Okay, of late, “war on terrorism” is a phrase I’ve heard a lot. Now, how can one fight terrorism, which is essentially an ideology? To me, it would seem that we are fighting a concept, an idea. This being the case, how can one war against it? I shall leave it at that. I will let more experienced people suggest how this might be done.
Ultimately, it seems to me that ‘education’ is the answer. In the world’s most stable democracies, invariably you’ll find that the public is highly educated and enlightened - which engenders two mutually exclusive things (1) the general population is innately more capable of setting it’s mind to work on good things in good ways for the benefit of all concerned and (2) the general population is inherently less capable of being manipulated with ‘xenophobic’ rants and warcries based on tribalism etc.
Perhaps a better word instead of ‘education’ is just plain ‘enlightment’ - but please forgive the innate spiritual or condescending overtones in that word. Can’t think of a better one for now…
Please note that I recognise that often, various cultures use ‘terrorist’ acts as geurilla warfare tactics to solve otherwise ‘political’ stalemates - which really clouds the issue for sure.
In closing, it seems to me that the smartest thing in the whole wide world that we, the West, could do right now is simply pour oodles of money and good will into places like Afghanistan. Those poor souls have suffered long enough - getting hijacked by cause after cause… it would behove us to do some things which would earn THEIR goodwill methinks.
It’s my observation that the spiritual home for terrorism is an environment lacking in good will - and that to create good will effectively takes away ‘terrorisms’ fertile soil.
Terrorist organizations would have far fewer volunteers if the quality of life were improved in the societies from which the terrorists are recruited. I believe that poverty and a sense of powerlessness contribute substantially toward the willingness of a people to resort to terrorism.
Systematic elimination of the terrorists themselves, along with their support base.
People like fooling themselbes into thinking that every problem has a peacefull solution. History has shown, time and time again, that problems exist to which there is no viable recourse but violence. This is one of them.
It is impossible to reason with someone that thinks it is A-OK to slit a stewardess’ throar, seize control of a plane, and slam it into a crowded building.
It is impossible to reason with people that encourage their children to strap explosives to themselves, and to go near a bus and blow themselves (and a few infidels) up.
There is no peaceful resolution to this problem.
Quite agreed, Boo Boo Foo. Education broadens people’s horizons and brings people from dissimmilar backgrounds to similar places.
Terrorism will always be a threat because it always has been and because there will always be hardcore factions who will lash out at the objects of their resentments.
But if an effort to appeal to people’s better nature can be carried out on a level that people in other parts of the World can relate to, then perhaps popular support for terrorism can be reduced.
Maybe if Cat Stevens and Salmon Rushdie got together and put on a Live Aid-like global telecast promoting reconcilliation between the Islamic world and the West and condemning terrorism–and got Al-Jazeera to cary it–there might be a thread of hope that can be expanded upon.
Brutus my friend, please note that I do NOT disagree with you. It’s worth noting that even the monks of Tibet prior to Chinese annexation had an army and a police force - even those lovely peaceful monks recognised there were bad seeds amongst their people.
So yes… it certainly behoves all peace loving countries to have an incredibly potent defence force designed to hunt and kill before we ourselves are killed - I would add however that to eradicate the future breeding grounds of such emnity, my original suggestions still stand. It explains why we here in the West are never tempted to fly a plane into Mecca or the Taj Mahal for example. We have better things to do you see.
-
How do we find them? Terrorists are difficult to track down, and even if we put all our resources into catching them, a few would invariably slip though our fingers. And we saw what kind of damage a few terrorists can do.
-
We might not know about a terrorist organization until after it strikes, in which case the damage is already done. We may be able to hunt them down and stop them from committing future atrocities, but we can’t turn back the clock and bring innocent victims back to life.
-
Fear of punishment won’t stop them. They’re obviously not afraid of getting hurt, since they’re willing to sacrifice their lives to strike at us. They may be crazy, but they aren’t cowards, and underestimating their courage is deadly. Don’t expect them to fear the U.S. no matter how hard we crack down on them. In fact, they’ll see it as a challenge and they’ll fight back even harder, and their victims will be innocent civilians.
