NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the right solution to terrorism?
Since 9/11, America has fought a "war on terrorism," wich has basically resulted in lots of civillian casualties. Is there another way? What is the right thing to do?

Eliminate the root causes of terrorism. This varies depending on the terrorists you are talking about. In iraq, the root cause is US occupation. In Israel, the root cause is a failure to come to an agreement on a free Palestinian state. In Colombia the root causes are poverty, exploitation of the poor, and a huge gap between those who have money and those who do not. In the US, terrorism is most often a result of people who turned to extremist groups because they were unable to find acceptance in society in general. The root causes vary, but only by solving those problems at the core of society that are causing terrorism can you succeed in ending it.

As mentioned before, eliminate every one of the terrorists' proclaimed justifications. This does not mean appeasement, but to take care of the problems that they base their attacks on.

Eliminate the root causes of terrorism. This varies depending on the terrorists you are talking about. In iraq, the root cause is US occupation. In Israel, the root cause is a failure to come to an agreement on a free Palestinian state. In Colombia the root causes are poverty, exploitation of the poor, and a huge gap between those who have money and those who do not. In the US, terrorism is most often a result of people who turned to extremist groups because they were unable to find acceptance in society in general. The root causes vary, but only by solving those problems at the core of society that are causing terrorism can you succeed in ending it.
agreed - remove the causes and you remove the symptom. but i also think that violence begets violence. if our soldiers, in their eyes, murder civilians, then this can only serve to provoke a violent reaction. active anti-terroism can only breed further terrorism - for now we need to encourage diplomacy and stop the bloodshed

Economic development of third world and totalitarian countries.

Eliminate root causes. That means end poverty and grant political freedom. Yes, I am saying that the US must stop supporting dictatorships.

Terrorism will never end - there will always be a group of people who want something, or governments will use "terrorist threats" as a means on controlling people. No, I am not some weird conspiracy nut - but as long as there is the threat of terroism, there will be fear and fear is the ultimate form of control. In my opinion terrorism, or at least the threat of terrorism, will always exist.

Bugger, eh?

i'm pretty sure that one of the key steps is to stop issuing reports on the subject when they don't go your way.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002243262_terror16.html

implimentation of marxist ideals and socialist policies into western governments.

Stop participating in it. Or did you mean terorism directed at the U.S.? I think that would go down some too, or you could listen to the grievences of the world and not just say thet "they hate our freedom" because if they hate freedom they would have bombed Canada, or Denmark or the Ntherland, or any other country that is more free than the U.S., but the simplest and most effective way would be to not shoot Itallian journalists in the back while their on secure roads in the green zone, not bomb Al-Jazeera offices, not indiscriminately shoot Iraqis, not fund repressive regimes like Indonesia, turn over Luis Posada Carriles wanted for a 1976 airliner bombing, turn over hatian death squad leaders like Emmanuel Constant, and stop pretending that U.S. lives are worth more than everyone elses and that killing civillians is only terrorism when islamists do it.

Stop participating in it. Or did you mean terorism directed at the U.S.? I think that would go down some too, or you could listen to the grievences of the world and not just say thet "they hate our freedom" because if they hate freedom they would have bombed Canada, or Denmark or the Ntherland, or any other country that is more free than the U.S., but the simplest and most effective way would be to not shoot Itallian journalists in the back while their on secure roads in the green zone, not bomb Al-Jazeera offices, not indiscriminately shoot Iraqis, not fund repressive regimes like Indonesia, turn over Luis Posada Carriles wanted for a 1976 airliner bombing, turn over hatian death squad leaders like Emmanuel Constant, and stop pretending that U.S. lives are worth more than everyone elses and that killing civillians is only terrorism when islamists do it.

That would all be nice, but how do you figure it would end terrorism? Terrorism doesnt just involve the US.

That would all be nice, but how do you figure it would end terrorism? Terrorism doesnt just involve the US.
Likewise your post only adresses non-US terrorism. I think adressing the root causes you mentioned AND not participating in terrorism ourselves would have a drastic effect and make the world a much nicer place. I just feel it needs to be noted that the Unites states participate in and supports a fair share of the terrorism in the world and any solution that does not recognise this would only solve one side of the problem, and not solve it very well given that US terrorism is the major cause of hatred toward and desire to harm the United States and its citzens and allies.

Likewise your post only adresses non-US terrorism.
[snip]


My post addressed all terrorism. US sponsored terrorism has causes just like all other terrorism does. I am not going to begin listing the causes of all known terrorist movements because it would take for ever to list them all. But there is nothing special about US terrorism, it has its root causes that need to be addressed too.

My post addressed all terrorism. US sponsored terrorism has causes just like all other terrorism does. I am not going to begin listing the causes of all known terrorist movements because it would take for ever to list them all. But there is nothing special about US terrorism, it has its root causes that need to be addressed too.

I'm talking about state sponsored terrorism, the things the US government does. I thought you were only talking about things like the Oklahoma City bombing, acts by small groups and individuals. Sorry if I misunderstood. However there is something special about US terrorism, besides that it is usually passed off as defending freedom or ignored, and that is that for those of us in the United States and that is that we are supposed to be able to choose our leaders and tell them what to do so the first and easiest step if Americans are sincerely concerned about all forms of terrorism would be to tell the government to knock it off and then adress the actions of others. You know, sliver in another mans eye board in your own sort of thing.

I agree taking out Root Causes. Though I disagree to your root cause LazyHippies (Americans in Iraq). Imo, without America, we'll see racial fights amongst each other. Anyway, not to harbour on that, because this isn't about Iraq.

I don't think terrorism can ever be solved. As long as there's crazy unhappy people somewhere that would go as far fanatically to do something, we'll have terrorists.

What we can do is stop it from excalating into a worse situation. And in some cases, we have to send in the troops.

The solution certainly isn't to fund it (subtle message to all you irish-Americans out there who send subsidies to the IRA ;)) but it isn't to war against the nations that you suspect may harbour these terrorists. It needs to be a multinational criminal investigation- nations are terrorists and can hardly be blamed for the actions of a minority. That's why I feel so sorry for the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

You don't catch a crook with an army.

Stop participating in it. Or did you mean terorism directed at the U.S.? I think that would go down some too, or you could listen to the grievences of the world and not just say thet "they hate our freedom" because if they hate freedom they would have bombed Canada, or Denmark or the Ntherland, or any other country that is more free than the U.S.

To be fair, terrorists don't need to attack the Netherlands, Denmark, or any other European nation, since they're taking over demographically as it is. France is a prime example of this. They'll take over there without firing a shot. The Scandanavian countries are finding this out too.

Granted, the 'official' reasoning for, say, the bin Laden network usually has something to do with support for the Saudis and Israel (and sometimes oddball stuff like bombing Japan or hollywood movies), but we're not the only ones who support the Saudis, and bin Laden could've been much more effective in Saudi Arabia non-violently.. the U.S. is a great target if you're into fundraising.. Wahabis love to fight the Great Satan, much more than they like campaigning for local offices. Ultimately, Muslims are not gaining any traction in the U.S., demographically or politically, making terrorism much more desirable than with nations they're taking over anyway.

To be fair, terrorists don't need to attack the Netherlands, Denmark, or any other European nation, since they're taking over demographically as it is. France is a prime example of this. They'll take over there without firing a shot. The Scandanavian countries are finding this out too.

Granted, the 'official' reasoning for, say, the bin Laden network usually has something to do with support for the Saudis and Israel (and sometimes oddball stuff like bombing Japan or hollywood movies), but we're not the only ones who support the Saudis, and bin Laden could've been much more effective in Saudi Arabia non-violently.. the U.S. is a great target if you're into fundraising.. Wahabis love to fight the Great Satan, much more than they like campaigning for local offices. Ultimately, Muslims are not gaining any traction in the U.S., demographically or politically, making terrorism much more desirable than with nations they're taking over anyway.

The Christians are too strong?? :D

You don't catch a crook with an army.

Is it a crook with his own army?

I agree with eliminating the root causes. Obviously it isn't a simple task but it is possible and would be so worthwhile. I'd also agree with economic development of third world and totalitarian countries.

The Christians are too strong?? :D

No, but we have such massive non-Muslim immigration coming in every day, and no particularly generous allowances for immigration from Muslim countries.. we also have an increasing native population, as opposed to a sharp decline in every European country (other than Muslim Albania). The native population isn't converting at any significant rate, and Muslim immigrants never had a chance, basically.

What is the right solution to terrorism?
Since 9/11, America has fought a "war on terrorism," wich has basically resulted in lots of civillian casualties. Is there another way? What is the right thing to do?

