The "Terror" issue

[Hand Sword]

Good points! There is a large, young, population coming up in that region of the world that is the breeding ground for terror, due to no jobs, money, opportunities.

However, I think Afghanistan hasn't failed, it's still a work in progress, in all honesty. There has been huge strides made toward the "goal".

Iraq, is still on the fence. Definitely gotten tougher, but, while it's still going on, I wouldn't label it a failure yet.

Iran....I think that will be visited in the near future, unfortunately.

 

[Don Roley]

You have to break the problem down into three areas.

1- the terrorists themselves.
2- the populace they move and recruit from.
3- the goverments that mold the culture of the people and either move against, ignore or support the terrorists.

And what we do has to have a lot more relationship to Machiavelli's The Prince than a lot of the wishful thinking that seems to pass as political advice now.

The goverments of the region need an external enemy to keep their people's wrath away from them. For decades they used Isreal and America in the same way that Orwell's Big Brother state used Oceana.

We can kill all the terrorists that exist right now, but as long as the people still get fed that sort of propaganda, more will spring up to fill their ranks. Just doing good things to the middle east is not enough. The rulers still will need some sort of focus for anger away from them and will not give that up unless they have a damn good reason to.

Some nations we can talk to and influence away from their support of this hate speech- if they think that the alternative is somewhere they don't want to go.

If you have not read The Prince you need to pick up a copy at the library. I picked my copy up expecting it to be some black tome of evil. Instead is was just common sense written by a guy too cynical to try to pretty things up. Which seems why so much of his stuff is misunderstood and misquoted. But if you want to understand what is going on in that part of the world and our options, you need to start with him.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

You have to break the problem down into three areas.

1- the terrorists themselves.
2- the populace they move and recruit from.
3- the goverments that mold the culture of the people and either move against, ignore or support the terrorists.

And what we do has to have a lot more relationship to Machiavelli's The Prince than a lot of the wishful thinking that seems to pass as political advice now.

The goverments of the region need an external enemy to keep their people's wrath away from them. For decades they used Isreal and America in the same way that Orwell's Big Brother state used Oceana.

We can kill all the terrorists that exist right now, but as long as the people still get fed that sort of propaganda, more will spring up to fill their ranks. Just doing good things to the middle east is not enough. The rulers still will need some sort of focus for anger away from them and will not give that up unless they have a damn good reason to.

Some nations we can talk to and influence away from their support of this hate speech- if they think that the alternative is somewhere they don't want to go.

If you have not read The Prince you need to pick up a copy at the library. I picked my copy up expecting it to be some black tome of evil. Instead is was just common sense written by a guy too cynical to try to pretty things up. Which seems why so much of his stuff is misunderstood and misquoted. But if you want to understand what is going on in that part of the world and our options, you need to start with him.

Definitely agreed. Bob Baer's books, although he's a fierce critic of the Iraq War, argue these very same points (Bob Baer is a former Middle Eastern C.I.A. Agent).

Machiavelli was an Italian patriot who lamented the foreign occupation of his country during the Renaissance period. Unfortunately for him, the St. Bartholomew's Massacre of Protestants in France, perhaps by direction of the Italian, Catherine Di'Medici, unfairly influenced modern thought against him.

 

[Hand Sword]

So, you guys are for going after the governments? Do you think if the population had a choice, under better leaders, they would not have the anger toward the west's (U.S.'s and Israel's) policies, and would choose to not support the terror groups, either by man power, or dollars?

Also, another question, for everyone, which is very apparent, and being debated hotly, Do we pull the troops out? Think about it realistically, If the answer is no, then more troops have to be sent there for re-enforcement. This is pretty obvious, I think, because they can't stay there, and do what they're doing, completely, without the help. The only other alternative is to bring them all home. Would that worsen the problem?

 

[Hand Sword]

My shift is ending, so I just want to say thank you for all of the civil discussion going on. It's nice to get to the real answers and solutions of people.

Please keep it civil, for the rest of the conversation that will happen.

Everyone have a great day.

Thanks again.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

You have to break the problem down into three areas.

1- the terrorists themselves.
2- the populace they move and recruit from.
3- the goverments that mold the culture of the people and either move against, ignore or support the terrorists.

And what we do has to have a lot more relationship to Machiavelli's The Prince than a lot of the wishful thinking that seems to pass as political advice now.

The goverments of the region need an external enemy to keep their people's wrath away from them. For decades they used Isreal and America in the same way that Orwell's Big Brother state used Oceana.

