Thread: How to combat terrorism better

Originally Posted by Texpat

To think we've suddenly reached a point where we won't fight anymore is naive.

i don't think anyone has posted this....but what people are saying, is that the fighting against 'terrorism' has to be done more intelligently....blowing up hospitals in iraq is counter productive.

^, ^^ classic. You guys need to re-synch.

What if the hospital is full of IEDs, ManPADs and .50 cal machine guns? Not a patient for miles?

You've lost before you started trying.

Originally Posted by raycarey

2. despite all the war mongering rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is a law enforcement issue.

Global terrorism is nothing new, and our American "friends" seem to have discovered it ever existed on the 10th of September,

Back in the 70s and 80s, "old" Europe was being attacked on all front with "militant" terrorism, and yet without a war (except for the UK mistake with Northern Ireland) those groups were eradicted efficiently,

here, with the Americans shooting water leaks in a boat, we are nowhere near an end, and worse we are actually going backward and becoming as stupid as they are, which is fine for cavemen nostalgists, but not for people who want progress and civilization,

^ Heh, we would prolly lose that one too.

Originally Posted by sabang

Heh, we would prolly lose that one too.

Only if the bastards use their hatchlings as "alien shields".

Originally Posted by Texpat

2. How can a country install a leader of another free country?

Chile 1973.
Iran 1953.

And they been trying in Cuba for years.

Why should we combat terrorism better?

Surely it's working out pretty good for us so far isn't it?

Sure a few people die, but realistically a minuscule amount of people in the scheme of things. And surely these people that die because of terrorist acts are the martyrs and excuse the western governments need to get some dominance in the middle east and other countries.

The western world needs dominance in these regions before China or a united middle east takes full control leaving us in an even weaker position when it comes to what will ultimately be a fight for the dominance of the world.

Despite what the politicians say, empires are still being planned and built, and they are being planned with the long term future in mind.

Terrorism and terrorist acts are currently advantageous to our governments.

I can understand needing more efficient methods to combat certain terrorist acts like nuclear bombs for example.

But as I recall nuclear bombs have already been used in an acts of terrorism and it wasn't by some group of fundamentalists living in a cave.

And are people honestly expecting that terrorism will be wiped off this planet with a more efficient combat strategy?

Thats very interesting actually, might be something in it.

So, it's not really in our best interests to 'wipe out' or even efficiently deal with terrorist threats, because their existence (sufficiently hyped) gives our Leaders the carte blanche to do what they want to in furtherance of long term strategic aims, such as energy dominance, and trying to keep China contained.

Kind of a keep the people scared of the Bogeyman strategy. Highly hypocritical and dishonest obviously, but the predictable counter argument would be that it's for the 'greater good'.

Incidentally, I have heard the argumant before that the US does not actually want to kill bin Laden, for this reason.

Kind of a keep the people scared of the Bogeyman strategy. Highly hypocritical and dishonest obviously, but the predictable counter argument would be that it's for the 'greater good'.

If they explained their full long term plan on CNN and BBC where would that leave us?

1. The majority of the population would not understand it and much needed support would be withdrawn from the government. And also most westerners are far too liberal to be told that the deaths of fellow citizens could be compared losing pawns in a chess game. It's not nice to know your government considers it's citizens expendable.

2. The people we are fighting this long term plan would know our full strategy. Which you can bet your bottom dollar they already do which is one of the reasons why they are continuing to attack us.

Originally Posted by chitown

would like to hear some ideas on how to do combat terrorism better. Do you have any suggestions or sure fire cures for the problem?

I have asked this question before and no one ever answers. I can only assume that they have no idea how to deal with the problem of terrorism. I don't know the answer so I do not expect you to either.

I know the answer is not to sit back and do nothing but paint a big target on yourself. They will not stop. It would not matter if we invaded Iraq or not. They have an agenda and are actions or lack of actions have nothing to do with it.

No "sure fire cures" there, buddy.

There is no general formula for how to deal with "them", the goals, motivation and characteristics of 'terrorism', as well as the circumstances in any location vary rather a lot.

There have been extensive discussions with very specific policy proposals, for South THailand, for example.

But you won't find any solution summarised in slimplistic slogans.

