Terrorism

DrFree · 10-14-2007, 06:24 AM

If you listen to the political debate in America today, you'd think that the only question is when and how to withdraw from Iraq. Some, especially those that opposed the war from the outset, want to get out soon; others say we have to stay the course.

Opponents to the war talk of its costs, in lives (both American and Iraqi) and money. Advocates claim that, having started the war, we have an obligation to bring it to a stable conclusion. "You break it, you bought it!"

Now I want to make it clear: I hate this war. It was unequivocally wrong from the outset. I lost a grandson to the war, after seeing him on leave so traumatized that he could barely function. The face of war these days is so terrible that it should only be considered in response to a direct attack (Iraq did not attack us on September 11), or by consensus of the international community (not be a "coalition of the willing"). But I don't want to discuss the war in Iraq in this thread.

The question I have is how to deal with the fact that certain groups around the world use terrorism as a means to impose their demands. Al Quaeda, Hezbollah and others attack anybody anywhere to achieve their ends. They are well funded and well organized; they're not to be defeated by merely rounding up a group of brigands. Ordinary criminal procedures are not sufficient (though they are necessary). Moreover, it appears that they are at least feared, maybe tolerated, possibly supported by some governments.

What I don't hear from war supporters is how we can deal with international terrorism when we are barely able to make inroads into the Iraq insurgency. What I don't hear from war opponents is how they expect us to deal with international terrorism if we don't have the social stamina to deal with limited war.

Does anyone really think that we can deal with international terrorism without prolonged military involvement?

Does anyone really think that we can deal with international terrorism depending only on prolonged military involvement?

I have this romantic liberal notion that most people will choose economic stability over war, at least when stability with dignity is perceived as a real option. (If this is not true then Armageddon is upon us with a war of extermination.) An investment in stability with dignity may ultimately dry up the resources on which terrorist organizations depend.

But it is clear that many Muslims have a different concept of stability with dignity, and it includes respect for their religion and their culture. Imposing American ideals of democracy and human freedom is seen more as imperialism than freeing them.

What I would like to see discussed in this thread are some concrete ideas about establishing peaceful relations between Muslim and non-Muslim. I would like to stop investing in war. I would like to be able to visit the middle east safely, to visit historical sites and to engage in dialog with people there. What can be done to make this happen?

Namiste.

Pathless · 10-14-2007, 07:06 AM

Heavy thread starter. Thanks. It's Saturday night and I am about to watch a scary movie about a haunting, but I like this thread you have proposed. I have some half-formed ideas, not answers, that have been bubbling around in my live-and-let-live head for years. Don't worry, they relate to the topic. Basically it has to do with how communication, investigation, and yes even negotiation with terrorists are all more fruitful options than blind rage and smashing other people's property and lives. Compassion as well is a prominent feature. I think Thich Nhat Hanh also had some insightful words on how to approach terror in the days after 9/11. At that time, not many people wanted to listen. I wonder if more people are willing now?

bob x · 10-14-2007, 07:36 AM

"others say we have to stay the course."
That's a very misunderstood expression: the usage of "stay" in the nautical term "stay the course" is like in "a stay of execution", or when a court "stays its judgment" pending what the appeals court might say; to "stay" a course means to STOP going the way that you were going. It is just like Bush to have glommed onto a phrase that actually means the direct opposite of what he thinks he is saying.

Eclectic Mystic · 10-14-2007, 09:56 AM

All I know is that I'm more likely to get struck by lightning than be killed by a terrorist-- with or without Lord George and his policies to protect me.

I, Brian · 10-14-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrFree

What I would like to see discussed in this thread are some concrete ideas about establishing peaceful relations between Muslim and non-Muslim. I would like to stop investing in war. I would like to be able to visit the middle east safely, to visit historical sites and to engage in dialog with people there. What can be done to make this happen?

Namiste.

US hesitation on attacking Muslim countries would probably be a good start.

Tao_Equus · 10-14-2007, 11:49 AM

We should take a no tolerance approach. We think a country harbours Muslims, I mean terrorists, we should nuke em and nuke em hard!! And eskimoes , they dodgy lookin too. And while we are at it we could solve the Africa problem!! Lets push some buttons!!

Vote the Reverend Downy Duane Christianson, your republican candidate!!

Pathless · 10-14-2007, 03:53 PM

Thich Nhat Hanh:

There are people who want one thing only: revenge. In the Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha said that by using hatred to answer hatred, there will only be an escalation of hatred. But if we use compassion to embrace those who have harmed us, it will greatly diffuse the bomb in our hearts and in theirs.

So how can we bring about a drop of compassion that can put out the fire of hatred? You know, they do not sell compassion in the supermarket. If they sold compassion, we would only need to bring it home and we could solve the problem of hatred and violence in the world very easily. But compassion can only be produced in our own heart by our own practice.

America is burning with hatred. That is why we have to tell our Christian friends, "You are children of Christ." You have to return to yourselves and look deeply and find out why this violence happened. Why is there so much hatred? What lies under all this violence? Why do they hate so much that they would sacrifice their own lives and bring about so much suffering to other people? Why would these young people, full of vitality and strength, have chosen to lose their lives, to commit such violence? That is what we have to understand.

These were rare, wise words in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. Even now, after so much time has passed, they have not lost their rarity and wisdom. We need to look deeply and ask the difficult, powerful questions: how are we, as Americans and westerners in general, responsible for the rise of terrorism as a political option? Do we also terrorize, or do our governments terrorize in our name? How are we complicit in this terror?

