In a recent letter to the Daily, a student asked the question, “How are the anti-war protesters different then the Taliban?” What this angry young man should have asked himself instead is, “How am I any different than the Taliban?”

It seems appropriate to begin at the end of his letter. Theder calls upon Hatfield to, “stand up and fight for her country and the ethics that it embraces.” I suggest that this is exactly what she is doing by her exercise of the freedom of speech and protest of a policy which she does not agree with. This is certainly a very American thing to do. Theder says the current conflict is nothing like Vietnam. I suggest that he examine the two situations more closely.

First of all, the Vietnam conflict was essentially a civil war between the north and the south. In that case, America supported the south because that element was friendlier toward American enterprise in the country than the north, which was communist. The current war in Afghanistan is also essentially a civil war between two elements, one friendly toward American business and another unfriendly, except in this case the friendly element is in the north.

Next Mr. Theder says he believes in the power of non-violence; yet he is suggesting a violent solution to the current crisis. As he says, “One does not break the chain of violence by being passive.”

This is a clear contradiction. Mr. Theder suggests that we break the chain of violence with more violence, “by taking military action on those involved.” Is this not exactly the solution to violence that was taken by the Taliban in retaliation for what it perceives as previous attacks by the United States and our allies?

I believe that no one who uses violence to achieve their objectives is innocent. The Taliban is not, but why does Mr. Theder want to give up the innocence of the victims of the Sept. 11 attack by responding in kind?

Jdia H. Plum

Senior

Philosophy