Rockridge High School
Taylor Ridge, Illinois
Teacher: Barbara Downey
Terrorism: Can it Be Stopped Absent a Valid Definition and Can it Be Defined?
By, Victoria Gehbauer
12th Grade
The word “terrorism” has always been able to stir emotions into the hearts of citizens of the United States, and even the world. Today, the word “terrorism” causes even more emotions to be stirred. Some people may become scared, angry, sad, and maybe even a mixture of feelings all at the same time. What is terrorism? Why does it stir so many emotions? Can this word be defined? Can terrorism be stopped?
Terrorism may well be considered one of the most controversial topics today. One can ask twenty different people their feelings on terrorism, and what they believe it to be; a person may get twenty different answers. Well, terrorism can be defined. However, with or without a definition, terrorism can be stopped.
What is terrorism? Contrary to popular belief, I have a definition that neither makes the United States look like terrorists nor makes other groups not look like terrorists. It is simple: “Terrorism is the act of a group or person acting against another group of people or country in a violent way for a cause they believe is right.”
It is very evident to see why terrorism can cause the stirring of so many emotions. The most obvious reason is the horrible attacks on the United States on September 11. Many lives have been lost during these people’s attempts at seeing our country’s pride falter. Every time the word “terrorism” is spoken, there is always an underlying fear of the people who committed these crimes. Those people often have no identity unless they want us to know it; they could strike at any time, and their crimes are so devastating.
As I have stated already, terrorism can be defined, but can it be stopped? Yes, it can be stopped. It may take a long time, it may cost many lives, it may be a very hard task, but it can be stopped. I can tell you it most definitely will not be easy. Our conventional ways of war have rules with which terrorists do not comply. To stop them, we would have to fight their way, and anything goes. This, of course, will be hard for a nation that constantly debates about right and wrong. Many people become absolutely disgusted with the thought of our country “fighting dirty”. Also, as stated previously, terrorists have no identity unless they want us to know it. Many terrorists have been identified, true, but that also means that there is most certainly twice that amount who remain nameless and unknown. We would be fighting a war against an enemy that is almost impossible to find, is dispersed all over the world, and is known in undefined numbers. We may have no idea what we are up against.
Now, I realize that I seem to be contradicting myself. This is not my intent. I do still very much believe that the war with terrorism can be won. I am simply stating exactly what we are facing. On the other hand, when it comes to war, our country has rarely been defeated. Our great leaders consider strategy after strategy and develop scenario after scenario. There are people hired to simply find a strategy that will work. These people are surely more experienced and informed than I.
How will we wipe out terrorism? There are really only two ways to go about doing this. One way is to conform to what motivates the terrorists to attack us. This, of course, is not an option. After all, it is often said: “We do not negotiate with terrorists.” The second option is to completely wipe out all conspirators to terrorism. This seems to be our only choice.
Actually, this whole war on terrorism seems to be a giant “Catch Twenty-Two”. Let us look at it this way: If we wiped out all people who relate to, support, and praise terrorism, we have wiped out a generation of terrorism. We would be blind, though, if we thought that this would wipe terrorism out forever. Sooner or later, there would be more people who thought the ways some country did things were wrong, and that they should do something to stop these “wrong ways”. Thus, the vicious cycle would start all over.
So, it appears I am going to have to amend my earlier statement. Terrorism can be stopped, but temporarily. In this case, temporarily may mean possibly hundreds of years, but our efforts will not be able to guarantee that terrorism would not spring up again some time in the future. Now, it seems the question is, can terrorism be stopped permanently? There still might be one way to achieve this goal.
For once, the one part of our country that usually gets people in trouble might be the answer to our predicament: the media. Education of the people of the world may very well be the key to ensuring terrorism will be gone forever. This is a tactic we have already put into action. For example, the United States had dropped pamphlets and information sheets into Afghanistan to let the people there know that they have been lied to about the United States. After the terrorists have been taken out of the equation, we would be able to go back in and continue to educate the people of Afghanistan further. Because, of course, with the absence of the terrorists’ influence, the people might be more willing to believe that what they have been told about our country has been wrong.
I would just like to say how sorry I am for all of the people in our nation and in all of the other nations who have been affected by terrorism. It is a terrible force with a life of its own, yet it can and will be stopped. One can only hope that no one else is the victim of terrorism before it can be stopped. There is hope that everyone may find some comfort now that terrorism has been defined. It is no longer the faceless act that goes with its faceless perpetrators. By defining terrorism, (as the violence against those who do not believe in the same cause a group or other person believes), we are able to identify those responsible. In identifying those responsible, we are better able to bring an end to terrorism.
