n country.If the U.S. principles of retaliation were to be applied to other situations, then allaround the world there are countries that have a perfect right to bomb Washington. Forinstance, there were reports that a Miami-based organization was involved in bombingsin Cuba that claimed civilian lives. According to U.S. justification, Cuba would have theright to drop bombs in Washington. But these principles of retaliation only apply to thestrong, and it states that the strong are allowed to attack the weak and defenseless anytime they want. In response to terrorism, further terrorism is not authorized. According to the UNCharter, it is clear that this use of violence is blatantly illegal. Law-abiding states shouldrefrain from using violence and try to prosecute the perpetrators of terrorist attacks,rather than resorting to the same tactics. People who carry out terrorist attacks areculpable and should be punished just like any other crime. The way to deal with theperpetrators of such violence is to gather evidence, track them down and seek extraditionfor trial. There is little evidence that this type of retaliation accomplishes any concreteactions that would have effects on combating terrorism. The U.S. bombings only serve asretaliation. The American people want to feel a sense of security that these terrorists havebeen punished, and they are no longer wreaking havoc. If it takes the use of violence togive Americans peace of mind, the U.S. will bomb any country for revenge and as a showof power. The U.S. is the only remaining superpower, and there is no question that it canthrow its weight around. The question is, are such attacks productive, are they actuallygoing to reduce terrorism? In this case, the U.S. is trying to solve violence with violence,fighting fire with fire. It does not make sense to use terrorist tactics in a war againstterrorism. ...
