Brainstorn session: How do we end world terrorism?

[dropzone]

Tall order, but you folks are among the "smartest...on the planet" and tempers have cooled so we can think logically. Yeah, there are plenty of discussions going on, but let's try to consolidate our ideas. Standard brainstorm rules apply:

1. One idea per post.
2. No attacking other ideas or posters. All ideas start out with equal merit during this round.
3. Please try to stay on topic.

[jabe]

Eradicate religion.


It seems to me that most terrorism is Muslim versus Christian or Judaism versus Muslim (or visa versa)

So, if there was no religion, people would have less to fight about. Also, ending world hunger, getting rid of insane materialism, realizing that capitalism just leads to unhappiness, and loving and respecting your neighbors would help.

These are just opinions.


peace,
JB

[Shimrod]

Pork Products are the solution.

If we can identify the bodies of the terrorists, we bury them wrapped in pig skins. Then make sure that everyone knows that we did it. Assure them that we will do the same to any Muslem terrorist that we catch. We have to do it the first time because then they will know that we will do it, because we did do it.

From my memory of comparative religion classes the Muslems beleave that contact with pork can distroy the soul and make it impossable to get to paradise. They are willing to commit suicide because they expect to get to paradise and be given 40 virgins. Lets see which of these two beliefs wins out. I think that they will have a shortage of volunteers after we do it.

We could also load tanker planes with pig blood and spray a fine mist of it all over Afganistan.

[jabe]

Sorry dropzone, but Shimrod- that post was both discusting and offensive. On this board we (try to) fight ignorance, we dont load it into tanker planes and spray it all over the place.


peace,
JB

[Hanna]

Ok...here's mine: Eliminate targets. In this day and age why does everything have to be clustered in one place, like Manhattan? Spread it out, this is a big country.

[NaSultainne]

Ahem. Er, dropzone, why don't we walk a bit while we're talking?
::glances over shoulder, leading dropzone away::

You had to go and ask the toughest question going these days, and I'm supposed to give you one idea?
Hmm. Okay, it's the basis, I guess, for everything that follows, and it's naturally the toughest:

Develop international cooperation unlike anything achieved to date. Not U.N., something more, or perhaps in a way, less. We're going to find out that some nations will cooperate to the hilt, others not at all. We need the largest possible organization of those in the former, which can be used to put diplomatic pressure on the latter. Think of this whole problem/solution as a tree, with all the hidden roots below ground leading to the trunk. That's what we're fighting, and that's what our international scope must look like as well. By the way, I think Bush, et al, is doing precisely this.

I also qualify this to this extent: America needs to act in an ethical and moral manner with clearcut goals plainly outlined. No more misunderstandings, don't let propaganda derail program.

Sorry if this is a bit long; seems to me this will require a depth of knowledge and foresight on our parts in order to succeed.

[dropzone]

All these ideas are very interesting! Let's try for some more. And let's try to keep our minds open and in full operation. We can take the most positive and useful ones as a basis for discussion later, but it's wide open now.


(Sorry, jabe, but the rules require me to accept all ideas as worthy of consideration, no matter how seemingly vile. There may be a positive seed in what Shimrod is saying. Were I in a position to have an opinion, though....)

[HairyPotter]

I believe we can reduce terrorism by taking advantage of the cooperative stance that even former adversaries have taken on since the Sept. 11 tragedy. A number of "adversaries" have expressed either a willingness to help, or at least the will to listen to our case against the alleged perpetrators of this terror. It would make both economic and humanitarian sense for us to negotiate cooperative agreements with these countries in order to enlist them as partners in the fight against terrorism. Such a stance would set a healthy precedent for cooperative relations in the future.

Next, I believe we have to build a strong and credible case linking the crime to the planners, facilitators, and financial backers. We cannot expect the world to take our word for it that it is Bin Laden, case-closed. We should treat the terrorists as the dangerous criminals they are. I believe that it is harmful to our cause to look upon the terrorists as animals affiliated with a particular religion. Such as stance can easily be interpreted as being racist or being terribly biased against a major world religion; not a good way to win friends and cooperation. We need to very, very aggresively hunt down the terrorists and bring them to justice, but we shouldn't treat this as if we are bounty hunters in the old west. We must respect human rights and international law during our effort to apprehend the suspects.

Finally, we need to build a cooperative world intelligence community dedicated to detecting and stopping terrorism. Member countries would need to share information, cooperate in finding and capturing terrorists, and working to eliminate situations in the world that render terrorism an attractive option.

[RoboDude]

If you ask me, it is highly important that we recognize that governments who actively harbor and support terrorists are as much the enemy as the terrorists themselves. We will never be safe from attacks of this magnitude as long as the terrorists are safe from prosecution.

[stolichnaya]

I think that part of getting under the skin of any terrorist movement is to completely understand their motivation. I don't believe that such an understanding currently exists. To the extent that it is possible, we need deep intel on goals, propaganda, values, power structure, motivation. Not soundbites like they "hate freedom and democracy". And that they are "evil". Such things may be true, but they offer very little in terms of constructive and predictive thought.

