"When I kill one I create three"

[eldermike]

The idea that there are cracks in the resolve to win the war on terrorism creates more terrorists than all other factors.

 

[Milla]

A challenge I frequently enjoy setting: Anyone have ANY example of force providing a lasting solution to a terrorist problem?

I would love to see someone, anyone, answer this question.

 

[blueapplepaste]

The idea that there are cracks in the resolve to win the war on terrorism creates more terrorists than all other factors.

The problem is that this "war on terrorism" can not be won. The war on terrorism will end up much like the war on communism, it's just a means to an end for the politicians.

 

[eldermike]

The problem is that this "war on terrorism" can not be won. The war on terrorism will end up much like the war on communism, it's just a means to an end for the politicians.

Doing nothing about terrorism is also a means to an end for politicians, likewise for communism. Terrorism has goals beyond the current situations, it's not going anywhere it's just preoccupied right now.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I would love to see someone, anyone, answer this question.

Thats the beauty of it there is no answer! Not as far as I am aware! Go on someone prove me wrong!

 

[ScottishJohn]

Doing nothing about terrorism is also a means to an end for politicians, likewise for communism. Terrorism has goals beyond the current situations, it's not going anywhere it's just preoccupied right now.

Doing nothing is just a ridiculous as trying to use violence to solve the problem. Can you give me an example of where force brought lasting peace to an area previously troubled by terrorists? Negotiation is the only thing that works. Some of the terrorist groups have legitimate grievances before they resort to terrorist methods. How will they get any support once those grievances have been addressed?

I think the two sides are remarkably similar. You have evil nutters on both sides - Bin Laden and the fundamentalist jihadist clerics on one side, PNAC on the other trying to engineer an 'New American Century'. They gloss their horrible greedy ideas with fancy phrases and rhetoric that they think will help sell them to the general public, and they gain support. Unfortunately they are the only ones to gain from their plans, and the followers, the support, pay the price over and over again without realising they are being used.

 

[Milla]

Doing nothing is just a ridiculous as trying to use violence to solve the problem. Can you give me an example of where force brought lasting peace to an area previously troubled by terrorists? Negotiation is the only thing that works. Some of the terrorist groups have legitimate grievances before they resort to terrorist methods. How will they get any support once those grievances have been addressed?

Exactly. You correct the issues with which they have legitimate grievances, and you've removed the force from their rhetoric, their popular support melts away. People who have lives with even a minimal level of comfort and peace seldom join or support terrorist organizations; if a population's contentment is improved, terrorist leaders will not be able to draw upon them for operatives, funding, etc.

 

[eldermike]

Doing nothing is just a ridiculous as trying to use violence to solve the problem. Can you give me an example of where force brought lasting peace to an area previously troubled by terrorists? Negotiation is the only thing that works. Some of the terrorist groups have legitimate grievances before they resort to terrorist methods. How will they get any support once those grievances have been addressed?

I think the two sides are remarkably similar. You have evil nutters on both sides - Bin Laden and the fundamentalist jihadist clerics on one side, PNAC on the other trying to engineer an 'New American Century'. They gloss their horrible greedy ideas with fancy phrases and rhetoric that they think will help sell them to the general public, and they gain support. Unfortunately they are the only ones to gain from their plans, and the followers, the support, pay the price over and over again without realising they are being used.

I completely disagree with this.
First, terrorists is a new idea, we once called them pirates or thieves or gangs. Patriot is the word you are attempting to attach to these thugs. The difference is, they do not represent a wider cause which will actually bring peace as an end goal. They each have a narrow view that requires gassing the ones that hold some wider view of their goals.
Second, there is no historical precedent for negotiating with groups, not a single one. So your request for an example is impossible, it's based on legitimizing the groups; the very ones that will turn on each other if some other cause is not bigger than their hate for each other.
Last, if you make deals with groups of thugs you will create three of them each one you deal with. (could not help myself there

 

[Milla]

I completely disagree with this.
First, terrorists is a new idea, we once called them pirates or thieves or gangs.

There is a difference in motivation between someone striking out because they want the pieces of eight a galleon is carrying and someone striking out because, for example, the foreign government that took over their country seized their land and put them into the street. If you give the first person money their greed will probably not be assauged, as greed is ever growing. If you give the second person their home back, or make reparations at least, they may well resume peaceful life.

 

[eldermike]

There is a difference in motivation between someone striking out because they want the pieces of eight a galleon is carrying and someone striking out because, for example, the foreign government that took over their country seized their land and put them into the street. If you give the first person money their greed will probably not be assauged, as greed is ever growing. If you give the second person their home back, or make reparations at least, they may well resume peaceful life.

I suppose I am typing this from Indian land, but today it has my name on the deed. One indians goal is to get his fathers land back, another one's goal is to punish me for my fathers crimes. Yet another one wants more than the land and my head, He wants the heads of those that helped my fathers father and his fathers father.

You can't put the puzzle back together any more than I can. So, let's try reality. Someone is planning to kill me for something I did not do. What are my options again?

 

[ScottishJohn]

I completely disagree with this.
First, terrorists is a new idea, we once called them pirates or thieves or gangs. Patriot is the word you are attempting to attach to these thugs. The difference is, they do not represent a wider cause which will actually bring peace as an end goal. They each have a narrow view that requires gassing the ones that hold some wider view of their goals.
Second, there is no historical precedent for negotiating with groups, not a single one. So your request for an example is impossible, it's based on legitimizing the groups; the very ones that will turn on each other if some other cause is not bigger than their hate for each other.
Last, if you make deals with groups of thugs you will create three of them each one you deal with. (could not help myself there

1st the name may be recent the action is certainly not. James the Zealot - one of Jesus disciples was part of a terrorist organisation fighting against the Roman occupation. Jumping ahead a few centuries William Wallace was a terrorist - he attacked civillian populations, burnt and massacred them , (although that didn't make the oh so innacurate film Braveheart!) and generaly indulged in plenty of terrorist actions and tactics against the occupying English. The IRA as terrorists engaged in fighting the British Rule in Ireland. All of these people had two things in common - 1. those they were fighting against labelled them terrorist thugs. 2. Those they were fighting for labelled them patriots and heros.

The current band of terrorists we seem so preoccupied with - Al Quaeda, and bin Laden, if you read their demands they certainly DO address American actions in the middle east as the basis for their protest. Most terrorist organisations have demands that they seek to achieve. Can you give me one recognised group which does not? This is where they gain their support.

2nd In Northern Ireland the focus has shifted from ignoring terrorism, allowing people to continue to die and generally trying to forget about the problems. With AMERICAN help the UK has been negotiating between all the parties over the last decade, and we have had relative peace. The process is not without problems, but we have had some decommissioning, and solid talks, and most importantly drasticly lower levels of violence than we saw in the three preceeding decades. Perhaps the reason that many situations do NOT end this way is that the terrorists win their struggle - Algeria, for example, or William Wallace to go back to an earlier example. Or there is a third option - like in Israel and Palestine - the violence perpetuates itself over centuries. Negotiation is the only way to get an outcome that involves peace and less death which I think is desireable.

3rd. Without popular support these groups wither and die. They need money footsoldiers etc, and if the populace are no longer feeling hard done by then support will be sparse.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I suppose I am typing this from Indian land, but today it has my name on the deed. One indians goal is to get his fathers land back, another one's goal is to punish me for my fathers crimes. Yet another one wants more than the land and my head, He wants the heads of those that helped my fathers father and his fathers father.

You can't put the puzzle back together any more than I can. So, let's try reality. Someone is planning to kill me for something I did not do. What are my options again?

You are a reciever of stolen goods

What does the law say about that?

Seriously though if this were a real situation you would have several options. First you could take the US path and try and kill all three indians. Unfortunately this would be more likely to result with a que of indians at your door looking for revenge, (this is our current situation in Iraq), you could try talking to the indians through your solicitor and see if you could come to an arrangement for reperations, perhaps splitting the land, or offering cash, after all they do have a legitimate complaint. It may not be your actions but you profit from them. The whole thing is that a wrong has been done, and you can either ignore it and say tough, and live with the consequences of that action, or you can try and fix it.

 

[Whistler]

I just thought I'd call attention to an article by Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek international.

Think of it as a what to do/not do guide to defeating terrorism. It compares the problem with terrorism turkey had with Kurdish separatists to the war in Chechnya. One part in particular explains the tactic the Turkish military used to end the insurgency

A combination of reasons: First, the Turkish military hit the rebels hard, crushing the PKK, closing down international support for them and eventually arresting its leader. But the Army directed its fire at the rebels and not the surrounding population. In fact, the Turks worked very hard to win over the Kurds, creating stable governing structures for them, befriending them and putting forward social-welfare programs--to improve agriculture and women's education, for example. The Turkish government made a massive investment (totaling well over $32 billion) in the Kurdish southeast. On a per capita basis, it has invested more in the Kurdish region than in any other part of Turkey. It also had agreed to a number of Kurdish demands on language, cultural freedom and educational reforms. These concessions were dramatically accelerated as a result of European pressure over the last few years.

Terrorists might not be fighting to end injustice but they are using that retoric to recruit others. If you hope to defeat them your going to have to play into it.

 

[eldermike]

1st the name may be recent the action is certainly not. James the Zealot - one of Jesus disciples was part of a terrorist organisation fighting against the Roman occupation. Jumping ahead a few centuries William Wallace was a terrorist - he attacked civillian populations, burnt and massacred them , (although that didn't make the oh so innacurate film Braveheart!) and generaly indulged in plenty of terrorist actions and tactics against the occupying English. The IRA as terrorists engaged in fighting the British Rule in Ireland. All of these people had two things in common - 1. those they were fighting against labelled them terrorist thugs. 2. Those they were fighting for labelled them patriots and heros.

The current band of terrorists we seem so preoccupied with - Al Quaeda, and bin Laden, if you read their demands they certainly DO address American actions in the middle east as the basis for their protest. Most terrorist organisations have demands that they seek to achieve. Can you give me one recognised group which does not? This is where they gain their support.

2nd In Northern Ireland the focus has shifted from ignoring terrorism, allowing people to continue to die and generally trying to forget about the problems. With AMERICAN help the UK has been negotiating between all the parties over the last decade, and we have had relative peace. The process is not without problems, but we have had some decommissioning, and solid talks, and most importantly drasticly lower levels of violence than we saw in the three preceeding decades. Perhaps the reason that many situations do NOT end this way is that the terrorists win their struggle - Algeria, for example, or William Wallace to go back to an earlier example. Or there is a third option - like in Israel and Palestine - the violence perpetuates itself over centuries. Negotiation is the only way to get an outcome that involves peace and less death which I think is desireable.

3rd. Without popular support these groups wither and die. They need money footsoldiers etc, and if the populace are no longer feeling hard done by then support will be sparse.

I think, other than your number one example, there is a sad history that leads us to negotiation, it's not the first action. There are millions of graves of men who have purchased a better negotiation position. I am not opposed to negotiation, I am opposed to the timing.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I think, other than your number one example, there is a sad history that leads us to negotiation, it's not the first action. There are millions of graves of men who have purchased a better negotiation position. I am not opposed to negotiation, I am opposed to the timing.

You are correct the first action is not negociation, but to act in a just manner and try not to marginalise people to such an extent that they take up arms. IF the UK had not treated Irish Catholics as second class citizens refusing to consider them for certain jobs, refusing to admit them to University, ensuring power and money remained in Protestant hands then the IRA would never have existed. If England had not annexed Scotland William Wallace would never have had his 'freedom' challenged. If the US had not repeatedly used the middle east as a kind of Global petrol station putting their need for oil before the welfare of the inhabitants, if they had not championed Israel REGARDLESS of her actions towards the Palestinians, if they had not trained Bin Laden and funded Saddam when it suited them, if they had not had their pocket Shah in Iran, if they had generaly acted in a more respectful way then we would not be having this conversation. the nutters and extremists would still exist, as they do in the US and every country, only the general populace rather than supporting them would treat them with the contempt the deserve.

 

[Sycophant]

Oh yes terrorist are killing innocent people because of the injustice the U.S. has done. Your argument is flawed.

-cw

It is not necessary that the injustice be real or recognised by all parties. All that is required is that one party (the agreived) feel there is an injustice. That injustice may be that the US is in Iraq, or that the US maintains bases in Saudi Arabia, or that a bomb killed his brother.

The point being, when you kill people and wage war against a population, there are people that are left behind, and there are people that see these actions. And those people do not tend to take it well.

So when you kill Jim, his brother, cousin and uncle all decide that they need to extract revenge for that act. You kill one, and create three.

 

[Sycophant]

[/i]If terrorist were fighting an injustice why are the targeting and killing their own people?

-cw

They are fighting and attacking hostile elements. The vast majority of attacks in Iraq are targeted toward coalition forces and Iraqi police and military targets. The civilians that are dying are mostly 'colateral damage'. However, attacks against civilians could seem justified to these people with the "if you're not with us, you're against us" philosphy - anyone who is not opposing the coalition efforts is effectively enabling it.

 

[Sycophant]

Doing nothing about terrorism is also a means to an end for politicians, likewise for communism. Terrorism has goals beyond the current situations, it's not going anywhere it's just preoccupied right now.

And as yet no one is suggesting doing nothing. The only point here is that a full-scale military operation against "terrorism" will not work.

Scaling up other approaches that have been used in the past would be far more effective - that is intelligence gathering, small scale covert military operations and actually looking at the issues involved in providing motivation for terrorist organisations in the first place.

 

[ScottishJohn]

However, attacks against civilians could seem justified to these people with the "if you're not with us, you're against us" philosphy - anyone who is not opposing the coalition efforts is effectively enabling it.

I seem to remember Bush being a proponent of this philosophy, so I suppose the attitude itself cannot be criticised without criticising Bushes approach...

 

[jasperbound]

Surely there are more productive and noble forms of protest than killing innocent people, such as setting oneself on fire. Not only would they be on the news, but I'm sure people would acknowledge their grievances as authentic. But killing innocent people? Should we respect that and treat that as mere "protest?"