Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by NATO AIR, Jan 6, 2006.
Peters addresses our greatest threat, the poor man's nuke (and we're not talking a dirty bomb)
I certainly agree that it's important that we attempt to understand the minds of suicide bombers, and those who manipulate them.
I guess we have two broad options in dealing with suicide bombers: the Israeli approach, to build walls, rely on military superiority, and use harsh tactics--or the approach the British finally used successfully to end IRA terrorism or the South Africans used to end ANC terrorism--to understand and co-opt the goals of the terrorists.
The Israeli's have little choice in their approach, as they are surrounded and outnumbered.
We probably do have a choice, but so far, few of our leaders have been interested in addressing Al Qaeda's main goal--to end U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. When anyone tries to talk about terrorists' goals or feelings, they're quickly pounced on as "soft on terrorism."
I was most interested in the book published last year, which examined all known cases of suicide terrorism. Over 70% were due, not to religious fundamentalism, but to territorial occupation. This suggests that if we were very careful about our Mideast footprint, we might reduce or risk of terrorism.
The soft way might eventually be the winning way, but who knows? These things are so complicated.
I think the soft way worked with IRA terrorists because the english and irish are similar enough in culture. You can be a catholic in England, you can be a protestant in Ireland. The totalitarian, intolerant and violent nature of the current incarnation of islam makes the soft approach untenable, I fear. Don't let complications numb your intellect, brother.
Separate names with a comma.