how would you end terror?

[dotcoma]

Let us try to keep this objective. Realistically, how would you create a long-term solution to terrorism?

I hate to say it, but I would likely do something similar to what is going on now, but with more attention put on domestic security. That is, I think that by democratizing parts of the Middle East, and privatizing their major industries, you encourage more secular aspects of government and business to flourish while also increasing the standard of living/participation of the general public-making them less likely to listen to fanatics.

An ideal outcome..maybe...

[PatrickHenry]

Identify the source of terror. The largest state sponsor of terror has been the USA. http://www.peacehost.net/soaw-w/#SOA

What is the U.S. Army School of the Americas? The U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA), recently re-named Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC), at Ft. Benning, Georgia, has trained 60,000 Latin American soldiers. Over its 50-year history, the SOA has truly earned its nickname, "School of Assassins." Graduates of the SOA have committed atrocity after atrocity, including massacres of entire communities, assassinations, rapes, torture and "disappearances."

The CIA has also been a major terror sponsor down through the decades. I particularly refer to Operation Phoenix in VietNam during that conflict. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CI...5_CIAHits.html

Since the Vietnamese people overwhelmingly supported their own National Liberation Front (the NLF, or "Viet Cong" as we called it), the Army began destroying villages, herding people into internment camps, weeding out the leaders and turning the countryside into a "free-fire zone" (in other words, shoot anything that moves). The CIA still had a role to play, however. Called Operation Phoenix, it was an assassination program plain and simple. The idea was to cripple the NLF by killing influential people like mayors, teachers, doctors, tax collectors-anyone who aided the functioning of the NLF's parallel government in the South. Many of the "suspects" were tortured and some were tossed from helicopters during interrogation. William Colby, the CIA official in charge of Phoenix (he later became director of the CIA), insisted this was all part of "military necessity"- though he admitted to Congress that he really had no idea how many of the 20,000 killed were Viet Cong and how many were "loyal" Vietnamese. Colby's confusion was understandable, since Phoenix was a joint operation between the US and the South Vietnamese, who used it as a means of extortion, a protection racket and a way to settle vendettas. Significantly, the South Vietnamese estimated the Operation Phoenix death toll at closer to 40,000. Whatever the exact number, there's no question the killings were necessary-after all, we were trying to prevent a blood bath.

Notice the irony in that final statement. Successive US administrations have engaged in surreptitious terrorism, but now that it has come back to bite Uncle Sam's butt, they want to eliminate it. Best way to eliminate terror? Officially renounce it as unofficial policy...

[MerlinsByte]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Identify the source of terror. The largest state sponsor of terror has been the USA. http://www.peacehost.net/soaw-w/#SOA The CIA has also been a major terror sponsor down through the decades. I particularly refer to Operation Phoenix in VietNam during that conflict. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CI...5_CIAHits.html Notice the irony in that final statement. Successive US administrations have engaged in surreptitious terrorism, but now that it has come back to bite Uncle Sam's butt, they want to eliminate it. Best way to eliminate terror? Officially renounce it as unofficial policy...

by PatrickHenery Identify the source of terror. The largest state sponsor of terror has been the USA.

merlin...PRO USA...I can't say Patrick is wrong. I might change it to say ONE of the largest terror supporters. Why? because some chickenshit nations in the rest of the world don't have enough spine to defend themselves and rely on my tax dollars to "protect them. HEY USA HATERS GET A NEW DADDY then snivel.

We should isolate the West and hang the rest of the USA haters out to dry, and see how long they world survive as a nation that loves terrorist such as France.

merlin CON USA.... We as a nation shouldn't be a colonial power. Yes, we are if not in name we are in practice. This blatant abuse of power, is criminal and is what creates all terrorists, well most modern terrorists and their actions. Allow be to give you an analogy. If DC were invaded by another nation and tried to force their religion AND government on us....there would be mucho blood via Christian
martyrs and many other religious terrorists spawned by the DC invasion. We did this very thing to Iraq. Who is to blame? We are, i.e. our "evilwicked" goverment is to blame.Its time to change policy.
Now! Before the West decides its time to do a preemptive nuclear strike and breed some real terrorists, not the boy scouts of 9-11.

mb

[Nono]

how would you end terror?

