NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen (and been a part of) my fair share of arguments regarding the foreign policy stance of U.S. and Israel. Usually I'm ambivalent, though I tend to side with the "right-wing" side until someone inevitably makes an insightful point that returns me to my fence perch. Nevertheless, I don't think I've ever seen a thread that directly addressed the singular issue of how people think we should deal with terrorists, if indeed we are to call them that. Also, the issue of differentiating between types of "terrorists" is another area I haven't seen addressed much (or focused on much before myself), though perhaps that's because I've been too busy listening to my own opinions in those kinds of threads.

Anyway: How would you have a country deal with terrorists? How does a nation fight back (which raises the question of if it should) against a perceived enemy with no fixed locality or national-affiliation?

I would give them each a hug and one million US dollars, and hope they would change their ways.

I would give them each a hug and one million US dollars, and hope they would change their ways.

Getting my black balaclava and a handicam as we speak ;)

I would give them each a hug and one million US dollars, and hope they would change their ways.

I suppose that would be a lot cheaper than invading countries...
But we both know that that wouldn't work.

Getting my black balaclava and a handicam as we speak ;)

Did someone say baklava?

You cannot attack terrorism, only the causes of terrorism.

Attempts to combat terrorists will only breed more terrorists.

Did someone say baklava?

Let's be serious, folks. We all know the infidel is not afraid of baklava!

I would fight them with love and peace. The only real weapons against terrorism.

You cannot attack terrorism, only the causes of terrorism.

Attempts to combat terrorists will only breed more terrorists.

Oh... duh. I forgot about that option. That makes sense on a number of levels (clean, relatively cheap), but:
How can we ensure the money gets to where it's needed?
That doesn't stop terrorists in the mean time (though it does tell them that the government in question is willing to change.)

Depends on who I am, and what the situation.

What I would do as the United states facing al-queda is much different than what I would do as Israel facing Hamas/Hezbollah, which in turn is much different than what I would do as the United Kingdom facing the IRA, which is much different than what I would do as Russia facing chechnen terrorists, which is...

I've made my point, I suppose.

Depends on who I am, and what the situation.

What I would do as the United states facing al-queda is much different than what I would do as Israel facing Hamas/Hezbollah, which in turn is much different than what I would do as the United Kingdom facing the IRA, which is much different than what I would do as Russia facing chechnen terrorists, which is...

I've made my point, I suppose.

That was my other question. And if you don't mind, I'd like to hear how you differentiate the "terrorists" in the aforesaid examples.

Oh... duh. I forgot about that option. That makes sense on a number of levels (clean, relatively cheap), but:
How can we ensure the money gets to where it's needed?
That doesn't stop terrorists in the mean time (though it does tell them that the government in question is willing to change.)

Who said you can stop terrorism by pumping money into it? That didn't work with Afghanistan, did it? Nor with any other long-term US project aimed to keep the former Sovjet Union at bay without actually gettind too involved themselves.

The key would be cooperation, I think. It can assumed that no country would be too happy to harbour terrorists (they tend not to be too well-behaved overall, and pose a threat to any country), but they have little to no means of getting rid of them. So, instead of threatening and invading, how about going for cooperation or infiltration?

Oh... duh. I forgot about that option. That makes sense on a number of levels (clean, relatively cheap), but:
How can we ensure the money gets to where it's needed?
That doesn't stop terrorists in the mean time (though it does tell them that the government in question is willing to change.)
It's not just money, The US has to show it isn't the "great satan" maybe if just once in a while it managed to appear magnanamous rather than trampling over everything in its own interests, it might get some success.

You cannot attack terrorism, only the causes of terrorism.

Attempts to combat terrorists will only breed more terrorists.
you cannot surrounder to terrorism, only make them win.
negotiation with terrorists only breed more terrorists.

Who said you can stop terrorism by pumping money into it? That didn't work with Afghanistan, did it?

Afghanistan? The place where the US funded an insurgency diametrically opposed to their own ideology, just to give the USSR a black eye? The place which was over-run by mujahadeen out of Pakistan, who could have gone anywhere, but picked A because it is a notoriously hard place for a big power to fight guys with AK's? THAT Afghanistan?

We should have just let them have the place, destruction of ancient statues notwithstanding. They'd all be in one place, anyone who didn't want to live under Sharia law would flee, and there'd be another N. Korea, only far punier militarily and even poorer. I'm not being ironical.

It's better than trying to fight them everywhere and anywhere. It's what they wanted, and now taking even a miserable place like Afghanistan is beyond them, they're desperate enough to give their lives in suicide bombings.

It's not just money, The US has to show it isn't the "great satan" maybe if just once in a while it managed to appear magnanamous rather than trampling over everything in its own interests, it might get some success.

The Romans used terror tactics in warfare and conquest. But they made sure to also integrate the terrorised countries and peoples afterwards, to offer possibilities and rewards for loyalty.
Employing terror exclusively will harden the population against you rather than make them fear you or make them submissive. That concept is extremely dangerous, if terror is employed by any form of organisation, be it military or guerilla, it has to be balanced out in some way to achieve the desired effect.

you cannot surrounder to terrorism, only make them win.
negotiation with terrorists only breed more terrorists.
Who said anything about negotiating with terrorists? What you do is improve the standard of living for the general populance to the stage where it is no longer an attractive option, and then their supply of willing jihadists will derease. IT will never go away, but if you can cut off as much funding and man power as possible, they will be much richer.

I don't think that Afghanistan is a good example. You know, you actually didn't give them money...but weapons straight away (and were a bit afraid, that they might use those Stingers to take down your Appaches).

Anyhow, let's see what we can agree on:
- not every Muslim is a terrorist and hates the West
- a few nutters on both sides want to kill the other side
- they need 'cannon fodder' to do that

Now, why do the nutters on the Muslim side find that cannon fodder and the Christians don't (well, not that bluntly anyhow)? I think it's simple: if you come up to me with a bomb and tell me to go into that group of Neo-Nazis and blow myself up...what do I do? I mean, I HATE Neos. Drive me fucking mad. However, I'll look at my pretty good life which has some perspectives to stay good for a while - and tell you to fuck off.
On the other side, the impoverished Muslim dude with 17 kids and no future might at one point very well say: damn, I'm out of here (especially with the prospect of all those virigns).

Morale of the story: give people a decent life and a future...and they will not feel the need to blow themselves up anymore. As a matter of fact, I believe that our Western secularism is directly linked with our wealth. Why do we need God? We have money! And money even does what I want (as opposed to the other way around). I think, that this effect would be visible in most religions (exept maybe Buddhism - jaja, not a religion, I know).

What to do? Seriously try to help the ME build a stable economy. THEN we can talk democracy and such.

you cannot surrounder to terrorism, only make them win.
negotiation with terrorists only breed more terrorists.

And you cannot fight terrorism. Taking a hard stand against terrorists will only breed more terrorists.

Looks like a losing situation either way, then. :rolleyes:

Egg and Chips is correct in stating that we can only address the causes of terrorism - the faceless enemy.

By encouraging economic prosperity and more stabilty by investing in these states, individuals won't be in such conditions that they are willing to kill themselves because they have nothing to lose....

The difference between the western capitalist system and the states that the terrorists come from is that the west emphasises the importance of the individual in everything.... the east place their emphasis on the important of society. Therefore if one person acts in a way that may be to their own detriment, if its for the survival of the society then that person's loss is beneficial and not a negative action.

My point is that the West have, over the centuries raped these states of resources etc. For once they are taking a stand. The sooner the West realises that continued violence against the middle east will only result in further attacks the sooner we can invest and begin to develop some kind of peace.

However - there will always be terrorists and there has always been terrorists. They aren't all asian -

Timothy McVey............(was that his name)

Obligitory silly answer: I'd eat captured terrorists. Yup. Eat. Cut into little chunks, marinate in cider and orange, grill over some scented wood, and eat. What would this solve? I have no idea. But it'd taste good.

Serious answer: I wouldn't attack a nation for the actions of some of their civillian populace.

you cannot surrounder to terrorism, only make them win.
negotiation with terrorists only breed more terrorists.

No, you can't surrender to terrorism, but you can negotiate.

My silly suggestion of a "terrorist state" being allowed in Afghanistan notwithstanding, you don't have to actually give them much at all. Britain giving limited autonomy to Northern Ireland being the perfect example. Let them sit at the table and talk for a few years, take them even a bit seriously, and let them work out that they aren't going to get "the total destruction of the infidel," but if they keep talking they'll get something.

So, instead of threatening and invading, how about going for cooperation or infiltration?

That's assuming that the country wants the terrorism to stop.

That was my other question. And if you don't mind, I'd like to hear how you differentiate the "terrorists" in the aforesaid examples.

Al-queda is a loose organization of mostly muslims, who have it in for the west, and try to attack and disrupt their economies, political processes, etc, to weaken it. I know OBL's reasons fairly well, but I'm sure they vary within the orginaztion.

I won't get into Hamas or Hezbolla, as I honestly don't know a great deal about them. However, the common theme of their respective terrorist sides are being anti-israel for whatever reason, and are currently against israel. Some go after military targets, some after civilian targets, to weaken israel.

I really wont get into the IRA, I sadly know very little about the whole deal.

Chechnan terrorists are hard to categorize. They don't seem to be nearly as connected as middle eastern terrorists, so I won't make any broad statements... Mostly talking about beslan, the school incident, etc...

Regarding the "terrorists have nothing to live for" idea:
If I recall correctly, most terrorists aren't desperate or poor. They're well-educated, middle-class people who do have something to live for.

Al-queda is a loose organization of mostly muslims, who have it in for the west, and try to attack and disrupt their economies, political processes, etc, to weaken it. I know OBL's reasons fairly well, but I'm sure they vary within the orginaztion.

I won't get into Hamas or Hezbolla, as I honestly don't know a great deal about them. However, the common theme of their respective terrorist sides are being anti-israel for whatever reason, and are currently against israel. Some go after military targets, some after civilian targets, to weaken israel.

I really wont get into the IRA, I sadly know very little about the whole deal.

Chechnan terrorists are hard to categorize. They don't seem to be nearly as connected as middle eastern terrorists, so I won't make any broad statements... Mostly talking about beslan, the school incident, etc...

As far as I can tell, the main difference between terrorists are the ones that fight for "noble causes" (sovereignty, freedom from real/perceived oppression, improved quality of life) and, for lack of a better term, "ignoble causes" (blind hatred of "the other", envy.)

Assuming we should, how would we treat the two types of terrorists differently? And how would we discern the motivations of an organization?

Regarding the "terrorists have nothing to live for" idea:
If I recall correctly, most terrorists aren't desperate or poor. They're well-educated, middle-class people who do have something to live for.

From what I hear, especially in Iraq, its all of the above; Many affluent foreigners, many poor foreigners, many poor iraqi's... Never hear much about rich iraqi's...

However, for the cannon fodder ak pumpers, it seems to mostly be poorer people. The bombers seem to be the affluent ones more often, especially the (non-suicide) bombers.

Parenthesis to show I didn't mean non suicide-bombers, but bombers who don't commit suicide.

As far as I can tell, the main difference between terrorists are the ones that fight for "noble causes" (sovereignty, freedom from real/perceived oppression, improved quality of life) and, for lack of a better term, "ignoble causes" (blind hatred of "the other", envy.)

So... should we treat the two types of terrorists differently?

I think every group should be treated differently. I know its magnanimous, but I don't think you can really cut things apart like you want to. I think terrorists is more of a buzz-word than anything now; I also think people are all too willing to believe someone or some organization is terrorist, because they manage to kill some innocents. I do differentiate between those who attack civilians to cause terror, and those who attack civilians because they simply cannot pull off attacks on military units.

Force them to have unprotected sex with Aids infested whores.

Who said anything about negotiating with terrorists? What you do is improve the standard of living for the general populance to the stage where it is no longer an attractive option, and then their supply of willing jihadists will derease. IT will never go away, but if you can cut off as much funding and man power as possible, they will be much richer.
al-qaida memebrs are mostly middle class or higher.
the palastinians enjoyed high standarts of living BEFORE the second intifada broke.
there is no 100% corelation between terror and poorness.

...
I think terrorists is more of a buzz-word than anything now; I also think people are all too willing to believe someone or some organization is terrorist, because they manage to kill some innocents. I do differentiate between those who attack civilians to cause terror, and those who attack civilians because they simply cannot pull off attacks on military units.

brilliant. I vote for Chellis. :)

That's assuming that the country wants the terrorism to stop.

And you're assuming that the country is one singly entity with one single mind.

I'm not talking about the leaders of the country here, but mostly about the population. They are the ones who have to stigmatise the terrorists and make the notion of terrorism unacceptable.
If it wasn't for the appreciation of parts of the population, do you really think organisations like Al-Qaeda or Hezbolla would be able to find that many willing recruits?

Turn the terrorists into social outcasts, make life difficult for them, don't let them get any gratification from any part of society, and no support of course, and you'll soon have them down to a size that a single police squad can handle.

The problem is the support they have in society. That's where you need to start.

No, you can't surrender to terrorism, but you can negotiate.

