Terrorism

[ClubMed]

In Your Opinion

1. What is terrorism?. Definition.
2. What are the reasons for it?
3. What is the best method to fight terrorism?.
4. Can terrorism be wiped out?. Yes/No Why?.

[Jonty]

Well, and this is straight off the top of my head, terroism seems to be the belief of 'something' that in that person or groups eyes, is absolutely right, and to achieve the fruition of that 'something' then death and destruction may, and generally is, the way to achieve it. Of course, we are not talking about 'normal' people here, if they were 'normal' they wouldn't be terrorists.

It's a very complex question that I'm sure the best minds in the world are working on to combat it. Will terrorism ever be wiped out? Probably not I'm afraid.

[CMonster]

I should stay out of this one:

Okay, IMO:

1. The main thing that defines terrorism is the target of a violent act: In simplist terms, when the target is "non-millitant people simply trying to live their lives" then it is terrorism.

2. Now we must come to the second thing that defines terrorism, motivation: There are many possible reasons, but three come readily to mind:

A. Religious fanaticism -not merely that doctrine or attitude that says "We are right and everyone else is wrong and going to hell," but that teaching which says "Therefore we must persuade the infidels by any means necessary or hasten their journey to hell (e.g. "Kill the Infidels!").

B. Political Ideology -when carried to religous extremes such as some forms of communism particularly when fueled by hoards of the hungry, poor, and under-educated, in whom has been planted the seeds of revolution.

C. Blood feuds -when disputes over land, religion, politics, etc, cause harm to a people and that injustice (whether perceived or genuine) leads to a festering hatred and spawns vengeful acts. This particular reason could possibly even transform me into a "terroist," in that if you harm my family then I would be tempted to destroy every last one of you!

3. I see four alternatives here (not in order of preference):

A. Negotiate and compromise;

B. Attempt to punish those responsible (I think this just perpetuates the cycle listed in "2. C." above);

C. Give in to the terrorist demands (yeah right, when pigs fly);

D. Commit an act of retaliation so heinous upon the country or people responsible that the entire world steps back and !gasps! -turn the major cities of that country into a sea of glass and put the world on notice that any act of terrorism will be met with the same response. Let them know that all the things they hold dear - their "holy" places, or "precious land," or "perfect political/religous system" will not be inhabitable or viable for about the next 10,000 years.

4. No. Humankind in their present form are basically a stupid lot that can never be fully enlightened or educated enough to eradicate violence/evil. Terrorists are like ants, you can spray your house and yard but they will be back in 6 month anyway.

[OuTpaTienT]

1. Terrorism is trying to convey your message or prove some kind of point to others through acts of seemingly random or unexpected violence. Death is usually abundant from the terrorist act, however death is not necessarily the goal…the goal is to frighten or terrorize those to whom you are sending your “message”.

2. Reasons can be any number of things. Maybe the terrorist feel like they don’t have a voice and violence is the only way to be heard. Maybe they feel they are such superior beings over their “target” that they are not in the least bit concerned with the life or death of the targets. Maybe they actually think their targets are not fit to exists in this same world with them, therefore they must all die anyways.

3. Being Arab CM, you over most people here, should know damn well what the best method for dealing with terrorists is… It’s swift, overpowering, blinding, violence to the terrorists, their immediate circle that assist them, and to their family. It’s cold blooded and brutal, but it’s been shown to be the best and most effective deterrent to counter terrorism. Unfortunately it’s not the way the U.S. does business, so we might have our hands full for a few years here.

4. Can it be eradicated? No. Can it be beaten down to a point where most of society can feel reasonably safe, and then kept in check? I believe so. I believe it’s worth a shot at least. We don’t really have another choice in the matter. The way I see it, the only other choice is to “negotiate” or give in to the terrorists demands, and that choice is COMPLETELY OUT OF THE QUESTION. I think I can safely speak for most of the citizens of this country (or at least I hope I can) by saying that I would rather die fighting the likes of Al-Qaeda then to ever bow to them. NEVER negotiate with terrorists.

Al-Qaeda messed with the wrong country. Even though we Americans can often be arrogant, belligerent, embarrassing, rude, or just eccentric…when you get down to the core of what is the American spirit you find one thing in more abundance than anything else…that one thing is determination. Once we set our sights on a goal, we WILL achieve that goal. No matter how lofty or unreachable that goal may sound to the rest of the world, we know we can do it. Even such impossible tasks as sending men to the moon during an era when the average citizen didn’t even have a calculator much less a computer. And just like back then, once again we find the entire world doubting that we can do what we say we’re going to do. Well, also just like back then, you CM and the rest of the doubting world can just sit back and watch us do what everyone seems to think is impossible.

