Your suggestions how to stop terrorism? [Archive]

Watchman

07-31-2005, 22:21

I know that many governments cant agree on that,but that would show what countries are hostile towards each other.So if the majority of countries would think that certain group is terrorist group and some country wouldnt.The majority could draw economical sanctions against that country....
...wut ? I mean, what's this supposed to help with anything ? Terrorists aren't states. That's damn near part of the definition. They operate within and between and against states. I have distinct problems comprehending how economical sanctions against a state, nevermind ones on such unrelated grounds, would concern a terrorist cell one way or the other beyond perhaps their living expenses becoming problematic if they happen to be in that particular state.

Anyway, if you're talking about Muslim extremist terrorism, which has been on the agenda as of late for some reason, a pretty good starting point would probably be "get the snot out of Middle East." What made Osama go apesh*t on the US in the beginning was, after all, the continued presence of "infidel" troops on the supposedly sacred ground the state of Saudi Arabia happens to sit on.

Unfortunately that's not doable due to a fair few considerations, many of which involve oil, its prevalence in the region, and the dependence of human civilization as we currently know it on the gunk. Nevermind a vast and muddy web of other geopolitical, economical and cultural considerations.

That leaves more indirect methods. Too bad most of those, such as encouraging a general improvement in quality of life, standards or governement and so on and so on in the regions in question, all of which are known to be conductive to general stability and moderation of mindset, heavily involve "Western" meddling in local affairs - which is pretty much exactly what many of the extremists are honked off at to begin with...

Kagemusha

07-31-2005, 22:29

What i mean.That there are also government backed terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah.Then there are separatist terrorist groups like Eta or the Chezheen rebels,Then there is ideological terrorists like those Maoist terrorist at Nepal and also international terrorist like Al-Qaida.
So are we condemning all terrorism,or just those who ar attacking the west?

Watchman

07-31-2005, 22:35

The use of force works only for containing the activities of currently extant extremists, if even that. The UK plus its local supporters had a varying-intensity war going on with North Irish radicals for closer to a century, and in the end only really managed to get any progress at the negotiation table. Various breeds of repressive and authoritarian regimes, able to operate with far more ruthless methods than democratic ones, have on the whole consistently failed to eliminate sufficiently dedicated armed opposition groups - the ETA survived Franco, for example, and the Algerian governement hasn't made any real headway against its local gunmen. During the asymmetrical Algerian War the methods adopted by the French that at least seemed to work were then so vicious and morally repugnant public pressure eventually forced them to bail out...

Basically, if all killing one zealot manages is to buy a brief respite before the next guy in queue fills his boots (now wiser from the demise of his late colleague), all you're managing to do is buy time. You're just fighting a holding action. Well, fighting holding actions is often very necessary and all, but they won't get you very far unless you can do something more meaningful too - and if the evidence thus far is to judge by, invading countries and gunfights with zealots don't quite fulfill the criteria of "meaningful".
Put this way: the loose, nebulous networks that can for brevity be called "al-Qaeda" for short are not only managing to keep the Americans and some others very preoccupied, at enormous financial cost, in Iraq and Afghanistan and presumably sundry other, less well-known, locales; they could effect the Barcelona and Londond bombings on the side too...

Strike For The South

07-31-2005, 22:40

Kill or jail the ones already wreaking havoc and educate the people who have never been educated

Kagemusha

07-31-2005, 22:41

I dont mean that condemning would mean only the free use of force against terrorists.If i would know how to stop terrorism,i wouldnt ask you guys that. ~;) What i want, is to hear your suggestions.How far are we willing to go with this agenda?

Watchman

07-31-2005, 22:43

A better question would perhaps be, "where do we intend to go with this agenda ?" Hopefully not to the opportunistic barbarism of Chechenya, in any case...

kiwitt

08-01-2005, 00:48

As seen in the UK with extensive experience in dealing with Terrorism (i.e. the IRA days), even that country can not deal with it. It only goes to show you can not defeat "terrorism", only deal with it. i.e. get on with your own business and get back to work.

Welcome to the "New World Dis-Order". Live with it.

King Ragnar

08-01-2005, 01:04

Thats a very poor attitude no one should have to live with terrorist, it coulf probably easy to get rid of it judt too many countries are too soft and scared to do anything.

kiwitt

08-01-2005, 01:23

Maybe so. However, the average person can do nothing about it.

As you have seen here, the "seeds" of terrorism are being sown every day. Some things nurture them and some don't.

There are two solutions to "Terrorism". Defeat Poverty and Educate. This is a long term solution (decades) and in the world of "Cost-Based" accounting or short term resolution to issues, I can not see this solved in my lifetime. When people starting thinking long-term (decades) rather then "Quick-Fix", i.e. Afghansistan/Iraq etc. we may see some action.

Slyspy

08-01-2005, 01:31

Thats a very poor attitude no one should have to live with terrorist, it coulf probably easy to get rid of it judt too many countries are too soft and scared to do anything.

Yes we could slaughter the men folk, burn their homes, enslave the women and children and sow their fields with salt. If only we could find them. And if we medieval types rather than a progressive democracy.

The ordinary person's best weapon against terrorism is to carry as normally and hope our leaders are up to the task.

Navaros

08-01-2005, 01:35

non-Muslims need to stop illegally occupying Muslim nations and abusing and torturing Muslim prisoners, who are being held without reason in the first place

in short: leave Muslims alone, and it is likely that most of them will leave you alone ("you" meaning, you as a member of a society which condones atrocities against Islam)

keep antagonizing them and claiming their beliefs are invalid, and they are just gonna keep up the attacks.

it's pretty simple really. unfortunately the occupiers think oil is worth more than blood so the solution will not be implemented.

Roark

08-01-2005, 01:58

Amongst other things, I would suggest that we need to put more resources into identifying the extremist schools and these clerics who are starting young Muslims down the career path of the suicide bomber.

sharrukin

08-01-2005, 02:13

There are very few regions of the earth that are not part of a countries national territory. Nations that harbour terrorists, lack sufficient control over their national territory, or lack the motivation to act against terror groups are essentially the problem. The United States for example had IRA fundraisers in Boston, and other areas, and little was initially done to curb their activities. They have anti-Cuban groups who are intent on the overthrow of Castro though these groups haven't used terrorism extensively. The european have numerous groups who operate through neglect of the national government to take any action. IMO we need to clean house on these organizations even if we might sympathize with their cause.

We would need the support of a number of key nations for historical, political, financial, or strategic reasons. These are the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, and China. Others such as Spain, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Brazil, Argentine, Ukraine, and Korea would be very useful but are not vital. China's passive support would be enough.

Nations that do cooperate in the campaign against terror groups would face a 20%+ trade tariff until such time as they do. The point is that the financial losses to such a nation would be considerable and in the long term would work to have nation be more proactive against groups within their national territory that could cost them such losses. This also avoids the need to take military action which some nations would be less inclined to do, and would thus allow at least some effective action to be taken. The sanctions imposed on Libya are an example of how this might work. UN condemnation and sanctions of the nation should also be pursued as a secondary course of action. A multilateral approach would allow the United States to stand back as such a tariff was leveled against Saudi Arabia for example and still claim to be friendly to the regime but unable to alter the outcome. The same sort of dodge could be used by other nations as well. This would allow action when needed against a friendly regime, and avoid the political cost it might entail.

The definition of terrorism should also include fundraising and contributors to the cause. If there is a reasonable supposition that the contributor knew or should have known that the money was intended to fund terrorist groups then that contributor should spend 2-5 years in prison without parole (or variant thereof). Publicizing these trials and convictions would help to dry up some terrorist fundraising.

Those who know of a terrorist act and do not report it should be charged as terrorist themselves.

Go after the banking institutions that assist in the transfer and holdings of these funds with fines for the institutions when such funds are found (regardless of their involvement) and prison terms and property seizures of those involved when it can be established that they knew of the source of the funds. The point of fines regardless of their involvement is as an inducement for them police themselves.

