Argument Construction - Terrorism

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION

Terrorism is a political tactic usually employed by those with relatively few resources compared to there chosen advisories, designed to accomplish certain discreet objectives on the cheap. The definition of terrorism can be put forth as “an act of violence and intimidations to achieve political aims”. This definition makes you think that is it worth the governments while to negotiate with terrorists or not?

Trying to negotiate with someone (terrorists) that threatens you is a very difficult task to overcome; it involves a lot of patients and toleration. This is exactly what our government has been doing, it has been patient and has been tolerating the treats from the terrorists but how long can the government stay silent for. The terrorists have been made offers so a war can be prevented by letting UN weapon inspectors into Iraq and letting them check the sites which they think mite be used to make weapons of mass destruction, these offers have been rejected or have conditions put on them by Saddam Hussein. This puts Saddam Hussein under even more suspicion.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Also knowing that under Saddam Hussein Iraq developed chemical and biological weapons, acquired missiles allowing it to attack neighboring countries with these weapons and Iraq persistently tried to develop nuclear bomb. Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons both against Iran and his own people. Following the gulf war Saddam Hussein had to admit to all this and in the cease-fire of 1991 Saddam Hussein agreed unconditionally to give up his weapons of mass destruction. Information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is already in public domain from UN reports and from Iraqi defectors, this clearly points that Iraq continues to posses these weapons and also shows that Iraq, has refurbished sites formally associated with the production of chemical and biological agents and it indicates that Iraq remains able to manufacture these agents and deliver them via bomb, shells artillery rockets and ballistic missiles.

In Blair’s dossiers it says where the funding of these weapons come in, it briefly sets out how Iraq is able to finance its weapons programme drawing on illicit earnings generated outside the UN control. In 2001 Iraq gathered $3 billon illegally.

Even with all this information and evidence that the government has on Saddam Hussein, they are still debating on what to do next, to take up arm or to carry on trying to negotiate. The easy way will be to take up arms and get rid of Saddam Hussein once and for all. But this action will have great consequences; there will be many innocent lives lost including those of our soldiers and the country will be wrecked as side affects of using all types of different weapons.

All this just to take out Saddam Hussein (is it really worth it).

We have already seen what has happen with the terrorists in Afghanistan, how it has affected the people and their environment, women’s made widows, children made orphans there lands wrecked by bombing day after day, the objective was to take out a terrorist leader Osama-bin Laden, but there is no hard evidence that the objective has been achieved. Looking at this recent war on terrorism can we say it was a success?

Using arms would not solve terrorism, as you can see from the above example and also we have at hand a perfect example of the present state of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, there are no negations going on between the two, so Israel has sent it army into Palestine to get rid of the terrorists there and the Palestinians going into Israel tied with bombs on them selves.

As you can see from this essay we can only overcome terrorism by negotiating.

There for the government should negotiate with terrorists.