Solution to Terrorism?

OK, so there is a lot blame game type of discussion about terrorism on this board, but rarely do I see any concrete ideas about how to address and abolish this modern day scourge.

In the South there are daily murders and explosions and the Thai gov't. wants to pursue a more diplomatic course rather than just the purely military one they've been using since Thaksin came to power. What do you think?

On a global level, I don't think the problem of terrorism can be solved by applying current policies of certain gov't's. Whether we like it or not, we live in an emerging world community, which begs the question (Christians will love this): Is it time to pursue a one world gov't?

Perhaps a U.N. with a constitution with protections similar to the U.S. constitution that could be debated and drafted by every nation. A democratic gov't with separation of powers, tax collection, every nation protected like states in the U.S. I keep using the U.S. as an example because it is the form of gov't I'm most familiar with and I think, despite its flaws, runs well.

How would this solve the terrorism issue? By requiring nations to adhere to some basic "Bill of Rights" for their citizens--freedom of press, religion, redress, speech and so forth--then terrorism factions would be severely reduced because the pool of potential haters would dissipate. Why? There would be a strong, international court system with power equal to the legislative and executive branches where citizens, groups, and countries can bring forth grievances.

Will this happen? Probably not soon, if ever. But we are on a course right now that will definitely see an increase in strife, if not outright world war. I think "terrorism" is just a prelude to a lot more awful things we may see. Corporate colonisation, excessive pollution, clean water becoming more valuable than oil, and the shortsighted wisdom of a prolific arms trade will lead to a future grim surely.

Terrorism will never end.Too many people have too much to lose if there is peace because at the end of the day it's all about money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

... Is it time to pursue a one world gov't?...

---

Yeah, let's go for the New American Century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flash

Terrorism will never end.Too many people have too much to lose if there is peace because at the end of the day it's all about money.

---

That and there are way too many "infidels" left alive. All infidels must die!

You can help the the cause and jump off your balcony or shoot yourself today!

In theory it is sound.

It's been happening for quite a while already. Small groups of people who share beliefs, customs and habits dissimilar to the beliefs, customs and habits of a perhaps larger group of people feel they need more autononmy and more imput to the direction that their community is going. many times the government of the day would hum and ha and reject outright any demands. This esculates the tension and so it goes.

Many land boundaries were made without regard to the native population, Lao + Issarn, the south of Thailand. The partition of India was a disaster. Someone said Iraq was 'carved' up by the poms.

Yeah the concept is sound but think of the logistics.

The 'New America Century' scared me. Glad I'll be dead before I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Is it time to pursue a one world gov't?

---

You mean like we now have a European Union, one body making decisions for all the member states?

Dream on, we can't even agree about the shape of bananas.

Yup, agree with all the criticism except "The New American Century" bit. I was suggesting a world gov't set similar to the U.S. system, not controlled by the U.S. America would be one member, equal to the other nations in rights and priviledges. That, actually, will be the largest obstacle to any formation of a world gov't. The U.S. based corporations will not, under any circumstances, give a bit of their power away. The U.S., IMO, is not a positive conduit for change--the arrogance level is to high and besides fearmongering is good working policy at the moment (for U.S. interests anyway).

It's almost laughable really, if it wasn't so tragic. I just watched the White House press conference the other day (on Fox appropriately enough) and the press sec. was saying, and I quote "The Syrians know what they have to do" as far as taking instructions from the U.S. What hubris! Can you imagine if some other country used that language in regards to the U.S.? What if China said "America has to do this and that because we say so" The current administration really has it ingrained in their heads that the world MUST behave according to their wishes, or else. Really, I'll be glad when some less belligerent leaders take over governing in my country. Keeping my fingers crossed for 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Keeping my fingers crossed for 2008.

---

You may have to keep them crossed a while longer than that.

No matter what leadership changes there are in your country or mine, the powerful nations will not want to relinquish the decision-making power they have over the other lesser (sic) nations.

I'm not a political analyst, but your idea, wonderful though it is, would be unworkable due to the above. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risktohimself

No matter what leadership changes there are in your country or mine, the powerful nations will not want to relinquish the decision-making power they have over the other lesser (sic) nations.

