TakeOnIt
Compare opinions of world leading experts and influencers.

Terrorism

Recently Added Issues

Recently Added Quotes

New York has countless mosques, but recently a plan to build a large mosque and Islamic cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero has sparked controversy. Some conservatives want to ban the construction of the mosque, claiming its an insult to the people who died on September 11th, while libertarians tend to argue that religious freedom is a constitutional right.
In the wake of 9/11, many Muslims have outspokenly condemned violence in the name of their religion. However, critics of the faith, and critics of religion in general, have suggested that the faith can indeed breed extremism, and that many passages in the Koran, if taken literally, seem to even condone the slaughter of non-believers.
It is politically expedient to label an enemy as guilty of terrorism, but for the label to have objective meaning, it must have a definition. A crude definition of terrorism, is that it is the act and strategy of fighting a war by explicitly targeting civilians, where the implicitly better moral alternative is directly engaging the enemy's military. Under this definition, does America have the moral high ground?
Shortly before the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the country's heroin production had seemingly fallen to historically low levels. At the time, the Taliban's official position was that drugs were considered immoral in Islam, and that the government's ban on drug cultivation was working. Shortly after the collapse of the Taliban, the former Head of Drug Control confessed that the Taliban were merely engaged in price hiking, and the ban was a ruse.
Skeptics of the conventional account of the collapse of the twin towers suggest that their fall was not physically possible except by timed explosives.
On August 6 and 9, 1945, the U.S. President Harry S. Truman ordered the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, upon which Japan surrendered, ending World War II. Over 200,000 people died, mostly civilians. It has remained the only time atomic bombs have ever been used in warfare.
Civilian casualties are inevitable in war, but is it an acceptable strategy to explicitly target civilians?
The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in Cuba is a POW camp run by the United States. Its critics claim it breaks international law, because its prisoners are abused and held indefinitely without fair trial.
On the day of the 9/11 attacks, George Bush made the statement "The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts". A week later, Bill Maher, host of 'Politically Correct', while agreeing with the president that the terrorists should be hunted down and punished, disagreed that the terrorists were cowardly. This caused a great deal of controversy, and shortly afterward, his show was canceled, arguably making him a modern day martyr of free speech.
The standard account of the September 11th Attacks is that they were orchestrated by Al Qaeda. However, some people, particularly critics of the United States, have argued that the US Government knew about or even planned the attacks.
The Economist
...the complaint seems to boil down to a vague sense that doing Muslim stuff near ground zero is an unhappy reminder of terrorism, because the terrorists claimed to be acting in the name of Islam. ... [In any case, it's] impossible to be sensitive both to those who see the mosque as an affront and those who see opposition to it as proof of prejudice, which is why America has a constitution to adjudicate such disputes. And in this [case it] comes down squarely on the side of the mosque-builders.
M. Zuhdi Jasser
...radicalization will only accelerate until the American Muslim community develops a palpable pro-liberty, anti-Islamist response. This war of ideas has been nearly impossible with much of the media, government, and academe unwilling to engage in the tough work of theo-political discussions of necessary Muslim reform. Muslim youth and young adults will continue to be susceptible to the separatist jihadist ideas of radical Islamists unless we provide alternative liberty-based winning ideas...
M. Zuhdi Jasser
I am an American Muslim dedicated to defeating the ideology that fuels global Islamist terror -- political Islam. And I don't see such a "center" actually fighting terrorism or being a very "positive" addition near Ground Zero, no matter how well intentioned. To put it bluntly, Ground Zero is the one place in America where Muslims should think less about teaching Islam and "our good side" and more about being American and fulfilling our responsibilities to confront the ideology of our enemies.
Michael Bloomberg
It is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together, and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any ways consistent with Islam.
Sam Harris
There is probably no legal basis to do so in any case—nor should there be [against building the mosque. But] the erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory—and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice.
Sarah Palin
Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? ... If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?
Rudy Giuliani
This project is creating tremendous pain for people who've already made the ultimate sacrifice. All you're doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred. ... The question here is a question of sensitivity and are you really what you pretend to be. ... The idea of this is supposed to be healing, the idea that Muslims care about what Christians and Jews do. ... If you're going to so horribly offend the people who are most directly affected by this, then how are you healing?
Michael Bloomberg
Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. ...it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together, and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any ways consistent with Islam.
Barack Obama
...in this country, we treat everybody equally in accordance with the law. Regardless of race. Regardless of religion. I ... will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country's about and I think it's very important that as difficult as some of these issues are, we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.

