Here's what I mean by "moral equivalence"

I found this September 16, in the Letters column of the Village Voice:

"Yeung's gut-wrenching article brought to mind a similar story I read about the parents of an Oklahoma City bombing victim who ended up having dinner with Timothy McVeigh's parents, realizing how each of them had lost a son, and how forgiveness could begin the healing. I recently saw the movie United 93, and couldn't help but feel pity for the hijackers as well, because they seemed as terrified as the passengers. Those young men were used as pawns in the bidding of Osama bin Laden, just like the young men and women being sent to Iraq are pawns for the Bush administration's war for oil."

(Name deleted.)
McGaheysville, Virginia

Now let's go through this point-by-point:

1) "realizing how each had lost a son"

I understand the anguish of Timothy McVeigh's parents. Every parent experiences the horrifying worry of "What if my little boy/ girl goes wrong in spite of all I can do?" But let's get this straight, the victim was murdered by McVeigh. McVeigh was executed for mass-murder. And why? Greed? Revenge? Anything understandable in terms of basic hard-wired human motivation? No, evidently it was to make an ideological point that remains obscure to this day. Gee, kind of like...

2) "how forgiveness could begin the healing."

Forgive who? The parents? Got news for you, they didn't do it. Little Timmy? He's not around any more - and he never asked for forgiveness, he was defiant and unrepentant to the end.

3) "I recently saw the movie United 93, and couldn't help but feel pity for the hijackers as well, because they seemed as terrified as the passengers."

Your authority for this was a MOVIE for God's sake! Repeat after me: Reality = real, what happened. Movie = representation of reality, what we think may have happened.

As scared as the passengers? So what? Are you going to tell me now that the hijackers were "as brave as the passengers" of that flight?

4)"Those young men were used as pawns in the bidding of Osama bin Laden, just like the young men and women being sent to Iraq are pawns for the Bush administration's war for oil."

This is patronizing and insulting, both to our men in uniform and to the hijackers - and I am not being facetious. In both cases the men were and are volunteers. The hijackers went to die for something they believed in - I'll give them that dignity if nothing else. They hated the West and the U.S. enough to die taking as many of us with them as they could. Whatever your opinion of the Iraq war, the men in our military who fight it have all made the decision to risk their lives for something they value, of their own free will, whatever you think of their decision.

Now you want to pat them on the head and call them "poor little pawns". The hijackers would be insulted enough to kill you for that. Our men in the military believe they are fighting for your right to say it, whatever they think of it. The hijackers were motivate by their hatred of us and all we stand for, our military by their love for us and all we stand for - and that includes you in both cases.

AND THAT'S THE MORAL DIFFERENCE YOU TWIT!