Salem, MO
Definition
of Terrorism
USA
If you were to look up the definition of terrorism in the
dictionary, you would find that terrorism is the use of force or
threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate.
Under this definition, though, would a simple fight on a playground, or
anywhere else be considered as terrorism? Under
this definition, even wrestling would be terrorism.
The last time I checked, wrestling wasn’t considered terrorism, which
means this definition of terrorism isn’t entirely correct.
I’m not sure you can really sit down and define terrorism.
Terrorism is a subject that needs a lot of thought.
What applies to one situation, may not apply at all to another.
For instance, when the United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan
in 1945 could that be considered terrorism or retaliation for an earlier attack
on the United States?
Instead of trying to put a definition on terrorism as a whole, we need to
focus more on defining the characteristics of terrorism.
For one, we all know, or should know, that terrorism is an act of
violence. That’s given.
However, if you were just to say, that terrorism is an act of violence,
then everything would be considered terrorism, and that isn’t the case. Another characteristic of terrorism would be hatred.
Most of the time, an act of terrorism is committed out of hatred for a
person or a group of persons. Again,
though, to say that terrorism is an act of hatred, you would be including a lot
of things that wouldn’t be considered terrorism by anyone.
Even to put these two characteristics together alone, would not be
sufficient enough to define terrorism, because we all know that terrorism has
many characteristics.
Another characteristic of terrorism would be motive.
Usually the motive is a political or religious one.
Yet again, though, just a political or religious motive isn’t enough to
define terrorism, because then even churches could be considered terrorists.
Now if we put together what we have thus far, we would be getting closer
to a definition, but not quite there. Now
we have our definition as being an act of violent hatred with a religious or
political agenda. This still
isn’t quite enough.
Then there’s the problem with what’s a good motive for something, and
what’s not a good motive to commit an act of terrorism.
Though, there isn’t any really good reason to commit an act of violence
so drastic as to kill hundreds upon hundreds of innocent people, all because you
want to accomplish something politically or religiously.
Still, though, I’m sure bin Laden thought he had a good reason to kill
all those people, just like the United States thought they had a good reason to
march into Vietnam and start a war. Both
were right in their own eyes and the eyes of some people, yet wrong in
the eyes of others.
I think all this just about sums up the main characteristics of
terrorism. Now, what do we do about
it? This question is probably
harder than the first question to answer. Because we do not always know who is a terrorist and when
they’re going to strike, it makes it hard to just go out and fight terrorism.
Fighting terrorism is kind of like a waiting game.
You have to take care of it as you find it.
Everything should be investigated, even if it looks like the person is
just blowing smoke. If the United
States would have just taken the time to look into bin Laden’s threats that
were made just weeks before the September 11 tragedy, it may have possibly been
downsized. I admit, that it may not
have been able to have been completely stopped, but maybe it wouldn’t have
been as bad either. But because the
U.S. just overlooked the threats made weeks before, many innocent people lost
their lives.
The next thing we need to do is act quickly.
We should hurry up and take care of the problem instead of dragging it on
for months. We also need to make
examples of people. If one person
gets away with something so heinous, then others will follow, thinking, “hey,
they can do it, so can I.”
The United States also needs to keep its nose out of where it doesn’t
belong. I know this sounds
really bad, but it’s true. We
wouldn’t want Afghanistan coming over and telling us that our religion is
wrong. We may not like the way
things were being done, but who’s to say they like the way we’re doing
things. I mean obviously they
don’t like us getting involved in their governmental and religious affairs, or
bin Laden wouldn’t have killed so many people to make his point.
This specific situation is kind of a tough one, because, bin Laden and
his followers don’t really have a specific reason for what they did.
They have been raised up to do things like that.
It’s what they’ve been taught all of their lives.
Just the same as we’ve been taught that it’s wrong.
We also need not judge the entire country on the basis of what a few
people did. We need to help those
people, yet at the same time we need to watch where we stick our noses.
Who knows, by the time the U.S. gets done with this situation, the people
of Afghanistan may be in worse shape than when it began.
We all hope not, but it’s a possibility.
We are bombing the homes of already poor people all because of something
one person did. Then we wonder why
they are ungrateful for the things we send them.
I mean they’re being punished for something they didn’t do.
We get mad at bin Laden for punishing innocent people, yet we turn around
and do the same thing by bombing innocent people.
We’re setting a double standard. I
understand that something has to be done to catch bin Laden, but should we do
the same thing he did on September 11, and kill innocent people.
