Use of Violence?

A common thread linking both articles is of course the legitimacy of the use of violence: when one's land is being infringed upon, hence a threat to one's sovereignty, and when terrorists posed a threat to the nation's security.
Article 1 can be seen in the context of the ongoing territorial disputes between China and Japan over Diaoyu/Senkaku Island, except that of course in the case of article 1, the invading force does not represent a country but is more like a terrorist group.
Article 2 can be likened to the infamous Abu Ghraib (see HERE) and Guantanamo Bay (don't be lazy! go google it yourself). The former is the prison in Iraq where the UN kept the prisoners of war, whereas the second is a detention camp where suspected terrorists were kept by the US. Both are a blight on the western powers as there were allegations and evidence that torture was used on the prisoners and detainees to extract information from them. There're even a few Hollywood movies on the Guantanamo Bay.
As in the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo cases, Article 2 also brought up importance of the watchdog role of social media in bringing to light the atrocities committed by influential governments or organisations. Through this watchdog role, there will be public pressure exacted on the relevant parties to toe the line and keep their excesses in check.


Sample Qn:
1) 'With great power comes great responsibility.' Do you agree? [think in terms of not just the government here in their handling of terrorists, but also the power of social media]
2) 'The use of force is the only means to resolve territorial conflicts.' Do you agree?
3) Is violence ever justified? (2012)

article 1



article 2a

article 2b