Let me think on that for the day and I may have a solution worked out by tonight.

To be fair, terrorists don't need to attack the Netherlands, Denmark, or any other European nation, since they're taking over demographically as it is. France is a prime example of this. They'll take over there without firing a shot. The Scandanavian countries are finding this out too.

Granted, the 'official' reasoning for, say, the bin Laden network usually has something to do with support for the Saudis and Israel (and sometimes oddball stuff like bombing Japan or hollywood movies), but we're not the only ones who support the Saudis, and bin Laden could've been much more effective in Saudi Arabia non-violently.. the U.S. is a great target if you're into fundraising.. Wahabis love to fight the Great Satan, much more than they like campaigning for local offices. Ultimately, Muslims are not gaining any traction in the U.S., demographically or politically, making terrorism much more desirable than with nations they're taking over anyway.


Ah yes, the brown folk are outbreeding the pure races again. And what of all the terrorism perpetrated by the United States. I'm not talking about Ossama I'm talking about Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, Iraq. Overthrow of democratic governments like Iran in 53 Haiti just recently, the coup attempt in Venezuela. T Western Hemisphere Institute For Security Cooperation. All the terrorist we train and supply that are never called terrorists and all the terrorist actions of the united states that never get called terrorism.

A few thigns that we should do:

Get rid of religion. Seriously, what the hell. It looks all peachy keen, but religon is a major source of conflict. Jews, Muslims, and Christains all going after the same holy city, anyone? Along with stupid **** like the KKK, people who want to ban gay marriage because "god says its wrong", people who assume that anyone who doesn't follow their religion is a heathen and must be either saved(ie. converted) or killed, people who halt progress because it contradicts their religion(Dark Ages, anyone?), hippocrites who preach stuff about peace and love then turn around and start shouting all sorts of pro-war stuff, and basically people who discriminate against other people and act stupid because "god told me to". Unless people suddenly start practicing the "get along, make peace not war" stuff instead of just preaching it, religion is NOT helping.

Stop giving the rich people breaks and start giving stuff to the poor. The rich won't like it, but who gives a damn about them? The important thing is trying to improve life for as many people as possible so that they're happy, and thus won't vent their frustrations through violence.

Don't go to war just because one group decided to terrorize your country. All that does is make more people pissed off at you that weren't angry with you before. Diplomacy, people! Try TALKING THINGS OUT rather than slaughtering other people form the get-go. If things don't work out and there's a very large threat, go ahead, but keep casualties on BOTH sides to a minimum, if possible. And don't kill civilians and destrony non-military infastructure. That just makes the citizens hate you even MORE.

What is the right solution to terrorism?
Since 9/11, America has fought a "war on terrorism," wich has basically resulted in lots of civillian casualties. Is there another way? What is the right thing to do?
Kill every last one of them. Make it untenable for a government to harbor terrorist activity within it's borders. This is a "street fight" and only winning matters.

What is the right solution to terrorism?
Since 9/11, America has fought a "war on terrorism," wich has basically resulted in lots of civillian casualties. Is there another way? What is the right thing to do?
I chose other. War on terrorism was too close to Bush's definition of war and his declaration that "either you are with us or against us". That is not the way to proceed. The UN should be the body that designates what "terrorism" is and formulate a plan that will combat "terrorism", in a collective spirit, and manner.

However, I find it ironic that the US vetoed (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm) this UN initiative:

1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.

Why did the Reagan/Bush administration veto this action?

What is the right solution to terrorism?
Since 9/11, America has fought a "war on terrorism," wich has basically resulted in lots of civillian casualties. Is there another way? What is the right thing to do?

Define "lots". It's a rather small number compared to previous wars where whole countries were conquered. Reall small, in fact, from a historical perspective. And both those countries now have new democratic governments.

Kill every last one of them. Make it untenable for a government to harbor terrorist activity within it's borders. This is a "street fight" and only winning matters.
Sounds like a pretty aggressive agenda. Who will make the list and who will carry out your plan?

Sounds like a pretty aggressive agenda. Who will make the list and who will carry out your plan?

I will.

I will.
Perhaps you could start with Bin Laden? I understand that Bush has been trying to "hunt down" Bin Laden for almost 4 years now? I guess Bush hasn't looked in enough caves or has been using the wrong kind of smoke?

Perhaps you could start with Bin Laden? I understand that Bush has been trying to "hunt down" Bin Laden for almost 4 years now? I guess Bush hasn't looked in enough caves or has been using the wrong kind of smoke?

Killing Bin Laden is not the solution to terrorism.

Consider: The US has interfered in a lot of places during the Cold War years, mostly to the detriment of those countries. Thus, we created the instability that is Afghanistan (along with the Soviets). We created Saddam. We created the reign of the mullahs in Iran. Terrorism breeds in those places.

Technically, it breeds in Eqypt as well - and we put Mubarak in power and keep him there. Bin Laden's right hand man came from Egypt.

We also put the Saudi princes in power (well, technically the UK did that, but we keep them there). That's where we got 19 hijackers.

So what the plan looks like is to go back to those countries one by one, and stamp out the breeding grounds. Do to them what we did to Germany and Japan.

It will take 50 years to see if it works. In the meantime, we keep alert and kill terrorists when we do find them. We seem to be doing that.

Even if you killed Bin Laden, it might be a bad idea. Then he would be a martyr - and you know that even if you showed his body to independent experts to verify it - al-Jazeera and the Arab street would NEVER believe it.

or Denmark or the Ntherland,
Heh, kept up with the news lately?

Perhaps you could start with Bin Laden? I understand that Bush has been trying to "hunt down" Bin Laden for almost 4 years now? I guess Bush hasn't looked in enough caves or has been using the wrong kind of smoke?
you realise that Bin Laden isnt the source of the worlds terrorism?

Al Quaeda themselves are probably only responsible for a small proportion of it

Get the international intelligence community to work more closely.

Give moeny and aid to those poorer countries so they can stand up to rogue elements within their countries.

To be fair, terrorists don't need to attack the Netherlands, Denmark, or any other European nation, since they're taking over demographically as it is. France is a prime example of this. They'll take over there without firing a shot. The Scandanavian countries are finding this out too.

Are you implying that muslims and arabs are all terrorists? Are you even aware at how bigotted this is?

Oh, and I voted other.

Eliminate root causes for terrorism and prosecute people guilty of criminal acts in fair and transparent trials.

you realise that Bin Laden isnt the source of the worlds terrorism?

Al Quaeda themselves are probably only responsible for a small proportion of it
Oh, I am quite aware of that fact, but it appears that Bush has an obsession with Bin Laden, even though the US has enabled terrorists worldwide.

Perhaps the most effective way to begin a campaign against terrorism, is to quit enabling them.

The US is the worlds largest arms supplier and perhaps should quit exporting terror that way? It would be a good start?

Oh, I am quite aware of that fact, but it appears that Bush has an obsession with Bin Laden, even though the US has enabled terrorists worldwide.

Perhaps the most effective way to begin a campaign against terrorism, is to quit enabling them.

The US is the worlds largest arms supplier and perhaps should quit exporting terror that way? It would be a good start?

You'll note that the typical terrorist doesn't use American arms.

You'll note that the typical terrorist doesn't use American arms.

What arms then does a 'typical' terrorist use? What makes them 'typical' of terrorists?

Isn't the presence of a terrorist rather a-typical? And other than that, East Canuck is right - the US is the world's greatest supplier of firearms, ammunition, and all the other sundry bits and pieces that make inert hunks of metal into inordinately well-designed tools for ending the lives of other human beings.

Why don't the Americans smarten up and stop dealing Death for a dollar?

What arms then does a 'typical' terrorist use? What makes them 'typical' of terrorists?

Isn't the presence of a terrorist rather a-typical? And other than that, East Canuck is right - the US is the world's greatest supplier of firearms, ammunition, and all the other sundry bits and pieces that make inert hunks of metal into inordinately well-designed tools for ending the lives of other human beings.

Why don't the Americans smarten up and stop dealing Death for a dollar?

The AKM, AK-47, and AKSU are the most popular "terrorist' weapons, along with pistols like the Makarov and Stechkin, and the most popular submachinegun is the CZ-25. Regardless of whether the "terrorist" is in Columbia, Ireland, the Middle East, or the Phillipines - whether they are Moslem or not.

The US sells mostly to established governments - not an altogether wise policy, since you never know what that government may do.

For one thing, I don't for a moment believe that selling India and Pakistan anything more lethal than a wrench is a good idea. If you consider that's how we got Saddam - by peddling to one side of a smouldering ash heap or another - then you don't want to do it.

