Valley Springs High School
Valley Springs, Arkansas
Terrorism: How Can It Be Stopped?
By Tara McDonald
12th grade
There is no proper definition of terrorism, though many different aspects of terrorism have been evaluated in efforts to find a definition for various acts of hate and recklessness. Webster defines terrorism as “ unlawful acts of violence committed in an organized attempt to overthrow a government.” Though terrorism does include the violent intent to overthrow government, the definition goes far beyond those actions. Terrorism can also be defined as “the deliberate use of violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological, and religious aims.” Is there a line that clearly separates terrorism from random acts of violence, or is one man’s terrorist simply another man’s freedom fighter? The answer to this question reflects the outlook of whoever is categorizing terrorism, and different opinions of what constitutes terrorism will not help to determine who the real terrorists are. The leaders of the United States vowed to put an end to terrorism, however, terrorism must first be defined in order for the world to begin to fight it.
America must come to an understanding about what the characteristics of a terrorist are. President George W. Bush describes the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center as individuals who “celebrate the murder of innocent men, women, and children, [who] have no religion, have no conscience, and have no mercy.” Terrorists include the members of the al Qaeda who strive to destroy Americans at any cost, the radicals who seek to bomb abortion clinics, and those who desire to destroy a country through the use of biochemical warfare, only to name a few. All terrorists possess a motive that drives them to commit unthinkable acts. For example, Osama bin Laden’s followers continue to believe that Americans are evil, and that Allah wishes them to be distroyed because of the arrogant display of godlessness that they display. Terrorism isn’t driven solely by political issues. The recent World Trade Center destruction, led by the followers of Osama bin Laden made no efforts to reveal their cause prior to the operation, making it difficult for Americans to understand the reasoning behind the destruction. At first, since no one understood their rationale, it was simple to assume that they might simply be deranged psychopaths with a warped political agenda. It wasn’t until later that Americans began to realize that the ideals of this terrorist group are religious, and in order to retaliate, the country must first understand who is behind the chaos. In all cases of terrorism, those responsible for the terrorist acts are not part of a government mission, but an organized group of radicals who use violence to draw attention to their cause.
Because so many different people with such different agendas are targeted by terrorist attacks, basing a definition on the victims of the acts makes it no easier to define terrorism. We must, though, exclude terrorism from the attacks of guerilla warfare. These tactics include the deliberate use of violence against military and security personnel in order to attain political, ideological, and religious goals. Terrorism, some believe, includes the deliberate use of violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological, and religious aims. The difference in the two is the victim of the violence, which provides another characteristic for the classification of terrorism. This particular issue was discussed at the Geneva and Hague Conventions, basing laws upon the principle that the deliberate harming of soldiers during wartime is a necessary evil, and thus permissible, and the deliberate targeting of civilians is absolutely
forbidden. There have been previous attempts to address these matters at the U.S. State Department. For example, the government has suggested a definition according to which terrorism is the deliberate use of violence against “non-combatants” whether civilian or not. This definition of terrorism, however, will not work in practice, as it designates attacks on non-combatant military personnel as terrorism. Military acts, though they might possess similarities to terrorism, are not terrorist acts, but acts of war within countries. Therefore, no military action can qualify as terrorism because it is the collective decision of an entire government, not a group of radical minorities.
Some skeptics present two valid questions concerning America’s attempts to put an end to all terrorist actions. First, is our country justified in putting an end to terrorism-- violent acts done for a political or religious cause--when we ourselves are bombing countries to further our own moral and political agendas? According to the characteristics that define terrorism, the answer is “yes.” The United States, the “empire country” that vowed to “hunt down” those responsible for the acts committed on September 11 and put them to justice, shot down two Libyan planes in 1981, bombed Beirut in 1983, sank an Iranian ship in 1987, bombed Iraq repeatedly in the 1990s and Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 all in the name of “justice.” The United States is right in its endeavors to put a stop to terrorism because the only means of violence involved in our country’s efforts are led by the military, which in no way constitutes a terrorist group. Second, why is the nation so focused in its attempts to put an end to international terrorism when there is so much domestic terrorism within our country? Just as America is seeking answers to fighting terrorist regimes in other nations, the government is diligently looking for ways to fight it within the United States itself. President Bush declares that this is a war “not only to be fought overseas, but also here at home.” He also assured Americans that the war on terror “begins with the al Qaeda, but does not end there” and “involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.”
Although America has only begun its lengthy efforts to stop terrorism, the government has detailed solutions to reduce the amount of international terrorism that strikes the United States. President Bush states, “The only way to pursue peace is to pursue those who threaten it.” He plans to “make dramatic strikes, starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another... until there is no refuge or rest.” In efforts to prevent terrorists from striking America in a way similar to the September 11 attacks, the government plans to “make the airports safer, post National Guard in airports and place undercover air marshals on many flights, pass legislation that makes cockpits more secure, baggage and screening more thorough, and put the federal government in charge of all screening and security.” The President told Americans not to expect only one battle, “but a lengthy campaign... including dramatic strikes, covert operations, secret even in success.” Americans must expect a strict, ongoing operation against terrorism of any kind, international or domestic.