---

True, but some leaders are more dipolomatic about how they wield their influence than others (fingers crossed again :) ). That can result in more stable relations and better feelings between different nations.

While the solution to terrorism is not simple, the path is clear. Ending terrorism starts at the source. Islamists (this category takes in most Muslims,regardless of what they tell you) will have to be killed in sufficiently large numbers to cause the kind of fear that will make them quit killing "infidels". Sherman understood this simple concept when he invaded the rebellious south. Even the Muslims who agree with terrorism will not all be actively involved in it. Assassination of mullahs who preach hate and train wahabbi-minded young people is the logical place to start. The mainstreaming of Islam will require more killing than most people care to contemplate. Let it begin sooner rather than later. Conventional "wisdom" would have you believe that young Muslims will be "radicalized" by harsh treatment. In fact, the reverse is true. The jihadis who flew planes into the twin towers were mostly comfortable and well-off. The only thing Muslims will have to give up to stop the killing will be their supposed "right" to behave as serial killers. Terror will end terror. It's the only approach that hasn't been tried.

^ that's the Mickey mouse solution. Do you have another one to share ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freddybear

While the solution to terrorism is not simple, the path is clear. Ending terrorism starts at the source. Islamists (this category takes in most Muslims,regardless of what they tell you) will have to be killed in sufficiently large numbers to cause the kind of fear that will make them quit killing "infidels". Sherman understood this simple concept when he invaded the rebellious south. Even the Muslims who agree with terrorism will not all be actively involved in it. Assassination of mullahs who preach hate and train wahabbi-minded young people is the logical place to start. The mainstreaming of Islam will require more killing than most people care to contemplate. Let it begin sooner rather than later. Conventional "wisdom" would have you believe that young Muslims will be "radicalized" by harsh treatment. In fact, the reverse is true. The jihadis who flew planes into the twin towers were mostly comfortable and well-off. The only thing Muslims will have to give up to stop the killing will be their supposed "right" to behave as serial killers. Terror will end terror. It's the only approach that hasn't been tried.

---

I agree. Fight fire with fire.:iagree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ that's the Mickey mouse solution. Do you have another one to share ?

---

I do - It's called "The Big Bang Concept" and forsure it does not pretain to creation of the earth.

Oh yes, I almost forgot - :finger:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceburat

I agree. Fight fire with fire.

---

I think that's what the terrorists said just before crashing into the WTC. Payback time for America. And dancing in the streets.

The phrase "hearts and minds" is a funny one, isn't it? To be able to change what folks have in their hearts and minds, you have to be able to understand what is already in them. I don't think the Americans or Brits have the faintest idea what is in the hearts and minds of the Islamic peoples, and to compensate for this, they forcefeed them what they think they should have in their hearts and minds.

The two are invariably different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risktohimself

The phrase "hearts and minds" is a funny one, isn't it? To be able to change what folks have in their hearts and minds, you have to be able to understand what is already in them. I don't think the Americans or Brits have the faintest idea what is in the hearts and minds of the Islamic peoples, and to compensate for this, they forcefeed them what they think they should have in their hearts and minds.

The two are invariably different things.

---

Americans and Brits can understand more than you think. In judgeing Islamics one only has to consider:

Actions speak louder than words

A picture is worth a thousand words

Boy oh boy do I love that fight fire with fire phrase! Originally derived from the practice of blowing up buildings in a city to contain a fire it also refers to containing brush fires by burning a control area in the path of a fire so it cannot spread past that point.

Now terrorism: Blow up every Muslim community around the planet to contain the radicals? Seems Antartica would be the safest place for the rest of us. Kill all male Muslims because they can breed and spread hate? Ok, genocide then, good luck on carrying that out. Tackling the root causes of terrorism, instead of wholesale slaughter, seems the most practical and less bloodthirsty way. I don't think I have to become a terrorist (murderer) myself to solve the problem.