The AK and its variants are popular because nearly 100 million of them are now in world circulation - the first 40 million or so by the former Soviet Union and the remainder largely by the Chinese, who make the most off of sales to "terrorist groups" today.

Eliminate the root causes of terrorism. This varies depending on the terrorists you are talking about. In iraq, the root cause is US occupation. In Israel, the root cause is a failure to come to an agreement on a free Palestinian state. In Colombia the root causes are poverty, exploitation of the poor, and a huge gap between those who have money and those who do not. In the US, terrorism is most often a result of people who turned to extremist groups because they were unable to find acceptance in society in general. The root causes vary, but only by solving those problems at the core of society that are causing terrorism can you succeed in ending it.
Yeah? Well, just how do you propose doing all this wonderfulness and at the same time, make terrorists stop killing people? Hmmm???

Kill every last one of them. Make it untenable for a government to harbor terrorist activity within it's borders. This is a "street fight" and only winning matters.
At last! Someone who understands! [ applauds ]

At last! Someone who understands! [ applauds ]

If only you could find them. Plus not many take you American's too kindly fighting in their streets. :p

Yeah? Well, just how do you propose doing all this wonderfulness and at the same time, make terrorists stop killing people? Hmmm???

No, Eutrusca - how would YOU do it?

I'm curious.

Yeah? Well, just how do you propose doing all this wonderfulness and at the same time, make terrorists stop killing people? Hmmm???

First off would be the ending of support to violent regimes. US/UK has historically provided military hardware and advisors to many, many violent and oppressive regimes. This policy has continued right through the fall of the USSR so the cold war arguments no longer apply. A couple examples off the top of my head are Uzbekistan and the military junta in Haiti. Doing so would do a lot to reduce resentment and anger over US/UK foreign policy.

Second, giving up on the War On Terrorism is a good idea. Waging war on a political technique doesn't make any sense. Especially when your government uses techniques that are arguably terrorist in their own right. Criminals should be arrested and charged as criminals, see the UK's treatment of the IRA, they didn't go and bomb Boston.

Those are the obvious first steps to dealing with terrorism since they don't rely upon control of others actions, just our own actions.

Kill every last one of them. Make it untenable for a government to harbor terrorist activity within it's borders. This is a "street fight" and only winning matters.
Every one that you kill, I bet that two more will be born. To most young guys these guys seem like martyrs and killing them will only inspire more people to fight back. Why keep attacking and making the people angrier when you can cut off the root of the problem?

Every one that you kill, I bet that two more will be born. To most young guys these guys seem like martyrs and killing them will only inspire more people to fight back. Why keep attacking and making the people angrier when you can cut off the root of the problem?
And just what is "the root of the problem," and how, pray tell, can it be "cut off?"

No, Eutrusca - how would YOU do it?

I'm curious.
I asked a question and would like an answer from any/all of you advocating taking a large paddle to a gun-fight.

"No, no, no! Bad terrorist! Daddy spank!" :rolleyes:

Eutrusca, how can you describe yourself in your sig as 'politically centrist', and yet you're publicly advocating (or publicly agreeing with an advocate for)street warfare in foreign, sovereign nations, and 'killing them (terrorists) all'.

How are you defining 'centrist', sir?

And just what is "the root of the problem," and how, pray tell, can it be "cut off?"
If more effort could be made into economically strengthening third world countries and compromises could be made in world hotspots (Israel/Palestine or Chechnya), I'm sure it would make a hell of a difference. I'll leave solving the problem to those who have the means to do so but I know that rushing in and firing clips isn't going to halt or at least slow down terrorism in the world.

I asked a question and would like an answer from any/all of you advocating taking a large paddle to a gun-fight.

"No, no, no! Bad terrorist! Daddy spank!" :rolleyes:

I wouldn't take a paddle to a gun-fight. I'd take a cel phone, I'd take a camera - I might even take a large bottle of booze and some fold-out chairs, who knows - but the last thing I'd bring would be something even remotely like a weapon.

With a cel phone I might be able to call the authorities and stop the gun-fight from happening.

With a camera I might be able to document the gun-battle.

With the booze and fold-out chairs I might be able to get both sides to sit down and talk out their troubles.

So, what's your solution, Eutrusca, to the ealier question?



*Oh, and pleeze do tell how you're politically centrist. I really, really would like you to tell me. In fact, I'm all ears.

And just what is "the root of the problem," and how, pray tell, can it be "cut off?"

Though I believe terrorism would never go away. But it's to minimize the damage and loss of life.

It really depends on what and where terror is happening. It's not all about Iraq. Some requires killing of the head, negotiation, probably even granting independence, or even building a wall.

*Oh, and pleeze do tell how you're politically centrist. I really, really would like you to tell me. In fact, I'm all ears.

Not all terrorists are rational. Hence force of weapons are needed in extreme cases.

Not all terrorists are rational. Hence force of weapons are needed in extreme cases.

Not all politicians are rational either, but you don't see any long daggers being pulled on Capitol Hill. Force of verbiage is needed in all cases, particularly in extreme cases. Resorting to violence is an admission of inability. It is the refuge of the incompetent.




*Oh, and Eutrusca, I'm still waiting on your definition of 'politically centrist' and how it applies to you.

Oh, and I voted other.

Eliminate root causes for terrorism and prosecute people guilty of criminal acts in fair and transparent trials.

Agreed!

The world needs more social justice, as well as terrorism will never end as long as the majority of the world lives in poverty, while the minority (mostly western countries) concentrate the majority of the world's wealth. As long as the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, there will be terrorism.

Then there is the religious factor. Most don't want to admit it, but it would certainly seem despite what politicians have said otherwise that a lot of this seems to be a war a lot about religion and that can't be ignored. People need to learn to respect ALL peoples' beliefs and or non-beliefs.

If more effort could be made into economically strengthening third world countries and compromises could be made in world hotspots (Israel/Palestine or Chechnya), I'm sure it would make a hell of a difference. I'll leave solving the problem to those who have the means to do so but I know that rushing in and firing clips isn't going to halt or at least slow down terrorism in the world.
i agree - its the long term approach vs the short term one.

short term: "terrorists are a problem. lets go invade their country and kill em all"
result: more terrorists, resent against the West, a damaged/destroyed country, infrastructure and economy of the invaded nation which has to be rebuilt at great cost. long term problems for a short term solution.

long term: "uh, oh! terrorists! lets spend our own time and resources in building a more equal world, starting with strengthening the economies of the 3rd world countries who produce/harbour terrorists and investing in education for all those countries' citizens. then, through reform, give them self-determination. in time they'll realise what they are doing is stupid & achieves nothing, and will be able to use democratic process to get themselves heard, not violence."
result: short term problems with terrorism, long term fewer terrorists, less resent agianst the West (which obviously contributes to causing terrorism), and 3rd world countries advancing, allowing the people to live more freely and with a better quality of life.
short term problems for a lasting, peaceful and long term solution.


i say education is the key to the long termist approach.

and remember, this highlights the difference in approach between the US (short-termist, unilateral, militaristic), vs the EU (multilateral, long-termist, using economic growth and acceptance into the EU as an incentive to reform (rather than economic punishment as more often used by the US) and more peaceful approach).

Not all politicians are rational either, but you don't see any long daggers being pulled on Capitol Hill. Force of verbiage is needed in all cases, particularly in extreme cases. Resorting to violence is an admission of inability. It is the refuge of the incompetent.

Sure. US should have Oust Osama Bin Laden by telling that he's a bad man and negotiate to make him stop attacking US. Or convince the people to vote him off.

Sure. US should have Oust Osama Bin Laden by telling that he's a bad man and negotiate to make him stop attacking US. Or convince the people to vote him off.

Well, maybe you're half-right. Convince, or at least persuade, the people that their interests, and the interests of the American people and it's government, are one and the same, while their interests, and those of Osama Bin Laden, lack commonality.

If that's a tall order, get this: if the people's interests aren't one and the same as those of the American people and it's government, you'll have to MAKE THEM one and the same. See ? Still more talking involved.

Yup, it's a lot of talking. And yup, it'd take a very, very long time to make it happen. But surely it's better to talk at length than to trade gunfire.

Isn't it?

Not all terrorists are rational. Hence force of weapons are needed in extreme cases.

Nor are many criminals. Doesn't necessarily mean that we should invade, bomb and rain death from the sky. Arrest and try them.

