Scylla, I’m not going to argue your point-of-view. I believe it is one optional approach to the problem, and as such merits some consideration. But there is one problem about this approach that bugs me, could you please explain how this problem can be solved:
This may take some time to accomplish, and during this period, some terrorists will slip through our defense systems and kill more civilians. So unless we magically do a, b, and c immediately, using your approach will result in many more civilian victims on our side (never mind the other side). [Note that a nuclear bomb is not an option, since many terrorists are scattered all over the world and will survive a localized nuclear attack.]
Um, I was unaware that the vicious yet novel idea of hijacking airliners with utility knives and crashing them into buildings was standard training our US military gives to foreign nationals. Damn, that is a bad idea. Write your congressman immediately!
I disagree. A sure response will deter future attacks, thereby rendering points b & c mute. I know pacifist tend to disagree with this view. It would be impossible to combat or dissuade everyone from disagreeing with the foreign policy of the US. So by extension, there is always going to be some with a grudge of some kind or another.
A policy that says peace must be afforded at all cost is essentially a policy that leaves us impotent on the world stage for fear that our actions will be a cause for someone else’s grievances.
That will certainly be addressed in the near future.
Be clear on this, however – the U.S. DID NOT train terrorists to come after U.S. targets. Terrorists did that on their own, using their own crude, but effective, methods.
Bin Laden was one person out of many that the U.S. rightfully supported in the '80s. At the time, he was helping the Afghans fight off the USSR – it was not then aparent that he was later to become an anti-American terrorist leader. So no direct blame can be placed on America in Bin Laden’s acension to power. Hindsight is 20/20, after all.
It’s not like we now have dozens of other former Muhajadeen leaders coming out of the woodwork to lead global terrorist outfits. We have only one – Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden was basically an unforeseeable accident, a “lone nut” – and in no way are his actions the fault of the USA.
If you can point out a peaceful solution that prevents future attacks and solves the problem, I’m all ears.
Our government’s first duty is to protect its citizens. It must act to ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again.
For ourselves, for the world, we must make an example and teach that these kinds of terrorist actions will guarrantee disaster for anybody perpetrating them, and for the causes they are associated with. Terrorism will not bring glory and attention to the causes and motivations of terrorists, but only to their villainous means.
Yes. We must retaliate. Yes. The cost will be high.
We did nothing after the attack on WTC in 1993. That inaction has cost over 6,500 deaths so far.
There is a difference between what terrorists want and what caused terrorism in the first place.
It is always good to know more. Learning what caused WWII (such as the economic and social ruin of Germany after WWI) has helped us to istitute policies (like the Marshall plan) that help prevent that sort of thing from happening. We do have the power to prevent the crazies from becoming leaders, but it is a power that relies on knowledge and thought, no rage and ignorance.
I think the only useful information we could obtain would come from understanding what causes non-terrorists to become terrorists. Once they are terrorists there is little point in attempting to figure out what is in their heads. We already know, by implication, that they are willing to die for whatever cause they have adopted. We know that who dies as a result of their dying for their cause is not important. We know-- now-- that there is probably no limit on what sort of action is reprehensible in furtherance of their cause. What more do we need to know? We know what they do, how they do it. If we want to stop it, we simply attack on those premises. Since what they do is kill people, and how they do it is virtually unlimited, we know that the enemy we face must be dismantled in every possible way from resource gathering to freedom of movement. The surest solution is death.
Their motivations are useless knowledge to this end.
Motivations for people to turn a blind eye to terrorism, if not actively support it, is where the humanitarian efforts and diplomacy come into play. The rest is brute force, hopefully applied to only the participants necessary (ie-the terrorists themselves).
Short-term military/financial action does not precluse long-term peace initiatives. The two go hand-in-hand.
Eliminating ALL terrorists, present and future, is not a goal. Eliminating most of the current terrorist leaders and making things very difficult for potential terrorists down the road is a goal.
Destroying all sources of terrorists is a vague goal. Making it harder for them to operate is more like it.
Keep in mind that we can’t “solve the problem itself” very quickly, either. That route also gives time for terrorists to perform more atrocities.
i’m not going to take on the whole argument, it’s earing. But I do have a question I’d like someone to answer. Anyone, I’m not picky. (And construe nothing by my question, please. )
Can you show me one instance in which meeting terrorist violence with more violence has caused the terrorists to stop terrorizing? Just one will go a long way towards convincing me that hurting them back is going to acheive the goal of stopping or even reducing the terrorism. (Again, no construing, please. I’m not advocating we do nothing at all, and this is not about justice or payback or any of that. This is a question about acheiving the goal of reducing or eliminating the terrorism to begin with.)
