NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking about this while reading about the Yemen bombing.

Do you really think that there is any way possible to eradicate terrorism? I honestly don't think there is a way to do it. Terrorism is based on beliefs, and is an extreme act to promote a certain belief. Therefore you would have to destroy the ideology because there's always going to be an extremist in line to do their duty.

Is that even right to destroy peoples beliefs? Is there any real way to stop terrorism besides destroying ideals? Is the war on terror a load of crap?

Well, yes. Declaring war on abstract concepts is generally ineffective. That said, trying to stop terrorism isn't necessarily about trying to crush people's spirits, but rather convincing them that terrorist acts are an ineffective way of advancing their cause.

It is possible to eliminate terrorism to the point where it is an extremely rare act, rather than abundant as it is in much of the world outside of the West.

To do so, one needs to provide several things:

1. A stable society, with a stable, healthy economy and high standard of living.
2. Quality education.
3. An atmosphere of tolerance.
4. Free speech and discussion of ideas in an open forum.
5. Time.

That seems to be the key to success, given that domestic terrorism in most Western countries is nigh nil compared to terrorism elsewhere.

It is possible to eliminate terrorism to the point where it is an extremely rare act, rather than abundant as it is in much of the world outside of the West.

To do so, one needs to provide several things:

1. A stable society, with a stable, healthy economy and high standard of living.
2. Quality education.
3. An atmosphere of tolerance.
4. Free speech and discussion of ideas in an open forum.
5. Time.

That seems to be the key to success, given that domestic terrorism in most Western countries is nigh nil compared to terrorism elsewhere.

Then there's no need for the war on terror? We should just quit dumping money into killing people, and instead dump money into a few poor country's economies?

Then there's no need for the war on terror? We should just quit dumping money into killing people, and instead dump money into a few poor country's economies?

Even if that got you 1) and 2) on Kyronea's list, that doesn't get you 3), 4) and 5). Related to my bitching on another thread, you have to convince people that terrorism is an unworkable strategy. Part of that is convincing people that they're part of the social contract, and part of that is convincing people that terrorist acts don't work.

Even if that got you 1) and 2) on Kyronea's list, that doesn't get you 3), 4) and 5). Related to my bitching on another thread, you have to convince people that terrorism is an unworkable strategy. Part of that is convincing people that they're part of the social contract, and part of that is convincing people that terrorist acts don't work.

So what do you think is the best course of action? It seems that terror acts do work for the terrorists because of the fact that each act instills fear and brings attention.

You can stop terrorism the same way you can stop war.

...however that might be...

Then there's no need for the war on terror? We should just quit dumping money into killing people, and instead dump money into a few poor country's economies?
Yes, to both of your questions for the reasons TFA and Kyronea explained. (Although the second question is an acknowledged over-simplification of what we should be doing. Let's say instead, we should be more supportive and less exploitative of poor/developing nations.)

Also, terrorism is a tactic. Anyone can use a tactic. Get rid of one form of extremism that resorts to terrorism, and someday a new form of extremism will try it out for its own purposes. And "terror" is an emotion, so what the hell does "War on Terror" even mean then? Basically, "war on terror" is just a slogan. It means nothing, and neither do the policies labeled by it. The way to combat terrorism is to organize society in such a way that large numbers of people do not see it as a positive blow in support of their interests/needs, to keep terrorist groups from getting any headway or recruits.

So what do you think is the best course of action? It seems that terror acts do work for the terrorists because of the fact that each act instills fear and brings attention.
Well, then obviously, don't give in to fear, and don't pay attention to the terrorists.

Terrrorism is a tactic, not a philosophy. As long as there are violent disagreements and one side is less powerful than the other, there will always be terrorism.

A given group of terrorists can be eradicated, possibly. Terrorism cannot. Anyone who believes otherwise (such as GWB) is deluded.


Edit: shoulda read Muravyets' post first. Mine was more concise, though.

I mean, if you look at the Ireland case, the fact is that despite all the politician events, the main factor was inclusion into the EU, which meant there were better ways of making money than terror.

Similar for the football hooligans of England, which were often simply a front for a drug-running operation.

Close down the money, wherever there's entrenched terrorism, there's generally someone making lots of money off it.

Too often it's arms dealers and the fact is most governments are almost criminal in the blind eye they turn to this.

Otherwise, as Kyronea says, a stable economy and fair access to making money helps.

There's profit in chaos, make it unprofitable.

There's profit in chaos, make it unprofitable.

