How does the world REALLY stop terrorism?

Just a question open for discussion. I'm new around here, so if this not in standing with procedure, just let me know.

Is finding people like Bin Laden really the answer? Is finding any one person really going to make a difference? Our motto might as well be, "Defeating terrorism, one terrorist at a time." Isn't the idea to prevent cancer, to prevent crops from being destroyed by unwanted invaders? Shouldn't we be trying to get to the root of the problem? Whatever that might be. It's a lot like playing Whack a Mole. You hit one, and another pops up. It never ends.

It's hard to believe after all this time everyone doesn't have some common ground to start a dialog. I mean, saying things like Israel should be wiped off the map is ridiculous and not helping anyone, especially the one who said it. But, real, actual concerns should be addressed...for everyone.

I'm not going to hide the fact that I disaggree with pretty much every move this administration has made (Bush 2, and co.). We can't go around and beat everyone up for their lunch money. We used to assist others in their time of need, now it seems we are the bully.

I think some people resort to terrorism becuase that's all they have. That's their last resort. Unfortunately, there's usually a madman in charge who manages to influence those who are desparate and they see someone to follow. Maybe, if a sane person (for lack of a better term) were to step in and give them another choice, we (the entire planet) can avoid terrorism. I'm not just talking the West vs. the Middle East, or US vs. the Middle East. I'm talking global terrorism.

I mean the money that's "given" way with contests and lotteries in this country (US) is insane. In the Guiness Book of World Records some of the most expensive items are owned by Arab Royalty. Things like gold and diamond encrusted cell phones. Really? Do they need that?

Some complain that there's not enough food in the world. You know what? There is. It's just not shared evenly.

OK. So I rambled a bit. Just needed to vent a little, maybe. I would be interested to see others thoughts on the matter.

Someone once said one mans terrorist is another man's patriot. So, basically, as long as there are patriots for another cause, then they will be viewed as terrorists on the other side. The only way to end terrorism in that case is to make sure there is only one government to be patriotic towards. One world government that rules absolutely, and that everyone must be a patriot for.

That is the only way to end terrorism. Convenient for some eh?

In answer to your opening question.

How does the world REALLY stop terrorism?

It cant. Ever.

You can have different religions, different factions, different ideals. You will always get some one, or somebody who will go against that ideal. Hence the out break of terrorists attacks against that ideal.

It cannot be stopped, no matter what. We have to accept this as the norm. Bad World we live in eh?

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
How does the world REALLY stop terrorism?

It's called The Second Coming...
...and eventually and inevitably it will occur....
The question is "When?".

Originally posted by zerotolerance
It's called The Second Coming...
...and eventually and inevitably it will occur....
The question is "When?".

It depends on what you call 'the second coming'. Do you think that this could happen?

If the second coming occurred, what would it solve? Famine, disease, war?

Not profitable, no one ever made money makeing perfect solutions. Some thing about demand and services I recall. Oil could be forgotten as a fuelsource for more ecosafe alternatives, but that would mean loss of money to people who financed the Presidents election. Same goes for tobacco companies, they have enough money to throw around super bowl figures of commercial money just to tell people not to smoke their products.


That is an example of this terrorism scam, not that it is a fake scam, it is a deadly scam. Haliburton who if you don't know has active governmental "leaders", who are in charge. If they stopped war they would have no contracts to bid, for the rebuilding of who they just got done bombing. The scam is it is our money they are getting, $500 Billion for the worlds largest embassy?! Thanks, but no thanks.

You know what else isn't distributed evenly, lightning strikes.


Can I disagree with you on one thing, the dialogue. I have a feeling there is but it is more competitive in nature. The new arms race for space, is a much more lucrative market than most nations can claim on their GNP. The leader of that industry would be the new super power. For me, it is that and the recent increase of global war exercise type operations that makes puzzle peices fit together.

If we knew more than they wanted us to know, just imagine what they would not know we knew.

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
I would be interested to see others thoughts on the matter.

Okay, here's my method to reduce or stop terrorism, although it's admittedly not likely to be officially endorsed by anybody.

The thing is, even suicide bombers have a good, practical reason for driving car bombs into buildings. They're not crazy. This kind of suicide is usually done because the bomber expects that their immediate family members, or at very least the people in their community, will benefit in some way because of the bomber's actions. Some terrorist organizations even guarantee that the families of suicide terrorists will be paid or taken care of. It's a reasonable cost/benefit analysis.

