Latest Terrorist Attacks example essay topic

On September 11th 2001 America was attacked by terrorist. America will recover from this attack but recovery is not enough. These types of attacks and the people who conduct them must be eliminated from the world. The attack on America was so savage - and so unnecessary - that any response short of annihilating the perpetrators is not only inappropriate, it is unconstitutional and inhumane. We hate war as much as anyone does it is ugly; it causes misery, suffering and death... Unfortunately, we have no choice but to protect ourselves.

In order to bring protection to the American people, the American people must be assured that the dangers are eliminated. The only reasonable way to do this is thru war. In other words war is the answer and war should continue until Americans live without fear. If we do not protect ourselves... who will do it for us?

Not to fight and let the attackers live to murder again only means that we accept and support the terrorists. Opponents of the pro-war idea have argued that we should respond to the recent terrorist attacks against the U.S. without using military retaliation and instead use economic and diplomatic sanctions against the terrorist. They also believe that maybe we can negotiate with these mass murderers. Some go so extreme into this 'no-war' argument that they advocate a policy of pacification. Others believe that by halting the bombing in Afghanistan, all our problems would immediately cease.

And some feeble minded people suggest that "war is not the answer" but yet fail to state what the 'answer' is. History has shown us that this is not the first attack on America, and we should now try our best to make it the last. Bombing some of our Embassies was bad but now they brought terror to American soil destructing two US landmarks and at the same time killing over 5,500 Americans. This act cannot be forgiven and we can not let the terrorist slide, not this time. Responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the U.S. without using military retaliation is waging a war on innocent civilians, not on terrorism. While many argue that the latest terrorist attacks can be combated with economic and diplomatic sanctions, the reality is that such a measure will starve countless innocent Afghans and have little effect on the ruthless Taliban, and the terror-sanctioning Afghan government The Taliban was created in the early 1990's by Mullah Mohammed Omar to bring order to an increasingly lawless land.

By the mid-1990's, the world began to see the Taliban as an experiment in pure fundamentalist Muslim rule. Today, according to CNN, the Taliban controls 90 percent of Afghanistan and has one of the worst human rights records in modern history. The Taliban government demands that all Afghans live by the Taliban's strict interpretation of the Koran. Frederic Grade, director of Human Sciences in New Delhi, calls the Taliban "ruthless, very primitive and cruel" (Bald auf Scott). Thieves are often lashed to death in public and Afghan women who commit adultery are routinely executed as part of halftime festivities at soccer games. As a result, many Afghans detest the terrible actions of the Taliban.

In addition, the Taliban has been harboring and thus encouraging a group of radical militant terrorists headed by Osama bin Laden known as al Qaeda. Bin Laden has been a regular on America's Most Wanted list for a decade and is considered responsible for the Sept 11 terrorist attacks which left over 6,000 Americans dead or missing and countless others injured. In theory, whenever possible avoiding military action is wise. In this instance, however, doing so is not humane.

Relying only upon economic sanctions on Afghanistan, one of the poorest nations on Earth, will starve millions, many of who openly detest al Qaeda and the Taliban. According to CNN more than a quarter of Afghanistan's population is entirely dependent on aid agencies for food and medical assistance, and a third of the total population are children. Economic sanctions would cause starvation. Both sanctions and military force imposed on Afghanistan by the U.S. will undoubtedly result in fatalities. The difference is that military force will target those responsible for terrorism, while sanctions will only harm the many Afghans who are prisoners of the Taliban.

As the U.S. began employing military against Taliban strongholds, relief was dropped to the Afghan people. According to CNN, since Sept 12, when foreign countries affiliated with NATO began cutting economic ties with Afghanistan, food prices there have risen 15 percent and the death rate has already begun to rise. Using economic sanctions will not punish multi-millionaires like bin Laden, the strong Taliban government or others who encourage and spread terrorism. Instead it will starve and kill thousands of innocent victims. The war against terrorism should be focused on the regimes that foster it, not the people who are prisoners of it. Many see negotiation as an answer to "how can we defeat this new enemy?" , but these people fail to see that this is a war against an enemy who doesn't obey nor fight to any of the old rules of warfare.

An enemy who does not announce who he is, who does not declare war in the 'western / European' way. The Taliban intentionally avoids claiming part in the violence to make his enemy look like they are 'overreacting' because they 'have no concrete proof'. The Taliban thinks they are being clever, but in all actuality they are being cowards. The Taliban are an enemy who WANTS to die, as long as they take as many of their enemies as they can with them.

The Taliban craves genocide. You cannot negotiate with nor calm them down; anyone who thinks so is a fool. There are 10 rules of warfare as stated by the US Army (Middleton Mark). Fight only enemy combatants. Safeguard enemies who surrender. Do not kill or torture enemy prisoners.

Care for the wounded, whether friend or foe. Do not attack medical personnel, facilities, or equipment. Destroy no more than the mission requires. Treat all civilians humanely. Respect Private property and possessions. Identify the rights and duties of PW's.

Report all violations of the law of war. These are the U.S. Rules of Warfare. Not only did the Taliban ignore them, they also ignored the Islamic rules of warfare according to Dr Ahmed Adam, Deputy Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation. Let us then examine September 11'ths attacks in light of the Islamic rules of warfare as stated by Dr. Ahmed Adam (Ahmed Adam). 1. Do not desire an encounter with the enemy.

The desired, planned and enacted not just an encounter but mass slaughter. 2. Those who are non-combatants should not be killed during or after the war. The Pentagon is the heart of the American military, but the World Trade Center was a civilian site.

