Salem, Missouri
Teacher: Mr. Hendricks
David Maledy
United States of America
Terrorism: Can it be stopped absent a valid definition and can it be defined?
Terrorism is defined in
Webster’s second college edition dictionary as “the act of terrorizing; using
force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, especially such use
as a political weapon or policy.” Terrorism, however, is more or less than
that. The United States has taken a stand on fighting terrorism, but what
exactly is the terrorism we are fighting, and what makes it worth fighting over
when we are not willing to fight the other forms of terrorism. Terrorism, in my
own words, is the act of violence towards another human being, or human object
out of hatred towards that person, thing, or as in our case, country.
Who is to say that little known murders are not terrorism. When a large, noticeable attack is made we pounce, and respond quickly. Everyday in the United States people are being murdered on the streets out of hatred or lack of respect for one another. What do we do to combat that? We have city and state authorities trying their best to solve crimes and get to the bottom of murders. Even then, when the suspected murderer is caught he is brought to jury, where we have our own American citizen lawyers, who even knowing they are guilty do everything in their power to get them off the hook.
Now, the United
States has made a pledge to rid the world of terrorists. How can we claim we
are going to rid the world of its terrorism problems when we still have
terrorism problems in our country? We are always quick to jump in and try to
show the world we are strong and will fight to solve problems for other
countries. We have already shown the world we have the strongest military force
in the world, so instead of continuing to try and prove we can eliminate world
problems, we should eliminate our own problems.
Since we seem so
determined to destroy the large-scale terrorism before even considering looking
at the smaller scale, more personal level of terrorism, we should first take the
time to think about who the enemy is. Is the enemy a single man, a small group,
a religious cult, or maybe just an idea? Maybe the enemy is not one of these,
but all of these. In the current attack and events following September 11th,
we have several different enemies we are fighting. First and foremost we are
going after Osama Bin Laden, who is the designated leader of the Islamic
radicals, whom led the attack on America. Then we have those Islamic religion
radicals who follow Osama, and believe that killing Americans is what they are
supposed to be doing for their god. The overall problem we have is the idea
that everyone cannot coexist, because “we are a population of devils led by
devils”. Their belief that we cannot coexist peacefully makes them that much
more dangerous.
When asked if I think
we should be involved in this war on terrorism, my first answer is definitely,
but if given the chance to think about it I begin to wonder. Why not just work
out setting up our defense and trying to understand what the enemy is about to
do? If we discover our enemy’s next move we can interfere and save lives, isn’t
that what we are going for in the first place? Not always, there are times when
we feel it fit to allow destruction and death to lead to a quicker, easier
ending to the war. The problem with this however is this war will probably
never be ended. If we are able to destroy one leader, another one will step in
and replace him. Yes, we can continue to kill people, but it’s the whole idea
that makes terrorism such a potent enemy. Terrorism is more than the people who
are attempting to kill others, but it is the thought process that makes them
think they are completely right for doing it. So now it should come down to
protecting us and being aware of what could happen.
Terrorists are always
planning for their attacks. They have nothing else to live for since this is
what they believe is their goal in life. So, do they work? Maybe, but probably
only as a cover up to keep others from being suspicious. They wait and watch
until they notice when we have let our guard down and where our guard is the
weakest. Wherever they can cause the most destruction is where they hit. They
have limitless possibilities since they are not afraid to “sacrifice” their
lives and are not afraid to take others lives.
So preparing for a
terrorist attack is just about impossible. Instead, we have to always be
ready. They watch us, like Japan watched us before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
They monitor our every move, they have people on the inside and out, and they
always have someone watching. When we think we are the most protected, that is
when they strike somewhere we forgot to guard. With America being as free as it
is, there is no control over who could be a spy for another country. Unless we
catch them in the act, there isn’t a way to point a finger at someone and say
they are the one letting out United States’ secrets. As we’ve seen before, even
some of the highest-ranking officials occasionally turn out to be not what was
expected.
