NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just wondering what you people thought about the idea of terrorism... Can it be beaten? I mean think about it, we could kill thousands and even millions and itll still be there.. Im talking about worldwide terrorism not just the middle east.. I dont think it can be beaten, what do you guys think

I think the only real way to do it is through extreme propaganda. Then again, that's my answer to everything.

If all human life were completely eradicated, then terrorism will be beaten. Other than that, there will always be someone unhappy with how others run things, and the more of those there are, the more likely some of them will resort to violence and fear to get what they want.

I was just wondering what you people thought about the idea of terrorism... Can it be beaten? I mean think about it, we could kill thousands and even millions and itll still be there.. Im talking about worldwide terrorism not just the middle east.. I dont think it can be beaten, what do you guys think

I think that individual groups can eventually be beaten but I also feel that all to often we want this to happen in the space of a few years when in reality it could take many decades for this to happen either through the terrorists giving up their cause or through negotiations.
In regards to terrorism in general I think that it will always exist. There will always be those in society who will be happy to use violence to achieve their objectives

It'll be beaten once we destroy the earth or humanity--whichever comes first. The way we're "trying" to "beat" it now is just making it worse.

I think there will always be a few individuals who'll turn to terrorism to get what they want, however I do beleive that steps can be taken to minimise the number of terrorists.

Thats preety much what I was thinking.. Terrorism cant be beaten because its something that is always growing, I would really love to see Bush's plan on stopping something like this

I think many terrorist groups can and will be beaten, but overall, terrorism will never end, because it can be done by crazy individuals just as easily.

*Sigh*

I thought I'd dealt with this topic today already...

Well, anyway, yes, it can, but not using the methods we're currently trying. Take out the source of the layman's discontent and he will not become a terrorist. Without new terrorists, existing groups will run out of lackeys and the Osama-s of this world will run out of ammunition.

So, yeah. We take out poverty, hunger, oppression and capitalist resource hoarding and Terrorism will be beaten shortly afterwards.

I've been saying it all along, but the thing that terrorists strive for is appeasement. And that is all terrorists: al Qaeda, IRA, Nazis, etc. The only way to beat terrorism is to make them realize that they can't force their views upon others by killing civilians. If you appease terrorists, they see that terrorism works to advance their goals, so they commit terrorist atrocities again and again. But on the other hand, if you send the message that it won't work and you undermine their workings, you dismantle terrorism for good. The second option takes longer and requires more work, but it pays off in the future. There is no such thing as negotiating with terrorism.

*Sigh*

I thought I'd dealt with this topic today already...

Well, anyway, yes, it can, but not using the methods we're currently trying. Take out the source of the layman's discontent and he will not become a terrorist. Without new terrorists, existing groups will run out of lackeys and the Osama-s of this world will run out of ammunition.

So, yeah. We take out poverty, hunger, oppression and capitalist resource hoarding and Terrorism will be beaten shortly afterwards.

Your forgetting gangs.... Their kinda like terrorists

no terrorism cant be beaten

because its not ONE movement but the strategy of many many different groups. we can eliminate the various groups (maybe) but not the strategy. it will always exist as an option for the next group to use if it seems like a good strategy to them.

I've been saying it all along, but the thing that terrorists strive for is appeasement. And that is all terrorists: al Qaeda, IRA, Nazis, etc. The only way to beat terrorism is to make them realize that they can't force their views upon others by killing civilians. If you appease terrorists, they see that terrorism works to advance their goals, so they commit terrorist atrocities again and again. But on the other hand, if you send the message that it won't work and you undermine their workings, you dismantle terrorism for good. The second option takes longer and requires more work, but it pays off in the future. There is no such thing as negotiating with terrorism.When's the last time we properly appeased Al Qaeda? Don't make the mistake of thinking not appeasing these people and flattening their homes will make them stop. Terrorism has been around for a long time and it hasn't worked yet. The terrorists got the message. They're not fighting to win in their lifetime, or their great-grandchildren's lifetime. This has nothing to do with appeasement and no amount of violence is going to change their minds.

