What should we do to free our planet from terrorism?

[Firecat]

India's President asks....

[nomix]

Use the money we're spending on offensive military forces (how many dollars have USA used in Iraq, just for the attack and the war itself?), use it to get people clean water and enough food (this is what's needed in the beginning), then use the resources to rebuild and support industry in poor countries.

Terrorism ain't the result of several million people sitting in a circle hating USA, it's a couple of grumpy old extremists, and poor people let them self get recruited.

Simple.

[Firecat]

I think it's important to understand that "terrorists" differ in many ways, and you can't paint all the organizations or people out there with one broad stroke. Even within one area of "terrorism," like "Islamic terrorism"...there are different motivating factors. From what I understand, "terrorists" are trying to achieve some sort of political goal.

So one way of solving terrorism could be to evaluate the virtue or validity of that goal, and progress from there.

Alleviating certain economic conditions (And as you mentioned above, clean water and food) can certainly help drain the pool that leaders of these organizations use to recruit. And that needs to be accompanied by education as well. If people aren't so desperate, they'd be less likley to throw their life away.

But it should be noted that not all "terrorists" out there are poor or suffering in some way. Police action is one step, but you need to have the masses behind you as well. Truly try to change "hearts and minds"

[Cobol74]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Terror is a tactic used by groups to meet their political ends when no other means seems to be open and it has been shown to work.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by Cobol74

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Terror is a tactic used by groups to meet their political ends when no other means seems to be open and it has been shown to work.

That's true, and the reason I used quotation marks. But the same methodology applies to "freedom fighters"

[Raparperi]

At first I read the title "What should we do to free our planet from tourism?"

[nomix]

Originally Posted by Firecat

I think it's important to understand that "terrorists" differ in many ways, and you can't paint all the organizations or people out there with one broad stroke. Even within one area of "terrorism," like "Islamic terrorism"...there are different motivating factors. From what I understand, "terrorists" are trying to achieve some sort of political goal.

Yes, that is true. But within what you quite widely describe as "islamic terrorism", most recruited, are poor. Strangely enough, I'm willing to say that there are more poor - really poor - muslims than there is poor, lets say lutherans. And poverty = unrest. That is a fact.

So one way of solving terrorism could be to evaluate the virtue or validity of that goal, and progress from there.

I agree.

Alleviating certain economic conditions (And as you mentioned above, clean water and food) can certainly help drain the pool that leaders of these organizations use to recruit. And that needs to be accompanied by education as well. If people aren't so desperate, they'd be less likley to throw their life away.

That is very true. I forgot education, but that is very important. It'll make out less crime as well, it seems.

But it should be noted that not all "terrorists" out there are poor or suffering in some way. Police action is one step, but you need to have the masses behind you as well. Truly try to change "hearts and minds"

That is true. But I believe, that many of the western, quite rich terrorists, like those in the subway, might have been motivated by an increased hate against muslims, I wouldn't like to be muslim in the US or in the UK. I can understand, getting "randomly" searched at airports might be frustrated.

We face a growing number of internal terrorist, if I might say. And the best weapon against the making of these, is in my mind, making social conditions better, and making sure that we don't make them into strangers.

The path were at today, won't kill off terrorism, it'll make them.

Originally Posted by Cobol74

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Terror is a tactic used by groups to meet their political ends when no other means seems to be open and it has been shown to work.

That is a very important point.

Known terrorists:
- Nelson Mandela
- Ghandi
- Shin Fein
- PLO (in many countries, even after the break with millitants like Abu Nidal)

And many more.

You might say, that when a chap blows four tourists and a soldier to pieces in with a bomb worth $100, that is terrorism, but the following Israeli $2.000.000 Apache attack, with $20.000 hellfires, costing 20 civilian lives, and one millitant leader, if they're lucky, is not an act of terrorism.

Funny that Hamas was an Israeli invention in the 80s (I believe), made to combat PLO.

Mujahedin plus stingers, anyone?

[jetsetter]

I say enact a Scorched earth policy. Leave no ground for the enemy to return.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I say enact a Scorched earth policy. Leave no ground for the enemy to return.

and eat their young.....

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by Firecat

and eat their young.....

Hey, it will be costly but nobody will say that the US is soft on terrorism again. Many criticize the US method in Iraq but just image if they followed the Russian model and just bombed the hell out of everything.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Hey, it will be costly but nobody will say that the US is soft on terrorism again. Many criticize the US method in Iraq but just image if they followed the Russian model and just bombed the hell out of everything.