New Comments

0 Points       Benja       20 Aug 2010     Do Muslims have the right to build a mosque near ground zero? General Comment
The Economist: "the terrorists claimed to be acting in the name of Islam."

Claimed to be? So when the self-inconsistent Koran is interpreted "correctly", it's obvious that the beliefs of the terrorists are inconsistent with Islam?

The politically correct left really loves pushing the Religion is Peaceful trope don't they? If only the 9/11 terrorists had subscribed to The Economist for guidance on religious matters.

0 Points       Benja       19 Aug 2010     Do Muslims have the right to build a mosque near ground zero? Agree
I'm all for it. And as a gesture celebrating our shared belief in tolerance and cross-cultural communication, I look forward to the Imam who's heading the project to declare his enthusiastic support for a Jewish center in Mecca and an atheist center in Medina.

1 Point       swampdonk       25 Jul 2010     Were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan justified? Disagree
There was absolutly no reason for the allies to be so hasty in dropping the bomb. There were other options available to secure Japan's surrender that were neglected. For instance, they could have made a stronger attempt to induce the Japanese to surrender, they were aware of the fact that the main reason Japan refused to give up was over concerns that by unconditionally surrendering the Imperial dynasty would have been destroyed. The allies also had every intention of keeping the emperor in place in order to govern the Japanese people during occupation. Why they dropped the bombs instead of attempting to coax a surrender is impossible to determine but several theories have sprung up such as revenge (just look at the above quote by Truman), intimidating the Russians so they would be easier to deal with in Europe, and ending the war quickly so the Russians can not occupy Japan and attempt to turn her communist. Had the Allies shown a little more restraint instead of going straight for the throat it would be easier to support the bombing.

0 Points       Benja       21 Jun 2010     Were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan justified? General Comment
I'm not a historian so I won't comment as to whether the bombs saved lives. I do believe however, that you're too hasty and enthusiastic in reaching the conclusion that no Japanese person was innocent. Do you think, had you or I been born in the 1920s in Japan, that we could have gone against the flow? Do you think we would have - on moral grounds - refused to join our country's army and have had the strength to face the consequences of taking that stance? By your own words you don't seem to give a fuck about "people who I have never met who would probably kill me given the chance". Most people born into a bad regime could be pushed into bad behavior, and the people who died were not intrinsically better or worse than ordinary people like me and you. Maybe the bombs were necessary, but it was a tragedy, and it is of the utmost arrogance to say that the people who died were not innocent, as if we, with our privileged lives, not only get to live those privileged lives, but also get to claim the moral high-ground over the dead.

0 Points       Benja       21 Jun 2010     Were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan justified? General Comment
Most people who get killed in wars are not evil people - they're just terribly unlucky people born at the wrong time and wrong place. Most of the people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just ordinary civilians living under a regime they did not choose. Now, there is ignorance in pacifism - yes, some wars are justified, as is the loss of civilian life. But there is an even less thoughtful ignorance in the belief that an entire country is comprised of evil people.

"They should all burn in hell"? While I don't consider myself a Christian, I still consider it a red flag when someone says something that seems to entirely disregard the compassion that Jesus espoused.

0 Points       Benja       09 May 2010     Were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan justified? General Comment
"Honestly war horrifies me to the point that I have no appropriate moral framework to apply to it."

I agree it's difficult, but not so much because it horrifies me, but more because the moral equation is complicated. At one level, if the bomb saved lives, the moral framework of utilitarianism provides a basis for a decision. The problem is, this doesn't distinguish between civilian and military lives. If people choose to be in the military, and they understand the risk it entails, then presumably their lives are more expendable than civilians, who have not willingly accepted that risk. But how much more expendable? This is not clear to me. And of course during WWII they had a draft (which weakens the distinction between civilian and military lives), the morality of which is a separate question, but which in fact affects the answer to this question.

