Are acts of terrorism inside the United States more important than ones abroad?
Debate Rounds (3)
inside the United States
than ones abroad?
First some definitions
* Terrorism is not well defined in terms of international law.
As a working definition for the debate lets use Webster"s definition.
TERRORISM : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
or Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective
*Lets define the US in terms of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States and the Northern Marianas AND every US embassy where ever it is located.
For "Should be treated the same" we are speaking of both legal actions and military actions.
As far as position, I am assuming that Con is taking the position that
Our government should respond the same way to terrorism done to someone else as we would to terrorism done to us.
I am taking the position that
Our government has no right to respond to terrorism done to someone else until we are invited by their government.
If Con agrees, let the debate begin.
WithoutG forfeited this round.
Con stated that "Acts of terrorism outside of the US should be treated, the same as domestic ones."
His focus seems to be giving help and respect to victims of terrorism worldwide.
His desire to give honor and help to those in need is good.
Here are some problems with Con"s position.
1. Terrorism is poorly defined.
It can be state sponsored. Some call it war. Some would call aspects of our foreign policy "acts or terrorism". Terrorism is too subjective for Con"s position to make sense.
2. Sovereignty is a huge issue with national borders.
We do not have the right to act or speak on behalf of another nation. If we wish to help we may offer aid to their government. Even if they accept our offer we must only go as far as they allow. We may not overstep these boundaries with our allies even if it is "for their own good.".
3. Honor by the US government should reflect the mood of the people.
The people of the USA may not:
- know enough about the events in a far country.
- want to get take sides in an event they know nothing about.
- want to honor people who died in a far country.
4. Actions by our governments should be well thought out, and err on the side of caution.
We MUST not respond to foreign acts of terrorism the same as we treat domestic. Our government has a responsibility to deal harshly with any attacks on our soil or against our citizens. We can only offer assistance to allies, or even better, wait for their request.
Actions in response to terrorism should include:
Death to those who wage an undeclared war.
Seize any assets of those who wage an undeclared war.
Appropriate legal or military action against allies of those who wage an undeclared war.
Appropriate legal or military action against state sponsors of terrorist acts.
5. Actions by our Ambassadors and Secretary of State should include:
Consonances from our people and government to those who mourn.
Condemnation of those who commit terrorist attacks.
Offers of assistance to our allies.
Polite silence (no gloating) to those who are not our allies.
Con made reference to 42 deaths in Pakistan.
I assume he is referring tho this event - http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
There are a number of problems with involving ourselves in this issue.
* Pakistan was probably involved at the highest levels in assisting Osama bin Laden. Even a quick read of the news shows that our US relations with Pakistan are strained. We have conducted many military missions within Pakistan"s borders as though it is a hostile country. If Pakistan is our ally is is bought and paid for with Foreign Aid dollars.
* The September 2010 event in the news story above was an act of Islamic militants against a Shiite Muslim rally for a pro Palestinian position. Aside from the fact that USA often supports Israel as a democracy in a volatile region, there is no way for USA to win in giving any statement on this attack. Different groups of Muslims in a different country fighting over political issues we neither understand nor agree with a guaranteed fail. This is the place for respectful silence.
* The Telegraph story linked above says
"The attack in Quetta is the second this week on Pakistan's minority Shiite population. A triple suicide attack on Wednesday night killed 35 people at a Shiite ceremony in the eastern city of Lahore.
The bombings were later claimed by the Pakistan Taliban in revenge for the killing of a Sunni leader last year."
Any official response takes a side in a struggle that we are happy not to be involved with. The political world is complicated enough without us borrowing trouble that does not concern us.
Our government must respond to domestic acts of terrorism.
Our government must not respond to foreign acts of terrorism without the invitation of the people or governments involved.
WithoutG forfeited this round.
gordonjames forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.