How to combat terrorism?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Isaac Brock, Jun 20, 2004.

  1. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    The current US-led method of combatting terrorism seems to be hit them first, hit them hard. My question, is it working? Are we actually seeing the benefit of this doctrine?

    My take is that the current method to combat terrorism fans the flames that cause terrorism in the first place. While there is no doubt that terrorists must be rooted out, there has to be a moderating factor to turn people away from joining on sympathizing with terrorist groups.

    For all merits of the War on Iraq that have been stated, and there is no doubt that there are merits and many have been posted, I think the drawback in increased terrorist sympathy will ultimately and certainly unfortunately, undermine the effort.
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,220
    I dont think we have much choice in the matter.

    We either wage war on the terrorists and kill them before they kill us.

    or

    We sit back try to appease them giving them what they want which only sends the message to them that terrorism is working and if they kill more people they will get more of what they want.

    Which one is better?
     
  3. budboomer
    Offline

    budboomer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    70
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +6
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    My take Issac, we can't really know the good or bad for probably another 10 to 20 years. In the 1960's everyone was 'thrilled' for the freedom of African nations from the 'tyranny of European colonialism'. While no one is advocating a reoccurance of that colonialism, are the people in most of Africa better off?

    As far as today goes, here is something to think about:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3814391.stm

    World's tally of refugees falls
    The number of refugees and displaced people around the world has fallen by 18% to just over 17m - the lowest level in a decade.
    The United Nations refugee agency, which released the figures, said this was due to increased international efforts to help uprooted people.

    Afghanistan was the prime example - more than half a million people returned home last year.

    But conflict in Sudan's Darfur region is creating a new refugee crisis. A place that UK and US are considering action in...


    HAVE YOUR SAY
    We were beaten, arrested for made-up crimes and had no protection from the authorities
    Alie Jalloh, US (formally Guinea)

    The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) classes 17.1m people as "the population of concern", including asylum seekers, internally-displaced people and the stateless.
    The total figure includes 9.7m people who have sought refuge abroad and who are officially described as refugees.

    That figure fell by 10% last year.

    Afghan hope


    2003 figures in detail:
    9.7m refugees (down by 10%)
    1.1m returned refugees
    4.2m internally displaced persons (IDPs)
    233,000 returned IDPs
    995,000 asylum seekers
    912,000 others, including stateless people

    "The statistics are very encouraging," said Ruud Lubbers, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
    "Nearly 5m people ... over the past few years have been able to either go home or to find a new place to rebuild their lives.

    "For them, these dry statistics reflect a special reality; the end of long years in exile and the start of a new life with renewed hope for the future."

    He said the number of people returning to Afghanistan was "phenomenal".

    More than half of the 1.1m refugees who returned home last year went back to Afghanistan. Large numbers also returned to Angola, Burundi and Iraq.

    But Afghans remained the largest single group of refugees, with 2.1m people looking for refuge in 74 countries. The next largest groups are Sudanese and Burundis.


    TOP HOST COUNTRIES
    Pakistan 1.1m people
    Iran: 985,000
    Germany: 960,000
    Tanzania: 650,000
    US: 452,500
    UNHCR figures for 2003
    Pakistan remains the top country for asylum, hosting 1.1m refugees and asylum seekers. Next on the list are Iran, Germany, Tanzania and the US.
    The UK is in eighth place, with 276,000 asylum seekers.

    But the conflict in Sudan, especially in the Darfur region in the west, is causing great concern.

    UNHCR this week revised its 2004 appeal for its emergency operations in the region. The agency now needs $55.8m to help 200,000 Sudanese refugees in Chad. So far, it has received $18.4m.


    Story from BBC NEWS:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/3814391.stm

    Published: 2004/06/17 08:29:26 GMT

    © BBC MMIV
     
  5. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    I agree with Kathianne, we won't know for sure for another 20 years.

    IMO, though, I think a far better strategy would be to get off of oil and move to hydrogen, which would cut off al-Qaeda's and all the other terrorist organization's money supplies, thus taking away their means of attacking the U.S. There still would be local terrorism, as is the case with Africa, but the chances of them directly attacking America would become very small.
     
  6. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    I think you make a good point. In many ways, the strategy is, I suppose, too early to judge in term of effectiveness. I still believe that there is a necessity to raise the standard of living in hot spot countries and I believe that money used to create these large armies might be better spent that ways in terms of more bang for you security buck.

    However, only time can tell which is right and perhaps it is premature to say that the current method is not working. Another question is at what point to we re-evaluate if the current method is not working?

    Pray for the best, plan for the worse?
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Issac, while you acknowledge that a point has been made, you have no comments on either Africa or the Refugee return rate? Not like you.
     
  8. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    What is happening in Sudan is tragic and its a pity that our media is completely ignoring it, but I do have to commend the Bush administration, namely the State Department, because they are one of the few paying attention to the sudanese crisis.

    The refugee number is way down so far, but as stated, it looks like Sudan may push it back up.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    and it just keeps getting worse:

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/06/america_must_ac.html

    Too much of Africa is a basketcase, today I saw this on Zimbawe, was going to wait and see if there was more in a day or so, but if your interested:

    http://www.cronaca.com/archives/002529.html
     
  10. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Note since 9-11, we've consistently hunted down and isolated the Islamic terrorists and that there has been no repeat of such an attack in America or any of the primary Western Allies.

    That's a clear victory.

    What current method would you change with respect to our global strategy?

    Moderating factors in Afganistan and Iraq include a host of measures, the most important of these being our commitment to establish a more moderate and liberal form of government in each state with full financial and political backing.

    The first time the network of Islamic militants ceased to grow, was when we hit Afganistan.

    The attacks in Turkey, Indonesia, Philippians, and even Spain trace through a network formed and trained at a time of unprecedented peace and security in the Middle East.

    During that time apparently tens of thousands of Islamic terrorist trainees were processed through Afghanistan while the West had little to do with their own motive aside from their own regimes antagonistic Islamic propaganda.

    Al-Zarqawi wrote that he felt the noose tightening around his operations in Iraq.

    In fact he may now be dead, GOD WILLING!

    If nothing else, many of his key associates are dead.

    In any case, he is definitely not planning an attack on America right now.

    Look at how the pattern of terrorism has been consistently contained since 9-11, to where today only in their own last remaining refuges have we seen any activity.

    We've pinned down all recent activity to a very small region where they are opposed by a very large active military force!

    Even with support from Saudi security the terrorists can only manage to murder 10-20 people of assorted random nationalities, where before we all realize the toll what much worse, 100's and 1,000's of citizens of any single western country of their choice.

    Al-Sadr and his Iran financed insurgency has fizzled.

    The few remaining Al-Quaida insurgents holed up in Falluja are pinned down and by their own words are desperate and without support. Only capable of killing a few civilian hostages and taping it via video cam.

    For the past few weeks the only terrorist acts have been the sensationalized and barbaric murder of individual people, from within the last enclaves of Falluja or Saudi communities.

    There is only one reason why you are personally feeling the whole war on terror is backfiring at this point.

    It's got nothing to do with our increased vulnerability in the west or actual body counts. Clearly both have declined dramatically.

    The most senior leaders of Al-Qauda are claiming responsibility for their far more grotesque and public display of the murder of individual because .... that's all they can actually manage… is a few murders. If they could murder more, they simply would.

    So they sensationalize each murder with the express purpose of affecting public opinion in a disproportionate way.

    And they do it for you, expressly, do they not?

    There is no argument today that can show an increased terrorist threat based on any vector: Body count, location, political impact... so what's the justification you have for this point of view?


    Don't let their propaganda affect your sense of truth.
     

Share This Page