Mainstreaming Terrorists

[Rambuchan]

Terrorism has to be killed at the root.

Ideology has to be used, not bullets...At least in some cases.

Sometimes, bullets are the only lexicon the fundies can digest...Fine by me.

.

It isn't gardening and the analogy doesn't apply. There are too many roots to dig up.

As we see shooting them and invading their beloved countries only makes them want to bomb us more. And yes Bigfoot the more they get involved, the more they must behave in a transparent fashion (this is pushing the IRA to disarmament), which inevitably makes them come round to more sensible and less 'illegitimate' means.

 

[E-Raser]

IMO there's no end of terror in sight if you strictly deny negotiating with them.
They will shout louder even until they are heard.
As might grow obvious more and more along the road New York, Madrid, London there' s no way to stop suicide terror at any case.
Either "sleep with them" or fight eternally.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Negotiate directly with terrorists -----> never ever.

Eliminate terrorism working in the root causes -----> yes

 

[JoeM]

You can't engage someone in democracy if they interpret democracy as against God's will...

 

[Keshik]

Negotiation should be used only as a ruse to defeat the terrorists. It should not be used in lieu of fighting, but maybe as a supplemental tactic. The ultimate goal should always be to defeat them and bring these evil murderers to justice.

My analogy is this: If a bank robber takes hostages of the innocents in the bank during a foiled robbery, law enforcement will negotiate to prevent loss of life. The ultimate goal is always to bring the perpetrator to justice. They don't say, "we got the hostages released, so let's just let him keep the money." Oh yeah, it's called "crime doesn't pay." It never should if the world is to be civilized.

 

[E-Raser]

...
Eliminate terrorism working in the root causes -----> yes

Any suggestions how to realize this?
Kill everyone who seems suspicious?
The more you kill the more grow up like a Hydra.
Violance seems to cause more violance, doesn't it?
IMO most terrorists are mainly misled by really awful nutcases. They would be the enemy. But IMO those who actually bomb themself up are also more victims as actors.
IMO they were sevierly brainwashed, misled and instrumentalized to serve the aims of the puppet masters.
As long as you can not get them and second change the situation that they would hardly be able to convince the people that they should suicide bomb, as long it is not the question if, just when the next bombing will take place.

 

[Babbler]

In fighting terrorist organizations, we must use every tool in our bag. Remember, stick and carrot. Hit then with the stick until they accept your carrot.

 

[Double Barrel]

There is a fundamental flaw in this tactic, and it is one that Western peoples seem to overlook.

Democracy is based upon man-made law. This is a direct contradiction to the rule of Allah's law as preached in Mosques across Arabia. Allah's Law is the only law to follow if you're a "good Muslim" according to fundamentalist belief systems.

Democracy is a direct insult to Jihadists, because a government ruled by man's law is an insult to Allah in the view of a fundamentalist mindset.

There are some people that will never be open to the Western ideal of democracy. Trying to be nice and incorporate them into modern mindsets is a waste of time.

Don't you understand that the freedoms afforded to people through democracy is a threat to their way of life? Jihadists live in a dark age mentality, where battles are still being fought over blood spilled 600 years ago! Jihadists will not be brought into modern times kicking and screaming. They will be brought to our modern world strapped with explosives so they can try to destroy us.

The only thing they understand is brunt force, which is what they shall receive.

ps. I'm not equating all Muslims with Jihadists. Muslims are people of faith. Jihadists are cold blooded murderers.

 

[eyrei]

Some of those we consider terrorists have clear and achievable goals for their terror campaigns, which means that, if they can be provided with something at least close to their goal, they will likely stop attacking. Sometimes their goal is not that 'evil', but they have seen the effectiveness of terrorist tactics.

Of course, there are those whose goal is the destruction of the decadent West, and they cannot be reasoned with.

 

[JoeM]

Of course, there are those whose goal is the destruction of the decadent West, and they cannot be reasoned with.

And how should they be dealt with?

 

[Rambuchan]

Some of those we consider terrorists have clear and achievable goals for their terror campaigns, which means that, if they can be provided with something at least close to their goal, they will likely stop attacking. Sometimes their goal is not that 'evil', but they have seen the effectiveness of terrorist tactics.

Of course, there are those whose goal is the destruction of the decadent West, and they cannot be reasoned with.

This is a very good point and concisely expresses much of my opinion.


These people are not bent on murder as their ultimate goal. That is a fallacy. They are human beings with concerns and grievances, admittedly some of them are unacceptable demands, but they are not seeking merely to kill for it's own sake.

Killing is their means to achieve their goal because they have no peaceful political option available to them. I am simply suggesting that when they are given the ability to voice concerns in other ways, then they eventually come round (IRA, Nelson Mandela and so on).

Also, as the article suggests, if you give them nothing to fight against then they have no reason to kill people. Read the article and it gives plenty of examples where the punch bag for terrorists is taken away and they have nothing to punch at.

 

[Rambuchan]

And the bank robber analogy applies in the same way: Why did the robber do it in the first place?

 

[E-Raser]

And the bank robber analogy applies in the same way: Why did the robber do it in the first place?

good point, second that!

 

[eyrei]

And how should they be dealt with?

By rooting them out and eliminating them. However, this has to be done quietly, and in such a way that we don't create more of them by killing their families with airstrikes and shelling as we occupy their countries. I wonder how many suicide bombers in Iraq lost family members during the invasion and subsequent 'smaller' military offensives...

 

[JoeM]

By rooting them out and eliminating them.

I assume you mean 'kill'. I would prefer track them down and imprison them - it's less glamorous than martyrdom, plus I don't believe in state-sponsored murder.

However, this has to be done quietly, and in such a way that we don't create more of them by killing their families with airstrikes and shelling as we occupy their countries. I wonder how many suicide bombers in Iraq lost family members during the invasion and subsequent 'smaller' military offensives...

I don't want to turn this into an Iraq war thread, but I disagree with your line of thinking. The creation of a limited number of 'terrorists' is not reason to sustain a cruel dictatorship.

 

[eyrei]

I assume you mean 'kill'. I would prefer track them down and imprison them - it's less glamorous than martyrdom, plus I don't believe in state-sponsored murder.

Agreed, though people who are willing to carry out a suicide bombing are going to be rather difficult to take alive.

I don't want to turn this into an Iraq war thread, but I disagree with your line of thinking. The creation of a limited number of 'terrorists' is not reason to sustain a cruel dictatorship.

Maybe, but you asked me how to stop terrorists, not dictators.

 

[JoeM]

Maybe, but you asked me how to stop terrorists, not dictators.

Aah, a career in politics I see before you...

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Any suggestions how to realize this?
Kill everyone who seems suspicious?
The more you kill the more grow up like a Hydra.
Violance seems to cause more violance, doesn't it?
IMO most terrorists are mainly misled by really awful nutcases. They would be the enemy. But IMO those who actually bomb themself up are also more victims as actors.
IMO they were sevierly brainwashed, misled and instrumentalized to serve the aims of the puppet masters.
As long as you can not get them and second change the situation that they would hardly be able to convince the people that they should suicide bomb, as long it is not the question if, just when the next bombing will take place.

It semms i didnt explain myself properly. I mean eliminate the causes. For instance if terrorism is caused by proverty or ignorance fight them, if it is caused by a territorial conflict, solve it. if it caused by some attitude try to change it.
Of course this may be very difficult or even utopic sometimes...

 

[eyrei]

Aah, a career in politics I see before you...

Hehe...hopefully not.

Seriously though, that may be a large part of the problem. Trying to depose a dictatorship in a muslim country while at the same time trying to fight muslim terrorists is a good way to not accomplish either goal. Each action makes the other immensely more difficult.

 

[CurtSibling]

It isn't gardening and the analogy doesn't apply. There are too many roots to dig up.

As we see shooting them and invading their beloved countries only makes them want to bomb us more. And yes Bigfoot the more they get involved, the more they must behave in a transparent fashion (this is pushing the IRA to disarmament), which inevitably makes them come round to more sensible and less 'illegitimate' means.

I was actually talking about the ideological root.

We must push for reform in Islam...We must foster the young to be moderates, not rabid fundies.

And for that to happen, we must tackle the root of fundamentalism. The clerics.

The mosques must be opened to scrutiny, and tolerance must be formented.
In the same fashion as hate cannot be preached from the pulpit in moderate christianity...

I hope that is clear?

.