-
When we do capture and/or kill them, we’ll merely be making martyrs out of them and inspiring more hatred against the U.S., which will spawn even more terrorism. By simply pursuing them we will inevitably be interfering in Middle Eastern affairs and stirring up the hornet’s next.
-
Even if we could wipe out every terrorist on the planet this instant, what’s to stop the children of today from becoming the terrorists of tomorrow? As long as people in the Middle East have reasons to despise us, a certain percentage of them will gravitate towards terrorism as a means of fighting back. They hate us enough to want us destroyed, and that hate comes from something; it won’t magically go away just because we get rid of the terrorists.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying we shouldn’t go after them. That’s unavoidable. But violence is simply not a long-term solution to the problem. If we don’t try to address the root causes of terrorism, we’ll be stuck in an endless cat-and-mouse game, living in constant fear of more attacks.
I hope you’re wrong…
Difficult but not impossible. The guy building bombs in a shack in the woods may be hard to track but large organizations like Al Queida are a little easier. They have leaders, methods of communication, camps where they train and sharpen their knifes, people who finance them. All these things can be tracked and targeted.
We aren’t trying to scare them, we are trying to kill them. And the message we want to send is that if you use terrorism as a method of political reform, it will only result in your own destruction. The logical implication would be to not crack down on protests and other methods of non violent reform.
Well, since they are martyrs anyway, who cares. The objective should be to gain the support of the people so that the terrorists are viewed as demented criminals, not noble freedom fighters.
The root cause of terrorism is a diference in political ideaology. That will never go away. There will always be people who feel disenfranchised by the system and feel that lashing out with violence is the only slutions. The Colombine shootings and the OK city bombing were as much terrorist attacks as the WTC. They are all people saying "I don’t like the way the system works and I am going to let everyone know how I feel’.
I think the most effective way to defeat terrorism is to visit such terror back upon those who support it. Find out who a terrorist is but can’t get at him? Start kidnapping, torturing, and murdering his friends and family. All of them, everywhere. Saddam Hussein sends someone a check for ten grand? The best way to make that money look bad is to have the neighbors wake up one morning to a burning house with that family in it.
A Palestinian from Gaza blows himself up in Israel? The cheapest, most efficient way to end such a practice would be to saturate Gaza with air-dropped butterfly mines and randomly timed bomblets. A few thousand dead and maimed children in the space of a week would probably dissuade the next bomber.
The first world has the capability to visit such terror upon those who currently choose to wield it on a level orders of magnitude greater than what we see today. This, incidentally, has been the traditional response–sometimes even a preemptive response–to revolt and uprising. When a city under the control of Alexander the Great revolted, it was beseiged, and when it fell all males were executed and all women and children were sold into slavery. The Mongolians enforced virtually the same policy. And it worked like a charm.
But just because it’s the most effective way doesn’t mean it’s the best way. To engage in such practices would transform us into our enemies.
Fortunately, we of the modern world are no longer disposed to lower ourselves to that level. But if pressed, we could easily do it. Should terrorism one day begin to actually threaten the nations of the first world, I promise that the option will be considered, and perhaps even be carried out.
Terror has always been defeated by one who is more powerful and is just as willing to use the same or similar methods. We currently are not willing to do that, but don’t be surprised when we see less-brutal variations on the theme. We already replace decimation with economic privation. Someday, we may find ourselves contemplating mass sterilization, mass use of tracking devices which cannot be removed without killing the subject, or the secret introduction of one part of a binary chemical weapon into an unruly population with warnings of what happens when they act poorly and are treated to the second part.
Somewhere along the line we forgot that people who are predisposed to doing shitty things really only respond positively to even shittier things.
But every terrorist act jogs our memories just a little more.
Boo Boo Foo educated people still commit terror attacks. This country has been a victim of terror attacks for years they just haven’t been well published. For example the very first page on the Earth Liberation Front website shows a burning building. On the main page they teach you how to make fires using kitchen timers. http://www.earthliberationfront.com/library/elf_manual300.pdf
The paragraph before they teach you how to burn things they suggests “bad” things will happen to people who use this documentation. " All goverment agencies and employees of the goverment are expressly forbidden from copying this publication in part or in whole. Violators will be subject to prosecution or retribution. You’ve been warned".
From a different source
"In contrast, PETA sent $70,500 in 1995 to Rodney Coronado, a convicted arsonist and avowed member of the domestic-terrorist group called the Animal Liberation Front. Coronado served a five-year federal prison sentence for a 1992 animal-rights-related firebombing at Michigan State University.
Unapologetic about its ties to domestic terrorism, PETA also made a cash donation in 2001 to the North American Earth Liberation Front, a group that the FBI has called a domestic terrorist organization."
An article on this site http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=120 proclaims that
"Arson and bombings: On the very day of the attacks on New York and Washington, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) took credit for firebombing of a Tucson McDonald’s. Working closely with the Earth Liberation Front, they have also set off firebombs at meat companies and feed mills, leading the FBI to suggest, “By any sense or any definition this is a true domestic terrorism group that uses criminal activity to further their political agenda.”
Sofa King, well said!
There is some old saying something along the lines of, ‘If your enemy is terrible, be twice as terrible as he is’…
Human rights declarations aren’t going to impress islamic terrorists. Massive retaliation will.
Does anyone know of an example when peaceful methods were used to successfully stop a terrorist group?
I agree with Sofa King. We may shudder at Israel’s actions, but if America was attacked by terrorists U.S. troops would be razing something to the ground. Oops. Looks like they already are.
Here’s a book I just finished. It’s a small book.
“The Lessons of Terror”
—
a history of warfare
against civilians:
why it has
always failed
and why it will
fail again
—
by Caleb Carr
Random House
Mr. Carr spends 80% of his book documenting terrorist activity and response to terrorist activity from Roman times to present. Mr. Carr’s argument is that terrorism to date is being viewed and treated as a uniquely modern problem and this view is a mistake. Here’s something from his prologue:
“…terrorism, in other words, is simply the contemporary name given to, and the modern permutation of, warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable.”
He places modern international terrorism within the discipline of military history, rather than political science or sociology.
Unlike anarchists (who he believes to be thugs), Mr. Carr believes that terrorists should be considered soldiers driven by an ideology and a cause.
You might find this a good read.
Between this:
and this:
I sort track of lost Sofa King’s opinion on the matter.
Is the honorable member advocating harder measures or expressing fear that we might stoop to the level of terrorism once again.
I’d love to understand what Sofa King is actually saying here, or maybe I don’t?
Sparc
Does he give examples of warfare waged against civilians unintentionally ?
By this definition, the Beirut bombing that killed the US marines wasn’t terrorism nor are Palestinian attacks on the IDF.
In other words, his definition suits his proposition but doesn’t stand up to analysis.
From my handy pocket OED:
“terrorism: noun policy of using violence and intimidation to obtain political demands or enforce political authority”
- note: political and the absence or civilian.
As a general premise, I tend to think of terrorism as the product of a shifted socio-political bell curve – as the (mainstream) centre of popular public opinion shifts (due to, for example, perceived injustice from elsewhere), the extremities shift as well. In other words, terrorism isn’t isolated from the society in which it’s born, it’s simply the most radicalised wing of that society.
If one then assumes that those perceptions of injustice aren’t addressed, every succeeding generation must be a product of that same society, or shifted bell-curve – older terrorists are captured or die or fade away yet the ‘cause’ remains in place. Thus, older generation will, inevitably, be replaced by the radicalised of the next generation. And so it goes on.
Got to shift the bell curve.
What the Bush speech last week indicated was (finally) a US re-engagement in the region – anyone for a US sponsored Mid East conference before this year’s out ?
BTW, good post, jenner.
Hi!
Remeber the European terrorists: The Red Brigade in Germany and some in Italy and so on.
They seemed all to end up in jail. Or not?
I think it is possible to get to them.
I do not want to hijack this tread, but;
What do You mean by a terrorist?
Some answers here above goes for nations, organisations as well as individuals.
Was Mr Booth who murdered Lincoln a terrorist?
If someone had blast the air of Adolf, before the war?
Or is it always bombs and massdestruction?
Or can a government be a terrorist-organisation?
As I see Stalin and his Borsalino-guys were.
Spread terror over this country and half of the Europe.
london’s OED definition
is wanting absent “civilian” and “political”. By that definition most military or police action is terrorism.