If more effort could be made into economically strengthening third world countries and compromises could be made in world hotspots (Israel/Palestine or Chechnya), I'm sure it would make a hell of a difference. I'll leave solving the problem to those who have the means to do so but I know that rushing in and firing clips isn't going to halt or at least slow down terrorism in the world.
Appalling ignorance - compromise was attempted with Palestine. They were offered 95% of what they asked. They passed. The trouvle is that terrorists won't compromise. Thus your solution to terrorism becomes one of give them whatever they ask for. That would not be productive in reducing terrorist activity. It would, in fact, encourage more.

hat most folks don't realize is that the root of terrorism is not money or politics. It is bigotry. There is state sponsored bigotry all over the middle east/arab countries. So long as this is allowed they will pursue their Jihad. Until it is ended they will be no more respectable than the lynch mobs of the KKK - only instead of 'running the blacks back to Africa' they want to run the Jews into the ocean.

Isn't it?
it is

Appalling ignorance - compromise was attempted with Palestine. They were offered 95% of what they asked. They passed. The trouvle is that terrorists won't compromise. Thus your solution to terrorism becomes one of give them whatever they ask for. That would not be productive in reducing terrorist activity. It would, in fact, encourage more.

Oh, Bozzy - you've given me what I've always wanted. Okay then:

Prove it.

Appalling ignorance - compromise was attempted with Palestine. They were offered 95% of what they asked. They passed. The trouvle is that terrorists won't compromise. Thus your solution to terrorism becomes one of give them whatever they ask for. That would not be productive in reducing terrorist activity. It would, in fact, encourage more.
That was under Arafat, I'm guessing? I think under Mahmoud Abbas or Abu Mazen, the peace process will be more open. Although you're entitled to your opinion, I don't consider PLO a terrorist organization at the least.

Appalling ignorance - compromise was attempted with Palestine. They were offered 95% of what they asked. They passed. The trouvle is that terrorists won't compromise. Thus your solution to terrorism becomes one of give them whatever they ask for. That would not be productive in reducing terrorist activity. It would, in fact, encourage more.

Appeasement? Like what was done with Hitler? Is that what you imply?

short term: "terrorists are a problem. lets go invade their country and kill em all"
result: more terrorists, resent against the West, a damaged/destroyed country, infrastructure and economy of the invaded nation which has to be rebuilt at great cost. long term problems for a short term solution.

long term: "uh, oh! terrorists! lets spend our own time and resources in building a more equal world, starting with strengthening the economies of the 3rd world countries who produce/harbour terrorists and investing in education for all those countries' citizens. then, through reform, give them self-determination. in time they'll realise what they are doing is stupid & achieves nothing, and will be able to use democratic process to get themselves heard, not violence."
result: short term problems with terrorism, long term fewer terrorists, less resent agianst the West (which obviously contributes to causing terrorism), and 3rd world countries advancing, allowing the people to live more freely and with a better quality of life.
short term problems for a lasting, peaceful and long term solution.


Exactly. Couldn't agree more. Simply destroying people and places doesn't help anything in the long term, just means more resentment builds up and the problem comes back even stronger. It's such a simplistic view. Dealing with the actual causes is harder, yes, and doesn't show immediate change but in the long term it benefits everyone immensly.

implimentation of marxist ideals and socialist policies into western governments.

Kill all humans as any good marxist would do ;) Or make everyone equally poor as any good socialist would do :p

Or just admit peace will come when isms are eradicated through knowledge and education.Neither memes nor religions can tolerate competition.

The supposed poverty stricken that take up arms never seem to give help to the really indigent.

The great societies of equality never seem to be able to allow all people to succeed.

As long as humans hold onto antiquated ideals and religions in spite of evidence to the contrary,we will have war,terrorism and retaliation. :headbang:

Oh, Bozzy - you've given me what I've always wanted. Okay then:

Prove it.
So then, your presumption is that terrorism does not work?

This. (http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/neutron-bomb.html)
:D

No, seriously, I don't know.

Exactly. Couldn't agree more. Simply destroying people and places doesn't help anything in the long term, just means more resentment builds up and the problem comes back even stronger. It's such a simplistic view. Dealing with the actual causes is harder, yes, and doesn't show immediate change but in the long term it benefits everyone immensly.
precisely :)
some people are just too short-term minded. many not by choice - my flatmate for example, whenever we're debating something he just can't see the long term view & i always have to explain it to him (and he invariably doesn't quite get it... which is all quite worrying because he's an economist :p )
i'm sure there are many people like him who simply cannot see the long term alternative to things


This. (http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/neutron-bomb.html)
:eek: oh god no....
i really hope that's a joke

Terrorism is usually guided by a corrupt theological belief, and thus, removal of this theological corruption would be most helpful to the removal of terrorism.

Let us at least be honest, most terrorism these days does originate from certain interpratations of the Q'ran which lead to violent actions. Now, please do not take this as some sort of anti-Islam rant, as it is not the religion but the interpretation that causes the problem. A violent ideology cannot be solved through compromise or through economic aid as long as the ideology remains established. Thus, it becomes neccesary to remove the ideology from existence.

While violence may seem simplest, it merely reinforces a violent ideology in the minds of the people, increasing support. It is this idea of violence increasing the civilian support for terrorism that leads to the failure of a standard military solution, Clousewitz (sp?) style. How then does one remove such a hateful philosophy?

Terrorism in the modern world, both Christian (Oklahoma City Bombing), Islamic (World Trade Center), and Jewish (Rabin's assasination) all revolve around religions which are fundmentally peacefull, when one does not actively misinterpret religious texts to suit violent means. So, the answer is an endorsment of new, less violent, religious ideals being introduced. In an open theological debate, most leaders of religious terrorist movements could be easily defeated by someone with a decent knowledge of theological writings.

So, in simple terms: Support peacefull religious movements, and more accurate theological interprations, to combat religious terrorism's base in the hearts of the people. Without supporters, Osama's just another sociopath.

(Forgive the rambling, it happens depending on what I'm listening to.)

precisely :)
some people are just too short-term minded. many not by choice - my flatmate for example, whenever we're debating something he just can't see the long term view & i always have to explain it to him (and he invariably doesn't quite get it... which is all quite worrying because he's an economist :p )
i'm sure there are many people like him who simply cannot see the long term alternative to things


I was having a debate with someone about this and he said 'They can't hate us IF THEYRE DEAD!' Thats the kind of thing which pulls me between laughing hysterically and feeling utterly hopeless for mankind.

It just scares me when people running the most powerful country in the world are the people who can't see things long term. You can't just go around bombing countries who don't like you. It's simple logic. Someone hates you, bombing ain't gonna help that.

I was having a debate with someone about this and he said 'They can't hate us IF THEYRE DEAD!' Thats the kind of thing which pulls me between laughing hysterically and feeling utterly hopeless for mankind.

It just scares me when people running the most powerful country in the world are the people who can't see things long term. You can't just go around bombing countries who don't like you. It's simple logic. Someone hates you, bombing ain't gonna help that.
well killing someone (a terrorist) who hates you is obviously going to solve the problem... temporarily. that is, until that person's children grow up.
bombing the hell out of the problem is not the answer because all it leads to is fear, hate, a sense of oppression, resent and, ultimatley, retaliation through the only means they have been shown ("the only language they understand"), violence.
violence begets violence, its absolutley true. and people failing to realise this does make me despair for mankind

well killing someone (a terrorist) who hates you is obviously going to solve the problem... temporarily. that is, until that person's children grow up.
bombing the hell out of the problem is not the answer because all it leads to is fear, hate, a sense of oppression, resent and, ultimatley, retaliation through the only means they have been shown ("the only language they understand"), violence.
violence begets violence, its absolutley true. and people failing to realise this does make me despair for mankind

I mean yeah I have nothing against killing a powerful terrorist leader. But when hundreds or thousands of innocent people have to die.... and it isn't the problem solved. Just that single person and the rest of the people get even angrier. By all means get rid of the leaders but you still have to deal with the problem itself.

Absolutly. If we are such well developed civilised countries how come we still have to resort to such primitive 'solutions'?

i'm pretty sure that one of the key steps is to stop issuing reports on the subject when they don't go your way.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002243262_terror16.html

aww, no one noticed my post. perhaps i should make it more explicit.

U.S. eliminates annual terrorism report
By Jonathan S. Landay

WASHINGTON — The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.
...

Sounds like a pretty aggressive agenda. Who will make the list and who will carry out your plan?
I would naively say the United Nations. More practically, free nations should band together, find, and destroy the menace. Most likely, were I the President of the U.S., I would do everything in my power to fight terrorism where it grows, before it has a chance to cause mayhem in this country. I really like the "with us, or against us" line that Bush used.

Are you implying that muslims and arabs are all terrorists? Are you even aware at how bigotted this is?
No, but how about all terrorists are muslim and arab? That isn't entirely correct, but it hits pretty close to the mark.

