Voice over:
On September 11th 2001 the USA was attacked by terrorists. Four planes were hijacked and 2 of them flown into buildings, including the twin towers of the world trade centre in New York.
Nearly 3000 people were killed.
How should the United States have responded?
Patrick:You cannot let someone come to your country and attack you on that level and do nothing.
Voice over:
But doesn’t violence just lead to more violence?
Terry:
There are other better, more effective, non-violent ways to respond to conflict, we also have to work for peace in this world.
Voice over:
What’s your opinion?
What situations, if any, justify taking military action?
Here are two personal perspectives on the question of, 'When is it right to go to war?'
Patrick:
My name’s Patrick Nelson and I believe sometimes going to war is necessary for the greater good.
When September 11th happened I was 18 years old. All day we just watched on the television as events unfolded. To see those images – that’s just something that’s going to haunt me for the rest of my life. I remember thinking in my head ‘We’re under attack’ and there’s people dying right now and here I am going to college and I can’t do anything about it. And so 2 days after the attacks I dropped out of college to join the army full time.
To me it was a no brainer that something needed to be done – you cannot let someone come to your country and attack you on that level and do nothing. I believe the reaction that we had by going into Afghanistan was necessary. The ultimate aim of attacking Afghanistan was to get the Taliban out of power while at the same time to decimate the Al-Qaeda network that Osama Bin Laden had set up in the country.
I believe war is justified when somebody else attacks you and you need to be able to respond to that. I do not believe that innocents being killed or infrastructure being destroyed is a reason not to go to war. You never want to kill innocents but if you look at every war from the past there’s always been collateral damage like that.
War is chaotic.
I spent 27 months in Afghanistan. The ultimate aim of war is to have peace. It is a contradiction. War is very violent, it’s not peaceful.But at the same time it might be necessary in order to have peace. The sacrifice of the military unfortunately is necessary.
I ended up being wounded by a rocket. Two soldiers were killed, and 8 of us were wounded. The two that were killed were standing right next to me. And when I got out I ended up having two different surgeries on my shoulder, I got prescribed painkillers for almost 5 years, just to help me try and numb the pain.
On September 11th, they deliberately attacked innocent civilians. They didn’t even try to attack military bases.
If someone deliberately attacks you and you know exactly who it is, diplomacy’s not going to work already because it must have failed. There’s a lot of naïve people out there who think that diplomacy’s going to work all the time.
In my heart I wish it did. I wish we didn’t have to go and fire bullets at people and to take their lives, but at the same time there are certain people that you just cannot negotiate with.
Voice over:
Debates about the rights and wrongs of war have been going on for centuries. Here’s another perspective…
Terry:
My name’s Terry and I believe war is never the solution to a crisis or conflict.
On the morning of September 11th by the time we’d turned on the Television a second plane had hit the south tower, and at that point it was just clear that something really awful had happened.
A friend called me to say that she was really afraid that my younger sister had been working that day at the world trade centre.Knowing that she’d been on the 106th floor there was no hope that she had survived.
My world began to fall apart, I mean it was incomprehensible. I was just profoundly sad that I would never see her again.
There were people throughout America who felt that revenge was necessary and that scared me a great deal.
The last thing I wanted was war.
Of course I felt anger but I didn’t want to do anything violent with that anger. We had experienced a horrific crime. But the response to crime is to find the criminals, arrest them and then to bring them to justice.
The start of the bombing in Afghanistan was like getting punched in the stomach. I could feel from thousands of miles away that there were people who were going to wake up the next morning and be suffering grief like mine. My issue was we weren’t going to war with the people who had attacked us, we had not been attacked by a nation. And it was potentially making people hate America. And it was people hating America who had produced the problem to begin with.
A number of 911 family members came together and created an organization called ‘September 11 families for Peaceful Tomorrows’.I wanted to use my voice to oppose war and oppose violence.
There are other better, more effective, non-violent ways to respond to conflict. The only way to end war is through diplomacy, by talking with our enemies.
Why don’t we use the same means to avoid war in the first place? We have places like the united nations where we can sit and talk and resolve our differences.
Going to the memorial, seeing Laura’s name in the middle of so many names reminds me of why I think the search for peace and the opposition to war is important.
We recall the enormity of the attack, the horror of the attack.
Those who say that ending war is naïve are taking a very short term view, because one war leaves behind its victims. And their suffering festers and leads to new instances of violence.
Now, with the war in Afghanistan being the longest war in American history, I find that people are actually saying ‘Hmm, maybe it wasn’t the right thing’.
I continue to hope that we find ways to think about how to respond to that attack. We can’t pretend that violence will end terrorism. We also have to work for peace in this world.
Voice over:
Representatives of different faiths and beliefs were asked how they felt about the issue of war.
Khola:
So generally what we say is let’s try for peace first but sometimes there are tyrants out there.
If a people are being oppressed, if they are being persecuted and if they are being starved by either their leader or outside forces then it is the duty of those people to rise up themselves and god asks other people around them to help them as well to fight against their oppressors because god wants people to live in peace and safety in their own countries.