Well think of it this way.. If it cant be beaten, then what the hell are we doing? Were just rattling the cage and fighting something we cant win, terrorist are doing more acts now that they did before everything started.. But we cant leave them alone can we? So congratulations world leaders :), you just started a war that will never be finished

Only by bringing terror to the terrorists will it be beaten. At the moment, most terrorists have nothing to fear. They feel the worst that can happen is they will die for a good cause. We need to break them of that.

Public support is a must. Appeal to people's better and baser instincts...propaganda against the terrorists is good, but cold hard cash for informing on their whereabouts is better.

Second, we need to show the terrorists that we are not to be trifled with. They televise executions of the hostages they take. We should do the same to prisoners of war. Chop them up for genetic experiments, donate their body parts to science and medicine...ensure that the terrorists know that their life is not all we can take from them. Drop their bodies/parts out of planes in a shower on suspected terrorist camps. Line the Army's camps with picket lines and their heads on stakes.

Only severe brutality and its acceptance by the public can convince the terrorists that their actions are not worth it. On the same hand, if when they capitulate, we don't show that we are kind and generous, they will feel their cause is just. America needs to get its act together in helping the needy of the world...if we were less intrusive and more altruistic in our aid, perhaps the religious zealots wouldn't see us as the problem to be destroyed.

Well think of it this way.. If it cant be beaten, then what the hell are we doing? Were just rattling the cage and fighting something we cant win, terrorist are doing more acts now that they did before everything started.. But we cant leave them alone can we? So congratulations world leaders :), you just started a war that will never be finished
you're right...what the hell are we doing?

this just makes it worse:
QUESTION: Can we win [the war on terrorism]?
DUBYA: I don't think you can win it.
-- Oh, so we can't win the war? Well that sort of comes as a surprise. Interview aired on NBC's "Today Show", Aug. 30, 2004

@ New Courds: Appeasement wouldn't work even if you tried it, but I can tell you from first-hand Northern Irish experience that violence of any sort against the IRA only increases its membership in nationalist circles.
@ Ashmoria: Terrorists are a different kettle of fish from Terrorism. There are better ways of defeating a concept than targetting its proponents (as this forum itself tends to show on a near hourly basis).
@ Rakenshi: Why do you think people join Gangs? Perhaps it might have something to do with miserable circumstances... worth having a look at that one, possibly?

Ultimately, people either resort to terrorism because they are unhappy with their situation (poverty, oppression, being the target of violence etc.) or because that's what their society teaches them. Violent crime can be overcome by looking at these causes and removing them. Such an endeavour would be tough, of course, but not impossible.

Dealing with what causes people to become terrorists is not succeeding to terrorist demands. You can flat-out ignore their demands for a Chechnyan, Republican or Palestinian state if you want, but isn't it worth working out what's so fundamentally screwed up with being part of Russia, Britain and Israel that makes these people want to leave?

Only by bringing terror to the terrorists will it be beaten. At the moment, most terrorists have nothing to fear. They feel the worst that can happen is they will die for a good cause. We need to break them of that.

Public support is a must. Appeal to people's better and baser instincts...propaganda against the terrorists is good, but cold hard cash for informing on their whereabouts is better.

Second, we need to show the terrorists that we are not to be trifled with. They televise executions of the hostages they take. We should do the same to prisoners of war. Chop them up for genetic experiments, donate their body parts to science and medicine...ensure that the terrorists know that their life is not all we can take from them. Drop their bodies/parts out of planes in a shower on suspected terrorist camps. Line the Army's camps with picket lines and their heads on stakes.

Only severe brutality and its acceptance by the public can convince the terrorists that their actions are not worth it. On the same hand, if when they capitulate, we don't show that we are kind and generous, they will feel their cause is just. America needs to get its act together in helping the needy of the world...if we were less intrusive and more altruistic in our aid, perhaps the religious zealots wouldn't see us as the problem to be destroyed.

Hah. Go ahead, find the terrorists and do that to them if you think you can.

You don't know who's a terrorist until they either tell you or act. The former is unlikely; the latter, too late.

Unless, of course, you plan on executing anyone who could possibly have any sort of link to a terrorist group. In which case, you'd have significantly more than terrorists on your hands to deal with.

