More Respect for Life and Fewer Cluster Bombs
Many people's reactions to the atrocities of September 11 have gone from disbelief, to sadness, to anger, quiet or otherwise. We commonly hear that we have received a declaration of war, and should respond accordingly. This essay outlines my arguments for restraint.
The moral case. Morality should be universal. If attacking hostile governments by killing civilians is "evil" and "the very worst of human nature," then it is no better for the U.S. to do so than for Afghanistan to.
The terrorists who attacked the U.S. last week haven't spoken up, but probably would describe U.S. foreign policy with "evil," "cowardly," "despicable," and other words that Bush used. They believe that political ends and avenging wrongs from a foreign military justifies killing enemy civilians, even if their support for the government was only indirect. Analogously, Bush's speech stated that: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Calls for a spectacularly bloody retaliatory strike aimed loosely towards the billion Muslims in the world are increasing, while dissent has been muted. Mountains of historical evidence document America's tolerance for heavy "collateral" damage when attacking the infrastructure of a demonized enemy, such as Saddam or Milosevic.
Tuesday's tragedy demonstrated America's surprising physical vulnerability, but, perhaps more disturbing, our response threatens to show a moral weakness that will be much harder to justify in hindsight.
The practical case. In Israel, extremists on both sides use terrorism and "random" violence for ends which are neither desperate nor irrational -- they aim to derail peace efforts and provoke a violent response on the other side that will cause moderates to reject compromise and side with extremists. "Jew" or "Arab" loses meaning in the face of the deeper struggle between hatred and tolerance, though typically only events such as Yitzhak Rabin's assassination by an extremist Israeli shock people into remembering. These oft-forgotten and crucial lessons from terror sound like Sunday school truisms: "the aim of violence is to beget further violence" and "blood cannot be washed away with blood."
These principles must sound a little other-worldly after Tuesday's atrocities, but there is no other time when it is more important that we remember them. Pausing to note that we can prove very little about the motivations of
The day was September 11th, 2001, a moment in history that will never be forgotten by any American living at the time. It was in the early morning hours on this day that our nation experienced the single most devastating terrorist attack ever carried out on American soil. Images of planes crashing into the World Trade Center, news coverage of buildings on fire, and images of building rubble will forever be imprinted into the history of this great nation. However, it was on one of the darkest days for America that one of the most impassioned speeches ever given by a United States president was spoken. President George W. Bush’s speech addressing the nation after the “9/11” attacks was infused with pathos through his imagery of destruction and
Chapman and Harris then continue to argue that this irrational reaction was caused by the number of deaths that were seen. They argue that there are more deaths due to fatal car accidents and they go on to mention the 2001 earthquake that took place in Gujarat, India that killed nearly 20,000 people (Chapman & Harris, para. 2). We tend to see deaths closer to us as more tragic but forget that there are more people dying across the globe. This argument is valid, however, not to say that 9/11 was not tragic. They continue to present valid arguments and with that also accusing the practice of malice. Malice, according to Chapman and Harris, is th...
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...
On September 11, 2001, our country was hit with enormous devastation, just after eight o’clock a.m. the first of the twin towers was struck by a suicide pilot, the second was struck slightly later. The towers fell just after ten o’clock a.m., devastating the entire country, and ruining the lives of many. A plane also hit the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and another in rural Pennsylvania causing just as much grief. The U.S. is still in mourning, but standing tall, more Americans showed their American pride in the following months than ever before. In the months to come the only thing that was on the minds of millions was: Should we go to war? War is necessary for the survival of our country. Going to war with Iraq is a fight against terrorism. Many people believed that going to war with Iraq is unjust. Some believe that there are other ways in looking at the situation.
On the brink of two different wars, two United States’ Presidents rose up to the challenge of calming the American people and fighting for the belief of justice. A day after devastation on December 7, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt gives his “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation”. At the beginning of a terrorist crisis in 2001, George W. Bush announces a “‘War on Terror’ Declaration”. Both Presidents have many similarities in common, yet their differences set them apart with uniqueness. These two speeches, separate by nearly sixty years, weave an outright and assertive tone into their diction and detail.
On September 11, 2001 terrorists crashed two American airline airplanes into Twin Towers, killing thousands of people. It was the worst terrorist attack in American history and it showed us that we are not protected by Atlantic and Pacific. It showed us that we could be attacked by anyone at anytime. It showed us that if we will be attacked again that we can only depend on each other and not on other nations to help us. The 9/11 changed people forever, some lost family members or friends, others lost their jobs even so called “American Dream.”
