Terrorism: Anyone else have NO IDEA?

[Duckus]

It seems like when I read this site, and talk to a lot of my friends, a lot of people know exactly how we should deal with the international terrorist war that is currently going on around the world. People are usually pretty set in their beliefs and that the other side is completely insane and has no idea how to deal with terrorists. Is it just me or does it seems like so many people are so polarized? Seemingly there are two views that I read on this board often (right now in the thread about the Jewish targeted shootings in Israel).

1) Bomb the crap out of Muslim terrorists until they no longer exist, using strong armed tactics the break the enemies back. Also, that little bombings here and there every other year are not effective and more serious action must be taken.

Or

2) That military action is not the MAIN solution and diplomacy and peace should be a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy as a world democratic power.

I feel like I am the only person who honestly says out loud that I have NO IDEA how to deal with this problem.

Does option one do anything for us in the long run? Can you kill an idea? Every time we bomb someone in the Middle East more and more children grow up around the world hating America and western-ideals. For every person you kill, their uncle, aunt, kids, cousins, neighbor, ect who might at the time not feel any strong feelings suddenly hate America. I was watching the news (I think MSNBC) and they were interviewing a woman from Lebanon who said that she used to have no pro-feelings towards Hezbollah but now would raise her children to fight Israel. If this is actually true I have no idea, clearly the woman could say anything.

What about option two? Seems just as stupid and does not really do anything. Can you negotiate with terrorists? If they hate America with all there hearts can you really talk to these people and ask them to stop? If we try to sit back and not invade countries or destroy entire governments and terrorist organization, will it just mean being attacked over and over again?

International Affairs was my major at GWU and is something I think about constantly. However, more and more recently I have come to the realization that I have NO IDEA how to deal with this problem. It really does not make any sense, and honestly there seems like no rational solution to me. Am I the only one out there that feels this way? When I read this site it makes me think that I am, because everyone is sooo sure they are right and the others are wrong. Anyone else out there think like me or is everyone really set in their ideas?

**By the way, I consider myself a liberal but that is based on social issues/domestic issues. I am still young so my beliefs, especially internationally, are changing all the time (almost every week :laugh: ) with the more I learn.

[swaroopm]

1) Bomb the crap out of Muslim terrorists until they no longer exist, using strong armed tactics the break the enemies back. Also, that little bombings here and there every other year are not effective and more serious action must be taken.

This assumes that you can find them, that you know who to bomb. You can't just go bomb "them" if you can't clearly identify the "them" that you're intending to bomb. If it was so easy to pick them out, we'd have bombed them already.

2) That military action is not the MAIN solution and diplomacy and peace should be a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy as a world democratic power.

Some number of these terrorists seem to act in an irrational manner. Whatever you do to try and appease them, they won't stop their behavior because their whole mindset is to identify people who are oppressing them and then declare some kind of war on those people. It doesn't even matter if those people are other Muslims. Either way, we will probably remain a target for the foreseeable future, and we need to act accordingly. You can't just rely on diplomacy and peace in dealing with people who are determined to try and kill you unless you live according to their dictums. Your options are 1) live by their dictums or 2) confront them.

I feel like I am the only person who honestly says out loud that I have NO IDEA how to deal with this problem.

Don't get frustrated. It's a complicated problem and it requires a complicated (some might say comprehensive or multifaceted) solution. Do your best to think carefully about the subject from all sides, then come up with practical and effective solutions.

Does option one do anything for us in the long run? Can you kill an idea? Every time we bomb someone in the Middle East more and more children grow up around the world hating America and western-ideals. For every person you kill, their uncle, aunt, kids, cousins, neighbor, ect who might at the time not feel any strong feelings suddenly hate America.

This is an astute observation. (It is one reason I was - and remain - strongly opposed to our invasion and occupation of Iraq, but that's a different subject.) It's not that bombing has no place - we just need to recognize that part of the cost of bombing is alienating people. Making everyone our enemy does not seem like an effective way to stop terrorism.

You can kill an idea, but not necessarily with bombs - it depends on the idea you're trying to kill. (If the idea is "America is a hegemon that hates Muslims," I'm not sure we can kill that one with bombs.)

