The question of Terrorism - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Charlatan · 07-22-2005, 07:42 AM

I read an editorial the other day that I found really touched on just what I think is wrong with our appraoch to terrorism in the west. I wanted to share it with you.

Quote:

Prevailing through peace
Rapidly on July 7, four bombs exploded on the London transit system, killing at least 52 and wounding hundreds more. Horrifying images of destruction filled our TV screens. Tony Blair continued the fine British tradition of inspiring oration ("We shall prevail..."), while George W. Bush continued his insistence that we are a world at war. Suddenly, terrorism is with us once again.

Not that it ever really went away. But the awareness that had been simmering quietly for the past few years again reached a boil as our vulnerability -- we in the Western world, who live so peacefully and prosperously much of the time, far from the suffering and bloodshed that is a fact of daily existence for much of the world -- moved to the forefront of our consciousness. Many news reports called the attacks predictable, and in a way nearly everything about the aftermath of the bombings seemed familiar -- an Al-Qaida cell claiming responsibility, the immediate fear of further attacks, the US banging the drums of war, the thinking left exploring root causes to place blame in the White House and the British Parliament, while the loony left speculated that it was Western governments who planted the bombs.

By early this week, nearly everyone was agreed on the lesson of London. No one in the Western world, not even Canada, is "immune from what we've seen happen in London, Madrid and 9/11," as Canadian Public Safety Minister Ann McLellan told reporters July 11. We are not immune and we are not protected, nor can we really become protected, as so many have observed. Homicidal and suicidal people who wish to inflict destruction can do so, and there is not much we can do to stop them.

And yet, learning this lesson leaves us with options. We could -- call it the Bush model -- bunker our society ever further, raising alert levels to perpetual red, surrendering civil liberties and eyeing every passing fellow citizen with suspicion. We could, in other words, live in an ever-increasing state of terror and, in so doing, concede defeat to those who have attacked us.

Alternately, we could recognize that sometimes bad things will happen -- tsunamis, accidents, street crime, terrorist attacks -- and, while mourning the victims of these and other disasters and taking reasonable precautions to protect against obvious threats, get on with our lives. Blair demonstrated how this works to some extent when he refused to allow the bombings to derail the G8 talks on African aid that were taking place when the attack struck his hometown. We could refuse to live in fear of that which we cannot change. And we could, as the prayer says, have the courage to change the things we can.

One thing that should change is the approach to terrorism that says we're at war. Fond as the American television newscasters and presidential administration are of the rhetoric of the military, of the sense that victory is a matter of larger guns and greater determination, such rhetoric -- and the real tactics that back it up -- are unhelpful and misleading. In a war, two sides have armies that wear uniforms and meet in battle. In a war, we know who the enemy is. In a war, victory is possible.

None of those conditions apply to the "war on terrorism." And each time Bush claims that US military strength can and will be victorious, he unjustly dignifies the band of criminals that are the terrorists. And he perpetuates the silly illusion that somehow sending fighter jets to rain fire on some far away nation can stop those who hate the West from killing people in our major cities.

War begets war. You don't need to believe the relativist argument that US aggression justifies terrorism to see how -- to take but one example -- an unprovoked military invasion that has killed more than 22,000 Iraqi civilians while enriching American corporations might breed contempt. It is in such situations that the few in any society inclined to hatred become radicalized. Such is the culture of hatred and revenge, as surely in geopolitics as in samurai films or the family feuds of the American south: with one side's victory begins the other's quest for vengeance.

This is not a war. This is criminal activity that must be policed. But like all crime, we must deal both with tracking down and incarcerating the criminals and with ameliorating the conditions that breed crime. Everyone knows it is foolish to pursue a long-term urban crime-prevention strategy without ensuring educational programs and anti-poverty programs play a key role. The same must be true in the world at large.

If we -- again, in the broadest sense of "we," meaning the developed world at large -- are to be peacemakers, we must undertake to spread our prosperity to the citizens of other countries rather than just allowing our corporations to colonize and exploit them.

The man George W. Bush claims is his personal saviour famously instructed his followers to turn the other cheek, he called peacemakers blessed and warned that anyone who takes up the sword would die by it. Those are the words of his god, not ours. But we'd all be better off if he and other world leaders would heed them as they attempt to deal with terrorism.

.

I was amazed when I read this because it was so very close to what I have been thinking for quite sometime.

