Salem, MO
Salem High School
Salem, MO
Teacher: Mr. Hendricks
Jeff Daboin
Terrorism
and How to Stop It?
Some
people say that the collapse of the World Trade Center, on September 11, 2001,
was an act of terrorism. Other people will say that it was a religious act
that pleased Allah. A few say that it was done as the first step towards
taking over the world. Personally, I think that September 11,
2001 was definitely an act of terrorism. The reason I have come up with
that opinion is because of my personal definition of “terrorism”. I
consider terrorism to be occurring whenever innocent civilians are injured or
killed whether or not they have done anything wrong individually; which is
exactly what happened with the World Trade Center. I think that the
“attack” has opened up the eyes of America and have made us realize that
something needs to be done. First and foremost, we need to defend ourselves.
Then we need to try our best to totally end terrorism.
The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines
terrorism as “the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.”
The word terror means “violence committed by groups in order to intimidate a
population or government into granting their demands.” So according the
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the crash on “9-11” was not
terrorism. The reason it’s not terrorism is because Osama bin Ladin and
his followers had no demands. I totally disagree with that definition.
I think they should keep the definition as it is, but add a little more to it.
They should add that it may not have demands; otherwise they would be saying
that terrorism did not occur. I also think that this bombing did not
intimidate America, but instead just made us more than a foe to Afghanistan.
It made us their mortal enemies.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation of the U.S. also has
their own definition of terrorism. They say that terrorism is “the
unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or
coerce a government, civilian population , or any thereof, in furtherance of
political or social goals”. In my mind, that is a pretty accurate
definition. It covers the obvious factors, such as: “violence”,
“persons”, “intimidate”, and “civilians”. But what makes this
definition different from the normal definition out of a dictionary is that it
mentions “political or social goals.” The social goals were definitely
one of the reasons for the attack on New York, New York. According to the
person who wrote the required reading, Muslim clerics have decreed that
“anyone who dies in the attempt destroy us is guaranteed a place in heaven.”
That is definitely a social goal that can be met by Muslims. I think that
the F.B.I. has a rather accurate idea on what terrorism is. But do they
know how to defend America from it? Is America considered a country of
terrorism?
At the beginning of World War II, the bombing of
civilians was considered a barbaric act. As the war continued, however,
all sides abandoned previous restraints. On August 6, 1945, President
Harry Truman made a decision that affected many lives. He made the
decision to drop the first atomic bombs used in warfare on Hiroshima-Nagasaki,
Japan. This bomb killed an estimated 80,000 people, but affected a higher
number of souls. I am not very intellectual as far as American history
goes, but was that the only method America could take in the war? I
honestly have no idea, but surely there were other ways to go about taking care
of Japan. Maybe we should consider our actions in 1945 just as much an act
of terrorism as was September 11, 2001. I just cannot buy that though.
We were in World War II. That is enough said. When America is in a
war, we want to defend our country in whatever ways are possible. If an
atomic bomb is needed, then so be it. As long as we are safe in the
U.S.A., I do not think it matters how we go about taking care of ourselves.
So here I am saying that it is horrible for people to kill our civilians, but it
is okay for America to kill others’ civilians. That is a true statement
in my mind, but only if we have a really good political reason to do so.
The terrorists who knocked down the World Trade Center had no political reason
to do so; they had a social reason to do so.
In my mind, there are only two ways to take care of this
problem we have with terrorism. There is a forceful way, but there is also
a peaceful way. It seems that the peaceful way has already been attempted,
but not completed. A peaceful way to handle terrorism would be to have a
world peace organization. There are already organizations like N.A.T.O. or
the United Nations, but they obviously are not working like I think they should.
If a peace organization is started, it needs to involve every country on
God’s green earth. Otherwise, there will be those few countries that are
not in the organization, and they will be the ones who just happen to drop a
bomb on a major city. Realistically, this would never work; and if it did,
there would be a black sheep country that terrorizes another place. The
only other way for America to stop terrorism is by brute force. That is
just the only idea that I can come up with that has a hint of a chance to stop
terrorism. If we went over to the Middle East and dropped a few atomic
bombs, then that would get rid of a large majority of all the Muslims in this
world. If America were to do so, then that would totally throw our morals
out the window. The United States is a country that has “In God We
Trust” on our currency. Killing a few million people would really make
us look hypocritical. But how else could we stop terrorism from the Middle
East? Warfare just seems to be the way to get rid of things.
