Can Terrorism be Stopped?

Let me ask you this? Name me a terrorist group that has ever won their "war" against their enemies? Like the ETA, IRA, Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, etc. They may be able to blow up buildings and kill innocent people, but in the end, they have yet to achieve anything.

Originally posted by timeless test
Subject x,

I fear you have missed my point somewhat. I expressed concern about the initial responses to this thread because almost without exception they equated terrorism with Islamic fundamentalism and failed to consider any number of other terrorist activities. In terms of the definition of terrorism I was just resurrecting the old chestnut of when does someone stop being a freedom fighter or resistance member and start being a terrorist, a conundrum which is very difficult to resolve.

Not so difficult, timeless. When you start targeting civilians instead of the force you are "resisting", you are a terrorist. When you target troops of the force you are resisting, you are a freedom/resistance fighter. No conundrum there. Sure, it's easier to kill civilians, they don't generally shoot back. Fighting for your freedom is a lot harder then that, though.

The point I made about the gun lobby in the US highlighted this problem. It has often been expressed through the "cold dead hand" cliché that some are apparently prepared to fight and die for their right to bear arms; to fight (presumably) against the law enforcement agencies. Now, you may consider such a law to be unconstitutional but what is violent resistance to a democratically passed law if not a form of terrorism?

Yes, to fight against (presumably) the law-enforcement entities representing the PTB, not the folks at the mall or movie theater. There lies the difference, in my opinion.
And I doubt there will ever be a "democratically passed" law to confiscate guns in the US. Maybe a law shoved down the people's throats by a government which no longer represents the people, but not one passed "democratically".

The problem we have is that we like terrorism when it is in support of a cause we favour. Nelson Mandela did not use non-violent means to further his cause, he led the armed wing of the ANC and fully supported a guerrilla war and yet is seen as a folk hero in most of the West. Many on this site have expressed full support of the early Zionist terrorists who went onto lead "legitimate" Israeli governments and in the UK we now have a self confessed terrorist as Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

OK, I sand corrected about Mandela (thanks for denying my vast ignorance). I obviously need to study up on that, but did he have civilians bombed? Or did he target the forces of the regime?
Regardless of what other people support, I don't support terrorism no matter who is doing the terrorizing. You are totally right about many people (especially the government) supporting terrorism if they agree with what they are fighting for. That, in itself, is probably the main reason terrorism will never end. Or the fact that to many people get rich supporting them.

It is with some of these people in mind that I say perhaps we do not want to eliminate terrorism but we sure as hell do have to define it.

I have to disagree. Terrorism is never acceptable, no matter the cause.

It may be natural to talk about Middle East terrorism at the moment but we will never understand what motivates people to follow this path if we do not see beyond the issue of the day, particularly if it is one we are generally unsympathetic to.

True. I think, however, that I will never be able to understand motivations that make one blow up a nightclub, wherever it may be.

Originally posted by marg6043
Terrorism is no limited to only what we have been geared for the last few years or decades to a middle east conspiracy against the US.

If you have seen how the middle east has been invaded through centuries until modern times the word terrorist can be apply quite liberal across oceans.

Terrorism is in every single country and comes with different issues.

So do not even think that eliminating the middle east is going to stop terrorism at all.

Because you always going to find terrorist within any country domestic type as well.

Exactly, marge. Well said.
Thus returning us to the question, Can terrorism be stopped?
I don't think so.

Originally posted by seridium
The answer to that is No.
Order out of Chaos is a great means to control the masses when full control over us is enstilled into our daily livestyles I think then and only then will all this Terrorism nonsense stop.

Don't you think that "full control" will just spark more terrorism?
Isn't that what most of it is about?

Originally posted by subject x
Exactly, marge. Well said.
Thus returning us to the question, Can terrorism be stopped?
I don't think so.

Thanks, sad but the only way humanity can live in harmony will be when we achieve so much enlightenment that wars, inequality and racism will be eradicated.

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
IMHO, the war on terror is about as useful as a war on murder............

It brings a tear to my eye to say this, but sadly we are probobly closer to a police state then we think, and when they drop the hammer on us I'm sure most citizens will be all too willing to give up what little rights they have left.

I pretty much agree with you completely there, Aces.
It's a sad, sad fact of life that there will always be someone discontented enough to keep the terror ball rolling. To bad.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Let me ask you this? Name me a terrorist group that has ever won their "war" against their enemies? Like the ETA, IRA, Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, etc. They may be able to blow up buildings and kill innocent people, but in the end, they have yet to achieve anything.

Good point, deltaboy. It would seem, then, that killing innocent people must actually polarize people against them instead of getting them what they want.
And yet the people keep dying.

Originally posted by marg6043
Thanks, sad but the only way humanity can live in harmony will be when we achieve so much enlightenment that wars, inequality and racism will be eradicated.

You're probably right, marge.
Unfortunately, I don't have much hope for "enlightenment" in our future.
To many people seem immune.