My silly suggestion of a "terrorist state" being allowed in Afghanistan notwithstanding, you don't have to actually give them much at all. Britain giving limited autonomy to Northern Ireland being the perfect example. Let them sit at the table and talk for a few years, take them even a bit seriously, and let them work out that they aren't going to get "the total destruction of the infidel," but if they keep talking they'll get something.
suppose the terrorists only want independent country. in that case I have no problem with give them most of the west bank and go for them on the other issues.
it isn't the case in the middle east. the terrorists here want total destruction of israel. what we negotiate? anuual tax of victims?

suppose the terrorists only want independent country. in that case I have no problem with give them most of the west bank and go for them on the other issues.
it isn't the case in the middle east. the terrorists here want total destruction of israel. what we negotiate? anuual tax of victims?

Israel's public statements about their attitude to Arabs are very civilized and moderate. But Israel is a modern state, politically sophisticated, and understand the importance of international opinion.
The rhetoric of Iran, for instance, isn't moderate at all.

I say, judge a government by it's actions. Hammas should be given a chance to govern.

Regarding the "terrorists have nothing to live for" idea:
If I recall correctly, most terrorists aren't desperate or poor. They're well-educated, middle-class people who do have something to live for.

And yet, they feel they have something to gain from terrorist acts. Remove that gain, and you solve your problem.

Remove that gain, and you solve your problem.

I think most people agree on that. But what about short-term solutions?

Israel's public statements about their attitude to Arabs are very civilized and moderate. But Israel is a modern state, politically sophisticated, and understand the importance of international opinion.
The rhetoric of Iran, for instance, isn't moderate at all.

I say, judge a government by it's actions. Hammas should be given a chance to govern.
iran actions prove they lie over and over to the UN, while secretly try and build nuclear bombs.
hammas is terror organization by definition in all the western world. hizbulla too. they are the ones we fight with.
what you will say if al-qaida will be majority party in any of your neighbouring countries?

And yet, they feel they have something to gain from terrorist acts. Remove that gain, and you solve your problem.
this gain may not be understandable by western ideas. how we remove the gain of the "Shahada"- death for alla?

this gain may not be understandable by western ideas. how we remove the gain of the "Shahada"- death for alla?

Give them something to live for. Promote the idea that a life for Allah is more desireable.

what you will say if al-qaida will be majority party in any of your neighbouring countries?

Indeed. U.S. is fairly unique in that its terrorists are further away. That was one reason I was never too fond of the Bush's "solution", though on occasion I have entertained the idea of blowing up half of the Middle East for some elusive peace.

I think most people agree on that. But what about short-term solutions?

There are no short-term solutions to the problem of terrorism. Any short-term attempt will only increase the threat....

Give them something to live for. Promote the idea that a life for Allah is more desireable.

That takes decades. It's like asking to make Americans realize that creationism is bullshit, homosexuals are people, and that virgin birth is a myth.

iran actions prove they lie over and over to the UN, while secretly try and build nuclear bombs.
hammas is terror organization by definition in all the western world. hizbulla too. they are the ones we fight with.
what you will say if al-qaida will be majority party in any of your neighbouring countries?

Buddy, I'm living in Ireland and grew up in Germany in the 70s. Terrorism was a constant factor of life.
Terrorists are criminals and should at all times be treated as such. Treat them like an enemy or even an enemy force, and you give them creedence that only helps their case.

Give them something to live for. Promote the idea that a life for Allah is more desireable.
you mean education, I guess.
but what you mean by something? obviusly raise their standarts of living isn't full-proven solution.

That takes decades. It's like asking to make Americans realize that creationism is bullshit, homosexuals are people, and that virgin birth is a myth.

And the way the problem is being approached now showed results faster? Any results? At all?

There are no short-term solutions to the problem of terrorism. Any short-term attempt will only increase the threat....
so when they attack us and kill us and get more weapons that make more dammage, we should do nothing?
otupian ideologies may be well as long term solutions, but we live in short-term reality.

you mean education, I guess.
but what you mean by something? obviusly raise their standarts of living isn't full-proven solution.

Don't only raise their standard of living. Provide education and open up their minds. Ask them questions, make them think. Provide a multi-faced approach to philosophy and religion, not a one-sided one.
DON'T try to provide answers. They'll be seen as indoctrination by a foreign culture, and rightfully so. Middle Eastern culture needs to advance out of the state it's in right now, but it can't do so solely by imitating the West.

so when they attack us and kill us and get more weapons that make more dammage, we should do nothing?
otupian ideologies may be well as long term solutions, but we live in short-term reality.

So you shoot back and kill more innocents. In what way is that stopping them?

Buddy, I'm living in Ireland and grew up in Germany in the 70s. Terrorism was a constant factor of life.
Terrorists are criminals and should at all times be treated as such. Treat them like an enemy or even an enemy force, and you give them creedence that only helps their case.
by treated as criminal you mean we can stop them, arrest them, kill them and stop their free getting of supplies and forces? because that is what already done.

by treated as criminal you mean we can stop them, arrest them, kill them and stop their free getting of supplies and forces? because that is what already done.

Not quite.
Stop them, arrest them, TRIAL them, lock them up. Make that process as open as possible and don't turn them into martyrs.
Discredit them in the public opinion, show them as criminals, not as heros.

It's not wartime strategies that are needed, it's a mass-psychological approach.

...
what you will say if al-qaida will be majority party in any of your neighbouring countries?

I guess you're an Israeli. I'm an Australian.
Please don't think I take the issue lightly, our nearest significant neighbour (Indonesia) is the country with the largest Muslim population in the world.

I am very interested in long term solutions. I don't want to be working this out in twenty years when I'm huddled in a trench.

And some of the rhetoric that comes out of Indonesia is pretty worrying. JI is a proscribed organisation pretty much everywhere, but in fact I'd be happy with them running a party in Indonesia's democratic elections, because at least then we'd know what their plans were.

You cannot attack terrorism, only the causes of terrorism.

Attempts to combat terrorists will only breed more terrorists.

Fallacy.

By that logic, attempts to combat Nazism would only breed more Nazis.

Don't only raise their standard of living. Provide education and open up their minds. Ask them questions, make them think. Provide a multi-faced approach to philosophy and religion, not a one-sided one.
DON'T try to provide answers. They'll be seen as indoctrination by a foreign culture, and rightfully so. Middle Eastern culture needs to advance out of the state it's in right now, but it can't do so solely by imitating the West.
so basically it is like bush's plan bring democracy and liberal values to the middle east, although in other ways.
the world will be much simple like that, but don't forget the west himself need some centauries to get used to the idea and develope it.
I can't see how it will work.

I would fight them with love and peace. The only real weapons against terrorism.

Great... good luck with that.
When they kill you for not converting to Islam, can I have your stereo?

I guess you're an Israeli. I'm an Australian.
Please don't think I take the issue lightly, our nearest significant neighbour (Indonesia) is the country with the largest Muslim population in the world.

I am very interested in long term solutions. I don't want to be working this out in twenty years when I'm huddled in a trench.

And some of the rhetoric that comes out of Indonesia is pretty worrying. JI is a proscribed organisation pretty much everywhere, but in fact I'd be happy with them running a party in Indonesia's democratic elections, because at least then we'd know what their plans were.
as much as I remember they were too western to al-qaida, that launch the terror attack in bali.
theis party aren't terrorists or supporter of such, are they?

so basically it is like bush's plan bring democracy and liberal values to the middle east, although in other ways.
the world will be much simple like that, but don't forget the west himself need some centauries to get used to the idea and develope it.
I can't see how it will work.

No. No. No.
Don't bring them "values". They're drowning in those as it is. Bring them questions. Make them doubt and question what's going on around them. Start with the kids, they're doing that anyway. And, most importantly, always provide more than two answers. Don't turn that into an East vs. West education, it'll only make matters worse.

The West took centuries because nobody was allowed to ask the questions.;)

I've seen (and been a part of) my fair share of arguments regarding the foreign policy stance of U.S. and Israel. Usually I'm ambivalent, though I tend to side with the "right-wing" side until someone inevitably makes an insightful point that returns me to my fence perch. Nevertheless, I don't think I've ever seen a thread that directly addressed the singular issue of how people think we should deal with terrorists, if indeed we are to call them that. Also, the issue of differentiating between types of "terrorists" is another area I haven't seen addressed much (or focused on much before myself), though perhaps that's because I've been too busy listening to my own opinions in those kinds of threads.

Anyway: How would you have a country deal with terrorists? How does a nation fight back (which raises the question of if it should) against a perceived enemy with no fixed locality or national-affiliation?

Terrorists have affilliations: religious (*cough* wahhabite), ethnic (*cough* tamil ) , dietary habits (*cough* PETA) .
Those make for easy targetting-procedures.

i would poke them with a pointy stick until they stopped

what is a terrorist? is the first question.

to solve a problem it generaly helps to have some idea what it is.

i don't think there's really much effective that can be done other then to beef up security of probable targets. even that is a pretty hit or miss propisition.

someone who has all their life been a model law abiding citizen, straps on a vest of high explosives and blows themselves up in a public place.

somehow i don't think making a bomb crater out of whatever country their parents might have come from is going to do a whole heck of a lot to prevent someone else from doing the same thing.

maybe, just maybe, it might be a trifle more productive to try and find out what their ligitimate grievance might have been and maybe even do something more then cosmetic about it.

maybe not every previously law abiding citizen who blows themselves up in a public place had one. perhapse they did this on a lark.

yet i rather doubt this, without some profound experience in their lives having made it in their perception a worthwhile tradeoff to sacrafice their own lives in the hopes that destroying something will somehow contribute to a cure for some sort of real, or at least perceived enequity.

in short, these so called terrorest acts can also been seen, indeed make sense only in the context of being seen, as acts of despiration.

and despiration has causes, and govenments, even 'democratic' governments are seldom if ever lilly innocent.

there is an answer to terrorism. it is to stop creating conditions that create a market for it.

that's part of it, the biggest part of it, the currently appearantly most ignored part of it. the part that nothing else is very likely to provide any real solution while continuing to ignore part of it.

=^^=
.../\...

i would poke them with a pointy stick until they stopped

We've been doing that for 3 years. It's called Iraq.

what is a terrorist? is the first question.

to solve a problem it generaly helps to have some idea what it is.

i don't think there's really much effective that can be done other then to beef up security of probable targets. even that is a pretty hit or miss propisition.

someone who has all their life been a model law abiding citizen, straps on a vest of high explosives and blows themselves up in a public place.

somehow i don't think making a bomb crater out of whatever country their parents might have come from is going to do a whole heck of a lot to prevent someone else from doing the same thing.

maybe, just maybe, it might be a trifle more productive to try and find out what their ligitimate grievance might have been and maybe even do something more then cosmetic about it.

maybe not every previously law abiding citizen who blows themselves up in a public place had one. perhapse they did this on a lark.

yet i rather doubt this, without some profound experience in their lives having made it in their perception a worthwhile tradeoff to sacrafice their own lives in the hopes that destroying something will somehow contribute to a cure for some sort of real, or at least perceived enequity.

in short, these so called terrorest acts can also been seen, indeed make sense only in the context of being seen, as acts of despiration.

and despiration has causes, and govenments, even 'democratic' governments are seldom if ever lilly innocent.

there is an answer to terrorism. it is to stop creating conditions that create a market for it.

that's part of it, the biggest part of it, the currently appearantly most ignored part of it. the part that nothing else is very likely to provide any real solution while continuing to ignore part of it.

=^^=
.../\...


Inasmuch as 2 persons may ( and often have ) conflicting interpretations of Justice, trying to adress 'legitimate' concerns is a mug's game.

David Duke will be certain that injustice exists when a single white girl - imaginary or not - is in danger of ogling ( or whatever ) by a negro.

Louis Farrakhan will be certain that injustice exists when a single white girl is off-limits.

As you will see, the differing concepts of Justice do not allow for a peaceful resolution.

Why do you pay an expert on these matters?
The politician shall ignore him.
The politician is a terrorizt in his own ways.

Not quite.
Stop them, arrest them, TRIAL them, lock them up. Make that process as open as possible and don't turn them into martyrs.this is the problem with ideoligical criminals. they used their trial to convince people they are right, and take more supporters.
researches show that since the trials in usa were showed in TV and discuused in media, there were much more juries who vote for the criminal. the public opinion are as same. if you see weak prisoner claimed to do serious crimes against all the great judical system and the evil-looking categor, many people will side the "weak" side- the terrorists.

Discredit them in the public opinion, show them as criminals, not as heros.

It's not wartime strategies that are needed, it's a mass-psychological approach.we say they are criminals, but since it is national conflict palastinians will see them as heroes. why will them believe to israeli judges and media, while their own media, teachers and politicians say he is hero, and in their mosques call for them to fight against the satan and be like him?
I sadly said, that they win almost every fight in the public opinion by propoganda and brainwashing.

besides, if terrorist is shooting you or blow himself as suicide bomber in the minute you will be close to him, how you arrest him? especially, in dense area of gunmen and civilians who mostly don't like you at all.

No. No. No.
Don't bring them "values". They're drowning in those as it is. Bring them questions. Make them doubt and question what's going on around them. Start with the kids, they're doing that anyway. And, most importantly, always provide more than two answers. Don't turn that into an East vs. West education, it'll only make matters worse.this educational fight should start from the top: the goverments who decide what will be thought and the religious leaders which are much influental. in the musques they heard about the satans (usa and israel), than they heared similar things in their media.
then their teachers teach them those things in the class (even math ones). they grown into hate of abstract things they never met as jews, USA and the west. background that let the terror organizations recuirt them while they old enough.
this is the situation in most arab and muslim states, include the more moderate.
how exactly you are going to get into this swamp and hate with moderate text books that will teach them to think?