There have always been disenfranchised, weak-minded people to carry out dreadful acts against other people. The Muslim community itself should become more inolved in weeding out these folks and let law enforcement take over. The more that our armies kill and humiliate Muslims who have nothing to do with the radicals the less likely that they will help in detecting and detaining the crazies in their communities. In fact, your "fire" will only ignite more fires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceburat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freddybear

While the solution to terrorism is not simple, the path is clear. Ending terrorism starts at the source. Islamists (this category takes in most Muslims,regardless of what they tell you) will have to be killed in sufficiently large numbers to cause the kind of fear that will make them quit killing "infidels". Sherman understood this simple concept when he invaded the rebellious south. Even the Muslims who agree with terrorism will not all be actively involved in it. Assassination of mullahs who preach hate and train wahabbi-minded young people is the logical place to start. The mainstreaming of Islam will require more killing than most people care to contemplate. Let it begin sooner rather than later. Conventional "wisdom" would have you believe that young Muslims will be "radicalized" by harsh treatment. In fact, the reverse is true. The jihadis who flew planes into the twin towers were mostly comfortable and well-off. The only thing Muslims will have to give up to stop the killing will be their supposed "right" to behave as serial killers. Terror will end terror. It's the only approach that hasn't been tried.

---

I agree. Fight fire with fire.:iagree:

---

Jesus would be proud of you.

^
He's only giving god a helping hand in bringing "his" revenge and justice upon the enemies of god. :1st:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

The Muslim community itself should become more inolved in weeding out these folks and let law enforcement take over.

---

Trouble is, many in the Muslim communities feel that they have a foot in both camps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risktohimself

The phrase "hearts and minds" is a funny one, isn't it? To be able to change what folks have in their hearts and minds, you have to be able to understand what is already in them. I don't think the Americans or Brits have the faintest idea what is in the hearts and minds of the Islamic peoples, and to compensate for this, they forcefeed them what they think they should have in their hearts and minds.

The two are invariably different things.

---

Too true.

Both sides do not understand each other.

On one side we have one group saying this is how it is done, what you are doing is wrong, learn this, do this, on the other side we have a group saying this is wrong , you are not doing the right thing, you should do this, both agree however that each other will go to hell.

In this big world we have, one way may not be the best or only way for all the people all the time.

^ and that's why appeasement works, on both sides :bunny3:

From what little I understand of the Islamic perspective, appeasement is not a viable option.

Have we removed all foreign troops from Muslim countries to see if that actually works or not? Or does all the oil cloud our judgment?

I think you're getting warm.

Appeasement might not be a bad thing.
Maybe the islamic countries do not want the alternative. Maybe they don't like what they see of non islamic cultures and society.
Yeah, oil, business and the attachment to power or the appearance of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by humphrey

Maybe the islamic countries do not want the alternative. Maybe they don't like what they see of non islamic cultures and society.

---

Certainly, Islam seems less tolerant of the West, than the West is of Islam.

Western people see Islam as 'quirky' whereas Muslims see all others as 'evil'.

How do you address that problem?

you don't, and you accept the difference

who gives a fuck what they think of us as evil ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risktohimself

Western people see Islam as 'quirky' whereas Muslims see all others as 'evil'.

---

Hmm, is that so? Sounds like a generalisation which doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

Hmm, is that so? Sounds like a generalisation which doesn't withstand scrutiny.

---

It is a generalisation, but one which, I believe, is accurate.

From what I hear people talking about, read in the newspapers and see on the TV, most people in my country view Islam as a religion that they need not fear or concern themselves with, as long as they are not going to be required to buy a prayer mat anytime soon.

It's a bit like the Gay Issue twenty years ago - "Gays? Providing they don't try to bum me, they can do what they like."

"Muslims, don't bother us and you can wail as long as you like." with a dismissive wave of the hand.

Live and let live.

My perception is, that Islam does not view the West in the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by humphrey

both agree however that each other will go to hell. In this big world we have, one way may not be the best or only way for all the people all the time.

---

And hell is what each side experiences naturally enough.

