How would YOU stop Terrorism?

[Abaddon]

If its any help in confusing our position, I accept global warming is a scapegoat abused by politicans to raise taxes.

 

[Swedishguy]

How would YOU stop Terrorism?

Give everyone a Gameboy Advance, an Pokémon Ruby/Sapphire version and a lifetime supply of batteries.

 

[Abaddon]

I'd rather play pokemon Red

 

[Sharwood]

Pokemon would provoke me to commit acts of terrorism. God I hate those stupid little things.

 

[Swedishguy]

Pokemon would provoke me to commit acts of terrorism. God I hate those stupid little things.

There's another thread for that.

 

[Abaddon]

There's another thread for that.

Sent some abuse that way

 

[Winner]

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.

On the contrary. People who are most likely to become terrorists are middle class people. Muhammad Atta was a middle class Egyptian, who could afford college in the West.

There is simply no causality between poverty and terrorism. If it existed, India, Bangladesh, Brazil or Nigeria would be the world's prime sources of new terrorists. But they're not.

If we're talking about the islamic terrorism, most of its perpetrators come from middle or upper class families and the finances come from rich Saudis. They certainly don't suffer of poverty.

Terrorism does not usually have any direct economic cause.

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.

So, how do you explain that Africa isn't even greater source of terrorism? It is much poorer, it's people are much more desperate, they suffer of much worse political instability and they have all the reasons they need to hate the West for decades of colonial rule.

Of course, you can't, because terrorism is not caused by poverty. It is caused by many things, and poverty is sometimes present, but there is no real correlation.

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

Crime and terrorism are totally different things.

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

Rich society does not mean terrorist-free society.

 

[Tee Kay]

So, how do you explain that Africa isn't even greater source of terrorism? It is much poorer, it's people are much more desperate, they suffer of much worse political instability and they have all the reasons they need to hate the West for decades of colonial rule.

Actually Africa has its fair share of terrorists. They just don't get enough attention in the West, since they operate only within Africa.

Terrorism isn't only suffered by the West.

Crime and terrorism are totally different things.

Terrorism is a crime, so in essence terrorists are criminals. Either that or its a kind of warfare.

 

[Winner]

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.

Uh, you've got it messed up. You're talking about state terrorism, which is a thing very different from non-state terrorism.

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".

I've already explained why this is nonsense in my previous post. Terrorism can have many causes, but it is almost never motivated by economic hardship. The most dangerous forms of non-state terrorism are motivated by radical ideologies, religion, ethnic or racial hatred. If poverty was the prime cause, then there would be MUCH, MUCH more terrorists walking around.

Red Army Faction, IRA, ETA, OAS - these organizations had appeared in relatively rich Western societies, their members were not poor, they were not oppressed in any significant way and they had no "traditional" reason to commit terrorism. But they did, and why? Because they fell under influence of radical ideologies, or they simply decided that terrorism is the only way how to achieve their narrow interests.

Blaming poverty for terrorism is a nonsense, it is not supported by the facts, only by suppositions of people who want to justify it somehow, which is what makes it even more disgusting.

 

[Winner]

Actually Africa has its fair share of terrorists. They just don't get enough attention in the West, since they operate only within Africa.

I didn't say there are no terrorists, I said that if poverty was the main cause, Africa would be probably crawling with terrorists.

But in the real world, most of the terrorists the West is dealing with now come from a region which is far from being the poorest, which kinda proves that poverty cannot be blamed for creating terrorists.

Terrorism isn't only suffered by the West.

When did I say so?

Terrorism is a crime, so in essence terrorists are criminals. Either that or its a kind of warfare.

Terrorism is an unique form of violence. War is also a crime when you look at it from the legal perspective - people are killing other people, they're destroying their property, they're doing all kinds of things which would be considered as a crime in peace time. Yet, war is viewed as something different.

Terrorism is not just a criminal activity, it is more than that. You can't fight it as it was something like vandalism...

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Winner has the best understanding of the issue.

Terrorism is not a tactic used by the oppressed against the powerful. If that were the case, you wouldn't see it used by Islamofascists against black Africans in Darfur, or against Hindus in Kashmir, or against Christians in the Phillippines, or against liberal and moderate Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc., etc. etc.

Terrorists are simply bloodthirsty savages. In the case of al-Qaeda, they want to impose worldwide Taliban rule and are open and unequivocal about this goal.

 

[Abaddon]

Ok, so you can't fight it, how can you reduce it? What causes it in the first place?

 

[BasketCase]

You're looking at the problem the wrong way, Abaddon.

Terrorism isn't a jigsaw puzzle. You can't "solve" it. Terrorism is a poker game. A pair of threes will beat a straight flush if you play right. There IS no sure way to win. When you come up with what seems to be a sure way, all the other players change their angle of attack.

People resort to terrorism, very simply, when other forms of attack are impossible. Right now, the U.S. holds a straight flush, spades, ace high. Nobody can beat us in a straight-up fight. So our opponents change their tactics.

Would you prefer terrorist bombings or an all-out war? Most of the time I prefer the first one. Except sometimes my opponents at the table will guess I'm bluffing, so every now and then I have to genuinely play an all-out war in order to keep them off balance.

Poker is a tough game. Oh, and by the way--I really, REALLY suck at poker in real life.

 

[Abaddon]

So, "Peace by superiour fire power" is partly to blame?

 

[BasketCase]

Sometimes. Other times, the exact opposite is to blame.

You can draw hatred and terrorist bombings if you're the strongest guy in the boxing ring.

Or you can draw a pummelling and get your ass beat if you're completely harmless.

Both of these have happened in the real world, many times.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

We did leave Iraq with Saddam in power and not one Iraqi Shia I'm aware of became a terrorist attacking the USA. Most of the Muslims in the Middle East dont want us there and the Shia got mad at us because Bush told them to rebel and then signed a truce and stood by as they got slaughtered. How many Iraqi Shia became terrorists because of that?

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.

They dont commit terrorist attacks against us if we dont intervene on their behalf. Thats just a really bizarre argument BC...

 

[warpus]

Guys, if you want to understand jihads and what drives people to such extremes, please read a couple books in the Dune series.

 

[BasketCase]

We did leave Iraq with Saddam in power and not one Iraqi Shia I'm aware of became a terrorist attacking the USA.

That you're aware of. How do you really think Shiites reacted when we invaded Iraq and then left Saddam on the throne? Some of them may not be attacking us because they're still trying to get their hands on a sufficient quantity of plutonium......

How about Ramzi Yousef--the guy who committed the FIRST World Trade Center attack?

Wikipedia: Ramzi Yousef, Terrorist Scumbag

Yousef fled to Pakistan hours later.]]Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times after bombing the WTC; it spelled out the motive: "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.

No, he probably wasn't set off specifically by our refusal to remove Saddam, but his stated motive does include anger with us for supporting other dictatorships. Imagine you're President Clinton in 1993. Do you leave those other "dictator countries" alone, which causes Yousef to try and blow up the Twin Towers? Or do you invade Iraq again and risk pissing off some other faction?

They dont commit terrorist attacks against us if we dont intervene on their behalf. Thats just a really bizarre argument BC...

We didn't intervene on behalf of those who suffer under "dictator countries"--and Yousef claims that's one of the reasons he tried to blow up the World Trade Center.

Caveat: I can only guess at what's going through these peoples' heads. Yousef is a nutjob, and it's more than likely he's got a loose bolt in his gearbox.

 

[Berzerker]

Terrorism is not a tactic used by the oppressed against the powerful.

Huh?

If that were the case, you wouldn't see it used by Islamofascists against black Africans in Darfur, or against Hindus in Kashmir, or against Christians in the Phillippines, or against liberal and moderate Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc., etc. etc.

The fact the more powerful use terrorism doesn't prove the oppressed dont use terrorism.

Terrorists are simply bloodthirsty savages. In the case of al-Qaeda, they want to impose worldwide Taliban rule and are open and unequivocal about this goal.

AQ gets recruits, money and protection because the infidels occupied the holy lands of Saudi Arabia and continue to invade the ME. Without the infidels AQ is nothing and would be killed off by other Muslims who dont want their brand of religion.

 

[Berzerker]

That you're aware of.

Make me aware then

How do you really think Shiites reacted when we invaded Iraq and then left Saddam on the throne?

Pissed off, but what really pissed them off was the fact George Bush told the Iraqi people to rebel and then signed a truce and stood by as they got slaughtered. So how many Iraqi Shia are in AQ? Or the Shia version of AQ? Is there a Shia version?

Some of them may not be attacking us because they're still trying to get their hands on a sufficient quantity of plutonium......

I'm dealing with real world examples, not hypotheticals. Will the Kurds be attacking us too when they get powerful weapons? I should have mentioned this before but your example is flawed for another reason - your argument attacks non-intervention but we have been intervening over there for decades. The Iraqi Shia just wanted us to continue intervening, we didn't after signaling them we would.

Here is the proper analogy, will or have Iraqi Shia committed terrorist attacks against China and Russia for not intervening on their behalf? How about all the other countries that didn't send armies for the 1st gulf war? Your argument is that Iraqi Shia should be targeting those countries for not intervening, right? So, how many Iraqi Shia went to China to express their anger by launching attacks?

How about Ramzi Yousef--the guy who committed the FIRST World Trade Center attack?

What about him? He's not an Iraqi Shia

No, he probably wasn't set off specifically by our refusal to remove Saddam, but his stated motive does include anger with us for supporting other dictatorships.

I'd be angry if Britain was supporting a dictatorship here. How does that help your argument when you just admitted he didn't attack us for not removing Saddam? He was born in Kuwait (we intervened there) to a Pakistani father and Palestinian mother and he's Sunni. Weren't we talking about Iraqi Shia? So what was his motive? It sure wasn't because we didn't have enough armies over there

Imagine you're President Clinton in 1993. Do you leave those other "dictator countries" alone, which causes Yousef to try and blow up the Twin Towers? Or do you invade Iraq again and risk pissing off some other faction?

I'd do what Bush 1 should have done before Saddam invaded Kuwait - told him not to invade other countries or we will destroy his regime. And leaving dictatorships alone aint why he attacked us, the attack came after the gulf war and our continued presence in Saudi Arabia. We've been propping up these dictatorships for decades, how can you argue this guy attacked us for leaving the ME alone? We've been screwing around over there ever since the end of WW II. C'mon, he sure knows ME history better than us, and you seem to think we're getting attacked because we aint over there occupying more countries. Thats just

We didn't intervene on behalf of those who suffer under "dictator countries"--and Yousef claims that's one of the reasons he tried to blow up the World Trade Center.

He didn't attack China and China doesn't intervene on their behalf. His gripe was that we intervened to rescue the Kuwaiti Royal Family and not for the average Joe on the street, and he's right. So what? His gripe was hypocrisy, not that countries should be attacked for not intervening. And that sure dont sound to me like his motive, thats a gripe lotsa people have. He had some other reason other than that hypocrisy.

Caveat: I can only guess at what's going through these peoples' heads. Yousef is a nutjob, and it's more than likely he's got a loose bolt in his gearbox.

Does that mean he hasn't explained his motives? I'm just guessing too, but if he's so mad because we dont intervene consistently that aint the fault of the non-interventionists. He'd be in a small minority of Muslims if he really was mad at us for not invading more Muslim countries.