How would YOU stop Terrorism?

[Berzerker]

BC

If I recall correctly, Osama wants the Saudi royalty removed from power. It's a safe bet nothing short of a military invasion is going to get them to step down. Are you willing to invade Saudi Arabia?

Me neither. Talking isn't going to go very far. Now, when you said the part about "I want them pursued", I'm with ya all the way on that.

They didn't attack us because we wont invade Saudi Arabia (for them), we did "invade" to their satisfaction and thats why they've been attacking us. You kinda missed the point, negotiating aint about the terrorists, its about their base of support. You give 'em what is rational and do-able and the base starts to erode away.

 

[amadeus]

poverty causes terrorism.

See any Malawian terrorists?
How about Khmer terrorists?
How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan?

 

[BasketCase]

They didn't attack us because we wont invade Saudi Arabia (for them)

It's entirely possible this is part of Osama's hissy fit. He doesn't like the Saudi royalty. We're allied with the Saudi royalty.

There's no easy solution, either. Do we break ranks with the Saudis and piss them off, or do we stay on good terms with the Saudis and piss Osama off?

If Osama demands that America use its power to forcibly depose the Saudi monarchy, are you willing to do it?

The Palestinians have been demanding that America use its power to bring Israel to heel (sometimes by force). Are you willing to do that?

You kinda missed the point, negotiating aint about the terrorists, its about their base of support. You give the base of support what is rational and do-able and the base starts to erode away.

I edited your text a bit, putting in the underlined part there. Is that what you meant? If so, by all means, that's an effective method of destroying terrorist groups.

If you meant giving terrorists what is doable--nothin' doin'.

 

[Berzerker]

It's entirely possible this is part of Osama's hissy fit. He doesn't like the Saudi royalty. We're allied with the Saudi royalty.

Sure, but that aint why he started attacking us.

There's no easy solution, either. Do we break ranks with the Saudis and piss them off, or do we stay on good terms with the Saudis and piss Osama off?

Leaving solves the problem.

If Osama demands that America use its power to forcibly depose the Saudi monarchy, are you willing to do it?

Of course not, didn't you already answer this for both of us? Why would I care if they dont get along? Osama aint asking us to depose the Saudi monarchy, thats not even a realistic request. Remember, this is not about negotiating insane requests or demands, its about separating the terrorists from their base of support by accommodating reasonable requests that have widespread support among the base.

The Palestinians have been demanding that America use its power to bring Israel to heel (sometimes by force). Are you willing to do that?

Of course not, I'm in favor of reducing our involvement in the Middle East. Are Palestinians really killing us because we wont attack Israel? Thats not even our problem.

I edited your text a bit, putting in the underlined part there. Is that what you meant? If so, by all means, that's an effective method of destroying terrorist groups.

If you meant giving terrorists what is doable--nothin' doin'.

They're one and the same until the base erodes. The terrorists are the ones making the demands, and those demands have varying degrees of support among the population. Once the rational and do-able is done, the terrorists lose support. The reason to fight aint there in the eyes of their neighbors who are sick and tired of the violence...

 

[Princeps]

No. Terrorism is a weapon of the weak.

Nonsense. Terrorism is overwhelmingly the weapon of the strong. States have the means of terror and violence that are beyond induviduals and groupings, and thus state terrorism is often far worse than terrorism of groups.

I mean, take Soviet Union and other stalinist tyrannies. Which ones were more terroristic, the USSR and its subjects or the extremist Islamic groupings in Middle East? Totalitarian states need terrorism like an organism needs air to breath, they must terrorize in order to force conformity. But other less totalitarian states are also prone to violence and terror. States, you see, are violent institutions and often resort to terror. Like the United States did in Nicaragua. Or when El-Salvadors government waged war against its own people, or when Turkey wiped out 3000 Kurdish villages. No Al-quada style rabble organization could possibly conductt such violence and terror as the strong do routinely, like Russia, or the US, or Turkey or, for that matter, Israel in the occupied areas. States have more guns and far greater means and institutions of violence and terror, which are simply beyond groups.

That's perhaps the most dangerous myth in circulation.