David:
The teaching of Jesus is that you should turn the other cheek and that we turn to violence too easily, but also that there is a place for violence on behalf of a community, if it’s used in a restrictive way, in order to protect people from the violence of others.Our tendency is to be too violent and it’s useful to remind people not to react because people over react and there tends to be a cycle of violence.
Jonathan:
The Jewish approach to the concept of war needs to begin with the importance of peace. The prayer for peace is the ultimate prayer of every single Jewish service and we are taught to seek peace and to pursue it. Having said that, Judaism does not regard all war as invariably and always wrong. Particularly that refers to wars of necessary self-defence.
When there is clearly recognizable evidence of the intent to attack and destroy, particularly directed against civilians, against non combatants then one can argue that action taken against them is effectively self defence and necessary.
We don’t have the right to exact vengeance. And vengeance, in quotes, ‘belongs to god’ in other words it is a terrible motivator and a dangerous motivator of human actions.
Zoe:
I think terrorism becomes an issue of just plain legality. If you murder an innocent person you’re a murderer and you should be tried as a murderer. If there is a political basis for your views then you need to be engaged with politically. People with a grievance against a government will keep coming back to fight that government. You can quash them and you can suppress them and you can attack them and you can kill them, but if they have a point then they will keep coming back.
Jay:
Hinduism recognizes that society can sometimes only resolve it’s differences through violence, it’s a sad thing to admit. Sometimes it is inevitable, if I can use the word, at the same time you see the same religion promoting the idea of resisting injustice in a non-violent manner, the example of Gandhi.
As humanity has evolved it’s become more civilized. You can resolve conflict in a more humane manner, without resorting to violence. So this is the evolving face of Hinduism.
Dianna:
Is war just, and is war justified, is something that all Christian churches have been discussing for quite some time. And what we have at the moment is a reliance on the Just War argument. That a war is waged by a legitimate authority, that it has a potential for success, that the immediate goal is peace, that it’s proportional and that non combatants may not be killed, or killed as little as possible. The issue about whether or not to go to war then would depend on, for those that follow the Just War argument, depend on all those factors coming into play.
Geshi:
If you ask me if there’s any circumstances that war can be justified my answer is no. Because as human beings we have this great intelligence and great tools to communicate to matter how difficult no matter how problematic the other side, there’s no justification under any circumstances going into war.
Voice over:
You’ve now heard two very personal views on this question – from Patrick and from Terry - and a range of other beliefs as well.
So what do you think?
When is it right to go to war?
Video summary
Patrick was 18 years old when New York was attacked on September 11 2001.
As a direct result of those events, he left his college course and joined the US Army, believing that this was the best way to defend his country.
Terry lost her younger sister in those same attacks, but she believes that war is never the solution to conflict, and continuously campaigns for peace today.
The film poses the question: When is it right to go to war?
The issue of war has been debated for centuries. The United Nations was formed in the aftermath of WW2 and one of its fundamental aims was world peace. Nevertheless, there have been continued incidences of conflict within the international community.
Increased military spending within the UK calls into question the future use of such resources. Under what circumstances could it be considered right to go to war?
This short film is based around the example of the 9/11 terror attacks, asking how the USA should have responded to the tragedy. It explores the moral and practical issues of war, from both religious and non-religious perspectives. It provides students with the opportunity to evaluate a range of beliefs, prior to consolidating their own viewpoint.
This clip is taken from the BBC Two series, Matters of life and death.
PLEASE NOTE: THIS FILM CONTAINS UPSETTING SCENES. TEACHER REVIEW IS RECOMMENDED PRIOR TO USE IN CLASS.
Teacher Notes
The clip provides two contrasting views regarding war.
Patrick is a war veteran who fought in the conflict between the USA and Afghanistan. He was 18 at the time of the terror attack on the World Trade Centre. He felt powerless watching events unfold on his television. Patrick was so incensed by the tragic events that he left college and joined the army, two days after it happened. He believes that war is justified if it is in response to an attack. Killing innocent citizens and damaging infrastructure is not, in his view, a reason to avoid conflict, as every war results in a degree of collateral damage. Although using violence to establish peace seems a contradiction, he believes it is necessary. Patrick was wounded during the conflict and two of his comrades were killed by his side. Despite this, he is certain that going to war was the right course of action.
Terry believes that war is never the answer. She lost her younger sister in the 9/11 attacks and describes her whole world falling apart as a result. The loss made her feel incomprehensible sadness and anger. However, she did not wish to do anything violent in response. Terry believes that, in the case of such a horrific crime, the correct action would have been to find those responsible, arrest them and bring them to justice. She describes how, when the bombing started in Afghanistan, she felt as if she had been punched in the stomach – she knew that the next day people would be waking up to experience grief in the same way she had. The citizens were not to blame for 9/11 and the wrong people were being punished. In addition, she believed that the war would make people hate America and it was hate which had caused the initial problem. Terry believes that it is short-sighted to think that violence will solve conflict long-term. War leaves behind victims, their suffering festers and this leads to more violence long-term. Terry believes that there are better, non-violent, diplomatic ways to solve conflict. We should be sitting down together, talking and resolving our differences, rather than going to war.
