Rockridge High School
Taylor Ridge, Illinois
Teacher: Barb Downey
Terrorism: Can it be stopped absent
a valid definition and can it be defined?
By: Julia Garcia
12th Grade
Terrorism is not something that has been a threat forever. Life used to be quiet, peaceful, and friendly. People used to leave their houses wide open, even when they were gone for long periods of time. Now we have home security systems that can call the police of their own accord if someone tries to break into the house. Most people's doors are locked twenty-four hours a day. Apartment doors are even equipped with peepholes so that a person can see who is at the door before he opens it.
Where did all this paranoia come from? Did it just spring up overnight? Well, it was a gradual process until April 19, 1993. That was the date the Oklahoma City bombing took place. This was our first experience with mass loss-of-life due to terrorist attacks. We all grew up quite quickly after that. We became more cautious and less friendly and helpful toward strangers.
Terrorism had never really been a major issue until then. Never before had there been such large-scale destruction and death. What was it for? What was its purpose? It was just a disgruntled man trying to make a name for himself. This was such a needless loss of hundreds of lives, which serves as a symbol of how far technology has come, with man's help.
In this case, terrorism could be defined as an atrocious act of violence, generally in order to cause massive damage and resulting in the loss of hundreds of innocent lives. However, if we apply this definition to the term, it causes the United States to look like a nation of evil terrorists. If we were to utilize and publicize this definition, the entire country would be in an uproar. No one wants to be labeled as a terrorist. So this definition is not feasible.
If we come up with another definition for the word terrorism, based solely on the attacks on New York City on September 11, 2001, it may be satisfactory. The term could then be defined as an atrocious act of violence against the United States, generally involving mass destruction and resulting in the loss of hundreds of innocent lives. Now that may be an adequate definition. However, it can probably only be considered adequate to Americans. This is a potential problem because if it is only considered terrorism when the United States is being terrorized, then many other countries cannot be considered to be terrorized, though the same terrorist acts occur in those countries. So this is also not an acceptable definition.
There can never be a definition for the term that could be fully satisfying to everyone or be fully convicting of any group. All the time in the world could never be enough to find a definition that would be adequate to cover all of one group's, or none of another's, actions. The word cannot be defined.
As for the question of whether terrorism can be fought without properly defining it, the answer is no. If terrorism cannot be explained exactly to military personnel, how can we possibly expect then to combat it?
Now we will use the two unsatisfactory definitions given earlier, and examine them individually. In the first case, the fight would be amongst almost the entire world. Almost every country in the world has, at one time or another, committed atrocious acts of violence against another country. The acts generally caused massive destruction and cost hundreds of innocent lives. So, is the entire globe to go to war against the entire rest of the globe? No. This is os implausible as to be ridiculous.
Next, apply the second definition of terrorism. This again is any act of violence against the United States, causing much damage and loss of life. In this scenario, the United States would be fighting against many countries of the world. This is also highly implausible and would likely result in the destruction of the nation we have come to love and call home.
There are two more reasons why terrorism will be hard to combat. The first is that the enemy is so secretive and select that we cannot hope to identify everyone who is, or could be in the future, involved with terrorist actions. There are so many different groups in the world that have been previously involved in, or are even now in the process of planning, terrorist attacks. There is no amount of fighting that could ever completely destroy all terrorist groups.
The other reason that terrorism will be so hard to contend with is that we could never identify and find every group and all of its members. This is because they are so widespread and secretive. No member ever discloses everyone in a sect because he cannot possibly know everyone, due largely to the fact that there are so many members.
In closing, terrorism is hard to define adequately. We could take all the time in the world and it would still never be enough to satisfactorily define the term. This leads to difficulty in combating it. If we cannot explain what it is, then there is no way to fight it or make it end. This may be something we have to live with for the rest of our lives.
Required Questions:
Q1 Why, in your opinion, was the United States attacked?
I believe we were attacked because of religious intolerance. We Americans are evil because we don't follow the Muslim faith as we ought to and for that we should all die, is the general message of the attack.
