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.

[King Ragnar]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[bmolsson]

Education and increased availablity for global media....

[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.

[King Ragnar]

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]

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]

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

[IliaDN]

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

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]

...
IMHO kill them all ...

Strange point of view for a humanist!

[IliaDN]

Strange point of view for a humanist!

Do you consider an animal which is killing children to be a human?

[Franconicus]

Do you consider an animal which is killing children to be a human?

Which animals do we talk about? I always thought we would talk about humans after all.

[IliaDN]

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?