Then the arms industry and mercenary companies would be out of a job, and they probably wouldn't like that.

For that matter, I wonder if LG makes any profit for his antics...

Then the arms industry and mercenary companies would be out of a job, and they probably wouldn't like that.

For that matter, I wonder if LG makes any profit for his antics...

Indeed, and the enormous revenue made by governments and individuals in government would drop, there's little incentive to really stop terrorism.

I'm not calling it a conspiracy, it's just what happens.

Some people have commented that the Falklands War was really just the worlds most expensive advertising campaign for British military goods, one could say the same for the Iraq war, who wouldn't want some of those fabulous toys.

Then there's no need for the war on terror? We should just quit dumping money into killing people, and instead dump money into a few poor country's economies?

That wouldn't accomplish too much on its own, though it might help a little bit.

What's really needed is systematic cooperation on behalf of the rich countries to aid the poor countries in various ways. (The last time I mentioned this I got accused of acting like this is a White Man's Burden, which is about as far from the truth as you can get.)

What's really needed is systematic cooperation on behalf of the rich countries to aid the poor countries in various ways. (The last time I mentioned this I got accused of acting like this is a White Man's Burden, which is about as far from the truth as you can get.)

Agreed. Even if we didn't have the past of having fucked up most of the world (and yes, all the western powers are guilty of this is some way), I think it is our duty as members of the human race to help those countries less fortunate than ourselves. Plus, as mentioned, this will have the added advantage of helping to reduce extremism and terrorism, not to mention help with the various problems or pollution and global warming.

But it won't happen, because it costs money, because no one can agree on *how* to help and because it removes a source of cheap labour and raw materials. After all, if every economy in the world lived and used resources like we do, we'd run out even more quickly than we are now.

When we discuss ISLAMIC terrorism, we need to ask why there is Islamist terro diected at not just the US and its allies but against Russia in Chechnya, China in the far western Sinjiang Province, the governments of "moderate Islamic countries" like Egypt, Indonesia,Algeria and Turkey and India. They sure are pissed off with a lot of countries.
The big questions for me is Why, why now, who is funding them and is it mainly their aggression or their response to the rest of the world's agression?

When we discuss ISLAMIC terrorism, we need to ask why there is Islamist terro diected at not just the US and its allies but against Russia in Chechnya, China in the far western Sinjiang Province, the governments of "moderate Islamic countries" like Egypt, Indonesia,Algeria and Turkey and India. They sure are pissed off with a lot of countries.
The big questions for me is Why, why now, who is funding them and is it mainly their aggression or their response to the rest of the world's agression?

This, this is kind of what I'm getting at. Islam is pissed off at a lot of people, and they have many extremists that will always be training more extremists that will more than likely conduct violent operations.

Islam is also a religion, which is more a core belief of a person.

What do you think is the way to curb the violence cause by their beliefs? Get rid of the people that are skewing the meaning of religion? But then, how can you determine who they are though? Try to rehabilitate them?

It's just a really tricky situation.

It is possible to eliminate terrorism to the point where it is an extremely rare act, rather than abundant as it is in much of the world outside of the West.

Last time I checked, Spain was considered part of the West. I would name ETA as an example of a clear exception to this rule. Plus, I don't think "much of the world outside the west" is a valid label.


To do so, one needs to provide several things:

1. A stable society, with a stable, healthy economy and high standard of living.

Spain has these things, more or less.

2. Quality education.

Without doubt, Spain has quality education.

3. An atmosphere of tolerance.

Spain also has this.

4. Free speech and discussion of ideas in an open forum.

Again, Spain.

5. Time.

ETA has been around for...50 years or more?

This, this is kind of what I'm getting at. Islam is pissed off at a lot of people, and they have many extremists that will always be training more extremists that will more than likely conduct violent operations.

Islam is also a religion, which is more a core belief of a person.

What do you think is the way to curb the violence cause by their beliefs? Get rid of the people that are skewing the meaning of religion? But then, how can you determine who they are though? Try to rehabilitate them?

It's just a really tricky situation.
The religion is just a way to get the large amount of ignorant masses to do the bidding of the few people in power. Islam is convenient. Nothing more, nothing less. Go back many hundred years. During the time of the crusades, it was the reverse. Christians being the "brutal barbarians" and the Islamic people being more civilised and cultured.

People who have been screwed over are ready for hate. Apply a label on a hated target and you have something to unite the people.