@ New Courds: Appeasement wouldn't work even if you tried it, but I can tell you from first-hand Northern Irish experience that violence of any sort against the IRA only increases its membership in nationalist circles.
@ Ashmoria: Terrorists are a different kettle of fish from Terrorism. There are better ways of defeating a concept than targetting its proponents (as this forum itself tends to show on a near hourly basis).
@ Rakenshi: Why do you think people join Gangs? Perhaps it might have something to do with miserable circumstances... worth having a look at that one, possibly?

Ultimately, people either resort to terrorism because they are unhappy with their situation (poverty, oppression, being the target of violence etc.) or because that's what their society teaches them. Violent crime can be overcome by looking at these causes and removing them. Such an endeavour would be tough, of course, but not impossible.

Dealing with what causes people to become terrorists is not succeeding to terrorist demands. You can flat-out ignore their demands for a Chechnyan, Republican or Palestinian state if you want, but isn't it worth working out what's so fundamentally screwed up with being part of Russia, Britain and Israel that makes these people want to leave?

Actually the other day I was watching this biography thing on the Latin Kings, suposely its some respected gang that seems to falling here in the U.S. And you might be surprised for the reasons why peope join gangs.. Some of them actually join them because they need protection, but alot of members are just kids that think its cool to be part of a gang or something.. So here we are teaching kids how to graffiti a wall or how to shoot a gun when they could be making their parents proud.. And im 16 by the way..

Only by bringing terror to the terrorists will it be beaten. At the moment, most terrorists have nothing to fear. They feel the worst that can happen is they will die for a good cause. We need to break them of that.

Public support is a must. Appeal to people's better and baser instincts...propaganda against the terrorists is good, but cold hard cash for informing on their whereabouts is better.

Second, we need to show the terrorists that we are not to be trifled with. They televise executions of the hostages they take. We should do the same to prisoners of war. Chop them up for genetic experiments, donate their body parts to science and medicine...ensure that the terrorists know that their life is not all we can take from them. Drop their bodies/parts out of planes in a shower on suspected terrorist camps. Line the Army's camps with picket lines and their heads on stakes.

Only severe brutality and its acceptance by the public can convince the terrorists that their actions are not worth it. On the same hand, if when they capitulate, we don't show that we are kind and generous, they will feel their cause is just. America needs to get its act together in helping the needy of the world...if we were less intrusive and more altruistic in our aid, perhaps the religious zealots wouldn't see us as the problem to be destroyed.I hope you prefer your second answer because the first one is just another form of terrorism :(

*Sigh*

I thought I'd dealt with this topic today already...

Well, anyway, yes, it can, but not using the methods we're currently trying. Take out the source of the layman's discontent and he will not become a terrorist. Without new terrorists, existing groups will run out of lackeys and the Osama-s of this world will run out of ammunition.

So, yeah. We take out poverty, hunger, oppression and capitalist resource hoarding and Terrorism will be beaten shortly afterwards.

Because there's no terrorism in Communist countries (http://www.videofact.com/english/terrorism4.htm).

Educating people and showing them that they have to work hard, not kill hard, to prosper is what we need to do to cut down on terrorism.

Because there's no terrorism in Communist countries (http://www.videofact.com/english/terrorism4.htm).

Educating people and showing them that they have to work hard, not kill hard, to prosper is what we need to do to cut down on terrorism.

Thats the same thing they tried doing with drugs and alcohol here in the U.S, and even though the numbers have droped theres still people running around with weed in their pockets and a bottle drinking their asses off

snip

Ultimately, people either resort to terrorism because they are unhappy with their situation (poverty, oppression, being the target of violence etc.) or because that's what their society teaches them. Violent crime can be overcome by looking at these causes and removing them. Such an endeavour would be tough, of course, but not impossible.

Dealing with what causes people to become terrorists is not succeeding to terrorist demands. You can flat-out ignore their demands for a Chechnyan, Republican or Palestinian state if you want, but isn't it worth working out what's so fundamentally screwed up with being part of Russia, Britain and Israel that makes these people want to leave?


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9220713&postcount=32

The practical point made by consequentialists is that we can't stop terrorism without addressing its causes. A diagnostic approach, they argue, is wiser than simply lashing out in anger. They're right about that. But their wisdom falls short of the next insight: Consequentialism is a two-way street.