Having a "war on terrorism" is just as effective as "a war on drugs". In other words not effective at all. I see the main stumbling block to taking the approach of policing, education and anti-poverty as suggested above is that it doesn't come off looking like much is being done in the initial stages. It is a long term approach. Unfortunately politicians tend to shy away from this type of thinking. They would rather talk hard and carry a big stick (that they aren't afraid to use).

I fear that until we adjust our thinking that nothing will change.

07-22-2005, 07:47 AM

The part that rings true with me is this:

Quote:

"he unjustly dignifies the band of criminals that are the terrorists."

Mobilising a full millitary response gives the 2-bit criminals who perpetrate these attacks an enormous boost in their credibility, and support.

stevo · 07-22-2005, 08:39 AM

That is why iraq is part of the war on terror. Because setting up a democracy to be run by the people will beget personal freedoms, a free market, better economy, better standards of living, and in the end the knowledge that it was the US that helped them open the doors to these freedoms. That is the education and anti-poverty front of this war, while the military does the police work.

From there citizens in other countries in the middle east will see what iraqis have and want the same freedoms and increased quality of life. I can only imagine it gets better from there.

Charlatan · 07-22-2005, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

The part that rings true with me is this:

Mobilising a full millitary response gives the 2-bit criminals who perpetrate these attacks an enormous boost in their credibility, and support.

That part struck me as something that is mostly overlooked by those who support "the war on terrorism" as well.

stevo · 07-22-2005, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

The part that rings true with me is this:

Mobilising a full millitary response gives the 2-bit criminals who perpetrate these attacks an enormous boost in their credibility, and support.

I think destroying the wtc and killing 3,000 americans gives them an enormous boost in their credibility and support.

roachboy · 07-22-2005, 08:42 AM

the persistance of that feature of the mythology that was the wolfowitz doctrone is amazing to me. it is about as accurate as the expectation that the americans would be greeted as liberators, marching up flower-strewn streets, that the war would be short and easy and pay for itself.....but it speaks to the "long view" in which messy things like reality are smoothed away

Charlatan · 07-22-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I think destroying the wtc and killing 3,000 americans gives them an enormous boost in their credibility and support.

No doubt. But the point being made is that mobilising the largest armed force on the planet to root out the leaders of this action does more to bolster their position than the action itself.

alansmithee · 07-22-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I read an editorial the other day that I found really touched on just what I think is wrong with our appraoch to terrorism in the west. I wanted to share it with you.

.

I was amazed when I read this because it was so very close to what I have been thinking for quite sometime.

I agree with much of what was said, excepting the last 4 paragrapghs or so.

Quote:

Having a "war on terrorism" is just as effective as "a war on drugs". In other words not effective at all. I see the main stumbling block to taking the approach of policing, education and anti-poverty as suggested above is that it doesn't come off looking like much is being done in the initial stages. It is a long term approach. Unfortunately politicians tend to shy away from this type of thinking. They would rather talk hard and carry a big stick (that they aren't afraid to use).

I fear that until we adjust our thinking that nothing will change.

They are not inherently ineffective, they are ineffective due to the lack of will to do what would be necessary to combat them.

moosenose · 07-22-2005, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Unfortunately politicians tend to shy away from this type of thinking. They would rather talk hard and carry a big stick (that they aren't afraid to use).

I fear that until we adjust our thinking that nothing will change.

Pacifism in the face of aggression sure did work well during the 20th Century, didn't it? Try and find a European Gypsy or Jew that survived that time, and see how well their pacifism worked...

People who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for the people who didn't.

Charlatan · 07-22-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I agree with much of what was said, excepting the last 4 paragrapghs or so.

Naturally the four paragraphs that I found to be the most importand ones in the piece.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

They are not inherently ineffective, they are ineffective due to the lack of will to do what would be necessary to combat them.

And what would that be, in your opinion?

moosenose · 07-22-2005, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

No doubt. But the point being made is that mobilising the largest armed force on the planet to root out the leaders of this action does more to bolster their position than the action itself.

Excuse us if instead of licking the boots of those who attacked us, we instead respond by putting our boots in their asses.

Charlatan · 07-22-2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Pacifism in the face of aggression sure did work well during the 20th Century, didn't it? Try and find a European Gypsy or Jew that survived that time, and see how well their pacifism worked...

People who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for the people who didn't.

