Rockridge High School
 Taylor Ridge, Illinois

 Teacher: Barb Downey
 Terrorism:  Can it be stopped absent a

valid definition and can it be defined?
 By Kathryn L. Martens
 12th grade

To stop terrorism, one must correctly define terrorism.  To define terrorism correctly, one must not be partial to any country, culture, or religion.  This is necessary because it is agreed that a terrorist act is
wrongful.  For one to decide what is wrongful, the question must first be answered, "What is right?"
 
So much of what we believe depends on the country and the government we  have.  People in each country are taught what their government believes, and the majority of these people believes and learns to follow it  themselves.
 

In a democracy, people have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of election, and many more freedoms. These people learn and grow up in these circumstances with these values and rights surrounding them. Because of this, many fail to understand other governments and why they fail to give their people freedoms of speech, assembly, election, or other such freedoms.  Many of these democratic devotees may believe that anything that is not democratic is wrong.  Any violation of what these democratic supporters believe would be a great offense, and some may go as far as to call it terrorism.
 
With a socialist government, each person must work together to provide their country with food, clothing or other goods.  This creates an environment where each person depends on his or her neighbor for support, food and necessities.  Living with this type of government ruling may convince people that the best way to live is by helping each other. Someone under socialism may believe that capitalist societies are terribly wrong, because no one shares what they have, unless they feel like it, which leaves the poor, destitute people on the streets to die a death of starvation.  These believers in a socialist society may find any effort by capitalists to change the socialist government an intrusion, and some acts against the socialist government even so extremely wrong as to call them terrorist acts.
 
Though not all people are committed completely to their country or government, each person has a religion or a set of beliefs. Some of the most widely accepted religions include Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. Each of these religions has been persecuted, or some say "terrorized," at one time or another. 
 
Generally speaking, a person following the way of a Hindu would have beliefs that revolve around samsara, the continuous birth, death, and rebirth of souls, which must be broken to obtain salvation.  This is done by living lives dedicated to spiritual discipline, devotion, and meditation.  Hindus believe in the incarnate god Krishna who says, "Whatever god a man worships, it is I who answer the prayer."  Hindus believe that there is validity in religions other than Hinduism because of this statement.
 
A similar religion is the New Age Movement.  In this, believers agree  that there is no absolute truth.  What is true for one person may not be true for another.  What is right for one person may not be right for another.  This presents quite a problem while trying to determine a definition for terrorism.  If there is no absolute truth, then one person can wrong another, yet the one who committed what could be considered the crime, may believe that there was no problem in the offense.  If such a case could happen, then any acts of terrorism could be classified as things that "were right for them," and therefore cannot be classified as terrorism.  Those that follow the New Age Movement or Hinduism may believe that no act is terrorism, because it would be a right and true  thing for the terrorist to act however they see fit.
 
Belief in absolute truth is what most other religions proclaim, but the disagreement between faiths is which belief system holds the absolute  truth.  Christianity is a belief where the believer follows Jesus Christ, the Son of God, sent to save people from their sins so they may have everlasting life.  The life of a Christian includes a great love for God, and love for neighbors, including friends as well as enemies.  It centers on having a personal relationship with Jesus, and living to please Him. When a Christian dies, he goes to live in heaven to praise and worship God with other believers for all eternity.  If a Christian is persecuted for what he believes, the Bible tells him he will be blessed. (Matthew 5:11)  Many Christians have been martyred for their faith and belief in Christ.  Most devoted Christians would rather die than deny the faith they have, even if it means protesting what they believe is a government
with wrong principles. 
 
 Islam is similar to Christianity in a few ways, but the most important things they believe do not agree with Christian beliefs.  Islam follows belief in one god, in angels, in the revealed books, in the prophets and in the Day of Judgment.  Muslims, those who follow Islam, believe that "there is no God but God and Mohammed is his apostle."  Islam is a way of life, and all Muslims attempt to recite the profession of faith, pray, pay the zakat (tax), fast, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca.  Because Islam is a way of life, Muslims find no line between religion and state.  There are groups of Muslims who try to turn non-Islamic governments into Islamic governments, acts that Muslims feel are right, but may not seem
right to the government being overthrown.  As some people took this farther than most Muslims would, terrorism became a questionable issue.
 