The West took centuries because nobody was allowed to ask the questions.;)and the arabs in the same condition beacuse of this exact same reason.

It's not just money, The US has to show it isn't the "great satan" maybe if just once in a while it managed to appear magnanamous rather than trampling over everything in its own interests, it might get some success.


The US gives more money to help other people and countries than anyone else in the world.

The per capita figures based on government donations to help other countries is wildly misleading. Americans give plenty that way, but the vast majority of what we give is given by individual people though private organizations.

The US gives more money to help other people and countries than anyone else in the world.

The per capita figures based on government donations to help other countries is wildly misleading. Americans give plenty that way, but the vast majority of what we give is given by individual people though private organizations.

As said before, it's not about money in this case. It's about behaviour.

As said before, it's not about money in this case. It's about behaviour.


The problem, the wrong behaviour, is that we pay heed to the concerns of those who do not behave as good little boys.

'Give me head - not grief'.

And that makes things simple: any group who gives US more grief than head = VMT.

You can break terrorists down into two broad types. Firstly you have the territorial disputes - Basques, Irish (both republican and unionist), chechen etc. The basic outline is "You are in our country. Piss off an leave us alone and autonomous". Usually this has been brought about by some historical empire-building. In many cases, a western nation has taken over another country and even if they have left and allowed independence, they have subdivided the country in such a way as to leave a dispute for the people living there. i.e. Northern Ireland, Kashmir etc. It ends up as a civil war - either official or unofficial and that is impossible to solve. All that you can say is that nobody should have pissed about in their country in the first place.

Then there are the "anti" terrorists. They not concerned with a territory, but are anti-something. So lets take Al-Qaeda as the most prominent example at the moment. As I understand it, what they are against is western interference in the middle east. And they have a point. Apart from the whole israel question, there has been plenty of western influence including manipulation of the iraqi and iranian governements and so on stretching back centuries.

However at the moment, I think their perception is that the western nations are telling them what to do almost constantly. You must have democracy! Well said George - a man who won an election against an opponent who got more votes. whoops. Tony's on no safer ground since the third party in the UK can poll 30% of the votes and get 12% of the seats.

The governments of the countries in the middle east (as anywhere) are partially based on religious beliefs and traditions. So it is similar to saying that your history and beliefs are irrelevant and you have to do things our way.

Any way you look at it, the reasons for western interference boil down to money. Whether it is simply to safeguard the supply of oil or enable foreign investment. You could argue that it is for the stability of the nations in question - but more stability means stable economics and you are right back to money again.

Any erosion of a nation's identity or culture could lead to total change. Its like the US being told in the 80s that they had to adopt the russian governmental model. You think that would have gone down well? In this situation it does not matter what benefits can be shown from making a change, people will not want that change because it means a change in identity of the country.

So what they are hearing in recent years is "Do it our way". And more recently you can add "....or else" onto that since if things do not go the west's way, someone gets invaded.

So remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and once you start to put things from the point of view outlined above, you can understand why.

So those people who are talking about giving other countries ideas and encouraging change, I agree with. Instructing them just causes terrorism.

At Barcodius: the British Emparrr did not fight the institution of slavery with schools.
We did so with naval gunfire.

Wha??????

Don't only raise their standard of living. Provide education and open up their minds. Ask them questions, make them think. Provide a multi-faced approach to philosophy and religion, not a one-sided one.
DON'T try to provide answers. They'll be seen as indoctrination by a foreign culture, and rightfully so. Middle Eastern culture needs to advance out of the state it's in right now, but it can't do so solely by imitating the West.
So you are asking them to give up their faith?

Wha??????

What I am saying is that there are quite a few categories of moral problems in which dialogue is unacceptable, and nothing but immediate action will do.

Slavery would be such an instance.
Ditto for Shari'a.
Ditto for honest-to-God-Ethnic Cleansing ( the real stuff, not some invented category ).

Darfur comes to mind: all 3 categories interacting at the same time.

Then there are the "anti" terrorists. They not concerned with a territory, but are anti-something. So lets take Al-Qaeda as the most prominent example at the moment. As I understand it, what they are against is western interference in the middle east. And they have a point. Apart from the whole israel question, there has been plenty of western influence including manipulation of the iraqi and iranian governements and so on stretching back centuries.

that is the point which I disagree with you.
they aren't against the actions of the west, they are against the west himself. they against jewish and christians, israel, usa and europe, moderate muslim and arab nations, and surprisingly even against iran (which is from the other stream of the islam, although shared most of this "anti" feelings).

I had no problem with negotiation and get agreements with the other kind of terrorists.
the kind of al-qaida is the one which bother me and iran, hamas and hizbulla are from the same kind.

So you are asking them to give up their faith?

Lets say my fate told me to kill off homosexuals.
( It doesn't - but there have been believers in the past who thought so ).
Would you not ask me to consider a switch?

You cant tell me how to live my faith.
But you might tell me to stop it alltogther.

Lets say my fate told me to kill off homosexuals.
( It doesn't - but there have been believers in the past who thought so ).
Would you not ask me to consider a switch?

You cant tell me how to live my faith.
But you might tell me to stop it alltogther.
lets say you really are. will you agree?
more important, will the terrorists agree for that when this isn't hypothetic question?

that is the point which I disagree with you.
they aren't against the actions of the west, they are against the west himself. they against jewish and christians, israel, usa and europe, moderate muslim and arab nations, and surprisingly even against iran (which is from the other stream of the islam, although shared most of this "anti" feelings).

.

They are against the effects that all of these have on them.

In relation to other arab nations, they share some common identity. If one nation's identity is eroded, it erodes the identity of the area as a whole.

Why do you think the majority of the 7/11 terrorists were Saudis - probably the most westernised arab nation.

What I am saying is that there are quite a few categories of moral problems in which dialogue is unacceptable, and nothing but immediate action will do.

Slavery would be such an instance.
Ditto for Shari'a.
Ditto for honest-to-God-Ethnic Cleansing ( the real stuff, not some invented category ).

Darfur comes to mind: all 3 categories interacting at the same time.

Well I can't disagree with that. My overall view has to give way to some exceptions when you look at specifics.

However, in the case of fighting slavery..... we just had to stop doing it in the first place.

lets say you really are. will you agree?
more important, will the terrorists agree for that when this isn't hypothetic question?

Then the warning would have been given.

If it is not heeded, I would seriously consider following Jeremiah 48:10.

Jeremiah 48:10 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



10 "A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work!
A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!

Well I can't disagree with that. My overall view has to give way to some exceptions when you look at specifics.

However, in the case of fighting slavery..... we just had to stop doing it in the first place.

The UK was one of the first Nations to stop slavery.
And we were the first to fight it where we could prevent it outside our own borders.
We could not do so everywhere, but we did so where we could do so feasibly.

My overall view has to give way to some exceptions when you look at specifics.
We could not do so everywhere, but we did so where we could do so feasibly.

They are against the effects that all of these have on them.

In relation to other arab nations, they share some common identity. If one nation's identity is eroded, it erodes the identity of the area as a whole.

Why do you think the majority of the 7/11 terrorists were Saudis - probably the most westernised arab nation.
you mean they against holywood, macdonalds and coka-cola, because arab buy this things like all the other world?
they aren't anti-globalization protestor you know.
do you support ignoring the oppresive regimes and the crime against humanity that made by them, because "this is their idenity"?

Well I'd try to organise a non-violent meeting with the terrorist leaders (preferably not in person, but with a representative) and via discussion, try to come to some sort of agreement or compromise. I mean, if your country's being terrorised, chances are it's your fault to begin with (eg US troops being in places they shouldn't be, rediculous laws etc).

However if its the type of terrorism where the terrorists have rediculous demands, where and there's no real point or where they're just doing doing it for the hell of it, I'd just send in a couple of special ops to take 'em out, real stealthy like. Or guns ablazing, whichever way's more efficient. Although I would like to avoid casualties.

Then the warning would have been given.

If it is not heeded, I would seriously consider following Jeremiah 48:10.
what warning? be nice and stop from terror or we will attack you?

Well I'd try to organise a non-violent meeting with the terrorist leaders (preferably not in person, but with a representative) and via discussion, try to come to some sort of agreement or compromise. I mean, if your country's being terrorised, chances are it's your fault to begin with (eg US troops being in places they shouldn't be, rediculous laws etc).

However if its the type of terrorism where the terrorists have rediculous demands, where and there's no real point or where they're just doing doing it for the hell of it, I'd just send in a couple of special ops to take 'em out, real stealthy like. Or guns ablazing, whichever way's more efficient. Although I would like to avoid casualties.problem that if it is the second case, you won't stay alive after the meeting with the terrorists.

what warning? be nice and stop from terror or we will attack you?

In harsher words:
Lay down your weapons - or be slaughtered to the last critter!

We don't have to slaughter to the last critter - but the threat should be there.

In harsher words:
Lay down your weapons - or be slaughtered to the last critter!

We don't have to slaughter to the last critter - but the threat should be there.
isn't that what done currently in all the middle east conflicts?

isn't that what done currently in all the middle east conflicts?

Not from my POV.

It certainly isn't done when the US turns a blind eye to wahhabite preaching financed by the House of Sa'ud.

I suppose that would be a lot cheaper than invading countries...
But we both know that that wouldn't work.

That's because you forgot the stripper factory and the beer volcano for them all to congregate at. Trust me, Pastafarianism will make pacifists out of the most ardent blood drinker :p

You cannot attack terrorism, only the causes of terrorism.

Attempts to combat terrorists will only breed more terrorists.

That’s completely right, some people tend not to see why terrorism really started, “IRA” independence, “ETA” independence. I’m not saying that their reasons are right, but you can see how it was solved in both cases, ultimately was with diplomacy.
Now, in the Middle East, they have other reasons. Palestine, I think it’s because illegal occupation of their territory (it’s not all, but maybe that’s the start), if that was solved, maybe it were easier to end the conflict, at lest Europe would support more Israel. In all the other Arab countries, maybe if we (the west), stop stealing their resources (making what could be rich countries to extreme poorer ones), and stopped meddling in their internal affairs, it would make far more effect that 10 Iraq wars.

Not from my POV.

It certainly isn't done when the US turns a blind eye to wahhabite preaching financed by the House of Sa'ud.
so you suggesting to start earlier WW3 against the terror by attacking syria, iran saudia and the others which will join them?
ovcourse, we will warn them before. :)

That’s completely right, some people tend not to see why terrorism really started, “IRA” independence, “ETA” independence. I’m not saying that their reasons are right, but you can see how it was solved in both cases, ultimately was with diplomacy.
Now, in the Middle East, they have other reasons. Palestine, I think it’s because illegal occupation of their territory (it’s not all, but maybe that’s the start), if that was solved, maybe it were easier to end the conflict, at lest Europe would support more Israel. In all the other Arab countries, maybe if we (the west), stop stealing their resources (making what could be rich countries to extreme poorer ones), and stopped meddling in their internal affairs, it would make far more effect that 10 Iraq wars.you were fine until you got the middle east issue.
we almost got agreement with the terrorists that want independet country. we were willing to give them most of the territory.
the problem is with the terrorists that want to DESTROY us. most known are hammas and hizbbula which supported by iran and syria, and al-qaida which aim for all the western or un-muslim world.

so you suggesting to start earlier WW3 against the terror by attacking syria, iran saudia and the others which will join them?
ovcourse, we will warn them before. :)

I would most certainly not attack Syria - in deference to what old Assad did to the fundies in 82.

Vigorous actions in the Sudan and Iraq in conjunction should be quite effective. ( periphery-strategy )

A threat - real or imagined - of frightening dimensions, against Mecca should be made perceptible. ( The Medium is the Message ;) and is it real, or is it Memorex? )

I would most certainly not attack Syria - in deference to what old Assad did to the fundies in 82.first, it was the old one. the new one connected with iran and many terror organizations.
second, reminc me what he did?

Vigorous actions in the Sudan and Iraq in conjunction should be quite effective. ( periphery-strategy )I think usa do it in iraq, and sudan need immidiate action against the jenocide taking place there.

A threat - real or imagined - of frightening dimensions, against Mecca should be made perceptible. ( The Medium is the Message ;) and is it real, or is it Memorex? )
just curios, but won't it make things worse?
the christian people in the western world aren't going to be happy if al-qaida will treathen to bomb the vatican, right?

first, it was the old one. the new one connected with iran and many terror organizations.
second, reminc me what he did?

I think usa do it in iraq, and sudan need immidiate action against the jenocide taking place there.


just curios, but won't it make things worse?
the christian people in the western world aren't going to be happy if al-qaida will treathen to bomb the vatican, right?


I'm not ueberbothered about Iran - basically ( while it looks different to Israel ) the Shi'ites are no global threat.

Old Assad laid the entire city of Homs to waste, rather than see it become a nest of fundiism.

I think that Iraq is less than effective when there is no clear view as to what to do there ( I'm looking for a Verdun - not for a rebuild ).
Sudan must be settled in the context of the role of the Negro in Africa.
I believe that Africa should be politically Black from Cap Bone to Cap Bon Esperance.

I'm not sure what you mean with worse, but every Jihadi who is guarding against a phantom thread wont be in action where the real fight is...

If islamist or islamic segments respond with 'we swear to die for our Faith' ( as happened in 2002 in Lahore, if memory serves me right ) then my strategic response would be to make sure that none of the shouting rabble would have the opportunity to become oathbreakers.