Reading what you want and ignoring the rest as usual I see...

Nowhere in this editorial does it suggest that pacifism is the approach to be taken. What is being suggested is another approach to the problem. One that treats terrorism as a criminal action rather than a cause for war.

Wars are fought between nations.

moosenose · 07-22-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Reading what you want and ignoring the rest as usual I see...

Nowhere in this editorial does it suggest that pacifism is the approach to be taken. What is being suggested is another approach to the problem. One that treats terrorism as a criminal action rather than a cause for war.

Wars are fought between nations.

And how, exactly, do you arrest suicide bombers after they've bombed you? Criminal prosecution only works on the living...

Wars are often not fought between nations, take your pick of the guerrilla wars of the 20th Century as an example...

Charlatan · 07-22-2005, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Excuse us if instead of licking the boots of those who attacked us, we instead respond by putting our boots in their asses.

Please boot away. It seems to be working well so far.

I haven't seen a terrorist attack in, what... days?

I truly believe another course of action is required, and your posts just further convince me that many are not ready for a long term solution. Ass kicking will make you feel better in the short run, because you feel you are "getting something done." But in the end, ass kicking alone just keeps the situation status quo.

The only way ass kicking is going to solve this problem is when you kill every single person (man,woman and child) that would potentially raise up against you.

I don't think you have enough bullets.

Charlatan · 07-22-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

And how, exactly, do you arrest suicide bombers after they've bombed you? Criminal prosecution only works on the living...

...and how do you go to war with someone who has already blown themselves up?

moosenose · 07-22-2005, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I haven't seen a terrorist attack in, what... days?

snip

The only way ass kicking is going to solve this problem is when you kill every single person (man,woman and child) that would potentially raise up against you.

I don't think you have enough bullets.

We already routinely make billions of rounds of ammo a year simply for domestic consumption. When was the last terror attack in the US? And we don't need to kill every person who might fight against us, if we kill enough of them, they'll eventually learn that attacking us comes at too high of a price for them.

moosenose · 07-22-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

...and how do you go to war with someone who has already blown themselves up?

By attacking the institutions that molded them. A good start would be going after the radical schools. We don't have to kill the kids, we have to kill their teachers.

If you shout "death to America", you should expect death FROM America.

Charlatan · 07-22-2005, 09:32 AM

Nothing like a little escalation to keep them in their place... eh?

Clearly nothing I could say would ever change your mind that peace can be had from the end your gun. Clearly you would stand on your wall and shoot anyone who might cross you rather than change their minds about why they were angry with you in the first place.

On the contrary I think, as the editorial suggests, we need to be doing more than *just* killing people. We need to offer an alternative to what they already (rightly or wrongly) believe about us. Killing, en masse, those who would oppose us is *not* going to change any opinions. In the end, all that does is throw the tools of terror (the threat of death) back in their faces.

Short term solutions are not the answer. Never are.

stevo · 07-22-2005, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

When was the last terror attack in the US? And we don't need to kill every person who might fight against us, if we kill enough of them, they'll eventually learn that attacking us comes at too high of a price for them.

Maybe one reason there hasn't been another terror attack in the US...

Quote:

London's lessons
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, an author and terrorism analyst, says al Qaeda could execute a London-type train bombing "within 24" hours in the United States.
"But why attack here," Gen. McInerney said in an interview, "when you have leftists in America who have aided and abetted the enemy more than Tokyo Rose did in World War II? They don't need to set off bombs. If they set off bombs, they would silence the shrill of leftists in the United States."
Gen. McInerney says the July 7 London bombing was an attempt by Muslim militants to bring down Prime Minister Tony Blair and see him replaced by a left-wing Laborite who would pull troops out of Iraq.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...777r_page2.htm

you can start from the beginning if it pleases you http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm

Charlatan · 07-22-2005, 11:03 AM

In another thread, zen_tom has put this well:

Quote:

I'm not arguing for us in the west to concede anything, I just think our tactics have been counter-productive. As a citizen of the west, I want to see us 'win' in this battle of ideologies - and I don't see our use of millitary action helping us achieve that goal.

I too want to see us win. I don't cede the argument that so-called lefties have, "aided and abetted the enemy more than Tokyo Rose".

I think what is trying to be discussed here is: Is there another way to approach the problem of Terrorism?

