Your suggestions how to stop terrorism?

[Watchman]

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]

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.