What about option two? Seems just as stupid and does not really do anything. Can you negotiate with terrorists? If they hate America with all there hearts can you really talk to these people and ask them to stop? If we try to sit back and not invade countries or destroy entire governments and terrorist organization, will it just mean being attacked over and over again?

No, we can't just talk to these people and ask them to stop. It is necessary to demonstrate our will to take (military) action, because otherwise we'll "be all talk" and our talk will be unconvincing.

I do think it is possible to project our military power and influence without invading other countries and toppling entire governments. In my mind, the problem with toppling entire governments is: Once that govt is gone, what do you replace it with, and how do you guarantee that the replacement is going to act in our interests any more than the toppled govt did?

International Affairs was my major at GWU and is something I think about constantly. However, more and more recently I have come to the realization that I have NO IDEA how to deal with this problem. It really does not make any sense, and honestly there seems like no rational solution to me. Am I the only one out there that feels this way? When I read this site it makes me think that I am, because everyone is sooo sure they are right and the others are wrong. Anyone else out there think like me or is everyone really set in their ideas?

I really like your attitude of honest inquiry. Don't get discouraged - there is a rational solution, just not a simple one. I encourage you (and others) to continue thinking about the situation carefully and to try and look at it from all sides. We'll figure something out.

I agree that too many people have made up their minds about what should be done and spend more time trying to convince other people of their own ideas than being open-minded to what other people are saying. Personally, I speak with conviction because I am confident in my intelligence and ideas, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to changing my mind. If you are thoughtful and express yourself well and convincingly, you will be able to change the minds of those who may seem "sooo sure" of their ideas.

Anyone who is "set in their ideas" is stupid. (The corollary is that there are a lot of stupid people.) One should always be open to new ideas, because you never know when you might be entirely wrong. I've been entirely wrong before, and I'll probably be entirely wrong again. One reason I am confident in my ideas is that I've been able to recognize when I've been wrong.

One last thing - you brought up two approaches: the "strong armed tactics" approach and the "diplomacy and peace" approach. I don't think we're limited to these two responses (though it may seem that way from the posts you read here!). For example, I think we need to do more to address the enmity directed at the US from the Muslim world. Most of our actions (support for Israel, invasion of Iraq, hostility with Iran) tend to generate more enmity, not less. However justified our actions may be, they also serve to generate enmity that translates to us being a bigger terrorism target. I think it would be in our own best interests to do more unquestionably positive (and highly visible) things in the Muslim world - building schools, helping with infrastructure, or whatever else. The jihadists' justification for attacking us is their claim that we are enemies of Islam; I think we can undermine their message if we demonstrate to the world that, without a doubt, we are true friends of the Muslim world. (I think this should be a bigger part of our comprehensive approach.)

[CoachingWinsChampionships]

Listen to what Tony Blair said on this topic in his joint press conference w/ Bush today. Very relevant, but I found his answer to the problem that he presents somewhat unsatisfactory and not very comprehensive.

[swaroopm]

Listen to what Tony Blair said on this topic in his joint press conference w/ Bush today. Very relevant, but I found his answer to the problem that he presents somewhat unsatisfactory and not very comprehensive.

For those who may have missed the press conference, could you give us the gist of it or provide a link to more information? Thanks.

[JMS]

I just think if you can't differenciate between the different groups and their stated goals then you've lost before you begin....

You've got a pan arabic suni group seeking a return to the calipha.. You've got nationalistic shiite groups seeking spcific localized Items. You've got nationalistic secular groups seeking localized items.

Once you understand who they are, that they are differences between them, and that not many of these groups can tollerate each other; Then you need to figure out who can be negotiated with. Who you have to oppose through force of arms, and who you can ignore.

Saying they're all Arab is inaccurate and self defeating. Saying they hate us because we are free is just stupid. Refusing to even read their messages or associate any reason behind their actions is likewise self limiting. Outsourcing our foreign policy by refusing even to speak directly to countries who don't agree with us just confuses me.

[swaroopm]

Once you understand who they are, that they are differences between them, and that not many of these groups can tollerate each other; Then you need to figure out who can be negotiated with. Who you have to oppose through force of arms, and who you can ignore.

Yep, having a clear understanding of the enemies would definitely be a step in the right direction.