So, after saying the religion doesn't really matter, what does? Like many others posters have said, stop screwing them over. Give people a hope and vision of a prosperous future for them and their children. Terrorism will be over. The ruling elite of the world (not just the west) aren't willing to do this, as having a decent future for all, means that the ruling elite would have to give up too much.

Do you really think that there is any way possible to eradicate terrorism?
No.

Is that even right to destroy peoples beliefs?
What beliefs?

Is there any real way to stop terrorism besides destroying ideals?
Yes.

Is the war on terror a load of crap?
Yes.

I was thinking about this while reading about the Yemen bombing.

Do you really think that there is any way possible to eradicate terrorism? I honestly don't think there is a way to do it. Terrorism is based on beliefs, and is an extreme act to promote a certain belief. Therefore you would have to destroy the ideology because there's always going to be an extremist in line to do their duty.

Is that even right to destroy peoples beliefs? Is there any real way to stop terrorism besides destroying ideals? Is the war on terror a load of crap?

it is possible to eradicate terrorism, but not on a Global Scale. you can eradicate it from affecting one country... but generally that way is really frowned upon by citizens who love the current concept of freedoms and rights and especially by those who don't trust their Government.

Do you really think that there is any way possible to eradicate terrorism?

Not unless war and crime can be eradicated.

Last time I checked, Spain was considered part of the West. I would name ETA as an example of a clear exception to this rule. Plus, I don't think "much of the world outside the west" is a valid label.



Spain has these things, more or less.



Without doubt, Spain has quality education.



Spain also has this.



Again, Spain.



ETA has been around for...50 years or more?

Eh, you're probably right on using the West label, since it's rather disengenious.

I point out, however, that Spain has been in a state of upheaval for most of the past century. While it is more relatively stable than a lot of countries, it is much less so compared to countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, etc, which were what I was really pointing at.

Do you really think that there is any way possible to eradicate terrorism?There's always killing everyone.
As I rarely say, "No people, no problems".

Is that even right to destroy peoples beliefs?Well-adjusted people can't go on believing in Santa Claus their whole life. Destroying people's beliefs is a time-honoured tradition as much as making people believe things that aren't true.
Besides, it's a meme eat meme world out there. And when they start using violence they really don't deserve better.

Is there any real way to stop terrorism besides destroying ideals?Warping them beyond recognition? Or does that count as destroying?
Ideals typically go extinct after some time anyway. And ideals that inspire terrorism don't strike me as ones that need active conservation attempts to safeguard them.

Spain also has this.As far as my very limited understanding goes, Spain has strongly been suppressing the Catalan and Basque identity until quite recently. And now that there is some more leeway to express their identity in culture and language etc, domestic terrorism is at an all time low. There's still some separatists, but many less than say 30 years ago.

We should just quit dumping money into killing people, and instead dump money into a few poor country's economies?

We already do, we pump loads of money into these countries, however the leaders of the countries do not allocate the resources properly and the economy shit anyway.

Its a mind game. The physical battle may be less important then the propoganda.

Its time to hit them where it hurts. Start mentioning all the arabs that the terrorist ogranization kills. When a Iraqi hears an American dies they dont particularly care. Its a foreign millitary. But if it is their countryman or someone with simular beliefs suddenly they have a connection. Track the deathtoll of terrorists killing muslims and watch the reactions. See how much support the groups get after that.

When we discuss ISLAMIC terrorism, we need to ask why there is Islamist terro diected at not just the US and its allies but against Russia in Chechnya, China in the far western Sinjiang Province, the governments of "moderate Islamic countries" like Egypt, Indonesia,Algeria and Turkey and India. They sure are pissed off with a lot of countries.
The big questions for me is Why, why now, who is funding them and is it mainly their aggression or their response to the rest of the world's agression?
Bit of a crazy phase in Islam? Happens in every religion from time to time.

Bit of a crazy phase in Islam? Happens in every religion from time to time.

A lot of its coincidental. For instance, theres seperatist movements in Chechnya, which have become Islamised. In the 1970's, the PLO and various Palestinian organisations were far more left wing and secular. One could say that the rise of 'militant Islam' is as much due to the failure of the world wide left to support its causes as to the appeal of Islam.

What causes did they fail to achieve?

Crazy ideas, I know...

1. Stop meddling in the affairs of other countries! We (The US gov't, actually) have soldiers in, what, 150 countries at least? Why do we need more than a squad of marines stationed at embassies? Why are we trying to tell other countries how to run their governments? Why are we trying to force other nations to become democracies?