Webster’s New World Dictionary © 1980
Desiree
Phillips Questions
Q1
- Why, in your opinion, was the United States attacked?
In
my opinion, the United States was attacked because they did not totally agree
with the ways of another country. The
U.S. also stuck their nose where it shouldn’t have been.
This country was founded by the differences in the ways of the people
from their countries, and we should respect and support the ways of other
countries as well, even if we don’t agree with them. Any other country would
have probably been easier to attack, but the point wouldn’t have been taken as
well as attacking the country that houses a vast amount of different people from
many different cultures.
Q2 - Why is the first question so important to resolve and agree upon?
The first
question is so important to resolve an agree upon because until we totally agree
upon why we were attacked, we won’t know what we’re up against, therefore,
anything we do to combat the problem will backfire.
Thus making the problem worse and further pushing the end away.
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?
The
likelihood of chemical and biological attacks, according to the author,
increased dramatically when the US and its allies backed down from Saddam
Hussein’s refusal to allow inspections of suspected Iraqi weapons
manufacturing facilities. Our
unwillingness to press forward with those inspections is going to come back to
haunt us someday, and do so in ways that might dwarf the horror of September 11,
2001.
Q4 - Why does the author believe the United States is a popular target
for terrorists?
The author believes the United States is a popular target for terrorists
because we are prosperous, although we are not Muslim.
Q5 - What motivates terrorists, in the author’s opinion?
The fact
that Muslim clerics have decreed that anyone who dies in the attempt to destroy
us is guaranteed a place in heaven, in the author’s opinion, motivates
terrorists to attack.
Q6 - What
reasons does the author give for the intense hatred of the United States by
people like Osama bin Laden?
Bin Laden and other terrorists believe that unless you are a country led
by a Muslim cleric, you cannot be prosperous, yet the United States is
prosperous and that makes it harder for the terrorists to prove their points. We
assume that people like bin Laden are simply deranged psychopaths with a warped
political agenda. This is a
terribly dangerous assumption because they’re not psychopaths, they are
something far worse; and their agenda is not political.
This is the reason the author gives for the intense hatred of the United
States by people like Osama bin Laden.
Q7 - How does rule by divine right preclude the reasoned debate that
occurs naturally in a democracy?
Rule by divine right
precludes the reasoned debate that occurs naturally in a democracy because
devout Muslims are living for the next life rather than this one and when you
catch people young enough and make punishments for disobedience severe enough
you can convince people of anything.
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?
In 1998,
bin Laden issued a “fatwah,” making it the holy duty of Muslims to kill
American civilians. The people who
took out the World Trade Centers believed that they were carrying out a holy war
under the direction of Allah’s representatives on earth against godless
infidels, period.
Q9 - What is a fatwah?
A fatwah is an explicit
religious order, like the one issued by bin Laden in ’98 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 thinks new attacks are likely because of the spectacularly visible
success of the September 11th tragedy, bolstered by the glory that
will be heaped on the perpetrator’s names and their families.
These factors will provide powerful motivation for those planning fresh
assaults for years to come.
Q11 - Why does the author claim that declaring war is futile? What two
historical examples does he/she give to back up this claim?
The author claims that
declaring war is futile because we can’t identify the enemy geographically and
we try to fight on a limited basis. Fighting
terrorist organizations combines the worst of these two conditions.
America also likes to fight out in the open, and it won’t work with
terrorists. The two historical examples the author gives to back up this
claim are Vietnam and the Persian Gulf.
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 suggests we make the make 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.
Q14 - Explain the significance of the Coventry story.
The Coventry story backs
up the author’s theory that when you’re trying to infiltrate hell, you
don’t use angels as spies. You
consort with evil to prevent larger evil. You
establish priorities and then you make tradeoffs, accepting lesser evils to
forestall greater ones. The story
shows how the British used this idea in WWII to help win and shorten the war.
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 a general in a
combat situation, we’d all be in trouble, but I suppose I could “consort
with evil to prevent larger evil.” A
general in combat has to kill people to keep more people from being killed.
The
author says that turning our anger on all Muslims because we can’t get the
real villains is un-American. I
agree with the author about this being un-American, but it is really kind of
hard to define un-American, since America is made up of many different groups of
people. I guess my definition of
un-American would have to be punishing an entire ethnic group of people to get
at one or two people.
Q17 - Do you agree that terrorism must be defined adequately in order to
be stopped?
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?