Your suggestions how to stop terrorism?

[Kagemusha]

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?

[Templar Knight]

Cut finances, hit training camps, covert operations...etc

[King Ragnar]

Eliminate leaders and preachers of terrorist regimes.

[Watchman]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Kagemusha]

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]

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]

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.

[Navaros]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"sheet of glass" comes to mind...

[sharrukin]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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?

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?