2. End sanctions. They harm more than they help. True free trade (not administered through some corrupt bureaucracy like the WTO) fosters good international relations.

3. Just step away from the whole Israel-Palestine mess. our peace talk attempts do no good whatsoever and our constant support of Israel eliminates any illusion that we're a 'neutral' party. Both sides are screwed up, and we shouldn't choose either side.

4. End federal aid to foreign nations. I know this will make a lot of people mad, but the money only enriches the corrupt governments responsible to the disastrous conditions. the federal government furthermore has no right to spend even more money when we're up to our ears in debt already. Besides taking money from US citizens by force and giving that money to bad dudes overseas, we are supporting regimes that are oppressing the people of other nations and earning their anger. they see us helping their dictators.

5. In case point 1 wasn't enough, we need to stop supporting minor bad guys who share a common enemy with us. We supported the Taliban against Russia, we supported Saddam against Iran, etc. etc. etc. so let's stop creating enemies and making alliances with bad guys due to temporary circumstances and then attacking them (or being attacked by them) later.

*edit* my favorite terrorist ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go)

There are a lot of sensible ideas being hurled around on this thread. I wish the politicians talked more like this - in public. I agree with quite a few of Lord Tothe's points but I have a quibble with the foreign aid one - the way that federal aid is often handed out is as baksheesh to corrupt leaderships but there is genuine aid that can be tiesd to specific projects. This can eleiminate the corruption angle because the donor country can insist on it being directed to a specific need and bypassing the politicians' pockets.
But on the whole,it would be great to do away with a lot of that "country-buying aid" nonsense.

There are a lot of sensible ideas being hurled around on this thread. I wish the politicians talked more like this - in public. I agree with quite a few of Lord Tothe's points but I have a quibble with the foreign aid one - the way that federal aid is often handed out is as baksheesh to corrupt leaderships but there is genuine aid that can be tiesd to specific projects. This can eleiminate the corruption angle because the donor country can insist on it being directed to a specific need and bypassing the politicians' pockets.
But on the whole,it would be great to do away with a lot of that "country-buying aid" nonsense.

Regrading foreign aid, the most the feds should provide is an embassy official who calculates the needs and coordinates the distribution of goods and money from private donations. Since private aid dwarfs federal aid anyway, why not just skip that whole mess entirely? there is no reason for the feds to redistribute tax money from me to people who aren't EVEN IN MY COUNTRY!!!

Well, how about instead of sending money, offer services instead. This would create jobs for US citizens and give those citizens exposure to other cultures, engendering understanding and affection on both sides.

Say a country needs humanitarian aid -- send in a bunch of people who specialize in that. Someone needs a harbor built? Send in a contingent of the Army Core of Engineers. We already do this in a small way with the contingents of military advisers that we send out to help nations train their military. This way we would be bolstering our image internationally (something we need badly) and we would be helping people address their problems, never a bad thing. As long as we can manage to stay away from ethically challenged projects we would be golden.

Generally speaking, terrorism springs from poverty, repression, lack of education -- people with money and time march, rally, etc. If we want to reduce it, reduce the motivators for it.

As a certain religious figure once said, "love your enemy".

Crazy ideas, I know...

1. Stop meddling in the affairs of other countries! We (The US gov't, actually) have soldiers in, what, 150 countries at least? Why do we need more than a squad of marines stationed at embassies? Why are we trying to tell other countries how to run their governments? Why are we trying to force other nations to become democracies?

2. End sanctions. They harm more than they help. True free trade (not administered through some corrupt bureaucracy like the WTO) fosters good international relations.

3. Just step away from the whole Israel-Palestine mess. our peace talk attempts do no good whatsoever and our constant support of Israel eliminates any illusion that we're a 'neutral' party. Both sides are screwed up, and we shouldn't choose either side.

4. End federal aid to foreign nations. I know this will make a lot of people mad, but the money only enriches the corrupt governments responsible to the disastrous conditions. the federal government furthermore has no right to spend even more money when we're up to our ears in debt already. Besides taking money from US citizens by force and giving that money to bad dudes overseas, we are supporting regimes that are oppressing the people of other nations and earning their anger. they see us helping their dictators.

5. In case point 1 wasn't enough, we need to stop supporting minor bad guys who share a common enemy with us. We supported the Taliban against Russia, we supported Saddam against Iran, etc. etc. etc. so let's stop creating enemies and making alliances with bad guys due to temporary circumstances and then attacking them (or being attacked by them) later.

