Thread: 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.

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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 -

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ceburat

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.

Jesus would be proud of you.

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.

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

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.