Imagine yourself as a battered wife. Every so often, your husband gets angry and hits you. Why? You struggle to understand the connection between your behavior and his response. What are you doing that causes him to react this way? You hope that by identifying and avoiding the offending behavior, you can regain domestic peace and a sense of control. You're deluding yourself. As long as your husband decides which of your acts will earn you a beating, he's the master, and you're the slave.

This is the problem with the consequentialist argument for revising U.S. policy in the Middle East. Maybe it's true, for other reasons, that we should rethink our position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia, or ease sanctions on Iraq. But if we do these things to avoid further attacks on our cities, we're granting terrorists the power to dictate our acts by dictating the consequences.

Second, we need to show the terrorists that we are not to be trifled with. They televise executions of the hostages they take. We should do the same to prisoners of war. Chop them up for genetic experiments, donate their body parts to science and medicine...ensure that the terrorists know that their life is not all we can take from them. Drop their bodies/parts out of planes in a shower on suspected terrorist camps. Line the Army's camps with picket lines and their heads on stakes.

That's the most brilliant thing I've heard, yet. Fuckin' use their organs... if every terrorist who died for his cause saved three or four American lives with his organs, it'd sure as hell take a step toward defeating their purpose. They already chop us up, what's to lose, other than respect?

Because there's no terrorism in Communist countries (http://www.videofact.com/english/terrorism4.htm).

Educating people and showing them that they have to work hard, not kill hard, to prosper is what we need to do to cut down on terrorism.

For one, the people in the Soviet Republic were as oppressed, poor and hungry as other "Terror States", as certain people might put it. Two, this was during the Cold War, and the US can hardly be absolved of blame on the violence front either. Three, where did that come from? Oh, wait, it's because I suggested that maybe we stop hoarding all the world's resources to ourselves. Yup, communist written all over it. >_>

Anyway, yeah, education helps, but I presumed that would be part of the general "Reduce the power-base" strategy.

For one, the people in the Soviet Republic were as oppressed, poor and hungry as other "Terror States", as certain people might put it. Two, this was during the Cold War, and the US can hardly be absolved of blame on the violence front either. Three, where did that come from? Oh, wait, it's because I suggested that maybe we stop hoarding all the world's resources to ourselves. Yup, communist written all over it. >_>

"Revolution only happens on an empty stomach," and terrorism is commonly used in revolution nowadays. Or it will be (used more).

@ Ashmoria: Terrorists are a different kettle of fish from Terrorism. There are better ways of defeating a concept than targetting its proponents (as this forum itself tends to show on a near hourly basis).



but the question was "can terrorism be beaten?"

i think we might be able to get a handle on islamic terrorism. its extremely complicated but over time it might be eliminated.

terrorism will continue however. there are 6billion+ people on this earth; someone is always getting the short end of the stick. for some, the only way to get their grievances noticed by the larger world is by terrorism. blow up an airplane and someone asks "what did they do that for?"

as long as there is injustice, real or perceived, there will be terrorism.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9220713&postcount=32

The practical point made by consequentialists is that we can't stop terrorism without addressing its causes. A diagnostic approach, they argue, is wiser than simply lashing out in anger. They're right about that. But their wisdom falls short of the next insight: Consequentialism is a two-way street.

Imagine yourself as a battered wife. Every so often, your husband gets angry and hits you. Why? You struggle to understand the connection between your behavior and his response. What are you doing that causes him to react this way? You hope that by identifying and avoiding the offending behavior, you can regain domestic peace and a sense of control. You're deluding yourself. As long as your husband decides which of your acts will earn you a beating, he's the master, and you're the slave.

This is the problem with the consequentialist argument for revising U.S. policy in the Middle East. Maybe it's true, for other reasons, that we should rethink our position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia, or ease sanctions on Iraq. But if we do these things to avoid further attacks on our cities, we're granting terrorists the power to dictate our acts by dictating the consequences.

There's an obvious problem with your hypothetical scenario; the wife, in our case, is significantly stronger than the husband. There is very little stopping the wife from going ballistic, punching a hole through her abusive husband's stomach, other than the legal repercussions.