Identify the locations of terrorist camps and structures and begin air operations against them with multilateral national support, not a single nation acting alone as the partisan nature of such unilateral acts can too easily be misunderstood. Contact the government on whose territory they are located and offer "assistance" against these terrorists. The American and european actions in Afghanistan were rather well done as an example of how to go about this.

Have France, Britain, America, Russia, Germany, Italy, India, Spain, Canada, Australia, and hopefully Turkey (islamic) train and field small groups of agents to hunt down and eliminate the terrorist leadership, fundraisers, and members where ever they can find them, including the nation territory of the nations involved. This would require the US to assist French agents in the USA, just as it would require the French to assist American agents in France. The Israeli 'Sword of Gideon' operation is an example of what we should aiming for. Those terrorist groups such as the IRA recently that are willing to renounce terrorism and engage in political discourse should be given one chance to do so. Whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, Sikhs, Tamils, Basques, Chechens, Philippino Muslims or Hamas they should be dealt with ruthlessly.

The Madrasas education system in the Islamic countries will need to be dealt with as they frequently preaching hatred and promote a violent religious ideology that justifies terrorism. America's allies are the problem here, not America's allies! Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are two of the worst offenders. They are the primary financiers of bin Laden and the Taliban as well as the Madrasas. A cooperative approach with moderate muslims to eliminate those schools that do preach such hate would be IMO the most effective. This would require the use of the 'Carrot and Stick' (or good cop/bad cop) method where threats of violence or economic sanctions are used with funding and a training program and basic standards for such schools to continue to operate.

There has always been terrorism and there will continue to be groups who use such tactics but we can if we choose eliminate the vast majority. The idea of eliminating poverty to eliminate terrorism is based on the flawed assumption that we can eliminate poverty. We cannot. Poverty in the United States and europe is relative, but still real in the minds of those who are defined as poor. They in comparison to the poor of asia, are nothing of the sort. The point of course is that they do not compare themselves to asians but rather to their neighbours.

The only solution that would avoid that is utopian communism that has never shown itself to be a workable system for actual human beings. The Baader Meinhof Gang, Italy’s Red Brigade, Action Directe in France, were not suffering from poverty any more than the perpetrators of the 911 attack were. Crippling poverty in Germany?

Most terrorists are in fact better educated and better off economically than the general population. Japan's Red Army and Aun Shinrikyo are not poverty stricken. The American Militia movement and Timothy McVeigh were not motivated by concern for the poor of the inner cities. The same goes for the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, or the Unabomber. Democracy and liberty are not antidotes to terrorism any more than the utopian elimination of poverty. All the wealthy nations that have a terrorist problem are, generally politically stable. The image of some poor Afghani villager being a terrorist is a lie! He is too busy with his goats and his farm to be involved with such idiocy. The PLO for example targets Israel for political reasons but does not generally target the arab nations who keep them in the camps, and prevent the integration of these groups into their societies. Egypt and Jordan administered the West Bank and Gaza before the Six Day War and did not suffer such attacks or an Intifadah. Why is terrorism in nations like Ethiopia, Bagladesh, pre-reform China, west africa so rare if poverty is what spawns such actions?

The fixation on poverty however does allow the displacement of responsibility for terror from the terrorists to their victims. This is intentional on the part of a very few, and unintentional on the part of most. It is a misreading of the facts. Hitler is a product of his environment, but he bears responsibility for his actions and cannot lay the blame on Austria or his failed life. Terrorists are not generally the products of poverty, nor do they hail from poverty stricken nations. Alienation, blind hatred and fanaticism find a home in the mansions of the wealthy just as easily as they do the meanest peasants hovel.

Slyspy

08-01-2005, 02:29

You live in a fantasy world if you think that will happen. That many countries couldn't agree on the seating arrangement let alone what to have for dessert! Some of the points raised are perfectly valid (especially regarding fund-raising) though I would question that last paragraph. The activists may be relatively well-off and well educated but often their audience is not. Those with little to lose are more likely to support those who tell them they have everything to gain. Further more you cannot bundle all terrorist groups together like that. ETA is very different from the Tamil Tigers, for example. Also many of the groups you mention are tiny and internal, not international.

Divinus Arma

08-01-2005, 02:34

"sheet of glass" comes to mind...

sharrukin

08-01-2005, 03:22

You live in a fantasy world if you think that will happen. That many countries couldn't agree on the seating arrangement let alone what to have for dessert!
Well I do not think it will happen, but if we want to defeat terrorism I think something like it needs to happen. IMO, however you are correct it is not likely.

Some of the points raised are perfectly valid (especially regarding fund-raising) though I would question that last paragraph. The activists may be relatively well-off and well educated but often their audience is not. Those with little to lose are more likely to support those who tell them they have everything to gain. Further more you cannot bundle all terrorist groups together like that. ETA is very different from the Tamil Tigers, for example. Also many of the groups you mention are tiny and internal, not international.

Even the larger groups do not have poverty as a legitimate excuse as the poorer regions of the world generally have fewer terrorists. IMO there is no correlation between the two. Poverty is a convenient excuse for their conduct, not a cause.

bmolsson

08-01-2005, 05:55

Education and increased availablity for global media....

Watchman

08-01-2005, 10:18

Poverty is a cause for crime, not terrorism. Although dire straits are generally conductive to radicalization of all kinds...

However, aside from the comparative "freedom-fighter" sorts (ie. the ones who use asymmetrical terrorist tactics to fight an overwhelmingly superior foe, such as the Palestinian and Iraqi militants) terrorists more often than not seem to be reasonably well educated and not particularly financially poor, at least initially. This is sociopolitical radicalization on the Bader-Meinhof lines we're talking about here; basically middle- or even upper-class people to a greater or lesser degree forsaking their former, usually fairly comfortable and well-educated, lifestyle to pursue a "higher purpose" or other goal they for one reason or another are willing to kill and die for.

What poverty and suchlike create, though, is an atmosphere where many people will be likely to quietly nod in agreement when someone strikes against their perceived exploiters, oppressors or whatever. Case in point is I've read Osama nowadays often has his face printed next to Guevara's in LatAm T-shirts these days. Sounds credible enough - the folks there, staunch Catholics as they are by majority, likely don't much care for Osama's overall agendas, but on the whole there's little love lost between them and the "Big Brother of the North" and they can certainly appreciate someone "standing up to him"...

Education isn't going to do all that much to the slumbering proto-terrorist; chances are he's educated already. More often the trouble is he's educated enough to find one or more facts of the modern world unacceptable and then for assorted reasons is willing to turn to violence to "make things better", at the risk of his (or, much more rarely, her) life if need be. It's not like uneducated people were any slouches at finding the current state of affairs unacceptable, mind you, it's just that they're not half as good at identifying causal relations and coming up with theories and courses of action.

Global media is probably going to do even less, in any case good. Let's be frank here; Western (which is what "global" usually means in practice) media is to a large degree filled to the brim with what can be politely described as "decerebrate smut and filth" which annoys a whole lot of people even in our laid-back and progressive societies; no doubt its fairly obvious carnality, commercialism, shallowness and general lack of what most any traditionalist would consider moral backbone is also a factor in the way so many young men from more traditional societies immersed in it get a downright violent knee-jerk adverse reaction... Even past that "global media" in general stands for foreign influences and new, not necessarily better (in any case subjectively) ideas - and the Islamist ultras are for the most part fundamentalists in the first place; they seek to uphold old, "sacred" traditions and ideas and as usual for such ideologies tend to long after some supposed "golden age when all was right in the world" long ago, in Osama's case the rather short-lived Islamic Caliphate.

Fundamentalism in general is very much a defence reflex against new developements that are felt to threaten "our" values, customs, beliefs and so on and so on (whatever exactly thos enow are - Osama, your average xenophobic ultranationalist anywhere and US abortion-clinic bombers have more in common than any would likely want to admit), basically many of the things that people now build their worldviews on. Embracing the "old" is a way to cope with (or in this context, reject) the "new", especially when the "new" seems threatening, incomprehensible and alien.

