Varying Responses to Terrorism
September 11, 2003 was a day that permanently made an impact on the United States, proving that no nation is powerful enough to be invulnerable. Psychoanalyst Charles B. Strozier, a New York native, experienced the attacks both firsthand and on television in the coffee shop where he hid during the events. An expert in the field of terrorism and criminal justice, he began interviewing a wide range of people to get their opinions and reactions to the attacks. The results of his research demonstrated a division between those who were in New York at the time and those who were not. Many who were not in New York felt that retribution was absolutely called for, while those present did not express any strong feelings that violence would resolve the issue. However, such a generalization seems too broad of a grouping to be an effective guide for what a given person feels in response to terrorism. Ever since terrorism crossed the United States' borders and changed the way that innocent people live their lives, the country and the world has been divided by their beliefs. Prior to United States troops advancing into Iraq and Afghanistan, France had been an ally of the United States. H
The first criteria is that war is acceptable only if all non-violent options have failed, which is undoubtedly the case with terrorism. It is almost impossible for any dialogue to be set up between governments and terrorist groups, mostly because both are rather uncompromising over the same matters. Terrorist leaders are among the most wanted criminals in the world, and any meetings would in all likelyhood turn into an operation to weaken terrorism even further. Not that any such meeting could be arranged, as the most popular method for terrorists to communicate with the free world is through pre-recorded press releases. The fact that no meetings have been established in the past leaves little hope that they might occur in the future. Lastly, civilians must never be the intentionally targeted. The last has been an adamant concern for United States forces; in an environment when it is hard to discern between friend and foe, soldiers have used their best judgement to ensure the safety of civilians. War is never a desirable situation, however it is a reality that has been a part of human culture since its beginning. While it can be proven that this war has justifiable roots, it nonetheless should be dealt with as carefully and swiftly as possible to ensure that the loss of human life is as minimal as possible. The United States should not always be called upon to resolve the issues of other countries. Too often is help given when it is not asked for, and new enemies are made from America trying to do what it feels is best for the world as a whole. It is understandable that not everyone will feel the same about military intervention in the middle east, but to say that such an opinion can be based on a single event is ridiculous. Living in a country such as the United States, people grow accustomed to hearing the ideas of others, and free speech is granted to all. For some, the preservation of that right is enough to justify the fight
Some topics in this essay:
World Trade,
Nations United,
United Nations,
Catholic Church,
Armed Forces,
Saddam Hussein,
Strozier York,
East European,
York York,
United States',
environment hard,
environment hard discern,
middle east,
united nations,
friend foe,
discern friend,
hard discern,
armed forces,
violent response,
hard discern friend,
war terror,
discern friend foe,
free people,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 1321
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
More Essays on Varying Responses to Terrorism Professional Papers: |
Join Now
(Credit Card)
|
Join Now
(Online Check)
|
Join Now
(Phone 1-900)
|
CUSTOMER SERVICES
| |
|