Also- the world revolves around money. This is as true in the criminal world as it is at Mom and Pop's Deli, if not more so. Things like flight school, training camps, brainwashing, bodyguards, safehouses, and ammunition cost moolah. The financial community and the intelligence agencies of various governments need to cooperate to track down and pinch off electronic exchange of cash by these individuals. There are sensitive privacy issues that need to be carefully dealt with here, but stanching the electronic cash flow is a prerequisite to getting a handle on this vaporous organization. It is a lot harder to run a 50-60 country wide criminal operation if you are limited to carrying greenbacks around in rucksacks.

Sorry there are two here dropzone, I think this is a fine idea for a thread.

[John Corrado]

Have it clearly established that any country which harbors terrorists will be considered at war with the rest of the world, and be attacked accordingly.


No fuss, no special circumstances. If a resident of your country commits or conspires to commit an act of terrorism in another country, your government either drops everything to find him/them and extradite them to a neutral location for trial (such as happened with Lockerbie), or your country is considered at war with all other nations.

We can't kill terrorism. There will *always* be fanatics for some cause who feel it's worth blowing themselves and/or other up- whether it be religion, environmentalism, gay rights, etc. What we *can* do is stop them from getting aid and support from other countries or their own government.

[Hazel]

IMO, it might help if the US stopped trying to be the world's policeman. Not to mention the world's arms dealer. If two groups (or three, or more) in some area of the world have a bitter emnity that has endured for literally centuries, this is not a problem we can solve. When we try, we create enemies whose sole goal is to destry us. It's up to the participants to the dispute to solve the dispute or put it behind them; and they won't do so until and unless they reach the point of acually wanting to solve it or end it. Meanwhile we should butt out. We should not try to compel them to stop killing each other, and we should not sell arms to either side or both. We can say, "we're here to help you if you want to settle this; we'll be glad to mediate--if all sides agree that they want us to do so." Otherwise, hands off.

Problem with adopting this stance -- what to do if one group appears to be comitting genocide vs. a way weaker opponent? It's tempting to intervene. But if we do so, IMO, we need to undersand that doing so is useless unless we're in it for the long term. We'll have to occupy the area. Keep troops there for as long as necessary to prevent further bloodshead. How long will that be? Well, 50 years was not long enough when the Soviets tried this... Centuries, I guess.

[Hazel]

Jabe, I like your idea: eradicate religion (Although I think it's organized religion that's the problem.) But how do we go about it?

Seems to me, it would be enough to, uh, de-fang religion. Bring about a situation where most people identify themselves as belonging to one of the standared religions, but it's a minor matter to them; no one cares much about it.

But I don't know how to go about that, either. Maybe we need to study countries/regions where this has actually happened? See if it's something that can be duplicated elsewhere.

[jesse morrison]

"Alpha Male" sperm banks (world wide).

jesse (American Eugenics Society Member)

[NaSultainne]

Ok, Hazel, I thought jabe was being sarcastic or something, but now you're starting to worry me. Brainwash a couple billion people to eliminate abuse of religious principles? Throw in some new and improved subliminal messages, hypnosis, and propaganda, and we'll have this messy world under control in no time. Please tell me you recognize the difference between religion per se and those who 'claim' religious doctrine as justification for acts such as last tuesday's attacks. Please.

[Hazel]

Well, NaSultainne, I said I had no idea how to go about bringing about the situation I have long wished obtained.

That is to say, a situation where organized religion no longer had any great power; where hardly anyone cared a whole lot about what religion anyone else was; where hardly anyone felt the need to prosletize (sorry for the spelling).

A situation where most people who really cared a lot about spiritual matters had no ties to organized religion, but followed their own path.

A situation where most people really believed that any religion is just as valid as any other religion, and that having no religion was just as valid a choice as having one.

A situation where no one hated anyone else over religion.

Wouldn't that be better then what we have now?

---------------------------------------------------

jesse morrison, could you explain your idea a little more? Seems to me that more "alpha males" is the LAST thing the world needs -- if I understand what the term means. Men who want to be in charge of all they survey? I think we might be better off with more beta, gamma, delta, etc. males.

[NaSultainne]

Hazel, sounds like you're arguing a humanist point of view. Okay. If religion is replaced by the supremacy of the individual, I submit the oppressors will change, not the oppression. Again I'd have to argue that religion isn't the problem, it's the interpretation of religion. At it's core, religion argues for responsibility. That's the good part. Society thrives when freedom is tempered with responsibility. Remove the latter, and freedom is corrupted. Many people live their lives according to their religious beliefs in a positive, beneficent manner. These people aren't the ones screaming for the death of the infidels, or the death of the satanic one(who's 'it' this week?) The ongoing struggles in Ireland, the Islamic Jihad being proclaimed, the genocide of Christians in Sudan, these are by people only disguised in religious garb. They aren't representative of, what I believe, are large numbers of religious faithful around the world working to make life a bit better for those around them. I don't argue the need to negate the influence of such as these, I just can't support the baby-with-the-bathwater response.

[RickJay]

Long term, merciless, non-stop warfare. The only real option, the only logical option, and in a twisted way, maybe the only moral option.

