Sept. 16, 2002 
Politics at play throughout Mall vigil 

On Wednesday, Peace Forum activists joined other members
of the university community in a vigil for the victims of
the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Although I speak only for
myself, I suspect that for many people, this somber
occasion was a moment to reflect upon not only the
horrors of Sept. 11, but also on the horrors of the war
that followed, the tragedy of militarism that has swept
over our nation and the unfolding catastrophe of
aggression that the Bush administration is clearly
attempting to promote through its manipulation of our
feelings about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Then the editors of The Diamondback attacked Peace Forum
for its presence at the vigil ("Demonstrators mar
memorial service" Sept. 13). "Some might say" Peace Forum
"cheapened the experience by forcing their agendas into
the minds of the suffering," The Diamondback said. All we
heard were "thank yous"  for our presence. The
Diamondback used our participation in the vigil to attack
our politics.

There were other "political statements" presented at this
vigil.

How about the presence of people in military uniforms,
marching and displaying at both ends of McKeldin Mall?
What exactly do military uniforms have to do with
"personal reflection" on the tragedy of Sept. 11? They
delivered the message that militarism and war are
appropriate responses to terrorist attacks. We don't
agree, but we certainly join with others of our community
in reflection and grief.

On Sept. 12, George W. Bush delivered an ultimatum to the
United Nations that it authorize a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Bush used Sept. 11 in his push for war, despite CIA and
other credible sources concluding there is no evidence of
any connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush maintains an immediate invasion is necessary to
prevent future acts of terrorism using weapons of mass
destruction. Yet he has presented no persuasive evidence
that Iraq is anywhere close to acquiring nuclear weapons.
We do know that Iraq at one time possessed tons of
chemical and biological agents, which it could have used
against America or Israel, but never did, in spite of a
war that killed more than 100,000 Iraqis and sanctions
that have caused the deaths of an estimated 1 million
more.

I'm sure many people can't help but think of the planes
impacting and the fireballs exploding from the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Yet the same scenes are
created when Americans bomb buildings and villages full
of innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine.
Al-Jazeera television plays these scenes over and over,
inflaming anger in the Muslim world just as much as
American anger was inflamed by the Sept. 11 attacks.

At a time when the Muslim world is simmering with anger
at Bush's uncritical support of Ariel Sharon, as well as
at more than 12 years of mass-destructive economic
sanctions and terroristic bombing of Iraq, it is
difficult to imagine a policy that could be better
calculated to maximize the likelihood of future acts of
terrorism against Americans than for the United States to
unilaterally invade and occupy this important Arab
country, at a likely cost of tens of thousands of
innocent lives.

Failure to protest the abuse of our collective grief for
the purpose of unjustified warmongering would be failure
to honor the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Those of us who have spoken out can take pride in having
the courage to do so.

Mark Gubrud is a graduate student in physics. He can be
reached at mgubrud@squid.umd.edu.