It has been years since there was an attack in America. On September 11, 2001. On this fateful day four passenger airliners were hijacked by terrorists. Two were crashed into the twin towers in New York, another was crashed into the West side of the Pentagon in Washington D.C. These attacks lead to the deaths of over 3,000 people and became the deadliest event for fire fighters in American history. Immediately pro American support came from countries all over the world. Despite all this outside support, the American people wanted more. They wanted to hear directly from their leader; then President George W. Bush. Previously Bush had been highly criticized for his poor orating skills, but after giving this speech to a joint session of congress
First shock, then terror, followed by sorrow and lastly rage were my emotions on September 11th, 2001 when a hijacked airliner crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. Tunh! Tunh! Tunh! All circuits are busy; please try again at a later time. This message kept repeating as I tried to call my cousin in New York, who was working in the South Tower. At the time the American Airlines flight 11 just moments earlier crashed into the North Tower. I sat in my house in shock and terror. Then at 9:05 am, about twenty minutes after the first collision, United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the South Tower. I began to feel the knot in my throat getting tighter and tighter until I just finally began crying. I still didn’t have any word from my cousin and when both of the buildings plummeted to the streets below, I thought for sure he was dead. When I returned home, my mother informed me that he had gotten out before the buildings went down. Turning on the television was another ordeal in itself. All of the news stations repeatedly exhibited the buildings plunging to the ground. I felt extreme sorrow for the families of those who had not made it out alive. They had to relive that horrible moment over and over again. I was also outraged. How could such an act be committed on American soil? The only way we can answer this question is to look at the terrorists who could do such an act and what possible reasons they have for doing it.
As most people know our country has suffered from multiple terrorist events. One of the most tragic events would have to be on September 11, 2001 in my opinion. President George W. Bush made a speech regarding the terrorist attacked that happened on the World Trade Center in New York City. In President Bush speech he makes some really good strong points his speech is very effective. The presidential speech Bush made is known as 9/11 Address to the Nation President Bush talks about the deadly terrorist attack that happened on September 11, 2001. President Bush talks about the terrorist attack that left a lot of people scared that but at the same time it made America stronger. In his speech he also states how “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. (Paragraph 2)” Through out his speech he states that "A great people has been moved to defend a
In the 12 years since the terrorist attacks on the world trade towers in New York city, thousands of hours of research and interviews has been conducted, scores of books have been written, and countless documentaries and films have been produced in an effort to help us understand how and why terrorists were able to carry out the massacre of nearly 3500 people. Despite the plethora of religious and nonreligious beliefs represented by the friends and family of those who died, one universal belief binds them all: the belief that an unspeakable act of cruelty has changed our nation and our people for all time. The name ascribed to this act of terrorism is debated widely. Some call it evil. Others call it nothing more than supreme cruelty.
On September 11, 2001, George W. Bush addressed the United States of America in a pivotal moment in the history of the country. As people tuned in to watch this speech all across the country, it was of high importance the president remained calm and gave the people of the United States an idea of what was to come after this tragic event. There is no denying how much this terrorist attack struck the United States, it was devastating and it will always be remembered. However, in the speech that George Bush gave that day the whole world knew America would become stronger for this, and would come together as one in this time of grieving. In George Bush’s speech that day, he recognized the people that were affected and how tragic this event was,
The amount of corruption within the United States’ violent involvement in the Middle East is almost unreal. Unfortunately, the wars have been too real—half a million deaths in the first year of Iraqi Freedom alone (Rogers). These wars have been labeled--the violence, filtered-- to fit a specific agenda. Whether the deaths are deemed an acceptable loss in the name of national security, or as a devastating injustice, the reality doesn’t change. Lives have been lost. Lives that will never be brought back. The intention of wars is in part due to attacks on the twins towers on September 11th 2001. When the buildings fell, almost three thousand people died, according
On September 11, 2001, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the mindset and the opinion of nearly every American on the one of the most vital issues in the 21st century: terrorism (Hoffman 2). Before one can begin to analyze how the United States should combat such a perverse method of political change, one must first begin to understand what terrorism is, where it is derived from, and why there is terrorism. These issues are essential in America’s analysis of this phenomenon that has revolutionized its foreign policy and changed America’s stance in the world.