1 Point       the27th       09 May 2010     Were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan justified? Neutral
I've been told that the bombs saved lives. We did kill more people in urban firebombings than in the nuclear attacks. But I have my doubts that exterminating a city can be justifiable.

Honestly war horrifies me to the point that I have no appropriate moral framework to apply to it.

1 Point       Benja       27 Apr 2010     Did the US Government play a part in the 9/11 attacks? Disagree
"This is just my opinion and you people might disagree with me but, i dont really care"

A glib attitude like this is fine if we're talking about the color of your underwear. But we're talking about 3,000 lives that were lost and the legitimacy of the US government. It's part of our social responsibility to care about what other people think on matters that we find mutually important. In this particular case, to not care, would be to not care the lives lost on that day, and perhaps far worse, not care about the future of the far great number of lives affected by the US government.

0 Points       Benja       10 Apr 2010     Did the US Government play a part in the 9/11 attacks? General Comment
I did some research as to whether the collapse was physically possible, and did not come to your conclusion. Please check out the evidence in the linked question: "Was the collapse of the twin towers only physically possible by controlled demolition?". The physics supporting the standard account - that the load bearing structures were compromised to the point that they could no longer support the immense weight of the building - seems entirely sound to me. Be wary when people use common sense arguments when physics is involved. Always look at the math on both sides, and only then make a conclusion.

0 Points       OmnipotentRabbit       10 Apr 2010     Did the US Government play a part in the 9/11 attacks? Agree
And, of course, the only people that so far agree with this are hardly literate and do not wish to reveal themselves. I understand the desire for anonymity on this opinion. But it is hardly necessary.

There is a reason for the attacks. There always has been, throughout the last hundred years, a reason to provoke attacks, or create very believable fictions of attacks on the US to initiate wars, which have proved to be a source for economic benefit and political control since World War I. This was done in 9/11 to create a war against the most vague of enemies, terrorism, allowing the US government (and whichever others feared terrorists) to apply whatever laws they wanted to "prevent terrorism". But as anyone can see, these measures have only reduced liberties, and when analysed from a rational viewpoint, do not actually stop any terrorists.

Moreover, from careful analysis of the television footage, most anyone with some understanding of architecture and engineering can see that it is physically impossible for a plane crash to ignite a steel building or impact it with enough strength to cause its collapse. And then there's the lack of plane remains of decent size both there and the Pentagon...

The evidence for this is overwhelming. It is understandable that not many people agree with this, it would be an assumption that the US government is not to be trusted. But it is a reasonable assumption indeed.

0 Points       JGWeissman       27 Mar 2010     Did the US Government play a part in the 9/11 attacks? Disagree
The government had no conspiracy to cause the attack. Their response, however, was horribly incompetent. They should have been able to limit the damage to the loss of the hijacked planes, by shooting down the planes when the hijackers refused to communicate.

The government's use of the attack to justify attacking Iraq, which was not involved, was criminal.

0 Points       garret       13 Nov 2009     Should the US close Guantanamo Bay? Disagree
yes i do agree that we should keep it open becuse it is really cool and the people that want to close it are gay! :D


-garret jackson Chinook Middle School 8th grade Bellevue, Washington

New Editorial Comments

0 Points       Benja       13 Sep 2008     Should the US close Guantanamo Bay? Editorial Comment
Perhaps we need another question here too, namely, that should be close it because it's ethically wrong or simply because it's bad marketing? McCain seems to imply the latter with:

"Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have harmed our reputation in the world, thereby harming our ability to win the psychological part of the war against radical Islamic extremism."


Terrorism Question Index

Do Muslims have the right to build a mosque near ground zero?
Is Islam fundamentally a peaceful religion?
Did the US Government play a part in the 9/11 attacks?
Were the 9/11 hijackers cowardly?
Is it legitimate for the US to label their enemies "terrorists"?
Should the US close Guantanamo Bay?
Did the Taliban ban drug cultivation because it was "un-Islamic"?
Is it acceptable to target (i.e. kill) civilians in war?
Was the collapse of the twin towers only physically possible by controlled demolition?
Can terrorism be dealt with without violence?
Were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan justified?
Has the US military ever considered terrorizing its own citizens?
Has the money spent on airport security since 9/11 made us safer?