Even if one argues that the Twin Towers were an economic or symbolic target, they were packed with thousands of innocent non-combatants at the time. If the terrorists had to attack it, they could have done so in the early hours of the morning when the building would have been virtually empty and civilian casualties hugely lower? 3. Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman. There were indeed old people, children and women on the planes and many women in the target buildings.

They were deliberately killed. The terrorists could have easily achieved the same destruction to buildings in New York and Washington with private planes packed with explosives. 4. The Prophet also prohibited the killing of anyone who is tied or is in captivity. Those on board the hijacked planes were, in effect, in captivity.

The perpetrators of these monstrous acts, if indeed they were Muslims, have clearly broken the rules of their own religion. They have displayed not just a cold hearted disregard for the thousands of innocent non-combatants deliberately killed in their attacks but also complete disregard for the rules of the very Islam in whose name they claimed to be acting upon. Here we " re dealing with Kamikazes. How do you reason with a Kamikaze? You don't.

You shoot them down, bomb their airfields and ultimately destroy the reason behind the action. The Japanese Kamikaze believed that sinking US ships would save Japan. Then it became clear that the home islands were no longer safe, that their belief was wrong. The huge power of nuclear weapons tore away what protected and motivated them. (Bruckheimer Jerry & Bay Michael). In Afghanistan we are faced with suicide bombers, motivated by a belief system.

We have to hold something over their heads, more than their own deaths... more than the deaths of their countrymen. And face the possibility that they may have access eventually to nuclear weapons. How to defeat them? Show the courage to wreak havoc, including the nuking of Kabul or Qandahar. Show the courage to destroy the population that supports and feeds them. What we are seeing here is the rewriting of the rules of warfare, just as Hitler rewrote them in W.W. II.

They are not the rules we learned we should fight by; they are rules that have been pushed upon us by the enemy. And like it or not, we will have to fight by those rules. Will there be attacks similar to what happened on the 11th? Probably, and they more than likely will be much worse. This war will be long, dirty, and nasty and we will end up having to do things and think in ways that we find bad but it is what we must do to win. It is what we must do to survive.

According to CNN most of the nations that harbor these murderers have the worst human rights records on the planet which include Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Nothing in our foreign policy could have the negative effect on these societies that their own governments have. I believe we need to make a sane and focused but strong response. We cannot let this act of violence slide as if it never happened and hope that the terrorists will quiet down.

Their hatred of Americans is too deep to allow us to follow a policy of pacification. If we do... what do we tell the families of the next 5,000 victims? Regardless of U.S. foreign policies, the atrocity that the terrorist brought upon us cannot be overlooked and we must act upon it. Anyone who is a 'pacifist' in this case is on the side of the enemy.

George Orwell said it well in 1942, just substitute the word terrorist for fascist. "Pacifism is objectively pro Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other.

Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me' " (Kelly Michael). Not to fight and let the attackers live to murder again means that you accept and in all intents and purposes support the terrorists. According to the studies of Journalist Paul Clark some people think that America shouldn't just slow the bombing on Afghanistan but to put an end to it completely (Clark Paul.) By saying this they are implying that we should just give up!

Why didn't Bush think of that? After all, it's really no big deal if these folks keep hijacking our jets to fly into our buildings, or killing us with biological agents. Others say that by bombing Afghanistan the Islamic world will not be able to recover. But in actuality the Islamic world will recover only when it realizes that its greatest enemies are hunger, poverty, and disease and not Israel, the U.S., and the West. In the words of Former Israel Prime Minister Golda Meier, 'We will have peace when [they] love their children more than they hate us" (Meir Gold ma).

The hook on Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" anti-war song was 'War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate. ' And it was a nice thought, an easy opinion to sing. But in these days of terror, Marvin's song seems outdated to most Americans because "the overwhelming majority of Americans are willing to risk war to hunt down and punish the terrorist groups that plotted Tuesday's deadly attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center" (Morin Richard & Deane Claudia). Although the people against military action are small in number, they are loud.

Television talk show host Phil Donahue, for example, wants the people who ordered the mass murder to be tried in a 'world' court. He also wants a 'coalition' of nations to get together and decide what strategies should be used in capturing the Osama Bin Laden of the world (Noyes Rich). Well, no offense to Mr. Donahue or anything, but the terrorists attacked the United States of America. And according to our Constitution, the mandate of the federal government is to 'insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, [and] promote the general welfare... ' (NCC). This is one of the main reasons why we have a federal government - to protect us from foreign bad guys.

Nowhere in the Constitution is a world court mentioned or any kind of coalition. Not going to war will bring wariness to the people of the U.S. simply because we won't feel safe. If the government lets this happen, they will be infringing on the constitution. Therefore violating our rights as Americans.

So I ask you, how tranquil are you these days? I think the US, once we get done with this 'current issue', needs to give a lot of consideration into where it sticks its nose in the future. Some areas of the planet are just not ready for our type of free and loving society yet. They were not brought up on Sesame Street, and Mickey Mouse, they were brought up wondering where the next bowl of rice or beans was going to come from or if they had enough ammo to get through the night.

I, as much as anyone, have sympathy for the innocents of the third world countries but until the leaders get their things together, I say we leave them alone and let nature take it's course. But the US government shouldn't infringe on the constitution in any way or form to make these foreign countries happy. Anyone with any sense can see that our support of Israel is a major factor in the current state of things. I think we should be thinking about taking Israel from our 'Unlimited money supply. ' Bibliography

Bibliography

George Orwell, 'Notes on Nationalism,' in Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus eds. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell (London: Penguin, 1970), II, 261".
Gamma shall not fall again!" web November 1, 2001.