So you are asking them to give up their faith?

No. I'm asking them to advance their understanding of it.

I'm not ueberbothered about Iran - basically ( while it looks different to Israel ) the Shi'ites are no global threat.iran support terror. iran build nukes. iran call for the destruction of israel. enough reasons for us.
iran missle range coming to the middle of europe, and her leader are radical fundementalist. shouldn't that count as global threat?

Old Assad laid the entire city of Homs to waste, rather than see it become a nest of fundiism. and I guess this fundies tried to attack syria first, no?

I think that Iraq is less than effective when there is no clear view as to what to do there ( I'm looking for a Verdun - not for a rebuild ).with less than 30% approval rate, I don't think bush can lead this verdun of iraq.

Sudan must be settled in the context of the role of the Negro in Africa.
I believe that Africa should be politically Black from Cap Bone to Cap Bon Esperance.although there are many black muslims, and north africa aren't black for some milenia? I can't see how it work.

I'm not sure what you mean with worse, but every Jihadi who is guarding against a phantom thread wont be in action where the real fight is...by the fact it will become formally religious war, which united the 1.5 bilions or more of muslims in the world, against the west?

If islamist or islamic segments respond with 'we swear to die for our Faith' ( as happened in 2002 in Lahore, if memory serves me right ) then my strategic response would be to make sure that none of the shouting rabble would have the opportunity to become oathbreakers.you didn't mean kill any muslim in the world, right?

No. I'm asking them to advance their understanding of it.
maybe you can answer my posts on that issue?

I would treat them according to a codified set of laws, and judging them not for "terrorism", but for a codified set of charges, like murder, mass murder, kidnapping, destruction of private property and so forth. I think we have enough crime denominations to invent new ones like "terrorism".

Looks like it works, ETA terrorists in Spain started to behave and give the police a call before a bomb exploded so they could retire all civilians and innocents in the area, for example. (They are even negotiating now).

Treating terrorists with extreme violence, (also causing high collateral damage) seems just to breed more terrorists. But again, this is what I would do, and my personal opinion over the issue.

I live in Italy, where terrorism is far from unknown. Probably not all forms of terrorism are the same, yet giving some general recipe should be possible.

The answer to the general question is, I believe:
1 - use police force against terrorists;
2 - remove the causes behind terrorism, make so that non-terrorists will not see terrorists as supporting their same interest in a violent way. Moderates will be stronger if people see that problems can be solved by negotiation rather than by use of force.

When I say "police force", I mean that force should only be used against those who are terrorists and without unnecessary excess. If you cannot use force without risking causalties among the innocent, you should refrain from using force at all.

If we go to concrete examples, the most critical ones are, today:
- Al Qaeda
- Palestinians

Al Qaeda's acts could have justified war to Afghanistan, as far as Afghanistan was hosting their HQ and the taleban gov't was actually allied to Osama. However, I still believe that extensive use of bombings was a mistake.
War to Iraq had no justification whatsoever and was a crime.
Nothing was done to avoid that the whole muslim world felt like being a target, or that the poorer people of Earth thought that the only one to stand against the economic powers exploiting the third world (not my view) was Osama.

The result is that, the USA having followed neither 1 nor 2, the terrorism was made stronger, and the case for US being on the fair side way weaker.

For Palestinians, Israel has been illegally occupying the West Bank for decades. The continued violence and injustice suffered by Palestinians there have found no real answer, and by all ways precede and exceed Israel's own suffering, but no one dares to sanction Israel for that. Sharon deliberately weakened the "moderate" Al Fatah by denying Arafat even the legitimacy to negotiate, until he had no authority whatsoever on extremists. The second Intifada was started, you will remember, after a Sharon's provocation, which was intended to undermine Arafat's authority and block negotiations (which had come close to a deal).

Again, use of undiscrimined force and refuse to give the opponent side reasons to consider terrorism as a mistake and a crime results in worsening and deepening the conflict.

Those who have power have the responsibility to change things. Power is not in the hands of terrorists; it is in the hands of our governments. Those who deny this responsibility should recall how the world used to be when mr. G. W. Bush and mr. A. Sharon were not yet in charge. There is a lot of difference.

I would treat them according to a codified set of laws, and judging them not for "terrorism", but for a codified set of charges, like murder, mass murder, kidnapping, destruction of private property and so forth. I think we have enough crime denominations to invent new ones like "terrorism".

Looks like it works, ETA terrorists in Spain started to behave and give the police a call before a bomb exploded so they could retire all civilians and innocents in the area, for example. (They are even negotiating now).

Treating terrorists with extreme violence, (also causing high collateral damage) seems just to breed more terrorists. But again, this is what I would do, and my personal opinion over the issue.
what if the terrorists want to make as much civilian deaths as they can and destruct the state?
negotation can't help there.

what if the terrorists want to make as much civilian deaths as they can and destruct the state?
negotation can't help there.

ETA used to have that approach several years ago, the one of causing as many civilians deaths as possible to cuase fear into the spanish population. Yet it changed...try to wonder why.

The "why?" question is the most important part of the process of finding an answer to terrorism. Why do they hate us?, Why do they want to get us killed?, Why are they inmolating themselves? Why they cause civilian deaths?, Why they target us?.

Then you ask the What can we do? question, "What can we do to stop them from hating us?", for example, removing the reason for hatred is a good spot to begin with. If they hate the IDF because their brothers died in bombings unnecessarily, then remove the bombings. If they hate you because of your goverments policy, change that policy.

What I am saying is that hatred between countries and populations can be removed. It has been removed in prior situations, you can fix it there too.

For Palestinians, Israel has been illegally occupying the West Bank for decades.and offer the palastinians to stop it which they refused.
The continued violence and injustice suffered by Palestinians there have found no real answer, and by all ways precede and exceed Israel's own suffering, but no one dares to sanction Israel for that.all off that almost stopped, until they start the second intifada.
Sharon deliberately weakened the "moderate" Al Fatah by denying Arafat even the legitimacy to negotiate, until he had no authority whatsoever on extremists.arrafat? isn't he the one who caught many times while illegaly importing weaponary and terrorists, and control most of the terror organization until we harm his autority? the one which left the negotiation in camp-david and turning down clinton-barak proposal?
The second Intifada was started, you will remember, after a Sharon's provocation, which was intended to undermine Arafat's authority and block negotiations (which had come close to a deal).the negotiation already stopped some months before, when arrafat refused to the generous proposal of israel and USA, and didn't gave counter-proposal.
sharon was parlamient member with no autorities at all. the second intifada made him prime minister.

Again, use of undiscrimined force and refuse to give the opponent side reasons to consider terrorism as a mistake and a crime results in worsening and deepening the conflict.what reasons? invite arrafat to negotiation? try not over react for months? done and done. he refused to negotiate truly, and big terror attack broke every period when israel trying to calm the area down.

Those who have power have the responsibility to change things. Power is not in the hands of terrorists; it is in the hands of our governments. Those who deny this responsibility should recall how the world used to be when mr. G. W. Bush and mr. A. Sharon were not yet in charge. There is a lot of difference.
sharon is the leader that made israel pullout from the strip. they continue launch terror from there, and now their terror attack made israel counter-attack in order to free the kidnapp soldier.
don't rewrite the history.

ETA used to have that approach several years ago, the one of causing as many civilians deaths as possible to cuase fear into the spanish population. Yet it changed...try to wonder why.

The "why?" question is the most important part of the process of finding an answer to terrorism. Why do they hate us?, Why do they want to get us killed?, Why are they inmolating themselves? Why they cause civilian deaths?, Why they target us?.

Then you ask the What can we do? question, "What can we do to stop them from hating us?", for example, removing the reason for hatred is a good spot to begin with. If they hate the IDF because their brothers died in bombings unnecessarily, then remove the bombings. If they hate you because of your goverments policy, change that policy.

What I am saying is that hatred between countries and populations can be removed. It has been removed in prior situations, you can fix it there too.
lets continue with this RP.
if they hate you because you exist, what you do?
if they hate you because your race or religion, what you do?
if they hate you because their political and religious leaders know that hatred for other abstract thing as "the west", will make their people forget the opressive regimes they had, what will you do?

I partly agree with you when the question is terrorists grow by rational reasons. what you do if this isn't the case?

don't rewrite the history.

Unfortunately, someone is already writing it, and it's not me.
Israel should have left the WB 30 years ago, without conditions. Staying there is a crime against international law. Period.

Unfortunately, someone is already writing it, and it's not me. you do know that any history can be written from more than one view point, only you ignore every part in the history that didn't match your theory?
Israel should have left the WB 30 years ago, without conditions. Staying there is a crime against international law. Period.terror is also against the international law, and the palastinians should stop it immidiately.
we had one fatal condition from them before we let them most of the west bank. stop terror.
if they don't, it may lead to the destruction of israel, give them independet country.
every peace agreement in the world gave both of the sides oppurtinity to raise and disscuss their conditions and comporise on something in the middle. no matter what happen before.
the only times it didn't happen was since surounder, and if we wait until one of the sides will do it, it won't help anybody. especially not the civilians which will die in the continues bloodship in both of the sides.

lets continue with this RP.
if they hate you because you exist, what you do?
if they hate you because your race or religion, what you do?
if they hate you because their political and religious leaders know that hatred for other abstract thing as "the west", will make their people forget the opressive regimes they had, what will you do?

I partly agree with you when the question is terrorists grow by rational reasons. what you do if this isn't the case?

Everyone is able to rationalize. Try to make them rationalize the issue, try to make them think what's better for them and for you. It has happened before. I do not see the germans trying to get you in concentration camps or anything now. I do not see pogroms in Russia anymore.

If they hate you because you exist...Why they hate the fact we exist?, then you should ask

If they hate you because of your race or religion...Ask Why they hate our race and why they hate our religion?

I see that the main problem there is that everyone wants the best for themselves and their people without caring at all for the sake of the other people. Both sides.

You cannot attack terrorism, only the causes of terrorism.

Attempts to combat terrorists will only breed more terrorists.



When western CULTURE and influence is the cause of terrorism , you attack and kill or capture the terrorist until you run out of them .

unless of course you choose to live in an Islamic republic.


Typical worthless appeasment argument .

Target the supporting state of the terrorist and act fairly with the people who tend to sympathise and make up the base for recruits. Promote Democracy . Carefully target the terrorist and their direct support .

you mean they against holywood, macdonalds and coka-cola, because arab buy this things like all the other world?
they aren't anti-globalization protestor you know.

People really do love trying to put words in my mouth. When I was talking about foreign investment, the first thing that springs to my mind is oil.

France and Russia had massive investments in the Iraqi oil industry before the invasion, which is one reason why they resisted the moves to invade Iraq. Another comment that I have made elsewhere is that in Nigeria, around 50% of the principal LNG company is owned by Royal Dutch Shell (or was when I first heard this).

This is commonplace in "developing" nations. Foreign expertise and investment is needed to get things started, but these things are negotiated by western businesses so that 50% of the profits from the use of that country's natural resources go straight out of the country rather than being used for the people of that country.

Not quite the same when applied to burgers or sugar-loaded soft drinks.

Hollywood is another matter, because that really is cultural (bear with me, I know its almost an oxymoron in most cases).

Take U591. In Europe they were required to have a disclaimer on the end pointing out that this was all completely fictional bollocks and that the real work on capturing and decoding enigmas was done in a period from 1938 to 1941 by first the Poles and then the British. The US Navy did not capture an enigma machine until 1942 when it made no real difference.

This disclaimer was not required on the US version.

This kind of thing pisses all over the history of several nations and in particular there was a lot of ill-feeling in the UK since the two RN officers who captured the code books which allowed the breaking of the naval enigma codes died in the process.

Imagine the brits making a movie about the US civil war actually being won by 42 commando, Royal Marines and you are on the same level of offence.

Brits in hollywood movies make very good upper class twits, idle middle class fops, or villans. I've never met any of those.

Now various nations have viable film industries of their own winning international awards - notably cuba and iran. These are filmed in the language of the country of origin and are generally about that country. Hollywood comes to town and bombards the populace with massive advertising and people end up watching movies about americans, in american, their own culture falling by the wayside.

And its not just a concern in developing nations. Germany have Goethe-Instituts all over the world promoting german culture and language partly because their own culture is being eroded.

do you support ignoring the oppresive regimes and the crime against humanity that made by them, because "this is their idenity"?

Now how from what I wrote could you possibly think that? Lets look at some oppressive regimes:
North Korea - Originally brought to power by support from other communist states.
Iraq - Saddam brought to power by the US and other western nations
Iran - Government brought down by US, UK, others
Israel/palestine....do I really have to bother going on?

Conclusion: Its not their identity. Its a regime brought about by foreign interference screwing around with their country.

1. iran support terror. iran build nukes. iran call for the destruction of israel. enough reasons for us.
iran missle range coming to the middle of europe, and her leader are radical fundementalist. shouldn't that count as global threat?

2. and I guess this fundies tried to attack syria first, no?

3. with less than 30% approval rate, I don't think bush can lead this verdun of iraq.

4. although there are many black muslims, and north africa aren't black for some milenia? I can't see how it work.

5. by the fact it will become formally religious war, which united the 1.5 bilions or more of muslims in the world, against the west?

6. you didn't mean kill any muslim in the world, right?