Do I feel there will
be another terrorist attack on America, of course? Do I think we will have one
any time soon? No. Right now our country is on an extremely high state of
alert, and terrorists know this. We cannot get too relaxed, but we also cannot
live high-strung lives where we worry about everything. When it comes to
terrorism you almost have to use reverse psychology. Why? Because they can’t
outsmart us, so instead they try to out think us. This can cause a lot of
trouble, because we have such intelligent people in our country that we think
the terrorist will over achieve and then they perform something relatively
simple to near perfection, and it causes great turmoil. Terrorism is
unbeatable, but we can definitely slow it down and be prepared. Just as long as
the government does what it can, it will make me happy. Everyday something
could happen, but not everyday is something with the impact of September 11th
going to happen. We are fighting an unstoppable war, but in the end we will
somehow come out better off than we were before.
Q1- Why, in your opinion, was the United States attacked?
The United States was
attacked out of fear, not fear that we might attack them, but fear that we may
promote our beliefs; political and religious, upon their country. Their beliefs
lead them to believe that to serve their god Allah they must eliminate any that
might oppose him. Which Christianity, being the dominant religion in the United
States does oppose, in beliefs not physically, the teachings of Muslims.
Q2- Why is the first question so important to resolve and agree upon?
Until we figure out what
it is that drives the terrorists to attack us, we will not completely understand
how to defeat them. If we simply destroy those that are supposed to be the
leaders of the opposition, we will not be eliminating the problem. That would
just allow for new leaders to step in and most likely resume fighting against
us. We have to think about the future in all the decisions we make, because the
present is gone tomorrow.
Q3- What action or inaction by the United States and its allies, in the
author’s opinion, increased the likelihood of chemical and biological attacks?
When the
US and its allies backed down from Saddam Hussein’s refusal to allow inspections
of suspected Iraqi weapons manufacturing facilities the chance of chemical or
biological attacks increased significantly.
Q4- Why does the author believe the United States is a popular target
for terrorists?
The United
States goes against everything Islam teaches. Islamic leaders try to teach that
we are “devils, led by devils”, but then some of their religious peoples see us
with our multiple cars, and high quality living and it raises questions against
their god. Just us being so wealthy and powerful leads to loss in support from
their own people, this is a cause that Allah teaches they should be willing to
die in an attempt to destroy those who do not believe with them.
Q5- What motivates terrorists, in the author’s opinion?
“Governments
headed by non-Islamic laypeople are innately heretical, and they feel it their
duty to change this situation, much as the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan.”
Q6- What reasons does the author give for the intense hatred of the
United States by people like Osama bin Ladn?
If we
were poor, destitute and starving, the bin Ladns of the world could point to us
and say, "See what happens to infidels! See how miserable they are because they
don't follow Allah, the one true God!" Unfortunately for their movement,
however, we are the most prosperous nation on earth. Short order cooks in this
country live better than ninety percent of the population of countries like
Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Q7- How does rule by divine right preclude the reasoned debate that occurs naturally in a democracy?
Rule by divine right
states that the next leader must be a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammad,
not allowing a debate between one or more people even occur. Like the following
of lineage down the lines of Kings, the rulers for the Islamic people’s are
direct descendants of Muhammad, no questions asked.
Q8- What evidence does the author offer that the terrorism visited upon
the United States on September 11, 2001 was based on religious rather than
political fanaticism?
The author states that, “The
key to understanding people like Osama bin Laden lies in the strange and largely
unexamined fact that their attacks on us are never accompanied by any demands.
When somebody takes hostages and threatens to kill them unless they get money or
a plane or somebody freed from prison, we may not like it but at least it's
understandable. But the kind of people we're up against now make no effort to
reveal to us what it is they're trying to accomplish. They don't leave notes or
send letters to newspapers telling us what it is they want us to do to end the
terror. Not that we'd do any of those things, but we're not even presented with
the option. Since we can't see their rationale, and don't seem to be very
interested in learning it, we assume that they are simply deranged psychopaths
with a warped political agenda. This is a terribly dangerous assumption because
they're not psychopaths; they're something much worse.” This shows that they
are fighting for something that there may be no way to resolve.
