How would YOU stop Terrorism?

Kill everyone

There are three types of terrorists

Revolutionaries who are fighting in their point of view for a freedom or control of a region.

Religious fanatics

Organized military groups that are commanded by people who name their organization a Government of a Nation which is internationally organized.


The First two types of terrorists may act ruthlessly against innocents anywhere to pursue their goals as shown by the Madrid , London bombings. As Nations represents Goverments they will hit against innocent population to pursue their goals. Most have made the stupid dichotomy between western world and the rest world which would lead them to target a good portion of the population of earth which in facts are innocents.

The third group constitutes of Governments attacking innoccent populations to pursue their goals but it also consists of every organization/goverment that also treats it's people with disrespect and doesn't provide the necessary for survival and the better being of it's civilians.




So we see that to combat type 1 and 2 terrorism we can't resort to type 3 terrorism if our objective is to clear all terrorism. And to combat type 3 terrorism we can't resort to type 1 terrorism.

Ways to combat type 1 terrorism : More security checks. Up to date personnel that is trained to destroy such acts before they happen. And actually destroying terrorist bases. The problem is when the the terrorist of type one are not so different from the nation that uses those measures.
The best way to combat terrorism part one is reeducation of stupid religious fanatics out of their stupid religious ways.

How to combat type 3 terrorism , try not to use terrorism on innocents. Easy.

Generally the best way to combat all terrorism is the creation of stable Nations that have economic bonds and are willing to cooperate which another. The problem is that religious stupid fanatics in the middle east make their nations underdeveloped and pursue conflict while some western developed powers take profit (and so the middle east nations remain underdeveloped) and continue conflict while others do not.

So we see the improvement of the situation is an act that requires many willing parties but one leader of a nation can make several actions to lead into this result.

Give the terrorists a reason not to. If there's a sound reason for them to do it when it's not terrorism, now is it?

Freedom. Only democracy can stop terrorism (the religious/political, vast majority, suicide bomb kind).

People say "what about Hamas"? Yes, Hamas was elected, but then Hamas starting killing political opponents in the streets - democracy over.

West Germany and Ireland both had terrorists. So did Italy. Timothy McVaine in the US. All those nations were democracies at the time. So much for that theory.

Sharwood said:

West Germany and Ireland both had terrorists. So did Italy. Timothy McVaine in the US. All those nations were democracies at the time. So much for that theory.

Click to expand...

I see, so a 1% example nullifies the theory. You're a real scientist, aren't you?

Let's not use a problem of negligable importance: IRA, whatever Germans had, McVeigh (notice, a name, not an organzation), and let's through in ELF!

Perhaps if the statement had read:

99.9% of terrorists come from states that are not democratic. Democracy will reduce terrorism by 99.9%.

Is that better, Spock?

Now you're just flaming. I said Timothy McVeigh because his name is better known than that of the organisation of which he was a member. I think it was called the Michigan Militia, but you're American, you should know better than me.

If you think the IRA and the Baader-Meinhoff (sp?) Gang were of negligible importance, then I'm sorry, but you clearly have your head up you know what. Not to mention the Red Brigades in Italy, numerous smaller organisations in other countries like France and Greece, and probably a bunch I can't even think of now. At the time many of these organisations were believed to have Russian backing, but since the fall of the USSR it's been shown that many of them had little or no Soviet connections whatsoever.

Historically, terrorism is more likely in democratic countries, as it is in these countries that the sorts of radical groups are both permitted to form, and have no other way of acheiving their goals. Authoritarian nations tend to just eliminate these threats before they become dangerous, except where there is a convenient border for the terrorists to slip across, heavily wooded or rocky areas for the groups to hide in, or the regime is small and weak enough that rebellions can thrive. Terrorists from one country targeting another when there is no actual war going on between the two states is a relatively new phenomonon.

Live long and prosper.

Historically, terrorism is more likely in democratic countries

Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with terrorism within states. I'm concerned with terrorism between states. No-one in the US consideres the MICHIGAN MILITIA to be a threat. Nor does anyone consider the IRA to be a threat. Please, who are these menacing terrorists of Germany and Italy of whom I've never heard? You're like Rush Limbaugh, calling ELF the most dangerous domestic terrorists in the US. Spare us.

Terrorists from one country targeting another when there is no actual war going on between the two states is a relatively new phenomonon.

Click to expand...

And is currently the only important form of terrorism.

Not one 911 hijacker came from a free country. Nobody cares about Timmy, The Michigan Militia or ELF. Quit acting like they are what anyone means when they say terrorist.

I thought I could avoid this sillyness when I parenthesesed:

Ecofarm said:

Freedom. Only democracy can stop terrorism (the religious/political, vast majority, suicide bomb kind).