We can kill all the terrorists that exist right now, but as long as the people still get fed that sort of propaganda, more will spring up to fill their ranks. Just doing good things to the middle east is not enough. The rulers still will need some sort of focus for anger away from them and will not give that up unless they have a damn good reason to.

Some nations we can talk to and influence away from their support of this hate speech- if they think that the alternative is somewhere they don't want to go.

If you have not read The Prince you need to pick up a copy at the library. I picked my copy up expecting it to be some black tome of evil. Instead is was just common sense written by a guy too cynical to try to pretty things up. Which seems why so much of his stuff is misunderstood and misquoted. But if you want to understand what is going on in that part of the world and our options, you need to start with him.

I have to agree. If you look at the history of mankind from time immemorial to today, the truth of power coming from the "barrel of a gun" has proven itself over the hippy "give peace a chance" crowd, by a large margin. Not to say that peaceful means are useless, not at all, but while one talon holds the olive branch, the other better have a good stock of arrows. IMO, America at least, compared to the histories of other historical powers, has a better track record of trying to do the right thing by standing on the side of freedom.

 

[CoryKS]

I have to agree. If you look at the history of mankind from time immemorial to today, the truth of power coming from the "barrel of a gun" has proven itself over the hippy "give peace a chance" crowd, by a large margin. Not to say that peaceful means are useless, not at all, but while one talon holds the olive branch, the other better have a good stock of arrows. IMO, America at least, compared to the histories of other historical powers, has a better track record of trying to do the right thing by standing on the side of freedom.

Oddly, of the books I've read since 9/11 the ones that helped the most in making sense of what's going on haven't been foreign policy but economics. Thomas Sowell has two really good books, Basic Economics and Applied Economics, and then there's a book called Freakonomics that is really cool. Sowell writes from a conservative perspective that might turn off some people, but what he and Levitt/Dubner stress is that people respond to incentives. One of their best quotes happens to be on my Starbucks cup:

Morality describes the way that any of us would like the world to work. Economics describes the way the world actually does work. You can't change the world you live in until you understand it.
-- Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner
Authors of Freakonomics.

The simple fact is that the barrel of a gun is a stronger incentive to change than a bunch of nice, kinda weird people who will accept you no matter what you do.

 

[Don Roley]

So, you guys are for going after the governments? Do you think if the population had a choice, under better leaders, they would not have the anger toward the west's (U.S.'s and Israel's) policies, and would choose to not support the terror groups, either by man power, or dollars?

The problem has gone beyond that. After decades of propaganda that the Protocals of Zion are real and there is a plot by the jews to control the world, almost every adult has been raised from birth to hate the jews and the goverment they control- i.e. America. They have had their textbooks in the state- run schools preach hatred, the state- run media has preached hatred and the state- approved Imams have preached hatred. If you just give them the vote now, they will bring in folks like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

We need to use pressure on the governments in the region to make moves toward democracy, but not the vote. They were not put in power by the ballot and are not going to give it away anyways. At least not at first. Maybe down the line after the current crop of tyrants are thinking about a comfy retirement.

We need to stop the propaganda against the west, and we can only do that if they think we may do something more than talk. We need to make things better and give them less of a reason to hate. Not just hate us, but the governments in the region.

It will be a long, complicated effort. We probably will have to work with scumbags like Musharaf and Mubarak for decades. And the political systems we have are not very good for thinking beyond the next election. And it is not like we can inform the voters of this plan. Can you imagine what would be the result if the president gave my outline as his own on television? If he were to tell the world that he was going to pressure the governments in the region and give them reason to fear us until they cut back on their propaganda and hatred of the west? It would make the **** storm over his "crusader" comment look like a fart in a hurricane by comparison.

 

[TonyMac]

Thank you Don.
Most historians are of the opinion that the jesuits wrote the protocols of the elders of zion. Running many famous learning institutions they are gradualing rewriting history. Over time they have sponsored enough articles on quinine to rewrite history and change the meaning of "jesuit powder" (cocaine) to mean quinine which was originally known as "jesuit bark". They are the biggest group spreading disinformation and creating chaos on the planet. They probably have the largest collection of psycoactive drugs and poisons on the planet. They have been practicing eugenicsand using torture to create dissociative personalities for over four hundred years. They taught the indians in the upper midwest how to beat their children and take and abuse slaves.
End of rant.

 

[CoryKS]

Most historians are of the opinion that the jesuits wrote the protocols of the elders of zion.

Really? I'd always heard it was this guy.