Know who the Luddites were ? Kind of the same thing.

Even more of the "new" just might not be all that good an idea, if you know what I mean. Not if the "new" associates to social ills and erosion of morals and culture among segments of the target audience.

Franconicus

08-01-2005, 10:31

The US is the natural leader in this fight. They were hit hardest, they are the main target and they are the strongest nation. And they have been the leader of the free world since WW2.
But they cannot fulfill this role. They still suffer from the wounds of 9/11. Since 9/11 they are much too self focused to lead. They feel a big mistrust in their traditional allies. They are not willing and able to give up control neither to their allies nor to the UN.
They have the strongest army by far. And they try to rely on this army to fight terror. But a conventional army is not the right weapon to do this. Israel had to learn that. For me they had the best army but they could not win the intifada.
The US attacked Iraq. Saddam was an ugly dictator and getting rid of him is a good thing. He might even have been supporting the Hamas or other terror groups. But the link to AQ is weak and it is sad to see that most of the efforts are spend to fight in Iraq.
The US diplomacy alienated the allies. They could not support the American war in Iraq. However, they haven't managed to find their own way to fight the terror. So they are completly ineffective.

AQ had some bad days after the Afghanistan fightings. Their training camps were destroit and their leaders were chased. I think even the attack on their financial structure was a success.
Since then they recovered. Bin Ladn could escape and is still free. This is unbelievable. The focus on Iraq gave them a break. And it gave them an ideal recruitment opportunity.
The fightings in Afghanistan are still going on. After the US put their focus to Iraq Taliban is gaining ground again. I think the western forces can keep a stand off but I do not see a successful end of the operations in Afghanistan.

The war in Iraq was started and now it has to be fought until the successful end. But it will tie the American forces for a long time.
I think it is time that the free world and all their allies and friends share the tasks. The US should fight in Iraq until there is a stable and free nation. The European should focus on AQ.
How could they manage this? The UN is damaged after the Iraq war and not accepted by the Americans. The EU is not in a constitution to lead. So one of the big European nations has to lead. GB is too much involved in Iraq. Germany is willing to support but not willing to lead. France would be the ideal leader for the European. They have a lot of expierience with moslems and islam countries, they have a good armiy that is used to fight in other countries. They will be accepted by all other Europeans and all non Europeans as well.
And we have to get Bin Ladn. How can the world be big enough to escape?

So Europe has to engage much more in the fight against terror. We have to try to involve the Muslim states too. This is not war Christians against Muslims (even though some want it to be!) but good versus bad.

King Ragnar

08-01-2005, 11:03

Yes we could slaughter the men folk, burn their homes, enslave the women and children and sow their fields with salt. If only we could find them. And if we medieval types rather than a progressive democracy.

The people who are terrorist are not civilised so why should we be when dealing with them, they behead people who are on holiday etc , so ho cares if we kill ther family. Britain should leave Iraq leave europe and sort out our own problems, then start to help others and get rid of terrorism.

Papewaio

08-01-2005, 12:31

Ignore the terror.

Seriously.

Prioritize your chances of being killed by terrorists. Its not even near to the top ten or one hundred causes of death.

Their aim is to cause terror. They fail when you don't get terrified.

Is it rational to be afraid of something that is not in your top one hundred list of likely causes of death? When you actively enhance those chances of dying by say not wearing seatbelt, running with scissors, gorging on fats, too much salt, not enough exercise, pyrolyzed fats, burnt meats, smoking, drug use, unsafe sex... in general virtually everything fun you do is more dangerous then terrorists.

So why give a flying f%%k about them? They ain't going to kill you and in the end of the day your ambivalence defeats their extremism.

Franconicus

08-01-2005, 12:56

Pape, are you serious? Just ignore them, that is enough to defeat them? ~:confused:

IliaDN

08-01-2005, 14:05

Pape, are you serious? Just ignore them, that is enough to defeat them? ~:confused:
Maybe he mentioned something like: ignore the fear in your heart and then it will be easier to defeat them.
Well there were pretty much terrorists acts in my country, but they didn't fright people much, worse than that - people get used to such news.
IMHO kill them all ...

Franconicus

08-01-2005, 14:08

...
IMHO kill them all ...
~:eek: Strange point of view for a humanist!

IliaDN

08-01-2005, 14:10

~:eek: Strange point of view for a humanist!
Do you consider an animal which is killing children to be a human? ~:eek:

Franconicus

08-01-2005, 14:11

Do you consider an animal which is killing children to be a human? ~:eek:
Which animals do we talk about? I always thought we would talk about humans after all.

IliaDN

08-01-2005, 14:14

Well what in your opinion distinquish a man from an animal?
Moral maybe?
You hope to find them and to tell that they are bad ... or what?

Franconicus

08-01-2005, 14:16

Not at all! Defend yourself and your country and treat them for what they are: criminals!

IliaDN

08-01-2005, 14:19

So what do you propose to do with them.
How to treat "criminals"?

Franconicus

08-01-2005, 14:29

The usual way: There are laws and there are judges and there are jails, you know.
It is clear that we have to protect ourself against terrorists. A simple 'kill them all' is a bit too simple for me!

IliaDN

08-01-2005, 14:33

So you can say that I am for the death punishment for those accused in terrorism.

Franconicus

08-01-2005, 14:38

We can discuss death sentence in another thread if you like to.

kiwitt

08-01-2005, 22:00

Ignore the terror.

So why give a flying f%%k about them? They ain't going to kill you and in the end of the day your ambivalence defeats their extremism.You agreed with me. Although I think I said it more bluntly. "Live with it"

Tribesman

08-01-2005, 22:21

So you can say that I am for the death punishment for those accused in terrorism.
Shouldn't that be those convicted of terrorism ?

Ayway IliaDN , in your country didn't it turn out that in some cases the people commtting acts of "terrorism" , like planting bombs in apartment buildings , turned out to be government agents ?

Kagemusha

08-01-2005, 22:37

Russia has also suffered from real terrorist actions.I wonder what would have happened if Beslans school attack would have happened somewhere in the West.It caused hundreds of innocent school kids death.

Don Corleone

08-01-2005, 22:43

Excellent point Kangemusha. I suppose there's some folks out there that are so intent on defending Islamic extremists that they'd claim that what happened in Beslan was either 1) justifiable or 2) the act of covert Russian agents.

I certainly hope nobody in the .org qualifies in such a group.

Franconius, if you put terrorists in jail, you're going to experience an upswing in terrorism. This always happens. When you imprison one of their leaders, this makes the terrorist a martyr, and they start stepping up the bombing and claim it will get worse until you release the prisoner. This was why the Italian government released the 2 Achille Lauro hijackers they managed to catch & convict after about 3 1/2 years, even though their sentances were roughly 10 times that. A government that is willing to imprison a terrorist has to be prepared for a significant upswing in domestic terrorist attacks.

Don Corleone

08-01-2005, 22:50

Pape, Kiwitt, your answer is 'let them do it to you'? Pretend it doesn't bother you?

Well, you're either much nobler creatures than I, or ones with a sociopath's cool, calm view of life. Myself, I cannot look at the images of 9/11, that school & the hundreds of dead children in Beslan, or the old handicapped man shot in his wheelchair on the Achille Lauro and say "meh, wasn't me, no big deal".

I believe we are at war with an extremist ideology that will not stop until each and every one of us are enslaved and every last square inch of the planet is under Sharia. There is nothing else they want, and therefore all the negotiating in the world will avail us nothing. It is truly us or them. For all of you who say 'throw money at the problem..., give them money, give them aid, give them educations'... they have all that. Money pours into Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt & other places. If their leaders don't distribute it fairly now, what makes you think more money will fix that? Besides, all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers came from upper middle class or better families. How would giving them money, which they already had in abundance, or educations, which they all already had to the college level, prevented that?

