How to combat terrorism?

[Isaac Brock]

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

 

[budboomer]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
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?

In my opinion it may be working. And I stress the word may. It seems to me that with the recent kidnapping of an American buisnessman that al- qaida may be changing thier tactics. In the past they just blow people up. It doesn't matter to them that they kill fellow muslims. Now they are trying kidnapping and making demands to get captured al-qaida terrorists released. Perhaps they are getting frustrated. I guess time will tell.
Unfortunately, the war on terror will probably never end. As I speak the very young muslim children are being taught hate and murder. As long as you start early enough you can teach a child anything.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
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.

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

 

[Palestinian Jew]

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.

 

[Isaac Brock]

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?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
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?

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.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

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.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
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.

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

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
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?

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.

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.

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.

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. [/B]

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.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

My apologies Kathianne. My point was more related directly the topic and terrorism.

While refugees are no doubt an indicator of economic and political health, I think it's quite fair to say that it is neither the only indicator, nor a linear indicator of well-being. It would be like saying a decrease in refugee claimant should demonstrate a rising standard of living in a country. While it may be true, it certainly isn't the rule.

That being said, if the US and UK went to help the people of Sudan on humanitarian grounds, I'd hope Canada would be right there with them. However, we must stress real nation building with real capital flowing into these countries if we truly do wish to make them stable.

I cite the example of Afghanistan. While political freedom has increased substantially for the better, there has been little in the way of infrastructure built to help keep Afghanistan a stable democracy with a stable economy. While, refugees may be down, I'd say it is because they have new hope for their government because they now have a free voice, however that hope will quickly fade if they do not have an economy to support them and the cycle will begin anew. I believe this is where foreign aid can do much greater good than military force.

On a side note Kathianne, I am away this week on work so I do apologize that I will not be able to address this again till I get back and I do hope I've answered you in a more satisfactory way this time.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Comrade
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.

While holding true in the US, Spain would certainly disagree.

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.

While I wish I had the time to completely address your question Comrade, I'll try my best in brief.

My point is fairly simple. Military force is essential and attacking terrorists is as well. However, attacking terrorists does not preclude by any means the recruiting of new ones. While Bin Laden is a notable exception, most terrorists are often recruited from the poor and have no future. I'd suggest that a country that is relatively prosperous economically and politically for even the lowest echelons and you wouldn't have nearly the same desire to join terrorists.

While there are no doubt other factors to the root of terrorism like religious fanaticism, one cannot ignore that economic and social depravity is certainly one of them as well.

I suppose I am advocating whacking with one hand and petting with the other.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
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.

IMHO, the fact that the terrorists are switching tactics (hostage taking) appears to imply that THEY feel that they are losing some faith in thier other tactics. They are also making demands when a hostage is taken which are NOT being met. We shall see but one thing is certain. A hell of a lot of em are DEAD! That's effective.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by Comrade

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?

I think his view is apt. Before the war in Iraq, Suadi Arabia was free of Al Qaeda attacks. But in the last 13 months they have wreaked havok there.
Also, in Iraq, in just the last week alone we've seen some of the bloodiest terror attacks as of yet. Car bombs killing 30-40 people at a time and injuring hundreds.
I hope that the terrorists fade and fast. But I don't think you can say that they are dying down by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Gaebolg]

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?

I believe that we are. If terrorists had the same capabilities that they did before we started retaliation, we would have been hit by another 9/11 like attack by now. However, they constantly threaten it but can't seem to materialize another attack within our border. Regardless of what anyone says, it's obvious that we hurt their command structure badly with our strikes in Afganistan. We also took the fight to them by toppling two militant friendly governments. The problem is that Americans are lazy and impatient by nature. If Joe American doesn't see that the problem is "gone" within a few months, it exceeds his attention span and he assumes that we are "losing". Add to that the constant attention our press gives the war, in particular, our losses and mistakes and you have a recipe for discontent in America.

I believe we are definately seeing the benefit of our actions in many ways but to keep this brief I'll list the most obvious;

1) It's important to note that the once proud and fearless Osama Bin laden quit popping up on video tapes and is hiding somewhere, I guess he isn't in any hurry to get his 70 virgins is incapacitated or even dead. His organization appears to no longer be able to carry out complicated and coordinated attacks with so many of its planners either dead or in hiding.

