Salem High School
Salem, Missouri
Teacher: Mr. Hendricks
By Lindsay Burd
Necessary Actions
“The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce especially for
political purposes,” is the dictionary’s definition of terrorism. The part of
this definition that is important to point out is the words “intimidate or
coerce.” Those words are why terrorism takes place, to make people frightened to
go on living their everyday lives. Though religion and what is perceived to be
our sins might be considered provocation, it is just a red herring. If we live
our lives in fear of attacks, we are allowing ourselves to be terrorized
everyday. For it to be defeated, we must be completely committed to delivering
our message that terrorism will not be tolerated.
One point of interest that should be brought out is how Osama bin Ladin would
not admit to being behind the terrorist attacks when first asked. For someone
who later expressed his pride in the massive deaths, injuries, and destruction,
he sure did not want to claim his handy work. Also, if he wanted to show his
people what great sinners the citizens of the United States are, why did he not
immediately step forward and tell the United States that he was the judge and
jury that sent thousands of people to their death without even a trial much less
a warning? An even greater question would be, why was Osama bin Ladin not flying
one of the planes? There is only one plain and obvious conclusion one can draw
from this. We are not dealing with a divinely appointed enforcer of Allah’s
laws, but a coward who wants his people to believe that there is no better way
of life than the one they have now.
We may not be able to pin-point every contributor to terrorism, but we can sure deal with attacks when they happen. Just because there is no way to stop murder from taking place in the world does not mean that murderers should not be punished. By punishing the person or people responsible for specific attacks, they are prevented from doing harm in the future and show an example to others who consider committing such acts of terrorism in the future. Many countries in Europe used to stick the heads of executed people, found guilty of treason, outside of the city to warn others what the penalty was for betraying their country. Even though that action may seem barbaric, it served its purpose. In the same way, punishing terrorists will serve its purpose. People will think twice before they attempt to kill thousands of innocent Americans just to make a point.
It may be true that Osama bin Ladin has many followers, but they will no longer have a leader, mastermind, and initiator of their deviant acts. When a murderer is punished, there is one less killer walking the streets, which in many cases, means at least one less person would be killed. If we eliminate one person, that means we have done away with someone who planned the destruction of at least three buildings and the murders of thousands of people. It has recently been suspected that only the men flying the planes knew they were going to act as kamikazes and batter the plane into buildings, killing themselves and thousands of innocent people. Instead of having many people willing to die for Osama bin Ladin’s cause, he only had a few.
Anyone could have people do things for them based on lies. We do have a specific target for our retaliation at the moment, and that is Osama bin Ladin and his followers. They are the ones who decided it was their duty to see that we pay for our sins. Now is when we begin to make it clear that terrorism will not be tolerated and follow through with action. Sure, the complaint can be made that we did not follow through with Saddam Hussain, and because of that, he might have weapons of mass destruction, but how can someone make that criticism and in the same breath say that we should not see that Osama bin Ladin is stopped? Osama bin Ladin is a repeat offender. Why did we not see to it that he was taken care of after the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? If we let this incident go, we might as well count on another attack, because Osama bin Ladin is determined to stop America in its prosperous and seemingly carefree tracks.
If we look at the situations where the United States has failed in their pursuit
of the overall good of mankind, we can spot several flaws. In the Vietnam War,
the United States tried to settle their differences with Vietnam by negotiating
instead of making sure that communism would never be the form of government in
that country. In doing so, they did not achieve what they set out to do, and the
war was considered a failure. On the other hand, we can look at the
Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II. All these wars have
something in common, and that is that there was a goal and determination to win
them. Another thing that all these wars share is that they were won. Now, we can
look at the different situations and ask what is the contrast. The answer is
focus, determination, and unwillingness to surrender. That is what will make the
difference in solving the terrorism dilemma currently at hand.
When comparing the hostile acts of the United States in the past, they must be
evaluated in context. The United States shot down two Libyan planes in 1981
because they were too close to the sixth fleet. The United States bombed Beirut
in 1983-1984 during wartime. The bombing of Libya in 1986 took place because
Libya had bombed a disco and PanAm flight 103. In the 1990’s, the bombing of
Iraq was during wartime. The United States took action because it was provoked.
These are not senseless acts that were committed due to a whim. The United
States did not suddenly decide that they hated Libya and Iraq and simply felt
like attacking. All of these situations involved an appropriate and necessary
response.
