Defenseless Civilians Of Iraq And Afghanistan example essay topic

I've recently read an article in local newspaper referring to the latest Terrorist attacks in Madrid, Spain. The media coverage of this event will be widespread for the rest of the week, but after people have heard it enough times, they will lose interest. And since it didn't happen in America, I doubt it will be heard of for much more then a week. This brings me to people's views on not only how and why terrorists are driven to such great lengths distorted, but also why their opinions are tainted and bias. More and more constituents around the world are buying into the War on Terrorism. Terrorism today is as evil as Communism was during the Cold War, the mentality has just shifted attentions.

The following are quotes unequivocally taken from the article... "The people who committed this outrage did not need to die for their twisted cause. In fact, they probably went home, watched TV, and they could just as easily do it again tomorrow". This I have a major problem with. Who are we to call someone's cause 'twisted'?

Since when are we able to deal out a judgment that deems someone that's willing to die for a cause twisted? Maybe it's because of the simple fact that innocent people may have died? Maybe, but I doubt it. Mainstream society has judged terrorism as 'purposeless killing', and the people that are called terrorists are simply murderers. Just as communism was the opponent to the "American Dream" during the Cold War, terrorism now poses the threat. Now I'm not saying that this means nothing or was not terrible in the fact the people have died, but where are the bleeding hearts for the children in the middle east that were killed during the carpet bombing of Afghanistan and other countries?

Also, it was quite evident that people protested the war in Iraq, but not as much attention was given to Afghanistan. True, there were protests and demonstrations, but nothing to the scale of the Iraq protests. This was because for once people could not ignore the fact that isolationism can't protect them. They could no longer be numb to the death around the world because the death had finally came to America.

But why didn't people protest the war in Afghanistan? Because someone had to pay for the fact that 2,700 people died, and constituents ignored the fact that the war was unjust, lacking all corroborative evidence backing up the claim that al-Qaida was in fact in Afghanistan. Even people that actively protested day after day during the war in Iraq never once questioned why during Afghanistan. This statement implies that all terrorists have total disregard for human life and have adopted a totalitarianistic approach. It also shows a completely uneducated standpoint on why terrorists do what they do. If people read between the lines, this merely states that terrorists kill for the sake of watching people die, that there is no purpose behind any of their actions...

"The purpose of this attack may have been to intimidate Spain, a key American ally in the war on terror, into unhitching it's wagon from the U. S foreign policy train". The contradiction rears its ugly head. Before, terrorism had no purpose, but now it does. This is a purpose that a lot of Anti-Globalization campaigners would agree with.

Without a doubt, this is the goal of attacks on the Madrid train station. The fewer international governments following the American lead, the better. This is the ultimate goal of anti-globalization, to get fewer countries following one lead and keep their sovereignty and individual cultures, thus preserving individual and social rights... "There is only one way to defend defenseless civilians against terrorists. And that is to go on the offensive and to mercilessly hunt down the mass murderers.

As a team". Obviously this is another great contradiction. That's the only way to defend defenseless civilians of everyone but the Middle East, or other oppressed nations. What about the defenseless civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Panama, Chili, Vietnam, and Korea? People seem to forget about such things and consider them irrelevant because they were not directly effected.

If the 'civil' nations of the world are to "go on the offensive to mercilessly hunt down the mass murderers", would that not make the civil nations the terrorists? The American Government continues to say that terrorists are cruel, malicious, and uncivilized, targeting innocent people. But isn't that what America did in Afghanistan? The military forces had no specific leads into where the accused terrorists were, so did they not facilitate false claims that they were hiding in defenseless villages and proceed to carpet bomb that village?

Thousands of people died every day in Afghanistan compared to the 2,700 in the World Trade Center. Is that not an injustice? Is that not a form of terrorism? What makes this hypocrisy worse is that the American government funded al-Qaida in the early 1980's as a way of opposing Russian Communism. Thousands of people die needlessly everyday and Western and European governments turn a blind eye to it. They send moderate foreign aid funds to compensate for it, turning a blind eye once again to the fact that the dictators that run countries receiving foreign aid never distribute the money to the people dying of starvation.

The main focus of people addressing and protesting the war in Iraq was the fact that they believed that America was invading Iraq for oil, but it was not as simple as that. What America is doing is empire building. But once again, people are refusing to recognize this fact. I believe that America let 9/11 happen just so that they would have an excuse to invade a country of their choice, that country being Afghanistan, a country they had been waiting for an excuse to invade since Russia pulled out in the mid 1980's. America needed a political and economic foothold in the Middle East and they accomplished this in Afghanistan. After the puppet governmental form was set up to mimic America's, they proceeded to look elsewhere.

Needing to finished what was started in Iraq back in 91', the American government moved ahead with plans for war on Iraq, cleverly naming it Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the president addressing the world the night before, saying that the oil was the Iraqi people's, and it would remain theirs. Also, if America was only interested in oil, it would work towards producing nuclear disarmament between itself and Russia. Once accomplished, America could launch an offensive against Russia without the risk of nuclear war. The purpose of this would be that in Russian controlled Siberia, 65% of the world's crude oil supply. Now what I can't possibly understand is if America is so determined to rid the world of terrorism, why would they continue to be in an alliance with one of the worst militant countries in the world, Saudi Arabia. Since the world and governments are so wrought with hypocrisy, this is not surprising.

America needed to invade Iraq and take the oil so that they would not need to continue the alliance with Saudi Arabia. So it appears quite evident that Saudi Arabia is next on the chopping block. I have come to the conclusion that within the next 2 to 4 years, America will invade Saudi Arabia, after facilitating an attack on America and accusing them for it. These people that are fighting for their cause, whatever it may be (opposing American Foreign policy, fighting against globalization) have been unjustifiably labeled terrorists.

So lets look at it this way: Let's say that Canada was becoming less of a subtle victim of globalization, that we were being accused of being terrorists or militants that are being equated to monsters. That our way of life was being seriously disregarded and distorted by world superpowers and that Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) was destroying our quality of life for economical profit. Would you not be somewhat upset? When you found out that all your protesting and demonstrations meant nothing, would you not search for other ways to get your point across? Now most of people reading this are sitting back shaking their heads and calling me a terrorist. But what will happen to Canadians when America invades us?

Make no mistake, it will happen sooner or later. Within the next 25 to 40 years, when America is tired of paying to import its water, it will begin to look for more economically beneficial ways to acquire it. Considering that Canada has within our boarders 85% of the world's natural fresh drinking water, the obvious conclusion deduces itself. My ideologies are not be widely accepted or even agreed with, which is not surprising. People don't want to have to take a stand because it would interfere with the smoothly running equilibrium of social false principles..