The clip concludes with representatives from various faiths and humanist societies, explaining their views on conflict and linking them to their belief systems.
Before watching the film:
Issues addressed within the clip may well personally affect students within the classroom.
You should preview the footage, to familiarise yourself with the content and enable you to pre-warn students of its sensitive nature. Specifically, the clip contains personal testimony relating to the 9/11 terror attacks, war and grief, as well as to the war in Afghanistan. You will need to approach with sensitivity and remind pupils to be empathetic towards others where there are differing viewpoints.
You may find it useful to introduce or revisit ‘ethics’ prior to watching the clip. You may wish to explore the following:
- What is an ‘ethical issue’?
- What should form the basis of our ‘ethical decisions’?
- Historical context with reference to the events of 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan.
- Discussion of key terms such as terrorism, justice and diplomacy.
During clip:
You may find it beneficial to pause the video to check for understanding. The following questions make useful discussion points:
- What impact did 9/11 have on the USA and the global community?
- Who do you think was to blame for 9/11?
- Do you think that the correct response to 9/11 was to go to war with Afghanistan?
- Should citizens be considered as an acceptable part of collateral damage?
- Is the death of citizens ever avoidable within war?
- Is it right that the Afghan citizens suffered because of the actions of the terrorists who committed 9/11?
- Is America safer because of military action taken in Afghanistan?
- How might those who fought in Afghanistan feel about the war now?
- Should revenge ever be a reason for war?
- Does violence ever resolve an issue?
- What diplomatic methods could be used to resolve a conflict without the need for war?
- How does Terry feel about the war in Afghanistan and why?
- What do you think accounts for Patrick and Terry’s difference in opinions?
- Is war in self-defence justifiable, even if innocents are hurt?
- Should there be rules under which war is fought?
- Is it our duty to fight against oppressors to protect others?
Following on:
You could support students in consolidating their learning, deepening their understanding of the issue and applying exam skills in context. Suggested tasks:
- Lead a class discussion or debate around the question ‘Under what circumstances is it right to go to war?’. This could be informal or more structured. The class could be divided into smaller groups and students could be asked to research arguments to represent a particular viewpoint e.g. Humanist, Hindu, Sikh. Alternatively, students could be asked to do their own independent research with some guidance, in order to participate in a free-flowing debate. This could also be carried out in the form of a ‘silent’ debate, having students write down their responses on large sheets of paper or tables. Students could be encouraged to respond to each other to develop evaluative skills.
- Give students examples of conflict, both current and historical. Ask them to apply just war criteria to assist them in deciding whether each one was or is justifiable. Present facts and statistics relating to the war in Syria and ask students to decide which action the United Nations should take in trying to resolve this current conflict.
- Ask students to research ways in which religious and non-religious organisations have helped victims of war. Identify reasons why action has been taken and evaluate the extent to which we have a duty to help others in this way.
- Consider wider issues relating to conflict such as the use of weapons of mass destruction and the UK’s nuclear capabilities. Students could debate the morality of using such weapons and discuss how conflict has changed over the years. They could study Hiroshima and Nagasaki to reflect further on the ethics of war.
- In relation to religious responses, students could be presented with a collection of scripture or religious teachings relating to the religions which they are required to study. This could be in the form or a card sort (separating those arguments for and against) and they could then be asked to explain the rationale behind their choices.
- Organise and deliver a carousel task, allowing students to collate information regarding different religious viewpoints. This could be related to specific questions or they could be asked to fill out a grid which they could use to compare beliefs.
- Facilitate an in-depth study into one religious perspective (individually or in groups) and present this to the class who could take notes.
- Ask students to consider conflict resolution strategies and evaluate them. They could look at the United Nations and how effective it has been in maintaining peace using diplomatic methods.
- Students could be asked to complete a ‘Venn Diagram’ in which they identify similarities and differences between two religious viewpoints.
This short film will be relevant for teaching Religious Studies.
This topic appears in OCR, Edexcel, AQA, WJEC KS4/GCSE in England and Wales, CCEA GCSE in Northern Ireland and SQA National 4/5 in Scotland.
Is it ever right to experiment on animals? video
Christina's and James' life experiences have left them on different sides of this debate. Representatives of different faiths and religions are also featured, explaining their perspectives on animal testing.
Is it okay to have a child to save another? video
We hear from two people with opposing views before representatives of different faiths and religions explain their perspectives.
What are the rights and wrongs of abortion? video
An exploration of some of the ethical and moral questions around the issue of abortion, focusing on Anna and Marie, whose life experiences have left them on contrasting sides of the debate.
What are the rights and wrongs of the death penalty? video
An exploration of the ethics around capital punishment. Representatives of different faiths and religions explain their perspective on the death penalty.
