How do you stop terrorists?

[Robinrs]

Originally posted by DebbieB
I don't think there is a way to totally eliminate it. It's just not foreign terrorists, but you've got homegrown nuts like Timothy McVey (Oklahoma City).

Amen to that...

We cannot obliterate terrorism until we understand the cause of the hatred and the faith that drives these people. We only reflect what WE feel and it's not the same.

We can blow up, kill and destroy all of their leaders and we will STILL have people who think that their golden gate to"heaven" is to commit suicide in the name of murder. We can destroy all the WMD's in the world and there will STILL be a person with a vendetta and a UHaul truck who will be determined to do damage to a country and their way of life.

Terrorism of some kind has existed since the dawn of time. We can protect ourselves but all the John Wayne tactics in the world will never completely stop it. Humans have strong will.

 

[bsnyder]

One of my favorite columnists had some perceptive thoughts on this subject today. Here's an excerpt:

I remember a couple of days after September 11 writing in some column or other that weepy candlelight vigils were a cop-out: the issue wasn't whether you were sad about the dead people but whether you wanted to do something about it. Three years on, that's still the difference....
When your asymmetrical warfare strategy depends on gunning down schoolchildren, you're getting way more asymmetrical than you need to be. The reality is that the IRA and ETA and the ANC and any number of secessionist and nationalist movements all the way back to the American revolutionaries could have seized schoolhouses and shot all the children.

But they didn't. Because, if they had, there would have been widespread revulsion within the perpetrators' own communities. To put it at its most tactful, that doesn't seem to be an issue here.

So the particular character of this "insurgency" does not derive from the requirements of "asymmetrical warfare" but from . . . well, let's see, what was the word missing from those three analyses of the Beslan massacre? Here's a clue: half the dead "Chechen separatists" were not Chechens at all, but Arabs. And yet, tastefully tiptoeing round the subject, The New York Times couldn't bring itself to use the words Muslim or Islamist, for fear presumably of offending multicultural sensibilities....

What happened in one Russian schoolhouse is an abomination that has to be defeated, not merely regretted. But the only guys with any kind of plan are the Bush administration. Last Thursday, the President committed himself yet again to wholesale reform of the Muslim world. This is a dysfunctional region that exports its toxins, to Beslan, Bali and beyond, and is wealthy enough to be able to continue doing so.

You can't turn Saudi Arabia and Yemen into New Hampshire or Sweden (according to taste), but if you could transform them into Singapore or Papua New Guinea or Belize or just about anything else you'd be making an immense improvement. It's a long shot, but, unlike Putin's plan to bomb them Islamists into submission or Chirac's reflexive inclination to buy them off, Bush is at least tackling the "root cause".

If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. Right now, his is the only plan on the table. The ideology and rationale that drove the child-killers in Beslan is the same as that motivating cells in Rome and Manchester and Seattle and Sydney. In this war, you can't hold the line against the next depravity.

 

[Paradise]

If the answer to terrorism was simply to bomb them, use tanks and other heavy military machinery against them, then Israel would have solve their problem already. But until the underlying problems are tackled, new recruits will be signing up daily.

Al Queda planned 9/11 for 5 long years, so its only a matter of time until we are hit again. Unfortunately for us, those people are very patient.

 

[donmil723]

I don't usually post on the community board but I felt I had to reply to this topic.

I'm beginning to think I'm naive but I've always believed that good will conquer evil. We, as a nation and as individuals, must not stick our heads in the sand and ignore things. We must be vigilant and do our civic duty by reporting anything suspicious to the proper authorities. They must then do whatever is necessary to eradicate that slime from our world.

Terrorism doesn't always just occur on the national level. We have recently been terrorized in our neighborhood by some punks with possible connections to the meth trade. It has made us, and our neighbors, realize that we have to take a stand and report any vandalism, dangerous driving, threats, assaults, etc. because if we don't the problem will get worse.

Any type of terrorism is a criminal act and must be treated as such!

Donna

 

[The Duchess]

You hunt every one of them down and kill them.
That is ALL these terrorist understand. Win or lose. No gray area.

They will kill you, your children, your parents, your family just as easily as you would change the channel on the tv.

The world will only be safe by exterminating every last one.

It is NOT possible to REASON with UNREASONABLE beings.

 

[PolyConFan]

Kill them, & their families. It is the only way.

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by Paradise
If the answer to terrorism was simply to bomb them, use tanks and other heavy military machinery against them, then Israel would have solve their problem already. But until the underlying problems are tackled, new recruits will be signing up daily.

Al Queda planned 9/11 for 5 long years, so its only a matter of time until we are hit again. Unfortunately for us, those people are very patient.

Paradise got to disagree with part one.