Example: the Civil War triggered the abolishing of slavery in America.
I can guarantee that there must be at least ten very good reasons not to use
brute force like that, but is there really any other idea on how to stop it?
I am extremely interested in reading what other
Americans think about this situation. I honestly do not think that my
opinions are very good. The brutal force idea that I have is totally
against my Christian background and my simple morals. But we can look at it this
way: America will come out on top in the end. We have a great country that
is ran by a democracy. That means that we get to elect our leaders to make
important decisions for our country. As of now, they have sent troops into
Afghanistan and have really cracked down on security. I applaud them for
doing so. And I think that we, as Americans, should trust and pray for the
elected leaders to make the right decisions on how to stop this huge problem.
Q1-
Why, in your opinion, was the United States attacked?
I think the U.S. was attacked because of a few reasons that the author
happened to mention. One reason is
because of the supremacy of the U.S. As a country of freedom and wealth,
we are ahead of most countries on this earth. But we are definitely very
far ahead of middle-eastern countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
So that makes jealousy one of the reasons that we are first on some countries
hate list. But the big reason why we are enemies to the middle-east, in
general, is because of religion. In America we have a freedom to serve any
God we choose to. But in a lot of the middle-eastern countries they
don’t have that right. So unless your family is
breaking the laws and worshiping another God, you will be brought up as a
Muslim. Muslims are extremely
loyal to their faith. They believe in what the clerics tell them.
They live for their afterlife, not their life on earth. So “when the
clerics decree that anyone who dies in the attempt to destroy us is guaranteed a
place in heaven”, that gives us the main reason that America was attacked:
Muslims are extremely loyal to their faith.
Q2-
Why is the first question so important to resolve and agree upon?
In order for our government to react to the terrorism, we must know the
terrorists’ reasons for doing so. Without knowing why they attacked America,
we just wouldn’t really know our enemies. As history has showed, you
must know your enemy as well as you know yourself. So how could we
actually fight terrorists if we didn’t know their intentions and beliefs?
Q3- What action or inaction by the United States and It's allies, in the author’s opinion, increased the likelihood of chemical and biological attacks?
”The US and its allies backed down from Saddam
Hussein's refusal to allow inspections of suspected Iraqi weapons manufacturing
facilities.” So that could very well mean that Saddam Hussein is just producing chemical and biological weapons, and we just don’t care. I
think that is just something that pushes other countries to produce chemical and
biological warfare.
Q4- Why does the author believe the United States is a popular target for terrorists?
He
thinks that as far as the Muslims go, one of the reasons is because of their
religious leaders. They will pretty much put a bounty on the heads of any
American. And it is all so they can have a great afterlife. But the
reason they go to America is because the Muslim leaders see how American’s
have better lives than they do. So they say that we are flaunting our
riches, which is against the Muslim law.
Q5- What motivates terrorists, in the author’s opinion?
One
of the main reasons could be “because the United States shot down two Libyan
planes in 1981, bombed Beirut in 1983-4, bombed Libya in 1986, sank an Iranian ship in 1987, shot down an Iranian passenger plane in 1988 and two more
Libyan planes in 1989, bombed Iraq repeatedly in the 1990s and Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, all of which is true.” That will motivate
terrorists to “pay” us back. Their religion also motivates them, too.
See Q4.
Q6-
What reasons does the author give for the intense hatred of the United States by people like Osama bin
Laden?
It is all about the fact that they are extreme Islamic. They follow their Muslim faith with their
lives. If their leaders tell them to kill us, they will do so. But the reason they choose America is
because of jealousy. They are jealous of America’s
wealth. “We are also the most visible and powerful country on the planet, strutting our wealth in
countless ways.” Doing so will make others jealous because we don’t follow Allah.
Q7- How does rule by divine right preclude the
reasoned debate that
occurs naturally in a democracy?
Divine right is when a ruler derives their right to rule because they were sent
by God to rule. Democracy is a government that is ran by the people.
Therefore, divine right is pretty much the opposite of a democracy. In a democracy,
people will debate with others to get their idea more well-known. But there is no reason to debate
in a divine right government. That’s because it’s all up to the ruler.
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?
