Alternatives to terrorism

[JR-]

Military resistance - probably oldest way of settling disputes between nations. Middle Eastern nations can't possible match military might of the West. Just by looking at military spending one can deduce that US alone can eat up entire middle east in a blink of an eye in a case of total war.

Concept of democracy in a perverse way reinforces terrorism. People elect their representatives to govern in their name, but bottom line, people are the bosses. By hitting them you are in a way showing them that are bad consequences of their choice and spreading fear so that they would not elect the same government again. On the other hand, are citizens or politicians of democratic nations totally innocent of this? Surely everyone of us have heard at least once by some people that German people after WW2 should have been punished more for "mistake" of electing Hitler. That's the excuse that's used often in defending some Allied or Soviet actions which prime purpose was spreading of terror, like Dresden bombing or fire bombing of Tokyo. I'm fairly certain that some Western politicians in 1999 defended NATO bombing of non-military targets with similar words, i.e. Serbian people must accept that there are consequences of their bad choice of government. Isn't that also some form of terrorism?

I'm asking this because I refuse to believe that some people are inherently evil and are willing to give their lives and spend insane amounts of money to spread death, fear and misery or that some religions (in this case Islam) is more prone to fundamentalists and radicals in comparison to other religions. There must be another reason in my mind and this is an attempt to find it.

What is it about Western Nations that the Middle East would like to resist so much that they would contemplate the use of military force?
Support for Israel - yes western support is one reason why the nation of israel still exists
Invasion of Afghan - did neighbouring countries deal with al-quada, no they did not
Invasion of Iraq - are 'they' really annoyed that we removed a belligerant dictator
Dependance on oil - so they have something to sell that we need to buy
Cultural interference - no culture exists in isolation, outlook poor for those that try to impose stasis
Political interference - we have propped up bad regimes, and brought them down, but they were their bad regimes
I don't have much sympathy in short.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the principle that civilians in democratic countries are a lot more legitimate as targets of outside resistance than civilians of tyrannical dictatorships, after all we elected the politicians that decided to go to war. To take that principle to its logical extreme would be to accept that 9/11 was in the eyes of the perps a legitimate act, and that the West on invading Iraq had no choice to but wage war with every possible attempt to avoid civilian casualties.
For all Rummie's faults 2003 was a far better outcome for Iraqi's than a Desert Storm style invasion.
This however is abstract freewheeling philosophy, and i do not condone blowing up skyscrapers full of civilians.

Do you refuse to believe: "that some religions (in this case Islam) is more prone to fundamentalists and radicals in comparison to other religions."?

[SwordsMaster]

Why do you think the West wants to open any options? Terrorism is very profitable for the elites in power. It allows restrictions of personal liberties for the lower classes (as an example, remember your last airport security experience? Did you know that if you have a private jet you don't go through security at all?), allows more favours to be given and taken - as more bureaucracy means more opportunities for corruption, and allows to quickly and decisively affect public opinion. Terrorism is the best thing that has happened to politicians everywhere. I mean what would be the winning shpiel of the 2nd Bush campaign? Or what would McCaine's powerbase be? Or Obama's? Economy and terrorism are the 2 topics everyone is focused on, but the economy has only really been an issue for the past 18 months.

So you're trying to find solutions for people who don't want them. And I, for one, defend the right of any guy displeased with his government to go get a gun and actually try and change it. I think the West has become a bunch of scared sheep that allows the government waay too much leeway in exchange for very little.

I remind you the words of Ben Franklin "Those who will sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither". I wish that when I'm told in the airport "for your security remove your shoes and belt and put them on the scanner belt" I could say, "Can I keep my shoes and belt on and be in charge of my own security?"

But unfortunately that isn't even an option.

[Sarmatian]

Ghandi. Persistent, non-volent, civil disobedience.

Or self-immolating monks (or the equivalent).

That's two I can think of that I've seen work in the past.

Non-violent civil disobedience did work in the past, but it was in the situation where you try to change your government, not government of another country. Indians protested against foreign (British) rule, but they protested against British rule in India, not British rule in Britain.

What is it about Western Nations that the Middle East would like to resist so much that they would contemplate the use of military force?
Support for Israel - yes western support is one reason why the nation of israel still exists
Invasion of Afghan - did neighbouring countries deal with al-quada, no they did not
Invasion of Iraq - are 'they' really annoyed that we removed a belligerant dictator
Dependance on oil - so they have something to sell that we need to buy
Cultural interference - no culture exists in isolation, outlook poor for those that try to impose stasis
Political interference - we have propped up bad regimes, and brought them down, but they were their bad regimes
I don't have much sympathy in short.

