What Is The Most Logical Answer In Response To Terrorism
Answers to Terror
James Swanson
ENG 122 English Composition II
Kari Lomanno
14 July 2014
Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Unfortunately, when many people hear the term terrorism, they think of 9-11 and the horrific events of that day. That reason is why most individuals think that military force is the most logical answer to snuffing out terrorists. One of the largest problems with that course of action is the loss of human life associated with it. Unfortunately that may not be the largest problem associated with terrorism. The fact of the matter is that it will never go away. What we need to ask ourselves as a society is how we can combat terror. Some solutions could …show more content…
Was this an act of “terrorism” by the Germans to aid in their political gains? My question is what was the answer to this act of terrorism? The answer was war. In order for the killings to stop, more killing was needed. Not necessarily the killings of innocent civilians, but of troops. In this instance the only way to stop these “terroristic” acts was war. All of the thoughts and ideas I have discussed can be called valid answers to terrorism. But the question still remains, when is military force the most logical answer in response to terroristic actions? Were the past thirteen years in Iraq and Afghanistan justifiable as grounds to put an end to terrorism? Each year the United States government publishes The National Security Strategy of the United States. Before the attacks in 2001, it never really held much more than space on a bookshelf. “The 2002 version was different. Published in the wake of the attacks of September 11 it was seen as the defining document of the ‘War on Terrorism,’ the defining trope of the emergent Bush foreign policy” (Flint/Falah, 2004). The document focused more on a preemptive approach to violence, than self-defense (Flint/Falah, 2004). The United States government was using judicial law to justify going to war. Instead of waiting to be attacked the theory was to destroy terrorists before they were able to attack. Weather it is to save innocent lives or to prevent those lives from being in danger, war can be a justifiable solution to
James Swanson
ENG 122 English Composition II
Kari Lomanno
14 July 2014
Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Unfortunately, when many people hear the term terrorism, they think of 9-11 and the horrific events of that day. That reason is why most individuals think that military force is the most logical answer to snuffing out terrorists. One of the largest problems with that course of action is the loss of human life associated with it. Unfortunately that may not be the largest problem associated with terrorism. The fact of the matter is that it will never go away. What we need to ask ourselves as a society is how we can combat terror. Some solutions could …show more content…
Was this an act of “terrorism” by the Germans to aid in their political gains? My question is what was the answer to this act of terrorism? The answer was war. In order for the killings to stop, more killing was needed. Not necessarily the killings of innocent civilians, but of troops. In this instance the only way to stop these “terroristic” acts was war. All of the thoughts and ideas I have discussed can be called valid answers to terrorism. But the question still remains, when is military force the most logical answer in response to terroristic actions? Were the past thirteen years in Iraq and Afghanistan justifiable as grounds to put an end to terrorism? Each year the United States government publishes The National Security Strategy of the United States. Before the attacks in 2001, it never really held much more than space on a bookshelf. “The 2002 version was different. Published in the wake of the attacks of September 11 it was seen as the defining document of the ‘War on Terrorism,’ the defining trope of the emergent Bush foreign policy” (Flint/Falah, 2004). The document focused more on a preemptive approach to violence, than self-defense (Flint/Falah, 2004). The United States government was using judicial law to justify going to war. Instead of waiting to be attacked the theory was to destroy terrorists before they were able to attack. Weather it is to save innocent lives or to prevent those lives from being in danger, war can be a justifiable solution to