on.

Finally, the "stats" do indeed show that more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed. I have a question, though. How many of those Palestinians killed in the intifada have been civilians, and how many combatants? How many were trying to infiltrate Israel to carry out attacks and were killed by border guards? How many were firing at Israeli troops, causing Israeli troops to fire back? How many were killed moments before they were going to carry out a suicide bombing against civilians? Of the Israelis killed, how many have been combatants or soldiers in the West Bank or Gaza Strip?

How many were just Israelis hanging out at a cafe or restaurant? How many of the Israelis killed have been teenagers just out having a good time before they were killed? You can say more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed; that's fine. It's true. But don't blindly state such facts without looking at the breakdown of civilian vs. combatant deaths, because if you don't, you make it seem as if all the Palestinians killed have been innocent civilians, and that's not the case.

Jeremy Slavin
political science junior

Palestinians must 'work hard to stop terrorism'

After Sept. 11, some Americans were afraid to fly. For the past 54 years, and especially recently, Israelis have been afraid to leave their houses, afraid to travel on busy streets, afraid to eat in restaurants, all because they fear irrational Palestinian terrorists will strap bombs to themselves and kill as many innocent people as they can ... and all in the name of religion. Could you imagine if America was plagued by suicide bombers?

There would be no military hesitation in seeking and destroying the terrorists with F-16s and bombs similar to what Israel is doing. Currently we are using military techniques and weapons to try to destroy al-Qaida. Not many people in America side with Osama bin Laden based on the fact that his army are poor, desperate people without weapons of mass destruction, just trying to defend themselves as best as they can.

Armand Navabi states in his April 2 letter the fact that if Palestinians had an army to join to fight a fair war against Israel they would enlist instead of resorting to terrorist attacks. If there was a Palestinian army, and there were no Palestinian terrorist groups, there would not be a war to fight. Israel wants peace and would be more than willing to share Jerusalem with everyone. However, the Palestinian terrorist groups do not want to share Jerusalem, they want to be the sole inhabitants. So unless the Palestinians work hard to stop terrorism, there will never be peace.

Marisa Chattman
microbiology junior

Military action only solution

This is in response to the Armand Navarbi's backwards view on what's going on in the Middle East.

Israel is absolutely a victim of terrorism just as the U.S. is. There are fanatics out there that want Israel and the U.S. wiped off the earth. The terrorist, Arafat, doesn't want peace; he wants Israel gone. He is encouraging and supporting the suicide bombings. History teaches us that peace can only come after decisive military victory. The sooner Israel kills or throws out Arafat and wipes out the Palestinians militants the soon the region can stabilize. No peace talks or negotiations will work.

Daniel R. Spehar
Tucson resident

Religion has become 'unquestionable and blinding'

While I'm sure it's pointless to argue with someone like Armand Navabi, his views should not go unnoticed. He says that al-Qaida are middle-class, brainwashed people that commit wicked acts, but for some reason doesn't think this applies to suicide bombers? Where do you draw the line? Both are killing innocent civilians in the name of religion. Al-Qaida doesn't possess F-16s and tanks. They use terror just like the suicide bombers.

The fact that he can call al-Qaida "wicked" and suicide bombers "innocent" is a huge contradiction. They're the same. On Sept. 11, America got a glimpse of what Israel faces everyday.

The Palestinians that truly want peace WITH ISRAEL are indeed unfortunate. However, any inconvenience or humiliation that they face is a necessary consequence that Israel must accept, as their objective is to prevent an irrational portion of the Palestinian population from strapping bombs to themselves. This humiliation can be blamed on the terrorists that provoke Israel in these circumstances. These people are irrational because they obviously do not consider the consequences of their actions. They are terrorizing a very resolved group of people with a strong army.

Israel won't negotiate peace with a group of people that cannot be trusted. Even if they did negotiate peace, terrorist groups have said that they will not honor any peace agreement and continue attacking civilians.

What option have you left Israel? Given this, it's easy to understand why Israel would seek to protect its citizens above all else.

The claim that the Palestinians are using suicide bombers out of desperation is a terrible misconception that is giving excuses for terrorism. It works to their advantage to make Israel look like a bully. Killing innocent people is a tactic, not a last resort. It's hard to even imagine such a case, but as Ismail Haniya, a Hamas leader, said in The Washington Post, they have found a weak spot in the Israeli defense. He said Jews "love life more than any other people, and they prefer not to die." Because of this, the fact that Jews consider life to be precious, they know they can disrupt daily life in Israel and cause unrest. Who would want to come to the negotiation tables and put trust in people that say things like that?