Consider a historical comparison I have not yet heard anyone use; Piracy on the high seas. Piracy has always been an international problem, but it reached one of its high points in the late 1600s and ended in the early 1700s. Like terrorism, piracy was, and is, a problem that defies categorization into the convenient bins of "War" or "Crime." Piracy on a large scale is certainly military in nature, and pirates often acted as navies and armies under contract. On the other hand the motives of pirates, and their tactics and targets, are usually those of criminals. They operate without regard to national borders. So what do you do?

Part of the reason pirates were such a problem around 1680-1720 was that the European powers could not collectively decide what to do about them. Some pirates were hunted, some to a lesser degree than others; some were hired by nations as privateers and mercenaries; some were dealt with as businessmen, some were not. Pirates could even form pseudo-states; the Barbary pirates, for example. There was no one approach or strategy. The prevailing political conveniences of the day reigned. That changed; in the early 18th century the maritime nations of the world basically went to war against pirates in perpetuity. Pirates were universally judged to be the "common enemies of mankind," and the world's navies sought to destroy them at every opporunity. With the death of the real Pirate Roberts in 1722, piracy was subdued under the weight of the world's naval forces.

Consider how similar the "Golden Age of Piracy" was to terrorism from World War II to today. Terrorists defy international boundaries and exist in a grey area between crime and war. They are dealt with in wildly different ways by different countries, executed in some places, hailed as heroes in others. They are used as mercenaries and even become pseudo-state organizations, as Hezbollah now is in Lebanon. States bow to political conveniences when dealing with them. There are no universal rules or apporaches.

The solution in 1720 was to declare them the common enemies of the human race, and to task the world's nations to hunt them down and kill them at every possible opportunity.

The solution in 2001, I believe, is the same.

[Wumpus]

Another thread on whether eliminating religion would prevent violence:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88210

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

Originally posted by Shimrod
Pork Products are the solution.

If we can identify the bodies of the terrorists, we bury them wrapped in pig skins. Then make sure that everyone knows that we did it. Assure them that we will do the same to any Muslem terrorist that we catch. We have to do it the first time because then they will know that we will do it, because we did do it.



Originally posted by jabe
Sorry dropzone, but Shimrod- that post was both discusting and offensive. On this board we (try to) fight ignorance, we dont load it into tanker planes and spray it all over the place.


Perhaps the "spray it in a mist all over Afghanistan" comment was out of line, but not the core of the idea, which I find absolutely fascinating, the first truly original idea I have seen, even if it won't work in this instance owing to the fact that the bodies of the terrorists have been vaporized. Shimrod, I salute you.

Some other good ideas too, mixed in with the inevitable silly ones. Someone mentioned we should follow the money. I would develop this to say, concentrate on the whole financial and support infrastructure. Assuming that the people who aid the suicide bombers are not suicidal themselves, conventional forms of deterrance will be effective against them in a way that they are not effective against people resigned to dieing.

I was also very interested in the analogy between terrorism and piracy. I think that should be developed more.

My own ideas? I think we should adopt some or all of the proposals in this article (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel.shtml). Some of them are controversial, but they are all more practical than eliminating religion or dispersing the cities. We are already discussing them in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88208).

[Gary Kumquat]

Much as I doubt that Shimrod's solution would work, you have to admire his methods. If you're going to fight dirty, go the whole hog (sorry).

[furt]

Originally posted by RickJay
Long term, merciless, non-stop warfare. The only real option, the only logical option, and in a twisted way, maybe the only moral option.
...
Consider a historical comparison I have not yet heard anyone use; Piracy on the high seas.
...
Pirates were universally judged to be the "common enemies of mankind," and the world's navies sought to destroy them at every opporunity.
...
The solution in 1720 was to declare them the common enemies of the human race, and to task the world's nations to hunt them down and kill them at every possible opportunity.
The solution in 2001, I believe, is the same.

I have heard this comparison made a couple of times, mostly in response to the question "how can we declare war if they're not a nation?" The US did declare a formal war against the Barbary pirates. (Who did at least have a location ... the shores of Tripoli)

The analogy seemed to fit, and it does even more now that I hear your explication of it.

And if we take the "attack on civilization" chorus that Tony Blair is teaching the EU to sing, it seems that this may be the way we're going to approach it this time.

Great post.

[dropzone]

You people are doing wonderfully! Please keep going.

[Barbarian]

Originally posted by Hazel
That is to say, a situation where organized religion no longer had any great power; where hardly anyone cared a whole lot about what religion anyone else was; where hardly anyone felt the need to prosletize (sorry for the spelling).

A situation where most people really believed that any religion is just as valid as any other religion, and that having no religion was just as valid a choice as having one.


It could be argued that this already exists in every first world Western country except the United States-- but that's for a different thread.

I also like your idea about the U.S. ceasing the sale of firearms and ammunition to war-torn countries.

My suggestion: Make everyone rich beyond their wildest dreams through nanotechnology. It's a heck of a lot harder to be angry at someone when you're not living in a hut.

[Mangetout]

I'd quite like to live in a hut

[Mangetout]

Seriously though, I think education is the way; educate you children that people are all different, for all sorts of diverse reasons and that's what makes the world such an interesting place to be. Abolish categories.