Why don't you believe them when they tell you in plain language exactly what they want and when they tell you that nothing else will satisfy them?

kiwitt

08-02-2005, 00:31

Don't get me wrong Don. I am as abhorred as you are to the carnage these terrorists do.

Just as Pape says we need to show that we are not in fear of them and the best way of doing that is to carry on with our business and live normally. As soon as we start cowering in "fear" and asking the goverment to protect us more (all they can do is write laws and implement a "police state") and take away more freedoms we are used to, the terrorists starts winning a little bit more.

This may look like "apathy" to some, but in actual fact we are putting on a "brave" face and facing each day as it comes.

Don Corleone

08-02-2005, 00:45

I'm not talking about cowering in fear. I'm talking about finding where they are, dragging them out of their ratholes by the hair, lining them up against a wall and shooting them. Well, in the case of the 9/11 hijackers, they're already dead, and their friends back in Afghanistan had their rats' nests kicked over. But we still need to go get that walking fecal matter that tortured and murdered those school children in Beslan. And I still wouldn't mind a few cracks at the punks who shot that old man and kicked his wheelchair off the back of the ship... his crime? Being Jewish.

kiwitt

08-02-2005, 00:58

sharrukin

08-02-2005, 01:02

We can't fight violence with violence as that will only make a bad situation worse.

So France and Britain should have just surrendered to Hitler in 1940? Some things are worth fighting for!

Kagemusha

08-02-2005, 01:09

We can't fight violence with violence as that will only make a bad situation worse. I agree we need to find where they are and get them and make them pay for their crimes. However, we need to stop the "Alims" having influence over others and creating more. What are these people seeking from them, that we can offer something better in exchange. We need to find the "root" cause. Remember you can only truly get rid of "weeds" (terrorists) by pulling ou the "roots" too!

I disagree with you Kiwitt.If we are talking about Wahhabist,you cant reason with them.They think we are infidels that should be killed.Its like reasoning with angry bitbull.Its either you or it.It tears you apart or you shoot it.I agree that we should support moderate muslims as much as we can ,but exremist,We kill them or they kill us.

kiwitt

08-02-2005, 01:09

But "War on Terrorism" is not a conventional war and requires an unconventional solution. What can we replace the radical "Alims" teaching with, I would like to know. If we kill them, they will have more matyrs and be strengthened by it.

sharrukin

08-02-2005, 01:13

But "War on Terrorism" is not a conventional war and requires an unconventional solution.

I agree with that, but it doesn't exclude going after those who perpetrate these crimes. They should be hunted down and destroyed where and when we can find them. It shouldn't be only that, nor should that be used as an excuse for other unrelated actions.

kiwitt

08-02-2005, 01:16

I said that.
I agree we need to find where they are and get them and make them pay for their crimes.

Kagemusha

08-02-2005, 01:19

We should use same tactics as they do.We should infiltrate spyes among them.Our greatest weapon against these extremist is money.We will find Judases among them when we put enough money to the table.Then strike fast and hard.They are trying to terrorize us.We should make them fear also. :bow:

kiwitt

08-02-2005, 01:21

You are right "kagemusha", that is now to fight it unconventionally.

Franconicus

08-02-2005, 08:35

Franconius, if you put terrorists in jail, you're going to experience an upswing in terrorism. This always happens. When you imprison one of their leaders, this makes the terrorist a martyr, and they start stepping up the bombing and claim it will get worse until you release the prisoner. This was why the Italian government released the 2 Achille Lauro hijackers they managed to catch & convict after about 3 1/2 years, even though their sentances were roughly 10 times that. A government that is willing to imprison a terrorist has to be prepared for a significant upswing in domestic terrorist attacks.
Don,
unfortunatelly, we had a lot of experience with terrorists in the 70ies. Some of the terrorists were cought and put in jail and other tried to free them by taking hostages or hi-jacking planes. For a moment it looked like our democracy was not able to defend itself. Many people demanded the death sentence for the terrorists. This would have solved the problem with hostages. German government was very good then (didn't have a good one since) and stayed strong. It did not negitiate with the terrorist and it did not change the laws to death sentence. With this program and a very good special police force the problem could be solved slowly.
I think it is essential to not retreat at the face of terror but to hold on to your principles.
By the way, death sentence may not be frightening for suicide bombers.

Tribesman

08-02-2005, 09:27

I suppose there's some folks out there that are so intent on defending Islamic extremists that they'd claim that what happened in Beslan was either 1) justifiable or 2) the act of covert Russian agents.
Don , how did you come to that conclusion from what I wrote ?
I never realised Beslan school was really a Moscow housing block . ~;)

So quite simply , why would a government agency be attacking its own population by bombing them in their own homes and blaming it on extremist terrorists if not to make its population even more scared of extremist terrorist ?
Surely the terrorist are scary enough as they are without you carrying out your own attacks to make your population even more afraid .

Don Corleone

08-02-2005, 12:40

I didn't come to that conclusion Tribesman. I distinctly said "I certainly hope nobody in the .org qualifies in such a group". If think you belong in that group, I'm sorry to hear it, but I don't know what's inside your head.

The reason I posted that in the first place was because you were implying (not stating, granted) that the terrorism in Moscow was being done by the Russian government itself. You didn't say only that the government was responsible for an appartment building bomb, you said the government was responsible for actS of terrorism 'like' an appartment building bomb.

As I said, I never said you said the government was responsible for Beslan. Like you, I can make unsubstantiated inferences, then when called on it claim "but I never said that".

Tribesman

08-02-2005, 13:41

Don , the key word was "SOME" .
The word "like" is used as in "for example" .
As in...for example while there was a police clampdown and widespread panic about a spate of terrorist attacks targetting apartment buildings in Russian cities with explosive devices ,the police aprehended some people in the act of planting explosives in an apartment building , the people they aprehended turned out to be government agents .

Rodion Romanovich

08-02-2005, 13:59

There has been lots of talk about terrorism,since 9/11.US president George.W.Bush have declared since the "War on terrorism".Wich can be interprated many ways.So what do you think that would be best methods to stop terrorism or even decrease it?
I personally think, that in order to stop terrorism first thing to do,is to define what is terrorism.If we really want an global front against terrorism.We should hold a global conference about what groups are terrorists.I know that many governments cant agree on that,but that would show what countries are hostile towards each other.So if the majority of countries would think that certain group is terrorist group and some country wouldnt.The majority could draw economical sanctions against that country. What do you guys suggest? :bow:

The solution is: read history and try to understand why they do what they do.

Why do Iraq dislike and not trust USA? Because USA promised air support for both shia and curdic rebellions against Saddam Hussein, and called back the air support right after the rebellions had broken out. Without the promised air support, the rebels were easy for Saddam's forces to kill. That's number one - the reason why neither shias nor curds in general like Bush's involvement in Iraq.

Number two, is that the sunnis were afraid of Khomeini's shia dictatorship would spread to Iraq, which was why Saddam took power in Iraq and created a dictatorship regime. The majority of Iraqis are shias, and a majority of those shias support islamic laws of a kind that many sunnis and many Europeans think is barbaric. Now when Saddam took power he also got support from USA, and supported USA back. He expected an alliance with USA against Iran, because they shared a mutual interest. When Iraq attacked Iran, the USA sent weapons to support Iraq. But what Saddam didn't know was that the USA secretly also sent weapons to Iran, in order to, as some of the ruling people in USA at the time have stated it themselves afterwards: "make sure as many as possible on both sides die". This is why sunnis dislike the USA.

Now Saddam's leadership was, as we all know, cruel. The genocide of curds is well-known. But the people of Iraq have little trust in the USA after their treatment of Iraqis, and because the last war is leading to extraction of most of the Iraqi oil to companies in the USA, and the Iraqis that benefit from the occupation are the rich ones that were powerful also in Saddam's regime - and will now become even more powerful and can press the salaries of the average Iraqi citizen down. This means the occupation hurts most Iraqis, and if we remember the historical perspective we can easily understand why people dislike the war. How many civilians died during the Iraq war? Over 50,000 according to official statistics. How many civilians have died during terrorist attacks? Hardly more than around one thousand. Therefore, before bashing terrorists, we should perhaps start bashing the western governments. May those who are without sin throw the first stone, in other words.

