Letters to the editor

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

Meeting our fears

Survival mission: Terror or tolerance

Editor, The Times:

The warped sense of logic shown by many radical fundamentalist Muslims is certainly evident in the statements by convicted Muslim conspirator Patrice Lumumba Ford who spoke of an America that was prepared to "annihilate thousands of Muslim children" in Afghanistan ("Muslim conspirators attack war on terror, get 18-year jail terms," Times, page one, Nov. 25).

The U.S. government has made it clear that we are not fighting Islam, but only terrorists, and in the fighting we have tried very hard not to harm noncombatants, especially women and children. Contrast this with the deliberate targeting of innocent men, women and children by radical fundamentalist Muslims in the 9-11 and other terrorist attacks.

Perhaps while Ford and co-conspirator Jeffrey Battle are spending the next 18 years in jail, they can learn something about the U.S. They might discover that we are a very tolerant nation and Muslims are free to worship here just like everyone else. They might find out that many Americans helped protect Muslim people and property in the aftermath of 9-11, and that we are certainly not trying to annihilate Muslim men, women or children.

We are only trying to protect ourselves against terrorists.
- Donald Dorres, Burien

Faith in security: Hospitality borders on self-defeat

Regarding "Controversial visitor-registration process may end" (page one, Nov. 21), would that all of our government programs were this "ineffective." Of more than 83,000 visitors (to the U.S.), 24,000 were subject to deportation, i.e., 25 percent. In other words, one out of four "visitors" is breaking our laws in some respect. Of course only seven of these may be supporting terrorism.

I trust the Muslim nations have approved the new program to be instituted Jan. 5. We certainly don't want them to be inconvenienced and protest.

Is Saddam actually in the United States? We couldn't have stopped him at the airport unless he was in the right spot in line for a "random" inspection. If he made it here, we couldn't put our hands on him without objections from the Middle East countries and probably France.
- Mickey Walker, Redmond

A gracious invitation

I read with interest "U.S. officials eye influencing Islamic schools" (News, Nov. 3), about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments regarding the desire to influence what is being taught in radical Islamic schools. "Does the U.S. need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists?" he asked.

Meanwhile, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz complained in a speech about "theologically extremist" Islamic teachings, less than two weeks after Rumsfeld publicly defended Gen. William Boykin after he said the U.S. is "a Christian nation" that's fighting a war against "Satan."

From what scant news coverage I was able to glean from the supposedly "liberal media," it appears that we killed more civilians in Afghanistan than were killed on Sept. 11, and then did so again in Iraq, despite opposition from our own allies and the largest peace demonstrations in world history (which our nonelected president dismissed as a focus group).

Thus, my modest proposal for a broad integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists: Stop the bombing!
- Eric Sieverling, Lake Forest Park

Host with the most to lose

Regarding the Homeland Security visitor-registration program that, after registration, resulted in some deportations, angering the Muslim men primarily, let me say that if they do not like the procedures that have been forced upon us just to survive, forced on us, I might add, primarily by Muslim men, they can stay home!

And, further, not being in the least prejudiced, I mean this should apply to the French, German, British, Christian, atheist, etc., anyone who is questionable. Your concerns don't concern me.

This is the most charitable and generous nation on Earth and we are willing to share everything. But you will share all of this on our terms. Not yours, for crying out loud!

At what point do we stop kowtowing to everybody else's demands and start standing up for us? Again I say, if any of our procedures offend you, protect yourself. Stay home!
- Clara McArthur, Federal Way

Welcome unbidden guests

It should occur to our current administration as well as to the public that it's highly likely that the rash of bombings that have been occurring in many countries (Bali, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.) which are likely to expand to other nations (including our own) in the future may be the result of our aggressive tactics in the worldwide "War on Terror."

Since 9-11, there has been no effort to understand the needs and concerns of the Muslim world; instead there has been only an effort to strike back.