Saying they're all Arab is inaccurate and self defeating. Saying they hate us because we are free is just stupid. Refusing to even read their messages or associate any reason behind their actions is likewise self limiting.

Good points.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Real interesting thoughts

It will be a combination of the 2. Basically the "first generation" terrorists that trained in Afghanistan, they were already a lost cause. Only one solution, kill them

Now is the tricky part. How do we prevent more terrorists from being born everday? I think the US is doing the right thing in Iraq, where in the future it will prove to be a beacon of democracy in the ME. That someday might be in 20 years, but this is going to be a battle that takes generations to fight

[Sarge]

I just think if you can't differenciate between the different groups and their stated goals then you've lost before you begin....

You must be French

[Mass_SkinsFan]

This assumes that you can find them, that you know who to bomb. You can't just go bomb "them" if you can't clearly identify the "them" that you're intending to bomb. If it was so easy to pick them out, we'd have bombed them already.

Which is why you don't worry about trying to target the terrorists specifically. You do what President Bush TALKED ABOUT but never carried through with at the beginning of the War on Terror. You treat every city, town, country and individual who harbors even a single terrorist as though every single person in that city, town, or country knows they're harboring terrorists. You don't worry about the collatoral damage. If these non-terrorists don't want to be carpet bombed, or turned into a 21st Century version of Dresden, they'll deal with the terrorists themselves.

This is an astute observation. (It is one reason I was - and remain - strongly opposed to our invasion and occupation of Iraq, but that's a different subject.) It's not that bombing has no place - we just need to recognize that part of the cost of bombing is alienating people. Making everyone our enemy does not seem like an effective way to stop terrorism.

Bombing, assassination, and other things along that order are the ONLY way to stop terrorism. VIOLENCE is the only thing these worthless sacks of **** understand. It doesn't matter what group we're talking about or in what country. As for alienating people.... if they're hiding or supporting terrorists, then they weren't our friends to begin with (hi Saudi Arabia) and deserve whatever they get.

I agree that too many people have made up their minds about what should be done and spend more time trying to convince other people of their own ideas than being open-minded to what other people are saying. Personally, I speak with conviction because I am confident in my intelligence and ideas, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to changing my mind. If you are thoughtful and express yourself well and convincingly, you will be able to change the minds of those who may seem "sooo sure" of their ideas.

Anyone who is "set in their ideas" is stupid. (The corollary is that there are a lot of stupid people.) One should always be open to new ideas, because you never know when you might be entirely wrong. I've been entirely wrong before, and I'll probably be entirely wrong again. One reason I am confident in my ideas is that I've been able to recognize when I've been wrong.

Yes, we'll agree that way too many people spend time trying to convince other people they're right on this. Largely because an even larger group of people don't have the spine, guts or values to take a stand on this issue. Terrorism is the ultimate act of cowardice in my mind. Whether we're talking about Hezbollah, the Irish Republican Army, or Timothy McVeigh doesn't make a difference. These people are cowards of the highest order and need to be removed from the gene pool as quickly as humanly possible. Unfortunately we've got too many panty-waisted, United Nations loving, gutless cowards of our own around. You know, people who wouldn't even have the balls to attack unarmed, innocent civilians like the terrorists do. Similar to our issues in SouthEast Asia, these peaceniks and beatniks are getting in the way of us doing what needs to be done to end the threat of terrorism to this country PERMANENTLY.

[nelms]

Take out Iran and Syria and you've taken care of most of the terrorist problems in the world.

[swaroopm]

Take out Iran and Syria and you've taken care of most of the terrorist problems in the world.

Apparently you have no understanding of the extent of the problem we are dealing with.

[swaroopm]

It will be a combination of the 2. Basically the "first generation" terrorists that trained in Afghanistan, they were already a lost cause. Only one solution, kill them

Now is the tricky part. How do we prevent more terrorists from being born everday?

I agree with your thinking here. We need to address the problem that exists now, but we also need to do what we can to prevent there being a problem in the future.

I think the US is doing the right thing in Iraq, where in the future it will prove to be a beacon of democracy in the ME. That someday might be in 20 years, but this is going to be a battle that takes generations to fight

I am just curious what makes you think that Iraq will "prove to be a beacon of democracy." Please describe, in as much detail as possible, the process by which you believe Iraq is going to go from the current state of affairs to a "beacon of democracy."