[Sofa King]

I think it might be useful to point out that terrorism is rather the opposite of democracy. Terrorism is the way an insignificant minority imposes its political will upon the much larger majority. (Yeah, yeah, Samuel Adams, Garibaldi, Bolivar... that's argument for another thread.) It is therefore entirely within American policy scope to denounce terrorism and the countries which support it.

Most of the nuclear powers, with the notable exception of China, are now representative governments. Terrorism, therefore, should be considered a number one threat.

My idea is both old-school and probably too new for the world today. Have the major powers of the world, and the UN if possible, announce that they will no longer recognize any government which even tacitly supports terrorism. Furthermore, those nations or aspiring nations which do resort to or support terrorism to further their goals should be attacked, subjugated, removed from their land base, and dispersed around the world to be assimilated or contained as conquered people as is their own desire.

Palestine is the most obvious and egregious example of an ignorant, barbarous nation which supports terrorism. Make them the first example: one more act of terrorism in their name, and they will join the hundreds of thousands of other Palestinians around the world who no longer hold citizenship in any nation because of their propensity for revolution and terror-tactics.

I have other, even more distasteful ideas.

[VileOrb]

Mangetout - Your idea about education is good but you didn't take it far enough. Don't just educate your children, educate all children. All people. Wipe out ignorance. Give people all over the world the skills it takes to debunk their leaders when they need to. This is admittedly not a quick fix, but the world could be a much better place 20 years from now.

[Mangetout]

Trouble is, educating other people's children to be tolerant might not work if, for example the parents are fundies, then we're right back to square one, so maybe it really is a battle we never can win.

[Shimrod]

Ok, I did go for shock value, I admit.

The thing is that there are two sets of motivation that have to be addressed. The planers have one set of motivations, and the agents often have another. The planers motivations are largely geopolitical and have very little to do with religion. They use religion as just one of their tools.

The agents motivations are largly religious, particularly in the case of the suicide bombers. They carry out the acts because of the promise of a reward in the afterlife. One of our stratagies needs to be to find a way to remove religion as a tool. We should look at the religion and understand it to find a way to defang it. If the agents want to go to paradise, how can we convince them that this is not the way to get there?

The problem is that while the planers will weigh things, and make what they beleave are reasonable decisions, the agents won't. Once the religion card is played it very easily can escape the controll of the people that started it. The people at the top become afraid of their own people and can't back down.

This is an unconventional type of war and it will require unconventional methods to fight it. While bombs are very satifying they won't resolve the real issues, and I don't think they will drive the enemy to a settlement. We need to find something that they fear sufficiently that they will prefer to negotiate instead of continuing the fight. Finding a way to turn the religious fanaticism back on them may be what we want to look for.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by Shimrod
Ok, I did go for shock value, I admit. No problem from me. Been known to do it myself. And welcome into the REAL session.

[Humble Servant]

"Terrorism" is not a single thing in one place at a time. The piracy analogy is very interesting and I'm glad to have heard it here. Piracy existed in ships and ports. Terrorists have no such limits. Pirates wanted a material thing--wealth. Terrorists want something immaterial. I've been thinking lately that what the current batch wanted was powerful enough to make teams of people (was the final number 18?) willing to die. The lone person willing to risk all for a cause will never be stopped--that kind of "terrorism" has been with us forever and will never be eliminated, ever. If we define the terrorism we currently want to eradicate as organized group terrorism, then we can try to attack the things that link the group and help the group maintain itself. Attack its communications, its finances, its supply chain, its morale, its recruiting. I don't have lots of new ideas for how to do these things.

Our biggest problem in the current crisis, and the best hope for taking on bin Laden's organization, is our intelligence system. For whatever reason, US intelligence currently apppears to be inadequate. However, with millions of Afghan refugees moving in and out of Pakistan, it seems like it should be possible for some country to infiltrate bin Laden's organization--if not to get close to him personally, to locate organization assets. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Kuwait, for instance, may currently have a better chance of doing so than the US. I am not sure permanent intelligence-sharing/cooperation is a good idea in a world of nations still divided by other political interests, but would hope that the US could call in some chips in the current situation.

[Waverly]

I think the ingredients of terrorism are hate, religious fanaticism, and desperation. ‘Desperation’ may not be the best term, so let me define the way I meant it to be used: a feeling that you have been disenfranchised, can have little effect on your surroundings, and have little left to loose.

Any military action, however warranted, is just a stop gap. There will still be people willing to teach a corrupt form of their religion, there will be still be ancient hatreds, and there will still be those that feel their voices will not be heard except through violence. IMHO, the only people who can really stamp it out are those that live with it in their midst, and it must be through education and understanding. It will take a willingness of Palestinian, or Afghani, or what have you, fathers and mothers to pull their children aside when they see them exposed to the rhetoric and explain to them that Christians and Jews are not evil. Islam does not condone hate. It will take generations, and is mostly beyond our control.

[el_mono]

When I moved into my house in the country nine years ago I discovered that I shared my property with millions of fire ants. I purchased chemicals and applied them to the mounds. Thousands of ants were killed. Those that lived moved a few yards away and rebuilt. I applied chemicals to the new mound. Thousands of ants were killed...