2) Two terrorist friendly governments were toppled and a third (Pakistan) is assisting the U.S. on a large scale. Their bases of power are eroding. Contrary to liberal belief, terrorists do need nations to survive for any length of time. They need a government to protect them, they need a citizen pool to recruit from, they need to have training centers and financial sponsors and they need assistance with gathering intelligence. Without support, terrorists can't survive. We have taken the fight to them and hit their support base, they have become bogged down in Afganistan and Iraq even more than we have, they have to win there, they can't afford to lose those two countries.

3) They have become more desperate, they have been reduced to kidnapping and beheading people on film. This is an act of desparation, it truly shows their diminished capabilities, they aren't able to carry out organized hard hitting attacks that show how powerful they are like 9/11, they are forced to use suicide bombs, roadside bombs and grabbing civilians.

The only effective weapon they have had against us so far, post 9/11 is our own press. The frequency of attacks they are carrying out is not the important indication as to what effect we have had, the important things to look at is how they have become sloppy and are now fighting on their own land instead of ours. We have forced them into a defensive position, forced them into hiding and weakened their abilities. Are they still a deadly threat? Yes but not nearly as deadly as they were before we took action.

 

[dilloduck]

A majority of animals will fight harder when they are cornered and fear for thier existance. The recent attacks are acts of desperation--not confidence.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by menewa
I think his view is apt. Before the war in Iraq, Suadi Arabia was free of Al Qaeda attacks. But in the last 13 months they have wreaked havok there.
Also, in Iraq, in just the last week alone we've seen some of the bloodiest terror attacks as of yet. Car bombs killing 30-40 people at a time and injuring hundreds.
I hope that the terrorists fade and fast. But I don't think you can say that they are dying down by any stretch of the imagination.

And yet the terrorists have been, for months now, confined to a very limited area of operations. Despite their empty threat to do otherwise.

All of Al-Qauda's extensive networking in the West is comprimised and the flow of new recruits are dwindling.

All predictions to date that our aggressive action at the source would somehow stir up a a larger new generation of terrorists is entirely unfounded.

The Al-Qauda remnants and their attacks against the new Iraqi government have done very little to stop its formation. The entire cabinent is still secure and nothing beyond a miracle can stop their ascention due 10 days hence. This cabinent will not tolerate their insurgency and and neither will the official Iraqi chain of command.

And having now tried their best to destabilize Saudi Arabia, the Royal Family has decided its time to hunt them down and have already killed the top operative in their country.

Now that the Saudi Arabian government is fully invested in the war on terror themselves out of self preservation, from whence comes the primary funding of the next generation?


Mark my words, this will be the last gasp of Al-Qauda. There will always be terrorism, no doubt. But we are seriously close to killing this particularly nasty Islamic form.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by dilloduck
IMHO, the fact that the terrorists are switching tactics (hostage taking) appears to imply that THEY feel that they are losing some faith in thier other tactics. They are also making demands when a hostage is taken which are NOT being met. We shall see but one thing is certain. A hell of a lot of em are DEAD! That's effective.

You pointed out exactly why this movement will utterly fail.


Every rational person in the world, including those in the Middle East, see the pure fantasy behind such demands ... which simply means the murder itself is the goal, and that somehow this will shock the West into submission.

Which itself is a preposterous assumption. Such acts only anger Democracies who at some point will truly endorse the kind of destruction only Iran could dream of.


The only thing which makes that equation work is the kind of national resolve the U.S. and it's allies have demonstrated.


And again I'll state with confidence as long as this continues we've seen the last few months of Al-Qauida.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
While holding true in the US, Spain would certainly disagree.



While I wish I had the time to completely address your question Comrade, I'll try my best in brief.

My point is fairly simple. Military force is essential and attacking terrorists is as well. However, attacking terrorists does not preclude by any means the recruiting of new ones. While Bin Laden is a notable exception, most terrorists are often recruited from the poor and have no future.

No, I'd argue the vast majority of terrorist are middle or upper class. That's fairly obvious from a historical context in the last fifty years. Literate Arabs who have been able to travel and organize a terrrorist attack are DEFINATELY not poor.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Usually only the Palestinian suicide bombers have been recruited from the poor, that's because they are offered money for their families if they die and they see no better way. Since Saddam is no longer dropping $20 million every two years on the Palestinian Authority to pay these losers, the number of suicide bombers has dropped accordingly.