OOPS! Sorry Hazel, I hit the wrong key.
jesse (ADD)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.