So the answer is simple. Increase the subjective costs of their actions. If somebody does some terrorist act, you find out who they are (or were), then in the black of night you send out a team of ruthless killers who will mercilessly slaughter every man, woman, child and pet in the terrorist's immediate family. As messy as possible. Limbs severed. Mutilations. Blood everywhere.

Now, it wouldn't take too long for these terrorists to to the math and figure out that their terrorist activities, rather than a reasonable sacrifice to help their families, will just get their entire families killed in the most horrific way possible. That will sure ruin their motivations.

Well, you say, what if you can't find out who the terrorist was? No matter. Somebody has to pay. Pick a family at random and kill them, making sure that everybody knows it because of the terrorist act. How long do you think that will go on before people will rush to make it clear exactly who the real terrorist was?

Yeah, it's horrible in the purest sense of the word. Raw horror. But it's a tried and true method of operation that people (particularly non-Christians) understand on a gut level. Bloody revenge.

And another good thing about it is that it would be relatively inexpensive. If you had a small army of 1,000 or so assassins, moving like bloodthirsty, avenging ghosts through the area, they would be a lot less expensive than having huge numbers of soldiers and equipment fighting a guerilla war far from home.

So there you go. I'm not going to get elected anytime soon by advocating such a thing. But will it work? Oh, you could count on it.

Excellent post Enkidu.

Your ideas sound fine, but they will not work. No matter what thinking a suicide bomber has, they will always go for the kill ,in the understanding that they will get a better afterlife. That is what they are told, and that is what they believe.
How can you make someone who is so intense on their religion and beliefs to think otherwise?

It is going to be a very hard battle to overcome. One that i think will never be overcome. Its a hard, and sad fact of life that this happens, and is ultimately something we cannot ever win.

Enkidu, I promise to not use the word "idiotic" when commenting on your post, because I want to stick with the rules of conduct here. So here we go:

Originally posted by Enkidu
The thing is, even suicide bombers have a good, practical reason for driving car bombs into buildings. They're not crazy. This kind of suicide is usually done because the bomber expects that their immediate family members, or at very least the people in their community, will benefit in some way because of the bomber's actions.

Quite a baseless statement. Most often the terrorists don't care much about immediate family members and oftentimes had severed all ties with them. It is for the IDEA that they commit their crimes. For example, a Palestinian would blow himself up because he believes that this act could be a small contribution towards eventual end of the Israeli occupation and would please Allah as well. Even if the result is 50 years away.

Some terrorist organizations even guarantee that the families of suicide terrorists will be paid or taken care of. It's a reasonable cost/benefit analysis.

True! Sometimes this is the case.

So the answer is simple. Increase the subjective costs of their actions. If somebody does some terrorist act, you find out who they are (or were), then in the black of night you send out a team of ruthless killers who will mercilessly slaughter every man, woman, child and pet in the terrorist's immediate family. As messy as possible. Limbs severed. Mutilations. Blood everywhere.

You see, you look like a merciless and very sick animal when you write stuff like that. Do you have children of your own? Would you mutilate a child?

Besides the obvious disgusting part of this message, I dare you to send a team of ruthless killers to some Afghani village. They might as well disappear without a trace.

Well, you say, what if you can't find out who the terrorist was? No matter. Somebody has to pay. Pick a family at random and kill them, making sure that everybody knows it because of the terrorist act. How long do you think that will go on before people will rush to make it clear exactly who the real terrorist was?

It has been tried by the Nazis and had very limited effect. In addition to being morally reprehensible and again, disgusting.

If you had a small army of 1,000 or so assassins, moving like bloodthirsty, avenging ghosts through the area,

What an adolescent fantasy, fueled by computer games and actions movies... Try sending 1000 silent and deadly killers into Chechnya, for example, and see what happens. There will be 1000 heads chopped off in a matter of days.


[edit on 1-6-2006 by Aelita]

how to stop terrorism?

you really can't. However, you can make it a less viable option for the people who commit the bulk of the atrocities, the suicide bombers. How do you do this?

Education.

If you provide a proper education, not some mosque run anti-western hate filled day of schooling, you will, hopefully, limit the number of kids who grow up with no future other than to be one of many uneducated, unemployed family members who's only hope for providing for his family is to blow himself up and receive death benefits for said family.