It’s a little known fact, but if you look up the word impossible in a true American dictionary, it’s defined as “something that is just a little more difficult to accomplish”.

[mimic]

Couldn't have said it better myself OuT. Great post!

[ClubMed]

What do you think of this scenario?:

If we stop aiding some of the rogue governments out there, for example Egypt (which claims to be a democracy, but isn't IMO and receives about $1.5 billion per year). Would that start to weaken their grip on the country and allow for a gradual change in the government?.

In other words, do you think it is possible to fight terrorism by reducing the support that IMO is being sent to the wrong people and their by bringing into life a democratisation of a state?.

I am saying this because I feel that certain groups have chosen America as a target, not because they see it as a direct enemy, but because they wish to prevent this flow of money and support which would weaken their true enemy, namely their own state.

Although I agree with much of what was said earlier, I think that one of the main factors that lead to terrorism, is the lack of rights and humane living conditions in many dictatorhips. It is obviously not the only reason and factor, but I do believe it plays a major role here.

Maybe to help you understand my theory think of it this way:

1. Dictatorship fights it's own people, treating them like slaves --> 2. causes more and more frustration amongst the people, every one of their attempts to rise against their opressors is met with destruction --> 3. money from outside in the form of 'aid' helps the government maintain this illegal tight grip on the people, this would bring us back to point 1.

Please do not think that I am blaming someones generousity for terrorism and it's effects on the lives of the victims. I am just wondering about the possiblity and validity of this theory.

[kenyg]

I agree in some respects. I think we often send out aid with all the good intentions in the world. However, we're not so good about holding folks accountable for what they've done with it.

The middle east is just a huge friggin mess. Complicated by the fact that the world's oil comes from there. Kosovo was bad, took too long to get resolved - still is being resolved - but there's not oil in the picture.

I wish we could end our dependancy on oil, and then we could deal with the situation the way it should be dealt with.

I really wish these 'terrorists' would take a page out of Dr. Martin Luther King's book.


Ken

[cadetstimp]

A break down in diplomacy in reference to gaining commerce and/or power.

[Medo]

Hello,

It’s really hard to answer some of these questions. The first question is already answered in broad terms. The second one is tricky…. If you look through to Europe you will find two democratic countries – Spain and France and both of them share the same problem – Basque terrorism. So we have democracy, a very good standard of living and the very same religion and despite that every now and then bombs explode and innocent people are hurt or killed. In the case of Basque we also have, by western standards highly civilised nations. Why does it happen? They want their own state; France and Spain try to oppose it through all “democratic channels”. So we have here one clear example of terrorism because the democratic system failed to listen to a minority with its clear and justified goals. To resolve the problem, there is no need for Rambo type diplomacy because that type of diplomacy never, never succeeded or resolved the problem on the long run. Referendum will do nicely. Do you need a better example of Rambo diplomacy than the Irish problem of 1920’s and 1990 and after thousands killed the result of this is an independent state of Ireland and now we have negotiation in North Ireland. I purposely took those two examples because there is no (most favourite scapegoat) communist penetration.
In the Basque example we have a part of the answer on the third question. The second part of the answer will be to look at the past and see what the reasons are and resolve the problem. Look at Africa or Asia (especially Indonesia), where Brits and others drew the frontier line while sipping tea and now we have chaos. The main problem with terrorism is when some group hijacks the grievance of a nation or minority and uses it to fulfil its own goals - in a case like this we have to deal with criminals (Osama Bin Laden, Milosevic, etc).
The fourth one – maybe…. if we start caring about others’ problems.

I will use this opportunity to thank the ones who took their time and under the umbrella of a dummy e-mail accounts sent me "a message of love"…

Medo

[Brainchild]

IMO terrorisim is an act of violence against an unsuspecting victim.Where the culprit is invisible,and invincible. I would venture to say that before sept. 11, hardly any normal american knew the the name of Osama Bin-Laden, but now he's a household name. I think he got exactly what he was aiming for.

The reasons are many, power, recognition, fame, destruction,and most of all to destroy the mightier than they. In this case the US.

I'm not sure there is a best way to fight terrorisim, although I do agree with Bush, and think his approach was swift and accurate. War is bad buisness for everyone, mostly the folks in the service, both ours, and thiers. Life is a terrible thing to take so lightly that you would be willing to give it up for something that means nothing, IMO

I don't think Terrorisim will ever be wiped out completely. There will always be another Bin-Laden waiting in the wings to take this ones place when he falls, and the successor will have even a greater point to prove, that I am bigger and tougher than the last. Yes you might wipe it out for a time, but it will return, and all we can do is pray that we are not the targets