Click to expand...

Perhaps next you would like to tell me how the democratic Hamas did not stop terrorism?

Ecofarm said:

I'm not concerned with terrorism within states. I'm concerned with terrorism between states. No-one in the US consideres the MICHIGAN MILITIA to be a threat. Nor does anyone consider the IRA to be a threat. Please, who are these menacing terrorists of Germany and Italy of whom I've never heard? You're like Rush Limbaugh, calling ELF the most dangerous domestic terrorists in the US. Spare us.



And is currently the only important form of terrorism.

Not one 911 hijacker came from a free country. Nobody cares about Timmy, or ELF. Quit acting like they are what anyone means when they say terrorist.

I thought I could avoid this sillyness when I parenthesesed:



Perhaps next you would like to tell me how the democratic Hamas did not stop terrorism?

Click to expand...

It's not worth arguing with you, because you are clearly US-centric in your thinking, and just looking for an argument with anyone who disagreed with you. I just noticed you being a smart-a*se to someone else in another thread who mentioned these supposedly mythical terrorists in Germany and Italy, whom I've already mentioned; Baader-Meinhoff and the Red Brigades.

And a group that produced the guys behind the Oklahoma City Bombing is something people should be afraid of, at least to an extent. As for the IRA, well, they're essentially dead, but again, if you think no-one considers them a threat, your head must be where the doth not shine.

Unless you come up with something intelligent to say, this will be my last post to you. You're not worth the time.

EDIT: Wasn't planning on responding to anything you said, but you editted your post, so to respond to those new points;

I have no idea what this ELF thing you keep going on about is. When people say terrorists, they may mean only Al-Qaeda, but Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist group out there, so they're incorrect in that assumption. Hamas has never been truly democratic. Now you're trying to put words into my mouth in addition to attempting to belittle my argument, because you don't actually have a counter-argument.

As for your comment in parantheses, what the hell do you think the IRA was? Or Baader-Meinhoff, or the Red Brigades? Politico-religious, and at the time, certainly the vast majority. Usually not suicide bombers, but they made up for it by using other bombs, and keeping their people alive. They were far more organised than Al-Qaeda.

As for globally significant; You really mean America-significant. Australia and other nations have only become targets due to their relatioship to the US, and therefore Israel. I don't have the numbers to hand, but I'm almost certain that the different manifestations of the IRA probably killed more people than Al-Qaeda.

Keep fearing the Michigan Militia and the Baader-Meinhoff. Keep pretending they are the terrorists anyone else is worried about. I'd appreciate it if that was your last post to me.

Democracy is the only way to stop globally significant terrorism.

I would go after their families. Chances are most terrorists still have family ties and certain ethnicities have them very deep. Basically I'd have their families held as hostages until they turned themselves in, of which I'd make every effort to make sure they're still alive and well after their sentence.

The idea is to try and 'encourage' the terrorist to feel what it's like when his family is victimized, despite what he believes about the Arab world being invaded by infidels. He'll soon realize we could do a lot worse.

And if push comes to shove, I'm afraid we'd have to make an example of their families until they turn themselves in or there are no more family members.

leonel said:

I would go after their families. Chances are most terrorists still have family ties and certain ethnicities have them very deep. Basically I'd have their families held as hostages until they turned themselves in, of which I'd make every effort to make sure they're still alive and well after their sentence.

The idea is to try and 'encourage' the terrorist to feel what it's like when his family is victimized, despite what he believes about the Arab world being invaded by infidels. He'll soon realize we could do a lot worse.

And if push comes to shove, I'm afraid we'd have to make an example of their families until they turn themselves in or there are no more family members.

Click to expand...

Best example of how we shouldn't face the situation. Orphans and people with no families because of violence will have no trouble becoming terrorists and frankly i would also been if they killed my family and was young and near terrorist recruiters. It's human nature and common sense.

Not to mention that you are not better than them for targeting innocent people in fact you are them.

scy12 said:

Best example of how we shouldn't face the situation. Orphans and people with no families because of violence will have no trouble becoming terrorists and frankly i would also been if they killed my family and was young and near terrorist recruiters. It's human nature and common sense.

Not to mention that you are not better than them for targeting innocent people in fact you are them.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that it's been shown many times that holding a person's family hostage will actually strengthen their resolve.

scy12 said:

Best example of how we shouldn't face the situation. Orphans and people with no families because of violence will have no trouble becoming terrorists and frankly i would also been if they killed my family and was young and near terrorist recruiters. It's human nature and common sense.

Not to mention that you are not better than them for targeting innocent people in fact you are them.