To be fair, terrorists don't need to attack the Netherlands, Denmark, or any other European nation, since they're taking over demographically as it is. France is a prime example of this. They'll take over there without firing a shot. The Scandanavian countries are finding this out too.
Is it just me or are you actually saying that all Muslims are terrorists?

Kill every last one of them.
When you kill a terrorist, two more people get angry enough to take his place. There must be a wider effort to eliminate the root causes of terrorism, namely poverty and lack of political freedom.

Yeah? Well, just how do you propose doing all this wonderfulness and at the same time, make terrorists stop killing people? Hmmm???
How can you have your cake and eat it? You just have to live with it now so you can be free of it in the future, or you fight it off for a day, but you have to live with it forever. I would pick the former.

At last! Someone who understands! [ applauds ]
His opinion sounds like it was formed by testosterone. When you simply kill a terrorist without also tackling the root causes of terrorism, two more guys get angry and militant enough to take the dead guy's place. It's not just about winning and satisfying ego; it's about eradicating terrorism.

And just what is "the root of the problem," and how, pray tell, can it be "cut off?"
At least, this is my opinion. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8693761&postcount=6)

I asked a question and would like an answer from any/all of you advocating taking a large paddle to a gun-fight.
No, you have to neutralise someone who is shooting at you. Very few people are advocating just turning the other cheek.

hat most folks don't realize is that the root of terrorism is not money or politics. It is bigotry. There is state sponsored bigotry all over the middle east/arab countries. So long as this is allowed they will pursue their Jihad. Until it is ended they will be no more respectable than the lynch mobs of the KKK - only instead of 'running the blacks back to Africa' they want to run the Jews into the ocean.
Yes bigotry is part of it, these Wahabbists are like Nazis.

And they are supported by the USA.

When you kill a terrorist, two more people get angry enough to take his place. There must be a wider effort to eliminate the root causes of terrorism, namely poverty and lack of political freedom.

When you kill one terrorists, two angry people take his place. WHen you kell one terrorist and two angry people, six angry people take their place. However, this cannot go an infinitly. You eventually run out of people.

There is nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire. But, if you do you have to do so much more spectacculary. They kill 1 American we wipe out their country's entire population. Its not like we lack the power to do so. Genocide works. This has been proven.

No matter if you have a thousand peaceful demonstrations or an army of millions, you will never eliminate terrorism. As long as humans exist it will most likely continue.

When you kill one terrorists, two angry people take his place. WHen you kell one terrorist and two angry people, six angry people take their place. However, this cannot go an infinitly. You eventually run out of people.

It's not practical, unless you are actually willing to kill the millions of people who have the potential to become terrorists.

There is nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire. But, if you do you have to do so much more spectacculary. They kill 1 American we wipe out their country's entire population. Its not like we lack the power to do so. Genocide works. This has been proven.
It doesn't matter if genocide works. It's completely immoral. The only people who do things like you suggest are the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Are these the types of guys you admire?

When you kill one terrorists, two angry people take his place. WHen you kell one terrorist and two angry people, six angry people take their place. However, this cannot go an infinitly. You eventually run out of people.

Not on a practical level, no. Humanity has over the past centuries come up with steadily more efficient ways of killing large numbers of humans, and you will observe that we are at an all time high in global population and population growth.

There is nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire. But, if you do you have to do so much more spectacculary. They kill 1 American we wipe out their country's entire population. Its not like we lack the power to do so. Genocide works. This has been proven.

I hope you are joking. But even if you are, that's one joke in very, very poor taste.

Kittens and flowers. Also ... home baked muffins.

Trust me. Terrorists are suckers for muffins.

I'm not sure that there is as simple of an answer as I've seen here. 'Eliminate the root causes' sounds good. It might make a nice t-shirt or bumper sticker but it would make an impossible to achieve policy. Some of us seem to forget that thugh many terrorists are from poor countries or poor regions, they themselves are rarely amoung the poorest in those areas. There is no one way to stop terrorists. End poverty. I just pointed out the flaw in that. Grant political freedom. We have all seen how much the world and the people being granted freedom love that one! Sounds good on paper, in reality it isn't such a rosy image. The only thing I can think of is every way possible. Economic aid, push for political reform, investigate and try to prosecute terrorists, take military action where needed and give ground on some issues that are less than vital and make great slogans for hate-mongers.

I'm not sure that there is as simple of an answer as I've seen here. 'Eliminate the root causes' sounds good. It might make a nice t-shirt or bumper sticker but it would make an impossible to achieve policy. Some of us seem to forget that thugh many terrorists are from poor countries or poor regions, they themselves are rarely amoung the poorest in those areas. There is no one way to stop terrorists. End poverty. I just pointed out the flaw in that. Grant political freedom. We have all seen how much the world and the people being granted freedom love that one! Sounds good on paper, in reality it isn't such a rosy image. The only thing I can think of is every way possible. Economic aid, push for political reform, investigate and try to prosecute terrorists, take military action where needed and give ground on some issues that are less than vital and make great slogans for hate-mongers.

Two biggest hot button catchphrases for the majority of terrorists right now is the Palestinian problem and the occupation of Iraq.

If the United States can ever grow enough set of balls to tell Israel to deal with the Palestinians fairhandedly or they get their billion dollar aid yoinked, then maybe the Palestinians can get enough breathing space to deal with the extremists in their midsts more effectively.

As for Iraq, they should treat it as what it basically is: a propaganda war. If you start giving the public images that the enemy wants you to give, then all the superior forces in the world will not leave you looking anywhere close to sparkly, plus it simply adds fuel to the terrorist recruitment drive. Improving human rights and public relations between the US military and Muslims in general will also go a long ways towards taking away leverage from the insurgents.

No, but how about all terrorists are muslim and arab? That isn't entirely correct, but it hits pretty close to the mark.

That is a shining example of Islamophobia.

That is a shining example of Islamophobia.
Not at all. Almost every shooting war on the planet involves muslims. It's a pretty short list of the ones that don't have anything to do with Arabs or Muslims.

Not at all. Almost every shooting war on the planet involves muslims. It's a pretty short list of the ones that don't have anything to do with Arabs or Muslims.

There are three types of lies. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

It's still inferring that Islam is a bloodthirsty, if not evil and wicked religion.

Still reads like Islamaphobia. The perfect scapegoat. Non-Judeo-Christian, and dominated by dark-skinned people.

It's still inferring that Islam is a bloodthirsty, if not evil and wicked religion.

Still reads like Islamaphobia. The perfect scapegoat. Non-Judeo-Christian, and dominated by dark-skinned people.
Infer what you want. Facts speak for themselves. Fundamental Islamists are a pretty bloodthirsty bunch. Plus, I don't see a whole lot of condemnation of terrorism from the "peaceful" Islamic community. Do you?

Infer what you want. Facts speak for themselves. Fundamental Islamists are a pretty bloodthirsty bunch. Plus, I don't see a whole lot of condemnation of terrorism from the "peaceful" Islamic community. Do you?

I didn't see a whole lot of condemnation of Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh from the "peaceful" Protestant community either, no apology to the Muslim community ever even after McVeigh's terrorist act was initially attributed to Muslims.

I didn't see a whole lot of condemnation of Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh from the "peaceful" Protestant community either, no apology to the Muslim community ever even after McVeigh's terrorist act was initially attributed to Muslims.
Irrelevant. Different acts, different motivations. There was no need for mainstream America to distance themselves from either of these wackos. I would really have expected the mainstream Muslim community to distance themselves from the wacko fundamentalists, but they don't seem to.

Eighth inning and the Braves are still tied with the Red Menace called the Phillies. Got to run and catch the end.

Have a good time with your philosophical antics and the solutions to terrorism.

Irrelevant. Different acts, different motivations. There was no need for mainstream America to distance themselves from either of these wackos. I would really have expected the mainstream Muslim community to distance themselves from the wacko fundamentalists, but they don't seem to.

Actually it is quite relevant to your "Islam supports terrorists" innuendo. Eric Rudolph bombed abortion clinics and in fact police are suggesting that he may have been able to hide out for so long due to assistance from anti-abortion sympathizers, many of them who are Protestant. And no outspoken anti-abortion Protestant has in any shape or form stepped up to condemn Rudolph.

"No need to distance themselves" is rather arrogant and hypocritical. If Protestants have "no need to" distance themselves from extremists like McVeigh and Rudolph, why should Muslims have to apologize and defend themselves for the behaviors of Bin Ladin and his ilk?

:rolleyes:

Two biggest hot button catchphrases for the majority of terrorists right now is the Palestinian problem and the occupation of Iraq.

