'Is the war on terrorsim just Essay\r'

'In this paper I argue that struggle against act of terrorism is no honourable but some state of contend sight be nevertheless as long as it follows the possibleness of a plainly war. As old as early civilizations, war played a evidentiary role in the governmental stability and auspices of the society. It has been a central feature of civilisation end-to-end recorded time. (Evans, 1). Although war is seen as violent and morally destructive, excuse it was considered as an effective way of reason and even promoting civilization. It was also used by the study religions of this world such as Islam and Christianity to spread their faith.\r\nIn every war, we groundwork’t deny the concomitant that in that location is a political motive nates the heroic reason of its leaders. Being evil by disposition, there be a skunk of arguments regarding the moral tantrum of war. According to La Vitta Cattolica, the debate is whether the nature of handed-down war is li ghten applicable with the groundbreaking aneness. Their stand is it is salve the same when it comes to the extent of its fatality. They depict it as a lethal contest, fed by hatred, corporal violence is unleashed in all its viciousness. (Elshtain, 108). Is war rightfully for the benefit of people or is nonwithstanding a nonher way of exploiting humanity?\r\n on that point is also a question regarding the extent of its necessity. Nowadays, there are standards to fulfil if a country wants to engage in war. Although a term such as and war was derived from this war controversy, still exclusivelyice is still a question. It is be pee the provisions of this just war hypothesis is not fulfil. Until now, we can say that there is no such war in our history that fulfilled those provisions. Meanwhile, war is also in the history of Christian church. When we look at the teachings of Christianity, we can say that it is against the conceits of messiah Christ.\r\nAs we read the gosp el, it was clearly imposed by Christ that each of us should love one another even our enemy. As a offspring of fact, Nicolas I said that was is always satanic to its origin. (Elshtain, 113). regular Christ himself set an example of being a promoter of cardinal-eyed violet. scarcely later on, the said faith call for to adapt to the changing world and the go out is the use of war to defend the faith. During the 4th and fifth century, Christians were obliged to do military service. This policy was substitute during the middle ages but later on, the Church became intricate with crusades.\r\n(Elshtain, 113). Here we can see that war is unfeignedly inevitable. Although war is inevitable, still a nation or state should do alterative ways to defend themselves. Even if the motive of engaging in war is good the casualties that it will cause to humanity is great. In previous wars, a lot of bleak lives were brutality killed. It will be reasonable if those people were oppressors or e nemy of the states but those people were ordinary citizens that needs to be protected. As said by Thucydides, â€Å"The inexpugnable do as they can while the lame suffer for what they must” (Chomsky, 1).\r\nIt is the strong forces church as political and military forces who initiated the war but sadly, the civilians who strike nothing to do with their decisions suffer from its consequences. As a state it is the responsibility of the government to promote the benefit of its people by letting them experience political security. One way of ensuring political security is through defending a state from foreign invaders. but it doesn’t mean that war is the only plectron to defend one state. For me, war should be the buy the farm option of the state and apart from selfish political reason; the benefit of the people should be the important motive.\r\nWhen it comes to war against terrorism, I believe that it is not just because it doesn’t apply to just war hyp othesis. What is a just war? In a traditional sense, it denotes a specific body of moral belief found in Christianity. (Evans, 2). It means that the faith that promotes peace love for enemies also adopted the use of war to secure the faith. In modern times, a just war means follo assumeg certain good consideration before engaging in a war. In other words, actions are evaluated in toll of range of the likely consequence. (Chomsky, 7). It means that a just war should create a lesser physical and moral damage.\r\nIt also means that engaging in a just war is like choosing the lesser evil. â€Å" …though within war there may be many acts of heroism, just war guess cannot then, be said to glorify war or be blind of its moral horrors. ” (Evans, 10). Aside from that, just like other kinds of war, it involves torture and interrogation of innocent civilians. One way of justifying the war against terrorism is the idea that it protects the people from fatal terrorist attacks. Nowadays, terrorist attacks which is most commonly in a form of bombing kills a lot of innocent civilians.\r\nOther than that terrorist attacks can coin a nation’s economy that is why there are still doubts whether war against terrorism is really for people. Because the political stability of a states is also threatens by terrorist attacks, there is the possibility that the security of civilians is not the autochthonic concern. Let us look at the embodiment of war theory and see whether the war against terrorism is a just war. First, the cause must be just and the justice of the cause is sufficiently great. Next, one must be confident that it will not yield long term consequences longer than the circumstance quo.\r\nObviously, it should be the last resort and moral standards should not be compromised. We can say that the first two conditions apply to the war against terrorism but the applications of the latter(prenominal) conditions were questionable. Surely this kind of war will cause long term psychological effects to the civilians involve. It can cause major trauma to the victims that can affect their daily lives even if the war is over. It is also manifest that moral standards were compromised because of the use of torture to gain information.\r\nThere is also a debate regarding the moral aspect of torture. Indeed, information during war is a necessity for it can serve as a solution to win and end the war immediately. But the question is whether it is mandatory right here and now to win a particular battle. (May, 196). Form me, whether their information is helpful or necessary in winning the battle, torture is still a form of human rights violation. Indeed, war is not a good way of defending a state. Even if there are just wars, still it is very fatal and those innocent civilians were the common victims.\r\nBut if there is no other option buy food war, it is reasonable as long as it promotes the welfare of the states and civilians.\r\nReferenc es: Elshtain, J. (1992) Modern War and Christian Conscience. But was it upright?. La Civilitta Cattolica. brisk York. Evans, M. (2005). Just War theory: A reappraisal. New York: Palgraw Macmillan. May, L. (2007). War Crimes and Just War. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (2006). A Just War? Hardly. Retrieved: January 9, 2007 from ZNPT Commentaries. Website: http://www. zmag. org/sustiners/content/2006-05/zochomsky. cfm.\r\n'