Amber:

If I was a victim of rape I would want the rapist to be prosecuted. I would not hold the rapist's family or neighborhood responsible. I would not want the police to shoot his neighbors' children during attempts to capture him. While I waited for the police to arrest the rapist, I would be asking myself questions like "why do men rape?" "Are there ways to prevent rapes before they happen?" "Are there dynamics in our social system which create a tendency toward rape?" I would feel a deep concern for any woman in the world who had experienced the same personal violation that I had. Obviously, just capturing rapists does not stop rapes from occurring. One in four women are sexually assaulted by the age of 24. I'm glad the rapists that are caught are in prison, but I want my daughter to grow up without risking a 25 percent chance of being sexually assaulted simply for being a female.

What I am trying to say is that I most definitely want the terrorists behind 9/11 to have a criminal trial. I have no desire to have a diplomatic relationship with the individuals who violently killed my husband and I certainly could not be part of a group hug involving bin Laden. I want those individuals brought to justice, but like the rapist, the terrorists are part of deeper issues. We can't effectively stop rape and terrorism without looking past the individual. There is no way we can capture every terrorist and every rapist, especially before they kill or rape. So why not look at ways to eradicate terror and stop the cycle of violence?

Ryan:

There is a lot of confusion surrounding the logic of those who criticize the current methods of the "war on terrorism," so I'm glad to have a chance to explain. Although I can't speak for the entire "peace movement," I can tell you what I think.

You made an analogy comparing terrorists to bank robbers and rapists. Although the simplicity of your analogy defies the complexity of the situation, let's go with it for now. Rapists and bank robbers are criminals, and they should be treated as such. They should be arrested and tried in a court of law, not only for the purpose of assuring that no innocent people are punished, but also to ensure the right of victims to see the criminals brought to justice through legitimate means. In the case of the current methods of the "war on terrorism," I would like to see the establishment of an international tribunal on crimes against humanity committed on September 11. Instead, it is more like a lynch mob has formed. I'm not focused on bin Laden, but under the current strategy of brute force and unilateralism, I don't even know if he is dead or alive. The disappointment compounds exponentially knowing thousands more innocent people have been killed. That doesn't seem like true justice to me.

Our position is not about group hugs, as you say. It is unfortunate that many have done so little research as to believe this nonsense. Speaking for myself, I want an end to indiscriminate bombing in order to catch individuals. Bombing known terrorist camps may be necessary, but using bombs to destroy the homes of individual targets within villages where innocent people abound is a horrible mistake. I've met one Afghan-American who has lost 19 of her extended family when a stray bomb killed them all. A much better way to catch these individuals is to put massive resources into police and intelligence strategies.

The next analogy you make is comparing terrorists to the Nazis. Remember that the power of Hitler was born out of the turmoil left in Germany after the First World War. That war was supposed to be "the war to end all wars," but it was actually the beginning of the bloodiest century of war in history. Let's not make the same mistake by thinking that war can bring lasting peace. Let's not give murderous figureheads like bin Laden a base of mainstream support by creating additional turmoil in the Middle East.

Many warniks, if you will, criticize any attempt to understand the motivation behind the terrorists' actions. What's wrong with understanding? Don't you need to understand the situation first before you can analyze it and formulate a rational and effective course of action? To insist that their motivations were just simple "evil" and a desire to kill all Americans just because they don't like us is to defy rationality. If we are not rational, then we base our actions on emotion, which in this case is fear, pride, and anger. These kind of emotions are not likely to lead to an effective response.

Bringing individual terrorists to justice is only half the equation. The other half of the "war on terrorism" is to eliminate the base of support for violent fanatics such as Osama bin Laden. The most important factor determining people's will to commit acts of terrorism against the United States is the perceptions that others hold. Terrorism is a response to real or perceived injustice, and our struggle against terrorism should acknowledge that. If we are not sensitive to and compassionate of people's perceptions of United States policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, we can expect terrorist attacks. Stopping terrorism means putting an end to the hatred that fuels it.

After our country has been so viciously assaulted, it does not seem like a time for worrying about what others think of us. We have a right to be angry, and we have a right to seek punishment for those who are responsible for the attack. However, we should not do this in a manner that compromises our security. Despite the violation that has been wrought against us, our image is still a matter of life and death.

Many Americans fail to understand outside perceptions of America, and many more fail to comprehend the dynamics that shape this perception. "Why do they hate us so much?" was a question many of us asked ourselves immediately after the attack.

The official story is that jealousy for our wealth, and religious intolerance for our freedom was the foundation of hate that inspired the 9/11 attack. That's a plausible theory, but it doesn't match up with the facts. The facts indicate that foreign policy in the Middle East is the main grievance the region holds against the United States. Listen to what those who hate the United States have to say. They make it clear. They want the United States to change some of its policies in the region. It's that simple.

While the hate is condemnable, the reasons for the hate are understandable. The U.S. is viewed as another colonial power in the Middle East. First, it was the French, then the British, the Soviets, and now the United States. Our power in the region is not seen as benevolent. Edward Peck, the former Ambassador to Iraq and Deputy Director of President Reagan's Task Force on Terrorism remarked that the U.S. has had a long history of supporting the violation of human rights around the world. Grievances against the United States from mainstream Middle-Easterners include the unconditional support Israel has received from the U.S. in its treatment of the Palestinians through vast amounts of finance and armaments; the death of over 500,000 innocent civilians in Iraq, most of them children, as a result of 11 years of U.S.-led sanctions; the forced placement of the Shah of Iran by the United States; and in some cases, the reign of modern, centralized economic markets imposed by the West over more traditional economic practices in the Middle East. To acknowledge these facts is not blaming the United States, it is understanding the situation.

Although the majority of Middle-Easterners condemn the violent tactics used by the terrorists behind the attack of 9/11, the cause behind their actions has a dangerous base of mainstream support. As long as mainstream Middle-Easterners feel unfairly treated by the United States, there will be extreme individuals who turn these grievances into hate and that hate into terrorism. Reasonable objections to perceived injustices can easily turn into unreasonable acts of violence.

Comprehensive anti-terrorism policy must confront the hate that gives rise to terrorism, and it must confront the political dynamic that gives rise to the hate. The current course of the "war on terrorism" is not only absent of this strategy, it rejects it. The insistence from the Bush Administration that the cause behind the terrorists' actions was a religious disapproval of our freedoms escapes the truth. They attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon because they are symbols of America's economic and military might, forces they feel threatened by. Whether or not the negative perceptions held against the United States are right or wrong, anti-terrorism policy must acknowledge these perceptions.

P.S. In response to your comment about thanking veterans, I want to say, thank you. I respect and admire the individuals who put their life on the line for the freedoms we share. That does not mean, however, that I must support the politicians who risk the lives of American soldiers to cosmetically appease the outraged public while doing little to substantively fight terrorism. Some in the military have remarked that people like us speak for them while they have no voice to caution the public about the dangerous methods our leaders follow. This is my way to honor them, as well as my brother Craig.