If the United States can ever grow enough set of balls to tell Israel to deal with the Palestinians fairhandedly or they get their billion dollar aid yoinked, then maybe the Palestinians can get enough breathing space to deal with the extremists in their midsts more effectively.

As for Iraq, they should treat it as what it basically is: a propaganda war. If you start giving the public images that the enemy wants you to give, then all the superior forces in the world will not leave you looking anywhere close to sparkly, plus it simply adds fuel to the terrorist recruitment drive. Improving human rights and public relations between the US military and Muslims in general will also go a long ways towards taking away leverage from the insurgents.
And there were terrorists and "hot button catch-phrases" before the current war in Iraq. I fail to see why the Israelis are expected to appease terrorists and I don't think it would solve the problem. Research the stated aims of Palestinian terrorist organisations and decide for yourself. As far as the Palestinians not being able to deal with thier extremists is concerned, what else are they doing? What is stopping them? They aren't bogged down by military satruggle with the Israelis. They aren't spending thier time negotiating.

Iraq is a easier issue in theory. Leave things in better condition than they were found and it can't be anythng but good for both propaganda and stability.

And there were terrorists and "hot button catch-phrases" before the current war in Iraq. I fail to see why the Israelis are expected to appease terrorists and I don't think it would solve the problem. Research the stated aims of Palestinian terrorist organisations and decide for yourself. As far as the Palestinians not being able to deal with thier extremists is concerned, what else are they doing? What is stopping them? They aren't bogged down by military satruggle with the Israelis. They aren't spending thier time negotiating.

Appeasement is never an option, but on the other hand Israel's Collateral Damage policy on antiterrorism has done little to cool down the flames of resentment amongt the potential recruitment demographics either. Anti-terrorism is also a propaganda war and Israel's heavy handed Punish the Kin approach only keeps the fires burning.

Arafat was a big chock block in the progress of Palestinian society whose political power thrived on the neverending despair of his people. With him dead and Abbas now in charge, there is potential for change but it won't happen if the Israeli government continue the same Catch-22 vise grip diplomacy with him as they did with Arafat.

I didn't see a whole lot of condemnation of Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh from the "peaceful" Protestant community either, no apology to the Muslim community ever even after McVeigh's terrorist act was initially attributed to Muslims.
This is also not responsive to the question about all terrorists being Muslim. By calling me Islamophobic, are you implying that there is a zero-mean distribution of terrorists across all ethnic and religious categories? Or just that I shouldn't care what the distribution is?

It's not practical, unless you are actually willing to kill the millions of people who have the potential to become terrorists.


It doesn't matter if genocide works. It's completely immoral. The only people who do things like you suggest are the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Are these the types of guys you admire?

Hitler and Stalin would have never went that far, and Stalin had the power to do so, Soviet nuclear arsenal and all. Of course, one could argue that MAD kept that in check.

It is the most logical and efficient method of military intervention, however.

It's possible that there are just too many people on the planet. So, we could reduce the population to around 3 billion, depopulating huge portions of the Third World, and I would bet that the majority of the reservior for terrorism would be drained - just like draining a swamp to get rid of mosquitoes.

Except that committing genocide on such a scale would most likely result in the perpatrator being shunned by the rest of the world. And most likely contained or at least fought against. The feasibility of such a plan is very poor at best.

The only way I can think of such an act to be carried out is with mass bombings with high yield nuclear weapons. And that in itself is already playing half the card of MAD isn't it?

A flexible response to terrorism is what one would need to be able to handle it. Military action should, of course, never be taken off of the table. Diplomatic means and deal making are also useful. Various things to get a cultural flavor of America, and efforts to "humanize" westerners should also be tried. Pressuring the local governments to allow more freedom in their economy, political and personal spectrums would also be useful.

A few thigns that we should do:

Get rid of religion. Seriously, what the hell. It looks all peachy keen, but religon is a major source of conflict. Jews, Muslims, and Christains all going after the same holy city, anyone? Along with stupid **** like the KKK, people who want to ban gay marriage because "god says its wrong", people who assume that anyone who doesn't follow their religion is a heathen and must be either saved(ie. converted) or killed, people who halt progress because it contradicts their religion(Dark Ages, anyone?), hippocrites who preach stuff about peace and love then turn around and start shouting all sorts of pro-war stuff, and basically people who discriminate against other people and act stupid because "god told me to". Unless people suddenly start practicing the "get along, make peace not war" stuff instead of just preaching it, religion is NOT helping.

Stop giving the rich people breaks and start giving stuff to the poor. The rich won't like it, but who gives a damn about them? The important thing is trying to improve life for as many people as possible so that they're happy, and thus won't vent their frustrations through violence.

Don't go to war just because one group decided to terrorize your country. All that does is make more people pissed off at you that weren't angry with you before. Diplomacy, people! Try TALKING THINGS OUT rather than slaughtering other people form the get-go. If things don't work out and there's a very large threat, go ahead, but keep casualties on BOTH sides to a minimum, if possible. And don't kill civilians and destrony non-military infastructure. That just makes the citizens hate you even MORE.

you are a complete idiot who apparently thinks it's okay to steal.

if you steal from the rich and give to the poor, you will only hurt the working man. The rich employ the poor and working classes. you take money away from the rich and bad things will happen.

you sure you want to steal their money?

what's most sickening is your jealousy of and hate for the rich. hey, try emulating them instead and maybe you'll become successful instead of wrapped up in your vision of defeatist socialism where people are too weak to fend for themselves and need to steal to survive.

As for terrorism, there is no solution... no way to completely wipe it all out, so long as there are people in the world who are:

a)fanatical about something to the point of killing for it

or

b)sociopathic

These nuts are so full of hate that they miss the forest for the trees... they maybe want to help their own people but they don't see that if they attack countries like the US, the US is going to hit back hard.

What demonstrates to me, every day, that we're the good guys in this is this question:

What would terrorist groups (like Al Qaeda) do if they had a nuclear weapon? Would they use it on us?

Because we don't use ours on them.

I say the real solution to this whole terrorism thing is to get more intelligence on the terrorist cells that exist.

:mp5: You should send in Sam Fisher and let him do his work. :sniper:

Historically there have been only three basic approaches that worked:
1) Kill them all, man weoman, and child, has been the most commonly sucessful approach. This is often refered to as the "Mongol solution", after Hulagu wiped out the prototypical Islamic terrorists at Alamut (although the Romans, Greeks, Persians, and other ancient empires all used it).
2) Deal with the root causes. This generally has to be done very skillfully, and has a slim track record. The UK is the only modern major power that has pulled it off, and even then, they have had a poor track record.
3) Pay off the terrorists. This has been the most common solution. It tends to be a temporary fix.

The Israelis have tried a mixed approach with appropriately mixed results.

The current US approach is a mixed bag, based largely on the Israeli successes.

All that having been said, the answer is going to depend on what you define as the "right" solution. What's more important: ending the threat of modern terrorism movements, period? If that's the case, unleash a series of nuclear strikes on any country know to harbor terrorists. Kill every single citizen of said countries, without remorse. Spare no one. Do be prepared for the backlash.
If you don't like that solution, try dealing with the root causes. That's hard at best, and may not be possible. (Note: some people are suggesting the redistribution of wealth as a means of dealing with the root causes. Sorry Charlie. The root causes are a hell of a lot more complex. "Implimenting Maxist theory" sounds good, but ends up contributing to the problem.)
If you don't like the first, and can't deal with the root causes, buy them off. Beyond that, you'll either have to learn to live with it, or do the most difficult thing of all: come up with something completely new. Good luck!

Plus, I don't see a whole lot of condemnation of terrorism from the "peaceful" Islamic community. Do you?
I do, actually. You just don't want to hear about it.

What would terrorist groups (like Al Qaeda) do if they had a nuclear weapon? Would they use it on us?

Because we don't use ours on them.
Where, pray tell, would the US drop a nuke if they wanted to hit al-Qaeda? They're not a country.

A flexible response to terrorism is what one would need to be able to handle it. Military action should, of course, never be taken off of the table. Diplomatic means and deal making are also useful. Various things to get a cultural flavor of America, and efforts to "humanize" westerners should also be tried. Pressuring the local governments to allow more freedom in their economy, political and personal spectrums would also be useful.
Yes! Buying into the government would seem to make terror an uneeded contradiction. If you accept the government, you will work within it. Ownership society, where have I heard this before?

The bigger question is, why bother? I'm a selfish American and the chances of my dying to terrorism - even in the year of 9/11 - are too small to bother worrying about. I am far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or by crazy assholes on drugs.

As for solving terrorism... well, maybe when you solve war itself, you'll solve all the sub-genres of war including terrorism. Until that happens, piss in the wind and not on me.

