|
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
OK, lets get this straight, I dont think appeasment should be the way to deal with evey terrorist situation, but I do think it should be in the back of our minds when dealing with them.
From what I have seen throughout history, despite the tactics used, 9 times out of 10, the "terrorists" have had a legitimate concern that has been behind the decision to take to arms.
You have to look at each separate situation and ask yourselves, "why are they doing this". But you have to do this truthfully and not become blinded by revenge or nationalism or pride. That is the hard part and I cannot recall a situation, bar Northern Ireland (which I think should be the bench mark for dealing with any kind of terrorism) where this has happened. |
This line of reasoning would be valid if (and only if) "each seperate [terrorist] situation" existed in a vacuum. However, they do not.
The inevitable result of even the slightest degree of appeasement of terrorists is the further legitimization of terrorism as a means of obtaining political redress. It sends the message to every single disgruntled political figure around the world that terrorism might be an effective tool for them to employ to obtain their objectives.
This is not acceptable. While in the short-term, it might seem possible to save lives through appeasement of a single group who are resorting to terrorism, the long term consequence of any such appeasement will be more terrorism. Perhaps from the same group, perhaps from a different group. But the fact remains: appeasement will not stop (or even slow) terrorism, it will only popularize it.
We need to send a strong and united message that any political group which resorts to terrorism will not have their concerns addressed, regardless of the legitimacy of those concerns, until such a time as they cease to resort to such an illegitimate means of obtaining political redress.
| quote: |
Everytime I see an MP on the telly talking about al-Qaida I want to scream. Either they are fucking stupid, or they are trying to manipulate public oppinion to meet there own agenda. Everytime they are asked why al-Qaida are doing this they give the same rehersed answer, "You have to understand, that al-Qaida hate and despise the West, our values and our democratic beliefs, this is why they are attacking us" NO!!! Ok, so they hate what we stand for, but why would they want to kill us for it?
You have to go a lot further and not rely on simplicity like what I have talked about above. It was not hard to find out what al-Qaida actually stood for or wanted, and if they had that (if any terrorist had what they were attacking for in the first place) they wouldn't attack - makes sense no?
|
No, it doesn't make sense, because you are severely oversimplifying the nature of human behavior. Suppose you have a young child, and the child throws a tantrum if you refuse to buy him a candy bar. If you give in and buy him the candy bar, it may satisfy him - temporarily. But what do you think is going to happen next time he wants something and you refuse to give it to him?
Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and every other terrorist organization on this planet would love us to believe that all we have to do in order to stop their terrorist attacks is to comply with their immediate demands. But that's simply not realistic. If we give in to their demands, the next time something comes up that they aren't content with - and it probably won't take long - the bombing will start again, and we will have gained nothing from appeasing them the first time.
Not only that, but as I already stressed, other groups may perceive the success that those groups attained as a product of the terrorist methodology, and begin to employ similar tactics themselves.
Anyone who believes that appeasement of any terrorist organization will cause a long-term reduction in terrorist activities is suffering from a serious case of intellectual myopia.
| quote: |
When we let our emotions take over, we lash out. When we lash out, we make the reasons terrorists attack us much worse, and inevitabally, more people will have cause for concern and will begin to support the reasons terrorists attack, thereby making the threat to us a hell of a lot worse. We have seen this in Iraq. The Presidency became blinded by emotion after 11/9 (which most Americans by the look of it did). They wanted to lash out and they did. They got it right first time (Afghanistan) as bin Laden's operation needed to have the plug pulled on it (or at least hampered as al-Qaida are all over the world). But America was not content. It wanted more revenge. It chose Iraq...but why? Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qaida, so attacking Iraq as part of the war on terror did not make sense rationally. But America has been acting unrationally (emotionally) since 11/9 and Iraq laughed when that happened, and for that, they paid.
|
I agree that we need to be calm and measured in our responses to terrorism if those responses are to be effective, targeting terrorists themselves and minimizing any harm to innocent civilians. However, I do not believe appeasement can be a valid or useful part of such a strategy.
| quote: |
But that has made things so much worse...look at Madrid. Attacking Iraq in no way whatsoever helped us against terrorism, and as the Spanish found out to their cost, it had exactly the opposite effect.
|
There is no way to know what would have happened if Spain did not assist in the war in Iraq. There is no proof that the attack would not have occurred anyway. Even if it wouldn't have, there is no evidence that the same resources, both economic and human, would not have been diverted to terrorist activity elsewhere.
| quote: |
The same happens in Israel. Revenge attacks and airstrikes are common after a suicide bombing. But thats all they are, revenge. They obviously dont work or we would have seen an end to Palestinian violence a long time ago. What actually happens is that ordinary Palestinians, terrorised by the Israelis (cos who says terrorism cannot be commited by a soveriegn government?) support attacks against the aggressors (revenge again?) |
Israel has an inconsistent record of appropriate responses to terrorist attacks. In many cases, they cause unnecessary damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure which most likely only contributes to the terrorist threat. However, targeted attacks directed at known terrorist leaders, such as Yassin, are highly appropriate.
| quote: |
I dont have any answers of how to eliminate terrorism completely Yoepus, but what I do know for a fact is that the bigger the terrorist organisation, the more dangerous it is. The more support a terrorist organistation gets the bigger it becomes...and people support terrorist organisations when they become threatened by the terrorist's enemy, or when the terrorist's enemy starts acting like the bad guy, and the "terrorist" organisation becomes the saviour...
Now our behaviour is something we can control |
Our behavior is certainly something we can control, and I agree tha there are significant improvements we could make toward the end of fighting terrorism. Unfortunately, I believe that the suggestion that appeasement - even in the most mundane sense - is not and can not be one such improvement.
Terrorism may never be eliminated completely. However, if we do not wish for it to further perpetuate itself, we cannot, under any circumstances, allow it to appear to be a successful ideology.
|
Its all a matter of balance and extreme. 
:
CUT OFF HIS HEAD