These are questions that we as individuals can ask. Unfortunately, the official government of the people is not willing to consider these questions. We must ask them ourselves, of ourselves and of our nation. If in our communities we could consider these questions, we would begin to move in the right direction, I think.

Leafblade · 10-15-2007, 12:11 AM

I heard that terrorism was first used as a tactic during World War 1. I'm a little fuzzy on the details (tired) but it seemed like an effective method to deal with an invading force. On second thought, it might not be terrorism but the suicide bomber that was used.

I also heard that there's a relatively effective terrorist rehabilitation program going on that is used to help in the releasing of former terrorist so they won't be a threat to themselves and the public. This is certainly not a war that can be fought with guns and soldiers alone, it has to be fought with ideas.

Francis king · 10-15-2007, 02:03 PM

Does anyone really think that we can deal with international terrorism without prolonged military involvement?

No, I do not, but... I do not think the rabble of young and usually inexperienced boys which make up our armies are in a position to do the work that is needed.

Terrorism by design, is difficult to root out. Military strategy is useless when fighting an enemy you cannot see. So, to fight terrorism- simple really. Secret service infiltration. It's the only way. It's difficult, but it's effective. Single embedded operatives, the new local halal food supplier, a new school teacher who starts at the mosque, get them in, and they simply feed intelligence back to their commanding officers. You need to do this from the top down- try and get in as high as you can, and from the bottom, to gather soft intel and again, try to infiltrate.

M16 had the same idea- but unfortunately they could not get enough Muslims on board- it's true! But... they did get some. So, as we speak, there are M16 agents already living and walking and breathing alongside oblivious communities, making their notes, and passing on their info...

The only other suggestion: pay people for intelligence on terrorists. Make it policy. If a man phones you with information and that information leads to a conviction: reward the caller. He'll definately do it again if you pay him the first time. Exploit the greed and petty jealousies of human beings- they will use you as you use them! It worked for the DWP and their "shop a benefit cheat" hotlines...

The only other option: how about a policeman in every home! Work on the children! Get them to tell tales on their parents and families. It worked with the Hitler Youth, it also worked in Russia with the Little Spies.

While there is oppression, there will always be terrorists. The best way of all to fight them would be, of course, to not create the conditions for terrorists to thrive in, but will that happen?

bob x · 10-15-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

While there is oppression, there will always be terrorists.

That is totally untrue. Terrorism is an exceedingly rare response to oppression. What makes a handful of cultures respond in this way when most cultures respond to oppression in more sane ways is a difficult question.

Eclectic Mystic · 10-15-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leafblade

I also heard that there's a relatively effective terrorist rehabilitation program going on that is used to help in the releasing of former terrorist so they won't be a threat to themselves and the public. This is certainly not a war that can be fought with guns and soldiers alone, it has to be fought with ideas.

"Come on now, you know that Ragheads will never be capible of discovering love... and thus, ultimately, choosing for themselves not to kill."

flowperson · 10-16-2007, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

"Come on now, you know that Ragheads will never be capible of discovering love... and thus, ultimately, choosing for themselves not to kill."

C'mon EM, as a practicing mystic I find the above statement to be very inciteful and racist. I know that you can do better than that. Your vibrations tell me so.

flow....

Tao_Equus · 10-16-2007, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob x

That is totally untrue. Terrorism is an exceedingly rare response to oppression. What makes a handful of cultures respond in this way when most cultures respond to oppression in more sane ways is a difficult question.

Despite choosing the heptagon as your avatar you continue to state only one side!! For a self professed liberal, a democrat....wooooooooo a free thinker (!).. you show any invariable ability to look beyond republichrist doctrine.

Tao

Tao_Equus · 10-16-2007, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flowperson

C'mon EM, as a practicing mystic I find the above statement to be very inciteful and racist. I know that you can do better than that. Your vibrations tell me so.

flow....

Well I do not know that he can but agree it is unwarranted and disgusting. There are plenty forums for cheap racist jibes.... i hope this aint one of them.

Tao

Tao_Equus · 10-16-2007, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francis king

Does anyone really think that we can deal with international terrorism without prolonged military involvement?

No, I do not, but... I do not think the rabble of young and usually inexperienced boys which make up our armies are in a position to do the work that is needed.

Terrorism by design, is difficult to root out. Military strategy is useless when fighting an enemy you cannot see. So, to fight terrorism- simple really. Secret service infiltration. It's the only way. It's difficult, but it's effective. Single embedded operatives, the new local halal food supplier, a new school teacher who starts at the mosque, get them in, and they simply feed intelligence back to their commanding officers. You need to do this from the top down- try and get in as high as you can, and from the bottom, to gather soft intel and again, try to infiltrate.

M16 had the same idea- but unfortunately they could not get enough Muslims on board- it's true! But... they did get some. So, as we speak, there are M16 agents already living and walking and breathing alongside oblivious communities, making their notes, and passing on their info...

The only other suggestion: pay people for intelligence on terrorists. Make it policy. If a man phones you with information and that information leads to a conviction: reward the caller. He'll definately do it again if you pay him the first time. Exploit the greed and petty jealousies of human beings- they will use you as you use them! It worked for the DWP and their "shop a benefit cheat" hotlines...

The only other option: how about a policeman in every home! Work on the children! Get them to tell tales on their parents and families. It worked with the Hitler Youth, it also worked in Russia with the Little Spies.

While there is oppression, there will always be terrorists. The best way of all to fight them would be, of course, to not create the conditions for terrorists to thrive in, but will that happen?

I now have to write a wee poem called the fascist Buddhist!! OMG!!!