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

Of course poverty causes terrorism. Poverty creates desperation and suffering, for obvious reasons, and that often creates instability with the right conditions. If you add terrorism (of the strong and wealthy) into the equation, as is often the case, you'll probably get a desperately violent response from the weak and poor. This revolting is often labelled "terrorism" by the strong, while the strong call their own (immesurably worse) measures "counter-terrorism".

 

[Verbose]

Of course poverty causes terrorism. Poverty creates desperation and suffering, for obvious reasons, and that often creates instability with the right conditions. If you add terrorism (of the strong and wealthy) into the equation, as is often the case, you'll probably get a desperately violent response from the weak and poor. This revolting is often labelled "terrorism" by the strong, while the strong call their own (immesurably worse) measures "counter-terrorism".

Only indirectly, and then in the sense that it leads some people to look at the state of things, decide they are unbearably unfair, and then decide to get radical about it.

The truly poor, the so-poor-we-haven't-got-the-leisure-to-think-much-about-it-fighting-daily-for-survival, are almost never involved. Thet don't even much rise in violent on-the-spur revolts. They can be at times be mobilised and led for some form of revolutionary purpose of course.
Otherwise, and that's particularily true about people living from subsistance farming, the truly poor tend to be conservative to the point of being reactionary. If a traditional life-style is disrupted, they might become radicalised though.

The terrorists themselves tend to come from among the better off, who out of perceived solidarity take up the cause of the poor/opressed/etc. Seriously, it's the middle-class, boring segment of society they may be, you really have to watch as the recruiting ground for, specifically, ideologically motivated terrorism.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Alpha Centauri explodes with a gamma ray burst and exterminates all life on Earth.

Thats crazy talk.
its also has a young sun so we can look forward to it going supernova in a few Trillion Billion years from now.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_PKqgzSXAM

 

[BasketCase]

Leaving solves the problem.

Not really. It pisses off the people we leave behind and sometimes makes terrorists out of them. Iraq, for example: if we left Iraq after the First Gulf War (with Saddam in power) the Shiites would have gotten mad at us.

There's a whole lot of people in the world (maybe a majority, maybe not) we demand that we Americans use our superpower status to intervene on their behalf.

 

[aronnax]

@Basketcase

Where have you been in the past 5 years to make a comment like that? Houstan?

 

[BasketCase]

Which comment? Errr, never mind--doesn't matter.

The answer is, I got both of those straight from the daily paper. From both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis in the first comment--and I got the second from Palestinians, Burmese, North AND South Koreans, Rwandans (both sides), Indians and Pakistanis, Irish.....you get the idea.

That is what they said. "Hey, Superpower, give us some help here!!!"

 

[Sharwood]

The daily paper you say? You sir, are a scholar.

 

[Abaddon]

Yes, but there are an aweful lot more hoping you DONT.

Or, if you do its for good.

 

[Abaddon]

The daily paper you say? You sir, are a scholar.

The fact he reads anything at all puts him above the average Joe.


Wierd, I just defended BasketCase

 

[BasketCase]

Or, if you do its for good.

Complications there, too--many factions on Earth have differing (frequently conflicting) definitions of "good".

Wierd, I just defended BasketCase

ACK! Uhh....quick, we gotta disagree on something--I know: global warming is a hoax!

(That one almost always works)

 

[Abaddon]

Yea, its lucky my definition is the right one

 

[BasketCase]

Damn, you're quick--I was still rewriting my last post.

 

[Abaddon]

How else did I get to this ridiculus post number!?!

Oh, and your wrong about Global Warming

 

[Tee Kay]

Can be bothered going into the debate so I'll just answer the OP: no it is not possible at least in the near future to extinguish terrorism; yes it is bad, but it is also how some deranged people respond to society's problems; and yes in most cases they are groups with little power or forced to operate underground; terrorism is war by other means and under another name, so you can ask what causes wars in the first place; the roots of terrorism is too far back in time to pin point; what trend?; with well-organised "terrorist" groups with national-level followings I would open dialogue, the rest I will treat as criminals to be caught and brought to justice like any murderer. There will be no more of the silly rhetorics the media use.

 

[BasketCase]

How else did I get to this ridiculus post number!?!

Glad to be of help.

Oh, and your wrong about Global Warming

There, your reputation should now be intact. Of, course, you're completely wrong about global warmMMPH--

.....must.....resist.....