Defining terrorism is not essential to the problem that is at hand but might be
useful in the future. The incidents where the United States attacked a country
occurred either during wartime or in response to a hostile action. There is no
question about whether or not murdering thousands of people without
justification or a declaration of war is terrorism. This situation calls for
immediate action, which must be focused. The past weakness of the United States
in situations, such as dealing with Saddam Hussein, gives the United States all
the more reason to make sure their demands are met without any lenience. This is
when the unquestionable acts of unnecessary violence end, and the United States
makes it known that it has a no tolerance policy. There are a few things that
are clear about terrorism such as: no group or country has the right to punish
the innocent, unsuspecting citizens of another country; terrorism is an act of
cowardice; and terrorism will continue unless some effort is made to put it to
an end. All of those aspects combined help define terrorism.
Questions
QI- Why, in your opinion, was the United States attacked?
The United States was attacked because the terrorists wanted to
kill as many people as possible. In doing this they hoped for Americans to stop
living privileged lives and instead live in fear.
Q2- Why is the first question so important to resolve and agree upon?
In order to protect the United States in the future and end terrorism, we need
to know why it is occurring.
03- What action or inaction by the United States and its allies, in the authors
opinion, increased the likelihood of chemical and biological attacks?
The United States did not go through with their demand for Iraq to have weapons
inspections.
Q4- Why does the author believe the United States is a popular target for
terrorists?
The United States is the most prosperous nation on earth.
05- What motivates terrorists, in the authors opinion?
The terrorists want to destroy us because they want to punish us for our display
of ungodliness.
06- What reasons does the author give for the intense hatred of the United
States by people like Osama bin Ladn?
People hate the United States because we display our wealth, and other people
see us as ungodly.
Q7- How does rule by divine right preclude the reasoned debate that occurs
naturally In a democracy?
People in a democracy usually criticize their leaders and question whether they
should be in office or not. Rule by divine right does not leave any room for discussion because Allah supposedly appointed the leader.
Qa- 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, Osama bin Ladn issued a religious order for American civilians to be killed. Clerics decree that anyone who dies in attempt to
destroy Americans is assured a place in heaven,
Q9- What is a fatwah?
A fatwah is an explicit religious order which states that it is a holy duty for
Muslims to kill American civilians
Q1O- Why does the author think new attacks are likely and how does he/she
suggest we stop them?
Attacks will come because the attackers and their families will be glorified.
The author suggests that we use information from terrorists to stop terrorists.
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 says that declaring war is futile because war is only supposed to be
for limited conflicts or when one side will win. Hitting one religious terrorist
does not solve the problem. The War on Drugs is a problem because the enemy
cannot be recognized geographically. Vietnam and the Persian Gulf were incidents
where the United States was fighting on a limited basis.
012- Complete this sentence using the author’s words: AA declaration of war
implies...
a conflict of limited duration in which one side eventually surrenders or
capitulates and the other side wins.
013-What does the author suggest we do?
The author states that the United States cannot fight in the normal process of
war. You have to fight terrorists by using other terrorist to consult with.
014-. Explain the significance of the Coventry story.
The Coventry story shows the basic idea that you have to make small sacrifices
if you want overall success.
015- Suppose you were a general in a combat situation. Could you consort with
evil to prevent larger evil’? Why or why not?
When you consort with evil to prevent larger evil you have to be careful about
who you consult with. You have to be careful of dishonesty and possible
traitors. i would have to be sure that the evil >was consorting with was on my
side. Then and only then would I consult with evil.
016-The author says something is unAmerican. What is it? Do you think the author
is correct? Please write out your own definition of unAmerican.
The author say that turning our anger on Islamic people because of our
frustration in being unable to get at the real villains is un-American.
UnAmerican is harming the innocent, not allowing justice to be served, and any
actions which are contrary to our Constitution and the rights we reserve for
ourselves and others. The author is right. Killing civilians is un-American
01 7- Do you agree that terrorism must be defined adequately in order to be
stopped?
It is not essential for terrorism to be defined adequately in order for it to be
stopped. We know what actions are appropriate and what are inappropriate. We know what will cause war and what will maintain peace. If many
civilians are killed without warning, you do not try to define terrorism before you make it clear that the action taken will not be tolerated.
QIB- 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?
The definition of terrorism may not be clear, but what is clear is that there is
no question whether or not killing thousands of people is terrorism. The reason
defining terrorism may be important is to ensure that you are not terrorizing
other people. To make sure that you are not doing the same thing to others that
you do not want done to you is worth effort and time.
019- Were you able to define terrorism in your essay without admitting that the
United States has been guilty of terrorist acts?
The incidents given where the United States had attacked other countries were
taken out of context. The United States has never attacked civilians and is not
guilty of terrorism. Yes, I was able to define terrorism without finding the
United States guilty of terrorism.
020- Are you optimistic about the future? Will you pledge to do your part in
pursuing mutual understanding? Why or why not?
Yes, lam optimistic about the future. I think that peace is important and will
do my part to maintain peace. However, when a situation arises such as this
recent attack action must be taken.