[swaroopm]

Which is why you don't worry about trying to target the terrorists specifically. You do what President Bush TALKED ABOUT but never carried through with at the beginning of the War on Terror. You treat every city, town, country and individual who harbors even a single terrorist as though every single person in that city, town, or country knows they're harboring terrorists. You don't worry about the collatoral damage. If these non-terrorists don't want to be carpet bombed, or turned into a 21st Century version of Dresden, they'll deal with the terrorists themselves.

Despite his rhetoric, George Bush may have figured out that these terrorists are so widespread that "bombing every city, town, country and individual who harbors even a single terrorist" would entail bombing most of the world, including our own country. To do what you propose would seem to be fairly impractical. Again, if we knew where they all were, we would have taken them out already. The reason we can't rely on violence alone is that we won't be able to get them all that way.

Bombing, assassination, and other things along that order are the ONLY way to stop terrorism. VIOLENCE is the only thing these worthless sacks of **** understand. It doesn't matter what group we're talking about or in what country. As for alienating people.... if they're hiding or supporting terrorists, then they weren't our friends to begin with (hi Saudi Arabia) and deserve whatever they get.

It's not just the people we'd be bombing that we'd have to be worried about alienating. Obviously, if we undertook this "bomb pretty much everyone" strategy, we'd go into it with the expectation that the people being bombed wouldn't be too fond of us. However, it would also serve to alienate those few people who we weren't bombing. I don't think it serves our interests to burn all our bridges. For example, look at how the Iraq invasion affected our relationship with the rest of the world. Regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq invasion or the "bomb pretty much everyone" strategy, one must acknowledge that there is a cost to the violence that goes beyond the cost of the bombs and the lives lost.

Unfortunately we've got too many panty-waisted, United Nations loving, gutless cowards of our own around. You know, people who wouldn't even have the balls to attack unarmed, innocent civilians like the terrorists do. Similar to our issues in SouthEast Asia, these peaceniks and beatniks are getting in the way of us doing what needs to be done to end the threat of terrorism to this country PERMANENTLY.

Again, I don't support your proposal because I don't believe it would "end the threat of terrorism to this country PERMANENTLY." I guess it would work if everyone ended up dead, but this response is not proportionate to the problem. As for "people who wouldn't even have the balls to attack unarmed, innocent civilians like the terrorists do," you sound like you want to sink to the level of the terrorists. You decry them for their cowardice, so why become like them? Isn't the whole problem that the terrorists take indiscriminate action that is not appropriate to their situation? Let's not do the same.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Despite his rhetoric, George Bush may have figured out that these terrorists are so widespread that "bombing every city, town, country and individual who harbors even a single terrorist" would entail bombing most of the world, including our own country. To do what you propose would seem to be fairly impractical. Again, if we knew where they all were, we would have taken them out already. The reason we can't rely on violence alone is that we won't be able to get them all that way.

No, he just didn't have the balls to carry out the necessary military action to deal with this problem. Yes, that would require military action against a HUGE portion of the world. Though I think after the first country or two got nuked off the map, the rest might get the idea and start dealing with these worthless wastes of oxygen on their own. If they choose not to, they risk being the next ones with their heads on the block.

It's not just the people we'd be bombing that we'd have to be worried about alienating. Obviously, if we undertook this "bomb pretty much everyone" strategy, we'd go into it with the expectation that the people being bombed wouldn't be too fond of us. However, it would also serve to alienate those few people who we weren't bombing. I don't think it serves our interests to burn all our bridges. For example, look at how the Iraq invasion affected our relationship with the rest of the world. Regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq invasion or the "bomb pretty much everyone" strategy, one must acknowledge that there is a cost to the violence that goes beyond the cost of the bombs and the lives lost.

Obviously world opinion would turn against us. Cowards don't generally like people who are willing to use force to do the right thing. They prefer to lay down and cower in their corner with their "if we're nice to them they won't hurt US" mentality. Very quickly we would know who's on our side and who's on their side. I do agree that it would be a VERY small group on our side, if anyone, but that's fine with me. I'd rather look a person in the eye and have them tell me they're my enemy than to go on believing they're my friend while they work against me.