Well in this particular instance I don't want to focus on why are they resisting but on the fact that they are resisting, and what can be done to stop terrorism as a way of resistance. It's a more pressing concern. And whatever the reason, both sides probably won't change their policies in foreseeable future...

Do you refuse to believe: "that some religions (in this case Islam) is more prone to fundamentalists and radicals in comparison to other religions."?

Are, not is, sorry. Yes, I do. It's a matter of interpretation and if you want, you can find in both the Bible and Quran excuses to kill infidels. The point is why those who choose to interpret Quran in a way to support their crimes get so many followers.

[PBI]

Non-violent civil disobedience did work in the past, but it was in the situation where you try to change your government, not government of another country. Indians protested against foreign (British) rule, but they protested against British rule in India, not British rule in Britain.

Perhaps this is the problem, the Islamists are not at all clear what it is they want. Do they want to establish a global Caliphate, or do they simply want Israel out of the West Bank? Certainly I believe that for achieving specific political goals, non-violent civil disobedience would be far more effective than terrorism, and I struggle to see why it could not work in such cases.

The West has shown itself to be virtually powerless in the face of such tactics. The very beauty of the method is that it is turning the very things you mentioned as our advantages in propaganda and military strength against us. The media would certainly love to report on brutal Western troops gunning down peaceful unarmed protesters, and the West simply cannot abide such bad PR, we cannot stand looking like the bad guy.

Terrorism I would argue is inherently self-defeating; as you point out there is no chance of achieving victory by military means, and its very use surrenders the advantage that the movements behind the terrorists would otherwise have in the propaganda war. People will oppose the terrorists even if they sympathise with their grievances purely because their methods are so vile. In my opinion the main reason people adopt terrorist tactics is because they enjoy the adventure and outrage of armed resistance and the notoriety that comes with it, or because they are the sort of people who resort to violence as the solution to all their problems even if it will only makes things worse (which it almost always does). Certainly I do not think such people are unique to any one religion or culture, we have plenty of them here in the West.

Concept of democracy in a perverse way reinforces terrorism. People elect their representatives to govern in their name, but bottom line, people are the bosses. By hitting them you are in a way showing them that are bad consequences of their choice and spreading fear so that they would not elect the same government again. On the other hand, are citizens or politicians of democratic nations totally innocent of this? Surely everyone of us have heard at least once by some people that German people after WW2 should have been punished more for "mistake" of electing Hitler. That's the excuse that's used often in defending some Allied or Soviet actions which prime purpose was spreading of terror, like Dresden bombing or fire bombing of Tokyo. I'm fairly certain that some Western politicians in 1999 defended NATO bombing of non-military targets with similar words, i.e. Serbian people must accept that there are consequences of their bad choice of government. Isn't that also some form of terrorism?

Certainly this is something that troubles me every time I go to the polls. What if I elect a government who go on to do terrible things, either through incompetence or malice? I would ultimately bear responsibility for those failings. I am glad indeed that the first general election at which I was able to vote was after the invasion of Iraq, so that disaster at least was not my fault.

Does that justify attacks against civilians, if the government can legitimately claim it was "only following orders" from the electorate? It's a troubling line of thought.

[Tribesman]

But, now here's the million dollar question - are there any alternatives to terrorism?

Baking .
The decent honest alternative to terrorism , it does take total commitment though but once you are on the road you can improve your techniques and range of goods , in a short time you will have won over the masses and even the most ardent opponents by delivering a wide range of absolutely irresistable tasty cakes and pastries at an affordable price that suits all budgets .
Plus of course the revenue you accumulate during your campaign will set you in good stead for consolidating your hold once you inevitably gain power .
Flour power

[Sarmatian]

Baking .
The decent honest alternative to terrorism , it does take total commitment though but once you are on the road you can improve your techniques and range of goods , in a short time you will have won over the masses and even the most ardent opponents by delivering a wide range of absolutely irresistable tasty cakes and pastries at an affordable price that suits all budgets .
Plus of course the revenue you accumulate during your campaign will set you in good stead for consolidating your hold once you inevitably gain power .
Flour power

Ahh, once again the world famed Irish cuisine solves it...

[Fragony]

WHITE POWDER