OT: Ideas - Can't stop, Won't stop! :)

[jamief]

You can't stop terrorism!

Just like we can't
win
the war on drugs.

both are not even true wars, they are money making agendas.

wake up

Thev rare indeed.

[LOFA]

hijack

http://www.shockabsorber.co.uk/bounceometer/shock.html

You da' man!!!

[Rod Underleaf]

Why is this board filled with people with shit for brains. Time for a revolution to clear all the deadwood that has migrated from the stalinist Reason board over to Live. Instead of lightbulb ideas you have turds for ideas. We need to clear the turd polishers and shitflies off.

[knotkranky]

hijack

http://www.shockabsorber.co.uk/bounceometer/shock.html

You da' man!!!

I was wondering if anybody was gonna investigate. If there was a way to have it react to my beats, that would be cool.

It would make great meters for live....hmm
.

[djarum]

does anyone expect larger scales of terrorism to deliver peace?

[rtopia]

does anyone expect larger scales of terrorism to deliver peace?

until there is a day when one guy isn't jealous that some "other guy" has something he doesn't have:

"there will never be peace"

I'm with whoever said the real problem is: "people"

- r

ps.
"and choclate ice cream fridays....
...worldwide"
- paid for by Adonis for President

[robtronik]

well, since there is a lot of defeatism here and no one has stepped to the plate except to state that the problem will never go away, I can make two conclusions:

1) the source of terrorism, as we know it today, is directly related to U.S. foriegn policy
2) the solutions for eliminating or miniizing terrorism are our outside of our capability (IOW, they are going to beat us with their terrorist tactics - and by saying US, I mean we who would rather work things out in a different manner).

i disagree with point #2 entirely, and see where point number 1 has some merit. Help me out if I missed any other larger points of consideration from this thread or others.

Now, here let me help some of you who think the above is irrefutable and we cannot win the war on terrorism.

Here is a start:

1) its not a war of violence. this is just a symptom. It is fundamentally a war between ideas. There are opposing ideologies at play.

(which btw, means that those who think it is like the war on drugs, really don't understand the problem. The "drug war" is about money. Terrorism is about ideology).

What are those ideologies and how to you decide which is right given how they are practiced, enforced, spread, etc.? Which has a history of helping vs. hurting? These are my questions to you (as you probably already know that I have an inkling on what the answer to my first question in this thread was).

rob.

[Machinesworking]

That's what I thought.

Crickets in this thread. No answer or real solution as I suspected.

rob.

OK I'll bite. Afghanistan, the premise is good, take out the stronghold of terrorists responsible for the 911 attack, give logical ultimatums, and react accordingly when they aren't reached. Use the local resistance movement and try to minimize casualties.
Then it goes to shit, leave only a few thousand troops behind, do little or nothing for the infrastructure, and get busy fighting another war. Afghanistan could have been the start of a true turning point in middle eastern politics. We could have instituted all kinds of programs and made it far too enticing to the public there to not become part of them. Getting the people of Afghanistan on our side as completely as possible, and handing the country over to the UN as soon as possible.
We have to rethink our foreign policy, the main thing that feeds terrorism that I've seen is when people feel a country is hypocritical. Getting all hot and bothered by Iraq and Iran for instance, while being buddies with Saudi Arabia and Israel.... Supporting autocracies like Saudi Arabia while spitting hateful remarks about countries like Iran with it's much more democratic system, makes us look bad. The USA will not sit down and talk with Iran, we instead made remarks after Iraq was secure about invading Iran next, and they elected a fundamentalist in response. IMO It's human nature to fight back, the guy before him was a moderate, but we wouldn't talk to him either. Like all countries they have a fundamentalist element, and a liberal element. We could have tried to appeal to that, but instead we gave fuel to the fundamentalists, and they took over.

We do this all over the world, China, with it's human rights violations is an ally, we do billions of dollars of business with them. this was after battling China in Korea. Cuba? well we tried to kill Castro a half dozen times, and have permanently shit listed his country. All over the world our foreign policy is generally speaking, geared towards commerce first, then as a total afterthought democracy, but! and the is a MAJOR issue for most of these countries where terrorists seem to originate, if the democracy is one that elects a socialist government that we do not like, we will throw our support behind some despot, and go as far as to get the CIA involved. This happens all the time, and we here in the states get fed this line about how we want freedom to flourish worldwide. We don't care about freedom in terms of human rights as much as freedom in terms of us doing business with a country.

Iraq was a terrible mistake, the absolute worst thing we could have done to prevent terrorism. The middle east resents the west because they feel we don't allow them their own choices, so invading Iraq on a premise that seems to be false, and not turning the country over to the UN, Cheney securing the contracts for rebuilding in a purely greedy illegal way, well this stuff doesn't just fuel the left in the states, it angers people in countries we claim to be better than.