If Israel had the courage and resources to go all out against the terrorist, then it would be safer. But with international and UN condemnation against any tactic they attempt, and their need for out-of-country support, that has never happened. Sort of like our Vietnam, we had the resources, we had the troops, they had the will, but they were never allowed to fight to win, same for Israel.

Unfortunately, Paradise I gotta agree with your part two, sadly.

Remember the original plan was for twenty similtaneous planes, Osama thought that too difficult to arrainge......

 

[Kendra17]

mom2alix, bsnyder, snarfer, duchess, dawnct. . .gotta agree with all of you.

It's almost impossible to stop a killer who has absolutely no desire nor need to save his or her own life. Suicide bombers in particular are almost impossible to stop. We know that in Israel they've been very successful at interdicting many suicide bombers before they have a chance to blow themselves up and go to meet their promised 72 virgins. Unfortunately, some have gotten through and committed their atrocities.

So, does this mean we stop trying to interdict? No. Just as in Israel, we need to use the power of information technology and computers, to listen in and track the communications of the evil ones. If the vast majority of evil-doers are Muslims (which they are), then we need to specifically profile them. The era of Clinton political correctness must end. We no longer have the luxury of political correctness. Once we identify a group who want us dead, then everyone in that group needs to be carefully looked at.

The Patriot Act must be expanded and we have to accept a slight lessening of civil liberties to ensure security. I'm aware that Benjamin Franklin was against such an approach--however, he's been dead for almost 200 years. If we are unsuccessful in securing our nation from terror, civil liberties will be seriously abrogated. In order to avoid such an unpleasant situation, we should be prepared for some checks on our civil liberties now--so that later, more will not be sacrificed.

Terrorists do not care about diplomacy and do not respect it. Terrorists live by violence and understand that alone. Our response to them should be savage and monumental. This, of course, will require a paradigm shift in the way that most Americans believe that we should interact with other nations or groups. Terrorists have constructed this conflict as an existential one in that the goal of the terrorists is that we no longer exist.

 

[Planogirl]

Lessening of civil liberties? Which ones? And where does it end? And more importantly, who decides?

Lots of questions and no easy answers. But if we get too carried away with the need to protect at all costs, I believe that we all lose.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Planogirl
Lessening of civil liberties? Which ones? And where does it end? And move importantly, who decides?

Yes, we have to sacrifice some civil liberties in order to save our nation. Sometimes, and this is not unprecedented, we need to sacrifice temporarily some civil liberties so that the nation itself can survive. Why is it, do you suppose, that Abraham Lincoln used his executive emergency powers to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Baltimore? After the war was over, the writ was again in force. So let's not be so cynical that every act by the government is a move towards dictatorship.

There are those on the right and the left in the majority who are patriots who want our enemies defeated and our nation secure. If one is unwilling to let the government secure our freedom, one will have neither a government nor freedoms.

We live in a time of national emergency. Because a national emergency has not yet been formally declared doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Political correctness is now dangerous and self-defeating. For example: we should ethnically profile every Arab and every Muslim in every airport and train station in this country. You may recall that all of the September 11 murderers were Muslims and the majority, if not all, were Arabs. To deny the importance of this fact, and not take any action upon that knowledge, is ludicrous.

 

[vernon]

A good start would be to understand that there are many different reasons why terrorism occurs. It's not a "one size fits all" problem and therefore there is no "one size fits all" answer.

In some cases it is because of many years of oppression (Like Chechenya) have left such deep and bitter resentment of the occupying forces that there are many people, who in other circumstances would be as "normal" as you and I, are left with no hope for a better future and no reason to live other than to avenge the torture and murder of their families. These cases are going to be by far the most difficult to deal with. It is possible to undo some of the damage by first and foremost stopping the oppression, torture and murder of their society, by trying to better the lives economically and by giving them reasons to live for as opposed to reasons to die for. I think it will take centuries to reduce the feelings of the Chechens towards Russia to managable levels but that doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be attempted.

In some cases much of it is down to ignorance, arrogance and laziness (on both sides) of opposing cultures (Like the Islamic/Western(USA) situation. These situations could be helped dramatically if BOTH sides put a lot more effort into understanding the position of the others and made efforts to change the most offensive (to the other groups) of their actions. IMHO much of the offence could be averted with a little thought by the perpetrators and a lot more understanding by those "offended".

In some cases it's a career choice, there is a lot of money to be made in fund raising and arms dealing. But if you're going to rally support for "the cause" in the way Sein Fein and the IRA did with America, the way the PLO and Al Qaeeda do in the Arab world you need to have "results" where you can demonstrate the money raised is being used to provide "value for money". The way to combat this is to 1) cut off their finances more effectively and 2) educate those donating the money that the terror they are funding isn't likely to bring about a quick solution to the situation they oppose but prolong it.

