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:
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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…)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Alpha Male” sperm banks (world wide).
jesse (American Eugenics Society Member)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another thread on whether eliminating religion would prevent violence:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88210
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. 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.