can you tell me what you think, and help me with my grammer mistakes and spelling. thanks
6 marks for summary-question1
6 marks for explaining assumptions made about good and evil-question
1) The letters presented are based on different opinions stated by individuals, regarding the incident that occurred on September 11, 2001. Internationally, people wrote letters to an online BBC forum where they voiced their point of view, in respect to their culture, faith, tradition and perspective on politics. One group of individuals believed the terrorism that occurred in America was non-justifiable, while the other group took an Anti-American approach, expressing their feelings towards the lack of ethics in the American culture.
Dr. Mohammed Siddique from Sri Lanka labeled the terrorists as "perpetrators", and suggested their actions were nothing less then horrendous. He focuses on defending the religion of Islam, due to the terrorists proclaiming they executed out such animosity for the Muslim people. Mohammed Siddique makes it clear that Islam does not condone such atrocity, for Muslims are "prohibited to kill non-combatants, children and woman, as well as individuals who have taken shelter in places of worship even during a war." He furthers his argument by stating that the actions practiced by the terrorists were nowhere near being justifiable or acceptable.
On the contrary, Sompone, Kent from WA, USA has an opposed argument to Dr. Mohammed Siddique. Sompone discusses the horror he experienced as a child when the US Air Force bombed South East Asia. In a sense, he believes this was bound to happen to the American people, due to the horrible acts they have executed out in the past to other nations. He states "The taste of pain and suffering is so great that only the person who experiences the real thing by himself can understand," which proves he classifies America as a "power hungry" nation that will now be able to feel the pain they caused others. Sompone sees this as a wake up call, which should be used as a method for America to politically, and substantially change for the better.
Unlike, Kent Sompone who was rather Anti-American, Eda and Istanbul from Turkey as well as Abdul Qaiyum Nagorri, Manama from Bahrain both view the actions of the hijackers as an unprovoked act. Eda and Istanbul sympathize with the Americans, since they state that Turkey experienced terrorism as well, and ended up losing several citizens. Abdul Qaiyum Nagoori describes what happened on September 11th, 2001, as "a barbaric attack." He then furthers his statement by saying that the method chosen by the terrorists to seek revenge on America, was completely wrongful, and should not be done to any nation.
Juergen Dudek from Australia takes a different approach to the issue, compared to Eda/Istanbul, and Abdul Qaiyum Nagoori. Juergen clearly expresses the fact that many countries in the last decade encountered terror, but none of them received the same "special treatment" that America has. He or she follows by stating that if other nations who faced the same agony as Americans were provided with the same amount of support, they would've been able to surmount their feelings of grief and sorrow. In opposition to what was previously stated, Olga and Aram from Dnipropetrovsk city, Ukraine, give their deepest sympathies to the American people. They also state the people of Ukraine commiserate for the American people, as well as them being ultimately against what transpired on September 11th 2001.
Raja Chandran from Saudi Arabia states that what happened was "terrorism to the core," which implies it was the biggest terrorist attack that could possibly happen to any nation. Raja labeled the perpetrators as culprits who should be brought to justice. It states in the letter that the hijackers should be brought to the book----which connotes the Quran. Furthermore, Raja appears to be shocked that such an act(security lapse) could take place in America, which is why he or she asks a question about how could such an organized, unprecedented terrorist act be undetected? This question is proof that he or she is confused on how such an attack could happen to America. Ingibjorg from Iceland also feels compassion for the victims and their families that lost a life or a loved one in New York and Washington, but Ingibjorg provides a justifiable reason to why the hijackers killed approximately 3500 individuals.
In the previous letter, Raja Chandran clearly stated that their would be no reason that could justify the awful acts----Plane crashing into the World Trade Center in New York City, and the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, killing about 200 people, as well as the fourth plane that crashed into an open field that killed all the individuals on board--but Ingibjorg believes they may of had a "sufficient"objective. Ingibjorg uses the term "civilized world" to describe superior nations-who need to focus on exactly why did this incident actually occur, and what generated the "anger behind the attacks." Ingibjorg furthers his argument by holding the US policy in the Middle East accountable, for they used this as a method to gain economical and political power. The US policy in the Middle East was mainly used for manipulating to achieve supremacy, rather then to assist innocent citizens. The letter finishes off by stating that western civilization, needs to stop trying to acquire power, and focus on an alternative that can end extreme terrorism----basically Ingibjorg was saying, America was a target due to their lack of compassion to the innocent individuals they harmed just to be recognized as being a superior nation.
Overall the letters were written from individuals of different cultures, political systems and religious faiths that had distinguished opinions on September 11, 2001. The set of extracts allowed one to see that internationally our world needs to come together to find a method to form a sense of peace and happiness amongst different cultures, faiths, and nationalities, rather then concentrating on political power.
2) The assumption of good and evil presented in articles:
Firstly, some of the letters look at this issue from a political perspective, while others tend to take an emotional approach when it came to voicing their opinion. Some of the letters suggest America is a "good" country, while others talk about the devastation America has caused other nations. This begs the question: Is America predominantly a "good" country, who assists other nations in a positive way? Or is America an "evil" country who caused other nations harm, which is why this brutal attack happened? The assumption of what's good and evil in the article basically derives from a religious standpoint. Majority of the individuals who wrote the letters, perceive America as the "victim", rather then the enemy, due to them being the ones who suffered. It's not only against the law, but it's a crucial sin-"Not to Murder"-which is exactly what the hijackers did. This makes America appear as a "good" nation, while the terrorists emerge as "evil". This somewhat influenced the perspectives of the individuals, since they view the hijackers as culprits who "murdered", but not as individuals who were angered by the treatment they received from America.
Even though the actions of the hijackers were an act of evil, America isn't an exemplary nation. Few letters demonstrate that "power" is a source of evil, since what happened on September 11th 2001 was a method to acquire supremacy. America mainly gained their political and economical status by being a "power hungry" country. By gaining such power, America too acted out immorality, such as bombing other nations, and forming US policies in foreign countries, which was used as a method to achieve sovereignty. Ingibjorg and Juergen Dudek establish the fact that America manipulated their power, to benefit only Americans, but not all countries internationally-this is an evil method. America substantially bettered their country, by harming others.
In the first letter, it suggests that America appears to be "good" and Muslims are "evil", which is why Muhammed Siddique feels obligated to protect Islam. When America attacked other countries they were publicized and presented as being "heroic figures", but when a few Muslims execute out an evil act, all Muslims get rationalized for being "immoral." In the past, America has killed numerous innocent civilians, but they are praised and awarded, well the hijackers are viewed as "villains." It becomes obvious that majority of the letters suggested the Hijackers were evil, and the Americans were "righteous", but what has to be questioned is, why did the hijackers actually bomb America? Was it a form of revenge (a form of evil)? Or was it simply that they just had enough of America abusing their superiority, especially on their people?