Q2 Why is the first question so important to resolve and agree upon?
If we cannot find an answer to the question of why we were attacked we cannot possibly form a response that will be satisfying to everyone.
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 U.S. backed down instead of pushing the issue of inspections of suspected Iraqi weapons manufacturing facilities to which Saddam Hussein had refused our access.
Q4 Why does the author believe the United States is a popular target for terrorists?
We Americans are so wealthy and so arrogant about being wealthy. We profess to be religiously divergent and not a religiously-based government; Afghanistan cannot understand this concept.
Q5 What motivates terrorists, in the author's opinion?
One of the main things that causes terrorists to perform their terrorist acts is desire. A terrorist usually demands something in return for not completing or repeating an act.
Q6 What reasons does the author give for the intense hatred of the United States by people like Osama bin Laden?
The United States is hated because though we are the most visible, most powerful, and wealthiest country on the planet, we don not follow Allah and have a caliphate led by a Muslim clerk. Our highly wealthy visibility could also cause Muslim leaders to lose support.
Q7 How does rule by devine right preclude the reasonable debate that occurs naturally in a democracy?
Rule by divine right indicates that one person is the primary embodiment of the government, and typically rules alone. This would tend to be against democracy and would quell debate.
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 gives the examples of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and the Iranian government which came about because of religious overthrows thought to be better for those countries as a basis for attacking the U.S.
Q9 What is a fatwah?
It is an explicit order, in this case, "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 believes that the terrorists' names and families will be praised so much that many others will want to follow in their footsteps, or flight patterns, and gain that praise for themselves.
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 defines war as "a conflict of limited duration in which one side eventually surrenders or capitulates and the other side wins." The main reason why we can't declare war is that fighting terrorists is not going to be fighting a few battles, then one side surrenders and the other wins. The two examples given are the War on Drugs and Vietnam.
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 that all we can do is simply defend ourselves.
Q14 Explain the significance of the Coventry story.
In World War II, a message from Germany was decoded. It was an order to attack the unsecured city of Coventry in Britain. Winston Churchill decided not to move in troops and equipment so that the Germans would not know that their encryption had been broken. This may well have won the war for the Allies.
Q15 Suppose you were a great general in a combat situation. Could you "consort with evil to prevent larger evil"? Why or why not?
I think it would be hard, but if it came down to a lesser situation in order to avoid a larger situation, yes, I believe I could. In a few cases, it may save millions of lives if a few are sacrificed.
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 that our lumping American-Arabs in with the terrorists purely because of their ethnic backgrounds is un-American. Yes, I do think this is un-American. America is the land if ethnic blending. If we natives (and I use the term broadly) treat anyone improperly because of his ethnicity, we deny him the opportunity to prove himself harmless to our society. This to me is un-American.
Q17 Do you agree that terrorism must be defined adequately in order to be stopped?
Yes, I do. The reason for this is that we cannot fight what we cannot define. If we cannot explain what we are trying to stop, there is no way we can hope to stop it.
Q18 How important do you think it is for you to do 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 that terrorism is something we are going to have to live with for the rest of our lives. It should be important to everyone to know what it is so that it can possibly be realized in time to be prevented. I don't know that we have enough time in the world to satisfactorily define terrorism because no matter how it is defined, it will make one group or another angry.
Q19 Were you able to define terrorism in your essay without admitting that the United States has been guilty of terrorist acts?
No. In fact, I could not adequately define it at all.
Q20 Are you optimistic about the future? Will you pledge to do your part in pursuing mutual understanding? Why or why not?
I think the future is whatever we individually make of it. I personally have a view that is somewhat in the middle between pessimism and optimism. I know the world isn't idyllic, but I also know that I can make my own personal life optimistic, if I so choose. The future doesn't look bleak from here; it looks wide open. I think that mutual understanding is important in order to resolve the conflict. If we cannot understand why they attacked us, we cannot try to stop them from doing it again.