More than 50 percent of the population in all western countries are already against the war in Iraq, according to official statistics. Now the real danger is that if we keep fighting those "terrorists" that have partially justified reasons for their deeds with wars against civilians abroad, the opposition will grow so much that more people support the terrorists than support those who are against terrorism. If that happens, the chances are great that the terrorists will win, and western countries will be swallowed by REAL extremists, who use violence just because their ideas are so extremistic that they wouldn't win in a democratic election. That's what has happened to many empires/kingdoms/nations before.

The basis on which people judge whether a group is a terrorist group or freedom fighters is were looose. If we bear in mind that many of the Arabic nations from which terrorists come only became free from colonial oppressive rulers very recently, it's natural to think of them as freedom fighters when they want to get rid of all external involvement and become sovereign states. Also, when modern Europe was being born out of the dying Roman empire, there was a lot of dispute over the land before it calmed down, because the borders didn't coincide with the feeling of communion between the different regions. The same thing is happening in Iraq, because the borders of those countries aren't formed by a long struggle of that same type. The European borders have been fought about so long that all pieces of land that everyone think is worth more than the losses in a war to take them, have already been conquered. Therefore, UN and NATO involvement in Kuwait and similar affairs only ruin that balance, and prevent the area from calming down, because there are still reasons to fight, and as long as the reasons are left, there will still be fighting. The process the Middle east area needs to go through is to be left alone and fight, until all people in the area agree that their nation won't benefit from more war - the borders are drawn in a position that isn't worth the cost in human lives to change. Unfortunately, that's the way human beings have worked since the days of the advent of civilization. Anyway, the point in this paragraph is that even though dictators like Saddam may exist in the area, it's better for the local population if outside powers DON'T interfere, because it will cost fewer human lives in the long term.

Of course I'm not glad that there isn't any better way of fixing these things, for example a way with less violence. But if anyone would come up with a better idea, I'd support that suggestion. However - one thing is clear: letting foreign states attack the countries in the Middle east at random will only lead to more bloodshed in that region, as well as increasing the opposition against the western states and increase the terrorism as well as the islamistic attempts of gaining power in western countries. It should be remembered that many western countries have a population consisting of very high percentages of muslims, which means that oppressing muslim rights will, most certainly, lead to successful muslim attempts of gaining power in these countries in the future. Such a development might, if the muslims get the false impression that all westerners support oppression of muslims, lead to ALL - also the innocent - westerners being exposed to the same oppression in the future.

Anyone disagree? Any suggestions or comments on my analysis?

Papewaio

08-03-2005, 05:56

My suggestion is for me, not for government.

Let the government hunt them down and bring them to justice.

I just don't think living in fear is a valid option for something that is so far down the list that most of my recreational activities including PC games are more likely to kill me.

I also don't agree with some poorly thought out ideas.

ID Cards... did not work in Britain. Proper screening is what is required at the visa and immigration stage. After that ID cards are a waste of resources... money could go forth to emergency services and other things like immunisation programs for some effective results.

Anti-multiculturalism... too broad a brush. Howabout extremist religions get no immigration or visa.

Harder penalities for hate mongering... this I can agree with. It shouldn't just be the impressionables who get treated harshly it should be the ones telling them to go and kill.

====

Fuzzy goals end up with fuzzy results.

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 06:28

Kill them all and kill everyone associated with them. The real threat is the passive support these people get from subject populations.. end that and they dry up and go away.

Papewaio

08-03-2005, 07:33

By that standard a lot of the US should have been killed for passive support of both the IRA and KKK... is that a fair thing to happen even retroactively?

Wipe out the guys donating the funds to terrorist groups (not the patsies who donate to save the kidz then diverted to terrorist groups)

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 07:39

Yep, if Ted Kennedy and his friends were killed, i doubt many other americans would support the IRA.

King Henry V

08-03-2005, 10:35

Words from a game called Cutthroats come to mind "Blast them to Hell and back!"

Rodion Romanovich

08-03-2005, 11:11

Kill them all and kill everyone associated with them. The real threat is the passive support these people get from subject populations.. end that and they dry up and go away.

Everyone associated with them and those who give passive support - does that include people who dislike the bombing of Iraq? Where would you draw the line? If I have to choose sides - I don't want to, but if I have to - I'd choose those who are called terrorists by their opponents because they inflict fewer casualties among innocent civilians. So would you want me killed, even though I would never lift a finger to blow something up? Would you want half the population in all western countries killed, because they passively support the side that's creates least violence and death?

After all, why be so afraid of terrorism? Terror kills only a fraction of the number of civilians "the war on terrorism" kills. The police getting full rights to shoot to kill - and also using it to kill innocent people like they did in London? That's more scary than a few terrorists blowing up a train every once in a while. The terrorists have limited power and influence, whereas those who pass such laws and wage war on civilians in Iraq and other randomly chosen countries have plenty of power, meaning that if they are influenced by the wrong ideas, they're much more dangerous. Let's take an example: how many were killed by terrorists in the 20th century? And how many were killed by dictators that same century? The communist dictators started hunting capitalists who wanted a corporation-controlled Russia, but ended up killing "passive supporters", including many who were even supporting the communists! That's exactly what's happening in western countries right now. That, and the fact that real terrorists are mixed in the same group as freedom fighters so that people's opposition against fighting REAL terrorism grows, are two huge threats of an importance that mustn't be underestimated.

The USA actions in the Middle east remind much of the crusades in the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, which ended up with the Ottomans conquering a great number of the Christian provinces of Europe and even threatened to conquer many Catholic communities in the west. The extremistic crusader governments in the USA and Great Britain will probably get the result that Muslim rule, Muslim law and similar is spread further into Europe. Their fear of Muslim rule and law will only result in increased strength and spread of those two things, which is exactly what they want to avoid, according to what they say. I have nothing against muslim countries being ruled with muslim tradition and muslim laws - so I don't support the naive attempts to militarily crush muslim faith. On the other hand, my values and ideals are more closely related to the Christian life style than the Muslim one, so I wouldn't want Muslims to - because of oppression - feel forced to conquer Christian communities and Islamize them. If these naive leaders in the USA and Great Britain - and some other countries too - don't stop their unjust crusades against randomly chosen innocent civilians the result may be exactly that - that those who prefer the Christian life style over the Muslim one (personally I like many Muslim ideas over Christian ideas in corresponding fields, but the overall impression is that the Christian life style is more similar to my personal ideals) will no longer have anyplace where they can live with the ideals they're so naively trying to defend by attacking innocent people and using terror which will only lead to an effect precisely opposite to the one they're intending to achieve.

If western governments would stop abusing the word terrorist and terrorism so we can fight the real terrorists and negotiate with the freedom fighters and help them get back what our ancestors deprived them of during the colonial era, we'll get peace, fewer bombing attacks in western cities, and both Muslim and Christian communities will exist, so that those with Christian ideals can live with Christian laws and traditions, and those who prefer Muslim ideals can live with Muslim laws and traditions. If either side is afraid of either of the religions growing in power - wait until that has started happening before striking. If both sides want to strike first because they're afraid of the other side striking first, then the war is unnecessary. And if we assume either side is planning to attack eventually, we'll only get more war if we are eager to strike as quickly as possible, because then every moment of peace between wars between the two sides will be shortened. Our paranoid leaders, who see non-existing dangers, are the greatest danger. Don't fear other people; fear the fear of other people.

bmolsson

08-03-2005, 12:09

Panzer, your strategy is exactly the one used by the terrorists today. We all oppose that one I believe...