I think many of us here feel there is. I think many of us feel that the current approach simply isn't working... or better put, won't provide any lasting soloutions.

stevo · 07-22-2005, 11:09 AM

I don't think there is any quick fix to the terrorism problem. I'm not willing to say it isn't working after a only few years. Lasting solutions will be the ones our childern and grandchildren see.

roachboy · 07-22-2005, 11:14 AM

well, one way to obviate the problems with the administration's policies is to find generals willing to trot out wholly lunatic interpretations of london last week such as stevo bit from the weekly world news--erm washington times.
what is interesting is that very quickly political divisions that might take shape around the bushworld policies regarding its preferred boegyman "terrorism" develop into mutually exclusive information sets...after lat thursday, there was an interesting window opened onto the various discourses that frame the question of what to do--the british situation seems much less centralized, with a variety of discourses operating, where the american one, particularly that of the american right, is wholly uniform--at points of contact in messageboards public and private, the american conservative view of the question was being laughed out of consideration--different information, different political frames around it.

this splitting of information is important, i think, in that is traces the outline of how political divisions in the states are currently constructed and maintained.

Charlatan · 07-22-2005, 11:15 AM

Actually I want to rephrase a bit of that... While I would like to see us win, I don't know that we will ever be able to fully "win". I don't think you can ever get rid of terrorism.

The key is socially and politically isolate those who would use terrorism as a tool for political change. To remove the impetus that emboldens people to shift from law abiding citizens to criminal behaviour.

Here is something to think about:

When a neighbourhood is known for it's criminal activities do we just level the neighbourhood, trying not to but inevitably killing innocents? Or do we, go after those who are responsible for the crime while working within the community to institute change?

kutulu · 07-22-2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

We already routinely make billions of rounds of ammo a year simply for domestic consumption. When was the last terror attack in the US? And we don't need to kill every person who might fight against us, if we kill enough of them, they'll eventually learn that attacking us comes at too high of a price for them.

We've already killed over 100 thousand. Just how many should we kill to 'get the message' to them?

kutulu · 07-22-2005, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

They are not inherently ineffective, they are ineffective due to the lack of will to do what would be necessary to combat them.

The war on drugs has been raging for over 20 years. Sentences get longer and longer and drugs keep flowing like mad. It is ineffective because there is always another person ready to take a risk for high rewards. Same goes to the War of Fearmongering, err War on Terror.

stevo · 07-22-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

We've already killed over 100 thousand. Just how many should we kill to 'get the message' to them?

Do you have a source for this?

Zodiak · 07-22-2005, 02:48 PM

I believe the 100 thousand is a reference to three sources.

The first of these is an epidemiology study in Lancet that estimated the number of dead based on an extensive household survey. The standard deviation was rather high on this study, but it was a first look at the documented + undocumented deaths in a chaotic war zone.

Quote:

Although the paper's authors acknowledge that thorough data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect are extensive: Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it. Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.
.
"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team. He said the team had excluded deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, since that city was the site of unusually intense violence.
.
In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in the family since the conflict started in March 2003. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by coalition forces - mostly airstrikes - and most of the reported deaths were of women and children.
.
The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers found.
.
"The fact that more than half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces were women and children is a cause for concern," the authors wrote.

From the International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/toll.html

There is also a survey by an Iraqi humanitarian organization, which arguabbly has better access to the country. They estimated the number of civilian deaths to be 128,000. One could, of course, argue that this organization has an axe to grind since their country has been devastated by an agressive war.

Quote:

Iraqi civilian casualties

By UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

07/12/05 "UPI" - - BAGHDAD -- An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.

Mafkarat al-Islam reported that chairman of the 'Iraqiyun humanitarian organization in Baghdad, Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, said that the toll includes everyone who has been killed since that time, adding that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under.

'Iraqiyun obtained data from relatives and families of the deceased, as well as from Iraqi hospitals in all the country's provinces. The 128,000 figure only includes those whose relatives have been informed of their deaths and does not include those were abducted, assassinated or simply disappeared.

The number includes those who died during the U.S. assaults on al-Fallujah and al-Qa'im. 'Iraqiyun's figures conflict with the Iraqi Body Count public database compiled by Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. According to the Graduate Institute of International Studies' database, 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since March 2003. No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued by the Pentagon, which insists that it does not do "body counts." The Washington Post on July 12 reported that U.S. military deaths in Iraq now total 1,755.

Copyright © 2005 News World Communications Inc.