 

[Hand Sword]

O.K, Anyone care to answer the questions now?

 

[CoryKS]

O.K, Anyone care to answer the questions now?

1. Do you believe that "terrorists" exist?
- Yes

2. Is there really a war against "terror"?
- There is currently a war with a group of people who use terror as a tactic. How long that will be true is up in the air right now, IMO. There are also a great many people who support those who use terror or, at least, support the purpose behind the use of terror. We are trying to prevent them from joining the fight, and that is why we call it the "War on Terror" instead of the "War with [the ideology for which our enemies use terror]".

3. If so, should there be one, if not, why not?
- I believe so. Naming it thusly keeps our enemies somewhat divided.

4. What are the real solutions, in your opinion, to remedy the situation?
- Not gonna touch that with a ten-foot pole. Nope, nope, nope.

 

[Hand Sword]

Thank you CoryKS. No Thougvhts at all on any solutions though? No one will come through your monitor and attack you for your ideas.

 

[CoryKS]

Thank you CoryKS. No Thougvhts at all on any solutions though? No one will come through your monitor and attack you for your ideas.

I have thoughts on it, but I'd prefer not to say. I'm probably wrong, and I fervently hope so.

 

[Hand Sword]

:shrug:

Well, thanks for contributing to my thread.

I find it sad that from all of the "yelling" and "screaming" going on, and, the getting down to personal nastiness, ultimately, over "that's not the right policy!" that very few who thought that, actually came up with what "is" the "right policy". It's a shame that thinking people can only stand on hate politics of what is going on, and absent of that, can't give their own solutions. I thank everyone, from all sides that took part in this thread, and kept it civil. Thank you all.

 

[CoryKS]

:shrug:

Well, thanks for contributing to my thread.

I find it sad that from all of the "yelling" and "screaming" going on, and, the getting down to personal nastiness, ultimately, over "that's not the right policy!" that very few who thought that, actually came up with what "is" the "right policy". It's a shame that thinking people can only stand on hate politics of what is going on, and absent of that, can't give their own solutions. I thank everyone, from all sides that took part in this thread, and kept it civil. Thank you all.

As bad as it sounds, what if the current situation is the solution? It may be that a real, lasting solution to this may have a cost that no one is willing to pay. Then it becomes an economic choice, conscious or not, to accept things the way they are.

Consider the Israel/Palestinian issue - each side has terms for peace that are totally unacceptable to the other side. What ensues is a state of perpetual limited war. I read a PJ O'Rourke article about Ireland in which he quoted an official as saying they had achieved "an acceptable level of violence."

If a real solution turns out to involve killing on a grand scale, some people - a lot of people - are going to decide that they can live with an "acceptable level of violence."

 

[MBuzzy]

1. Do you believe that "terrorists" exist?

Most definately terrorists exist. Now who are called terrorists completely depend on your definition of the term. Many people confuse the insurgents that we are fighting in Iraq with terrorists. I don't believe these people are terrorists, they are simply people who are fighting to protect a belief, a way of life, ideals, etc...misguided as they may be, that is what they believe. I definately believe that people who fly planes into buildings, set off bombs in subways, or attempt the use of biological weapons on innocent people are terrorists. But in Iraq, the people who are fighting are soliders, and the people who they are fighting are attacking armed, prepared personnel. Prepared in the sense that we are expecting violence there. That is a war with an insurgency.

2. Is there really a war against "terror"?

I believe that also depends on your definition of terms. Make no mistake, we are at war. With who is another question. We are at war with religious extremists who believe that violence is necessary to protect their way of life. People who do not agree with or want the west is control of their countries. But these people have been at war with someone since the beginning of time. The region of the world that we are fighting in has been in constant turmoil for thousands of years. Those who we are fighting are coming from a variety of nations and in some cases aren't even doing the fighting themselves, they are paying extremely poor farmers to commit the violence that they need. In some cases, a farmer can get paid enough to support his family for a year just for launching a mortar at a base. A good deal of the population just wants peace, the Iraqis are not bad people, they are just in the home region of some very violent extremists. The bottom line is this...I firmly believe that if we weren't there, they would be here.

3. If so, should there be one, if not, why not?

As I already mentioned, the fact that we are in Iraq is keeping terrorists from coming here. America is not as safe as some may like to think, we still have plenty of vulnerabilities to exploit and if someone had the motivation and money a strike would not be difficult, but we have them occupied and distracted in their own region. They don't have to go halfway around the world to kill americans, they can do it on their doorstep. The thing is....as horrible as this may sound, I would rather them be striking at armed soldiers who are ready for it, then completely unprepared, innocent, and unarmed civilians. If a soldier is attacked, he can retaliate, we can raid villages, find the perpetrators, take weapons caches, etc. I don't know what has set off this most recent round of terrorism and hate of the US, and the reasons don't matter....we are there and they hate us. Arguing about whose fault it is accomplishes nothing.