Questions
Q1-Why, in your opinion, was the United States attacked?
I believe the United States was attacked because the United States stands for
everything the terrorists do not believe in. The terrorist leaders see America in its
glory, doing things completely different from them, and they hate us for being so
successful.
Q2-Why is the first question so important to resolve and agree upon?
It is important to resolve and agree upon the opinion of why our country was attacked, so everyone can work together to find a way to protect ourselves against further (and there will be more) attacks.
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 United States and its allies, in the author’s opinion, increased the likelihood of chemical and biological attacks when then United States backed down from Saddam Hussein’s refusal to allow inspections of suspected Iraqi weapons manufacturing facilities.
Q4- Why does the author believe the United States is a popular target for terrorists?
The author believes the United States is a popular target for terrorism because our government is led by non-Islamic laypeople and they feel it is their duty to change this situation. So why is the United States the only seeming target? We are the most prosperous nation on Earth, we are the most visible nation as well, and we show this in countless ways.
Q5- What motivates the terrorists, in the author’s opinion?
The terrorists are motivated, in the author’s opinion, by the strong religious belief that by killing us they will be gratified in the afterlife. This is because devout Muslims live for the next life rather than this life. Their only concern is to gratify the next life by doing in this life what they feel is their religious duty.
Q6- What reasons does the author give for the intense hatred of the United States by people like Osama bin Laden?
People like Osama bin Laden hate us because of our threat to the Islamic clergy’s power base. It is hard for them to convince their people of our worthlessness when we have so much wealth. We are the devils to them.
Q7- How does rule by divine right preclude the reasoned debate that occurs naturally in a democracy?
When you rule by divine right like the Taliban does, all the rules and regulations come from Allah. There is no negotiating or arguing about what is right or wrong in this government. Our government, the democracy, has laws that are constantly debated and questioned. God backs neither the Republicans nor the Democrats, so to speak.
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 offers the evidence that the attacks on September 11th were from religious fanaticism because we were given no demands and have been offered no negotiation.
Q9- What is a fatwah?
A fatwah is an explicit religious order, 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 more attacks are now imminent because of the success of the attack in September. There has most likely been glory heaped on the perpetrators’ names and their families. That alone will provide motivation for further attacks. The only way to stop the attacks is either to become a Muslim state or to eliminate the people who have claimed themselves to be our mortal enemies.
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 declaring war is a useless act. There is no specific country that has committed these atrocities to have a war with. Also, historically the two elements that have been our only record of losing war are with no geographic enemy (The War on Drugs) and fighting on a limited basis (Vietnam); both of these elements would need to be used in a war with the terrorists.
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 that we shouldn’t fight this war on regular terms. After all,
the enemy has no regard for our rules, is not afraid to die, and most certainly has no regard for our lives.
Q14- Explain the significance of the Coventry story.
In World War II, Winston Churchill made the difficult decision of not sending
troops to the city of Conventry when he received word of an attack on that city.
Instead, he ignored the warning so the Germans would not know their encryption
code had been cracked. Even though there was a substantial loss, that decision
may have won 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? If I were a general in a combat situation, I’m sure I would have the training to be
able to make a particularly hard decision of choosing the lesser of two evils.
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.
What the author feels is un-American is turning our anger (because of our
frustration of not being able to get the real enemies) on the peaceful Muslims who
hate being added with the fanatics. I do not believe the author is correct in considering this un-American. I agree that this is unjust and unfair, but not un- American. I define un-American as being one who does not support the United States in its endeavors; as one who does not stand up for the United States and its Constitution; and one who wastes their rights and privileges given them as Americans.
Q17-Do you agree that terrorism must be defined adequately in order to be stopped?
I do not agree with the idea that terrorism must be defined to be stopped. I
believe that it can be stopped without a simple dictionary term. Sometimes the
greatest of evils are fought without knowing their existence or even their faces.
Q18-How important do you think it is 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 really think there is an importance to defining terrorism, but I do think that it can be defined. I would be willing to take any amount of time needed to
find a definition, that is if I did not already have one, and I felt one was really
needed.
Q19-Were you able to define terrorism in your essay without admitting that the United States has been guilty of terrorist acts?
Yes, I was in fact able to define terrorism without the United States looking like a terrorist.
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 for the future. I will do whatever it takes for mutual
understanding because devotion to the cause is the only way to solve it.