1. Nope. Basically nullified bc of even worse relations with rest of muslim world than with.... us.

2. Not sure. I'm not sure I care either. I'm sure Assad was certain they were a threat.

3. Indeed. BushMustGo. But that is a perquisite for any rational strategy at this stage.

4. I don't see the problem. Properly backed, black troops can PWN North Africa. Sufficient force + sufficient determination can achieve much.

5. I've watched 'islamic unity' since 82 or thereabouts, and I take it as serious as I take the virtue of an islamic prostitute. Islamic is an adjective. Take away the adjective, and you usually get the facts.
the word 'islamic' is quite irrelevant when you get down to the nitty-gritty level.

6. Can't see why I'd have to.
See, after you publicly hang the first 5000, and burn the bodies in porkblood, I guess the others wont be shouting in the previous manner.

Everyone is able to rationalize. Try to make them rationalize the issue, try to make them think what's better for them and for you. It has happened before. I do not see the germans trying to get you in concentration camps or anything now. I do not see pogroms in Russia anymore. didn't it had something to do with the fact that nazis and anti-semitic aren't in places of power? which as mach as I remember, don't happen because of negotation and tryings to understande why jitler hate jewish and other non-arian minorities.

If they hate you because you exist...Why they hate the fact we exist?, then you should askmaybe I ask them, right before they kill me. never heard about unrational thinking before?

If they hate you because of your race or religion...Ask Why they hate our race and why they hate our religion?I don't get that. aren't you justified racism, xenophobia, sexism, nationalism, homophobia and religion-based discrimination? this world is full in those things. most of this people even don't know who exactly they hate.
you just kidding while you said they had rational reasons, right?
I see that the main problem there is that everyone wants the best for themselves and their people without caring at all for the sake of the other people. Both sides.I don't think jewish racists that want to "clean all the middle east from arabs", or jewish fundementalist who want establish theocrtic state on the biblical area of israel, are better in any way.
I just say that many societies don't act rationally, especially not by the western rationalism.

Everyone is able to rationalize. Try to make them rationalize the issue, try to make them think what's better for them and for you. It has happened before. I do not see the germans trying to get you in concentration camps or anything now. I do not see pogroms in Russia anymore.

If they hate you because you exist...Why they hate the fact we exist?, then you should ask

If they hate you because of your race or religion...Ask Why they hate our race and why they hate our religion?

I see that the main problem there is that everyone wants the best for themselves and their people without caring at all for the sake of the other people. Both sides.

The why's may be irrelevant because there may not be much to do about it.

I mean, it isn't like the Arabs ever ran across an opportunity for genocide and failed to make the most of it.
Ask the Kurds. Ask Darfur. Ask the old Idumeans and Nabateans. If you find any.

I've seen (and been a part of) my fair share of arguments regarding the foreign policy stance of U.S. and Israel. Usually I'm ambivalent, though I tend to side with the "right-wing" side until someone inevitably makes an insightful point that returns me to my fence perch. Nevertheless, I don't think I've ever seen a thread that directly addressed the singular issue of how people think we should deal with terrorists, if indeed we are to call them that. Also, the issue of differentiating between types of "terrorists" is another area I haven't seen addressed much (or focused on much before myself), though perhaps that's because I've been too busy listening to my own opinions in those kinds of threads.

Anyway: How would you have a country deal with terrorists? How does a nation fight back (which raises the question of if it should) against a perceived enemy with no fixed locality or national-affiliation?

If they are murderers, catch 'em and make 'em spend the rest of their lives building cities and houses for the poor (preferably of the ethnicity they terrorized). If not, a couple years'll do.

You are not catching my line of argument in the sense I wanted to, I think.

If that people do not know exactly why they hate those things, make them realize that their hatred have no base.

I have heard of unrational thinking before. I have dealt with it. It's not like unrational thinking can't be urned rational, in any case. I am a journalist in a country where the current mobs commanded by the goverment do not waste any opportunity to start an aggression against us, without any practical or logical reason with the exception that someone nuts enough told them to. That doesn't mean they cannot be convinced that we aren't an enemy.

I have dealt with intolerance too, and with extremism. First handed. I don't think I should "show my power" to those that hate me, so they can cow and be scared of me, thus not torubling me again.

Aelosia: William Lloyd Garrison.

No reasonable words to be bantered with nogoodniks. ( such as the Hezbollah. )

*whistles* John Brown's Body lies amouldering in the grave...

People really do love trying to put words in my mouth. When I was talking about foreign investment, the first thing that springs to my mind is oil.

France and Russia had massive investments in the Iraqi oil industry before the invasion, which is one reason why they resisted the moves to invade Iraq. Another comment that I have made elsewhere is that in Nigeria, around 50% of the principal LNG company is owned by Royal Dutch Shell (or was when I first heard this).

This is commonplace in "developing" nations. Foreign expertise and investment is needed to get things started, but these things are negotiated by western businesses so that 50% of the profits from the use of that country's natural resources go straight out of the country rather than being used for the people of that country.

Not quite the same when applied to burgers or sugar-loaded soft drinks.

Hollywood is another matter, because that really is cultural (bear with me, I know its almost an oxymoron in most cases).

Take U591. In Europe they were required to have a disclaimer on the end pointing out that this was all completely fictional bollocks and that the real work on capturing and decoding enigmas was done in a period from 1938 to 1941 by first the Poles and then the British. The US Navy did not capture an enigma machine until 1942 when it made no real difference.

This disclaimer was not required on the US version.

This kind of thing pisses all over the history of several nations and in particular there was a lot of ill-feeling in the UK since the two RN officers who captured the code books which allowed the breaking of the naval enigma codes died in the process.

Imagine the brits making a movie about the US civil war actually being won by 42 commando, Royal Marines and you are on the same level of offence.

Brits in hollywood movies make very good upper class twits, idle middle class fops, or villans. I've never met any of those.

Now various nations have viable film industries of their own winning international awards - notably cuba and iran. These are filmed in the language of the country of origin and are generally about that country. Hollywood comes to town and bombards the populace with massive advertising and people end up watching movies about americans, in american, their own culture falling by the wayside.

And its not just a concern in developing nations. Germany have Goethe-Instituts all over the world promoting german culture and language partly because their own culture is being eroded.again this is the claims of anti-globalization protestors. without getting into argue on that, I will say again that those aren't the claims of al-qaida, nor the ones of hammas iran and hizbulla.



Now how from what I wrote could you possibly think that? Lets look at some oppressive regimes:
North Korea - Originally brought to power by support from other communist states.
Iraq - Saddam brought to power by the US and other western nations
Iran - Government brought down by US, UK, others
Israel/palestine....do I really have to bother going on?

Conclusion: Its not their identity. Its a regime brought about by foreign interference screwing around with their country.
the goverment USA and UK brought down in iran was other islamic goverment. the islamic revolution came in the 70's and made the ayatollas leaders. it isn't wetern interference.
israel state didn't come from nowhere after the UN decision. it was unofficially exist decades before while israel develop modern agriculture and industry, and established all the needed public services and autorities. it all done without wetsern help. the only thing the UN did was give us formal acknowledge and make the british leave the area.

back to the topic, you said they make terror because the west treathen their identities. as far as I remember those things came for the streets of that countries which want to be more progressive. I can't undersand why you give that as reason to the terror.

1. Nope. Basically nullified bc of even worse relations with rest of muslim world than with.... us.
and if they treathen the arab world and make instabillity in the middle east, it isn't global threat?
2. Not sure. I'm not sure I care either. I'm sure Assad was certain they were a threat.so he wasn't against fundementalism, but against treats to his dictatorship.

3. Indeed. BushMustGo. But that is a perquisite for any rational strategy at this stage.bush cadencies also make it must for the next priesedent take 180 degrees change in those issues (no matter if it is right or wrong). you can't get high approval by going in the way bush start.

4. I don't see the problem. Properly backed, black troops can PWN North Africa. Sufficient force + sufficient determination can achieve much.isn't it the big plane of divided the races?

5. I've watched 'islamic unity' since 82 or thereabouts, and I take it as serious as I take the virtue of an islamic prostitute. Islamic is an adjective. Take away the adjective, and you usually get the facts.
the word 'islamic' is quite irrelevant when you get down to the nitty-gritty level.no it didn't. still this is quarter of the world popolution and you treathen to harm their most holy place. it isn't compliceted to predict what will happen.

6. Can't see why I'd have to.
See, after you publicly hang the first 5000, and burn the bodies in porkblood, I guess the others wont be shouting in the previous manner.
or it make them angrier and they will use their WMDs on western goals. pakistan, for example, had nukes.

Whatever happens,
we have got,
the Maxim Gun
and they have not.

Seriously: we do have the capacity to totally exterminate them to the last critter.
I fail to see the strategic point of it, though.

and if they treathen the arab world and make instabillity in the middle east, it isn't global threat?
so he wasn't against fundementalism, but against treats to his dictatorship.

bush cadencies also make it must for the next priesedent take 180 degrees change in those issues (no matter if it is right or wrong). you can't get high approval by going in the way bush start.

isn't it the big plane of divided the races?

no it didn't. still this is quarter of the world popolution and you treathen to harm their most holy place. it isn't compliceted to predict what will happen.


or it make them angrier and they will use their WMDs on western goals. pakistan, for example, had nukes.


Nope, that is merely very bad luck for the Arabs. [/schadenfreude]
The result is the same.

Meh - simply having another name can be enough.

Not sure what you mean.

We also make the point that their destiny is in OUR hands, and not theirs.

*shrug* somehow, I reckon those will fall on India - and nowhere else.

You are not catching my line of argument in the sense I wanted to, I think.

If that people do not know exactly why they hate those things, make them realize that their hatred have no base.

I have heard of unrational thinking before. I have dealt with it. It's not like unrational thinking can't be urned rational, in any case. I am a journalist in a country where the current mobs commanded by the goverment do not waste any opportunity to start an aggression against us, without any practical or logical reason with the exception that someone nuts enough told them to. That doesn't mean they cannot be convinced that we aren't an enemy.

I have dealt with intolerance too, and with extremism. First handed. I don't think I should "show my power" to those that hate me, so they can cow and be scared of me, thus not torubling me again.
how you deal with ever-continues propoganda? they eat that hatred, breath that hatred, live in that hatred. they brainwashed constantly by their leadership, their teachers, their media, their religious priests. they had hatred even in their math books.
I know that personnal meeting may change thaeir minds and show them we aren't evil. only this way won't work on grand-scale.
it is also long-term strategy. in the meantime we need to keep ourselves alive by war in the terror, so we could make peace with them in the future.

how you deal with ever-continues propoganda? they eat that hatred, breath that hatred, live in that hatred. they brainwashed constantly by their leadership, their teachers, their media, their religious priests. they had hatred even in their math books.
I know that personnal meeting may change thaeir minds and show them we aren't evil. only this way won't work on grand-scale.
it is also long-term strategy. in the meantime we need to keep ourselves alive by war in the terror, so we could make peace with them in the future.

Try to counterattack with positive based propaganda too?. I am sure one Merkava tank is worth several million posters saying "There's no reason for hatred. We are similar" hanging in the Gaza strip.

Try to counterattack with positive based propaganda too?. I am sure one Merkava tank is worth several million posters saying "There's no reason for hatred. We are similar" hanging in the Gaza strip.

Zing! :p

Nope, that is merely very bad luck for the Arabs. [/schadenfreude]
The result is the same.I guess, but there are wetern soldiers in the middle east and many oil, which is price will skyrocket because of this instability. isn't the energy crisis is global threat?

Meh - simply having another name can be enough.I don't think the public are THAT stupid (although parts of him are).

Not sure what you mean.africa for blacks, europe for whites, middle east for arabs, and that stuff.

We also make the point that their destiny is in OUR hands, and not theirs.which may lead to suicide acts as attacking westerns in all of the world (europe may got the most suffers due to their large minority of muslims.
may I need to mention again that global instability isn't great idea?
*shrug* somehow, I reckon those will fall on India - and nowhere else.
and how exactly nuclear war between india and pakistan which are few of the powerfull states in asia, is good idea?

again this is the claims of anti-globalization protestors. without getting into argue on that, I will say again that those aren't the claims of al-qaida, nor the ones of hammas iran and hizbulla.


Which is the point you raised and I agreed with up to a point.

Whether they claim it or not it is a factor.



the goverment USA and UK brought down in iran was other islamic goverment. the islamic revolution came in the 70's and made the ayatollas leaders. it isn't wetern interference.
israel state didn't come from nowhere after the UN decision. it was unofficially exist decades before while israel develop modern agriculture and industry, and established all the needed public services and autorities. it all done without wetsern help. the only thing the UN did was give us formal acknowledge and make the british leave the area.

back to the topic, you said they make terror because the west treathen their identities. as far as I remember those things came for the streets of that countries which want to be more progressive. I can't undersand why you give that as reason to the terror.

Iran - once you destablise a nation, the nutters find it easier to take over and extremes from either side can get to the top. Without western interference, the islamic revolution would not have had so much support. As a reaction to that regime, you get another comes along which is more the opposite of the last and you end up with a cycle of forms of government which want to be as far removed from the other as possible.

OK so back to threatened identities. People keep banging on about Al-Qaeda etc hating the west. So why do they hate the west? It must have something to do with the effects that the west has on them otherwise it would not be enough of a factor to cause hate. So how does the west affect them and their region? Economic and political influence.

