quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono First, I'm not a "war is the only solution" type of person. However, when there is no hope of diplomacy, I'm not going to kid myself. There is no way to meet the demands of Al Qaeda, much less get "them" in a room to even talk about it.

as many here has indicated, "diplomacy" in this case may be somewhat different from how you would define it. It doesn't mean that you have to negotiate with them and say that "okay we will convert half US to islam, happy?", diplomacy in this case may be more to solve the root of the problem, why do they exist? If you don't solve the root of the problem, there will be 10 new terror organisations as fast as you have exterminated one.

quote:

Secondly, can you give me examples of where a terrorist organization of this magnitude has ever been appeased by diplomacy? I can think of individual groups, or events being averted, but never an entire movement stopped. It may buy small intervals of peace, only to flare up again in violence (it does not solve the root problem, only elongates tension). I can give you a whole list where diplomacy didn't work. Northern Ireland, Libya, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Palestine, Haiti, Iraq, etc.

Northern Ireland:
This conflict first started because the discriminating laws from the occupier England, that made Catholics less worthy than protestant (much like the apartheid system in south africa). In late 1700 the laws became a bit better for the catholics, but they still had FAR from the same rights as the protestants. About that time there was also a revolution (inspired by the france revolution), that was hit down by the english. in the beginning of the 19 century the union between england and ireland was created. This meaned that ireland had no own political influence, except one man in the british parliament. The irish people was also very opressed by the police (which was very scared of uprisings). They were really bad treated of the english, and the hate started to grow more and more...
During the middle of the 19 century Ireland was the poorest place in europe and a lot of people emigrated to america, also there was a large amount of people dying in different sicknesses. The dissatisfaction of the union was big, and the anger grew even more.
Thanks to the liberals in the beginning of the 20 century, it was decided that ireland should be an own state in 1914, unforunaly a world war broke out then, so it was procrastinated. In 1915 the irish tried to do revolt, but due to some unlucky things it was hit down.
in 1919 was IRA founded and they started their terrorist war against the english, not all irish fought on their side though, the protestants (which almost all of them lived in the north part of ireland) wanted to keep the union with the English. A war broke out. There was a lot of critizism about the war in england though, the taxpayers thought that the war was pointless and didn't lead anywhere. this led to the split of ireland, one northern ireland, and one ireland, which soon led to a independent ireland (which was really peaceful...)
The terror still remained in northern ireland though. The majority of their population was/are protestants, and supporters of the union with england. But IRA had a strong position and did everything it could to make northern ireland free. violence turned into even more violence, and it went on so and too many people was killed whitout any meaning.. In 1972 London took over the ruling of northern ireland, they had now NOTHING to say, except that they now got some more representatives in the parliament. England sent 20 000 troops there and did the laws even worse, not that unexpectadly, the violence rise even more. Not until they got sick of all the violence and actually tried to solve the conflict diplomatically, they made _some_ progress.

i can't see how this shows that diplomacy don't work?!

anyway, this conflict is rather typical when it comes to terrorism, one people has been opressed and want to do something about it, they have no chance to do it through a normal war, so they use terror as a last option. This conflict also has religion included, which makes it even more typical.

to avoid those kinds of situations you have to stop doing the bad things in the beginning, but hey everyone can do mistakes, but it is really important to not give terror a chance to grow. As for example start a war with iraq without no real reason, except for oil...


Chechnya:
also this started loooooooong time ago (1780), when the russians first occupied chechnya, they oppressed the people and even deported a great amount of them, naturally the people didn't like the russians.
when the sovjet union colapsed in the beginning of the '90, the chechnyans (Dzjochar Dudajev) declared to have an own state, the russian government had its own problems then, so they didn't really care until 1994 when they after various tries to get a peaceful ending to the conflict sent troops to chechnya to reconquer the area, they planned that the operation would take some weeks, but it didn't... in 1996 a cease fire was negotiated. the anarchy continued though, and the "country" had enormous problems with local warriors... when chechnya attacked "dagestan" (i have NO idea what that is in english but i guess it's something similar ) in 1999 to etablish a new big "Islamic state", russia sent a great amount of troops there to avoid that. Russia was really afraid of a creation of such a state, and i think they had all reasons to be, but they used the wrong tactics to fight it.
inspired by nato's actions in serbia they bombed the shit out of the country from 10 000 meters high, that was very effective for the russians, but not for the civilians. this was also about the time when the terror war started. the chechnyans started to blow up things in moscow, and other terrible things. that is also an understandable thing to do considering what the russians did to them.

