Rockridge High School
Taylor Ridge, Illinois

Mrs. Barbara Downey
Terrorism, Can it be Stopped Absent a Valid Definition, and Can it be Defined?
By Mitchell Elliott
12th Grade

Terrorism, what is it exactly?  Can it be stopped?  If so, will we be able to stop it before an act similar to the World Trade Center attack occurs again?  n order to stop terrorism and prevent further attacks, there must be a valid definition of the word terrorism.  Once this has been accomplished, The United States, along with all other countries in the world, will be able to combat and maybe even eliminate terrorism.
   
Why do people need a definition of terrorism in order to stop it?  For the same reasons people needed to know who they were fighting in World War I and World War II.  If you need an example of what happens when the United States does not have a clear idea as to who its enemy is, look at what happened during the War in Vietnam.  Soldiers from the United States spent eight years in Vietnam and achieved virtually nothing despite the deaths of more than fifty thousand American lives.  However, when the United States knows exactly
whom it is fighting, it does quite well.  Two clear examples are when the United States helped the allied nations defeat their enemies in World War I and World War II.  So in order for us to defeat the terrorists, we must first be able to define exactly what terrorism is.
   
Another justification for obtaining a clear definition of terrorism is so that we can successfully determine what parts of our planet are affected by terrorism the most.  Countries that are unaffected may then be able to help countries which are plagued by terrorists or stop countries which harbor and support terrorists.  How can we tell which countries are most greatly affected by terrorism until we properly define terrorism?  We cannot help the
victimized countries or convince the other countries that they are wrong until we truly know what terrorism is.
   
There is another purpose behind having a clear definition of terrorism.  People must know who the terrorists are so people can determine why they are being attacked.  Then people will be able to find out what they can do to try and fix relations with the terrorists and their home countries.  If an agreement can be reached, these attacks may stop happening, lives will be saved, and the world can get back to solving other, more important problems.
   
The final and greatest need for defining terrorism is so that countries will finally be able to look for warning signs and predict if an attack is going to take place.  If people know how terrorists act before or during an attack, they may be able to predict these disastrous attacks or even stop them from happening in the first place.  Think of the thousands of lives that could be saved and the thousands more whose lives would remain intact if people could
prevent terrorist acts from occurring.  People need to find out what terrorism truly is, so lives will be saved and families will not be torn apart.  If this definition is found, then terrorism will be stopped and there will be peace.
   
 There are three main areas people should research first before terrorism can be defined correctly: finding out where the greatest number of these attacks are coming from, deciding who the people are that are carrying them out, and identifying what their reasons are for these attacks.  Once these three areas are researched properly, people should be able to define and defeat terrorism.
   
The first step that people should take if they wish to define terrorism is to find out where it usually comes from.  What part of the planet does it come from?  From what countries does it come from?  Are these countries similar not only in location, but in culture as well?  Primarily, these terrorist attacks have been coming from the Middle East, in countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.  Many of these countries are poverty-stricken and have
ongoing civil wars, or other fighting going on within their borders.  Also, many of these countries come from similar religious and political backgrounds.  This common link between them greatly aids those who are trying to define terrorism.
   
Another question people must ask is, who is carrying out these vile acts?  People must find out who, before they can begin to find out why.  How do these people live?  What are their day-to-day lives like?  These are the two of the most important   questions people must ask if they wish to find out who is carrying out these acts. Recently, people have been assuming that all terrorists are Arabic, Muslim men.  While a large percentage of terrorists do
come from this part of the planet, they also come from many other places. Terrorists tend to live harsh, unrewarding lives with no hope of them improving.  Many terrorists are followers, listening to the words of some manipulative madman.  They live in poor countries where the death rate is high, so why not die for something they believe will give them eternal peace
and happiness?  To them there is no choice but death, so it is these people who must be singled out and stopped.
   
Next we must find out why the people are committing these attacks.  Is it for political reasons?  Is it because of their religion?  Or are there other, deeper, reasons for these terrorist attacks?  The reasons vary from place to place, from person to person.  These most recent attacks have been blamed on Islamic beliefs, while terrorist attacks in Israel and Pakistan are over a sacred, religious land.  Some attacks are committed in order to kill a
political leader or overthrow a government.  Some attacks appear to have no reason.  If people can somehow find common links between terrorist attacks, then they may be able to accurately define terrorism and then eliminate it. 
   
After people have successfully answered these three questions, they may then begin to define terrorism All that is needed to be found is the where, who, and the why, and terrorism may finally be made understandable.  It may take years to accomplish this difficult task, but it can be done.  In order to keep the world safe and preserve its people's rights to live a safe and happy life, terrorism must be defined and then defeated.
   
Therefore, we can see that terrorism is an act carried out simply to cause terror.  It is usually carried out by some fanatical group who has no fear of dying, show no remorse, and have no plans of trying to reconstruct the countries they have attacked.  America is not a terrorist nation because it tries to fix what it destroys during war and other attacks, its people show
remorse, and it is all about keeping its soldiers alive and safe from harm.  These facts separate America from these terrible people and allows its people to fight back and make the world safe.  Once we have separated ourselves from the terrorists, using a clear definition, we can finally stop it. 