That was originally from the UPI http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9460.htm

The third source escapes me. I apologize for not recalling it.

However, a pro-coalition advicacy group published an article recently with an estimate of 25,000 casualties. The only problem with this study is that the numbers are exactly the same as the numbers of documented deaths, which is impossible in a country that large with that much of a breakdown of law and order and no appreciable journalist activity. Still the primary reason we do not have an accurate, reliable estimate is because journalists are not safe enough to report anything in Iraq outside of the Green Zone.

The number of documented, reported deaths are around 25,000 on the Iraq body count websites (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/), but those that run the sites publically acknowledge that they do not know anything about many hot-spots and only report deaths reported in the media. There is a big information hole outside of the Green Zone, as any reporter will attest.

The coalition forces refuse to keep count, so all we are left with are these studies. This is a new trend for the United States to refuse to report civilian casualties and, to me, is prima fascia evidence that the United States may not be acting in accordance with the Geneva Conventions in this war. After all, to hide a crime, one must hide the evidence.

alansmithee · 07-23-2005, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

And what would that be, in your opinion?

The way to combat both drugs and terrorism in my opinion is to make it too costly to take part in either. Obviously what we are doing not is not great enough deterrent, so we must up the ante. To combat terrorism effectively through warfare, we must essentially behave as the terrorists-we must humiliate, degrade, and kill those deemed as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. We must let them know that terrorist attacks will not be tolerated, and make sure that the populace is more afraid of what we will do to them then what the terrorists would do to them. Obviously, this would not happen, but I do believe it to be the most effective way of dealing with the current wave of terrorist activity.

hannukah harry · 07-23-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

The way to combat both drugs and terrorism in my opinion is to make it too costly to take part in either. Obviously what we are doing not is not great enough deterrent, so we must up the ante. To combat terrorism effectively through warfare, we must essentially behave as the terrorists-we must humiliate, degrade, and kill those deemed as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. We must let them know that terrorist attacks will not be tolerated, and make sure that the populace is more afraid of what we will do to them then what the terrorists would do to them. Obviously, this would not happen, but I do believe it to be the most effective way of dealing with the current wave of terrorist activity.

if they're already willing to die for their cause, why do you think humiliating and degrading them is going to stop them? even the sympathisers... it's just gonna piss them off more and push them even further. they aren't little kids that you can spank in public and they'll change their behaviors. to combat terrorism you have to stop the current wave while removing the atomosphere that 'grew' them in the first place. degrading and humiliating them isn't going to remove that atomosphere, it'll just make it worse.

alansmithee · 07-23-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

if they're already willing to die for their cause, why do you think humiliating and degrading them is going to stop them? even the sympathisers... it's just gonna piss them off more and push them even further. they aren't little kids that you can spank in public and they'll change their behaviors. to combat terrorism you have to stop the current wave while removing the atomosphere that 'grew' them in the first place. degrading and humiliating them isn't going to remove that atomosphere, it'll just make it worse.

Not all are willing to die, and for many of those willing to give their own lives they have others who they don't want to see hurt. I have seen no evidence of a feasible way to stop the atmosphere, short of mass islamic conversion in the western world. Since it seems we can't change their views/beliefs, you must force them to change their behavior.

hannukah harry · 07-23-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Not all are willing to die, and for many of those willing to give their own lives they have others who they don't want to see hurt. I have seen no evidence of a feasible way to stop the atmosphere, short of mass islamic conversion in the western world. Since it seems we can't change their views/beliefs, you must force them to change their behavior.

but we can change their behavior. look at iran. all reports i've read basically say that the youth are pro-america/west and don't support the ayatolla. for the most part, it's just a matter of waiting for the older generation to die out, the current crop of 20-somethings and younger are ready for the change.

look at iraq pre-invasion. they were a secular nation and the poeple didn't seem to have any qualms living like that.

you can't change peoples hearts and minds like you would flip a switch. and to try to do it by gunpoint, well, you're asking them to flip the switch. during the inquisition, many jews converted to catholocism and in private retained their judiasm. we could convert all the muslims to 'western culture' (which outside of religious conversion, we're already doing through the exportation of our businesses and way of life) instantly, but then we'll just have more people resistant to change who will one day get their revenge.

it just seems to me that in order to stop terrorism, we can not rely solely on the sword. but so far that seems to be the only thing we've brought to it.

pig · 07-24-2005, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

To combat terrorism effectively through warfare, we must essentially behave as the terrorists-we must humiliate, degrade, and kill those deemed as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.