Putin has now (to my understanding) changed tactics in this war, the chechnyans now have some kind of self govern, but russia still have some control, this is probably the way to go, they get their own country and russia still got some control, tho it is probably kind of late now, since things are really fucked up now it will be hard. If they had used this tactic from the beginning perhaps everything of this could have been avoided. ie-->diplomacy works


Libya:
this is quite obvious an exemple of where diplmocy works.

this is just an example of it:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/afric....wmd/index.html


Iraq
this is an obvious example of where war hasn't worked, at least yet. it could have been a good example of diplomacy, after all (under some pressure) they let the weapond expectors into the country.




Since i'm rather tierd now after all this, i won't go into the other ones, but i think i have my point proven already, i'm sure that there is not much different in those cases.

sorry for making this much of a history essay, that was not my intention from the beginning, but hope it helped to understand my point.fighting terrorism is all about understanding, without understanding, you won't come anywhere. it's also important to not make any new chanses for hate, for example play around in the world too much, that will just increase the terrorist networks. So iraq is probably a big missatake, at least it's a dangerous path to go.

terror will exists as long as the problems exists. no matter how hard you try to eliminate it.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic St Andrew: Nice posts.

thanks a lot, that actually made me very happy since i usually admire your posts

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew terror will exists as long as the problems exists. no matter how hard you try to eliminate it.

This may apply to situations such as Palestine, Chechnya, etc., but we shouldn't attempt to generalize all sources for terrorism and apply a one-size fits all solution to everything. You're setting yourself up for failure. Like I've been saying, the so called "problem" that is the source of Al-Qaeda's existence is the growth of western culture in the middle east and its departure from complete religious fundementalism. Their overall cause is NOT supported by the majority, since their appeal is towards extremism (which is by definition not of the majority) Therefore, there really is no solution to their "problem". The only true way to resolve the situation is through the intelligent use of force and force only. Now how you go about applying that force (through greater involvement of other countries, eliminating rogue nations supporting these groups, etc.) is the real question.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 It's awful this happened,but it's not like 9/11.

Well if it happened 911 days after 9-11, than to me thats equivalant to the attack in the US.

___________________
We don’t thrive on military acts. We do them because we have to, and thank God we are efficient.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew as many here has indicated, "diplomacy" in this case may be somewhat different from how you would define it. It doesn't mean that you have to negotiate with them and say that "okay we will convert half US to islam, happy?", diplomacy in this case may be more to solve the root of the problem, why do they exist? If you don't solve the root of the problem, there will be 10 new terror organisations as fast as you have exterminated one.

As occrider and I have pointed out before, their main purpose is to rid the world of western culture and to spread their own fundamentalist ideologies about Islam. That is the root of the problem, we aren't like them. So, unless you're proposing we become like them, to get rid of the "root" or the problem, there is not much we can do to appease them. Their goals are very simple.

quote:

Northern Ireland: Not until they got sick of all the violence and actually tried to solve the conflict diplomatically, they made _some_ progress. Chechnya: Putin has now (to my understanding) changed tactics in this war, the chechnyans now have some kind of self govern, but russia still have some control, this is probably the way to go, they get their own country and russia still got some control, tho it is probably kind of late now, since things are really fucked up now it will be hard. If they had used this tactic from the beginning perhaps everything of this could have been avoided. ie-->diplomacy works Libya: this is quite obvious an exemple of where diplmocy works. this is just an example of it: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/afric....wmd/index.html Iraq this is an obvious example of where war hasn't worked, at least yet. it could have been a good example of diplomacy, after all (under some pressure) they let the weapond expectors into the country.

Okay, so in N. Ireland you're saying that it has helped, not solved the problem. In Chechnya things are still "fucked up" as you put it. Lybia was scared into their current practices by the US invasion of Iraq and Iraq is an obvious example of diplomacy not working through the UN. So how again in any of these situations did diplomacy solve a situation?

quote:

Originally posted by dj_ilan_yosef Well if it happened 911 days after 9-11, than to me thats equivalant to the attack in the US.

What happened in the US,and what happened in Spain aren't near the same.

Terrorists tried to take out our defense,our finaces,our government,and our confidence. Fortunatly, they didn't get to the capitol. But, the attacks on 9/11 were much much worse.

___________________
~Nessa

quote:

Originally posted by borron There are very racist views on this topic, especially against arabs...

yeah...take a look at what this mofo wrote

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Yep, ARABS!