Historically there have been only three basic approaches that worked:
1) Kill them all, man weoman, and child, has been the most commonly sucessful approach. This is often refered to as the "Mongol solution", after Hulagu wiped out the prototypical Islamic terrorists at Alamut (although the Romans, Greeks, Persians, and other ancient empires all used it).

Cruel but true. Either that, or enslave and disperse throughout the nations.

Cruel but effective.

Cruel but true. Either that, or enslave and disperse throughout the nations.

Cruel but effective.

Back in the ages when everyone was an empire wanting to expand, this tactic would work very well.

But today, there's too much near-instantaneous and global communication for this to do any lasting good for the government that implements the measure. All it takes for even one report to spread throughout the world and it will outrage enough people to where it worsens from a terrorist movement to a full out global insurgency.

This is also not responsive to the question about all terrorists being Muslim. By calling me Islamophobic, are you implying that there is a zero-mean distribution of terrorists across all ethnic and religious categories? Or just that I shouldn't care what the distribution is?

Now had it been "Some Terrorists Are Muslim," I would not have a problem. However, you categorically assume that every single terrorist in the world is Islamically driven, which is a blanket generalization and thus false. Which brings up the accusation of Islamaphobia.

Are there Muslims in Northern Ireland or Columbia? How about Chiapas, Mexico? Was Aum Shinri Kyo an Islamic Cult?

Like somebody said before, confront the root of the terrorism. Before it can be sufficiently quelled however, do not be afraid to hunt down terrorists before they committ harm.

Back in the ages when everyone was an empire wanting to expand, this tactic would work very well.

But today, there's too much near-instantaneous and global communication for this to do any lasting good for the government that implements the measure. All it takes for even one report to spread throughout the world and it will outrage enough people to where it worsens from a terrorist movement to a full out global insurgency.

Not true. It's just a matter of continuing as needed. Yes, the problem would get worse before it got better. But if done without remorse against every single provacature, large or small, terrorism becomes too expensive.

Not true. It's just a matter of continuing as needed. Yes, the problem would get worse before it got better. But if done without remorse against every single provacature, large or small, terrorism becomes too expensive.

People who care what happens to family members do not become terrorists in the first place. If anything, retribution inflicted by the government on such will only serve to reinforce their commitment to the cause.

Also, if you think negative publicity will not cripple a government's war efforts, just look at what happened to Vietnam. Numerically the United States was winning, but the images from the country- especially those of the Tet Offensive and the infamous photo of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing the Viet Cong in public- elicited such outrage that America was eventually forced to pull out.

In today's information society, publicity has become just an important factor as casualties and success if not more. Enacting a Guilt By Association extermination policy on terrorists and their family members will stir outrage in many places. Not just from friends, family members and countrymen of the terrorists, but possibly also from the people of the government carrying out the policy.

Become a modern Ghengis Khan and pre-empt EVERYONE. Drink oil, eat children and finally blow up the world.

What arms then does a 'typical' terrorist use? What makes them 'typical' of terrorists?

Isn't the presence of a terrorist rather a-typical? And other than that, East Canuck is right - the US is the world's greatest supplier of firearms, ammunition, and all the other sundry bits and pieces that make inert hunks of metal into inordinately well-designed tools for ending the lives of other human beings.

Why don't the Americans smarten up and stop dealing Death for a dollar?

This is totally biased blathering BS. terrorists almost exclusively use soviet produced AK rifles & RPGs, chines and czech ammo. Amercian made weapons are in the hands of allies and uniformed soldiers of legitimate nations, not dealing death for a dollar. Dont let your dislike for the US make you that simple.

People who care what happens to family members do not become terrorists in the first place. If anything, retribution inflicted by the government on such will only serve to reinforce their commitment to the cause.

If I understand your response correctly, you are underestimating what I mean by the Mongoil method.
The Mongol method isn't simply family retribution. It is total genocidal extermination. That is the whole point of the Mongol method. You don't just kill the terrorists, you kill every single possible supporter. Every Single one. Let me reiterate: Every. Single. One. Salt the earth. Poison the wells. Until there is no one left to carry out terror attacks.

The modern method would involve multiple nuclear strikes directed at population centers. For example: Iran is determined to be behind terrorist attacks. Nuke every single city in Iran, with several warheads. Sow the ground with our nuclear waste. Make the entire country uninhabitable.

Also, if you think negative publicity will not cripple a government's war efforts, just look at what happened to Vietnam. Numerically the United States was winning, but the images from the country- especially those of the Tet Offensive and the infamous photo of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing the Viet Cong in public- elicited such outrage that America was eventually forced to pull out.

In today's information society, publicity has become just an important factor as casualties and success if not more. Enacting a Guilt By Association extermination policy on terrorists and their family members will stir outrage in many places. Not just from friends, family members and countrymen of the terrorists, but possibly also from the people of the government carrying out the policy.

Again, I'm not sure you understood my answer. I haven't said anything you have suggested. I never said that the Mongol method was without problems.

There are methods which are inarguably effective.

If the question were worded as "What effective means do "modern, developed" nations, in today's political atmosphere, have of dealing with terrorism?", then my honest answer in absolutely none.

The historical methods have become unacceptable. Not only the Mongol method, but the tribute and satisfaction methods as well. What do you think would happen if GWB tried to buying off Iran, for example? And addressing the root causes (a complicated endevor even with simple terrorist movements)? Nope, it simply just won't happen. Some may be addressed, but most of them must be addressed from within the societies that are producing terrorism.

The bigger question is, why bother? I'm a selfish American and the chances of my dying to terrorism - even in the year of 9/11 - are too small to bother worrying about. I am far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or by crazy assholes on drugs.

As for solving terrorism... well, maybe when you solve war itself, you'll solve all the sub-genres of war including terrorism. Until that happens, piss in the wind and not on me.

And this is really going to be the ultimate solution, one way or another.....

The modern method would involve multiple nuclear strikes directed at population centers. For example: Iran is determined to be behind terrorist attacks. Nuke every single city in Iran, with several warheads. Sow the ground with our nuclear waste. Make the entire country uninhabitable.


No, use an airburst warhead that has a fallout-enhanced warhead. One say, with a half-life of 28 days, and an output of 6000 rads/hr. Not a single building or structure would be touched - few would even see the blast.

But within a month, every living thing, including the cockroaches, would be dead. And within a year, the place would be pristine - anyone could move in.

Whispering legs, there is one thing you forgot.

The problem is that with that kind of high rad weapon is that you fail to take into account the bacterial issue and eventual tissue decay. Yes, you'll have made the place quite lifeless, but once the rads die down enough, bacteria and other diseases will start decaying the corpses, raising a stink that will never die down and breed who knows how many diseases.

Additionally, you have to take into account that the smaller and more populous the life form (bacteria takes the top awards in this area I believe), the hardier and faster evolving it is. That means you might end up with some kind of superstrain that feeds on radiation or do other nasty things.

Whispering legs, there is one thing you forgot.

The problem is that with that kind of high rad weapon is that you fail to take into account the bacterial issue and eventual tissue decay. Yes, you'll have made the place quite lifeless, but once the rads die down enough, bacteria and other diseases will start decaying the corpses, raising a stink that will never die down and breed who knows how many diseases.

Additionally, you have to take into account that the smaller and more populous the life form (bacteria takes the top awards in this area I believe), the hardier and faster evolving it is. That means you might end up with some kind of superstrain that feeds on radiation or do other nasty things.

Nothing survives radioactive sodium. It is too well absorbed by any living creature.

Nothing survives radioactive sodium. It is too well absorbed by any living creature.

Yes, but it dies down. So in that 28 days after the rads have reached tolerable limits, you have to have cleared up practically everything that can rot and have disposed of it in a manner that prevents the settling and spreading of bacteria and disease.

Hence my statement "once the rads die down enough" in the original post.

If this was done in a relatively small country, say, oh with a population of 28 million, that means locating and disposing of 1,000,000 human corpses alone per day. Not to mention any animals you can find. And this is assuming you can find enough high grade rad suits for your cleanup crews to work in.

A bit of a logistical nightmare I should think, with the potential to grow the next black plague. The weapon that supposedly cleans up, seems to leave quite a mess behind doesn't it? :/

Yes, but it dies down. So in that 28 days after the rads have reached tolerable limits, you have to have cleared up practically everything that can rot and have disposed of it in a manner that prevents the settling and spreading of bacteria and disease.

Hence my statement "once the rads die down enough" in the original post.

If this was done in a relatively small country, say, oh with a population of 28 million, that means locating and disposing of 1,000,000 human corpses alone per day. Not to mention any animals you can find. And this is assuming you can find enough high grade rad suits for your cleanup crews to work in.