But we should recognize that it's always easier to bomb stationary targets than it is to find the bombers, despite the continuing tough words by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Tough words sound great to those who want to control the world, but they are empty words. Though they are designed to scare terrorists, they embitter, embolden and challenge terrorists. When will this administration and the American public recognize that our approach has been counterproductive?

The only way to end terrorist attacks is to start discussing issues with those who hate us; we're getting nowhere by continuing our tough words and denunciations of terrorist attacks. Our administration's approach is even more disturbing when our major strike (against Iraq) had nothing to do with terrorism, and its basic premise (weapons of mass destruction) was a lie.

How long will it take for those among us with their teeth and fists clenched to recognize this fact?
- Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

Indulging to excess

For a good many years now, I have held the current administration's foreign policy in contempt. But lately I have begun to appreciate the brilliant humanitarianism of President Bush and his fellow neo-conservatives. Few things are more urgently needed in our world than international unity and cooperation.

This is certainly true in regard to the Islamic nations of our world. Perhaps these nations would eventually become more unified and cooperative on their own. But the willingness of the Bush administration and a majority of the Congress to offer them the United States as a common enemy has certainly made this task more readably attainable.

Three cheers for the current American administration's self-sacrificial commitment to the cause of international unity (at least among Islamic peoples in the Middle East). And a special word of thanks to all those Americans who have encouraged family members to risk their lives for this great cause.
- John-Otto Liljenstolpe, Seattle

Know when to leave

President Bush's makeover of the Mideast religious structure is having, and will continue to have, chaotic consequences. The conflict is appearing to be less about terrorism and more about the need for Christian dominance over the Muslim faith. Its resemblance to the Crusades of the Middle Ages is remarkable and it now appears that our president has embarked upon the same ill-advised mission.

In consideration of the lives that have been lost and will continue to be lost, Bush's stance on this undertaking is reminiscent of the gambler standing at the roulette wheel: the more he loses, the more he raises his ante! Only it's not money he's risking, it's American lives.

Leave the table, Mr. President, and cut your losses. This is not a theater for bravado and you are not ordained to restructure civilization.
- Guy Sykora, Seattle

Office politics

Ladder goes to the top

Donald Rumsfeld's concern over the misuse of taxpayers' dollars in awarding Boeing the tanker deal is understandable, however he should show the same concern for public funds when it comes to the government's "no bid" award to the Halliburton Co. for reconstruction work in Iraq ("Rumsfeld orders review of Boeing-Air Force deal," page one, Nov. 26).

While Boeing's offer to Darleen Druyun for a corporate position in exchange for details about a rival's bid is certainly tainted, it wouldn't be the first time Pentagon officials have ended up with lucrative jobs working for defense contractors.

Does anyone think the taxpaying public would stand for awarding a $27.6 billion Air Force contract to a foreign company?

Hopefully, Boeing will learn from this.
- Charles Grant Hodson, Federal Way

Affair to dismember

I wholeheartedly agree with "To Heritage Boeing: reassert your values" (editorial, Nov. 26).

I was a procurement agent at Boeing Defense & Space Group for 10 years and left the company just prior to the McDonnell Douglas merger. Training employees in the importance and necessity of procurement integrity and ethics was always a high priority at Boeing. Over the past several years, it's been disheartening to watch the slow demise of Boeing since the merger.

It appears the marriage between the two allowed Boeing to keep her name but McDonnell Douglas has gotten to wear the pants.

It's time for marriage counseling, Boeing. A new head of household might be in order.
- Karen O'Meara, Sammamish

Watch for retirement

The Times editorial regarding Boeing is right on. All of the problems stem from employees of companies acquired by Boeing.

Chairman Phil Condit would be well advised to promote traditional Boeing employees who were trained by (former Boeing chairman) Frank Shrontz, who insisted on the highest ethics.
- Jim Ashcraft, Cle Elum

Compromised flying objects

What ever happened to Operation Eagle and all those other ethics programs Boeing ran for its employees and vendors? Of course, that was back when Boeing was a company of engineers and not one of engineers trying to be CFOs.

After Enron, Tyco and now Boeing, we all know about CFOs.
- Dave Colby, Normandy Park

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company