Eventually I managed to get rid of most of the fire ants who'd invaded my property and caused pain and misery to me, my children and my pets. Note that I said most, because depsite my efforts an occassional mound pops up and it's necessary to break out the Orthene and continue the fight. But the problem is manageable now, and so long as I am vigilent and destroy the nests as soon as they are identified, it will continue to be so.

Single-minded, systematic identification of terrorist cells, training camps, safe houses and harbors, followed by surgical strikes conducted by a multi-national military force dedicated to their eradication is certainly a viable option. The process would be endless, bloody and effective.

[rjung]

"The best way to stop an enemy is to make him your friend." Very hard to do, but better than the alternative.

(Maybe the US can lead by example, like trying to make amends to the Middle Eastern countries we've screwed with all these years?)

[jesse morrison]

Originally posted by Hazel


organized religion no longer had any great power

spiritual matters

most people really believed that any religion is just as valid as any other religion

A situation where no one hated anyone else over religion.



---------------------------------------------------

jesse morrison, could you explain your idea a little more? Seems to me that more "alpha males" is the LAST thing the world needs -- if I understand what the term means. Men who want to be in charge of all they survey? I think we might be better off with more beta, gamma, delta, etc. males. [/B]

[tradesilicon]

el_mono, I agree completely, and it's an excellent analogy.

The solution to this type of threat is not a one-time blast here or there, as most of us agree by now. It's an on going process, and multi-faceted. Finding and eradicating the pests (munderous scum in this case) is one aspect, complete isolation from the world is another - for those who do the acts and those who support them. Extreme measures must be taken by all nations who oppose terrorist activitites, including the French! (sorry had to get that in). Not just token words of support, and then back to business as usual, but sustained, extreme measures to stop all activities that support these groups.

Australia - thank you for leading the way: "There is no use in being an 80% ally".

[jesse morrison]

Originally posted by Hazel
Well, NaSultainne, I said I had no idea how to go about bringing about the situation I have long wished obtained.

That is to say, a situation where organized religion no longer had any great power; where hardly anyone cared a whole lot about what religion anyone else was; where hardly anyone felt the need to prosletize (sorry for the spelling).

A situation where most people who really cared a lot about spiritual matters had no ties to organized religion, but followed their own path.

A situation where most people really believed that any religion is just as valid as any other religion, and that having no religion was just as valid a choice as having one.

A situation where no one hated anyone else over religion.

Wouldn't that be better then what we have now?

---------------------------------------------------

jesse morrison, could you explain your idea a little more? Seems to me that more "alpha males" is the LAST thing the world needs -- if I understand what the term means. Men who want to be in charge of all they survey? I think we might be better off with more beta, gamma, delta, etc. males.

Hi Hazel,

I have typed about this before at kinfonet. I think
there will either be Alpha Male Sperm Banks, or genetic
engineering along with Memetic Engineering in the near
future. Our biggest fear should be Memetically Engineered
Robots with Emotions. Use google search engine, and
type in any of these, "memetics", "bill joy", "human
in the loop", "eugenics", for detailed information.

We have to look at religion as a "meme complex", break
it down, computer model it, start with simple rules,
let it run in a Darwinian fashion, look at the results,
compare the results with what we have now. The Santa Fe
Institute has a program called "Sugarscape" that could
probably be used.

As far as Alpha Males go, I would go to places like the
Santa Fe Institute, check the males for Bilateral
Symmetry, collect the sperm from the most Symmetrical,
freeze the sperm, bank it, sell it to all females that
are stuck with beta male husbands (80%), using the
80/20 law.

About a year ago I was in this lesbian book store in
Santa Fe, and came across this feminist book about
degenerate males. The book read that 95% of the
incarcerated usa citizens were male. The author
suggested that all males should pay a surtax for being
male. This money would go to pay for the expenses of
incarcerated males.

jesse (redneck beta male that practices coitus
reservatus, and coitus interruptus)

[dropzone]

(brightly)
Now, isn't that special! Any more ideas, anybody?

[Bomzaway]

Terrorism will likely crop up in various situations. The bigger, more urgent problem is religious extremism. Take away the impetus for people to follow the religious extreme, and we remove (or at least reduce) the driving force behind terrorist attacks.

People tend to gravitate to religion in times of stress (case in point, the entire US seems to be going to church right now). The higher the stress level, the more extreme the religious appetite (or political ideology, in some instances). Impoverished countries, countries without basic human rights, and countries ravaged by war, are those under the most stress.

I think that if we put the job of assisting such countries (despite their political beliefs) at the top of our foreign policy, we not only reduce the probability of religious extremism, but we also put our best foot forward among the people of said countries.

Better still, this should be a function of the UN, so as to even out the monetary load for the role of being the world's benefactor.

[jesse morrison]

Originally posted by jesse morrison
Originally posted by Hazel


organized religion no longer had any great power

spiritual matters

most people really believed that any religion is just as valid as any other religion

A situation where no one hated anyone else over religion.