In some cases there are people who just enjoy fighting and killing others, not much you can do about those other than kill or capture them. I'm not a great believer in a wide use of the death penalty, but terrorism is one where I think the best answer for society is to execute those convicted of it, as it removes the possibility of fellow terrorist hostage taking to secure the release of those already held. The counter argument to a wide spread death penalty for terrorism is that you give those commiting these acts no reason to want to surrender, in which case they may as well go down in "a blaze of glory".

In pretty much ALL of these cases there are those that will use the hates, fears,mistrust, ignorance and lunacy of those above to further their own political and religious agendas. IMHO these are by far the most dangerous group of people. OBL would be a prime example. They are often well educated, convincing speakers and capable of engendering a trust in those they try to subvert. They understand and exploit the fear and ignorance we help create to deepen the gulf between us and non-militant/fanatical Islam. To deal with them we have to erode their "power base" by defusing the hatred, showing the fearful they have nothing to fear from us, showing good faith to those that mistrust us, educating the ignorant, killing/arresting the homicidal maniacs and reducing the financial flows to these groups.

IMHO it is only after we have cut off their power bases, made positive attempts to improve the economic and political situations, educated BOTH sides to the sensitivities/ambitions of the other and shown the people they have a better hope and a positive future by working with us as opposed to with the extremists that any large scale military actions will be effective in reducing terrorism.

IMHO there is little point in killing say 1,000 terrorists if that action produces 5,000 more. We have to undermine the sympathy towards the terrorists before we can win this war.


Kendra said

Political correctness is now dangerous and self-defeating. For example: we should ethnically profile every Arab and every Muslim in every airport and train station in this country

Shock horror something Kendra and I agree upon. While I probably wouldn't go quite as far as Kendra in some actions on this topic, I agree 100% that it is a nonsense that airline staff will only stop and search a certain percentage of various racial "profiles" for fear of being charged with racial oppression. IF you're an innocent Arab wishing to fly these days you can hardly complain that the authorities select you more often than a little old (WASP) granny from Boise Idaho to thoroughly search you before allowing you to travel. Afterall I presume that EVERYONE ( other than suicide terrorists) wants to get off the plane safely at the other end.

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Yes, we have to sacrifice some civil liberties in order to save our nation. Sometimes, and this is not unprecedented, we need to sacrifice temporarily some civil liberties so that the nation itself can survive. Why is it, do you suppose, that Abraham Lincoln used his executive emergency powers to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Baltimore? After the war was over, the writ was again in force. So let's not be so cynical that every act by the government is a move towards dictatorship.

Right on K17! Also, lets not forget that the temporary reduction/restriction of some civil liberties does not exactly equal marshal law! I would welcome having to show ID before boarding mass transit if it would prevent even 1 homicide bombing attack on US soil!

There is good evidence that these temporary actions are repealled. In the hayday of airplane hijacking, with sky-marshalls on many planes, my Dear Dad, had the misfortune of exactly matching the (1970s) hijacker profile! Several times he was approached on airplanes by the sky-marshall for questioning, especially after suspicious actions, such as entering the cockpit. Unfortunately, for the marshalls, my DD was a senior FAA employee, who flew alot and was usually invited up into the cockpit. We no longer use that profile, or have the same number of air-marshalls flying, even post September 11th.

No one really complaines about airport security proceedures now, and even back in the eighties. (Did you pack your own bag, any strangers give you large, heavy boxes that tick, has your lugage been out of your sight?)

BTW I have flown into Jerusalem, and the security their made you feel safer and much more comfotable!

There are those on the right and the left in the majority who are patriots who want our enemies defeated and our nation secure. If one is unwilling to let the government secure our freedom, one will have neither a government nor freedoms.

Mostly agree with this one Kendra17, However, while our elected officials have a sworn duty to protect us, law enforcement does not, and LE is the arm of our government that we naively expect to protect us. If you remember the joyful times following the Rodney King incident, and watched the LAPD fall back and abandon citizens and streets to anarchy, while the CA National Guard had NO AMMUNITION for their rifles, you are getting my drift. BTW several lawsuits by injured civilians against LAPD where lost when the courts ruled that the police had no duty to protect others at the significant risk of their own lives. Police are for after the fact, filing reports, issuing summons and SOLVING ALREADY COMMITTED CRIMES!
***Dear Police do not take this the wrong way, I & my family appreciate all you do, and all you attempt to do, we know your hands are tied as well.***

Of interest, our Liberal brethren who scream foul anytime a civil liberty is 'threatened', said nothing when CA residents who legally purchased a firearm BEFORE the Rodney King incident, and then waited their waiting period, were prevented from obtaining their firearms, by their Governor unilaterally suspending Firearm and AMMO sales. Hmmmm, no Police, No firearms and No Ammo.....and suprise no Liberal outcry at the loss of our civil freedoms.....when it does not serve their and only their goals!