IliaDN

08-03-2005, 14:03

[B]Ayway IliaDN , in your country didn't it turn out that in some cases the people commtting acts of "terrorism" , like planting bombs in apartment buildings , turned out to be government agents ?
~:confused:

IliaDN

08-03-2005, 14:05

Franconicus

08-03-2005, 14:31

~:cheers:
~:confused:
Did you see my reply to Don's post? What do you think about it?

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 14:50

Everyone associated with them and those who give passive support - does that include people who dislike the bombing of Iraq? Where would you draw the line? If I have to choose sides - I don't want to, but if I have to - I'd choose those who are called terrorists by their opponents because they inflict fewer casualties among innocent civilians. So would you want me killed, even though I would never lift a finger to blow something up? Would you want half the population in all western countries killed, because they passively support the side that's creates least violence and death?

Yes, if you support the terrorists over the west than you would certainly be killed.. And I dont know where you get the assumption that half the western world would ever side with terrorists on anything. Your juxtaposition of the terrorists and the US forces in Iraq is completely ridiculous, and if you honestly believe Islamic extremism is a result of the Iraq war, you seriously lack historic perspective.

Hehe, careful Panzer. If we killed everyone who was associated with Al-Qaeda, we'd need to do a purge of our government. We did give them the initial funding and equipment to get started, after all.

Nope, they were not AQ then and they had not declared the western world their mortal enemy.

Panzer, your strategy is exactly the one used by the terrorists today. We all oppose that one I believe...

It would also work. If the penalty for having anything to do with terrorists was death or other harsh sentences, the passive support they thrive on would evaporate.

King Ragnar

08-03-2005, 15:02

Panzer, your strategy is exactly the one used by the terrorists today. We all oppose that one I believe...

I dont his stratergy is perfect the same as what i think.

Ser Clegane

08-03-2005, 15:13

Kill them all and kill everyone associated with them. The real threat is the passive support these people get from subject populations.. end that and they dry up and go away.

To repeat LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix' question - where would you draw the line?
The Daily Telegraph article that referred to the survey among UK muslims has been cited several times on this board - based on that, would you propose killing 25% of the muslims in the UK?

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 15:33

To repeat LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix' question - where would you draw the line?
The Daily Telegraph article that referred to the survey among UK muslims has been cited several times on this board - based on that, would you propose killing 25% of the muslims in the UK?

Yes, if it was my task to completely end terrorism as soon as possible, that would be the quickest, most effective way of doing it.

Of course this option is way to harsh in today's world where terrorists are only capable of blowing up buses, but if they were able to detonate a nuclear weapon in the west, it would be interesting to see how opinions change.

Franconicus

08-03-2005, 15:38

Yes, if it was my task to completely end terrorism as soon as possible, that would be the quickest, most effective way of doing it.

Of course this option is way to harsh in today's world where terrorists are only capable of blowing up buses, but if they were able to detonate a nuclear weapon in the west, it would be interesting to see how opinions change.
Let's not consider the moral point. Let's look at the practical point.Do you really think killing 25% of the muslims in GB would reduce terror?

Ser Clegane

08-03-2005, 15:41

Yes, if it was my task to completely end terrorism as soon as possible, that would be the quickest, most effective way of doing it.

Can't say that I am surprised by that answer - but at least you speak your mind :shifty:

Apart from the fact that I would generally oppose this kind of genocide I think it would be a bit naive to believe that killing those people who sympathize with the motives of the terrorists would solve the problem.

When you are done killing one quarter of the muslim population do you seriously expect that there will not be any people left would woul be gladly willing to die to take revenge for this genocide?

In Palestine you already have poeple who are not only willing to sacrifice themselves but also are willing to strap explosives on their children.

If you think you can stop terrorism by killing as many muslims as possible you lost any touch to the real world...

EDIT: seems that I am not the only one whoe doubts that this would work ~;)

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 16:03

Let's not consider the moral point.

Right, as the question has nothing to do with morality.

Let's look at the practical point.Do you really think killing 25% of the muslims in GB would reduce terror?

You cannot expect to end terrorism if you have 25% of the population sympathetic to the bombing of their own country..

Fear is a very strong deterrent. They would not be able to meet, plan, or even think about terror without running the risk of having themselves and their friends caught.

Its certainly not a preferable option, but I think it is the best way to stop terrorism. Can you think of a better way? I havent seen one posted here yet..

Rodion Romanovich

08-03-2005, 17:24

Yes, if you support the terrorists over the west than you would certainly be killed.. And I dont know where you get the assumption that half the western world would ever side with terrorists on anything. Your juxtaposition of the terrorists and the US forces in Iraq is completely ridiculous, and if you honestly believe Islamic extremism is a result of the Iraq war, you seriously lack historic perspective.

Either you misunderstand me deliberately, in which case you're debating in a very unserious way. Have you heard of Socrates? A debate can only end in both parts coming up with the best solution if both parts support a discussion where arguments count, and no "debate tricks" like deliberately misquoting/misunderstanding the opponent is used. Your target in this discussion is, if the misunderstanding was deliberate, to destroy any serious attempts at discussion and make the idea you had when entering the debate become the "winning" idea at the end of the debate, in order to look like a good debater and a strong person to people watching the debate from the outside. I'm not debating in that way, because my target is to find the best idea at the end of the debate rather than make sure the idea I had upon entering the debate wins.

If you didn't misunderstand me deliberately, then you are the one that needs to read history. If you can't differ Islamic extremists from Iraqi freedom fighters and people who demand equal rights for muslims, then you shouldn't express your opinion in a debate which depends heavily on knowing your history. Neither should you tell someone who has that knowledge that he lacks "historic perspective".

It would also work. If the penalty for having anything to do with terrorists was death or other harsh sentences, the passive support they thrive on would evaporate.

Terror and mass-murdering has NEVER EVER led to the mass-murderers winning. How big is Mongolia today? Does Timur Lenk's empire exist today? How big is the support for Stalinism today? How many nazis exist? If you want your children to live in an extremistic islamistic community in the future, then go ahead and become president and carry out your genocides. If you read history, the statistics will clearly show that all empires using terror in larger quantities have been destroyed. If you read psycology or just look at the persons in your nearest surroundings and try to understand them, you'll realize that the theoretical explanation for it is quite simple:
1. the people using mass-murder will be feared - and thus hated - by all neutrals. They might be scared of the mass-murdering actions, and therefore they'll be secret opposition for a very long time, until they're sure the opposition is strong enough to carry out a successful rebellion or coup d'etat.
2. when such hidden opposition begins, the leaders who used terror and mass-murder will likely use terror, secret police and other methods to kill all silent opposition. The result of people disappearing or being killed in public is even more silent opposition, until the silent opposition is in a huge majority.
3. the persons who are being mass-murdered aren't being mass-murdered depending on their genes, but because of their society position. Society position and the environmental effects the society position results in, is more important than genes in determining which side the people will support. Therefore, the mass-murdering won't change the genetical composition of the population, and therefore not change the amount of opposition, thereby NOT solving the "problem" permanently.
4. the aim of the mass-murderer is to get an "Endlösung", a "final solution" to what he considers a problem, so that he can relax. Because his goal is to eventually relax, he will eventually lower his readiness, and thus be weakened. Those oppressed by cruel mass-murder will however keep fighting, because their fear will always be real as long as a regime supporting mass-murder exists. Therefore, the mass-murderer will either have to give up his plans of being able to eventually relax, which means he didn't gain anything but can - if he's lucky - remain in his power position. Or, alternatively, he eventually relaxes, while his opponents will keep fighting, and in such a one-sided war, the side that is the only one to fight will eventually win.

So, now you have both a statistical and theoretical explanation of why mass-murder is never of any gain to any political ideology. The only thing that happens is that you kill those who speak openly about their ideologies and try to affect governmental ideas by talking, and leave those who don't even ask the government to change their views, but that kill the government first and ask questions afterwards. The only result you'll get is that the opposition instead of expressing their opinion and pleading you to change your view, will smile you in the face for years, then stab you in the back, perhaps only seconds after telling you how much they like your rule.