Iraq IS a great example. The current issue in Israel is another. We've proven a number of countries and organizations who are more interested in protecting the terrorists than in doing the Right thing.

Again, I don't support your proposal because I don't believe it would "end the threat of terrorism to this country PERMANENTLY." I guess it would work if everyone ended up dead, but this response is not proportionate to the problem. As for "people who wouldn't even have the balls to attack unarmed, innocent civilians like the terrorists do," you sound like you want to sink to the level of the terrorists. You decry them for their cowardice, so why become like them? Isn't the whole problem that the terrorists take indiscriminate action that is not appropriate to their situation? Let's not do the same.

I wouldn't have expected you to support my proposal. You looked me in the eyes (metaphorically) and told me where you stood a long time ago. If it takes everyone being dead to end the problem, then so be it. If we have to take out the rats and ****roaches to get the lice that's the cost of doing business.

Terrorists attack innocent civilians because they don't have the guts to attack someone who can defend themselves. The terrorists know that all they need to do step out, show themselves ,and stop hiding in Mosques, Hospitals, etc... Once we show them that we're no longer gonna be stopped by the tactic of hiding behind the skirts of women and the clergy maybe they'll wise up. I don't expect them to, but it's always a possibility. Terrorists hit civilian targets because they refuse to attack a target that might fight back. We'll do it because they don't give us another option.

[swaroopm]

I wouldn't have expected you to support my proposal. You looked me in the eyes (metaphorically) and told me where you stood a long time ago. If it takes everyone being dead to end the problem, then so be it. If we have to take out the rats and ****roaches to get the lice that's the cost of doing business.

Here's where I stand - terrorism is a complex problem and we need to be smart about the way we try to stop it. Rather than ending "the threat of terrorism to this country PERMANENTLY," I think your approach would "take out" plenty of so-called "rats and ****roaches" while leaving the "lice" to fester.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Here's where I stand - terrorism is a complex problem and we need to be smart about the way we try to stop it. Rather than ending "the threat of terrorism to this country PERMANENTLY," I think your approach would "take out" plenty of so-called "rats and ****roaches" while leaving the "lice" to fester.

Here's where I stand - Terrorism is an exceptionally SIMPLE problem. Everyone either stands with the people trying to rid the world or ALL terrorism (regardless of religion, nationality, race, etc...) or they stand will the terrorists. There is no middle ground. The way to stop it is to explain to everyone on the side of the terrorists that they need to be thankful for every beat of their heart, because it might just be their last. We need to get this idea of "fighting fair" out of our heads. The terrorists don't do it, and neither should we. We need to allow our intelligence assets to find the terrorists and the people assisting them, and then IMMEDIATELY turn our forces loose on them. Oh, it's gonna require flying through Syrian airspace to deliver the munitions or ground forces to carry out the mission... TOO BAD FOR SYRIA. If they want to interfere we'll smoke their *** as well. The only way to deal with these people is to be AS BRUTAL, if not MORE BRUTAL than they are. It's all they understand. Collatoral damage be damned.

As for the rats and ****roaches compared to the lice.... If Medieval Europe had taken care of its pest issue (rats, mice, etc...) the LICE who traveled on those pests would not have been able to spread the BLACK PLAGUE across Europe. Similar issue here. Take away the support structure and the lice are no longer an issue.

[swaroopm]

We need to allow our intelligence assets to find the terrorists and the people assisting them, and then IMMEDIATELY turn our forces loose on them.

Oh, I get it - the reason we haven't identified them all (and gone after them) already is because we haven't "allowed" our "intelligence assets to find the terrorists and the people assisting them," and once we unleash our "intelligence assets," we'll be able to pick out all the terrorists and their accomplices and "turn our forces loose on them." I didn't realize we had such great "intelligence assets" just waiting to be unleashed. Oh, remind me where we found all those "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?

:doh:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Oh, I get it - the reason we haven't identified them all (and gone after them) already is because we haven't "allowed" our "intelligence assets to find the terrorists and the people assisting them," and once we unleash our "intelligence assets," we'll be able to pick out all the terrorists and their accomplices and "turn our forces loose on them." I didn't realize we had such great "intelligence assets" just waiting to be unleashed. Oh, remind me where we found all those "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?