”That it's a religious and not a political issue explains why we've gotten
no demands and have been offered no negotiation.” So since we have not
gotten any negotiation and Bin Laden put our a fatwah, we know that it must be a
religious issue.
Q9- What is a fatwah?
A fatwah is an “explicit religious order”. Osama bin Laden made 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?
He thinks new attacks will come because of “the spectacularly visible
success of last week's operation (Sept. 11), 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.” So that
will make the attacks come for years to come, according to the
author. He suggests that we realize what hurt us in past wars.
“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.” The
other suggestion he had is to put our CIA back into the terrorism field.
We need to have undercover agents to keep us informed on things.
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 America has done well
in the past as far as full-out wars are concerned, but this would be different
since we’d be fighting terrorism. Two historical examples are “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 PersianGulf). 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 suggests that we do what we used to do with the CIA. We
should get undercover spies involved with the drug game and specifically
terrorism. That way we will be able to avoid terrorism as much as possible. In my opinion, that
would
only be one of the many steps we could take to “fight” this war.
Q14- Explain the significance of the Coventry story.
The Coventry story could be significant to America’s ways of fighting this
war. If America puts undercover spies into terrorist camps, then we will
know things, like where and when a place will be attacked. In the Coventry, Churchhill
knew where and when, but did nothing about it. People may have
frowned upon his decision at the time, but now he looks genius. It’s all
about the final outcome of a war, not what happens in the beginning or middle.
So maybe America should think of what Churchill did, and apply it to our ways
of fighting.
Q15- Suppose you were a general in a combat situation. Could you “consort with
evil to prevent larger evil”? Why or why not?
I
think that it is a pretty good idea to do so. In a war, the final outcome
is all that matters. Losing a
few battles will happen to the best, but the best will come out on top.
And that is all that matters. So if that is the best idea America can come
up with, then I would support them fully. I, personally, think that there
must be other ways to handle this though. Somebody will come up with the idea.
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.
He considers something to be un-American when it is not done in the best
interest of every person
involved. America is a country of freedom, including religious freedom.
So he thinks that taking care of all the Muslims, even those who aren’t
extremists, is un-American. I totally disagree with him. America is
a nation that fights for itself. It thinks of other countries
periodically, but we put ourselves first on the list. So if killing a few
Muslims, who live in a
different country than us, saves our nation from being taken over, then I think
that would be the American way to do things. I think the word
“un-American” can be defined as something that America does, but isn’t
expected by others. This is when people know America’s Constitution and
amendments and things like that.
Q17-
Do you agree that terrorism must be defined adequately in order to be stopped?
I think that this author is looking a little too deep into how to define
terrorism. Terrorism is when some group uses some form of violence to kill
and intimidate a country. I don’t think that is hard to realize.
Whether other countries view America as a terrorist country is up to
them. They have their right to think just as much as we do. But did
America go and “terrorize” them for no REAL reason??
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 don’t find it very important “to research, discuss, and consider the
definition for terrorism”. This is an opinionative essay that I’m going to write. My feeling will probably
different from another person’s feelings. The point of this essay is to
get your feelings known. My feelings my be proven wrong by another, but
that’d be fine. Then maybe I would totally change my outlook on
the definition of terrorism.
Q19- Were you able to define terrorism in your essay without admitting that the
United States has been guilty of terrorist acts?
No, I was not able to define terrorism, without making the United States a
terrorist country. With certain definitions of "terrorism", just
about every country or territory can be considered terrorists. America had
a bomb occur at the summer Olympics in 1996. There was the bombing in
Oklahoma City. There was a criminal who was nicknamed "The Unibomber".
There is really no way to give America a clean slate as far as terrorism goes,
which is why the U.S.A. was used as an example in my essay.
Q20- Are you optimistic about the future? Will you pledge to do your part in
pursuing mutual understanding? Why or why not?
I do not know how to think about the future of terrorism. I really
want to convince myself that it will end eventually, but I don't have much to
back that up. God created this world knowing that there will always be
people who don't make the choice to follow Jesus Christ. It is possible
for everybody to eventually follow Him, cause "anything is possible with
God." But will it happen? Will there ever be a time on this
earth where everybody loves everybody? I just can't see that happening until I'm
in paradise with our Lord. I really don't know how I could
personally help stop terrorism and help others gain a mutual understanding that
terrorism is bad. All that I can do is pray for every person who is lost.
I can pray for them to learn to love one another.