---------------------------------------------------

jesse morrison, could you explain your idea a little more? Seems to me that more "alpha males" is the LAST thing the world needs -- if I understand what the term means. Men who want to be in charge of all they survey? I think we might be better off with more beta, gamma, delta, etc. males. [/B]

OOPS! Sorry Hazel, I hit the wrong key.

jesse (ADD)

[Captain Amazing]

We try to set up an international consensus that says all terrorism against any nation is always wrong, and will be responded to harshly by an international effort.

[even sven]

I say that we freeze the world's borders. Declare today the beginning of International time and pay no more attention to historical claims to land. In my understanding of the world, every dispute (even religious disputes) boil down to land disputes. Every five years, we will hold an International conference during which the borders can be changed or contestested peacefully.

We will have an initial five year period during which immigration laws in all countries will be lax, allowing people to leave their country if they do not want to be under the government that will be established within their country's borders. People fearing persecution will have a chance to flee.

We will have well established and useful refugee procedures should persecution break out in a country.

We have predetermined and inevitable consequences for countries that do not respect their borders.

After that, we respect people's right to self-government and stop mucking about with who rules other people's countries.

[HairyPotter]

The U.S. President has used the term "Crusade" to define the fight against terrorism. Using that word to describe an impending campaign in the Middle East is analagous to dropping a match into a can of gasoline. The notion of Christianity trying to triumph over Muslims is enought to make even a moderate Muslim take up arms. The U.S. essentially created terrorist regimes in poor countries during the Cold War, because poor, uneducated masses controlled by despots dependent on the U.S. served our purposes. Now, we are declaring war on the very monsters we created.

I believe that much of the terrorism in the world could be avoided by blowing up Washington DC and taking the right to vote away from the intellectually challenged U.S. citizens. Let educated members of the European Union choose a U.S. leader who will promote global harmony, rather than spreading misery.

[HairyPotter]

I apologize for my comments, above. I wrote in anger, having heard a radio program in which an expert recounted how U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War involved the support despotic leaders in poor countries, because this supported U.S. interests at the time. Now is not the time to rattle off biting, anti-government sarcasm against the U.S. I apologize for my poor judgement.

[Hazel]

Originally posted by Barbarian
Originally posted by Hazel
That is to say, a situation where organized religion no longer had any great power; where hardly anyone cared a whole lot about what religion anyone else was; where hardly anyone felt the need to prosletize (sorry for the spelling).

A situation where most people really believed that any religion is just as valid as any other religion, and that having no religion was just as valid a choice as having one.


It could be argued that this already exists in every first world Western country except the United States-- but that's for a different thread.



I have the same impression. True? Wishful thinking? Anyone know?

Assuming it's true, how did this situation come about in the other developed nations? Why hasn't it happened in the US? What would happen in the underdeveloped nations if they became developed?

[dropzone]

Gee, at some point I'm going to have to make a list of the points you folks have made and take this discussion to the next level, aren't I?

[enPhantBlanc]

Originally posted by el_mono
When I moved into my house in the country nine years ago I discovered that I shared my property with millions of fire ants. I purchased chemicals and applied them to the mounds. Thousands of ants were killed. Those that lived moved a few yards away and rebuilt. I applied chemicals to the new mound. Thousands of ants were killed...

Eventually I managed to get rid of most of the fire ants who'd invaded my property and caused pain and misery to me, my children and my pets. Note that I said most, because depsite my efforts an occassional mound pops up and it's necessary to break out the Orthene and continue the fight. But the problem is manageable now, and so long as I am vigilent and destroy the nests as soon as they are identified, it will continue to be so.

Single-minded, systematic identification of terrorist cells, training camps, safe houses and harbors, followed by surgical strikes conducted by a multi-national military force dedicated to their eradication is certainly a viable option. The process would be endless, bloody and effective.

Interesting analogy, and appropos. Fireants are an exotic species that overwhelms indigenous species and develops resistance to pesticides. I did a google search and found the following website. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~gilbert/research/fireants/faqans.html#how

Among other things, the texperts said:
"Out of distrust, revenge, desperation, or a hope for quick profits,countless remedies have been used in attempts to eradicate fire ants. Encouraging a few fire ant colonies to abandon mounds in a yard is relatively easy. Even regular watering can cause a colony to move. However, safely and economically eliminating hundreds or thousands of RIFA colonies from parks, farms, and ranches has proved to be nearly impossible. Remedies against fire ants which are effective in a backyard will not solve the overall problem across the countryside because no effective and safe measure has proved to be economically feasible or sustainable on the grander scale."

and
"...Mirex [apparently a popular and initially effective poison] is thought to have helped spread fire ants even faster by wiping out pockets of native ant resistance to the RIFA invasion. It also produced a toxic and persistent byproduct, dioxin, which accumulated in ecological systems."

It is not weakness or cowardice to suggest that we understand the enemy before attempting to fight the enemy. As we learn from the fire ants, the kill-'em-all-let-god-sort-'em-out approach can actually strengthen pestilential species by destroying beneficial native species. Also, soaking the earth with poison eventually renders it uninhabitable for all species, including children and pets. I particularly like what you can do with the "frequent watering" analogy. If the superpowers had practiced good husbandry in the "host countries" rather than strafing them into moonscapes, perhaps the pestilence would never have gained a toe-hold.

