Many liberals have called for restraint in responding to the September 11 attack on the United States. These groups proclaim that we must not ask “who” committed these horrible crimes but instead ask “why” the killers were so angry at the United States. In other words, what has America done to lead these people to the conclusion that murderous terrorism is the only appropriate action. The liberals contend that the terrorists feel that such monumental wrongdoing have been inflicted upon them, their families and their way of life by the United States that such calamitous actions are the only remedy.
The statements by these liberals directly implies that the terrorists who killed more than 5,500 innocent Americans were not themselves responsible for the bloodshed inflicted last September 11 but rather that American actions and policies have unjustly driven otherwise peace-loving human beings to commit unprecedented mass murder – the worst act of terrorism the world has ever seen.
In response to these liberals’ claim that America is at fault, we would like to point out a few of the American actions that Osama bin Laden has used as a motivational tool to drive his evil co-conspirators into violent, suicidal missions. Perhaps then we can decide whether or not these innocent Americans were truly asking for it, as The statements by these liberals seems to claim. This is the list of “monumental wrongs” that the United States has committed:
1) America supported British and U.N. actions to create the State of Israel in 1948. We have helped provide and protect this homeland for the Jewish people following the slaughter of six million Europe…
… middle of paper …
…, we were savagely and inhumanely attacked; Bush and company have since reserved judgment to make certain we identify the correct perpetrators before responding in an appropriate and effective manner. The outpouring of faith and patriotism are the only things that are helping those who have been bereaved move on with their lives in these dark days. We hope you liberals, would be ashamed to meet the families of 3,500 victims or to the exhausted firefighters who have been digging mutilated bodies out of the wreckage of two 110-story buildings and the Pentagon.
At this moment of grief and pain we should all be proud to stand together and support our fellow Americans. Our leaders need our prayers as do the victims and workers. We don’t need divisiveness, nor do we need cowardice masquerading as conscience. May justice be served and God Bless America.
Our War Against Terrorism is Justified
Our War Against Terrorism is Justified
This essay will address the question whether the war against terrorism declared by President George W. Bush is a just war.
According to the September 22nd edition of Star-Ledger, Professor Richard Falk, of Princeton University said “the mainstream media have turned into a ‘war-mobilizing mechanism’ leading to intense indoctrination of the public in support of a military response.” “We are living in a society that is so convinced of its own innocence that it is ready to embark on its own ‘holy war,'” Falk said. He said that if and when the United States decides to use force, it should do so only in conformance with international law and according to the principles of a “just” war. “These would include making it illegal to target non-military sites or people, making sure the response is proportionate and ensuring that no unnecessary pain is inflicted. “In Bush’s address (Thursday night) I saw no signs of sensitivity to any of these limits, no deference to the authority of the United Nations,” Falk said.
Contrary to what Prof. Falk suggested, our country does consider before undertaking such actions whether it complies with the description of a “just war.” We had such a discussion, for example, before moving to turn back Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. There was a good interview on the CNN website on the topic of a just war.
I don’t believe there is any disagreement that non-violent methods of resolving conflicts must always be used when they are possible. But this is not always possible. Therefore the first thing to note is that there is such a thing as a “just war.” The tradition goes back to St. Augustine and has been highly developed over the cent…
… middle of paper …
… While moving against bin Laden and the ruling Taliban which protects him, Pres. Bush and his advisers have clearly stated that we have no quarrel with the Afghan people. Instead of dropping bombs on them, our government has started to airlift food to alleviate the acute distress caused by more than twenty years of uninterrupted war. There has not been any military action merely for the sake of taking action or assuaging any supposed public desire for revenge.
Thus I conclude that the war against terrorism meets all four criteria of a “just war.” Sanity, virtue, and a sense of humor all depend, though in different ways, on having a proper sense of proportion. I suggest that early critics of the war on terrorism lack the necessary sense of proportion. They take themselves too seriously, and the situation and the ideas it contains not seriously enough.