I agree with much of Harry's post, so I'm not going to repeat. My other question is whether or not it's worth becoming your enemy in order to defeat it. How do you recover when the war is over, and when do you know that it is over? I don't in any way or sense condone terrorist activities, nor do I condone people blaming the West for terrorism - however, I also don't think that it is very surprising that this sort of response arises when you look at the economic disparity between the cultures. I personally think that it's much more important that we export some of our comfort than our democracy, and I furthermore do not think that we will stop or even appreciably stave off this behavior by military action. It's just too damn easy to make bombs and kill innocent people on subways and street corners to permanently reduce terrorist attacks with military solutions, short of genocide.

Mantus · 07-24-2005, 11:13 AM

alansmithee,

Concerning drugs. Upping the stakes won't solve the problem. It's been tried. Addictions is differnt type of animal. When you are in the gutter, nothing matters. The higher the costs, the more money those producing the drugs make. They will always find buyers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

and make sure that the populace is more afraid of what we will do to them then what the terrorists would do to them.

What is the point of solving one problem if you reproduce the symptom though another action? You are aliviating fear and cost of terrorism with fear of the state and cost of police action.

Further more, don't you think this will induce, hate, anger, and public rebelion? You know what that equals.

07-22-2005, 08:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	That is why iraq is part of the war on terror. Because setting up a democracy to be run by the people will beget personal freedoms, a free market, better economy, better standards of living, and in the end the knowledge that it was the US that helped them open the doors to these freedoms. That is the education and anti-poverty front of this war, while the military does the police work. From there citizens in other countries in the middle east will see what iraqis have and want the same freedoms and increased quality of life. I can only imagine it gets better from there. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

07-22-2005, 08:42 AM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the persistance of that feature of the mythology that was the wolfowitz doctrone is amazing to me. it is about as accurate as the expectation that the americans would be greeted as liberators, marching up flower-strewn streets, that the war would be short and easy and pay for itself.....but it speaks to the "long view" in which messy things like reality are smoothed away __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-22-2005, 09:32 AM	#18 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Nothing like a little escalation to keep them in their place... eh? Clearly nothing I could say would ever change your mind that peace can be had from the end your gun. Clearly you would stand on your wall and shoot anyone who might cross you rather than change their minds about why they were angry with you in the first place. On the contrary I think, as the editorial suggests, we need to be doing more than just killing people. We need to offer an alternative to what they already (rightly or wrongly) believe about us. Killing, en masse, those who would oppose us is not going to change any opinions. In the end, all that does is throw the tools of terror (the threat of death) back in their faces. Short term solutions are not the answer. Never are. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 07-22-2005 at 09:50 AM..

07-22-2005, 11:09 AM	#21 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I don't think there is any quick fix to the terrorism problem. I'm not willing to say it isn't working after a only few years. Lasting solutions will be the ones our childern and grandchildren see. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

07-22-2005, 11:14 AM	#22 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, one way to obviate the problems with the administration's policies is to find generals willing to trot out wholly lunatic interpretations of london last week such as stevo bit from the weekly world news--erm washington times. what is interesting is that very quickly political divisions that might take shape around the bushworld policies regarding its preferred boegyman "terrorism" develop into mutually exclusive information sets...after lat thursday, there was an interesting window opened onto the various discourses that frame the question of what to do--the british situation seems much less centralized, with a variety of discourses operating, where the american one, particularly that of the american right, is wholly uniform--at points of contact in messageboards public and private, the american conservative view of the question was being laughed out of consideration--different information, different political frames around it. this splitting of information is important, i think, in that is traces the outline of how political divisions in the states are currently constructed and maintained. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-22-2005, 11:15 AM	#23 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Actually I want to rephrase a bit of that... While I would like to see us win, I don't know that we will ever be able to fully "win". I don't think you can ever get rid of terrorism. The key is socially and politically isolate those who would use terrorism as a tool for political change. To remove the impetus that emboldens people to shift from law abiding citizens to criminal behaviour. Here is something to think about: When a neighbourhood is known for it's criminal activities do we just level the neighbourhood, trying not to but inevitably killing innocents? Or do we, go after those who are responsible for the crime while working within the community to institute change? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke