40 replies to this topic

[AZZKIKR]

For me yes. Understanding is vital as most countries are multi-racial and multi-religion. If more understanding occurs, then less conflict would occur. your views?

:i made this topic as i'm tired of rascists:

[Shirou]

I just fail to see what is to understand of a brainwashed people blowing themselves up to kill as many others as possible in the name of their deity.

And who exactly should understand what. You talk about curbing terrorism, and doing it the 'moral' way instead of sending dozens of troops to the middle east to fight the source of the scum. Then, the people comitting the acts of terrorism should be the one to 'understand' that they have been led astray.

What do we have to understand?

[Warbz]

Understand why they do it.

[Chyros]

Terrorism is by definition not trying to create understanding. It's about scaring people into doing what you want. So for me it's quite obvious that understanding won't solve the slightest thing about terrorism.

[NanSolo]

Terrorism isn't an idealogy, it's a tactic. Terrorists don't see themselves as evil but as freedom fighters. What needs to happen is that we can create a global environment where everyone receives equal freedoms (judicial, social and economic) and an ideaology that values those freedoms above everything else. Once that happens nobody will have any reason to engage in terrorism.

[Ion Cannon!]

Terrorists are deluded, even with an ideaology they would still blow stuff up. There is nothing to understand but this. We need to wipe their stain from humanity.

[CommanderJB]

I don't think the issue is actually understanding why they do it; rather, understanding what makes them feel like they have to do it. It's been said before that it's fairly easy to create your own terrorist; simply play on the powerful emotions of hatred, fear, and most importantly build a sense of loyalty to peers, and someone will eventually feel they are obligated to place themselves behind what they honestly believe in. To write them all off as nutters and insane lunatics who have no other desire than to blow things up, and as such who need to be carpet bombed out of existence, isn't the way to deal with the problem. Firstly, remove the hate. This is difficult as we live in a world which works by gaining advantage at the expense of others, but nonetheless we can change the way we deal with problems and politics. International aid, lifting these disadvantaged countries out of poverty, and doing this at the expense of your own countrymen's lives (i.e. not responding to force with force, something intensely difficult because of basic human anger), funding to NGOs, implementation of the Millennium Development Goals and proving to people that we are not their enemies is the way to make them not want to fight you. A happy person is not a terrorist. Equally, we need to deal unequivocally at the root causes, by which I mean those who sit at the centre of the web playing on people's feelings to build armies for their own personal aggrandisement. But don't make martyrs; there's no faster way to undo any gains than by making people feel that those telling them otherwise were right all along. Instead, negotiation, societal change, intervention at every level and removal of these people's ability to make armies (stopping that damn weapons trade would help) are the only ways to degrade terrorism without strengthening it somewhere else.
Lastly, it needs overwhelming support and concentration. The Karbala Dam in Afghanistan is a truly giant Soviet hydroelectric station that could - get this - power one third of the country if it was working at capacity. But the thing hasn't been serviced in forty years and desperately needs new parts and new turbines. The only way to open up the route for these convoys with the necessary parts - parts which could revolutionise life across the country - is to use over ten thousand troops to secure the roads, sweep the area, and ensure the safety of the workers. There are only several hundred in the area, and every time they show up and help the locals, the enemy simply fades away, then returns later to threaten and kill those who accept the gifts they offer. Do you see what I mean? Screw political will, if you want to make a change, you need to tackle it with everything. Doing one thing - often the wrong thing - will never make a difference.

So what did that all say? We do understand terrorists and how they become what they are. The motivations are remarkably simple. This gives us the knowledge we need to fight the problem, and we don't do this by 'understanding', we do it by help. Not force, not intervention, but by help and giving people no opportunity to see you as the bad guy. Protracted, sustained, cross-spectrum help. Where we need understanding is back home. That's what needs to be cured by simple understanding; our perceptions of them as bad guys, not the other way around. We give terrorists every reason to hate us, or they wouldn't be terrorists. It's us who needs to change in that regard.

[Ion Cannon!]

While you made some good points JB, alot of which I agree with *The west could certainly do alot more to help another nations* Terrorists are killing innocent people because they believe this will convince us to give in to their demands. This in itself is never going to happen, surely the terrorists know it as well, and if they really believe killing innocent people will lead to change then that leads me to believe they are indeed deluded.