A bit of a logistical nightmare I should think, with the potential to grow the next black plague. The weapon that supposedly cleans up, seems to leave quite a mess behind doesn't it? :/

If you figure there won't be any bacterial activity for at least two months, and you won't enter the country until the end of the year (at which time you won't need a suit), that gives plenty of time for all the dead meat to rot away and become skeletal.

Messy, yes. Infeasible, no. You could even arbitrarily wait a few years - there wouldn't be anything left except bleached bones.

Terrorism is usually guided by a corrupt theological belief, and thus, removal of this theological corruption would be most helpful to the removal of terrorism.

Let us at least be honest, most terrorism these days does originate from certain interpratations of the Q'ran which lead to violent actions. Now, please do not take this as some sort of anti-Islam rant, as it is not the religion but the interpretation that causes the problem. A violent ideology cannot be solved through compromise or through economic aid as long as the ideology remains established. Thus, it becomes neccesary to remove the ideology from existence.

While violence may seem simplest, it merely reinforces a violent ideology in the minds of the people, increasing support. It is this idea of violence increasing the civilian support for terrorism that leads to the failure of a standard military solution, Clousewitz (sp?) style. How then does one remove such a hateful philosophy?

Terrorism in the modern world, both Christian (Oklahoma City Bombing), Islamic (World Trade Center), and Jewish (Rabin's assasination) all revolve around religions which are fundmentally peacefull, when one does not actively misinterpret religious texts to suit violent means. So, the answer is an endorsment of new, less violent, religious ideals being introduced. In an open theological debate, most leaders of religious terrorist movements could be easily defeated by someone with a decent knowledge of theological writings.

So, in simple terms: Support peacefull religious movements, and more accurate theological interprations, to combat religious terrorism's base in the hearts of the people. Without supporters, Osama's just another sociopath.

(Forgive the rambling, it happens depending on what I'm listening to.)
That was a great post. No apology required.

When you kill a terrorist, two more people get angry enough to take his place..

Yeah, there are dozens of new Tim Mcveigh's running around trying to rent trucks as we speak! Maybe we should just give them what they want and then we can all just get along.

There must be a wider effort to eliminate the root causes of terrorism, namely poverty and lack of political freedom.
Yeah, Timmy was soo poor and repressed! UBL too!

If you figure there won't be any bacterial activity for at least two months, and you won't enter the country until the end of the year (at which time you won't need a suit), that gives plenty of time for all the dead meat to rot away and become skeletal.

Messy, yes. Infeasible, no. You could even arbitrarily wait a few years - there wouldn't be anything left except bleached bones.

You forget that the ecosystem will try to restore itself within that period of one year. Mostly in the forms of scavengers. In a years time, it would be rather silly not to expect that part of the reason for bleached bones is due to scavenging animals growing fat on the corpses. Since you don't go in until a year has passed, that means the critters have about ten months to find lots of food and grow extra fat. Rats, vultures and possibly packs of wild dogs will be the most common scavengers (from outstation that is. Local ones will be dead as well). First on the scene would probably be the vultures though since their flight capable. Oops, can't forget the cockroaches. Weren't there some radiation resistent strains coming out?

In the meantime, the bacteria they carry will be transferred to the corpses, which will eventually mutate and evolve into nastier strains due to the protein rich environment they are growing in. I would not dare speculate what might come of it, but I very much doubt it would be healthy. And bacteria can last quite a while too.

You can move in there after a year certainly. But you wouldn't get me to go anywhere near there without a hazmat suit completely sealed up from the environment.

Oh, and lets not forget that just as scavengers come in, some might be forced out by others, spreading the potential area of whatever pathogens they picked up. Very messy with the potential to spiral into another plague of very large proportions.

EDIT: And the looters *smacks head*. How could I forget the looters who won't be able to resist the temptation to loot a country unimpeded for 10 months?

They'll be bringing back more than just valuables I can tell you that.

The modern method would involve multiple nuclear strikes directed at population centers. For example: Iran is determined to be behind terrorist attacks. Nuke every single city in Iran, with several warheads. Sow the ground with our nuclear waste. Make the entire country uninhabitable.

No, use an airburst warhead that has a fallout-enhanced warhead. One say, with a half-life of 28 days, and an output of 6000 rads/hr. Not a single building or structure would be touched - few would even see the blast.

But within a month, every living thing, including the cockroaches, would be dead. And within a year, the place would be pristine - anyone could move in.

Actually that defeats the purpose of making the place uninhabitable for (effectively) forever, a la Carthage. When making a statement like this, one needs to go all the way. Sowing the ground with radioactive waste is better than salt for ensuring no one ever builds there again. (Although see below.)

If you figure there won't be any bacterial activity for at least two months, and you won't enter the country until the end of the year (at which time you won't need a suit), that gives plenty of time for all the dead meat to rot away and become skeletal.

Messy, yes. Infeasible, no. You could even arbitrarily wait a few years - there wouldn't be anything left except bleached bones.

Just perfect for building a pyramid of skulls.

Yeah, there are dozens of new Tim Mcveigh's running around trying to rent trucks as we speak! Maybe we should just give them what they want and then we can all just get along.

Unlike the Muslims that Bin Ladin and his ilk draw upon for recruits, Christians like McVeigh are hardly stigmatized in America, and if anything their viewpoints tend to be looked upon with sympathy. Eric Rudolph couldn't have lasted as long on the lam as he did without support from anti-abortion sympathizers.

Yeah, Timmy was soo poor and repressed! UBL too!

Bin Ladin is hardly poor, but he draws upon the poor and disaffected Muslim youths for his recruits.

Okay I may be a little late here and I don't feel like going back and reading 9 pages of entries, but I think that the best way to stop terrorism is to fight at the root causes. I read where someone said that early on and I agree. Right now, we are fighting at the "above ground" causes if you follow my metaphor. We can tear off as many leaves as we want, but the roots are still there, untouched. Heck we could nuke it, but like after a fire, it will only grow back stronger. Bush can be ripping up his stack of "most wanted cards" all he wants, but behind him there will be three more being made that he won't see until the next big attack.

Regarding the "war on terror," invading Iraq should be the last thing Bush and his crew should have done. Why did we invade it first (Afghanistan being a masquarade to show the public they at least care .1% about fighting terrorism. This is further verified by the half assed effort put in to get Usama bin Laden (as opposed to dropping four LGMs at the slightest whisp of Saddam). Carpet bombing is a lot of show, but in reality, you're not gonna kill him no matter how many bombs you use. Go back to my plant metaphor. Wow, long parenthesis, I guess I can get carried away sometimes) instead of focusing on the real problem? That's a whole different subject I'm not even going to tempt myself to get into.

By invading Iraq, one of the holiest places in Islam, we overtly attack their religion whether it was because of a "brutal tyrant" (I agree he was brutal, but we already got him for that. It's called the First Gulf War, you know, the one Bush's daddy started.) oppressing the people, but he's no more brutal than Castro, and what do the two have in common? We helped them rise to power in the first place! Anyway, invading Iraq has had negative effects on the "war on terror" because now, Muslims from all across the Middle East are going there to fight us.

If we just ignore terrorism, what is there for them to blow up? If we let them do whatever they want, they're not gonna come blow us up. And don't say we didn't do anything to them to provoke 9/11. Because I've written so much already, I'm not going to touch on that, I'm just stopping now.

--Later
with Peace, Love and Understanding

I was coincidentally taking a History of Terrorism class in the fall of 2001, covering everything from the Indian Thuggies to the Russian Populists, and it left me pretty disturbed. Seeing as though we don't know what causes terrorism, and why it's migrated over time through different areas of the world (Europe->Russia->Meditteranean->Middle East), we'll have to defeat it with gaping holes in our understanding of it.


That said, I think we should be like ancient cavemen trying to fight a fire: throw a bunch of stuff on it until something douses it. Ok so you'll learn the hard way that dry leaves aren't good for putting out fires, but sooner or later someone will toss water on it and everybody else will catch on.


Unfortuately Bin Laden &co got some good ideas from Nechaev's "Catechism of the Revolutionary", so modern terrorists are extremely good at stoking terrorism and using it for political and personal aims. That might also be their downfall though, as their tacit supporters will lose interest if they don't use terrorism to create a revolution soon enough.

One thing I do know for sure is that modern terrorism has usually been a precursor to revolution and then dictatorship. And in every case the result was not what the original terrorists wanted, e.g. the Populists and Anarchists got shafted by the Communists, who waited for their buddies to weaken Russian Autocracy before rushing in. We may not know where terrorism comes from, but it's pretty clear what it leads to.