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Excellent post Enkidu.

Your ideas sound fine, but they will not work. No matter what thinking a suicide bomber has, they will always go for the kill ,in the understanding that they will get a better afterlife. That is what they are told, and that is what they believe.

How can you make someone who is so intense on their religion and beliefs to think otherwise?

Well, the terrorist might believe they're going to benefit with a wonderful afterlife, but they would probably still be hesitant to bring their entire families along with them. And I'm sure the families might have something to say about it, too. You don't generally have Dad, Mom and the kids all rolling up to an embassy in a car bomb.

The notion that our religious and philosophical differences make it too difficult for us to reach a common understanding, I think, is not quite correct. Around the world there are things we all pretty much agree on that are good and bad. These things mostly center around the safety and well-being of the family. People generally want to procreate, and to have their names and legacies live on.

Most wars, in fact, are fought with the best intentions on both sides, to create or maintain a safe country against foreign invaders or other threats.

So we can reach a common understanding. It's just that the understanding would have to be on a very basic, animal level. None of this airy, abstract talk of "liberty" and "justice" and "freedom." Blood for blood.

Stop Terrorism? Take away reasons for people to fight . Mainly a source of power (i.e. Money/Religion). Everyone else has pretty much hit the nail on its head with a sledgehammer of reasonability.

[edit on 6/1/2006 by Masisoar]

[edit on 6/1/2006 by Masisoar]

posted by IrvingTheExplainer
Just a question open for discussion is finding people like Bin Laden really the answer? Is finding any one person really going to make a difference? Our motto might as well be, "Defeating terrorism, one terrorist at a time." It's a lot like playing Whack a Mole. You hit one and another pops up. It never ends. I'm not hiding the fact I disagree with pretty much every move this administration has made. We can't go around and beat everyone up for their lunch money. We used to assist others in their time of need, now it seems we are the bully.

I think some people resort to terrorism because that's all they have. That's their last resort. Some complain there's not enough food in the world. You know what? There is. It's just not shared evenly. I rambled. Just needed to vent a little. I would be interested to see other’s thoughts on the matter. [Edited by Don W]

You are not alone, ITE. Since day one, Nine Twelve, I have asked for a calm, deliberate discussion WHY the Arabs felt impelled to attack America. Us lower ranking personnel are beginning to ask those questions, but our leaders are not yet interested. Apparently the leaders have their own agenda and we have not been made privy to it. Yet.

From The Atlantic Charter
The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, make known common principles they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no territorial gains . .

Second, they desire no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live;

Fourth, they will endeavor to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world

Fifth, they desire improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the destruction of the Nazi tyranny, all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, all men to traverse the high seas without hindrance;

Eighth, all of the nations of the world must come to the abandonment of the use of force, they believe, pending the establishment of a permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of nations is essential.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Winston S. Churchill

The Atlantic Charter was signed early in 1941, I believe on the USS Augusta, well before America had been bombed at Pearl Harbor. The British had been in the war since September 1, 1939, about one and a half years. And it was not going well for them.

And one more thing, as Lt. Columbo used to remark. Here’s part of a vital speech made about the same time as the Atlantic Charter was signed. Early in 1941.

State of the Union speech to Congress, by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on January 6, 1941. Also known as the Four Freedoms Speech.

Mr. Speaker, members of the 77th Congress: I address you at a moment unprecedented in the history of the union. Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents . . our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations . . we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way - everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor - anywhere in the wold.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. The Congress of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of the program . .

To that high concept there can be no end save victory.

See anything here that might apply jor be helpful to America, today?


[edit on 6/1/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Aelita
Quite a baseless statement. Most often the terrorists don't care much about immediate family members and oftentimes had severed all ties with them. It is for the IDEA that they commit their crimes. For example, a Palestinian would blow himself up because he believes that this act could be a small contribution towards eventual end of the Israeli occupation and would please Allah as well. Even if the result is 50 years away.

I think you have probably been exposed to too much propaganda, which inaccurately portrays these people as some kind of fanatical, brainwashed robots. I like to give people a little more credit than that. I like to think people have the same basic emotions and motivations I do. I think your notion of them is dehumanizing. A Palestinian wants their families and communities to live peacefully and thrive as Palestinians because they think that is the best way for them to live. There is some ideology involved, but mostly it is an action intended for their people to live better.