[CommanderJB]

Delusion is an interesting concept. Indeed they are 'deluded' in that killing people is horrific and will never make anyone's life better, certainly nor theirs. What I meant by their not being deluded is that the common image of raving maniacs beyond any grip of reason charging lines and surviving bullets just long enough to pull the detonation cord is not an adequate or accurate image of a terrorist. Terrorists are normal, perfectly sane people who have been tricked into believing that they can make a difference by sacrificing themselves, and moreover have an obligation to do so.
You are quite right - in fact they are extremely deluded, and I never claimed otherwise (nor used the word at all I do believe). To say that they are not insane carries the meaning better.

Edited by CommanderJB, 23 September 2008 - 03:25.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Understanding? What's there to understand? Once someone has decided he's going to sacrifice himself to "something greater than him/herself", it's nigh impossible to restore their sanity and moral guidance.

[General]

AZZKIKR, on 22 Sep 2008, 15:48, said:

For me yes. Understanding is vital as most countries are multi-racial and multi-religion. If more understanding occurs, then less conflict would occur. your views?

You can't just sit on a table and try to talk and agree with a person which wants to kill all who think different than them in a part of the country.

[AZZKIKR]

well, what i meant is if more understanding between the religions, more people will see the good and commonness. Understanding is respecting a friend of different religions

[NanSolo]

General, on 23 Sep 2008, 7:56, said:

AZZKIKR, on 22 Sep 2008, 15:48, said:

For me yes. Understanding is vital as most countries are multi-racial and multi-religion. If more understanding occurs, then less conflict would occur. your views?

You can't just sit on a table and try to talk and agree with a person which wants to kill all who think different than them in a part of the country.

And I don't think anyone is suggesting just talking with them at a table. Defeating terrorism can't be done overnight, and it can't be done with the use of force. As CommanderJB explained it's a long multi-facted process that is going to take years.

[General]

NanSolo, on 23 Sep 2008, 11:56, said:

And I don't think anyone is suggesting just talking with them at a table. Defeating terrorism can't be done overnight, and it can't be done with the use of force. As CommanderJB explained it's a long multi-facted process that is going to take years.

And noone thinks it will be done overnight. Also without using force you will only let them ' get what they want ' and that will be failure in your side. If they are fighting againist you , you must defend yourself with military means, if they only making propaganda and wishes to get supporters only, if you wanna act; you must act in political means.

[CommanderJB]

General, on 23 Sep 2008, 21:51, said:

Also without using force you will only let them ' get what they want ' and that will be failure in your side. If they are fighting againist you , you must defend yourself with military means, if they only making propaganda and wishes to get supporters only, if you wanna act; you must act in political means.

No you must not. Let me give you an example in the clearest possible way; using reality. The attack of September 11th, 2001, killed 2.999 people. Military casualties in the Iraq war of the Coalition alone stand at 4,482, with another 1,193 contractors, 10,823 Iraqi police and security contractors, and another up to 10,800 ordinary Iraqi soldiers in the initial invasion - the list goes on. The total number of violent deaths in Iraq as a result of the invasion stands at over one million. Every single one of the dozens of U.S. intelligence agencies agrees that Iraqi Freedom and all associated operations have increased the threat of terrorism to the U.S. Do you understand? This is what you get when you meet force with force.

[General]

CommanderJB, on 23 Sep 2008, 14:37, said:

General, on 23 Sep 2008, 21:51, said:

Also without using force you will only let them ' get what they want ' and that will be failure in your side. If they are fighting againist you , you must defend yourself with military means, if they only making propaganda and wishes to get supporters only, if you wanna act; you must act in political means.

No you must not. Let me give you an example in the clearest possible way; using reality. The attack of September 11th, 2001, killed 2.999 people. Military casualties in the Iraq war of the Coalition alone stand at 4,482, with another 1,193 contractors, 10,823 Iraqi police and security contractors, and another up to 10,800 ordinary Iraqi soldiers in the initial invasion - the list goes on. The total number of violent deaths in Iraq as a result of the invasion stands at over one million. Every single one of the dozens of U.S. intelligence agencies agrees that Iraqi Freedom and all associated operations have increased the threat of terrorism to the U.S. Do you understand? This is what you get when you meet force with force.

Yes I do understand. But can you tell me what should be happen to Al-Qaeda if noone acted in military manner ? I am telling these words as a neutral person, neither in side of US's nor al qaeda's

[Wizard]

This is one area I have little or no will or empathy to understand. I do not do any direct harm to those who seek to use terrorist means to me or my fellow man. So why should I want to understand them better? No I want to see them wiped out. There a many issues in modern society I feel are wrong and some plain evil, however I don't kidnapp representatives of these "evils" and behead them. I have a serious pet gripe with trashy tabloid press, but I haven't kidknapped one of their hacks and hacked their head off. Nor have I driven a lorry load of explosives into the front door of my bank when they overcharged me. People who have this sort of hate deserve no more than hate back. Pity would normally do, but I feel none.

[Chyros]

Quote

his is one area I have little or no will or empathy to understand. I do not do any direct harm to those who seek to use terrorist means to me or my fellow man. So why should I want to understand them better? No I want to see them wiped out. There a many issues in modern society I feel are wrong and some plain evil, however I don't kidnapp representatives of these "evils" and behead them. I have a serious pet gripe with trashy tabloid press, but I haven't kidknapped one of their hacks and hacked their head off. Nor have I driven a lorry load of explosives into the front door of my bank when they overcharged me. People who have this sort of hate deserve no more than hate back. Pity would normally do, but I feel none.

That issue is complicated by that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The situations you describe are obviously evil but in reality most terrorists truly believe they're doing the right thing for their people or their religion. Personally I would never condone any act of aggression because they are prescribed by a religion but it's more difficult if somebody of the "freedom fighter" type is considered. Would you consider a suicide bomber who tried to blow up a member of, say, the Taliban's or Saddam Hussein's party, which were in their times the ruling regimes, a terrorist? Would you call Guy Fawkes a terrorist? The line isn't always easy to draw.

CommanderJB, on 23 Sep 2008, 15:37, said:

No you must not. Let me give you an example in the clearest possible way; using reality. The attack of September 11th, 2001, killed 2.999 people. Military casualties in the Iraq war of the Coalition alone stand at 4,482, with another 1,193 contractors, 10,823 Iraqi police and security contractors, and another up to 10,800 ordinary Iraqi soldiers in the initial invasion - the list goes on. The total number of violent deaths in Iraq as a result of the invasion stands at over one million. Every single one of the dozens of U.S. intelligence agencies agrees that Iraqi Freedom and all associated operations have increased the threat of terrorism to the U.S. Do you understand? This is what you get when you meet force with force.

I'll save most of this discussion for when the politics forum gets here, but the example you provide is somewhat skewered IMO because the attack on Iraq was not an answer to 9/11 nor to any other terrorist attack. In fact, Saddam Hussein was actually one of Osama Bin Laden's greatest enemies.

[Wizard]

Chyros, on 23 Sep 2008, 18:16, said:

That issue is complicated by that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The situations you describe are obviously evil but in reality most terrorists truly believe they're doing the right thing for their people or their religion. Personally I would never condone any act of aggression because they are prescribed by a religion but it's more difficult if somebody of the "freedom fighter" type is considered. Would you consider a suicide bomber who tried to blow up a member of, say, the Taliban's or Saddam Hussein's party, which were in their times the ruling regimes, a terrorist? Would you call Guy Fawkes a terrorist? The line isn't always easy to draw.

Not to argue for arguments sake, but I would call someone who blows up a target outside of their country a terrorist and not a freedom fighter. There is a strain of your argument that I do agree with and overall does give me some concern when discussing such matters, but let's get practical for a moment, the terrorists we speak of here are those that target innocent civilians, not men in uniform or FOBs. These are terrorists who want to force free thinking peoples out of their country. That (claim to) wage religious wars when those peoples are not restricted from practising their religions in the first place. It does to some degree boil down to ideology. These are terrorists who want to be top of their societies ideological food chain but aren't and target those that are, so to speak.

Edit: When I say force the free thinkers out I mean their ideologies, not the peoples themselves, although that maybe the case also.

[Overdose]

You can only fight terrorist by fighting back.

However to prevent terrorism violence is not the answer. In fact violence will only further create more terrorism. Terrorism is more than religious fanaticism, it can take any shape or form. I can't wait for the politics forum to come online so I can discuss further.

[CommanderJB]

Chyros, on 24 Sep 2008, 3:16, said:

CommanderJB, on 23 Sep 2008, 15:37, said:

No you must not. Let me give you an example in the clearest possible way; using reality. The attack of September 11th, 2001, killed 2.999 people. Military casualties in the Iraq war of the Coalition alone stand at 4,482, with another 1,193 contractors, 10,823 Iraqi police and security contractors, and another up to 10,800 ordinary Iraqi soldiers in the initial invasion - the list goes on. The total number of violent deaths in Iraq as a result of the invasion stands at over one million. Every single one of the dozens of U.S. intelligence agencies agrees that Iraqi Freedom and all associated operations have increased the threat of terrorism to the U.S. Do you understand? This is what you get when you meet force with force.