There are many ways to reduce terrorist actions across the country. Countries
must learn to exist in unison, without hate and fighting, and religious followers must be tolerant of one another. Without any definition of what qualifies as terrorism and what does not, it can never be stopped completely. The countries that vow to put an end to terrorism must be consistent in their evaluations of the characteristics that constitute a terrorist act if they sincerely plan to wipe it from the face of the earth.
1. Why, in your opinion, was the United States attacked?
ANSWER: In my opinion the US was attacked because a radical terrorist group is angry with America and destruction is their only solution to their hate.
2. Why is the first question so important to resolve and agree upon?
ANSWER: If Americans can agree upon the reasons for attack, they can move forward in the attempt to stop it.
3. What action or inaction by the United States and its allies; in the author’s opinion,
increased the likelihood of chemical and biological attacks?
ANSWER: 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 further attacks increased.
4. Why does the author believe the United States is a popular target for terrorists?
ANSWER: The author believes that the US is a popular target for terrorism because the United States shot down Libyan planes; bombed Beirut; sank ships and shot down planes from Iran; bombed Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan; and finally, allied with Israel. The author also states that even if these actions had not occurred, the US would still be targeted because the country is so hated.
5. What motivates terrorists, in the author’s opinion?
ANSWER: Their religious beliefs are the motivation behind terrorists.
6. What reasons does the author give for the intense hatred of the United States by
people like Osama bin Laden?
ANSWER: The author believes that the reason the US is targeted by people like bin Laden is because America is the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth, strutting its wealth in countless ways.
7. How does rule by divine right preclude the reasoned debate that occurs naturally in a
democracy?
ANSWER: Bin Laden, Sheik Omar, and their ilk believe that the only legitimate form of government is a caliphate led by a Muslim Cleric who provides absolute political and moral authority. Furthermore, those who die fighting Americans are guaranteed a place in heaven.
8. 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?
ANSWER: The author states that the fact that that attacks are never accompanied by demands, and the attackers never make any effort to reveal their cause support the fact that it is a religious issue, not a political one.
9. What is a fatwah?
ANSWER: A fatwah is an explicit religious order.
10. Why does the author think new attacks are likely and how does he/she suggest we
stop them.
ANSWER: The author states that the visible success of the first attack accompanied by the glory heaped upon the perpetrators’ names provide enough motivation for another
attack. The author believes that in order to stop them, the US can’t use regular war tactics.
11. Why does the author claim that declaring war is futile? What two historical
Examples does he/she give to back up this claim?
ANSWER: The author claims that declaring war is futile because the enemy can’t be identified geographically, and we shouldn’t fight on a limited basis. The author illustrates this by the War on Drugs and the Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars.
12. Complete this sentence using the author’s words: “A declaration of war implies….”
ANSWER: A declaration of war implies a conflict of limited duration in which one side eventually surrenders or capitulates, and the other side wins.
13. What does the author suggest we do?
ANSWER: The author believes that America must defend herself; however, the fight must not be through formal war.
14. Explain the significance of the Coventry story.
ANSWER: The Coventry story is effective in posing the question of whether or not it is justifiable to consort with evil to prevent larger evil.
15. Suppose you were a general in a combat situation. Could you “consort with evil to
prevent larger evil?” Why or why not?
ANSWER: In my opinion, this situation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, Churchill’s decision not to move his military in is much different than the CIA planning the entire World Trade Center attack and killing citizens not even involved in a war.
16. 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.
ANSWER: The author says the act of turning anger upon Muslims because of our frustration in being unable to get at the real villains is un-American. I believe the author is correct in this statement, as I define un-American as being an action or an idea that contradicts the morals and values that our country was built upon.
17. Do you agree that terrorism must be defined adequately in order to be stopped?
ANSWER: I agree that terrorism must have a definition before we can begin to fight it because there is misconception among the acts of terrorism, and if there is a definition of it, we can begin to identify it correctly.
18. 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?
ANSWER: I feel that in order to write an essay of good quality, it is important for me to research, discuss, and consider the definition of terrorism. I am willing to spend the time it takes to put effort into my definition, because it is the basis of the entire essay. Although it may be difficult to find an accurate definition, I will try.
19. Were you able to define terrorism in your essay without admitting that the United
States has been guilty of terrorist acts?
ANSWER: I was not able to define terrorism without admitting that the United States is just as guilty of terrorism within its own country as any other nation.
20. Are you optimistic about the future? Will you pledge to do your part in pursuing
mutual understanding? Why or why not?
ANSWER: I believe that our country is doing everything in its power to prevent terrorism; however, it is somewhat of a lost cause because terrorism will never be completely gone from the world. I am optimistic about the ways in which the United States has made many efforts to secure the country from terrorism, and I will pledge to do my part in pursuing mutual understanding.