Originally Posted by bkkmadness

I can understand needing more efficient methods to combat certain terrorist acts like nuclear bombs for example.

But as I recall nuclear bombs have already been used in an acts of terrorism and it wasn't by some group of fundamentalists living in a cave.

And are people honestly expecting that terrorism will be wiped off this planet with a more efficient combat strategy?

a bit simplistic, as "terrorism" and "war" is inherent in our behaviors, wait and see how Americans become "terrorists" if their country was invaded by China. According to Tex and friends, the American public should rollover and accept the Chinese rules as the liberator, and not fight or resist.

Originally Posted by bkkmadness

The western world needs dominance in these regions before China or a united middle east takes full control leaving us in an even weaker position when it comes to what will ultimately be a fight for the dominance of the world.

Good thought and absolutely correct. Influence or dominance as you put it is necessary. I believe you're suggesting the terrorists have given us an excuse to have a military presence in the middle east?

If a military presence is necessary to gain influence in a region, how does one explain China's recent successes in other parts of the world without using the threat of military action? (rhetorical)

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by bkkmadness

The western world needs dominance in these regions before China or a united middle east takes full control leaving us in an even weaker position when it comes to what will ultimately be a fight for the dominance of the world.

Good thought and absolutely correct. Influence or dominance as you put it is necessary. I believe you're suggesting the terrorists have given us an excuse to have a military presence in the middle east?

If a military presence is necessary to gain influence in a region, how does one explain China's recent successes in other parts of the world without using the threat of military action? (rhetorical)

Norton, it's simple. China hasn't yet attained the total superpower combo of being a military, economic and political power all at the same time. Until it attains this revered status, it cannot exert overt pure military force to achieve its goals, while at the same time holding the UN hostage and major nations hostage on economic matters. Witness its conflicts with Vietnam and Philippines over the oil in the Spratleys. At the right time, it will simply 'take' those islands, all offshore rights, and anything else containing fossil fuels in the South China Sea.

But...make no mistake. Once it does achieve such power, it will be as malevolent as any world power has been to date.

Anyone doubt that? There is no going back to a gentle and peaceful global village.

So nobody's got a better idea for combatting terrorism yet?
Surprised some haven't suggested a box of sweets and a hearty handshake.

Think of all the nice weapons development that's being done.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Surprised some haven't suggested a box of sweets and a hearty handshake.

I did think of a few Chang Yais and a karaoke session. No? Not even if we sing 'Winds of Change'?

Originally Posted by Texpat

So nobody's got a better idea for combatting terrorism yet?

that flag you've perpetually got yourself wrapped in seems to have impaired your vision.....

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by chinthee

Originally Posted by raycarey

despite all the war mongering rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is a law enforcement issue.

Law enforcement is difficult and largely ineffective with global terrorists, and even more difficult to do extra-territorially.

Seems "war" is pretty difficult and ineffective as well. If one looks at the preventative side of terrorist attacks, law enforcement as it relates to intelligence gathering and sharing seems to be the way to go as evidenced in some of the plots that have been uncovered. Increasing cooperation between nations could be much better than it has been. We should be spending a lot more calories in this area than we have in the pursuit of nation "liberation" as a way to prevent terrorist attacks. The first step to expanding the number of nations willing to cooperate is showing it is in their interests to participate rather than alienating them with actions which garner their mistrust.

Good call!

Law enforcement and intelligence gathering? Are you serious? Knowledge is power and not shared fully/easily by anyone under any circumstances.

Figure your plan will take about 5-10 lifetimes to achieve. Think they can hold off killing anymore of us until we get there? Maybe if we ask nicely. Or maybe we can give them Hawaii after we demolish all the churches and synagogues there. It'll be real nice.

Sound familiar?

I hate it when I start a thread and don't even know it

Here is the solution - The Muslim world is two uptight with all the legalistic crap that they have to live by and this causes them to have pent up anger that leads to bombings and other violence.

Let them eat Big Macs and Italina sausage sandwhiches, watch movies, make out in public, lose the head gear on the ladies and replace it with halter tops and mini skirts, have strip clubs and beer bars all over the place and legalize weed.

if all that does not ease the stress in their lives and make them happy, them I am at a loss!!!

Originally Posted by Texpat

Think of all the nice weapons development that's being done.