Even the OED can be wrong. Or at least the pocket edition. Allow me to once again offer candidate definitions.
Terrorism is using violence against civilian targets in order to instill extreme fear in the general population and to thereby achieve objectives.
Guerilla warfare is a method most often used by nongovernmental or quasi-governmental organaizations of engaging military targets in surprise attacks and usually involves hiding troops and weapons within a civilian population.
Human rights can be violated without committing terrorism or engaging in guerilla warfare. Not doing enough to avoid civilian casualties when taking on a military operation may be a human rights violation.
The ends of a terrorist campaign may or may not be just.
So, as examples, Dresden, Hiroshima, and the entirty of the Stalinist regieme were all terrorism. It doesn’t matter if the cause was just or oppressive, the method was to accomplish a goal by instilling extreme fear in a general population as a result of violence against civilians. Civilian deaths incurred while bombing military targets in Iraq were not. Those Iraqi civilian deaths may have been human rights violations if they were reasonably avoidable without unreasonable consequences.
How to defeat terrorism?
- Don’t let it accomplish its goals. Don’t negotiate with terrorists. Don’t pay more attention to a situation because a bombing brought the situation to a headline.
- Go after its infrastructure. There will be some human rights violated during any effective campaign to accomplish this. These violations must be minimal. You cannot defend human rights as if terror does not exist, and you can’t go after terror as if human rights do not exist. (I forget which Israeli Supreme court judge said that.)
- Work for justice always and as if terror did not exist. Pay fair attention to peaceful protests. A just world that has fair systems to settle conflicts in, is less likely to birth as many who will become terroristic. “Always and as if terror did not exist” not because of the terror campaign. Occassionally in spite of. (Some one on these threads had made that point before and it bears repeating.) “Less likely”, but some will still occur. And terror will always be a method of choice for the disgruntled loser as long as it is at all effective.
Perhaps find out why they are terrorist and address that problem. That won’t fix the ones that just happen to enjoy killing people but it would be a step in the right direction.
“Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?”-Abraham Lincoln
DSeid
I totally agree with You on this post here above.
And we should stress, as I understood You did, “Keep on negotiating”, AND the world should help the parties of any conflict, war etc. to do that.
My own opinion is that if the Palestinian have a guerilla war against the Israeli military, they are not terrorists, they are freedom-fighters.
Those who kills civilians are terrorists.
Taklon
Very wise words.
I think I have an entirely different bent upon things. Guerilla warfare and terrorism go hand in hand. Guerilla warfare only subsists in a population which has some minimum basis of support. Terrorism ensures that the support is available, by quelling the sector of the population that opposes your ends. I think Palestine’s al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade is a most telling example. They claim to be paramilitary, but at the same time they have been notable for their acts of pure terror against civillians.
If you drive a population to the brink of defeat as the Palestinians are facing, the lines become much more clear. Terror becomes a viable option by which an opponent on the ropes can resecure a base for more sophisticated forms of subversion. International terrorists work on the same principle–make a name for yourself and harbor your operations within those nations that share your goals, with the ultimate plan of a wider, more conclusive war when the enemy is weakened or diverted. There are nations, or portions of nations, behind the terror that was visited upon the United States.
But whoever makes the rules–the rules that say that white flags sometimes mean surrender and red crosses are for consoling the wounded and that we don’t resort to chemicals and other nasty shit every time we have disagreements–doesn’t have a clean answer for those who choose to go beyond the pale, save one: massive, disproportionate retaliation and total defeat. Destroy the idea so thoroughly that it becomes anathema to all.
If you can think of a better alternative, the world is all ears.
And that is the fork in the road that we confront. We, the sane part of the world, have to figure out a way to defeat the smallest, but most unpredictable, most annoying, and possibly most dangerous contingent of the world’s population, because now they have the weapons and the voice to propagate their nasty little wars and actually gain support. We can’t be brutal, we can’t play their own game even though we could play it better, and we can’t officially negotiate, because negotiation legitimizes the practice. But the objectives remain, and unless I’m sadly mistaken, must remain, the same: the near-total reversal of opinion among the populations that are willing to support terrorism.
I make no recommendations as to how it’s done, but those who support terrorism must have their asses beat, just as much as those who actually carry out the acts.