NationStates Jolt Archive

I think I still believe in cause and effect (by which I mean that things that happen happen because of definable reasons).
So. . . what causes terrorism, and how should it be addressed? Is military resolution (War on Terror) the best way to solve it? If not, how?

I think I still believe in cause and effect (by which I mean that things that happen happen because of definable reasons).
So. . . what causes terrorism, and how should it be addressed? Is military resolution (War on Terror) the best way to solve it? If not, how?
Depends on the terrorist. Al Quaeda is motivated by the desire to bring down governments in the muslim world, preferably Saudi Arabia, and establish a theocracy according to their vision of Islam on that territory, then use their wealth and power to bring more territory under their control. You solve that by killing off those who've already committed to Al Quaeda, and offering muslim people who haven't joined Al Quaeda a better option.

Okay, but Al-Qaeda was (I think) originally formed to fight the Russians in their invasion of Afghanistan, and was supported by the US as part of the Cold War. I think a lot of other terror networks got started the same way- they got funding from the US or USSR as cold-war pawns, and then found themselves armed and dangerous in impoverished countries with an aptitude for religious fundamentalism. They simply evolved to meet changing times. Therefore, it seems to me, the way to fight them is to create a world political climate where terrorists do not emerge. I just don't know how to do that, and I strongly suspect the "war on terror" is not the solution.

Okay, but Al-Qaeda was (I think) originally formed to fight the Russians in their invasion of Afghanistan, and was supported by the US as part of the Cold War. I think a lot of other terror networks got started the same way- they got funding from the US or USSR as cold-war pawns, and then found themselves armed and dangerous in impoverished countries with an aptitude for religious fundamentalism. They simply evolved to meet changing times. Therefore, it seems to me, the way to fight them is to create a world political climate where terrorists do not emerge. I just don't know how to do that, and I strongly suspect the "war on terror" is not the solution.
Since different terrorists are motivated by different things it's probably not possible to create a "world political climate where terrorists dont' emerge". Some terrorists are criminals plain and simple, some are fighting for the betterment of their people's lot (these you could probably address politically), some are just plain crazy (unabomber anybody?), and some are motivated by what they think is the word of god. Good luck trying to prevent the latter type from comming around now and then. All you can do is stamp them out when they arise.

Since different terrorists are motivated by different things it's probably not possible to create a "world political climate where terrorists dont' emerge". Some terrorists are criminals plain and simple, some are fighting for the betterment of their people's lot (these you could probably address politically), some are just plain crazy (unabomber anybody?), and some are motivated by what they think is the word of god. Good luck trying to prevent the latter type from comming around now and then. All you can do is stamp them out when they arise.

Sorry, I phrased that wrong. I should have said "terrorist networks don't emerge" the lone criminal/crazy is sadly not likely to be solved by anyone anytime soon. But, he only gets supporters if a climate is produced where he seems reasonable (for instance, Nazism's rapid rise in Germany).
As for fundamentalists, increased education (particularly in secular societies) tends to reduce the rate of occurence.
Or am I an idealistic pipe-dreamer?

I think I still believe in cause and effect (by which I mean that things that happen happen because of definable reasons).
So. . . what causes terrorism, and how should it be addressed? Is military resolution (War on Terror) the best way to solve it? If not, how?

As far as I can see, terrorism is caused by people holding radically opposed and immovable beliefs. These beliefs have to be directly opposed to some identifiable group: ETA - The Spanish, IRA - Protestantism in NI, AL Quaeda - The US as representative of an alien value system.

What can be done about it? In the long run, education changes will resolve the problem by allowing a pluralistic view, but this is slow and is nearly always fighting an uphill battle against community values. In the short term. Financial action, cutting of all and any financial support, combined with targeted military action to capture/remove leaders seems to be the best method.

Sorry, I phrased that wrong. I should have said "terrorist networks don't emerge" the lone criminal/crazy is sadly not likely to be solved by anyone anytime soon. But, he only gets supporters if a climate is produced where he seems reasonable (for instance, Nazism's rapid rise in Germany).
As for fundamentalists, increased education (particularly in secular societies) tends to reduce the rate of occurence.
Or am I an idealistic pipe-dreamer?
No, not a pipe dreamer. We could do better in terms of giving people better options than joining terrorist organizations. The more education people get the less likely they are to try to do god's will by crashing a plane into a building, so funding good, secular education worldwide would go a long way towards solving the problem.

What it means is that when you recruit people to fight a war's dirty business for you, when the war's over, you need to collect them and shoot them into a ditch.

If you don't, they will have learned to love the sight of blood and misery, and will seek a cause - any cause - in order to relive that experience.

It explains Timothy McVeigh, and Osama.

What it means is that when you recruit people to fight a war's dirty business for you, when the war's over, you need to collect them and shoot them into a ditch.

If you don't, they will have learned to love the sight of blood and misery, and will seek a cause - any cause - in order to relive that experience.

It explains Timothy McVeigh, and Osama.

So the World Wars, and to a lesser extent, Vietnam, are responsible for a large chunk of the violence that we've seen this century?

If there isn't a social pattern for them to fit into when they get home, yes.

What do terrorists do when they retire?

Rob banks?

Find another cause?

Become serial killers?

If there isn't a social pattern for them to fit into when they get home, yes.

What do terrorists do when they retire?

Rob banks?

Find another cause?

Become serial killers?

Depends. If they play their political cards right, their leader gets to be President (see the KLA, or for that matter Arafat, Karzi (he was a warlord), and a whole bunch of others), and they get to be the new army.

Depends. If they play their political cards right, their leader gets to be President (see the KLA, or for that matter Arafat, Karzi (he was a warlord), and a whole bunch of others), and they get to be the new army.

You just have to be careful where the used men end up.

Whispering legs here has a very valid point. Using foreign agents of any kind instead of doing your own work has potential problems in the long-term.

History is filled with examples of generals, advisors, and other agents who caused as much trouble or more themselves as the problem they were sent to fix. There are many ways to minimize those risks.

1) Keep them busy: Never give your agents a chance to plan against you, keep them running errands, fixing problems, keep them organized and under your thumb. Requires a significant hands-on approach, where one must keep alert to their subordinate's activities.

2) Kill them: When you're done using them, arrange to have the entire group killed. Hard to pull off successfully if its a large group, lowers the amount of trust the world has in you when recruiting future agents. If done right, completely eliminates the problem, and the problems that might arise in the future.

3) Reward them (tie them down): Pension them off, give them land, estates, political entrenchment, but no authority or power to project. Keep them focused on defending their gains, make them dependant on you for protection. Its still possible they may go rouge, but makes them more vunerable if they do than someone without ties to land or property. This is quite different than keeping them busy, in the sense that you can more or less ignore them until they cause trouble.

See? Its possible, but you have to construct the scenerio well. If something falls through, it would be easy to duplicate the mistakes of the past.