4. What are the real solutions, in your opinion, to remedy the situation?

As for solutions, I have already stated what I believe the solutions and ways out of Iraq are. But as for the situation of Terrorism....I don't believe that there is a solution. As long as there are different cultures and beliefs, there will always be hatred and resent of others. Terrorism is simply a way to impose your beliefs or try to defend your beliefs violently. It is guerilla warfare, directed at the innocent, mostly through the use of immoral tactics. Will we ever get rid of hatred? No. But we can help the governments of the region to control their citizens, to punish them and create a better way of life for them.

So, you guys are for going after the governments? Do you think if the population had a choice, under better leaders, they would not have the anger toward the west's (U.S.'s and Israel's) policies, and would choose to not support the terror groups, either by man power, or dollars?

Also, another question, for everyone, which is very apparent, and being debated hotly, Do we pull the troops out? Think about it realistically, If the answer is no, then more troops have to be sent there for re-enforcement. This is pretty obvious, I think, because they can't stay there, and do what they're doing, completely, without the help. The only other alternative is to bring them all home. Would that worsen the problem?

I don't belive that we should "go after" any governments, but they should take some responsibility for the actions of their citizens. If an American flew a plane into a building and killed thousands, the world would be up in arms about it, yet Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc can and nothing is said to their home countries or governments. No call for punishment and no effort on the part of their governments to find them and stop them. People will always hate us.

As for pulling out the troops, as previously stated, we have gotten ourselves into a hole, we cannot simply pull out. If we leave now, the entire region will fall to shambles and will be twice as bad as when we got there. That will simply cause MORE terrorism. But there are more than two options, it isn't just leave or send more. We just have to find those solutions and act in the most responsible way possible. Cutting and running will just make things worse. The American people need to start accepting that we will have a military presence in Iraq for a very very long time, just as we have in every other country that we have gone to war with. It is just the levels of troops and the level of violence that is at stake now.

I have to run and get on a plane back to the states now, I am very intrigued by this discussion though, I am anxious to hear more opinions.

 

[Hand Sword]

As bad as it sounds, what if the current situation is the solution? It may be that a real, lasting solution to this may have a cost that no one is willing to pay. Then it becomes an economic choice, conscious or not, to accept things the way they are.

Consider the Israel/Palestinian issue - each side has terms for peace that are totally unacceptable to the other side. What ensues is a state of perpetual limited war. I read a PJ O'Rourke article about Ireland in which he quoted an official as saying they had achieved "an acceptable level of violence."

If a real solution turns out to involve killing on a grand scale, some people - a lot of people - are going to decide that they can live with an "acceptable level of violence."

If that is what you feel is a solution, than by all means say so. That is what I wanted to hear from you. Thank you for it. (see, didn't hurt, did it? LOL!

) Good thought for a post!

 

[michaeledward]

I was just reading an article on MSNBC about the TSA at airports. One of the posters in that article mentioned the 'liquid terrorist plot' in England in August of 2006 has essentially disappeared as the 'terrorists' have been released for lack of evidence.

If you travel by plane, you know you still can't carry liquids on board, unless A, B, and C are met. And, we still need to take off our shoes, even though the one attempt to ingite a shoe bomb has the culprit in prison, and no one harmed in the air.

With all the news (and inconvienence) created last summer, I found it interesting how little the falling apart of the case has reach any news media.

A quick google provided this article.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358453.html

I'm sure a more thorough search would find more information.

While the arrest of 26 people in connection with the plot was also massively publicised, the gradual release of many of them has again gone virtually unreported. For example on 31 October a judge released two brothers from Chingford commenting that the police had produced no credible evidence against them. Charges against others have been downgraded, so that those now accused of plotting to commit explosions, are less than the ten planes the police claimed they planned to blow up in suicide attacks.

 

[Mariachi Joe]

1. Do you believe that "terrorists" exist?Yes
2. Is there really a war against "terror"?Yes
3. If so, should there be one, if not, why not?Yes
4. What are the real solutions, in your opinion, to remedy the situation? that is a very complex question that I don't have the answer for, but laying down for an enemy that wants to destroy us is not the anwer