This attack was just horrible, like any other terrorist acts.

Both extremist leaders of nations that support state terrorism, as well as terrorist cell networks shot be eradicated from this world.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

Last edited by Cyrus King on Mar-12-2004 at 21:46

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 What happened in the US,and what happened in Spain aren't near the same. Terrorists tried to take out our defense,our finaces,our government,and our confidence. Fortunatly, they didn't get to the capitol. But, the attacks on 9/11 were much much worse.

the acts themselves had the same intentions...just the number of civilian casualties were different.

What scares me alot more is an audio tape attained by an Arab media outlet proclaiming that Al-Quaeda's next attack on America is 90% complete and that "the black wind of death" will sweep many lives.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

I think many of you hear are also missing a problem.

If you can't fix the root cause, which you won't unless you invade some 0Arab dicatorships to esnure thriving liberal democracies in the middle east, then you should besiege the terrorist.

You can't starve them out of their caves unfortunatley, but the world could actually co-operate in this war, and confiscate all fiances. You realize Al Qaeda is probably a billion dollar organization or some high million figure. Where is all this money coming from? And why isn't it stopping?

The failure of the west in this war has been in the finances. The USA can outspend Al Qaeda anyday of the week, but if Al Qaeda had an operating budget of a million or less it would be the death of it.

Recruiting networks, safe houses, training camps, schools, explosives, military training and arnament don't come cheap.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The ONLY way to erradicate terrorism is to erradicate the reasons why people feel the need to take up arms.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew diplomacy in this case may be more to solve the root of the problem, why do they exist? If you don't solve the root of the problem, there will be 10 new terror organisations as fast as you have exterminated one.

ok, im really baffelled here... what do you guys think is the root of this problem?

as everyone has indicated here its a clash of civilization between the liberal west and the fundamental middle east. you want us to solve the root of this problem by becoming religious fanatics? or at the very least allow this inhumanity to fester and grow unrestrictedly in the heart of arabia?

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider This may apply to situations such as Palestine, Chechnya, etc., but we shouldn't attempt to generalize all sources for terrorism and apply a one-size fits all solution to everything.

I think they (Al Quaida, Hamas, Hizballah, Djihad, Chechnian groups)DO have something in common, and that is their ideological/religous motive. While ETA and IRA act primarily "politically", the political goals for the aforementioned Islamistic groups are merely a cheap justification, masking ideology. Theoretically those with political motives could be rather negotiated with, if the terrorists' minds included something like reason (the ability to compromise). However they don't seek a compromise but total defeat and POWER. Terrorism is fascism in that it oppresses , rules and constantly tries to extend its power. Add to that ideology like Al Quaida's dream of an Islamist empire and you lose any chance of solving by talking. The root of terror is not frustration or dicontent with the political situation. It is megalomania, greed for power and control and of course fanatism. I agree that these phenomena can and must be preemtively fought against in a social/cultural way. A long-term job. Terrorism, however, is already the end result and can only be defeated by force. At this stage the disease already broke out must be destroyed.
Crush the end result by force. Try to eliminate the ingredients socially (or, to use St. Andrews fav. word, "diplomatically").

edit: Where does frustration come into play then? Well, frustration surely "helps" when it comes to recruting and justifyng. But it's not the root. It just comes as a handy tool for an already established regime.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

just to re-emphasise on the Giant's post;

Fustration is not the cause for terrorism.
If fustration was the cause, well we would see terrorism in far worse ways in other areas of the world that are fustrated, such as South America, AFRICA, Asia, and did I say AFRICA?

Fustration is a fuel for the root cause, but its not what started the fire, that is as people here have correctly pointed out the fundamental ideology. How do you defeat Isalmo-terrorism? You defeat its ideology. How do you do that? You offer a countering philosophy and world viewpoint. What countering philosophy and world viewpoint do you offer? That of liberal democracy (such as in the west) adapted for the mideast. How do you do that? By demonstrating it through reality by examples such as the new Iraq.

Until you guys are willing to prove your ideology, liberal democracy, is a powerful and better alternative to the people of the middle east than islamo-facisim, then you aren't going to win the war, its that simple.

Proving your philosophy is a hard thing to do, and it takes a long time. But defintely demonstrating the strength you posess (obtained by your philosophy) is one very effect means of doing this in the longrun, it worked with commie-facist philosophy, and I see no reason why it won't work against islamo-funadmentalisim.

ignore away...

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.