Don't expect a simple resolution to this conflict. Religion has become so unquestionable and blinding, that you can expect more irrational action to dictate the future of the region, as it has done in the past.

Rudy Adler
finance junior

Wildcat sends mixed messages

I find it ironic that Ms. Hall's March 29 perspective on the fallacy of the death penalty is sandwiched between two ads offering abortion services. Is the message that one death penalty is bad, but another is good?

Rob Roehler
UA alumnus

The long view of history

With the large number of letters responding to Laura Winsky's March 25 column, "It's not charity; it's an outstanding debt," I would like to put my 2 cents in and gather together the bits and pieces from the different responses and compile them into a grand view of the issue.

One must step back and view slavery in the U.S. as part of a much larger system of production, profit and exploitation. I agree with those who wrote that cotton was not the sole source of income in the South, or the U.S. in general during the time of slavery. However, if one takes into account the total immigrant and native labor force of the U.S. throughout history, including African slaves, one will see that combined, force produced nearly all the wealth of this country. Elias made a good point in saying that many immigrants suffered abuse upon arrival into the U.S., i.e. the Irish, Italians, Jews, Africans, Mexicans, Chinese, etc. Some suffered to a greater extent than others, given the conditions of their respective eras, but all were exploited nonetheless.

Hensley points out that it would be absurd to pay reparations to all groups who throughout history have been exploited by the hands of another class. I agree that simple "check cutting" will not get to the core of the problem, just like affirmative action does not solve the problem of unequal competition. In light of the fact that exploitation is not simply a white-black paradigm, one can see that it transcends racial lines and must be simply divided between owners and workers, haves and have-nots. All the wealth of the U.S. and the entire world was and is produced by a labor force, be it slave or otherwise. Slavery was a profitable enterprise for the owners, but as time passed and the modes of production changed, it had to be replaced by the more productive industrial age. Only the external severity of the exploitation changed. It is still the working class that produces and the owning class that profits. Although in a few exceptional cases, members of the working class are able to rise up to the owning class.

So, yes, there are whites today who prosper from the slavery of yesterday, but it is more important to see that it is the owning class that still exploits the working class.

Chris Buja
religious studies senior

No reason for 'Americans to support Palestinians'

I think it is ridiculous when Armand Navabi makes the claim that it is a disservice to the U.S. when we are compared to Israel. We both have one major thing in common: We are both fighting for complete freedom. The U.S. often flaunts its power.

If Israel is a terrorist country, then so is the U.S. There is no doubt that the actions of Sept. 11 are inexcusable, but was our solution necessarily the right one?

We decided to take out our aggression for the actions of a few terrorists living in Afghanistan on the whole country, killing many innocent people.

Seven months later, Osama has yet to be found. So what did we accomplish? We killed innocent people and disrupted the Taliban. Afghanistan will never recover and, in theory, we ruined an entire country. America does in fact commit crimes against humanity. We did it after Sept. 11, and we have done it in the past with every war. Recall the detention camps we placed people of Asian descent into during WWII.

The Supreme Court still upholds the use of internment camps.

It is obvious that Palestinians are terrorists. Is it not terror when I cannot ride a bus for fear that it may get bombed? Is it not terror when I cannot go to a nightclub because my life may be in danger? And is it not terror when I cannot go to certain places for fear that I will be killed simply because I am an American Jew? If this is not, what is? Arafat has never said that suicide bombers who kill innocent people are wrong but always claims that there will be a crackdown. Where are the results of this crackdown?

If anything, there has been a rise in the bombings. More Palestinians have been killed than Israelis, true, but I doubt Mr. Navabi would even consider bringing up this point if more Israelis had been killed than Palestinians.

I understand that Mr. Navabi is trying to get more Americans to support Palestinian actions, but, frankly, there is no reason for Americans to support them. They have not made the effort to stop terrorist action, and that is the reason that there has been a dramatic increase in Middle Eastern violence. Israel's actions are a mean of self -defense. I do not necessarily condone this, but I also do not disagree with it.

Jason Scheer
journalism freshman