I'll save most of this discussion for when the politics forum gets here, but the example you provide is somewhat skewered IMO because the attack on Iraq was not an answer to 9/11 nor to any other terrorist attack. In fact, Saddam Hussein was actually one of Osama Bin Laden's greatest enemies.

The reasons for the war are of course not open for discussion here yet, but nonetheless, it was the United States' decision to take a military response to terrorism that ignited the Afghanistan conflict and effectively as a direct result, with other factors, the Iraq war. I think we can probably agree that if 9/11 had never happened, then the current conflicts in the Middle East wouldn't have happened either, and the response to 9/11 - the 'War on Terror' - hasn't, broadly speaking, worked.

To put it simply, terrorism feeds on hate, fear, and loyalty. Nothing creates these three feelings like violence. For every 'insurgent' you kill, the violence will touch their family, touch their friends, touch their leaders and comrades and your net result will not be positive.
Also I'd like to apologise for some of the strength of my previous posts. I am intensely rejective of the idea of a 'War on Terror' and believe extremely strongly in the uselessness of force in this situation. I am sorry if my beliefs have led to a shorter than usual, and sometimes possibly offensive, tone. This was not my intention.

Edited by CommanderJB, 24 September 2008 - 02:17.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Violence is the only way to end terrorism. Only a massive brainwashing and genocide campaign could stop terrorism, creating a massive police state. Problem is this defeats the purpose of fighting terrorism in the first place, so the best option is a defensive strategy.

[CommanderJB]

Dr. Strangelove, on 24 Sep 2008, 12:41, said:

Violence is the only way to end terrorism. Only a massive brainwashing and genocide campaign could stop terrorism, creating a massive police state. Problem is this defeats the purpose of fighting terrorism in the first place, so the best option is a defensive strategy.

What? 'Genocide' sure as hell isn't going to work; despite this stereotype created of all terrorists being Moslems from the Middle East, anyone, anywhere can become a terrorist. 'Race' (how I hate that redundant, meaningless and oft-misused term) doesn't play the slightest little part. According to the British, the people staging the Boston Tea Party were terrorists. So the answer is genocide against every member of their 'race'? I think not.
Terrorism can be stopped by removing the factors that create it; discontent and disadvantage. As I've already said, a happy person is not a terrorist. Make people happy - lift them out of poverty, educate them, give them the same benefits enjoyed by those in the Western world, and you will not see terrorism. That's why there are few American terrorists. Not because they're from America, but because of the prosperity they enjoy.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CommanderJB, on 24 Sep 2008, 3:16, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 24 Sep 2008, 12:41, said:

Violence is the only way to end terrorism. Only a massive brainwashing and genocide campaign could stop terrorism, creating a massive police state. Problem is this defeats the purpose of fighting terrorism in the first place, so the best option is a defensive strategy.

What? 'Genocide' sure as hell isn't going to work; despite this stereotype created of all terrorists being Moslems from the Middle East, anyone, anywhere can become a terrorist. 'Race' (how I hate that redundant, meaningless and oft-misused term) doesn't play the slightest little part. According to the British, the people staging the Boston Tea Party were terrorists. So the answer is genocide against every member of their 'race'? I think not.
Terrorism can be stopped by removing the factors that create it; discontent and disadvantage. As I've already said, a happy person is not a terrorist. Make people happy - lift them out of poverty, educate them, give them the same benefits enjoyed by those in the Western world, and you will not see terrorism. That's why there are few American terrorists. Not because they're from America, but because of the prosperity they enjoy.

The average terrorist is a college educated engineer. The only way to get rid of terrorism is to EXTERMINATE the ideology. Of course, that begs the question of whether its worth it in the first place It probably isn't.

[CommanderJB]

How do you intend to 'exterminate the ideology'? Even if you kill every single person on this Earth who believes that killing themselves for their cause is a legitimate tactic, if the disadvantage and the discontent remain, sooner or later someone else will get the same idea. There is no ideology behind terrorism; while ideology can generate terrorism, terrorism in itself is not an ideology. It's simply a tactic. You can't exterminate a tactic except my making it unneccesary.