Of course the latest goes something like this:

US: Oy! Iran! You are developing nuclear power
Iran: And?
US: We are not going to let you. Its dangerous.
Iran: You've got it.
US: Yeah but we don't trust you.
Iran: You don't trust us with a power station?
US: You might use it to build weapons
Iran: Like the ones you have?
US: We can be trusted not to use them
Iran: How many countries have WE invaded in the last 5 years ? Incidentally we have a neighbour who already have nuclear weapons thanks to you and have been occupying parts of two other countries for the last 30 years, invading one of them again this week.
UK: Nuclear power is the future for britain (oops)

i.e. we can have it, but you can't. Try it and we'll invade you.

And its just the latest in the ongoing saga of western nations telling others how to run their countries while having the hypocrisy to do the opposite.

Chancellor of the Exchequer was talking the other week about buying another nuclear missile system for example.

You can see their point of view, regardless of whether you agree with it.

Try to counterattack with positive based propaganda too?. I am sure one Merkava tank is worth several million posters saying "There's no reason for hatred. We are similar" hanging in the Gaza strip.all those posters will be burning and torn after less than a hour. not to mention that the brainwashed locals don't going to believe a word that come out from "the satan" which they met as settlers and soldiers.
for effective propoganda you actually need to CONTROL the area. as grand-scale plan it mean you need to conquest all the hate-area in the world and re-educate their natives.

how you deal with ever-continues propoganda? they eat that hatred, breath that hatred, live in that hatred. they brainwashed constantly by their leadership, their teachers, their media, their religious priests. they had hatred even in their math books.
I know that personnal meeting may change thaeir minds and show them we aren't evil. only this way won't work on grand-scale.
it is also long-term strategy. in the meantime we need to keep ourselves alive by war in the terror, so we could make peace with them in the future.

But what makes propaganda so effective?
It's all too easy now to show the enemy evil deeds. Their land is occupied. Water supplies are controlled. Israeli people have settled in West Bank and won't leave. The simplest task of everyday's life is a hazard. Israeli soldiers will come any time for any reason, and will destroy homes and streets, or throw missiles at cars. If you throw a stone, you get shot. If someone kidnaps a soldier, a land is invaded.

Shortly speaking, those people have lived under a military occupation for decades. Generations do not even know how life is otherwise. Can you expect rationality? Of course they hate you. Of course those who want to spread terror find easy to recruit them.

You only have two possible choices: stop, since you are the stronger. You have the possibility to change the situation: they will never do. You can decide to give back what you illegally hold, and to support the few remaining moderates in their field. It will be harder now than it would have been in 2000, when Arafat made the mistake of his life, but there must be someone left in PLO who can negotiate. Abu Abbas, perhaps.

Or, kill them all. But at least do not ask for understanding, please.

all those posters will be burning and torn after less than a hour. not to mention that the brainwashed locals don't going to believe a word that come out from "the satan" which they met as settlers and soldiers.
for effective propoganda you actually need to CONTROL the area. as grand-scale plan it mean you need to conquest all the hate-area in the world and re-educate their natives.

Out of curiosity. Have you tried that poster thing?

Give them a pork chop and then hang them.

all those posters will be burning and torn after less than a hour. not to mention that the brainwashed locals don't going to believe a word that come out from "the satan" which they met as settlers and soldiers.
for effective propoganda you actually need to CONTROL the area. as grand-scale plan it mean you need to conquest all the hate-area in the world and re-educate their natives.

Am I the only one thinking "1984"?

Apply the Geneva convention to them, of course. Specifically, the part that states combatants out of uniform may be summarily executed. Say what you will about "rights" but the fact is, under existing international law, terrorists do not have any rights except what the country dealing with them decides they have.

Barring that, get whatever information one can out of them, then simply let them die from starvation, disease, ect. The UN, Amnesty International, ect can complain if they like, but remember, they don't complain when people do it to legally recognized and protected soldiers.

Which is the point you raised and I agreed with up to a point.

Whether they claim it or not it is a factor.why we have to search their secret motives? maybe we can just believe they mean what they said.




Iran - once you destablise a nation, the nutters find it easier to take over and extremes from either side can get to the top. Without western interference, the islamic revolution would not have had so much support. As a reaction to that regime, you get another comes along which is more the opposite of the last and you end up with a cycle of forms of government which want to be as far removed from the other as possible.fine, forget I raised that, add to the list of the imperial mistakes.

OK so back to threatened identities. People keep banging on about Al-Qaeda etc hating the west. So why do they hate the west? It must have something to do with the effects that the west has on them otherwise it would not be enough of a factor to cause hate. So how does the west affect them and their region? Economic and political influence.or they just unrationally brainwashed, which took to the extreme their religion as well as fundementalists from other religions. after they decide the bad west try to harm them by his influence, they will look suspiciusely on every western act, like other conspirators. mistakes done in the past, can used as ever-continues propoganda to recuirt more terrorists.

Of course the latest goes something like this:

US: Oy! Iran! You are developing nuclear power
Iran: And?
US: We are not going to let you. Its dangerous.
Iran: You've got it.
US: Yeah but we don't trust you.
Iran: You don't trust us with a power station?
US: You might use it to build weapons
Iran: Like the ones you have?
US: We can be trusted not to use them
Iran: How many countries have WE invaded in the last 5 years ? Incidentally we have a neighbour who already have nuclear weapons thanks to you and have been occupying parts of two other countries for the last 30 years, invading one of them again this week.
UK: Nuclear power is the future for britain (oops)

i.e. we can have it, but you can't. Try it and we'll invade you.

And its just the latest in the ongoing saga of western nations telling others how to run their countries while having the hypocrisy to do the opposite.

Chancellor of the Exchequer was talking the other week about buying another nuclear missile system for example.

You can see their point of view, regardless of whether you agree with it.
iran treathen this use of nukes against other countries. they break past agreements which let them build nuclear stations, by refuse to UN checks and secret attempts to build nuclear bomb.
if you will listen to what they said without search for secret meanings, you will get the picture.
nuclear iran is threat to the stability of the middle east (or even the world).

Out of curiosity. Have you tried that poster thing?
yes in the first intifada. we had arabic speaking station that they can hear or see in their media. we also tried to control their propoganda.
it didn't work.

Am I the only one thinking "1984"?
this book describe the life in most of the dictatorships but on the larger scale of totalitarism.
this is the case with most of the hate centers through the world.

As follows:

Repression. Police state repression.

I simply put forwards the notion; can an Islamic terrorist commit a suicide bombing on a bus if all Muslims are restricted from public transport? I should imagine not.

Can a fundamentalist Imam perpetuate his fundament if he just happens to be summarily shot?

Will terrorists continue to take hostages if their families are taken hostage?

But what makes propaganda so effective?
It's all too easy now to show the enemy evil deeds. Their land is occupied. Water supplies are controlled. Israeli people have settled in West Bank and won't leave. The simplest task of everyday's life is a hazard. Israeli soldiers will come any time for any reason, and will destroy homes and streets, or throw missiles at cars. If you throw a stone, you get shot. If someone kidnaps a soldier, a land is invaded.

Shortly speaking, those people have lived under a military occupation for decades. Generations do not even know how life is otherwise. Can you expect rationality? Of course they hate you. Of course those who want to spread terror find easy to recruit them.

You only have two possible choices: stop, since you are the stronger. You have the possibility to change the situation: they will never do. You can decide to give back what you illegally hold, and to support the few remaining moderates in their field. It will be harder now than it would have been in 2000, when Arafat made the mistake of his life, but there must be someone left in PLO who can negotiate. Abu Abbas, perhaps.

Or, kill them all. But at least do not ask for understanding, please.in the better parts we almost stop doing that, and show willingness for more benefits to the popolution. as you said arrafat mistake ruin that chance, and now the few remaining moderates are far from real power (even abu-mazen).

anyway, I talked about the grand scale case on the middle east and the hate-centers and not about the palastinians themselves.

As follows:

Repression. Police state repression.

I simply put forwards the notion; can an Islamic terrorist commit a suicide bombing on a bus if all Muslims are restricted from public transport? I should imagine not.

Can a fundamentalist Imam perpetuate his fundament if he just happens to be summarily shot?

Will terrorists continue to take hostages if their families are taken hostage?

Perhaps, they couldn't. This would be the final solution.

Perhaps, they couldn't. This would be the final solution.

No it would bloody well not.

The final solution, cretin, was a centrally orchestrated and systematic genocide. Hardly the dynamics profiled in my post.

or they just unrationally brainwashed, which took to the extreme their religion as well as fundementalists from other religions. after they decide the bad west try to harm them by his influence, they will look suspiciusely on every western act, like other conspirators. mistakes done in the past, can used as ever-continues propoganda to recuirt more terrorists.

Helps if you give them ammunition. Like for example a "christian" president supported by many christians (many of them personally armed) invading other countries next door. Oh yes, and calling it a crusade. Yes the extremist nutters can certainly make use of that as propaganda to brainwash people.

Of course nobody in the west has been brainwashed. I'm sure all the dodgy dossiers and other excuses paraded and then shot down by the press in the UK were not intended to be propaganda swinging public opinion in support of performing violent acts.

Setting a good example might serve far better than doing similar things under better branding.


iran treathen this use of nukes against other countries. they break past agreements which let them build nuclear stations, by refuse to UN checks and secret attempts to build nuclear bomb.
if you will listen to what they said without search for secret meanings, you will get the picture.
nuclear iran is threat to the stability of the middle east (or even the world).

Cites please.

No it would bloody well not.

The final solution, cretin, was a centrally orchestrated and systematic genocide. Hardly the dynamics profiled in my post.

You think that the final solution was sketched as a "centrally orchestrated and systematic genocide"? Nonsense.

How would you identify the "families of terrorists" to be taken as hostages?
Well, practically all families there could host a terrorist, couldn't they?
And where would you bring them? To a camp? And what if the terrorists do not give up? You would need to execute them, obviously, otherwise what purpose is a hostage?

How would you identify those people who deserve to be "summarily shot"? Not with a trial, by definition. You would need a military corps with the authority to "summarily shot" civilians. How many of them? Just as many as needed.

How would you identify Muslim people for banning them from public buses? Perhaps with a band on their arm? Or a more modern RFID wristband?

History is a harsh teacher, but this is no excuse to escape her lessons.

You think that the final solution was sketched as a "centrally orchestrated and systematic genocide"? Nonsense.

How would you identify the "families of terrorists" to be taken as hostages?
Well, practically all families there could host a terrorist, couldn't they?
And where would you bring them? To a camp? And what if the terrorists do not give up? You would need to execute them, obviously, otherwise what purpose is a hostage?

How would you identify those people who deserve to be "summarily shot"? Not with a trial, by definition. You would need a military corps with the authority to "summarily shot" civilians. How many of them? Just as many as needed.

How would you identify Muslim people for banning them from public buses? Perhaps with a band on their arm? Or a more modern RFID wristband?

History is a harsh teacher, but this is no excuse to escape her lessons.

Scale cretin.

6 million jews. No more than a thousand or so active terrorists in the UK. Assuming that their families are indeed infectd as well, taking them hostage, then summarily shooting the whole family subsequent to the release of the hostage, is a bloody good idea.

Scale cretin.

6 million jews. No more than a thousand or so active terrorists in the UK. Assuming that their families are indeed infectd as well, taking them hostage, then summarily shooting the whole family subsequent to the release of the hostage, is a bloody good idea.

Very good. But why limiting this to the UK?
I remember a very good implementation of this kind of approach in Poland, some time ago. Good ideas tend to be exported.

Very good. But why limiting this to the UK?
I remember a very good implementation of this kind of approach in Poland, some time ago. Good ideas tend to be exported.

Why limit to the UK? Because I don't give a flying fuck about the remainder of the world, with the possible exception of Europe.

Helps if you give them ammunition. Like for example a "christian" president supported by many christians (many of them personally armed) invading other countries next door. Oh yes, and calling it a crusade. Yes the extremist nutters can certainly make use of that as propaganda to brainwash people.you mean bush aren't you?

Of course nobody in the west has been brainwashed. I'm sure all the dodgy dossiers and other excuses paraded and then shot down by the press in the UK were not intended to be propaganda swinging public opinion in support of performing violent acts.in democracy, brainwashing is almost impossible. there are tons of channels and newspapers and internet sites, so it isn't hard to find information on subjects.

Setting a good example might serve far better than doing similar things under better branding.what are you talking about?



Cites please.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/12/ixnews.html

what are you talking about?



We could stop making the new weapons that we are opposed to them having. We could not bomb and invade other countries whose politics we disagree with
We could talk to people without threatening them

Stuff like that.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/12/ixnews.html

Got any cites of them threatening to use nuclear weapons on other countries?

(Edit for clarity: You made 3 claims and cited one.)

You think that the final solution was sketched as a "centrally orchestrated and systematic genocide"? Nonsense.

How would you identify the "families of terrorists" to be taken as hostages?
Well, practically all families there could host a terrorist, couldn't they?
And where would you bring them? To a camp? And what if the terrorists do not give up? You would need to execute them, obviously, otherwise what purpose is a hostage?

How would you identify those people who deserve to be "summarily shot"? Not with a trial, by definition. You would need a military corps with the authority to "summarily shot" civilians. How many of them? Just as many as needed.

How would you identify Muslim people for banning them from public buses? Perhaps with a band on their arm? Or a more modern RFID wristband?

History is a harsh teacher, but this is no excuse to escape her lessons.I fully condemn what he said but there is no place to compare the idea of "eye for eye" to the holocust.
jewish didn't hate germans, didn't attack them, didn't used terror against them and didn't want to destruct germany, christians or aryans.
his idea is more similar to blood-revenge: if they kill your brother, you will kill their father. it is uncivilized idea, but it isn't jenocide.

We could stop making the new weapons that we are opposed to them having. We could not bomb and invade other countries whose politics we disagree with
We could talk to people without threatening them

Stuff like that.as I said there are good reasons to restrict their nuclear weaponary program.
although I think, iraq is one of bush mistakes war in terror is basically good idea.
and threats are the lost stage in diplomacy before sanctions. it done after the other options failed

Got any cites of them threatening to use nuclear weapons on other countries?
http://www.msuspokesman.com/media/storage/paper270/news/2006/05/12/WorldNews/Iran-Threaten.To.Nuke.Weapons.Agreement-2011627.shtml?norewrite200607141221&sourcedomain=www.msuspokesman.com
http://kurdistanmedia.org/english/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=39
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/Iraq/bg1903.cfm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/23/90430.shtml

in democracy, brainwashing is almost impossible. there are tons of channels and newspapers and internet sites, so it isn't hard to find information on subjects.

Only if people think to look further than the 'News speak' provided to them. In the UK the BBC is controlled by the government to support government propaganda. Murdoch owns the papers with the combined highest circulation so his take on news (shaped by the deals he has with the government) sways the majority. The other papers pander to that majority, to a greater or lesser extent, in order to increase their share of the market.
Those few souls who do go onto the internet face even more extreme bias depending on where they go. Here, as an example of the free internet, has people who peddle every position on a story as 'truth' and can all find sources to back up what they are saying.
Seriously, the British government has convinced the populace of a number of things which have since turned out to be utterly fraudulent...but they still managed to convince them at the time (and undoubtedly continue to on other subjects).

I can't talk too specifically about the US, but look at Fox news. And let's be honest, can anyone hold their hand up and say the press in their country is entirely neutral and objective?

Didn't think so.

It is very easy to brainwash the majority, if you have the power, and the governments have the power.

Only if people think to look further than the 'News speak' provided to them. In the UK the BBC is controlled by the government to support government propaganda. Murdoch owns the papers with the combined highest circulation so his take on news (shaped by the deals he has with the government) sways the majority. The other papers pander to that majority, to a greater or lesser extent, in order to increase their share of the market.
Those few souls who do go onto the internet face even more extreme bias depending on where they go. Here, as an example of the free internet, has people who peddle every position on a story as 'truth' and can all find sources to back up what they are saying.
Seriously, the British government has convinced the populace of a number of things which have since turned out to be utterly fraudulent...but they still managed to convince them at the time (and undoubtedly continue to on other subjects).

I can't talk too specifically about the US, but look at Fox news. And let's be honest, can anyone hold their hand up and say the press in their country is entirely neutral and objective?

Didn't think so.

It is very easy to brainwash the majority, if you have the power, and the governments have the power.
nobody is neutral, no matter what he claim.
but isn't the majority are smart enough to recognize the highly-biased channels?
isn't the right-wing bias balanced by the left-wing bias?

anyway, it isn't equal to one percent of the arab propoganda. "mein kampf" of hitler and "the protocols of zion's elders" are study meterial and best-seller in most of the arab world. should I say more?

I suspect that the majority of the British population believes what it is told because there is no reason to do otherwise and that they do not realise/ have no interest in sorting through to get to what is true and what isn't.

This may not be true of all other populations but my conversations and experiences lead me to think it is the case in the US and at least three other European countries. I have not seen an example of a country that does have a population that is conciously aware of the media spin placed upon things.

I am unaware of how things are viewed in the Middle East, although I hope to travel out to several of the countries there (including Israel), so I can see and experience things myself. It is one of the reasons I find the internet so useful is that I can exchange views with people from other areas (such as yourself) and learn in the process. It is a shame that more of my populace do not feel the same way or see/ are interested in the opportunity.

In a way the lack of awareness is a positive thing. It has allowed the shaping and changing of prevailing attitudes (such as Smoking) to a more positive and healthy outlook. It is a step towards educating people that terrorism is not the right answer.
I believe that the best way to fight some types of terrorism is through education and negotiation and a populace who believes and trusts the media would be a key step along that path.

I believe that the best way to fight some types of terrorism is through education and negotiation and a populace who believes and trusts the media would be a key step along that path.
for long term education may work, although it harder do than say.
negotiation may work only if the terrorists had rational claims.
anyway, in the meantime you have to defend yourself and fight the terror. it may bring some casualities, but there isn't other way to survive.

As said before, it's not about money in this case. It's about behaviour.


The US is always among the first countries to offer and to lend aid - physical aid and personell.

assisanate the leadership. play by their rules, none. use every bit of force availible because the will to. help anyone that wants to fight against the terrorist.

France and Russia had massive investments in the Iraqi oil industry before the invasion, which is one reason why they resisted the moves to invade Iraq. Another comment that I have made elsewhere is that in Nigeria, around 50% of the principal LNG company is owned by Royal Dutch Shell (or was when I first heard this).

I get really tired of this myth.

Companies of France and Russia has investments in iraqi oil, yes. Yet, companies of the United States had by far the largest investments in iraqi oil, illegal and legal, but they invaded anyways. By what logic would the worst criminal want to take out the source of the ill-gotten goods, but not the lesser recipients?

Any proof that the politicians were in on the oil-for-food scandal?

as I said there are good reasons to restrict their nuclear weaponary program.
although I think, iraq is one of bush mistakes war in terror is basically good idea.
and threats are the lost stage in diplomacy before sanctions. it done after the other options failed


http://www.msuspokesman.com/media/storage/paper270/news/2006/05/12/WorldNews/Iran-Threaten.To.Nuke.Weapons.Agreement-2011627.shtml?norewrite200607141221&sourcedomain=www.msuspokesman.com
http://kurdistanmedia.org/english/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=39
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/Iraq/bg1903.cfm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/23/90430.shtml

Actions speak louder than words.

Iran talks about wanting israel wiped off the map.
Israel mass-bombs palestine and lebanon.

I know who I trust with the nuclear weapons.

Actions speak louder than words.

Iran talks about wanting israel wiped off the map.
Israel mass-bombs palestine and lebanon.

I know who I trust with the nuclear weapons.
And who is that?

And who is that?

Obviously Iran, from the way I slanted my post.

Iran has used chemical weapons against military and civilian targets. There are no moral or immoral nations. All leaders of nations will do whatever they think they can get away with if it is in thier interest

Well, for one I wouldn't declare a war, I'd just whipout the red button and press it a bunchof times. Sending missles and atomic warfare on the entire middle-east. (Comeon, it's not like you can rot thier sandpit much more then it already is.)

The united nations can kiss my ass, like I care how they or anybody else would feel about my descision. Hard for terrorists to get revenge when they're all dead or horribly mutated..

And sense it was just "all of a sudden" it'd take a while for people to realize it was America. And even longer to voice an oppising opinion about it out of fear..

The only downside is Jim Kong might start calling me wanting to hangout and crap..

Iran has used chemical weapons against military and civilian targets. There are no moral or immoral nations. All leaders of nations will do whatever they think they can get away with if it is in thier interest

Against Iraq, who also had and used them, who was being backed by the west since the iranians got rid of the US-implanted Dictator, who had basically provoked the war.

The Iraq-Iran war was a crazy war of chemical weaponry, human waves, and total warfare. Besides, that ended 18 years ago, right before I was even born I believe.

Since then, how many wars has Iran been in? How many has israel been in? How many people have they each killed? Civilians alone? I could go on, but my point is apparent.

Well, for one I wouldn't declare a war, I'd just whipout the red button and press it a bunchof times. Sending missles and atomic warfare on the entire middle-east. (Comeon, it's not like you can rot thier sandpit much more then it already is.)

The united nations can kiss my ass, like I care how they or anybody else would feel about my descision. Hard for terrorists to get revenge when they're all dead or horribly mutated..

And sense it was just "all of a sudden" it'd take a while for people to realize it was America. And even longer to voice an oppising opinion about it out of fear..

The only downside is Jim Kong might start calling me wanting to hangout and crap..

And people like you are why people around the world are starting to get, or try to get, nuclear weapons.

(I know your humour, but there are plenty of people who are 100% serious about that stuff).

you cannot surrounder to terrorism, only make them win.
negotiation with terrorists only breed more terrorists.
Because, Like a bratty child who pitches tantrums, the know it works so they'll do it again. It's a lose Lose.

Obviously Iran, from the way I slanted my post.
iran know they are weak and can't stand in war between 2 armies, so they keep strategy of terror support and not direct attack.
while they get their bomb, this is going to change.
beside, by international media israel had nukes for some decades in which we had serious war. how we never threaten to use them or wipe other from the map?
if iran won't try to use the nukes, why they keep their progrram secret and unsupervised?

Against Iraq, who also had and used them, who was being backed by the west since the iranians got rid of the US-implanted Dictator, who had basically provoked the war.

The Iraq-Iran war was a crazy war of chemical weaponry, human waves, and total warfare. Besides, that ended 18 years ago, right before I was even born I believe.

Since then, how many wars has Iran been in? How many has israel been in? How many people have they each killed? Civilians alone? I could go on, but my point is apparent.
how may countries attack iran in those years directly or by third side (supported terror organization)? how many iranians got killed in those? civilians only?
how many time israel used un-conventional weaponary in all of her wars? iran used them the first oppurtunity they got.
how many times israel threaten to wipe someone from the map?
how much the iranian goverment tried to avoid unneccessery harm to civilians?

saying they will be more rational with nukes show your bias.

Whatever happens,
we have got,
the Maxim Gun
and they have not.

Seriously: we do have the capacity to totally exterminate them to the last critter.
I fail to see the strategic point of it, though.
And that's why this BFG dick-measuring obsession of yours adds nothing to the debate. By an amazing coincidence, there is no strategic point to the terrorists' plan to totally exterminate The Infidel(tm) and destroy Israel, either, but just like you, they keep selling it. Once again, you and Osama bin Laden look in the mirror and see each other.

assisanate the leadership. play by their rules, none. use every bit of force availible because the will to. help anyone that wants to fight against the terrorist.
In other words, become terrorists. Do what they do, the way they do it. Even establish a global network like they've done.

There is a distinction I'd like to draw, which is kind of subtle but I think is key to addressing the problem: There is a difference between fighting an enemy and stopping/eliminating an enemy.

bin Laden, in some of his early writings, made it clear that he is not interested in stopping/eliminating the West/infidels/Israel/whathaveyou. He specifically stated that Muslims could only "define themselves by continuous conflict against the West." That was the phrase I saw in translations of his letters. This would equate to fighting the infidel, not stopping/eliminating the infidel.

So here you are, hearing Osama bin Laden's call to arms, and accepting it on his terms, according to his rules. Doing exactly what he wants you to do. Giving him exactly what he wants -- a conflict that can be used to redefine the Islamic identity on a cultural level, thus ensuring that it will continue long after he is dead.

Do you see the strategic problem with this yet?

In War, a good offense is the best defence.

With Terrorism, the best offense is a strong defence.

The only way to combat terrorism is to be vigilant in our defences against attacks. With only failed attacks to their name, the voice of the terrorist dies a quiet, unnoticed death.

for long term education may work, although it harder do than say.
negotiation may work only if the terrorists had rational claims.
anyway, in the meantime you have to defend yourself and fight the terror. it may bring some casualities, but there isn't other way to survive.
All of this is certainly true. And I'd like to thank you for speaking so clearly about the issue from the Israeli point of view, which is unique but also instructive for the rest of the world, as well as vitally important in practical terms.

I would propose a two-pronged approach to terrorism: On one hand, we must respond to direct threats and attacks. On the other hand, we must prevent future threats and attacks. These two needs can conflict with each other, because response requires us to identify and go after an enemy while prevention requires us to take what could be enemies and turn them into friends instead. The challenge is how to do both without undermining either.

First, I think we must learn to understand the real nature of the problem. In the Mid-East, and in the national and tribal conflicts going on in Africa, terrorism becomes nationalized or "state-ized" when terrorists are able to grab political legitimacy by targeting an external "enemy" that they can scapegoat for a country's internal problems. Scapegoating like this is an extremely common pattern in history because it is easier to exploit public dissatisfaction and anxiety than to cure it. All we have to do to see that this is what's happening in Arab nations is look at the specific things they blame Israel and the West for -- it's always internal problems that are directly related to the corruption of their own governments.

When terrorism becomes nationalized, we inevitably are faced with situations like Iran and Syria, which are legally legitimate governments using illegal terrorism to, basically, wage indirect warfare, and the Taliban in Afghanistan which chose to align itself with an illegal terrorist group. These are parts of the direct threats that require direct response, but we must be careful in our response because when you respond to a government's crimes it's called war, and that is meat for the terrorists' feast right there. How can we prevent future attacks while responding to present attacks under such circumstances?

I've heard diplomatic rhetoric coming out of Israel to the effect that the current action is not an attack on the Lebanese but an attempt to liberate the Lebanese people from oppression under a regime that has been hijacked by terrorists. That will only work if this war can be accomplished very quickly and very decisively. If it goes on longer than 3 weeks, I think it will be hard to persuade the Lebanese the bombs are helping them, and it will be increasingly likely that the democratic government in Lebanon will collapse and be replaced with an all-hizbollah government.

i think that, in order to avoid destroying our ability to prevent future attacks while we respond to present ones, we must look outside the Mid-East to see what kinds of conditions weaken or suppress terrorism and what kinds of things empower terrorism, long before it gets any official legitimization.

We have to remember that nationalized organizations are not the core nature of terrorism. This is what happens when governments decide to use or exploit terrorism for their own ends. Even when you eliminate this, terrorism does not disappear. It just goes back to the forms we see in Europe and, sometimes, in the US -- fluidly interacting private groups using violence to play out various agendas.

In Europe and the US, it is relatively easy to keep such groups small and marginalized. These are prosperous countries where even the poor are better off than the poor in other places, which leads to a relative lack of anger and anxiety, which makes it harder to recruit new terrorists. Even when many people join the group -- as with the KKK -- they are less likely to engage in violence rather than just gross obnoxiousness, if the individual hate-filled members do not have many anxieties about their own lives. Because life is okay, the damage terrorists do in the name of the people is seen as a bad thing by those people, who will, at least, ignore them. For instance, throughout the 70s in New York, several extremist-left groups, such as the Weather Underground, planted street bombs and mail bombs all over the city, targeting corporate, government, and big-money presences, to the point where the NYPD was fielding over 200 bomb-related calls every week. This being NY, a wide-spread panic did not occur, and if the terrorists were hoping to tap into some simmering cauldron of anti-capitalist rage among the poor and downtrodden, they were disappointed in that, too. As bad as life seemed for many in that city, it apparently wasn't bad enough to cheer when the boss got blown up by a letter bomb. The only thing the poor and downtrodden did was refuse to open their bosses' mail for them anymore. The bombing groups gradually dwindled through arrests and lack of interest, and when the last 6 members of the Weather Underground blew themselves up in a Greenwich Village townhouse, most New Yorkers were surprised to hear that they had still been trying at all.

Another thing that I think undermines the appeal of terrorism is a sense that one has at least some power to protect oneself against the state or the local power structure. For intance, in the US, we often complain about extreme litigiousness and how whenever anyone feels the least bit put-upon, they file a lawsuit. But consider this: Might all those lawsuits equate to that many angry and dissatisfied people? If we did not have independent courts to appeal to, if we did not have lawyers who promised to exploit the system to our personal benefit, how much more violent might already violent Americans be? How much more might they think that the various anti-government militias really are fighting for them? When you look at the countries in which terrorism becomes legitimized or is sponsored by the state, you also find large segments of the population completely disenfranchised and living at the mercy of the state or of ruling elites, and having no system, no ideology offered in support of them except the scapegoating lies of terrorists.

There is no doubt whatsoever that we must not allow people to lob bombs at us with impunity. But when we respond, we must always keep in mind the needs of prevention as well. And the primary need of prevention is not to manufacture more enemies for ourselves by making ourselves seem to fulfill the claims of the terrorists.

In War, a good offense is the best defence.

With Terrorism, the best offense is a strong defence.

The only way to combat terrorism is to be vigilant in our defences against attacks. With only failed attacks to their name, the voice of the terrorist dies a quiet, unnoticed death.
I agree, but at the same time, we must also actively combat terrorist propaganda and the social forces that make terrorism seem like an alternative to some people. I've often wondered why terrorism continues to find support, considering that, as far as I know, it has never once actually achieved any stated goal, ever, anywhere. I can only conclude that, when people get angry enough, blowing shit up sounds like a good idea. It is ultimately nihilistic, in my opinion, but nihilism sells when the conditions are right.

iran know they are weak and can't stand in war between 2 armies, so they keep strategy of terror support and not direct attack.
while they get their bomb, this is going to change.
beside, by international media israel had nukes for some decades in which we had serious war. how we never threaten to use them or wipe other from the map?
if iran won't try to use the nukes, why they keep their progrram secret and unsupervised?

Iran's leader's aren't idiots. They actually understand the political game, and are just playing it. Nukes give them the ability to not be invaded, while being able to do lower to mid-range fighting, such as proxy fighting, etc. However, the main goal for the iranian leaders is really just to stay in power. They know owning a nuclear weapon will make this much easier, while using it would only make it harder, unless they had a really, really needing reason to use it, such as being invaded.

Israel, different case. Olmert really strikes me as... unbalanced, mentally. He has this incredible victim complex, as does most of israel. A couple soldiers get taken hostage, he orders a large invasion of palestine. A few more, he invades lebanon.

What happens if someone assassinates some general, or high ranking politicians? What if a chemical weapon is actually unloaded by Al-aqsa in southern tel-aviv? What if something happens to make olmert think he needs something dramatic in response? Seeing his disproportionate responses as of late, I wouldn't be incredibly surprised, if appaled, by a nuclear strike at syria or iran, if israel can pull up any information that either country was in the slightest involved.

A question for you, why, if israel wont use its nukes, it refuses to acknowledge it has them, and let the UN inspect, etc?

Ohh wait, it doesn't matter, the US makes sure nothing ever happens to israel in the UN.

All of this is certainly true. And I'd like to thank you for speaking so clearly about the issue from the Israeli point of view, which is unique but also instructive for the rest of the world, as well as vitally important in practical terms.

I would propose a two-pronged approach to terrorism: On one hand, we must respond to direct threats and attacks. On the other hand, we must prevent future threats and attacks. These two needs can conflict with each other, because response requires us to identify and go after an enemy while prevention requires us to take what could be enemies and turn them into friends instead. The challenge is how to do both without undermining either.

First, I think we must learn to understand the real nature of the problem. In the Mid-East, and in the national and tribal conflicts going on in Africa, terrorism becomes nationalized or "state-ized" when terrorists are able to grab political legitimacy by targeting an external "enemy" that they can scapegoat for a country's internal problems. Scapegoating like this is an extremely common pattern in history because it is easier to exploit public dissatisfaction and anxiety than to cure it. All we have to do to see that this is what's happening in Arab nations is look at the specific things they blame Israel and the West for -- it's always internal problems that are directly related to the corruption of their own governments.

When terrorism becomes nationalized, we inevitably are faced with situations like Iran and Syria, which are legally legitimate governments using illegal terrorism to, basically, wage indirect warfare, and the Taliban in Afghanistan which chose to align itself with an illegal terrorist group. These are parts of the direct threats that require direct response, but we must be careful in our response because when you respond to a government's crimes it's called war, and that is meat for the terrorists' feast right there. How can we prevent future attacks while responding to present attacks under such circumstances?

I've heard diplomatic rhetoric coming out of Israel to the effect that the current action is not an attack on the Lebanese but an attempt to liberate the Lebanese people from oppression under a regime that has been hijacked by terrorists. That will only work if this war can be accomplished very quickly and very decisively. If it goes on longer than 3 weeks, I think it will be hard to persuade the Lebanese the bombs are helping them, and it will be increasingly likely that the democratic government in Lebanon will collapse and be replaced with an all-hizbollah government.

i think that, in order to avoid destroying our ability to prevent future attacks while we respond to present ones, we must look outside the Mid-East to see what kinds of conditions weaken or suppress terrorism and what kinds of things empower terrorism, long before it gets any official legitimization.

We have to remember that nationalized organizations are not the core nature of terrorism. This is what happens when governments decide to use or exploit terrorism for their own ends. Even when you eliminate this, terrorism does not disappear. It just goes back to the forms we see in Europe and, sometimes, in the US -- fluidly interacting private groups using violence to play out various agendas.

In Europe and the US, it is relatively easy to keep such groups small and marginalized. These are prosperous countries where even the poor are better off than the poor in other places, which leads to a relative lack of anger and anxiety, which makes it harder to recruit new terrorists. Even when many people join the group -- as with the KKK -- they are less likely to engage in violence rather than just gross obnoxiousness, if the individual hate-filled members do not have many anxieties about their own lives. Because life is okay, the damage terrorists do in the name of the people is seen as a bad thing by those people, who will, at least, ignore them. For instance, throughout the 70s in New York, several extremist-left groups, such as the Weather Underground, planted street bombs and mail bombs all over the city, targeting corporate, government, and big-money presences, to the point where the NYPD was fielding over 200 bomb-related calls every week. This being NY, a wide-spread panic did not occur, and if the terrorists were hoping to tap into some simmering cauldron of anti-capitalist rage among the poor and downtrodden, they were disappointed in that, too. As bad as life seemed for many in that city, it apparently wasn't bad enough to cheer when the boss got blown up by a letter bomb. The only thing the poor and downtrodden did was refuse to open their bosses' mail for them anymore. The bombing groups gradually dwindled through arrests and lack of interest, and when the last 6 members of the Weather Underground blew themselves up in a Greenwich Village townhouse, most New Yorkers were surprised to hear that they had still been trying at all.

Another thing that I think undermines the appeal of terrorism is a sense that one has at least some power to protect oneself against the state or the local power structure. For intance, in the US, we often complain about extreme litigiousness and how whenever anyone feels the least bit put-upon, they file a lawsuit. But consider this: Might all those lawsuits equate to that many angry and dissatisfied people? If we did not have independent courts to appeal to, if we did not have lawyers who promised to exploit the system to our personal benefit, how much more violent might already violent Americans be? How much more might they think that the various anti-government militias really are fighting for them? When you look at the countries in which terrorism becomes legitimized or is sponsored by the state, you also find large segments of the population completely disenfranchised and living at the mercy of the state or of ruling elites, and having no system, no ideology offered in support of them except the scapegoating lies of terrorists.

There is no doubt whatsoever that we must not allow people to lob bombs at us with impunity. But when we respond, we must always keep in mind the needs of prevention as well. And the primary need of prevention is not to manufacture more enemies for ourselves by making ourselves seem to fulfill the claims of the terrorists.

So declare war or terrorism . Attack the two states we know are sponsoring it. Change the regimes and leave taking out all the hardliners and terrorist supporters . Establish democracy in Syria and help keep the hybrid type democracy viable in Iran . attack tthe regime and not the people..we have more than enough high tec to do it ...at least the US has.

Once you are put on notice that support of terrorism will result in instant loss of sovergnty for your state..no diplomaacy ..only action. were will the terroris live and have bases ? what state will be willing to harbor or support them ?

They have to have a patch of earth to live on ...you must make it hard if not impossible for them to live and organize and recruit. You MUST remove the state sponsor from the equation .

how may countries attack iran in those years directly or by third side (supported terror organization)? how many iranians got killed in those? civilians only?
how many time israel used un-conventional weaponary in all of her wars? iran used them the first oppurtunity they got.
how many times israel threaten to wipe someone from the map?
how much the iranian goverment tried to avoid unneccessery harm to civilians?

saying they will be more rational with nukes show your bias.

Iran has this thing for not pissing off its next door neighbors with constant warfare. It also doesn't bomb a country every time a soldier goes missing.

Israel doesn't use NBC weapons, it just bombs civilian infrastructure, like bridges and highways, because there might be a time when terrorists use it, despite the fact that that argument can be used to attack anything at all in lebanon, giving them carte blanche to use your over-built up airforce to bomb anything you want.

Iran never threatened to wipe israel off the map. It said someone should. Besides, its pretty obvious rhetoric.

If the Iranians are the backers of hezbollah as you and your country say, then they are doing a pretty damn good job, having killed twice as many soldiers as civilians, while your country has killed over a 100 civilians, and about a handful of hezbollah.

The only people who want to fight iran, really, is your country and my country. Iran wont attack either the United States, or Israel, because it can't hope to win by conventional means, and going nuclear would mean they both lose.

It can prevent attacks on it by our countries with nukes, though.

Your victim complex is showing. Which is what worries me more than anything, the attitude that "they are attacking us, we have the right to do anything to stop it". I have no clue if and when that could nuclear weaponry.

My bias? An israeli overtly defending israel telling me I have bias? Right...

I've often wondered why terrorism continues to find support, considering that, as far as I know, it has never once actually achieved any stated goal, ever, anywhere.
Osama bin-Laden's plan was perfectly executed and entirely successful. His explicit aim was to make young Muslims rise up against the West, and he did so with astonishing success.

As another, the IRA has managed to annoy Tony Blair to the verge of surrendering Northern Ireland, which was exactly what they wanted.

I'm sure there're a couple more, but those are just a couple of examples. Anyway, back to the more important bit,

I agree, but at the same time, we must also actively combat terrorist propaganda and the social forces that make terrorism seem like an alternative to some people. I've often wondered why terrorism continues to find support, considering that, as far as I know, it has never once actually achieved any stated goal, ever, anywhere. I can only conclude that, when people get angry enough, blowing shit up sounds like a good idea. It is ultimately nihilistic, in my opinion, but nihilism sells when the conditions are right.
That's entirely correct on the Anger side, but perhaps Terrorist propaganda plays less of a role than simply poor govenance and social injustice. One of the biggest reasons for the slow but steady radicalisation of the UK is the enormous social divide between the middle class and those caught in the poverty trap, and I'm sure the irritation at their poor conditions compared to what they hear about the rest of the world is what has a similar effect on middle-eastern kids.

Were the system to be better balanced, tensions would be much more easily dealt with... with the exception of those who fight not out of annoyance but out of devotion. There, however, we enter the realm of nationalism and Religious Fanaticism, and at that point we start to discuss not the ethics and methodology of a Terrorist Group but rather that of Tribal Warfare, which is an altogether more dangerous field of play.