Would you start at the beginning, dotcoma, and define "terror" for us?
It isn't as if we have absolutely no idea, it's just that it's one of these elastic buzzwords that gets used by a lot of different people in a lot of different ways. If we're going to talk about it, let's agree first of all what it is.

I think that by ... privatizing their major industries, you encourage more secular aspects of ... business to flourish

Why do you think that? What assumptions underlie your belief?

As for democracy encouraging secular government, I think that at the moment it would be just the opposite (see nature of Shiite bloc that has emerged in Iraq). If your assumption were true, I don't think the Egyptian authorities, for example, would be pulling out all stops to keep Mulsim fundamentalists off the ballot, or that "democracy" in Pakistan would be kept on such a short leash.

If Iran is any different it's only because they've had an almost 30-year, industrial-strength taste of the real thing.

[Matt W]

I'm going with everyone else. Define 'terror'. Terrorism isn't a new thing, solely practised by Muslims, as some US citizens seem to think.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a goal. It is not restricted to third world countries. It is not restricted by race, colour, or creed. Anyone off the street can make a Molotov cocktail and fling it at a police car - instant terrorist.

[MerlinsByte]

MATT W...Terrorism isn't a new thing, solely practised by Muslims, as some US citizens seem to think.

Merlin...Out of five posts only 2 wanted clarification. Out of the three that didn't I would think they are USA residents. Out of the USA citizens none expressed the view that Islam was equal to terrorist.We have christian terriorists here at home such as the AOG and will be the first to admit it.


mb

[Matt W]

Merlin - my post was offered up to the originator of the topic - he asked what we'd do against 'terror', and seems to have focussed entirely on the Middle East. So, what does he mean? I appreciate that the majority of users here are fully appreciative that terrorism isn't just an Islamic thing, but _some_ US (and other Westerners) will still think of it as such.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Why? because some chickenshit nations in the rest of the world don't have enough spine to defend themselves

Example?

[Gorgo]

Quote by: dotcoma I think that by democratizing parts of the Middle East, and privatizing their major industries,

Again, if you look at the history of this sort of thing, what you are describing is increasing terrorism.

Again, look at the West's destruction of Yugoslavia.

[ShOuLdEr]

Well the only way to really end terrorism is to make all of us exactly the same...same race, same religion, same beliefs, same same same....

there is no "realistic" way to end terror....no matter what there is always someone out there that is going to hate.

[dotcoma]

Since you asked, I will define the term "terror" for this topic. I was talking about the Islamic anti-Western movements.

Oh and Gorgo, democratization in Yugoslavia is a little different than doing it in Iraq. In Iraq we have 150,000 troops. In Yugoslavia we had air-raids and useless peacekeepers.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: dotcoma Oh and Gorgo, democratization in Yugoslavia is a little different than doing it in Iraq. In Iraq we have 150,000 troops. In Yugoslavia we had air-raids and useless peacekeepers.

The goal is the same. Destruction, terror, and the impoverishment of the people.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: dotcoma I was talking about the Islamic anti-Western movements.

So, anti-terrorism activities are now what is defined as terror.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Gorgo The goal is the same. Destruction, terror, and the impoverishment of the people.

yes, the US government sent 150,000 soldiers with the goal of "destruction, terror, and impoverishment" :rolleyes: Get real. The US may have sent troops to actually find weapons, or maybe just as an excuse to democratize the region and open their markets, but you are being cynical and ridiculous lol.

Oh, and that was the same goal in Yugoslavia. Europe and the US wanted to just fuck with the region and make them suffer...get real lol

Quote by: Gorgo So, anti-terrorism activities are now what is defined as terror.

Once again you are being ridiculous lol. How are you calling Islamic-fundementalists freedom fighters? They hate us because we are not Islamic lol, and because our development made us into the perfect scapegoat.

I do not mind out-there opinions, but your perceptions are hilarious...sorry lol

[Nono]

Quote by: dotcoma I will define the term "terror" for this topic. I was talking about the Islamic anti-Western movements.

Oh, that. :)
Well, one good way might be to deprive them of what Margaret Thatcher called the "oxygen" on which terrorists thrive, i.e. look at what wins them support among the local populace (in this case in the Middle East).

For example, the US is in a unique position to knock heads together and bring about a settlement of the Israel/Palestine thing, but has singularly failed to do so since the 90s. That would knock a plank out of Osama's platform.