To fight terrorism you do have to examine your own possible shortcomings, you can't back away from that. Fighting terrorists is about making sure that assholes like Bin Ladin have a hard time finding recruits. You have to stop strategic air strikes on countries you are not officially at war with. You simply cannot spin any angle on why your planes hit somebody's child, it simply doesn't work. You might take out one terror cell that way, but everybody related to the innocent bystanders that you kill is a possible new recruit for Bin Ladin. You have to negotiate with any democratically elected president, and you have to walk the walk, you cannot support any dictatorship, no matter how low their price per gallon is.

You say you are a democratic country with a free market, great. You do little to promote that in the countries you do business with, yet use the supposed lack of freedom in countries you are not friendly with as an excuse to wage war? Well, then people will hate you.


The terrorists nationalities:
15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates.

Notice that not one of them are from Afghanistan or Iraq? What are we doing in those countries that seem to breed terrorism? I guess we're too busy making sure Iraq's WMD is really truly nonexistent to do anything about that?

Notice 15 saudis, realize that Bin Ladin is saudi, and recognize that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Not one terrorist from Iran on board. Iran, no matter how much we despise them, have a democratic system of sorts, they are comfortable, they have a high standard of living.

[Machinesworking]

well, since there is a lot of defeatism here and no one has stepped to the plate except to state that the problem will never go away, I can make two conclusions:

1) the source of terrorism, as we know it today, is directly related to U.S. foriegn policy
2) the solutions for eliminating or miniizing terrorism are our outside of our capability (IOW, they are going to beat us with their terrorist tactics - and by saying US, I mean we who would rather work things out in a different manner).

i disagree with point #2 entirely, and see where point number 1 has some merit. Help me out if I missed any other larger points of consideration from this thread or others.

Now, here let me help some of you who think the above is irrefutable and we cannot win the war on terrorism.

Here is a start:

1) its not a war of violence. this is just a symptom. It is fundamentally a war between ideas. There are opposing ideologies at play.

(which btw, means that those who think it is like the war on drugs, really don't understand the problem. The "drug war" is about money. Terrorism is about ideology).

What are those ideologies and how to you decide which is right given how they are practiced, enforced, spread, etc.? Which has a history of helping vs. hurting? These are my questions to you (as you probably already know that I have an inkling on what the answer to my first question in this thread was).

rob.

Terrorism itself isn't an ideology. Flat out, terrorists are soldiers without a country. Name one resistance organization that uses violence as a means to an end without a recognized country that has not been labeled a terrorist organization?


Your "2)" point, could you explain that better? I can't make sense of the sentence? Are you saying that "us" would be like the USA, where if we feel a threat we send in our army rather than recruit some kids into a CIA type organization and bomb cities in the countries we don't like?

[robtronik]

Machinesworking, you miss the point that I think needs serious consideration.

People do not decide to fight without a reason. The ones that do, are immaterial to anything or anyone compared to the global jihadism that is spreading. Because people need a reason to fight or die, they look towards philosophy or an idea (no matter how crude).

In this case, its islamism, the caliphate, the sharia law and the fight against imperialist westernism (politically and culturally). Their tactics are terrorism simply because they do not have a state strong enough to counter western nations military and economic power. So, terrorism is a tactic to promote their agenda and ideas.

Terrorism is a tactic, not the goal. The goal is to defeat non-muslim nations (i.e. western) into submission because democracy, liberalism, enfranchisment, freedom of religon, freedom of speech, etc. do not fit their world view.

So, again, the most important battle being fought now is the war of ideas.

Who's philosophies are better (i.e. more fair, equitable, and founded on freedom) and more suited to the well being of people as a whole? This is the side one needs to choose with regard to terrorists.

(and with regard to your first post in the attempts to answer the question - which was appreciated BTW - is that you are too mired in the political landscape of today and our "alliances" and tactics on the ground to focus on the bigger picture of what is happening - i.e. war of ideas).

Because this is a battle of idealogies, how do we win? (I have some thoughts, but would love to hear the critique of the great intellects of this board as proposed by Rod Underleaf before I spout off my suggestions).

rob.

[knotkranky]

Machinesworking, you miss the point that I think needs serious consideration.

People do not decide to fight without a reason. The ones that do, are immaterial to anything or anyone compared to the global jihadism that is spreading. Because people need a reason to fight or die, they look towards philosophy or an idea (no matter how crude).

In this case, its islamism, the caliphate, the sharia law and the fight against imperialist westernism (politically and culturally). Their tactics are terrorism simply because they do not have a state strong enough to counter western nations military and economic power. So, terrorism is a tactic to promote their agenda and ideas.

Terrorism is a tactic, not the goal. The goal is to defeat non-muslim nations (i.e. western) into submission because democracy, liberalism, enfranchisment, freedom of religon, freedom of speech, etc. do not fit their world view.