Ianofsmeg16

08-03-2005, 18:28

IliaDN

08-03-2005, 19:20

~:confused:
Did you see my reply to Don's post? What do you think about it?
Just considered it more suitable for the situation in Russia.

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 20:12

Either you misunderstand me deliberately, in which case you're debating in a very unserious way.

You stated:

If I have to choose sides - I don't want to, but if I have to - I'd choose those who are called terrorists by their opponents because they inflict fewer casualties among innocent civilians.

Its pretty clear where you stand.. what did I misunderstand?

A debate can only end in both parts coming up with the best solution if both parts support a discussion where arguments count, and no "debate tricks" like deliberately misquoting/misunderstanding the opponent is used. Your target in this discussion is, if the misunderstanding was deliberate, to destroy any serious attempts at discussion and make the idea you had when entering the debate become the "winning" idea at the end of the debate, in order to look like a good debater and a strong person to people watching the debate from the outside. I'm not debating in that way, because my target is to find the best idea at the end of the debate rather than make sure the idea I had upon entering the debate wins.

I simply gave my opinion on how to end terrorism quickly. Those debating "tactics" are way too subversive for my small mind.

If you didn't misunderstand me deliberately, then you are the one that needs to read history. If you can't differ Islamic extremists from Iraqi freedom fighters and people who demand equal rights for muslims, then you shouldn't express your opinion in a debate which depends heavily on knowing your history. Neither should you tell someone who has that knowledge that he lacks "historic perspective".

Ok then, please explain to me how iraqis fighting a democratically elected government to reinstall a dictatorship are "freedom fighters".

You are in fact the one who continues to make links between AQ and iraqi insurgents. You say that you would side with the terrorists because you dont like the iraq war.. that shows a complete lack of historical perspective(not to mention that first diatribe about crusader governments and crushing the muslim faith :dizzy2: ). Do I need to give you a list of how many terror attacks happened before Iraq was even in the picture?

Terror and mass-murdering has NEVER EVER led to the mass-murderers winning. How big is Mongolia today? Does Timur Lenk's empire exist today? How big is the support for Stalinism today? How many nazis exist? If you want your children to live in an extremistic islamistic community in the future, then go ahead and become president and carry out your genocides. If you read history, the statistics will clearly show that all empires using terror in larger quantities have been destroyed. If you read psycology or just look at the persons in your nearest surroundings and try to understand them, you'll realize that the theoretical explanation for it is quite simple:

LoL.. the mongol empire was extremely successful! All the nations that you listed fell for other obvious reasons besides the use of no-tolerance policies towards traitors and subverters.

Look at Rome. Insurgents were crucified.. that empire lasted a thousand years.

You can make whatever moral judgement you like about no-tolerance policies such as the one i have put forward, but dont try and draw correlations that dont exist.

And speaking of fuzzy debating tactics, you seem to be trying to portray my argument as one advocating killing all the muslims, which it is not. The majority dont have anything to do with terrorists.

Papewaio

08-04-2005, 00:32

I don't think mass murder is a solution for mass murder.

It might be a solution for over population, reducing pollution and greenhouse emissions as less people means less consumption.

However as I am not a member of PETA I don't think it is a valid option.

Kagemusha

08-04-2005, 01:58

Panzer i dont mean to offend you but,but you think like a wahhabist.They want a war between civizations and so do you.

PanzerJaeger

08-04-2005, 02:59

Panzer i dont mean to offend you but,but you think like a wahhabist.They want a war between civizations and so do you.

Typical relativist fun-with-words!

Exactly which civilization do terrorists and their supporters represent?

Kagemusha

08-04-2005, 03:09

I dont play with words.My english isnt that good.About Civilizations if you are talking about Muslim genocide you know what civilizations im talking about .You are suggesting genocide.Do you understand what are you talking about?

PanzerJaeger

08-04-2005, 03:19

So all muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters? Hmm.. ~:confused:

bmolsson

08-04-2005, 03:25

Exactly which civilization do terrorists and their supporters represent?

It's you who should answer that questions, since you are going to kill them all.... ~;)

Kagemusha

08-04-2005, 03:29

So all muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters? Hmm.. ~:confused:

Dont be nitpicking .You have allready stated that all people who passively or activly support terrorism should be killed.So you would kill almost entire population of Iran,Syria,Tchechiniy,Lebanon,Ireland,Bask land,Southern turkey,Northern Iraq,Nepal,Filippines....Is that a genocide or what is it?

PanzerJaeger

08-04-2005, 04:26

Dont be nitpicking .You have allready stated that all people who passively or activly support terrorism should be killed.So you would kill almost entire population of Iran,Syria,Tchechiniy,Lebanon,Ireland,Bask land,Southern turkey,Northern Iraq,Nepal,Filippines....Is that a genocide or what is it?

You really think the entire, or even the majority of the populations in those countries support terrorism? And they say I stereotype muslims... wow! ~:eek:

Panzer, panzer.. who could possibly be more responsible than the people who gave them the capacity to commit acts of terrorism in the first place.

What capacity was that exactly? It seems if things are repeated long enough, people tend to believe them.

Franconicus

08-04-2005, 07:36

Ok then, please explain to me how iraqis fighting a democratically elected government to reinstall a dictatorship are "freedom fighters".
That is easy to explain. They do not fight for democracy, they fight for a Iraq that is free from occupying armies from abroad. (I do not say they are right, I just try to understand the way they feel).
I have a documentation about the Civil War. They quote lots of letters and diaries there. When the army of the north marched south before the very first battle they made their first POWs. One soldier wrote that he was surprised. He had expected to fight slave holder barons, but the prisoners were just some poor creatures from the north. They definitly did not own slaves. He asked one: Why are you here? The man replied: Because you are her!
Sorry for the long answer! Hope I could answer your question.

Rodion Romanovich

08-04-2005, 13:55

You stated: [...]

Its pretty clear where you stand.. what did I misunderstand?

I meant choose sides between those who are called terrorists (including both real terrorists and freedom fighters).

Ok then, please explain to me how iraqis fighting a democratically elected government to reinstall a dictatorship are "freedom fighters".

Very democratic government that supports the USA and Great Britain extracting all oil, because they don't dare anything else as long as there are M1 Abrams tanks moving around there...

You are in fact the one who continues to make links between AQ and iraqi insurgents. You say that you would side with the terrorists because you dont like the iraq war.. that shows a complete lack of historical perspective(not to mention that first diatribe about crusader governments and crushing the muslim faith :dizzy2: ). Do I need to give you a list of how many terror attacks happened before Iraq was even in the picture?

Again, I said I would side with the side CALLED terrorists, not those who are real terrorists. The side CALLED terrorists include both freedom fighters and real terrorists. In fact, the real terrorists are almost forgotten in that group - the freedom fighters make up the majority of the group officially called terrorists by western terror regimes.

LoL.. the mongol empire was extremely successful! All the nations that you listed fell for other obvious reasons besides the use of no-tolerance policies towards traitors and subverters.

In the short term, yes. In the long term, no. Mongolia is hardly even a nation today, just a bunch of nomads in a desert landscape, and their influence is extremely limited. The mongols were lucky that they didn't get slaughtered more when those they oppressed pushed them back.

Look at Rome. Insurgents were crucified.. that empire lasted a thousand years.