Q9- What is a fatwah?
A fatwah is an
explicit religious order, making it the holy duty of Muslims to kill American
civilians.
Q10- Why does the author think new attacks are likely and how does
he/she suggest we stop them?
The author suggests new
attacks will come because of, “The
spectacularly visible success of last week's operation, bolstered by the glory
that will be heaped on the perpetrator's names and their families, will provide
powerful motivation for those planning fresh assaults for years to come.” The
only way to stop them is “
going to be an ongoing process, an initial onslaught followed by eternal
vigilance, in which the worst enemies we're going to face are our own
complacency and our deeply-ingrained sense of decency.”
Q11- Why does the author claim that declaring war is futile? What two
historical examples does he/she give to back up this claim?
“America
has a great track record fighting full-out wars, but there are two conditions
under which our record is abysmal. One is when we can't identify the enemy
geographically (e.g., the War on Drugs), and the other is when we try to fight
on a limited basis (Vietnam, the Persian Gulf). Fighting terrorist organizations
combines the worst of these two conditions, and is therefore not something we
want to rush into.”
Q12- Complete this sentence using the author’s words: “A declaration of
war implies . .
“a conflict of limited duration in which one side eventually surrenders or capitulates and the other side wins.”
Q13- What does the author suggest we do?
The author says we should not engage in a formal war, because the enemy is one we cannot completely destroy. The enemy also has no care for its own lives and no common grounds can be met. Instead you should just defend ourselves and keep this from happening again.
Q14- Explain the significance of the Coventry story.
The
Coventry story was to show that sometimes losses are required so we may go
forward and eventually win the war at hand. If the enemy has an idea you
know what they are about to do before they do it, then they will think of new,
unexpected ways to attack us.
Q15- Suppose you were a general in a combat situation. Could you
“consort with evil to prevent larger evil”? Why or why not?
If I were in the situation
I am not sure I would be able to make the decision to put some unexpectedly into
harm, because of what I think it could accomplish. Lives are more important and
if it takes longer to do, but in the end less bloodshed happened, I would count
that as a better victory.
Q16- The author says something is un-American. What is it? Do you think
the author is correct? Please write out your own definition of un-American.
The author says, “Turning
our anger on them because of our frustration in being unable to get at the real
villain is not only bad strategy, it’s un-American.” The author is correct
because as Americans we always fight the direct enemy. We are not know as
though who try to intimidate those who are the real enemy by killing off
innocent lives. Un-American is an act or idea that is not popular or right by
the thoughts of American citizens.
Q17- Do you agree that terrorism must be defined adequately in order to
be stopped?
I agree that in order to
destroy terrorism we must first completely determine what terrorism is. There
is no way to destroy an unknown enemy, so we must figure out what our enemy is
and why it works as it does.
Q18- How important do you think it is for you to research, discuss and
consider the definition of terrorism? Are you willing to spend the time it takes
to give your definition your very best effort? Why or why not?
I think it is important to
know about terrorism and the effects it has caused. It is good to know what the
country is doing, but myself as an individual, feel that it is not directly
important to research a great definition. I was not affected directly in the
acts, and feel that taking care of the situation should be left to those who are
at the task. Those who are in combat, and are working to figure out the
situation should fully understand the meaning of terrorism. I am more than
willing however to state what I feel terrorism is, and being an American I have
the right to stand by definition through any amount of criticism I may receive.
Q19- Were you able to define terrorism in your essay without admitting
that the United States has been guilty of terrorist acts?
Q20- Are you optimistic about the future? Will you pledge to do your
part in pursuing mutual understanding? Why or why not?