It certainly hasn’t done shit in Israel.
Hasn’t done shit in Ireland.
So where has it worked? Anyone <tapping the mike> is this thing working?
I agree. Though I think that people arguing that there is only one solution for terrorism consequently see only one solution and tend to lump everyone trying to find a different way into a big strawman. Few deliberately misconstrue an arguement.
Responding to terrorism with terrorism gives credence to the terrorists motivations and validates their actions. It makes their tatics sucessfull. Trying to understand them doesen’t.
You give your daughter attention when she throws a temper tantrum by denying her a book. Are you suggesting that we should act similarly and try to understand what the terrorists want to deny what the terrorists want?
Or other people could lobby to get her a smaller office because of her actions.
Ignoring the terrorists will probably work in the long run, but finding out the motivations of the terrorists and denying them what they want is more efficient.
readonly, (kool user name, btw) I think you did miss one bit: as far as I know, we have been at peace, per se, with the countries where these terrorists originate and thrive. I am not aware of the U.S. being at war with any of them. Did I miss something? Have we not tried to garner friendly relations with these countries, and, in fact, in the case of Afghanistan and bin Laden, help them in their fight against the Soviets? Our help and peaceful co-operation got us a smack in the face.
Yes, but the value of “knowing more” does not become apparent until AFTER military objectives are fulfilled. We still have to deal with the incorrigible terrorist that are out there now. Once the immediate threats are dispensed with, THEN and only then can peaceful intitiatives (e.g. Marshall Plan) be instituted.
Force has to employed first, to achieve capitulation and/or elimination of immediate threats. Peaceful solutions cannot lead off an anti-terrorism inititative.
The Symbiotic Maoist Falange hurts no one because they’re dead.
There have been no more attacks on Olympic athletes since Black September, and the Israeli’s response.
The Israeli’s response to hijacking is they immediately storm the plane. No negotiations. El Al hasn’t been hijacked or bombed or attacked in over twenty years, I think.
Saddam Hussain’s terrorist bombings of Tel Aviv were met with force, and he is no longer the military threat he was.
Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany are threats that have been abolished by force.
Irv, the kid who used to beat up my little brother stopped after I punched him out.
Black panthers don’t do much these days.
The Israelis have had a lot of success against terror. They’ve wiped out a lot of groups who trouble them no more, and they did it through responding to terrorism with force. They do not negotiate or accede to terrorist based demands. They go after the terrorists. They make it an automatic response.
Stoid, how does one go about documenting terrorist attacks that never happen because the potential perpetrators are somehow neutralized prior to carrying it out? However, if you can disrupt this network of terrorists, it is common sense to assume you hinder their ability to function. I’m not saying that this is the only action that should be taken, but it is effective containment action.
On the other hand, we do know that not aggressively pursuing terrorists after the fist bombing of the trade center did nothing to discourage a second more deadly attack.
First off, stopping terrorism in way that ensures that it will never happen again is a patent impossibility. Lone nuts, and their followers, are born every so often. So nobody is even trying to accomplish that.
Terrorism as practiced today (by non-sovereign entities) does not have a particularly long history. However, I’d consider British atrocities committed in the American colonies pretty terroristic. The colonies assembled a ragtag army and eventually drove the British off of American turf through violence.
Look at Europe today. Naziism was not completely eliminated in the wake of WWII, but it was heavily marginalized. A Nazi Party exists today in Germany and other nations, but they have no real power or influence. That result was achieved through the exercise of violence.
If terrorists can be so marginalized – more so than they already are – especially within Muslim countries, the current anti-terrorist campaign will have accomplished a lot. Obviously, that marginalization must be facilitated by Marshall-Plan type peace initiatives. But peace cannot be garnered until military action has cleared a path.
You make an excellent point, and one that I concede invalidates my original premise.
Finding out what they seek in order to specifically ensure they never get because of their terrorist actions, is more optimal than simply disregarding their standpoint.
"Defiant, Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida organization warned Washington against attacks against him or Afghanistan: ‘Wherever there are Americans and Jews, they will be targeted.’
“The statement was faxed to news organizations in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, in the name of al-Qaida’s chief military commander, Naseer Ahmed Mujahed, and released less than 48 hours before the beginning of Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jews worldwide.”