But that's really irrelevant. In any case, the wife's introversy is unwise: she is presumably not a direct cause of his actions, even if she's the target of them. If, every time she is beaten, she fails to see that the problem is bigger than hers, then the beatings will continue until either she gives up and takes her own life or calls the police. If, however, she realises that the husband is suffering problems financially, emotionally, is trodden on and abused at work, with drink, drugs or similar problems, she can at least start to make him see that this is something he needs to deal with and can offer her support in tackling these difficulties. Maybe she could work too and help bring a little money in, maybe she could introduce him to a circle of friends who have dealt with such issues before, maybe she can help him be assertive in the workplace...

The fundamental issue is, in spite of the beatings, does the wife still love her husband?

A wife can still love a husband who subjects her to such treatment and genuinely support him, helping him to deal with the problems he's facing. Yes, even when she confronts him about these things, the beatings may continue, possibly even getting worse out of the husband's sheer desperation. It would take a strong will and determination to keep going even through this. However, these things can be dealt with, and if they are [dealt with], the resulting relationship will be strengthened to an astounding degree.

I'll let you make of that what you will.

That's the most brilliant thing I've heard, yet. Fuckin' use their organs... if every terrorist who died for his cause saved three or four American lives with his organs, it'd sure as hell take a step toward defeating their purpose. They already chop us up, what's to lose, other than respect?
I agree. In the Phillipines in the 1930s, American forces were attacked by Muslim fundamentalist warriors. The problem was soon solved when everyone was informed that Mulims killed in the course of action of attacking Americans would be buried with pigs. Contact with pigs blood is apparently a big no-no for Muslims.

I don't see a problem with offending their religious sensibilities.

I agree. In the Phillipines in the 1930s, American forces were attacked by Muslim fundamentalist warriors. The problem was soon solved when everyone was informed that Mulims killed in the course of action of attacking Americans would be buried with pigs. Contact with pigs blood is apparently a big no-no for Muslims.

I don't see a problem with offending their religious sensibilities.
yeah, they fuckin' drag burned American bodies throughout the streets, we gotta drag three times as many fuckin' insurgent bodies throughout the streets. And that buring with pigs is a good idea. Why don't we do it again? It'll save more lives in the end.

Imagine seing your father being dragged across the road or being stoned to death... Imagine seing your mother executed and embarrassed in front of the world.. Imagine seing your son beaten to death by a group of people that think their doing the right thing.

Once you understand that, youll forget about human rights

Imagine seing your father being dragged across the road or being stoned to death... Imagine seing your mother executed and embarrassed in front of the world.. Imagine seing your son beaten to death by a group of people that think their doing the right thing.

Once you understand that, youll forget about human rights
yup, evident in my above post.

Imagine seing your father being dragged across the road or being stoned to death... Imagine seing your mother executed and embarrassed in front of the world.. Imagine seing your son beaten to death by a group of people that think their doing the right thing.

Once you understand that, youll forget about human rights

Imagine a whole world where millions upon millions are having that very thing happen to them by people who had that very thing happen to them in the past and reasoned exactly the way you did.

Once you understand that, you'll realise that somewhere, the buck must stop.

Imagine a whole world where millions upon millions are having that very thing happen to them by people who had that very thing happen to them in the past and reasoned exactly the way you did.

Once you understand that, you'll realise that somewhere, the buck must stop.

Screw that.. You take one of my family members, and the whole world will go up in flames, that is also why i would be a horrible world leader...

Terrorism can and will be beaten. And then when we remove this offensive tactic from the face of the Earth, I say we go after Martial Arts.
(Damn Ninjas...)

Terrorism has been beaten. Just a decade back.

I don't know why it can't be done again.

Terrorism can and will be beaten. And then when we remove this offensive tactic from the face of the Earth, I say we go after Martial Arts.
(Damn Ninjas...)
Don't forget a Global War on Guerilla Warfare!

Yes- but the trick is to not fight.

We can take some big steps toward beating them. But we have to ask ourselves what price we will pay. Our western nations are built to maximize individual freedoms - which shall we compromise for security?

Desperate times call for desperate measures - or do they? We'll have to decide soon to protect ourselves, let alone bring the attack to them.