*edit* my favorite terrorist ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go)


Crazy mad talk. You're on the watch list son.

Why are we trying to tell other countries how to run their governments? Why are we trying to force other nations to become democracies?I don't know... Because democracies are considerably more stable than dictatorships in the long term (Good for the economy and, surprise, world peace)
It's actually rather nice to help the people of a country to depose of its corrupt and mildly genocidal leadership in favour of a more accountable government
Come to think of it, since when is it moral to just stand by and do nothing when shit happens elsewhere? 'Oh, hey, they're brown people, it's not like they matter' isn't really a good excuse. Of course, often we do - for starters, the means to intervene everywhere simply aren't there. It's not possible (Annoyingly). But doing it in the limited number of cases where it either a) makes sense for more reasons than just morality (Combine the good with the useful) or b) are particularly excessive isn't exactly wrong, as far as I'm concerned.?

I observe that whenever US interventionism is criticised, it always criticises the cases where it intervened in a fashion that eventually brought dictatorships into being - I've yet to hear someone bitching about US pressure causing the democratisation of most of continental Europe (Admittedly, over the course of half a century), South Korea (Naughty though they've been for the first few decades. Good things take time...), the likes.

There's certainly a problem with interventionism that causes long-term problems, as was the case in Chile, Nicaragua, the likes. But that doesn't discredit interventionism as a whole. For that matter, your complaining about US interventionism to spread democracy is complaining about exactly the cases that actually turned out to be long-term successes (Well, unless you think that Korea would be way better off if the entire country was united under Kim, rather than just half of it). Brilliant argument, there.

Oh, and while we're at it - there's remarkably little (International) terrorism coming from countries the US (Unsuccessfully) intervened in. I've yet to see Nicaraguans blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge. Chileans setting up a bomb in the Sears tower? Nada. Vietnamese students exploding the US embassy in Thailand? Can't say I noticed.

So I'm not entirely certain how you draw the connection between 'Interventionism' and 'Terrorism'. Point in case, Saudi Arabia. The sheiks finance wahhabism all over the world, yet I'm unaware of the US toppling their government, well... Ever.

End federal aid to foreign nations. I know this will make a lot of people mad, but the money only enriches the corrupt governments responsible to the disastrous conditions.My history may be a little off here, but I don't recall the Marshall plan doing so... Well, okay, I bear no love for either Adenauer or De Gaulle, but still. Likewise, last I checked, the assistance the EU provided to Ireland seems to have worked quite decently. Thus, once again you're trying to use some poor results to vilify the entire concept - which is silly. Yes, aid programs are frequently abused by those on the receiving end. And even if they are not, they are often applied in a fashion that's counterproductive. However, this doesn't mean that the idea of providing aid to those in need is wrong - it means that the concept needs reforming. Some streamlining, if you will.

Besides taking money from US citizens by force and giving that money to bad dudes overseas, we are supporting regimes that are oppressing the people of other nations and earning their anger. they see us helping their dictators.Agreed. Propping up corrupt and abusive regimes is wrong. But... I thought that you've no problem with dictators being around and doing what they want with their citizens... At least, the very first paragraph you wrote suggests so. Or do you believe that 'Doing nothing' equals 'Moral support'?

Hint: It does not.

5. In case point 1 wasn't enough, we need to stop supporting minor bad guys who share a common enemy with us. We supported the Taliban against Russia,No, you did not. The Taliban only came into being after Russia had retreated, and Afghanistan was left alone. The groups the US did support never switched sides (Though they shot each other for a while). Rather, it was the lack of support they received from the US once the Russians were gone that eventually enabled the Taliban to gain power.

So, just to spell it out a 'lil more clearly for you: Yes. The zero-interventionism policy you advocated in your first point was, in fact, used in Afghanistan, and resulted in the Taliban gaining power and establishing the most reprehensible regime since the Khmer Rouge (Rather depressing that you only have to go back two decades...).

Well, the policies you're advocating sure work great, don't they?

we supported Saddam against IranAnd you ceased supporting him once he started gassing Kurds for giggles. I don't quite see your point... The US have supported autocratic regimes with some frequency, yes. Sometimes, these autocratic regimes eventually changed into reasonably decent democracies (Taiwan & South Korea come to mind). Sometimes they didn't (Iraq). You can't expect perfection - sometimes it works, and sometimes you're out of luck and have to clean up the mess you created (Which the US is presently trying to do. In a remarkably incompetent fashion at the start in '03, I'll grant you that, but still).