[One Cell]

There are countries that do not suffer from acts of terrorism (Denmark and Norway immediately come to mind). There are countries that are experiencing terrorism (US, UK and Israel immediately come to mind).

Can't we carefully analyze and compare details of foreign policies of these countries, their views and actions on the balance between the rich and the poor, their contribution to educational development of the 3rd world, their nuclear arsenal, their religious bias (if any), their constitutions (does it start with: In God...)

We may then be able to draw some conclusions about possible changes in our ways to reduce terrorist acts against us.

So far in this thread, rjung seems to be the only one that has addressed the root of the problem and suggested a solution.

[radium]

It was interesting to read this thread at the end of the day (yesterday) as it made me appreciate my own ambiguous position. I went to a uni with a 'School for Terrorism' studies, or something like that, which I always thought a covert recruiting agency for MI5, perhaps now that looks a little hasty and countering terrorism is a genuine academic interest. A few observations:

TERRORISTS IN ULSTER / PEACE PROCESS
It's worth analysing how one European country has learnt to tolerate 'low-level' terrorism for a couple of decades. The British regiments in Ulster know full well the majority of IRA and UFV terrorists. Yet, there is an agreement not to 'take them out'. Why? Because it has proven counter productive: many more emerge, for a time unknown and unseen and therefore more effective than those they replaced. America, I believe, has learnt the same thing with Columbian drug cartels - it's better the devil you know. So, in short, we should expect that, in the long run and once the impending but brief slaughter by US troops in some foreign lands is concluded, the *free* world will remain in a status quo where *some* terrorists are proactively managed. Sadly, that means an occasional drip-drip-drip of blood, some on the streets of the US. Painful to say, but better said now than raise false expectations of a world free of terrorism for ever.

TAKE RELIGION OUT OF IT AND PUT MONEY IN IT
Which leads to an equally painful question: if we HAVE to accept a low-level of terror, what is the best way to manage that? I appreciate the points made above about Islam and how it's refusal to embrace secularism has allowed some within it to foment terrorism. And certainly, when you look around at other terrorism religion crops up a lot: Catholicism in Ulster, Greek Orthodox in Cyprus. (As an atheist of 15 years I would like to say a big f*uck off to the idiots who hijack often altrusitic and constructive ideals for their own bigotry.) Yet, religion is not always at fault. Chechen terrorists exploding bombs in Moscow bus stations are pro self-determination more than they are anti-Russian Orthodox; Basque terrorists are more pro-self-determination than they are anti-Catholic; the remnants of the ANC peddling low-level terrorism on blacks and whites in South Africa are pro-economic advantages for themselves rather than anti-Dutch Reformed Church (or whatever strain of Anglicism it is that recycled a fragmentary quote from the Bible into apartheid).

In short, the US (and the rest of the world) should exploit the features of terrorism linked to underlying economic agendas. Leverage that hard. Put the pressure on the terrorists to say what they want economically. Tell us which people they stand for? Tell us how their lives should be improved? Tell the US and the other rich countries what they should pay for? And then make these economic demands the subject of protracted peace and reconstruction processes. Piling in US$100 million to some sort of US-sponsored peace process on 'economic reform' or 'democratisation' with cushy jobs for dodgy characters is a realistic and fair form of managing terrorism. And a lot cheaper than piling in US$1 billion of arms, not to mention loss of lives in combat. Hopefully the whole thing will take years, and during this time the terrorists equity will be in decline, and the relevant economies in improvement, and people will grow accustomed to peace and making money.

Looking specifically at Afghanistan: once the limited military action is done, go the Northern Alliance, the Taleban and a caucus of the Caucusus (boom boom) and say: 'Right, we have slaughtered in your land, exercising our right of self-defence. But in return we will pay for a peace process, and for elections, provided they are linked to economic reforms.' The mullahs will dismiss it as infidel imperialism but the people will mostly embrace it - who with kids wouldn't? - and a certain disengagement from the terrorists should ensue. Perhaps not permanently, but at least the suffrage of the terrorits would not be suffering so much.

WATCH AMERICA
A related point. I believe America is more mature than the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (which used a bogus incident to bump up US involvement in Vietnam) or Macarthyism (which used bogus claims of Communism to purge who knows who, often as personal vendettas). But I also have some fairly serious reservations that American habits of short-cuts and dirty deeds may re-emerge. The world should accept, starting with the US, at least the possibility of abusing a long-term war on terror by infringing civil liberties. Given the US will be the only superpower for the first third of this century with no external checks and balances, only internal ones, it is sadly inevitable. The sooner the fight against terrorism becomes enmeshed in the UN, which tends to be more inclusive, the better. For the moment, I'm glad that Britain has America's ear because I think they will temper those blue eyed boys - and push them towards a more inclusive approach.

THE SOLUTION
Anyway, my preliminary conclusion for ending terrorism: 'walk and talk quietly about money with a big stick'. Yes, there should be a limited military action, probably in Central Asia and Iran. Correct, this time. But once the blood lust of the American public has been assuaged by BBC World and CNN showing slaughtered 'diaper head terrorists' and bent TV aerials (or whatever it is that will constitute a first 'visible victory') the US should get out, and morph its position to one of negotiator ASAP. Start up peace processes linked to economic reform, stop talking religion, and make sure they are only one of the referees between protaganists, not the central player. It has yet to succeed in the Middle East, true, but at least it is terrorists doing bad things to each other where the possibility of retaliation finds its own balance.

