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
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...
...om the past and its mistakes to work more diligently in order to prevent the September 11th attacks. The bombing of the World Trade Center in New York was unexpected, but gave the government an opportunity to improve security and avoid future attacks. The carnage at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania again provided the U.S. government a chance to work against the terrorist network responsible, but again, the government failed. Finally, the assault against the U.S.S. Cole in the port city of Aden gave the U.S. one final opportunity to learn and prevent something from happening again, but the next year, the unthinkable happened and the 9/11 attacks occurred, killing thousands. Had the United States had managed to link the attacks and understand the emerging pattern of attacks against U.S. targets, the destruction, chaos, and death of 9/11 might have never happened.
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.”
...ay from other matters with more promise of making the country a better place” (Chapman & Harris, para. 9). Both seem to believe that we, as the American people, make ourselves look like the victims because of how the media portrays the incidents that are related to terrorism. There are many other incidents across the globe that are killing more and more people every day. There are more people who die from car crashes then there are people who have died due to some sort of terrorism related death. We, as Americans should not make this mistake of letting a tragic incident scare us and divert our attention elsewhere. As Chapman and Harris states, “we seem to have all begun to think of ourselves as terrorist targets, but, in fact, reason tells us we are in much greater danger from our friends and neighbors behind the wheels of their cars.” (Chapman & Harris, para. 9).
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.
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.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States came together with a staunch promise to “never forget” that day’s atrocities. Congressmen from opposing parties reached across the aisle and stood arm in arm at the Capitol to show their commitment to this pledge. But,when another terrorist attack had stunned New York City a century earlier, this promise did not exist. In 1920, a bombing on Wall Street rattled the city’s financial core and earned the title as the city’s worst terrorist attack until 2001. The assault came merely two years after the US debuted as a global superpower with World War 1’s end. Despite the attack on this newfound American identity, the bombing never found closure for proving for the first time that the US was not invincible.
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.
The transformation of America is often discussed in both popular media and academic dialogue. Each generation has a name, new technologies define new eras, and events seem only notable when they are “historic”. While major events catch the interest of a broad spectrum of the public consciousness, subtle interactions between actors and slight shifts in beliefs are constantly changing the realities of the world. When the twin towers fell in 2001, the United States seemed to be thrust into a new world of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Jihadists, and a global fight against terrorism; bombs were dropped, ground forces were deployed in foreign states, and anyone who publicly questioned the urgency of war was at risk to be labeled a traitor. This one event was indelibly branded on the consciousness of the world and if often seen as a moment of sudden transformation. Most Americans believe that the troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to the terrorist attacks on the United States and while it is hard to deny that the 9-11 attacks was the impetus for putting boots on the ground, it is imperative that the chain of events following the horror of September 11 are seen to reflect the willingness and wants of actors in control before the towers fell.
Let’s be wary and vigilant and not permit horrific catastrophe to happen! Wake up all you American Apologists while you still have precious breath in your lungs to do your pathetic apologizing! It’s now time for all Americans to openly acknowledge that Freedom Isn’t Free and that these dire times require the tried and true virtues of struggle, sacrifice and perseverance.
Terrorism is used around the world to create fear and influence the public on political views (Siegel, 489). There are four views of terrorism including the psychological view, socialization view, ideological view, and the alienation view. A religious terrorist would most likely fit under the ideological view. In this view the terrorist feels the need to change a wrong opinion and believes that, because they are sacrificing themselves for something they believe so strongly in, it justifies the damage and harm done to innocent people (Siegel, 490). They use terror to create fear in anyone who opposes them and attract followers to their religion. In short, terrorism is widely used for political reasons but religion has been linked to the violence as well.
“Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the arguments presented from each of these researchers is powerful and certainly plausible, suicide terrorism is in fact not irrational, but strategic and is most often caused by state occupation and, when organized, aimed specifically at democracies.
Bhargava, R. (2001). Responses to 9.11: Individual and collective dimensions. International Views: America and the Rest of the World.
Terrorism in the Middle East has brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the attention of the world. These terrorist groups use murder, bombs, threats, and other violent acts to get their way politically. Hamas, the organization that has replaced Fatah as the representative of the Palestinians, is a leading sponsor of terrorism. The Hamas are the leading reason there is not peace in the middle east as they strongly embrace terrorism.
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