The only way to stop these terrorist is to:

1)stop all use of petrol-chemical products.
2)Confiscate all monies horded by everyone that is addicted to oil derived profit.

Originally posted by Comforter
The only way to stop these terrorist is to:

1)stop all use of petrol-chemical products.
2)Confiscate all monies horded by everyone that is addicted to oil derived profit.

It's not the people who run the oil companies who are commiting terror acts, it's a small group thats usually responsable. Usually to small to know about untill it's too late. Do you honestly think a suicide bomber cares about oil profits?? Good luck trying to implement these points because we will never stop using all petrol-chemicals any time soon.

Originally posted by Comforter
The only way to stop these terrorist is to:

1)stop all use of petrol-chemical products.
2)Confiscate all monies horded by everyone that is addicted to oil derived profit.

I don't see how that will change anything, Comforter.
I've got to go along with Aces here. Bombers aren't even in line for petro-profits.

Originally posted by subject x
1) Locking ourselves away from the world. Using walls, fences, check points, armed guards, and a zero immigration policy, it might be possible to stem the flow of terrorists into a particular country. This, as far as the U.S. is concerned, would be the end of freedom as we know it. It would halt the influx of new, positive thinking as well as the negative aspects. It would clamp a lid on the great melting pot. Scientific and social thinking would eventually grind to a halt, as in a sealed system, entropy always increases. This is unacceptable to me, personally.

Why do you think that this would "halt the influx" of ideas? Just how far are you thinking this seal would extend??

Unless we were knocked back to primitive times, I don't understand how you think ideas are going to be completely and entirely halted. Do we not have the internet? tv and radio? newspapers? the telephone?!

There's a HUGE difference between locking the doors and windows, and cementing the entire house to create your own personal tomb. What you described was the latter, and I agree that that would be, in effect, suicide.

With that said, I like the idea of the US defending its own territory, instead of invading others'. Canada and Sweden (as far as I know) are countries that guard their borders -- and I don't think they are anywheres near ideological stasis.


This whole mess started because we went over to someone else's land and started messin' with them, thinkin' we knew better then they did. If we'da kept to ourselves, we might not be in this trench. (I'm sure if the 'terrorists' really wanted to start some #, then yes... we'd be figuring out what to do. But we'd be doing it on our soil, not theirs. And certainly not with one foot on either side of the ocean, with our bullox hangin' out in the wind...)

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Diseria]

Originally posted by Diseria
Why do you think that this would "halt the influx" of ideas? Just how far are you thinking this seal would extend??

Unless we were knocked back to primitive times, I don't understand how you think ideas are going to be completely and entirely halted. Do we not have the internet? tv and radio? newspapers? the telephone?!

The seal would have to be total for it to work, and since that would be a practical impossibility due to the present communication systems in place, it's obviously not going to happen. However, a "seal" would have to extend to said systems to be effective, locking out not only the people but the ideas, so as not to have foreign interests swaying people living here to their views.

There's a HUGE difference between locking the doors and windows, andcementing the entire house to create your own personal tomb. What you described was the latter, and I agree that that would be, in effect, suicide.

That's right, Diseria. That's how it would play out.

With that said, I like the idea of the US defending its own territory, instead of invading others'. Canada and Sweden (as far as I know) are countries that guard their borders -- and I don't think they are anywheres near ideological stasis.

You can still visit Canada and Sweden, though, can't you? Thus, they are not really "locked away" from the rest of the world.
I, too, like the idea of the US defending itself. I don't like the idea of the US resembling the old East Germany.

This whole mess started because we went over to someone else's land and started messin' with them, thinkin' we knew better then they did. If we'da kept to ourselves, we might not be in this trench. (I'm sure if the 'terrorists' really wanted to start some #, then yes... we'd be figuring out what to do. But we'd be doing it on our soil, not theirs. And certainly not with one foot on either side of the ocean, with our bullox hangin' out in the wind...)

True enough. Don't forget, however, that terrorism is not the sole property of the middle east. This is just the most currently publicized area. Thus, one can't base one's ideas of terrorism solely on the middle east situation.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by subject x]

Originally posted by deltaboy
Let me ask you this? Name me a terrorist group that has ever won their "war" against their enemies? Like the ETA, IRA, Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, etc. They may be able to blow up buildings and kill innocent people, but in the end, they have yet to achieve anything.

Israel.
The Irgun/Stern Gang/Hagannah

The indigenous Palestinian arabs were insensed at the idea of more Jews from Europe intruding into their country, they were realizing they were to be pushed out. The British had come up with a White Paper that they followed that contolled the immigration of Jews from Europe into palestine. They began to send ships carrying jews fleeing from Europe back to their originating destinations. The Jewish terrorists figured that by disabling the ships that the Brits would be forced to accept the incoming Jewish refugees. The Terrorists even went as far as to blow up the ship carrying their own people causing hundreds of deaths of the Jewish passengers.

In their attacks against Great Britain and the Arabs they forced the British to change their stance on Jewish Immigration into Palestine and forced the Brits to give into their demands and gain their Independence. They bombed a hotel killing over 250 people, blew up various train stations, murdered villages of palestinians, hung 2 british soldiers and assasinated a British ME envoy in Egypt.