And (if we're to believe that it's really about fighting anti-Western Islamic loonies) the US has scored a spectacular own-goal in Iraq, answering Osama's most fervent prayers by showing itself to be just what he was telling them it was. (The latest to get completely fed up are the Italians.) Makes ya wonder, don't it?

[dotcoma]

Yea nono, but wouldn't you agree that democratization can take time? They are rebuilding a whole country. I think once the Iraqi military gets strongs (which is a gradual process) then we will see some real progress.

I agree though that we should also be invovled more in the Palestinian/Israeli issue as a mediator.

[Nono]

Of course it takes time, some people would say way more time than the US taxpayer will have patience for, as in organizing an election isn't the same thing as having democracy.

So you're back to the question of what have you done in the meantime to reduce armed hostility by religious zealots? Or rather, has what you've been doing in Iraq (which looks to many of us an awful lot like the seizure of oil wells) actually greatly strengthened those zealots (your original question being how to weaken them).

PS One man's reconstruction is another man's looting.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Nono organizing an election isn't the same thing as having democracy

Thank you. Make sure that the people of Iraq do not benefit from their resources, make sure that those who run Iraq do not interfere with that agenda, then hold an election and call it a democracy.

[Matt W]

Democratisation does indeed take time. To build a stable democracy takes centuries, and generally requires the willingness of the people to actually do it. Armed revolutions do provide democracy (obvious example is the States), but it is rare to see democracy imposed from outside that works.

One fear about the democratisation of Iraq is the reduction of its' secularity. A truly democratic Iraq (at this point in time) would happily side with Iran against the US.

Anyhow, back to the question at hand - how to fight 'Islamic' terror. The question is, where do you start? 'Islamic terrorism' cannot be dealt with as a 'one size fits all' solution - motivations are regional, ethnic, class-based...they're all highly specific.

Half the 'terrorists' in Iraq, perhaps more, perhaps less, are nationalists rather than Islamists, who want their country to be 'free' again - and the only way they'll even remotely consider their mission complete is if all foreign troops leave. That would cut terrorism significantly, but would still leave the potential for friction between the Shia and the Sunni.

Chechnya - well, Russia has happily ignored democratic elections there in favour of outright occupation - so until that stops, you'll continue to see attacks on Russians. So expect that to continue for a few more centuries minimum...

Afghanistan - if the coalition had actually bothered to put half the effort that they had into Afghanistan that they did in Iraq, the job would be done by now. As it is, opium growing is now back on the rise, the warlords still have ridiculous amounts of autonomy from the central government, and the failure of the US/Afghani/Pakistani forces to find Osama will sting for decades.

Phillipines - seems fairly contained, and negotiations with the rebels are happening again. We'll see.

Indonesia - to be fair, the populace as a whole probly couldn't care less about the Islamists, given the results of the recent presidential elections.

That's just a few of the regions where there's been 'Islamic terror'...more to come, possibly tonight!

[ericsp23]

The best way to put the Islamic terrorists out of business is to under cut their popular support in the Middle East and in other predominantly Islamic countries. We certainly don't want to do anything that would drive more people to support them, which is why what has happened in Iraq has been counterproductive. The Abu Graib incident alone will erase any good that comes from the democritization of Iraq, at least as far as America's war on terror is concerned.

First, we should make it clear to both the Israelis and the Palestinians that they MUST make peace with each other or we will pull all aid from both sides, both humanitarian and military. That is the only way either side will sit down with the other and make the hard compromises that they so far have not had the incentive to make.
Next, we should end our reliance on foriegn oil to fuel our energy needs. We should be spending massive amounts of money on R&D on alternative fuels and on subsidizing alternative energy technologies. We actually appear to be making some progress in this regard, but if the government would put its full weight behind the alternative energy movement, it would really take off. Once we have the foreign oil monkey off of our back, our need to ensure pro-American governments in that region of the world is no longer there, and we can just leave them in peace to figure out there own problems.
Any military involvement in the region will only increase their hatred and distrust, even if our intentions are noble. We should avoid military deployments that are unnecessary. Our military should be reserved for situations where we know a country is harboring terrorists, or where we are invited in by that country to help out with terrorists. Forcing countries to democratize at gunpoint I feel will ultimately be counterproductive. We may succeed in bringing democracy to the region, but at the same time we will be breeding more hatred of Americans which is the fuel that feeds the anti-American Islamic terrorists.