Striking at the real source of terrorism

In “”Lessons from Moussaoui,”” Jon Riches implores us to stop ignoring terrorists, to deny them appeasement, and by implication, to fight them. If we really want to end terrorism, we must strike at its source. Its source is not in the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. Rather, its source is within the people of those nations. So what should we do? Call it appeasement, call it unpatriotic, call it treason, blasphemy or whatever you will – but we should listen to these people (terrorists!) when they air their grievances. Type “”bin Laden transcript”” into Google and click the first link. It’s the (English-translated) transcript of a video Osama bin Laden released in November 2004.

In this tape, bin Laden says that “”contrary to Bush’s claim that we hate freedom … let him explain to us why we don’t strike for example – Sweden?”” He goes on to insinuate that it’s really U.S. foreign policy that is responsible for his anger, and even that our current foreign policy is aiding his cause. Back in the late ’70s and early ’80s, bin Laden was an ally of ours in fighting the Soviet Union. He, along with the Carter and Reagan administrations, financed the mujahedeen and Afghani fighters so that they could fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As he would tell it, these then-freedom fighters helped to bleed the Soviet Union into bankruptcy and retreat. He aims to accomplish the same with the United States. A recent study from Columbia University economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz estimated that the long-term cost of the war in Iraq could exceed $2 trillion. This does not bode well for a country already running a nearly $9 trillion external debt and a nearly half-billion-dollar budget deficit.

I want to make it clear, though I shouldn’t have to, that I don’t condone the actions bin Laden and al-Qaida took. They were terrible and deplorable. Indiscriminate killing is never justifiable, despite what bin Laden may claim. But indiscriminate though it was, lacking a political motive it wasn’t. To ignore this motive would be ignorant, arrogant and willfully damaging to any prospect of true peace.

A beat andÿa cause

I was so happy to read that the UA hip-hop club was started for a good cause. In response to Monday’s article “”Dance Crew shows off skills”” by Ross Hager, I agree 100 percent that clubs such as this one can positively affect Tucson’s youth as well as the young people across the country. This situation reminds me of theÿrecent movieÿ””Take the Lead,”” in which a teacher transforms a group of troubled, detention-ridden students and gives themÿnew hope by entering them into a ballroom dance competition. The hardÿwork and dedication the teens devotedÿto preparing for the competition proves that just a dose of inspiration can keepÿAmerica’s youthÿoff the streets. Iÿapplaud the hip-hop club for attempting to send aÿgenuine message to Tucson teens.

Dodgeball tourney worthwhile

I am writing in response to the article, “”Sororities dodge balls for a cause.””

After glancing at the article, I had to laugh to myself and think, what is this activity doing for the greek life? After reading the article to find out more about this typical dodgeball game, it actually was designed for a really good cause. The fraternity Kappa Sigma put on a philanthropy event where every team of eight girls from the different sororities paid $105 in dues and ended up raising $1,050 for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. These kinds of activities may seem silly to others, especially those not involved in greek life, but actually they are doing something very worthwhile. This is just one example of a philanthropic event that the fraternities and sororities put on or are involved with. These activities are something that many do not hear about, let alone are aware of. This goes to show that greek life is exposed to more than just throwing parties and “”buying”” friends. I personally am not involved with the greek life, but I wanted to let the greeks know that I recognize their hard work and dedication in making a difference to other communities. Good job guys!

Other interpretations of Bible possible

If you believe the Bible should be interpreted literally, then I’m willing to bet you also think God is infallible. If God is infallible, then how is God capable of feeling regret over his/her/its own decision? In Genesis 6:7, God says, “”I will wipe from the Earth man whom I have created … for I regret that I have made them.”” The ellipsis only omit where God includes beasts and birds. Furthermore, if you take the line in Leviticus 18:22, where God tells Moses “”you shall not lie with male,”” literally, you also have to take literally that “”anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death,”” (Leviticus 20:9).

Perhaps you justify this by thinking that “”curses”” doesn’t mean a curse word, but rather a pagan incantation intended to harm one’s parents? That brings me to my next point: language and the meaning of words change over time. Perhaps over the thousands of years between these events and today’s literal understanding, God’s meaning has been inadvertently changed by humans due to a natural change in language? I personally believe that everywhere in the Bible you find a reason to love and treat your neighbor with compassion is where you find God’s meaning, and where you find an excuse to persecute others, you find human interpretation.