Alternatives to terrorism

[Sarmatian]

This thought was in the back of my head for quite some time. West puts pressure, be it political, economic or military, on middle eastern (and other, but lets focus on middle eastern) nations and certain groups respond with terrorism. Or the other way around i.e. certain groups use terrorism and that's the reason why West reacts. That isn't important at the moment. What is important that at the moment both sides are actively pursuing their agendas. Both sides, too, place the blame on the other for the conflict. But, one side - West holds moral high ground on account that terrorism is unacceptable to any civilized nation/society/group/person, which naturally is true.

But, now here's the million dollar question - are there any alternatives to terrorism? Let's take a look at possible alternatives.

1. 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.

2. Political resistance - Western nations hold key positions in virtually all global political institutions in the world. They have the power to block any political attempt that would hurt their interests.

3. Economic resistance - Just by looking at GDP's we can easily conclude that by economic might Middle Eastern nations are in a very big disadvantage. If we add that except oil, Middle East is relatively scarce in resources, not to mention high tech products, the gap get's even bigger. So, no chance of winning against the West in this field either.

4. Propaganda resistance - Again the West has huge advantage. Global news networks, satellites, newspapers etc... Again no way for Middle Eastern people to counter and come out on top in this field.

So, what they can do, except the most obvious, that is, stop all resistance? If they decide to resist do they have any other option?

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?

Now, please, don't interpret this in a way that I am supporting, justifying or condoning terrorism in any way. In this discussion I would say that terrorism is unacceptable as a way of resistance. But the question is what are the alternatives? I'm looking for a constructive discussion.

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.

So, if West opens up some other possibilities of resistance to them (political and propaganda come to mind), would that have an effect of less terrorism? Or are there any other means of resistance available to Middle Eastern nations that I'm overlooking? Can it be that by limiting other means of resistance, West is ironically strengthening terrorism?

Please, don't get this as a case of me trying to find excuses or justifying terrorism but as an academic discussion where we try to dig a little deeper at the problem that is turning to be the biggest evil of modern age...

[KukriKhan]

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.

[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

[Brenus]

“Ghandi. Persistent, non-violent, civil disobedience.
Or self-immolating monks (or the equivalent).
That's two I can think of that I've seen work in the past.”
With the exception it didn’t really work.
Ghandi success was because he was fighting a toothless lion, a British Empire which didn’t want to fight. His advice/letter to the Jews to accept Hitler policies and to go the death camps wasn’t real wise, wasn’t it?
The self immolation of monks in Vietnam was back-up by the NVA and the Vietcong. Remember what was Diem’s wife reaction when it did happen…?

About terrorism: It is politically correct to say that civilised countries don’t do terrorism… Well, so what about insurgency? Rebellion? When my rights are denied by laws designed by the ruling classes?

“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.”

Support for Israel: Enemies of Israel won’t be impressed by your statement.
Did neighbours dealt with? Err, USSR tried and US created and funded Al-Qaeda/little brothers Taliban… Remember Rambo III?
Do agree with the third, but I do think one act of terrorism was done under cultural pretences (excepted perhaps the entartage?).
Political interference: like the one before Pinochet you mean? Poor Allende didn’t even had time to show he was bad and a communist dictator seed…

[KukriKhan]

Yeah, "monk barbecues" was pretty insensitive. But then, it's not the Madame Nhu's whose mind they sought to change, but the peoples' minds.

And you admit that Ghandi was successful, but that it didn't 'count' because his oppressor was weak? I didn't know about his letters to Europe's 1940's Jews.

Sarmatian asked for alternatives to terrorism, and he pointed out that to an oppressed population, terrorism can seem like the only alternative available. I'm just pointing out that killing other people - innocent people - is not the only choice.

Another one occurs to me. Become a 'mole' of sorts. Play the game within the system until the desired level of power is achieved (never spilling the beans about your true intentions), then change the system from within.

[Tribesman]

And you admit that Ghandi was successful

Was Ghandi succesful though ?

[KukriKhan]

Did Britain leave India?

[Tribesman]

Did Britain leave India?

Did the troops out now policy lead to a split and a rushed bodge job that left millions slaughtered and ethnicly cleansed , a military occupation and wars that remain unresolved 60 years on ?

So I ask again , was ghandi succesful though ?
What were his aims ?
If you can say his only aim was to end british rule in India then you could , but there is a lot more to it than that .
Its like saying the Challenger was succesful on the 28th of january because its intention was to get 7 people to fly up into the sky and it managed that .