Click to expand...

The tactics of warfare fundamentally escalate. They didn't have to target civilians but they did. Besides the younger would be made an example of first, as you said orphans would be most likely to be terrorists. Existing terrorists are already terrorists so we can only try to appeal to what little humanity they have left. They'd also be held in a confined area until their terrorist son/daughter turns him/herself in.

leonel said:

The tactics of warfare fundamentally escalate. They didn't have to target civilians but they did. Besides the younger would be made an example of first, as you said orphans would be most likely to be terrorists. Existing terrorists are already terrorists so we can only try to appeal to what little humanity they have left. They'd also be held in a confined area until their terrorist son/daughter turns him/herself in.

Click to expand...

We appeal to their humanity by making an example of children? More like we forsake our own.

Destroy all humans. It is the only way.

leonel said:

The tactics of warfare fundamentally escalate. They didn't have to target civilians but they did. Besides the younger would be made an example of first, as you said orphans would be most likely to be terrorists. Existing terrorists are already terrorists so we can only try to appeal to what little humanity they have left. They'd also be held in a confined area until their terrorist son/daughter turns him/herself in.

Click to expand...

The tactics of warfare escalate but other than the moral implications i don't see how it will strategically help to eliminate terrorists. If anything this will lead to A) more terrorists ,B) if your are a democratic nation , into public uproar and the abandonment of ALL terrorist pursuing activities (even those the public previously would have allowed ) ,if you aren't a democratic country congratulation you have stated the ways for generations to come on how they should fix their problems and as a result destroyed the progress of the country C) problems in international relationships.

This is the worst possible way to face the situation and is close if not on par with Hitler's answer to the big question , which in fact did nothing to help the Nazis in the war.

Eh...not to minimize it, but flatulence has a better chance of killing me than terrorism. One way to undermine it would be to stop hyperventilating like the world is ending everytime it happens. Part of its remarkable 'power' is the ability of a relative 'pinprick' to send entire populations running for the hills. Yeah, 9-11 was horrible. It killed thousands of people and was the first Real attack on mainland America in a couple hundred years. But its still a drop in the bucket compared to killers like the flu, car accidents, gun crime, drug crime, etc. Sure these are familiar killers that we've grown used to and accept. And there's certainly something more inherently sinister about an attack on our country by a foreign power. And that's absolutely our government is charged to protect us from.

But just a bit of perspective so that we don't charge guns blazin against the wrong fricken people. Justifiable anger does not justify lashing out in any direction you feel like. Perhaps if we weren't hyperventilating so much. If we weren't seething with righteous rage...we might not have allowed our moronic leadership to do something so unforgivably stupid.

Winner said:

That's perhaps the most dangerous myth in circulation.

Terrorism is not caused by powerty. It-is-not.

Click to expand...

That's not entirely accurate. Root causes might not be poverty by itself, but overwhelmingly the people who become terrorists come from groups who are extremely poor. Particularly the very poor who are surrounded by the very rich. The Palestinians have their own grievances, but the terrorists among them have no prospect at all of a good life through honest work. Iraq is a perfect recruiting ground for terrorists because 1/3 of the country is out of work. The Middle East as a whole as vast numbers of very poor in the midst of huge income from oil. And the terrorist leaders use that. The West is rich off the resources of the poor, and that makes recruiting the poor to terrorism very easy.

People with good lives don't often get into crime or terrorism or revolutionary movements.

If you want a stable society, you get rid of poverty.

EnlightenmentHK said:

Eh...not to minimize it, but flatulence has a better chance of killing me than terrorism. One way to undermine it would be to stop hyperventilating like the world is ending everytime it happens. Part of its remarkable 'power' is the ability of a relative 'pinprick' to send entire populations running for the hills. Yeah, 9-11 was horrible. It killed thousands of people and was the first Real attack on mainland America in a couple hundred years. But its still a drop in the bucket compared to killers like the flu, car accidents, gun crime, drug crime, etc. Sure these are familiar killers that we've grown used to and accept. And there's certainly something more inherently sinister about an attack on our country by a foreign power. And that's absolutely our government is charged to protect us from.

But just a bit of perspective so that we don't charge guns blazin against the wrong fricken people. Justifiable anger does not justify lashing out in any direction you feel like. Perhaps if we weren't hyperventilating so much. If we weren't seething with righteous rage...we might not have allowed our moronic leadership to do something so unforgivably stupid.

Click to expand...

The reason we hyperventilate is because it's in our government's best interests to make us hyperventilate. Random bombings win far more votes through scaremongering than the flu. Although I think the flatulence campaign may have some chance of succeeding.