It is vital to understand all religions and beliefs if one is to define such a powerful word as terrorism.  If terrorism were to be correctly defined, one must take a neutral stance on every belief, custom, government, and religion.  Supposing a person could do that, few people would listen to the definition, because it would more than likely violate what they thought was true.  Because of this, a definition would have to  be created that fit every one of these beliefs, customs, and religions. This already has been calculated as impossible, unless the whole world was to follow the same set of beliefs under one government and all follow one religion.  The likelihood of this is essentially nonexistent. Regardless, no one is neutral in all these aspects of life; therefore, terrorism cannot be universally defined.  Thus, there will never be a way to stop terrorism as long as the world exists.
 
 Required Questions
 Q1-Why, in your opinion, was the United States attacked?
In Allah's eyes, much of our country is evil.  I believe the United States was attacked because some people wanted to "play Allah" and destroy this evil they saw, rather than letting Allah take care of it if he so wished.
 
 Q2-Why is the first question so important to resolve and agree upon?
Like the American Civil War teaches Americans, the reason for fighting must be agreed upon, or else each side will battling against the other for incorrectly assumed reasons.
 
 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 author believes that "when the United States and its allies backed down from Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow inspections of suspected Iraqi weapons manufacturing facilities," the likelihood of chemical and biological attacks increased.
 
 Q4-Why does the author believe the United States is a popular target for
 terrorists?
The author believes that many, though not all of the reasons terrorists target us, is for our terrorizing others, such as Libya, Beirut, Iran, Iraq and other countries.
 
 Q5-What motivated terrorists, in the author's opinion?
The author believes that the "governments . . .  feel it their duty to change (the) situation" by forming "religious revolutions."
 
 Q6-What reasons does the author give for the intense hatred of the United
 States by people like Osama bin Laden?
They are convinced that America is too proud and quite evil, "a population of devils led by devils" and that "Allah wants us destroyed because of how arrogantly we display our godlessness."
 
 Q7-How does rule by divine right preclude the reasoned debate that occurs
 naturally in a democracy?
If rule is by divine right, reasoned debate is eliminated as well as consideration for basic human rights.
 
 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?
If it was a political issue, the author believes we would have received demands and would have been offered negotiation.
 
 Q9-What is a fatwah?
A fatwah is an explicit religious order, making it the holy duty of Muslims to kill American citizens.
 
 Q10-Why does the author think new attacks are likely and how does he/she
 suggest we stop them?
The author believes that this "success "with glory bolsters motivation for new attacks.  The author realized that avoiding new attacks or
stopping them is nearly impossible.
 
 Q11-Why does the author claim that declaring war is futile?  What two
 historical examples does he/she give to back up this claim?
If we declare was and go around hurting or killing everyone who looks like they may terrorize us, we present more problems than if we were to ignore the problem.  The author gives the examples of the War on Drugs, a war which cannot be geographically defined, and fighting wars on limited bases in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf.
 
 Q12-Complete this sentence using the author's words: "A declaration of
 war implies . . . "
 "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 using "drug runners, murderers, . . . thieves, and gangsters" and terrorists to prevent larger evil.
 
 Q14-Explain the significance of the Coventry story.
It shows that Churchill, though it may not have been easy, knew how to protect his country and save lives, although many lives were lost.
 
 Q15-Suppose you were a general in a combat situation.  Could you "consort
 with evil to prevent larger evil"?  Why or why not?
 As general in a combat situation, if the best way to rid the situation of evil was to consort with it, I would do so.  I would not commit the evil, but one must consort with something to understand is more fully and to learn its reasoning and its plans for the future.
 
 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.
 "Turning our anger on them because of our frustration in being unable to get at the real villains is not only bad strategy, it's un-American" Something un-American is a forced belief system or a monarchy or a complete refusal of immigration.  Those things that our country stood to oppose are those things that are un-American.
 
 Q17-Do you agree that terrorism must be defined adequately in order to be
 stopped?
 Terrorism must be correctly and adequately defined, or it cannot possibly 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?
It is imperative that I study and research what defined terrorism.  If that is not done, there is one less chance of terrorism being correctly defined, and without that we (the United States and other countries,
religions and groups) cannot properly fight and oppose it, therefore weakening our chances of suppressing it.
 
 Q19-Were you able to define terrorism in your essay without admitting
 that the United States has been guilty of terrorist acts?
 I was not able to define terrorism because it cannot be defined without complete agreement on the issue.
 
 Q20-Are you optimistic about the future?  Will you pledge to do your part
 in pursuing mutual understanding?  Why or why not?
 I do have hope for the future, but I do not think terrorism will cease in the future.  I understand completely why the terrorists did what they did, though I do not agree with it at all.  I will do my best to see terrorism from both points of view.

 

Back