Your suggestions how to stop terrorism?

[Franconicus]

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

[IliaDN]

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

[Franconicus]

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]

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

[Franconicus]

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

[kiwitt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[sharrukin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I said that.

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

[Kagemusha]

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.

[kiwitt]

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

[Franconicus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Papewaio]

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]

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]

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]

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

[King Henry V]

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