Salahuddin's letter meant to inflame

I've read a lot of inflammatory letters in the Wildcat, but Syed Ahsan Salahuddin's letter on Nov. 2 made my blood boil like no other that I can remember, which, I'm sure, was exactly his objective.

While most of his letter was clearly meant to provoke anger, and is therefore worthless garbage unworthy of printing, he did touch on some relevant issues as a means to that end.

He claims that we should stop the war during Ramadan because it's a "sacred month." Bullshit. If the Taliban wants the bombing to stop then they should hand over the mass murderers that they are keeping as their "guests." The terrorists have made it perfectly clear that they intend to kill innocent people whenever and wherever they can. Why on Earth would we give them a break or respect their beliefs when they don't even respect people's right to live?

And no reasonable person can doubt that bin Laden and his cronies were behind the attacks. He's made threats in the past and taken responsibility for past attacks, and all the evidence so far points to him. Even President Mussarrif of Pakistan agreed that the United States has a strong case.

Salahuddin's ignorant rant also includes the accusation that the United States is targeting civilians and committing "genocide." This accusation is totally baseless. After three weeks of bombing there have been some civilian casualties, and this is tragic, but the numbers have been amazingly low.

Probably no other military in the world could have kept the casualties as low as we have, and I doubt any other military would have tried.

Salahuddin's letter talks of "bias." He clearly knows a few things about bias. I have no doubt that there isn't a single thing that the United States could do that he would agree with. He's already decided that we're in the wrong.

I'm equally sure that there is nothing that any Muslim could do that would make Salahuddin side with the United States. If the murder of 5,000 people isn't enough, then what would be?

Jason Erickson

geophysics graduate student

University should not fund Scouts

As a leader in the LGBT community, I would like to commend the Wildcat editorial board and the University, particularly President Likins, for supporting an environment that is inclusive and accepting to all.

In my capacity as a director for the ASUA Pride Alliance, I am blessed with interaction with a lot of students from various backgrounds, and of varying orientations. In some cases they are just seeking an accepting environment or people that they will know understand their struggles.

In many cases, however, they are seeking help with harassment in the dorms, problems with bosses and professors or help because their parents have kicked them out or cut them off financially, just because they came out.

Due to issues with homophobia on campus, Pride Alliance has launched a Campaign Against Homophobia. "Straight But Not Narrow" hopes to educate our campus on issues relating to discrimination on any basis. I would encourage anyone who wants to see an end to harassment and hate on our campus to find out more about our program (www.pridealliance.org).

Long ago I realized that how the university responds to situations like this has a major impact on the perception of all students and therefore on the climate on campus as a whole.

The Boy Scouts have chosen to discriminate and the university has chosen not to support that.

Jonna Lopez

Sociology senior

Planned Parenthood excluded from United Way

Friday's editorial on the University of Arizona's United Way campaign gives the impression that nonmember agencies that adhere to the United Way's "anti-discrimination pledge" could still qualify for funding under the university's new guidelines.

This is not the case. Agencies that are not United Way members are excluded - period.

Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona qualifies for funding from the City of Tucson, which requires, if anything, a more stringent nondiscrimination policy than that required by the United Way. Every year, we serve over 12,000 clients, regardless of their age, gender, race or sexual orientation. Our hiring policies and practices are similarly non-discriminatory. Nevertheless, we are still excluded under the new UA policy.

It is regrettable that the University of Arizona did not consult with the nonprofit community before making this change to its policy. We hope that they will do so in good time for next year's UA United Way campaign.

Patti Caldwell

President/CEO, Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona