Some thoughts on the War on Terror

[Tuuvi]

So I just finished a documentary on Tibet, called "Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion" and I was touched by the Tibetan peoples commitment to non-violence, which got me thinking about the "War on Terror". If I understand correctly, part of Al-Qaeda's rhetoric is that the western world is bent on destroying Islam and trying to control the world. So what if the U.S. tried a non-violent approach to terrorism, focusing on increasing security rather than fighting the terrorists? I'm thinking that if the U.S. were a more peaceful nation, it could go a long way to discrediting the notion that the US is evil and wants to destroy Islam, and would probably decrease the terrorists' ability to get new recruits. But on the other hand, maybe such a passive approach would allow militant Islam to spread more rapidly. So what do you guys think? :juggle2:

[PanzerJaeger]

Welcome to the backroom (I think)!

Such an approach would arguably leave the President in dereliction of his primary duty to defend the American people. Now, does that mean that America must invade backwater nations across the globe to defend itself? No, that has proved to be a less-than-effective strategy. And it may even be beneficial to reduce our military presence in the Middle East that still lingers from the First Gulf War, especially in Saudi Arabia. However, the President, and the various defense agencies under his control, have a responsibility to pursue some strategy in an effort to proactively disrupt and destroy these groups.

How would the President defend your proposed course of action to the American people, especially in the aftermath of a successful terrorist attack?

Also, given Tibet's situation, I'm not sure they are a great example of successful nonviolence.

[al Roumi]

This is an interesting question!

The US has long chosen to fight its wars anywhere but on its soil, that at least is part of why it plays the role it does -and has the reputation you point out.


So what if the U.S. tried a non-violent approach to terrorism, focusing on increasing security rather than fighting the terrorists?
Arguably everything that has been done so far by the US (and others) under the banner of the WoT has been in the name of US Security. I think what you mean by "security" is an introspective focus? That could mean greater police surveilence of "potential suspects" (i.e. Muslims at large) -as has been the case in the UK. This (in the UK at least) has not been without its inconveniences as british Muslims are now fatigued and angry with clumsy government and Police labeling and handling. Hard to prove the comparative success of such an approach, of course -how do you prove a negative (thwarted attacks that would have happened)?


I'm thinking that if the U.S. were a more peaceful nation, it could go a long way to discrediting the notion that the US is evil and wants to destroy Islam, and would probably decrease the terrorists' ability to get new recruits.
While it would IMO be wonderful to see this, I think the damage has already been done. Al Qaida's "narrative" starts (in the modern sense) towards the end of the cold war. Add to that the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan which are going to provide ample ideological ammunition for quite some time -even if both countries somehow perform a miracle and become paragons of peace, propserity and Muslim enfranchisment, there have been thousands killed.

[rory_20_uk]

Peace does not need to include Muslim enfranchisement.

We could follow in the footsteps of Birhain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and just repress the Muslim minority (although they only do that to specific minority sects of Muslims). We could teach non Muslims to not say hello to Muslims as they do in reverse in Saudi Arabia. We could ban conversions and make heavy jail sentences to anyone who tries to convert others. We could purge communities of religions we don't like (Iran, Iraq of Christians).

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Peaceful Tibetians is a bit of a myth, it's a place in Holywood.

[al Roumi]

Peace does not need to include Muslim enfranchisement.

We could follow in the footsteps of Birhain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and just repress the Muslim minority (although they only do that to specific minority sects of Muslims). We could teach non Muslims to not say hello to Muslims as they do in reverse in Saudi Arabia. We could ban conversions and make heavy jail sentences to anyone who tries to convert others. We could purge communities of religions we don't like (Iran, Iraq of Christians).

Getting somewhat OT there but RE " Muslim enfranchisement", do you consider Saudi, Kuwait and Bahrain as paragons?? These countries spawn their own problems which spill over accross the world: hello Muslim Brotherhood, hello Al Qaida.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, they spawn them (or indeed fund them) and they spill (or are sent) across the world... They create the problem, yet we need to bend over backwards to try to deal with this?

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

Yes, they spawn them (or indeed fund them) and they spill (or are sent) across the world... They create the problem, yet we need to bend over backwards to try to deal with this?

Well, putting aside the fact that UK or US citizens (not to mention French or German citizens) may create/perpetuate the problems themselves, the very point of the War on Terror was just that: to respond to attacks and deal with the problems created by previous US-(and other)-backed Saudi et al policies.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm thinking that if the U.S. were a more peaceful nation, it could go a long way to discrediting the notion that the US is evil and wants to destroy Islam, and would probably decrease the terrorists' ability to get new recruits. In 1995 the US saved Muslim Bosnia from Christians. In 2000, American military intervention saved Islamic Kosovo from Christian Serbia.
A few months later in 2001, Muslim terrorists attacked America because 'America wants to destroy Islam'.

Pft.