Questions
Q1- Why, in your opinion, was the United States attacked?

 I believe that the terrorists want to prove that despite its powerful appearance, the United States is actually a weak country, inhabited by weak, ignorant people.  They are out to prove how a single act may bring the whole country to its knees.  The terrorists want to prove that their beliefs, religious or political, are right, making them superior to us.

Q2- Why is the first question so important to resolve and agree upon?

We need to find a reason for the attacks so we will have a reason to attack back.  It may help us in planning our battle strategy, or it may be used to rally support from United states citizens and the people of other countries as well.

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?
    

He/She believes that the United States’ inability to force Saddam Hussein into allowing an inspection of Iraqi weapon manufacturing facilities.  There may be weapons of unknown destruction that we do not know about because we backed down from Hussein.

Q4- Why does the author believe the United States is a popular target for
terrorists?

Because we have done so many things that are seen as vile and murderous by other countries, which makes them hat both the United States and its people.  We shoot down their planes, sink their ships, and drop bombs on their countries and on their homes.  In their eyes, they do not need any other reasons.

Q5- What motivates terrorists, in the author's opinion?

Muslims live for the next life, not their current one.  If they can do something that will assure them a good afterlife, they will do it.  Therefore, if the price of a good afterlife is thousands of American lives, they will gladly pay it, even if it means they must die.

Q6- What reasons does the author give for the intense hatred?

The author believes we are hated because we are a serious threat to the Islamic clergy's power base.  They are trying to show how we are weak and wrong, but we are prospering, while they live in the destroyed buildings of ruined cities inside of their poverty-stricken, war ridden countries that they must call home.

Q7- How does rule by divine right preclude the reasoned debate that occurs
naturally in a democracy?

Divine right eliminates any debate over what right a human being has.  Democracy is based on peoples rights, so if this is taken away, democracy is gone.

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 terrorists gave us no demands and there were no negotiations.  These would only be needed if a terrorist were planning on surviving their attack.  However, since they decided to die for their religion, there was no need for demands or negotiation.  They just attack and see their plan through, right up to their own deaths.

Q9- What is a fatwah?

A fatwah is an “explicit religious order.”  Bin Laden’s fatwah made it the holy duty of Muslims to kill all Americans

Q10- Why does the author think new attacks are likely and how does he/she
suggest we stop them?

The author believes that the physical success of the World Trade Center attacks and the glories bestowed upon the attackers’ names and their families will motivate others.  We only have two choices if we wish to completely stop the attacks: to become a Muslim state with an Ayatollah as its head, or to completely eliminate our enemies by killing every last one of them.  Neither of these choices is very good, but the author believes they are the only ones
we have.

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 a war on the terrorists, we would be fighting under two conditions that have greatly inhibited us in the past: not knowing our enemy geographically, and fighting on a limited basis.  The examples he/she uses are the War on Drugs and the Vietnam War.

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?

 We have to enlist the help of terrorists in order to beat the terrorists. You do not use good, saintly people for evil things; you use corrupt individuals that will blend in.  What it basically boils down to is that we must choose the lesser of two evils.

Q14- Explain the significance of the Coventry story.

It shows that an individual must make a difficult decision if they wish to win their cause.  Churchill knew that by making a sacrifice and letting the Germans attack Coventry, he would protect the English's secret.  Even though thousands may have died, he also knew that millions more would be saved with the knowledge of the German code, thus turning what seemed to be a mistake into a lifesaving plan that helped the allied forces win 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?

Yes, I would be able to consort with evil.  If I knew that by letting something happen, it would prevent something worse from happening, and save lives, I would let it happen.  I would try everything I knew to save lives discreetly, but what has to be done, has to be done.

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 Muslims who are not terrorists because we can not catch the real terrorists is what the author describes as un-American.  I think that the author is correct.  If you do anything to put American people, or the rights and beliefs of American people, in danger, you are committing
an un-American act.

Q17- Do you agree that terrorism must be defined adequately in order to be
stopped?

I believe that terrorism should be defined in order for us to know our enemies and attack them.  How can we attack terrorists if we do not know what terrorism is?  We can not punish them for something we can not explain, because I believe we would be committing an act of terrorism ourselves.

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 think it is very important for me, as a person, to define terrorism because then I can fully understand what is happening in the world.  I am willing to put whatever effort is necessary into defining terrorism.  If I want to explain what terrorism is, I should be fully prepared to support my ideas with research and information from all sources and viewpoints.

Q19- Were you able to define terrorism in your essay without admitting that
the United States has been guilty of terrorist attacks?
    Yes, I was able to define terrorism without making America, and its
people, look guilty of committing terrorist acts.

Q20- Are you optimistic about the future?  Will you pledge to do your part in
pursuing mutual understanding?  Why or why not?

Yes, I am optimistic about the future.  I believe that with the rate our technology is advancing at, we will be able to solve the problem of terrorism with as little bloodshed as possible.  I would also like to pursue mutual understanding.  Even though I may not be able to do very much, I will gladly do all that I can in order to make the world a safer and more understanding
place.

Back