So, again, the most important battle being fought now is the war of ideas.

Who's philosophies are better (i.e. more fair, equitable, and founded on freedom) and more suited to the well being of people as a whole? This is the side one needs to choose with regard to terrorists.

(and with regard to your first post in the attempts to answer the question - which was appreciated BTW - is that you are too mired in the political landscape of today and our "alliances" and tactics on the ground to focus on the bigger picture of what is happening - i.e. war of ideas).

Because this is a battle of idealogies, how do we win? (I have some thoughts, but would love to hear the critique of the great intellects of this board as proposed by Rod Underleaf before I spout off my suggestions).

rob.

The battle for ideals will leave one man standing. If this is important for you to win then you are a lonely man, unless you count the friends who just don't know any better.
.

[ethios4]

I gotta hand it to you rob....you've done a lot to broaden my understanding of the situation...I accept that there is a serious problem with "Islamism" in the world that must be dealt with. To me the question is about the best way to handle the problem, and in that area I still feel strongly that every president that has dealt with the issue has handled it badly, especially the current administration.

I no longer think that simply changing US foreign policy will solve the problem, but I still feel strongly that US foreign policy contributes greatly to a pre-existing problem, exacerbating rather than mollifying. As Machinesworking stated, our foreign policy helps create an environment that terrorist groups exploit to get people behind their cause. Apparently the CIA agrees with this, as I recall a CIA report a few weeks ago stating that US reaction to 9/11 was the greatest gift to Al-Qaeda.

I believe invading Iraq was a huge mistake that will cost us greatly in the possible confrontation with Iran. If it is true that invading Iraq was a good idea strategically, it was/is still handled very badly, and in a way that has cost us the solidarity we had after 9/11. I believe it is very much harder to win a global war on terrorist ideology alone rather than with the free nations of the world working together.

I believe our lopsided support for Israel facilitates the spread of hatred for the US. We look the other way or excuse attrocities they commit, and turn around and condemn the very same things when Arab countries do it.

I do believe there is a war of ideas being fought, and that war extends into the physical world in the form of violence and suffering. I do believe the current administration has committed a near-constant string of severe diplomatic, domestic, political, and military mistakes and refuses to honestly acknowledge these. It's a shame the Democrat alternative in 2004 was shamefully inadequete, and continues to be.

Because of the mistakes in US leadership over the last 6 years (not just Bush), I feel very worried about the future of our country and our world.

[Machinesworking]

People do not decide to fight without a reason. The ones that do, are immaterial to anything or anyone compared to the global jihadism that is spreading. Because people need a reason to fight or die, they look towards philosophy or an idea (no matter how crude).

I agree, I think? your sentence structure here is strange??
Iran turned fundamentalist under the sha, and it was mostly because the only way that made sense to fight a tyranny (Iran) backed by the worlds largest democracy(USA) in the people's minds was through religion.

In this case, its islamism, the caliphate, the sharia law and the fight against imperialist westernism (politically and culturally). Their tactics are terrorism simply because they do not have a state strong enough to counter western nations military and economic power. So, terrorism is a tactic to promote their agenda and ideas.

Yep!

Terrorism is a tactic, not the goal. The goal is to defeat non-muslim nations (i.e. western) into submission because democracy, liberalism, enfranchisment, freedom of religon, freedom of speech, etc. do not fit their world view.

Not at all the case. Sorry, maybe with Bin Ladin, but the major anti western sentiment in the middle east comes from the hypocrisy they witness in our foreign policy. They don't want us dead as much as out of their politics. even Hizbollah acknowledge that they cannot establish a muslim state in Lebenon, too many christians and other religions there. They are religious nuts, just not to the extent that we paint them out to be.

So, again, the most important battle being fought now is the war of ideas.

Maybe, but if you're talking about somehow getting middle eastern people to not be fundamentalists, well good luck, and if you find a way to do that, could you clean up the bible belt here in the states as well?

Who's philosophies are better (i.e. more fair, equitable, and founded on freedom) and more suited to the well being of people as a whole? This is the side one needs to choose with regard to terrorists.

That sentence doesn't make any sense? Are you saying that because American ideals are better, we should what? Are you insinuating that anybody who doesn't agree with the current tactics the USA is using, is automatically siding with the terrorists? It's what it reads like?

(and with regard to your first post in the attempts to answer the question - which was appreciated BTW - is that you are too mired in the political landscape of today and our "alliances" and tactics on the ground to focus on the bigger picture of what is happening - i.e. war of ideas).

OK again, you have to walk the walk if you talk the talk. You can't say you are for freedom, then support an asshole like the KING of Saudi Arabia. We will lose the hearts and minds of the people in the middle east because we do not care about the alliances and tactics we use to gain our ground.