Not only were they successful in pushing out the Brits and the people that lived there already but they still to this day continue to take from these same people. They oppress and abuse them as well. Today they are using High Tech weapons and armaments rather then dynamite and a hangmans noose.

Originally posted by subject x
Well, Pie Man, if we have to be messing around in their affairs at all, that would be the proper way to go about it. Even-handedness would probably see better results then favoritism. But from what I understand, these middle-east terrorists are angry over our very presence there.

They only hate our presence because we are taking sides. They beg us for help and ask us to be honest Peace brokers. How many times have they gone to the UN and complained , how many times has it been vetoed or even totally ignored. These complaints have been passed off as routine anti-semetism when we should have been listening years ago and met them half-way. We have given them nothing but Vetoes which is basically like giving them the finger. Does everyone believe that the recent happenings in Israel Palestine are something recent? The Palestinians have been complaining about all this even before there was a PLO but since the Israelis controlled any access to media in or out of Palestine, we would only see dead Israelis on bombed buses , discos, or Pizzerias. You wouldn't see the decapitated bodies of hundreds of slain Palestinains in Refugee camps. They always denied and or covered things up on their end. Its always been about image and moral stature.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
They only hate our presence because we are taking sides.......

............. Its always been about image and moral stature.

Good points, PieMan. It's to bad that the PTB will probably never give them a fair shake over there. It would most likely calm things down a bit if they did, but I doubt that it would end terrorism in the region. And even if it did, the terror would just pop up elsewhere. You get no argument from me that if we insist on meddling in their business, we should insure that everyone gets the same amount of it, showing no favoritism. It's easy to see how people would get fed up with the unfair treatment, and want to do something about it.

You can't blame a people for fighting for basic rights, but taking away the right to live from people in the same boat as they are....... I fail to see how that would help their cause. It just heaps more crap onto their already crappy situation.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing where some people get off trying to tell other people how they should live their lives, or where they can or can't live. It must have something to do with the feeling of power when bossing others around.

War is based on economics remove the profit remove the war. The US would not be stirring up Islamic fundamentalist if it were not for the oil profits.
I’m trying to get a look from the other side of this coin. The Islamic fascist would be content in a society of the 11th century and if it were not for the singular greed from oil profits that is where they would be.
At least we would not be facing terrorist with the ability to buy contemporary weaponry.
We would also not have as corrupt of level in our lobby system. Well not quite as corrupt.
US troops originally had improvised explosives made up from the stash not properly detonated by the Ukrainians in Iraq to contend with. Now we have the latest and greatest being imported via Syria and Iran’s boarders killing ever more efficiently.
No money in oil no big bombs and absolutely no countries like the US causing the fundamental fascist to unite.
Terrorism is an effective technique in war, it will never be completely stopped but taking the economics out would cut the Islamic terrorist to the bone. As well as the wealthy aristocracies that are behind many of the present war profiteering.


[edit on 14-7-2007 by Comforter]

Comforter
As far as the Arabs and oil, well you really can't take the idea of them making a profit off of oil. Remember its basically their only product aside from sand in some of those oil producing nations. You really can't knock them for wanting to make money on it. You can also pretty much guarantee that yes they are making money but there are vultures feeding off of that from western nations too.

Originally posted by Comforter
War is based on economics remove the profit remove the war. The US would not be stirring up Islamic fundamentalist if it were not for the oil profits.........

................Terrorism is an effective technique in war, it will never be completely stopped but taking the economics out would cut the Islamic terrorist to the bone. As well as the wealthy aristocracies that are behind many of the present war profiteering.

Interesting concept, Comforter. It's pretty self-evident that the US wouldn't be in the middle east if there were no petro-profits to be had there. It's all about the money.

Of course, other then making petroleum power obsolete, there is no way to remove the financial motivation, is there? This makes it, at present, a moot point. Until there's a better energy technology available, there will be money in oil, and we'll be over there trying our best to get it.

Hypothetically, if the money were not available to the terrorists, I doubt it would slow them down much. They would just keep on going with improvised explosives or whatever they could get their hands on. Cheap bombs kill people just as dead as expensive bombs.

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by Comforter
War is based on economics remove the profit remove the war. The US would not be stirring up Islamic fundamentalist if it were not for the oil profits.........


Of course, other then making petroleum power obsolete, there is no way to remove the financial motivation, is there? This makes it, at present, a moot point. Until there's a better energy technology available, there will be money in oil, and we'll be over there trying our best to get it.

A shame more people have not read about hemp oil making better diesel than petroleum. Part of why Rockefeller and William Randolph Hurst were such great friends both wanted and got hemp outlawed now we seem too ignorant to change the law even when it could save our very survival. Our government had a hybrid plant that could be harvested like asparagus and were over 4” thick producing copious amounts of potential fuel that did not nearly wear parts as bad as what we presently use.