Or, put another way (and thanks to Churchill again for his insight): 'Jaw jaw about money is better than war, war about religion.)

[kentsubra]

I am trying this on for size. Help me out here. As I see it, the basic kinds of terrorism and the motivation (or the ends sought by the terrorists) are

Terrorism kinds - Desired result:

1 Religious - Supremacy of own religion
2 Irrational (Bin Laden, McVeigh)- Some deep-rooted sense of injustice
3 Acts of revenge - None, besides successful revenge
4 Self-determination - Accession to demands

You cannot tackle the roots of the problem with (2) and (3). Because if it is irrational education is useless, and as for acts of revenge, you cant undo what you have done. The only thing to do here is take them out through strong international co-operation and relentless pursuit.

As for (1) you need to work on the "host" countries and the religious leaders, and try and reason with them into moderating or "de-fanging" their stand.

And (4) which is by far the biggest cause of terrorism needs determination on part of the countries/parties involved. Yes, most sides have historical claims but how about finding a solution instead of arguing whose claim is more valid. It is here that the international countries can come together and put most pressure on the warring parties.
Because terrorism here is a means of getting their way, they will go on unless some end is in sight.

[ianzin]

An excellent thread, but I wish a few more Dopers understood the basic idea of a 'brainstorm' and its customary 'rules'.

My 2 cents.

The single greatest source of crime is the criminal's perception that there is a grievous and institutionalised inequality, or injustice, which he cannot correct by any 'legitimate' means (as commonly understood in his community/society) and so he feels entitled to break the social code to get a fairer share of society's nice-to-haves. The person who, though poor and disadvantaged, believes he can work hard and earn a better reward (= fatter share of the nice-to-haves) tends not to adopt criminal behaviour. It is the person who believes no such honest efforts would meet with fair reward who develops the idea that he can break the rules.

So it is with terrorism. There are people who feel that no legitimate channel (political, democratic, strategic or econimic) exists by which they can remedy what perceive as a grievous inequality. so they start looking for alternatives.

In either case, the only lasting solution would be a much more equal share of life's wealth and other nice-to-haves. This is very likely never to come about, for two simple reasons. The first is human nature - even if you start off with everyone equal, some will be industrious and productive, and others will be lazy and parasitic. In time, the industrious tend to want more than the lazy. Secondly, priviliege and advantage feel good; SO good that those who have them tend to erect very strong barriers to having those privileges taken away.

So, to answer the OP: work for a fairer world where wealth and benefits are shared and enjoyed by all. But it ain't never gonna happen unless there is a massive change in human nature and human society.

In a nutshell: people want privilege, but not its consequences. If you don't want the consequences, deconstruct the privileges.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by ianzin
An excellent thread, but I wish a few more Dopers understood the basic idea of a 'brainstorm' and its customary 'rules'.

My 2 cents.

The single greatest source of crime is the criminal's perception that there is a grievous and institutionalised inequality, or injustice, which he cannot correct by any 'legitimate' means (as commonly understood in his community/society) and so he feels entitled to break the social code to get a fairer share of society's nice-to-haves. The person who, though poor and disadvantaged, believes he can work hard and earn a better reward (= fatter share of the nice-to-haves) tends not to adopt criminal behaviour. It is the person who believes no such honest efforts would meet with fair reward who develops the idea that he can break the rules.

Lots of text deleted



Terrorists who kill innocent people are psychopaths:

"A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse."

I don't believe that the behavior of such psychopaths can be controlled by the same system of beliefs, rules, and rewards that control "normal" people. Working to end poverty and deplorable living conditions would probably decrease the percentage of psychopaths in a population, since some experts believe that brain damage due to physical abuse, as well as exposure to physical or emotional abuse, may contribute to a person's becoming a psychopath. Thus, I don't believe that your proposal of altering opportunities for poor, underpriviledged people would directly impact the number of people who become terrorists, it may have a secondary effect.

Regarding the reason people become criminals, there are certainly people who steal bread to feed their families, but there are many, many people who prefer making quick riches via stealing or doing drug deals, as opposed to working long hours to live a modest existence. Providing greater opportunities to all citizens to live a comfortable life by working at a regular job would certainly cut down on crime, but there will always be a substantial number of individuals who prefer a faster, illegal path to greater riches.

In conclusion, I agree that offering greater opportunities to the poor and oppressed would not only be humane, but would benefit society at-large. I don't believe that these same actions would substantially reduce the number of terrorists, however.

[Hazel]

I seem to remember reading that one theory (sorry, no cite; I read this too long ago) is that people are born with varying degrees of predisposition to become psychopaths. Most have little to almost no such predisposition. Among those that have a high potential to become psychopaths, the key factor is stress. For any such individual, the more stress in his life, the more likely he is to go psycotic; the less stress, the less liklihood.

So, if this is correct, anything we do to reduce stress in people's lives should reduce the number of psychopaths in existance. Reducing world hunger, poverty, disenfranchizement, etc. should actually help.