Terrorists: A victory against one is a victory against all?

[The Yankee]

To prevent threadjacking the Indian terrorist attack thread and also to present a wider scope to gain the viewpoints of the people here at OT, I'll offer this question:

Is a victory against one terrorist or one group a victory against all terrorists in the world?

So, would the capture or killing of a Hezbollah leader, for example, be a victory against worldwide terrorism? Would that include a victory against, say, the Abu Sayyaf group? What about non-Muslim groups (since we are quite focused on Muslim terrorist groups) like the ETA in Basque country or the Earth Liberation Front ultra-environmental group? What of countries caught between supporting one group, such as Pakistan supporting groups in Kashmir and deeper into India, and also having to oppose others, such as Pakistan having to take some measures against Talibanic groups on its western frontiers (although this isn't a clear-cut example, given Pakistan's love-hate relationship)?

Are terrorists part of one monolithic group that we must fight as one worldwide group or are there different fronts to this fight?

 

[aneeshm]

There is one factor uniting all terrorists around the world. It is the root. It is the thing that must be destroyed. It is an idea, and an idea cannot be destroyed physically. It will be a long and bitter war, but unless we of the civilised worlds do not get our act together, the future of the world looks grim. We may again fall to the barbarians, and a second dark age may be upon us, and this time, escape may take a lot longer.

 

[Ecofarm]

Saying "no" to terrorism, wherever it may occur, sends a message to all terrorists that such methods will not be accepted. It doesn't matter why they claim to do it.

We (the free world) are not in a struggle against terrorists who want independance, or terrorists that want all Americans dead, or terrorists that want a change of government in the Phillipines. We are in a struggle against a method of social change. All that matters is that the world rejects the method. No matter where we reject this method, it sends a messege to anyone who would employ it.

I do not oppose terrorists because they hate America. Lord knows, there's plenty to hate and if someone wants to focus on the negatives, that's their problem. I oppose terrorism.

They are one monolithic group. They do one thing. No one should care why; it is unaceptable regardless.

 

[nivi]

The capture or killing of the leader of hezbullah, wouldn't even be a victory against hezbullah.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

So what are peoples views about how the UK has handled the Irish terrorism issue? Basically, both sides of the argument (one of which is Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA basically) are in coalition government. The other side, Ian Paisley's DUP was once a "Never! Never! Never!" to any sort of compromise person (he was parodied in the film "Life of Brian" too, he is quite a colourful character).

I needn't remind people of which country the IRA got much of its funding from.

 

[The Yankee]

There is one factor uniting all terrorists around the world. It is the root. It is the thing that must be destroyed. It is an idea, and an idea cannot be destroyed physically. It will be a long and bitter war, but unless we of the civilised worlds do not get our act together, the future of the world looks grim. We may again fall to the barbarians, and a second dark age may be upon us, and this time, escape may take a lot longer.

And yet the idea will be quite different, depending which terrorist you ask. Of course, a good portion of them will be united in some way since they've built those ties over the years, but we still have some groups that operate on their own turf, for their own cause (no matter how twisted).

For example, here is the USA's Foreign Terrorist Organizations list, taken from the State Department:

Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
2. Abu Sayyaf Group
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
4. Ansar al-Islam
5. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
6. Asbat al-Ansar
7. Aum Shinrikyo
8. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
9. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
10. Continuity Irish Republican Army
11. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
12. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
13. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
14. Hizballah (Party of God)
15. Islamic Jihad Group
16. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
17. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
18. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
19. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
20. Kahane Chai (Kach)
21. Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK)
22. Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
23. Lashkar i Jhangvi
24. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
25. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
26. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
27. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
28. National Liberation Army (ELN)
29. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
30. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
31. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
32. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
33. al-Qa’ida
34. Real IRA
35. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
36. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
37. Revolutionary Organization 17 November
38. Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
39. Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
40. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
41. Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
42. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

Are all these groups united? If so, what would they do together? How would a win against one be a victory against...say...Shining Path?

 

[Ecofarm]

Every terrorist we capture or kill is a victory against hez and all other terrorists. I don't understand your post at all, Nivi. Are you saying that victory against the terrorism of hez is impossible and we should just put them in charge of the free world? Would that be victory? Boggle @ Nivi.

 

[Ecofarm]

Are all these groups united?
If so, what would they do together?
How would a win against one be a victory against...say...Shining Path?

Yes, they are all united, in methods.
They kill innocent people on purpose, use murder as a bargaining chip, AND RATIONALIZE IT.
A victory against terrorist methods is a victory against terrorist methods, period. Anyone who employes terrorism (or plans to) will have to consider that there is a strong resistance against it/them.


You can seperate them all according to what they say (if you must), but I group them all according to what they do. I don't really care what they say or why. There are plenty of people who peacefully bring terrorists' (supposed) reasons to light. I listen to UN debate. I listen to protests. I DO NOT listen to terrorists and I DON'T care what they call themselves.

 

[nivi]

Every terrorist we capture or kill is a victory against hez and all other terrorists. I don't understand your post at all, Nivi. Are you saying that victory against the terrorism of hez is impossible and we should just put them in charge of the free world? Would that be victory? Boggle @ Nivi.

You know me better then that, I am just being realistic here.

Cutting off the head of the snake when it comes to terrorists simply does not work. Do you know who do leader was before Nasrallah? Of course you don't, but he was assainated by Israel, in fact, he was more moderate then Nassrallah. Do you think if you managed to get Bin Laden you would have eradicated Al-Qaida? You wouldn't have, you just gave them another martyr, you wouldn't have weakened them, you just might have even made them stronger.

 

[silver 2039]

Not all terrorists have the same ideals and same goals.

Harkat-Al-Mujadien for instance has the goal of building an Islamic Caliphate, other this is not the same goal that Hezbollah, or Fatah have for instance.

Terrorism isn't one big entity that is coordinated, it has many different ideologies, goals, leaders, and capabilities. In fact some terrorist groups don't even like each other. Fatah and Hamas for instance not very friendly....and not all terrorist groups are Islamic, there are Sikh Khalistani terrotists, Maoists, ETA, Lords Resistance Army, and the Assames Liberation Front, do they have anything in common? Some of them don't even use the same methods.

Suppose you destroy Hezbollah. How does that help or benefit India for instance?

What effect does destroying the Tamil Tigers have on the Lords Resistance Army? It doesn't.

Destroying one terrorist group may benefit one country or two. But it does not benefit the world. So a victory against one isn't a victory against all. Its foolish to think of all terrorists and terrorist groups as a monolithic entity, it gives them the appearance of false strength and unity which they do not possess. In fact they are far more weak and divided than one might think.

 

[Japanrocks12]

meh, we destroy one terrorist organization and five more spawn in their place. It's like a neverending hydra.

 

[Ecofarm]

Destroying one terrorist group may benefit one country or two. But it does not benefit the world. So a victory against one isn't a victory against all. Its foolish to think of all terrorists and terrorist groups as a monolithic entity, it gives them the appearance of false strength and unity which they do not possess. In fact they are far more weak and divided than one might think.

Destroying any terrorist organization makes THE WHOLE world a better place. Further, it sends a signal to other terrorist groups that they might be destroyed as well. It sends a message to ALL terrorists that their methods will not be accepted.

I do not give terrorists the "appearance of false strength". I am not saying that they are united and consiring together. I AM saying that they are all the same thing and anywhere you reject them, it affects others who would be like them.

Do you think that punishing murder has no affect on murder!?

Does punishing rape have no affect on rape?

Does punishing terrorism have no affect on terrorism?

 

[Ecofarm]

meh, we destroy one terrorist organization and five more spawn in their place. It's like a neverending hydra.

Yea, it's true. We can never win. It's hopeless. They are stronger than we are and their numbers are greater. Let's just put them in charge.

/sarcasm

Could someone please edit Wiki under "defeatist" by adding Japanrocks' quote?

 

[The Yankee]

To throw more into this, here's the US State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism List (though it's quite lacking, IMO):

Country
Designation Date

Cuba
March 1, 1982

Iran
January 19, 1984

North Korea
January 20, 1988

Sudan
August 12, 1993

Syria
December 29, 1979

 

[Japanrocks12]

Yea, it's true. We can never win. It's hopeless. They are stronger than we are and their numbers are greater. Let's just put them in charge.

/sarcasm

Could someone please edit Wiki under "defeatist" by adding Japanrocks' quote?

of course that means that we should continue trying, I'm just referring to how inane it is to believe that we can eradicate it completely. I agree with the viewpoint that the United States's war on terror, though misguided at times, reduced the chance of terrorist attacks. don't take a one liner from me and assume that my stance is defeatist without giving me the opportunity to elaborate.

 

[The Yankee]

Destroying any terrorist organization makes THE WHOLE world a better place. Further, it sends a signal to other terrorist groups that they might be destroyed as well. It sends a message to ALL terrorists that their methods will not be accepted.

I do not give terrorists the "appearance of false strength". I am not saying that they are united and consiring together. I AM saying that they are all the same thing and anywhere you reject them, it affects others who would be like them.

Do you think that punishing murder has no affect on murder!?

Does punishing rape have no affect on rape?

Does punishing terrorism have no affect on terrorism?

Still far too broad, IMO. There may be a cause and effect that could lead to victories elsewhere and I'll use a non-terrorist example.

Crime in New York City went down during the 1990s and this decade. A police commissioner in Chicago used tactics done in NYC to go after some thugs in that city. Does this mean that street thugs or street gangs were part of one group? Heck no. At best, someone fighting a similar group learned from victories from someone else fighting a group.

Bring it back to terrorists. If someone used Israel's tactic of shooting missiles at buildings where a terrorist leader was suspected to be and used it successfully against a leader of a terrorist group in, say, Somalia, does that mean Israel scored that victory as well?


And this:

I am not saying that they are united and consiring together.

does not reconcile with this:

They are one monolithic group. They do one thing. No one should care why; it is unaceptable regardless.

Furthermore, people should care why so that we could educate any potential recruits on why said group is bonkers.

 

[Ecofarm]

All street thugs are members of the same group: street thugs.

It reconciles just fine.

They are not technically united, and they are not conspiring together. They are, however, the same thing.

Just as a murderer is a murderer, no matter the reason and regardless of whether he took orders from another murderer. He's not an "American murderer" or "Malaysian murderer". Just a murderer. And any opposition to murder, is opposition to murder EVERYWHERE. Opposition to murder will make it less likely and more difficult for murder to go unopposed, everywhere.

 

[dh_epic]

Strategically, it's much more complicated.

Symbolic value is VERY important. Just stumbling onto a really important terrorist or plot, yeah it helps to stop a horrible incident. But it might not do much to change the reality of terrorist recruitment. Not as much as if you declared "it is our mission to get this guy", and to make him a focus, and then find him in a reasonable amount of time.

Not to mention that you can win a battle but ultimately contribute to losing the war. If a strong economy is vital to win a traditional war, then strong moral support is vital to defeat terrorism. And if you get that one key terrorist but harm enough civilian life in the process, the whole thing is a wash -- you've created as many problems as you've solved.

There is no monolithic group. Just a bunch of people pissed off. That's why this conflict is so difficult, and requires more than military force to resolve. It's also why world opinion is so important.

 

[Evie]

The idea that threatening and carrying out threats against innocents can be used as a political weapon is not exactly an invention of modern-day terrorism.

Hostage-taking was a political weapon from the earliest days of history. Terrorism is just hostage-taking taken to a whole new level.

And it's far too late to give anyone the idea that this sort of things doesn't work. They have countless milenium of history to prove to them how the human nature reacts to this sort of things.

 

[Tee Kay]

A victory against Al Qaeda will not effect the operations of, say, Hezbollah or the Tamil Tigers.

So no, a victory against one is DEFINITELY NOT a victory against all, at least in practical terms.