The one way statement is the wisest phrase I've seen uttered here--but then I haven't been with the forum very long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freddybear

While the solution to terrorism is not simple, the path is clear. Ending terrorism starts at the source. Islamists (this category takes in most Muslims,regardless of what they tell you) will have to be killed in sufficiently large numbers to cause the kind of fear that will make them quit killing "infidels". Sherman understood this simple concept when he invaded the rebellious south. Even the Muslims who agree with terrorism will not all be actively involved in it. Assassination of mullahs who preach hate and train wahabbi-minded young people is the logical place to start. The mainstreaming of Islam will require more killing than most people care to contemplate. Let it begin sooner rather than later. Conventional "wisdom" would have you believe that young Muslims will be "radicalized" by harsh treatment. In fact, the reverse is true. The jihadis who flew planes into the twin towers were mostly comfortable and well-off. The only thing Muslims will have to give up to stop the killing will be their supposed "right" to behave as serial killers. Terror will end terror. It's the only approach that hasn't been tried.

---

Hey Freddybear:

Sorry for the late reply, however it's refreshing to see someone that has the right idea in dealing with terrorists. Anyway, General Sherman new the deal, today we call it "Scortched Earth Warfare." Nothing left behind other than smoldering embers. Works like a charm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by repoulinjr

...it's refreshing to see someone that has the right idea in dealing with terrorists. Anyway, General Sherman new the deal, today we call it "Scortched Earth Warfare." Nothing left behind other than smoldering embers. Works like a charm.

---

Didn't take you long to reveal your true colours...:rolleyes:
Good job you're retired and not in charge of ordering a mass slaughter.

To end Terrorism is simple:::





EVERYONE KEEP YOUR FUGGIN HANDS TO YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by repoulinjr

...it's refreshing to see someone that has the right idea in dealing with terrorists. Anyway, General Sherman new the deal, today we call it "Scortched Earth Warfare." Nothing left behind other than smoldering embers. Works like a charm.

---

Didn't take you long to reveal your true colours...:rolleyes:
Good job you're retired and not in charge of ordering a mass slaughter.

---

General Sherman was a great American. He has always been one of the best in American History, if not the best.

You Stroller, back into your cage!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceburat

General Sherman was a great American. He has always been one of the best in American History, if not the best.

You Stroller, back into your cage!

---

Maybe so, but that was in the 19th century. Acceptable conduct for warfare has changed since then, ever heard of the Geneva Convention?

Time to crawl out of your cave!

funny how the Geneva convention rules only seem to benefit the terrorist types !!!

I wonder if the last words out the the beheaded CIVILIANS were " but you know this is against the Geneva convention rules don't you?"

I think we should adopt the secondary rules of TIT FOR TAT. when a country or organization breaks the Geneva convention rules then we resort to the TIT FOR TAT rules. you did it to us so that means we can do it to you !!!! :saythat:

Don't know about the solution for the rest of the world, but for Thailand, the obvious solution is to give the southern insurgents what they want...their own country. Then they can begin to fight among each other and descend further into poverty and hyperinflation. There are many former Soviet satellites who wish they had never broken free of the USSR. The same will happen with any future Kingdom of Patanni. I am totally in favor of allowing that region to break off and discover just how bad things can get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KID

funny how the Geneva convention rules only seem to benefit the terrorist types !!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KID

funny how the Geneva convention rules only seem to benefit the terrorist types !!!

I think we should adopt the secondary rules of TIT FOR TAT. when a country or organization breaks the Geneva convention rules then we resort to the TIT FOR TAT rules. you did it to us so that means we can do it to you !!!!

---

I suggest you inform yourself about the Geneva Convention, it protects nations, soldiers and civilians. Maybe it's also time to remind of the circumstances it came about - WW2, Nuremberg trials ring a bell?
'Terrorism' does not reside in any one nation, and conducting the kind of warfare (total war) a number of right-wingers suggest, the US would be guilty of the very warcrimes the Nazis were hanged for.
Ironic, that the same people pride themselves of having 'liberated' Europe from the Nazis...these modern day fascists, specially when operating under the guise of some piety, rank equal to the fanatic Jihadists in my esteem: the lowest of the lowest.

<snip>

If The u.s And The Rest Of The Coalition are Guilty Of War Crimes !!! What Are They???? Individuals May Have personally Committed Crimes, But Have They Not Been Taken To Trial For Those Crimes????