Actually, the intelligence assets aren't what we restrict. It's the action on what the intelligence assetts find that is restricted.

For example....

Let's say that we suddenly got information that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Iran. We know the location and his schedule for the next three days. Now, intelligent people in the military/government would look around and say... "Gee, we've got a bunch of U.S. Navy SEALs, Delta Force troopers and the Nightstalkers helicopter unit, let's set a plan in motion so that when Osama gets up to take his 4am dump two days from now he's got a really nasty surprise waiting for him in the bathroom. Let's ask the POTUS if we can do it and get it in motion" Instead, what we do is make requests. We request permission to fly through the countries between where the strike would initiate and Iran. We request rules of engagement from some lawyer. We request permission to act from the Useless Nations. We request this. We request that. We plan and request ourselves to death.

We need to ACT, not request; and if other people don't like it TO ****ING BAD!!!!

[swaroopm]

Oh, I get it - so we do know where all the terrorists and their accomplices are, but we are not acting on that knowledge because other countries don't give us permission to take appropriate action. So, in the meantime, we are just sitting around, knowing exactly who and where the terrorists are, and not doing anything. :doh:

Or, maybe it's either that we don't know where all the terrorists and their accomplices are...or that even we don't have the capability to reach all the terrorists and accomplices that we have identified.

Hmm.

[swaroopm]

You treat every city, town, country and individual who harbors even a single terrorist as though every single person in that city, town, or country knows they're harboring terrorists. You don't worry about the collatoral damage.

It doesn't matter what group we're talking about or in what country.

Yes, that would require military action against a HUGE portion of the world. Though I think after the first country or two got nuked off the map, the rest might get the idea and start dealing with these worthless wastes of oxygen on their own. If they choose not to, they risk being the next ones with their heads on the block.

Very quickly we would know who's on our side and who's on their side. I do agree that it would be a VERY small group on our side, if anyone, but that's fine with me.

If it takes everyone being dead to end the problem, then so be it.

Terrorism is an exceptionally SIMPLE problem. Everyone either stands with the people trying to rid the world or ALL terrorism (regardless of religion, nationality, race, etc...) or they stand will the terrorists. There is no middle ground.

The only way to deal with these people is to be AS BRUTAL, if not MORE BRUTAL than they are. It's all they understand. Collatoral damage be damned.

I wonder if the advocates of the "bomb pretty much everyone" strategy can hear themselves speak. In response to the (very real) threat of terrorism, this "bomb pretty much everyone" gang would seemingly stop at no end to destroy the terrorists. Is this response proportionate to the problem? And what would we be left with after all that? Would that not be a pyrrhic victory? If we destroy our civilization - or lose sight of what it is that makes us civilized - in destroying the terrorists, it seems to me that the terrorists would have won.

[Ignatius J.]

Well, I wouldn't say that they won. I mean they'd be dead. We'd just lose too.

[nelms]

A nuclear strike (not a small one, but several devastating ones) against Iran would eliminate Islamic terrorism tomorrow.

[swaroopm]

Take out Iran and Syria and you've taken care of most of the terrorist problems in the world.

A nuclear strike (not a small one, but several devastating ones) against Iran would eliminate Islamic terrorism tomorrow.

Like I said before, you apparently have no understanding of the extent of the problem we are dealing with.

[Sarge]

I wonder if the advocates of the "bomb pretty much everyone" strategy can hear themselves speak. In response to the (very real) threat of terrorism, this "bomb pretty much everyone" gang would seemingly stop at no end to destroy the terrorists. Is this response proportionate to the problem? And what would we be left with after all that? Would that not be a pyrrhic victory? If we destroy our civilization - or lose sight of what it is that makes us civilized - in destroying the terrorists, it seems to me that the terrorists would have won.

Hard to win or claim victory when you're DEAD

And I could care less about proportionality.

AS I said in another post, imagine a world without islam. There'd be 14 less wars going on in the world right now

[cjcdaman]

Hard to win or claim victory when you're DEAD

:applause: But when you are afraid what the public will think about causing civilian casualties, it's hard to defeat a group of cowards who hide behind said people.