Because this is a battle of idealogies, how do we win? (I have some thoughts, but would love to hear the critique of the great intellects of this board as proposed by Rod Underleaf before I spout off my suggestions).

rob.

I have stated it over and over again, we have to practice what we preach, no news blackouts, ( Al Jazeera are banned from Iraq, that does more harm than good) no alliances with dictators, and dialogue with ANY democratically elected leader, period. Every time GWB will not talk to a democratically elected leaders, then smokes cuban cigarettes with saudi arabian foreign ministers, in private meetings, we create the atmosphere for terrorism.
We need to stop giving orders to sovereign nations period.
one simple rule of technology is that when it's fully mature, it's readily available. Nuclear weapons have been around since the 40's, you have to consider that at some point here in human existence WMD's will be readily available to anybody. this could be true in as little as 50 years.
Which country do you see right now as being in line for WMD's if they could be had by any terrorist group? France? Italy? Switzerland? or England and America?

[robtronik]

the problem with criticising this administration for its invasion of Iraq as part of its war on terrorism is that 9/11 occured before Iraq and Afghanistan.

IOW, they were already highly motivated to attack the U.S. and its allies before this latest and greatest "egregious foriegn policy" error of invasion occured (I put it in quotes because I don't agree was in error, but that's for other threads to discuss).

So, we have to ask ourselves why they were highly motivated during the 90's and before to wage terrorist attacks against western nations (a la Lebannon base bombing, the U.S.S. Cole, embassies in Africa and so on). There are a couple of well founded reasons:

1) U.S. and Western policy making in the region for decades and the desire to put status quo governments in place and make treaties with them (including fascist ones that we all criticize to date) in the name of oil and economic stability.

2) The rising belief that western actions coupled with utter disregard of the common man in the middle east by middle eastern governments and rulers created the conditions for radicalism.

3) This radicalism then married itself to a religious belief - Islam. Islam, coupled with this radical ideology of revolution against western powers and even muslim governments in the region, became Islamism (i.e. as in communisim, fascism, libertarianism, etc.). This was the marrying of a political mantra and a religious one (i.e. the Sharia, caliphate, rules of engagement for muslims over its enemies that are not-muslim, etc.)

4) Because the radicals that purport this new islamism don't have a state to operate from (at least overtly), they resorted to what they have at their disposal. Bombs and their lives. And their beliefs. Hence, terrorism - high profile attacks against all who oppose their ideology (which BTW, includes you if you support and live in a democracy) and no one is innocent in their determination of who is the enemy).

My proposition to those on this board to those who would complain about the actions taken thus far, is this: WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENTLY TO STOP THE TIDE OF ISLAMISM (note: not islam per se) AND ITS TERRORIST TACTICS in today's world? Pre AND post 9/11?

We are in a quandry today because I for one had nothing to do with the policies of yesteryear. I had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan and I have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah. And yet, my life is at risk due to the way the fighting is occuring...

SO, despite the CHICKEN HAWK (lame ass, totally unsupportable, and retarded attack if I may say so) insult, I have an obligation to pick a side and then decide on how to either make it better, revise my thinking, contribute to the public discourse on the policies - and then, if the occasion arises, do something about it. My first step has been to educate myself - and then, this is important - decide my belief system in accordance with principles I believe in. These are the liberal notions of my country's founders - freedom of speech, freedom of religiion, the right to self determination and enfranchisement, (IOW, look at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - that's where I'm at. These principles are in direct opposition to the Islamists - therefore, I'm against them. Even with my life.)

As opposed to the complaining of the Deva's and Kokr8 the like (hello Bradely C in Costa Mesa) who only propose what is wrong with today's United States and people like me who somehow don't conform to their world view (and hence I'm a fascist pedophile who is a nazi sympathizer who loves death and destruction because I'm pro-war, etc. etc.), I'm actually trying to get them and others to propose what we should do.

You know what? NOT A PEEP. NOTHING. NADA from them in this thread. And this is a shame. Everyone can complain, but action is required and in the absence of a perfect plan tomorrow a good enough plan is right for today. And that's what we have.

1) Combat terrorists by police action - this is most effective
2) Combat states that sponsor terrorism or have the means to spread resources to terrorists - this remains to be seen.
3) combat islamism and terrorism by waging a war of ideas and principles of our way of life to match the passion and intensity of those who would seek to destroy it. - this is the longest term and most effective way we can eliminate islamism and terrorism.

BUT - #3 cannot occur without the first two taking place. SO, again, the challenge to Deva, Bradley (kokre8) and the like is - what's your plan. Start with the big picture first like I've done above and then we can drill down into the details.

My suspician, however, is that you (meaning those that don't believe we are doing the right thing currently) don't have a viable alternative to what is proposed above. Prove me wrong so we can discuss. Or not...

rob.

[Meef Chaloin]

US & UK could try not raping the middle east & funding extreme groups