A mad obsession with Palestine, that's what. Those few acres of stone and sand that are mistaken for the most important issue on the planet. 'No Muslim can live in peace while Palestine is occupied by the Zionist-Americans'.


ZIONIST DUCKS ARE WATCHING ALL YOU MUSLIMS IN MECCA

[rory_20_uk]

Well, putting aside the fact that UK or US citizens (not to mention French or German citizens) may create/perpetuate the problems themselves, the very point of the War on Terror was just that: to respond to attacks and deal with the problems created by previous US-(and other)-backed Saudi et al policies.

I think that it was to respond to attacks. I don't think that anywhere near enough thought went into dealing with the problems regardless of who caused them. Stringing oneself out over two countries might appear to ensure attacks aren't going to hit them Mainland, but the fallacy of this is pretty obvious - Afghan hill-men don't even blend into the deepest, darkest parts of the Southern USA. There are two clear different subsets of terrorists and a war of attrition against one isn't going to suddenly stop the other.

I don't think that the obsession with Palestine is the main causus belli either. I don't think that most of the protagonists really give a damn about Palestine (although Israel is a different matter). It's the Counter-Reformation all over again - it's against ways of life that differ from what groups think should be. and only their extermination is good enough.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

I don't think that the obsession with Palestine is the main causus belli either. I don't think that most of the protagonists really give a damn about Palestine (although Israel is a different matter). It's the Counter-Reformation all over again - it's against ways of life that differ from what groups think should be. and only their extermination is good enough.

Their certainly is a school of thought that the Islamic world is currently going through something akin to Christendom's reformation (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/10/20101017113255456545.html), but I'm personaly wary of ascribing too much of a parrallel between Christian and Islamic culture in this way -not least becasue of the implied delay (a consideration which will no doubt draw scorn from our friendly pinko fascists :wink:). However, I would dearly love to think it's only a matter of time before we all relax into the comfortable liberty of secular democracies -whether originaly Muslim or Christian.

Another theory is that there have been many cycles of growth, progress and decline during Islam's history -and that this might just be another transformative phase. not sure I like the look of what might come out of this if it means more fundamentalism though. Were things to turn out that way, I might find myself -in 20 or so years time, feeling abit like Eric Hobsbawm in the collapse of his ideology and hope therein. Obviously I'm unlikely to be able to ever draw any other parralels between myself and Hobsbawm but hey-ho.

[Strike For The South]

Because an Independent Tibet is a bastion of economic and political freedom

Other than the fact you can't find it on a map.

Americas handiling of terrorism has been misguided, ill concived, ill advised and peppered with to much of an us vs them mentality but to completly take violence off the table renders America useless

[Vladimir]

Tibet in the future:

http://www.gotfuturama.com/Information/Encyc-67-Neutral_Planet/

[Tuuvi]

Welcome to the backroom (I think)!

Such an approach would arguably leave the President in dereliction of his primary duty to defend the American people. Now, does that mean that America must invade backwater nations across the globe to defend itself? No, that has proved to be a less-than-effective strategy. And it may even be beneficial to reduce our military presence in the Middle East that still lingers from the First Gulf War, especially in Saudi Arabia. However, the President, and the various defense agencies under his control, have a responsibility to pursue some strategy in an effort to proactively disrupt and destroy these groups.

How would the President defend your proposed course of action to the American people, especially in the aftermath of a successful terrorist attack?

Also, given Tibet's situation, I'm not sure they are a great example of successful nonviolence.
Thank you. Actually I'm not new to the backroom, I just had my username changed, however I haven't been a very active poster.

I'm not trying to say that the US should do nothing to fight terrorism, I'm just starting to think that maybe invading Afghanistan was not the best way to respond to 9/11. I think that maybe the US would've been better off focusing on boosting internal security. But as alh_p pointed out, this has its own setbacks.

As for the Tibet issue, I'm not trying to draw comparisons or anything, that's just what got me thinking about the war on terror.

[Shaka_Khan]

So I just finished a documentary on Tibet, called "Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion" and I was touched by the Tibetan peoples commitment to non-violence, which got me thinking about the "War on Terror". If I understand correctly, part of Al-Qaeda's rhetoric is that the western world is bent on destroying Islam and trying to control the world. So what if the U.S. tried a non-violent approach to terrorism, focusing on increasing security rather than fighting the terrorists? I'm thinking that if the U.S. were a more peaceful nation, it could go a long way to discrediting the notion that the US is evil and wants to destroy Islam, and would probably decrease the terrorists' ability to get new recruits. But on the other hand, maybe such a passive approach would allow militant Islam to spread more rapidly. So what do you guys think? :juggle2:
This reminds me of Richard Gere shortly after 9-11.

[Devastatin Dave]

I thought it wasn't called the War on Terror (WOT) anymore? I thought it was the Puppy Urging Seriously Safe Yodeling now...