The last time the Russians did that was around the same time the United States was nuking Japan. Let's not forget that a similar method was used in Vietnam.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by Firecat

The last time the Russians did that was around the same time the United States was nuking Japan. Let's not forget that a similar method was used in Vietnam.

I am speaking of Chechnya. The Russians used quite a heavy hand in that region and what the US has done does not really compare.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I am speaking of Chechnya. The Russians used quite a heavy hand in that region and what the US has done does not really compare.

Ahhh. Well in that case, I agree. Don't even get me started on Chechnya. But hey, the Russians will be punished for their atrocities....payback is a bitch.

[Narcolepsy]

Sourced earth to stop terrorism? That reeks a bit of the genocidal and seems like it would be counter-productive if anything. The place they have to return to is the entire unindustrialized world. Heavy handedness only creates further dissent - and terrorists by their nature don't respond to deterance by threat. Then there is the old cliche that one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter - and of course that the US started as an insurgency (although to my knowledge we didn't attack civilian targets in Britian). And who ever said the US was soft on terrorism?

Economic development of the third world allieve the plight of the poor masses with few prospects that serve as a recruitment base. Furthermore, combine this with the support of established governments and help strengthen the rule of the law. Once enough economic interests and interdependence takes hold - the local governments will see terrorist groups as a threat to their own vital interests, and Islamo-facists will no longer have any safe-haven. Excercise some sensible domestic security. Then target their funding sources- use covert intelligence to infiltrate, disrupt, and annhilate groups - get universal arms control working better - and for heaven sakes don't have an overt foriegn military pressence in the region (don't get intimately involved in local cultural disputes). That and somehow solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'm no expert - and this approach is very ungratifying and indirect - but its not like there is a wholly beligerant Bin-ladistan we can invade. A hyperbolic response to a terrorist attack may be counter-productive.

Yeah - this turned a bit specific. Terrorism in general will always exist as long as the weak and desperate exist and have a political goal. To some degree you have to address the problem and give them what they want - and balance that with killing the fanatics and leaders to deter it as a means.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I am speaking of Chechnya. The Russians used quite a heavy hand in that region and what the US has done does not really compare.

Well, there's still large chunks of trouble there. You can't win a war by bombing.

Anyway. If you do believe that, I really don't know what to say.

Originally Posted by Narcolepsy

Sourced earth to stop terrorism? That reeks a bit of the genocidal and seems like it would be counter-productive if anything. The place they have to return to is the entire unindustrialized world. Heavy handedness only creates further dissent - and terrorists by their nature don't respond to deterance by threat. Then there is the old cliche that one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter - and of course that the US started as an insurgency (although to my knowledge we didn't attack civilian targets in Britian). And who ever said the US was soft on terrorism?

Economic development of the third world allieve the plight of the poor masses with few prospects that serve as a recruitment base. Furthermore, combine this with the support of established governments and help strengthen the rule of the law. Once enough economic interests and interdependence takes hold - the local governments will see terrorist groups as a threat to their own vital interests, and Islamo-facists will no longer have any safe-haven. Excercise some sensible domestic security. Then target their funding sources- use covert intelligence to infiltrate, disrupt, and annhilate groups - get universal arms control working better - and for heaven sakes don't have an overt foriegn military pressence in the region (don't get intimately involved in local cultural disputes). That and somehow solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'm no expert - and this approach is very ungratifying and indirect - but its not like there is a wholly beligerant Bin-ladistan we can invade. A hyperbolic response to a terrorist attack may be counter-productive.

Yeah - this turned a bit specific. Terrorism in general will always exist as long as the weak and desperate exist and have a political goal. To some degree you have to address the problem and give them what they want - and balance that with killing the fanatics and leaders to deter it as a means.

THANK YOU!

[jetsetter]

Well, there's still large chunks of trouble there. You can't win a war by bombing.

Well you can if you kill enough people and destroy enough infrastructure. And if you need to know I was kidding about what I said in my first response but the facts still remain.

[nomix]

Destroying infrastructure, water facilities, electricity and killing a lot of people showed to be less effective in Lebanon, really.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by nomix

Destroying infrastructure, water facilities, electricity and killing a lot of people showed to be less effective in Lebanon, really.

It works better on more industrialized societies such as Germany and Japan.

[D-Fence]

Terrorism can´t be defeated. Period.

The only way do defeat it would be to form only one nation, where everybody is happy.

Which obviously won´t work.

[ryosuke]

i just read "what should we do to free our planet from television" and thought "yeah, good idea."