[Crazed Rabbit]

3. Economic resistance - Just by looking at GDP's we can easily conclude that by economic might Middle Eastern nations are in a very big disadvantage. If we add that except oil, Middle East is relatively scarce in resources, not to mention high tech products, the gap get's even bigger. So, no chance of winning against the West in this field either.

You can't discount oil. Petroleum products are the primary form of energy in the world. And the middle east has a lot of it; but the rulers often use the natural resources to enrich themselves instead of the whole country.

4. Propaganda resistance - Again the West has huge advantage. Global news networks, satellites, newspapers etc... Again no way for Middle Eastern people to counter and come out on top in this field.

Again I disagree. Many countries control the media and are very effective are raising anger at "The West" whenever its convenient, like in case people wonder why they don't share in some of the oil wealth.

They have a lot of alternatives - one big one being don't get ticked off and become full of hate over petty things.

CR

[Brenus]

“you admit that Ghandi was successful, but that it didn't 'count' because his oppressor was weak?” Yeap. It was successful BECAUSE his opponents didn’t go for the fight… Peaceful protests work only if the oppressor is willing (for whatever reasons) not to use full force.
The non-aggression policy didn’t work on Hitler. War seeker LOVE peace Activists…

“I'm just pointing out that killing other people - innocent people - is not the only choice.”
Of course it is not.
However, in this kind of mind (terrorist) there are NO innocents. That is the entire problem. The victims are part of a system and they are not rebelling against it therefore they are as guilty as their leaders…
If you are under an oppressive regime, and this oppressive regime police, secret service and all other population control tools are trained by a third country, how do you do? You want these others to know what terror is, to know what to feel at 4 in the morning because the neighbour’s door was knocked out… So what can you do? They don’t care of your life, why should you care of their?
Then come the feeling that the helpers of your oppressive regime are de facto THE problem. “Valets of Imperialism” was the expression in use by the communists in the 60 & 70’s. Puppet’s master is probably the one now.
So, if you go this way, it is a WAR. Collateral damage and so, and real desire to strike back…
Sarmatain is from a country where NATO bombs the media Centre because it was “propaganda” Centre for Milosevic.
What would happen if few Serbian soldiers in full uniform would have attacked CNN? You would have heard the outrage against this attack on freedom of media until the sky!!! The vast majority of the journalists didn’t even question this action.
So, why terrorism: because the rules are made but the powerful. They want the weak to play THEIR rules and to be killed. Come with your chest against my Abrams, T82, Leclerc or other armoured vehicles. Meet with my well paid layers to contest in front on my former friends for college but now judge the law I pass in the Parliament to contest the land that my relatives grab few years ago. Possession is title, they say. Come on… Bring it on...

[Sarmatian]

You can't discount oil. Petroleum products are the primary form of energy in the world. And the middle east has a lot of it; but the rulers often use the natural resources to enrich themselves instead of the whole country.

That's the problem, isn't it? Your country is relatively scarce in resources, and you have only one resource that's in demand. If you don't have control over that resource you basically don't have anything.

Again I disagree. Many countries control the media and are very effective are raising anger at "The West" whenever its convenient, like in case people wonder why they don't share in some of the oil wealth.

They have a lot of alternatives - one big one being don't get ticked off and become full of hate over petty things.

CR

Effect of their propaganda is limited. The point of propaganda in this case would be that people in the West see their side of story, so that they change their policies, but they can't reach the western audience, because in time they get to say one word, West can vocalize both War and Peace and Ana Karenina.

And you admit that Ghandi was successful, but that it didn't 'count' because his oppressor was weak? I didn't know about his letters to Europe's 1940's Jews.

I think that Brenus wanted to say that Gandhi was successful because the circumstances were in his favour in that case. He wouldn't not have been successful if, instead British Empire, he'd gone against Nazi Germany.

Sarmatian asked for alternatives to terrorism, and he pointed out that to an oppressed population, terrorism can seem like the only alternative available. I'm just pointing out that killing other people - innocent people - is not the only choice.