If you look at Rome, you'll more clearly see how terror seldom works. How many of the old romans live today? Europe is controlled by the barbarians. Even Italy is. Very few of those that live in Rome today are the old romans - most of the Italians today are samnites, etruscians, lombards, germanic descendants and so on. The roman expansionism and terror was a very good way of eliminating the roman people - and the children of those who led the expansions and terror. The roman empire was even ruled by non-romans for most of the late empire period - Trajan, Heliogabalus etc. etc. Therefore, their terror was not a good strategy in the long term. The result of the roman expansion was the elimination of the roman people and the destruction of their original culture and values. Most "typically roman" customs that are spoken of today in fact originate from the peoples the romans conquered. Hardly anything more than the languages of Europe still remember us of the original romans today. Is that what you want? Your language to survive but your entire people eliminated? What is a shadow of a language compared to a people? Also - and that's very relevant in this case - the main reason why the roman empire grew in size and importance was clementia, forgiveness and mild treatment of opponents. That, and the fact that in most of the early wars Rome was attacked, and weren't the ones to attack, meaning that the opposition against roman occupation of the aggressors' lands was smaller than if Rome had attacked unprovokedly. Not until very late in the history of the roman empire was this attitude replaced by terror and unjust conquests. The time between when clementia was abandoned to the beginning of the fall of the empire is much shorter than 1000 years, in fact it's barely even 200 years. Also, in the 1000 years you mention at least half are years when the roman empire wasn't an empire, but little more than a little city state.

You can make whatever moral judgement you like about no-tolerance policies such as the one i have put forward, but dont try and draw correlations that dont exist.

It's you that is denying correlations that DO exist. Most people who have been represented by mass-murdering terror leaders are eliminated and even if they survive, the constant war contributes to reversing natural selection in the population by killing their strongest and most physically fit members - namely those who are chosen to fight in their military forces, because even if you win there's always heavy casualties.

And speaking of fuzzy debating tactics, you seem to be trying to portray my argument as one advocating killing all the muslims, which it is not. The majority dont have anything to do with terrorists.

The fact that you seem to call the same people terrorists as the USA and Great Britain governments do, clearly shows that you can't see the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. In fact, you even say that "passive supporters" of those called terrorists by the USA and GB governments should be killed. In that case, you'd want a killing of a majority of muslims. Furthermore, you indirectly state that you think the current and historical oppression of muslims is just, and that includes killing even more muslims, with the end-result that your strategy is, indeed, to kill most muslims - and many others as well btw.

PanzerJaeger

08-04-2005, 16:08

I meant choose sides between those who are called terrorists (including both real terrorists and freedom fighters).

Thats exactly what I said, you would choose to support terrorists instead of Western governments.. You wouldnt last long in a country I controlled..

Very democratic government that supports the USA and Great Britain extracting all oil, because they don't dare anything else as long as there are M1 Abrams tanks moving around there...

So the vast majority of Iraqis who voted mean nothing compared to the small number who are killing other iraqis?

Again, I said I would side with the side CALLED terrorists, not those who are real terrorists. The side CALLED terrorists include both freedom fighters and real terrorists. In fact, the real terrorists are almost forgotten in that group - the freedom fighters make up the majority of the group officially called terrorists by western terror regimes.

You say you dont support the terrorists but you side with the group that includes the terrorists, even in your definition.. ~:confused:

In the short term, yes. In the long term, no. Mongolia is hardly even a nation today, just a bunch of nomads in a desert landscape, and their influence is extremely limited. The mongols were lucky that they didn't get slaughtered more when those they oppressed pushed them back.

What empire has lasted to today? You seem to be suggesting that for an empire to be successful it must continue forever.. I think the mongol empire was very successful by anyone's definition!

If you look at Rome, you'll more clearly see how terror seldom works. How many of the old romans live today? Europe is controlled by the barbarians. Even Italy is. Very few of those that live in Rome today are the old romans - most of the Italians today are samnites, etruscians, lombards, germanic descendants and so on. The roman expansionism and terror was a very good way of eliminating the roman people - and the children of those who led the expansions and terror. The roman empire was even ruled by non-romans for most of the late empire period - Trajan, Heliogabalus etc. etc. Therefore, their terror was not a good strategy in the long term. The result of the roman expansion was the elimination of the roman people and the destruction of their original culture and values. Most "typically roman" customs that are spoken of today in fact originate from the peoples the romans conquered. Hardly anything more than the languages of Europe still remember us of the original romans today. Is that what you want? Your language to survive but your entire people eliminated? What is a shadow of a language compared to a people? Also - and that's very relevant in this case - the main reason why the roman empire grew in size and importance was clementia, forgiveness and mild treatment of opponents. That, and the fact that in most of the early wars Rome was attacked, and weren't the ones to attack, meaning that the opposition against roman occupation of the aggressors' lands was smaller than if Rome had attacked unprovokedly. Not until very late in the history of the roman empire was this attitude replaced by terror and unjust conquests. The time between when clementia was abandoned to the beginning of the fall of the empire is much shorter than 1000 years, in fact it's barely even 200 years. Also, in the 1000 years you mention at least half are years when the roman empire wasn't an empire, but little more than a little city state.

Again, Empires and nations simply dont last forever. Rome became a great empire and sustained that empire, all the time being very intolerant of traitors and enemy sympathizers.

The fact that you seem to call the same people terrorists as the USA and Great Britain governments do, clearly shows that you can't see the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. In fact, you even say that "passive supporters" of those called terrorists by the USA and GB governments should be killed. In that case, you'd want a killing of a majority of muslims. Furthermore, you indirectly state that you think the current and historical oppression of muslims is just, and that includes killing even more muslims, with the end-result that your strategy is, indeed, to kill most muslims - and many others as well btw.

Who are these freedom fighters you speak of? I only see a minority fighting the will of a democratically elected majority for their own selfish reasons.

Tribesman

08-04-2005, 18:06

Right on Panzer , lets have a nice little holocaust , why stop at killing 25% of Muslims in Britain , lets destroy any town or village that might have someone who is linked to someone who may have supported terrorism , lets take hostages and execute them any time there is an attack ,perhaps start at 50 hostages to be killed for every victim of terrorism , if that doesn't scare the shit out of them then increase it to 500 hostages per victim .
What absolute rubbish , you advocate killing 25% of the Muslim population , yet you cannot even get your numbers right , congratulations you have just murdered thousands of innocent people , you cannot even read what their answer was to the question in the poll , congratulaions you have just murdered thousands of innocent people .
You are blinded by your hatred and impotence , congratulations 100% of the Muslim population now hates you and is going to do anything it possibly can to ensure that your hatefilled evil murderous regime is wiped off the face of the earth , and do you know what ? I would gladly help them against any governmnet that attempted such measures .

PanzerJaeger

08-04-2005, 20:36

LoL Tribesman, you dont think terrorists and their supporters should be killed? How do you expect to end terrorism then? Big hugs dont work on these guys.. ~:grouphug:

All you've done in this thread is criticize other people's suggestions, where are yours? Id love to hear your plan and how much better it would be at stopping terrorism.

Thats why Bush and Blair and Howard win elections, you on the other side have no viable strategies to fight terrorism. You just sympathize with the terrorists. Bush's policies arent perfect, but at least he confronts these guys and doesnt play the "blaim the west first" game.

Tribesman

08-04-2005, 22:37

PanzerJaeger

08-04-2005, 22:51

Panzer you are advosating mass murder of innocent people ,you are not putting forward a way to fight terrorism you are putting forward a way to escalate the current problem into a worldwide religeous war .
You are advocating genocide , therefore you are no better than Osama .

You should be a democrat, your distortion is amazing. I never advocated killing anyone but terrorists and those who support them. You seem to either think I advocate killing all muslims or that all muslims are terrorists. ~:eek:

If any politician anywhere were to attempt what you are suggesting then I hope the people of that country drags the bastard out of his office , puts him up against the nearest wall and puts a bullet where his brain should be .

If only you had half that much rage directed at terrorists... :no:

I have written many times on this forum about steps that can be taken to beat the terrorist Panzer , if you cannot remember then that is your problem . Though Gelatinous Cube has basically repeated them in this thread .

You've taken this much time to take pot shots at my and other's suggestions, but you wont take a few moments to outline your own plan? Are you afraid it will face the same distortion and criticism you have applied to other's? :inquisitive:

You are not talking about terrorist supporters Panzer , did you even read the question that was asked in the opinion poll that LegionXXXXx(whatever) cited , that you have taken your erronious 25% from.

Yes I did and those people passively support terror.. in Panzer's world they would be told to change their ways or die.