We live in a time of national emergency. Because a national emergency has not yet been formally declared doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Political correctness is now dangerous and self-defeating. For example: we should ethnically profile every Arab and every Muslim in every airport and train station in this country. You may recall that all of the September 11 murderers were Muslims and the majority, if not all, were Arabs. To deny the importance of this fact, and not take any action upon that knowledge, is ludicrous.

Sad to say I'm a bit of a weenie on this one.....

Here's why:

Remember the terror attacks of the 60s and 70s, Germans were also recruited by the Arab (Muslim) terrorists. Rumor has it the Osama is now attempting to recruit more Europeans for the next round of attacks. So if we really crack down on Arabic appearing persons for security checks, they will use their billions of dollars to 'hire' some blonde, blue eyed terrorists to do their dirty work for them. Also, some of my black friends used to report getting pulled over everytime the drove into a wealthy area (that they lived in!), and I admit that this would get tiring each and every day. However, I *personally* would accept this (profiling & getting stopped every day) if it prevented just 1 attack on this land that I so dearly love. I just can relate to the other side as well. Also, it is INSANE that we can not profile groups of Arabic men flying one way, sitting near each other (for Political Correctness), and have to strip search a number of grannies to balance out the equation!

Plus, we will probably need to start searching turbans as well. The amount of contraban that could be concealed is frightening....

As usual Kendra17 and excellent though-provoking post. We must do something, and I would always rather apologize and say sorry we searched you again sir, than say we lost another plane, or building, or tunnel, or school, or city......

 

[snarfer1]

Vernon:

A simply excellent post, one that shows us as closer in thought than I ever believed possible.

So it is either the endtimes, or Vernon has been abducted and replaced.

I still don't believe that terrorism is ever justified.

Anyway, a thought-provoking (not just a provoking) post.

I'm gonna go play the lottery!

Tony

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by Lanshark
In light of the recents news around the world can terrorism be stopped or limited? How?

I think we need a very strong international coalition supporting each other in all terrorism threats worldwide. The more people who are on our side, the less acceptable it will be for anyone to even slightly support a terrorist agenda.

Also, I believe that the better the economy for any people, the less they will be inclined to lean toward terrorism. Even Hitler and Stalin used bad economic conditions to strengthen their positions.

These things won't fix the problems completely but they should be our first steps.

 

[Lanshark]

The reality is that the IRA and ETA and the ANC and any number of secessionist and nationalist movements all the way back to the American revolutionaries could have seized schoolhouses and shot all the children.

But they didn't. Because, if they had, there would have been widespread revulsion within the perpetrators' own communities. To put it at its most tactful, that doesn't seem to be an issue here.

I agree with this statement. Are there clerics condemning the Russian schoolhouse situation? This the only statement from a cleric I saw.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml

I pray the others that are condemning these actions are just not making the news or this is from some extreme news outlet.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Lanshark
I agree with this statement. Are there clerics condemning the Russian schoolhouse situation?

Anyone have any links to this story and how's it's being reported in the Arab world?

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by Lanshark
I agree with this statement. Are there clerics condemning the Russian schoolhouse situation?

Yes, they are.

<i>"Siege prompts horror among Arabs"


Monday, September 6, 2004 Posted: 0141 GMT (0941 HKT)



CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Images of dead, wounded and traumatized Russian children being carried from the scene of a rebel school siege horrified Arabs, prompting forthright self-criticism and fresh concern about an international backlash against Islam and its followers.

Arab leaders, Muslim clerics and ordinary parents across the Middle East denounced the school siege that left more than 340 people dead, many of them children, as unjustifiable.</i>

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Lanshark
I agree with this statement. Are there clerics condemning the Russian schoolhouse situation? This the only statement from a cleric I saw.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml

I would venture to guess that there are more that feel the way that cleric does but haven't said so publicly.

 

[Mamu]

I feel hate is taught in 3-world countries. When your taught at a young age it remains with you.

Most of these countries are ruled by tyrants who could care less about their people. They feel poverty, fear and suppression is the only way they can remain in control. While they live lavish life styles.

Their people are told there poverty comes from wealthy and influential countrier who plunder their country of it's resources and wealth and return nothing. What they see is, the people in these countries all live well. You begin to believe this. While all the time the dictator keep his country suppressed and it's people poor.

As long as oppressive dictators remain in control, and allowed to blame other countries for their miseries, you will have terrorist.

 

[Lanshark]

Wouldn't it be nice if those condemning the violence got as much airtime/print as those advocating it? Thanks Auntpolly for posting that.

If these terrorists felt they would be condemned rather than martyred I would venture a guess that their ranks would be reduced.