That's one of the points - are those people really innocent? Totally. From our perspective they are. We know that even though we choose the government, there is a limit how much we can influence its policies. But from their perspective, those guys in Washington are just your representatives, they're governing in your name, because you have given them the mandate to do so. It all comes down to you. Not you in particular, but American people in this case. On the other hand, one can point out that not all people voted for the party that's pursuing those policies. Or that a lot of people didn't vote at all.
But, then again, one can say that Western countries don't think too much about that either. Let's say, for argument sake, that Milosevic truly was the only reason so much bad things happened in the Balkans. Western response went from economic sanctions to military interventions. In each of those cases all people of Serbia suffered. The guy who didn't vote for Milosevic suffered just as much as the guy who did. Or myself, who wasn't even eligible to vote at the time.

Another one occurs to me. Become a 'mole' of sorts. Play the game within the system until the desired level of power is achieved (never spilling the beans about your true intentions), then change the system from within.

Within which system? System in western countries or in their own countries?

[JR-]

I think that Brenus wanted to say that Gandhi was successful because the circumstances were in his favour in that case. He wouldn't not have been successful if, instead British Empire, he'd gone against Nazi Germany.

correct, the Empire was always a glorified trading club, we were never going to fight india to hold india from the indians.

[KukriKhan]

Did the troops out now policy lead to a split and a rushed bodge job that left millions slaughtered and ethnicly cleansed , a military occupation and wars that remain unresolved 60 years on ?

You make a fine point about 'success', when we look at the (very) big picture.

However, we're discussing " persistent, non-volent, civil disobedience" as a viable tactic and alternative to terrorism. I should have added: "massively supported". Ghandi's tack said, in effect, to Britain: "I will do this thing, and several thousands of my fellows will do it also. We will probably die; but eventually, you will run out of bullets, and your arms will tire beating us; and after the first thousand of us lay dead and dying at your feet, the next thousand will come, and the next thousand, and the next."

What I'm saying is: If we take as given that innocent people are gonna die over this (whatever) issue, the oppressed - however desperate they think they are - still make a choice: "Do I kill or die?"

They'll find plenty of justification for the "kill" option. History, religion, atrocities, can all be summoned to his side of the argument. The "die" option looks stupid to those outside, but takes considerably more courage and resolve, trying to make that death exponentially more meaningful.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's the problem, isn't it? Your country is relatively scarce in resources, and you have only one resource that's in demand. If you don't have control over that resource you basically don't have anything.

They have a lot of control over their oil. Private oil companies - Exxon, BP, etc., only hold 5% of the world's resources all together.

As for non-violent resistance; look at the civil rights movement in the south of the USA. The racists in power didn't go out easy.

CR

[Sarmatian]

They have a lot of control over their oil. Private oil companies - Exxon, BP, etc., only hold 5% of the world's resources all together.

As for non-violent resistance; look at the civil rights movement in the south of the USA. The racists in power didn't go out easy.

CR

I don't claim to be the expert on oil, but from what I know, West still controls the flow of oil. Three major bourses for oil are located in US and UK and all transactions are in US dollars. Barely 6 months ago Iran opened a bourse which is hoped to rival those three, naturally not generating much happiness in the West. Ironically, that was what Iraq had plans to do before US military intervention, and I have a hunch that Western "problem" with Iran is in no small way connected with this...

But let's not digress. That's another problem for another thread.

I think that non-violent resistance is a great idea, but I don't see how it can be applied to this situation. They have a problem with the West, not their own governments. How can they protest non-violently against that? Get several millions on a plane and send them to US, to protest non-violently for a decade in front of the White House? I don't understand how it can practically be done in this instance...

[Jolt]

correct, the Empire was always a glorified trading club, we were never going to fight india to hold india from the indians.

There is the very real life example of what you and he wrote. For instance, the democratic government of UK was always subject to public opinion. When Gandhi and other Indians started protesting, and the repression ensued, there was great comotion in Britain because of it.

After the independence, however, some wise indians decided to do the very same thing on Portuguese controlled Goa. That is, protest non-violently for the reintegration of Portuguese India into India. Thing is, the fascist government doesn't really care what the people might come to think of it, since even the nationals themselves are repressed. Furthermore, I'm sure not many people outside Portuguese Goa, and much less in metropolitan Portugal heard of the events.

Anyways, long story short, their plan was to storm Goa and refuse to leave until it was Indian. They began their non-violent protest, refusing to return to India, saying they'd continue in Goa until it was Indian. Therefore the, military was ordered to put down the people, which was followed by several arrest of people who supported Indian Integration. If India was Nazi German colony, Ghandi would have been killed as soon as he started giving trouble.