You see, you look like a merciless and very sick animal when you write stuff like that. Do you have children of your own? Would you mutilate a child?

I told you it wouldn't be pleasant. But it would stop terrorism. I, personally, wouldn't like to mutilate and kill a child, but my tax money pays for an Army that does some other very horrible things to people and most people in this country accept that as a necessary evil.

Besides the obvious disgusting part of this message, I dare you to send a team of ruthless killers to some Afghani village. They might as well disappear without a trace.

That would have to be proven. Of course, you could expect some losses.

It has been tried by the Nazis and had very limited effect. In addition to being morally reprehensible and again, disgusting.

It was also tried by the U.S. Territorial Forces against the Native Americans, and although it could also be called "morally reprehensible," it was extremely effective. It's not a nice, friendly solution. You're right about that. But we're talking about stopping terrorism here, not making flower arrangements.

What an adolescent fantasy, fueled by computer games and actions movies... Try sending 1000 silent and deadly killers into Chechnya, for example, and see what happens. There will be 1000 heads chopped off in a matter of days.

Well, we'll never be able to prove it one way or another, since it will never happen. I personally think it would work. There are a lot of people currently trained in night operations and silent kill techniques. Many more since the miserable failed U.S. raid against Iran to rescue the hostages in 1978(?). I think it would work.

But you already have your mind clouded against the practical aspects.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Enkidu]

donwhite, those should be posted in every language, in every public place in the entire world.

Why is so simple an idea gotten so complicated? Who in their right mind doesn't want those things ultimately?

I guess "in their right mind" is the key here.


Well, I'll go on hoping...

the terrorism will stop when every one on planet earth life is totally mind controlled and the people doing the mind control want us to live in peace.

the mind control will come, but i doubt the planet will be a peaceful place for a long time to come. governments need the population to be scared of something, this is how they say they are needed in the first place, to protect us all.

A "war on terrorism" is like the "war on obesity" or a "war on dandruf", not entirely pointless, but pretty dang close. You will never wipe it out completely, but you may knock out some of the big, key players who can back the much larger, coordinated attacks like 9/11.

Originally posted by Enkidu
I think you have probably been exposed to too much propaganda, which inaccurately portrays these people as some kind of fanatical, brainwashed robots.

I can smell propaganda a mile away and I really am not susceptible to it. It does take a high degree of fanaticism to mutilate and kill children (that's what terrorists do) in cold blood. Yes, I claim one has to become somewhat of a brainwahsed robot to commit all this. This is plain logic and has nothing to do with propaganda.

I like to give people a little more credit than that. I like to think people have the same basic emotions and motivations I do.

That's where you are wrong. What basic motivation are you talking about when the bad guys blow up a school full of children or do other such things? I do hope you are not motivated like that.

You see, you look like a merciless and very sick animal when you write stuff like that. Do you have children of your own? Would you mutilate a child?

I told you it wouldn't be pleasant. But it would stop terrorism.

a) don't say it wouldn't be pleasant -- you make it a small issue when you talk like that. It's not like your cofee is stale and not pleasant or your A/C broke. It's a full betrayal of what we stand for, which trying hard to be at least somewhat compassionate and civilized (and we don't always do a good job of that, apparently).

b) it won't stop them. It will create millions more terrorists who will need no further pursuasion to convince them that the US is the world Satan. Because it would be.

I, personally, wouldn't like to mutilate and kill a child, but my tax money pays for an Army that does some other very horrible things to people and most people in this country accept that as a necessary evil.

When you knowlingly pay for an intended mutilation of a child, you are lower than an animal. Yes civilians die in conflicts but you propose to target these civilians. Nazis were hated for a reason, you know. And I hate them too.

But you already have your mind clouded against the practical aspects.

I really think you are a sick person for contemplating things like that, and it is on people like you that evil feeds, in our country and in all those who we call terrorist states. Your mind is not clouded. It's gone haywire.


[edit on 2-6-2006 by Aelita]

how to end terrorism?

easy kill everyone on the planet and there will be no terrorism. but as long as there are govt and or peoples that other govts or peoples see as "evil" there will always be uprisings and/or terrorism. And WHO the terrorists are depends on the perspective i guess.
But really the only way to win the war on terror is to kill everyone since anyone can be a terrorists at any time.

great war weve made yeay us

I thought we won the war on dandruff 12-4.

stupid history books.