Maintaining a strong military is absolutely a prerequisite for the effective use of diplomatic means to influence the behavior of other nations. My arguments are certainly not in anyway advocating the US should weaken itself militarily but rather use it's considerable political and economic influence to achieve it's ends rather than use the threat of war as our primary tool to bring people to act in accordance with accepted global standards.

Originally Posted by chinthee

At the right time, it will simply 'take' those islands, all offshore rights, and anything else containing fossil fuels in the South China Sea.

No it won't as long as the risk of having a unified military response to such an action is the result. Risk far outweigh reward.

My purpose in even mentioning China in response to bkkmadness was China has made considerable progress using economic influence to bring several countries into their sphere of influence. This relates to the thread in that military solutions are not and never have been effective in quelling terrorism.

All great civilizations learned this lesson. After years of trying to beat the barbarians into submission only to have them rise again, the golden age of the Roman Empire only came when they showed the barbarians Rome had a better way! This was done by leaders who understood the importance of incorporating all into the vision that was Rome. Ironically, the last of the real Romans were not in Italy where it all started but in the very regions they once ruled!

The "west", with our ideals and principles can do better than use force as our first option to convince others to embrace our values!

Originally Posted by Norton

The "west", with our ideals and principles can do better than use force as our first option to convince others to embrace our values!

Sometimes it's tough to remember your objective is to convince them to embrace our values when they're plowing 737s into skyscrapers.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Law enforcement and intelligence gathering? Are you serious? Knowledge is power and not shared fully/easily by anyone under any circumstances.

Law enforcement - terrorist blows up an airplane hunt them down and punish them.

Intelligence gathering - catch them before they blow up the airplane or use the intelligence to track them down.

Sharing knowledge as it relates to capturing bad guys is already common practice between nations who have a vested interest in catching the bad guys. Your assertion it is contrary to existing fact. Even some of those nasty ME countries share their intelligence.

And your damn right I am serious! Lack of or manipulated intelligence is what got us in the Iraq circle jerk to begin with. If and when we finally have a government that finds and punishes terrorists as criminals rather than going to war we will only make the situation worse.

Originally Posted by chitown

I would like to hear some ideas on how to do combat terrorism better. Do you have any suggestions or sure fire cures for the problem?

I have asked this question before and no one ever answers. I can only assume that they have no idea how to deal with the problem of terrorism. I don't know the answer so I do not expect you to either.

I know the answer is not to sit back and do nothing but paint a big target on yourself. They will not stop. It would not matter if we invaded Iraq or not. They have an agenda and are actions or lack of actions have nothing to do with it.

There are no "sure fire cures" for you tro direct your guns at.

Countermeasures to terrorism have been discussed in depth on a few topics, Soth Thailand, for example. Do your own research.

Motives, goals, circumstances of terrorism and appropriate counter measures vary a great deal according to location and historic as well as current background.

Seems naive to search for a "one cures(kills) all" approach.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Sometimes it's tough to remember your objective is to convince them to embrace our values when they're plowing 737s into skyscrapers.

Had we done a better job in this regard prior to 9/11 unlikely it would have happened. Had we had better intelligence or acted more seriously than we did on the intelligence we did have maybe it would have been prevented. It happened, it made me angry, I wanted the fcukers behind it found and punished but I sure didn't think liberating Iraq was going to keep it from happening again.

Originally Posted by chinthee

^Actually, we all did sit idly by while the slaughter occurred in Rwanda. Why? Because the UN couldn't act.

Does the UN ever act? Waste of real estate and expense.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Norton, it's simple. China hasn't yet attained the total superpower combo of being a military, economic and political power all at the same time....

Beg to differ, China is just holding its cards. It doesn't need to fight anyone. It goes in and makes deals for all the rights to a country's natural resources, installs its own people to extract them with a community of its people to cater food and other goods to its workers. They care not that people are fighting or being slaughtered around them. And, they don't have to spend money on military ops. Pay the dictator a kickback to ensure their biz is not disrupted.

Originally Posted by chinthee

But...make no mistake. Once it does achieve such power, it will be as malevolent as any world power has been to date.

Anyone doubt that?

I don't. China will move in with its military when everyone else is exhausted. Hopefully, the US or an Ally will have the tactical force to oppose them. But, I doubt it.