On the oh-so-popular subject of terrorism

This entire "we don't bargain with terrorists"-attidtude. I mean, of course I understand the concept of it. If governments always do what terrorists tell them to, the logical conclusion is that this makes terrorists think that they always can get what they want. Which is.. less good, I suppose. But then again, where do you draw the line? In which possible scenarios should terrorists get their demands? Say that someone got a hold of some kind of nuclear weapon and placed it in.. Beijing. They demand an astronomical sum of money and if they don't get every penny of it, the city will be turned into smouldering ruins. You know, the whole Bond-jazz. Time for bargaining, neh? The interesting points for me is where to draw the line. What do you think?

But more facts to take into consideration is what these people want. And then, if you give in to one nutjob with a nuke, will more nut jobs get nukes and try the same? And even if you give them what they want, will they desist or just blow up stuff anyway?

I guess I dont know, really. I couldnt do it, I wouldnt want to have to. But I suppose that its a case by case deal, and I'm positive that along with all the talks with the terrorists, they have special ops teams and whatnot sneaking in to get rid of the threat.

Interesting topic.

Yeah, if someone said "Give me $20 and a sandwich or we'll detonate this nuke in Paris", and you knew the threat was serious and had very little chance of catching the person, I don't know if it's time to negotiate then, but I still don't think so. I can see the reasoning behind never negotiating with terrorists.

If someone is crazy enough to be willing to detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city, could you trust that that person wouldn't explode it anyways if he got his money or whatever he was after? You're placing your trust in the hands of the bad guy. I don't think that's ever wise.

Giving in to terrorists is like giving in to a little kid at a grocery store who throws a tantrum when you don't buy him candy, because, that is almost exactly what terrorists are. Except more lives are involved.

Don't negotiate with terrorists....I guess that is about the smartest thing. You don't want to talk to them about their cause and crap and then set up a deal to only turn on them and take them out at the time. They might be prepared and then you are screwed or you will suceed and other terrorist will hear of it which in turn will lead them to never even want to talk to you and then they will just do what ever they were going to do in the first place.

I say you just have to locate them and nuke them(we have enough to waste a few) :D

Also there's the high possibility that they'll take the money and then do whatever it is they threatened to do anyway. Whoever said terrorists have to be honourable?

The right way to deal with terrorists is to think like them. They don't care about human life? Well, neither should you. If they kidnap someone, you found out where they are, and send in an assault team. No negotiations, nothing, whatever the cost may be.

Terrorism should be handled with not roughly, but brutally. Islamic terrorists, for example, should be burnt wrapped in pork-skin. That was done by Russia, and it brought an end to suicide bombings there. Russia is a fine example of how one should deal with terrorism, of any kind. Sure, they get lots of criticism from the world, but in the end, they're doing the right thing for them. They deal with terrorism using the only way - force, and the more of it, the better.

Actually, I think the best way to take care of terrorists is silently and discreetly. If you make a big show of executing them, and make sure that everyone in the world knows of it, you're only going to make them martyrs. Don't even mention that they've been taken out, and make sure that no one knows who they are. That way, no one will know that they died "for a cause."

What if the terrorists have a valid argument and they have only turned to violence because nobody would listen to them otherwise? Maybe more effort should be made to find out why human beings would resort to such barbaric practices. More violence is not going to end the cycle.

I prefer the methods used by Germany right after 9/11....good police work(hurt al aqeada more than Iraq). Find them and give them their trial. No bragains.

<i>What if the terrorists have a valid argument and they have only turned to violence because nobody would listen to them otherwise? Maybe more effort should be made to find out why human beings would resort to such barbaric practices. More violence is not going to end the cycle.</i> --eestlinc

Or maybe people who resort to such barbaric practices don't deserve to live, let alone to have a public voice.

Terrorists disagree with me about something, and so they threaten to explode a hospital or a bridge and kill innocent people; this is a "cycle"? The "cycle" would be to listen to the opinions of terrorists, thus validating their actions, which would lead to the same actions by other people in the future. Any time any lunatic with no regard for human life wanted to be heard, he'd just have to kill some innocent people, and there you go. That's not how this planet works. The cycle is ended when the bad guys are dead.

A war on terrorism is a pointless war, though, because terrorism has existed since practically the dawn of mankind.

Actually, I think the best way to take care of terrorists is silently and discreetly. If you make a big show of executing them, and make sure that everyone in the world knows of it, you're only going to make them martyrs. Don't even mention that they've been taken out, and make sure that no one knows who they are. That way, no one will know that they died "for a cause."
A good, fair point. That's probably a good strategy. But, sometimes, it's also good to strike fear.

What if the terrorists have a valid argument and they have only turned to violence because nobody would listen to them otherwise? Maybe more effort should be made to find out why human beings would resort to such barbaric practices. More violence is not going to end the cycle.
You scare me. Very, very much.

A war on terrorism is a pointless war, though, because terrorism has existed since practically the dawn of mankind.
So? You're just going to give up. Let's give up on medicine as well. Bacteris were here LONG before us. Does that sound rational to you? Saying evil has existed since the dawn of mankind doesn't mean fighting it is pointless. It may be difficult and even impossible, but it's a lot better than to be slaughtered like sheep.

Look, there has to be a reason people are willing to kill themselves to destroy others. It isn't because they enjoy destruction. In the case of arabs, the huge problems in arab society have created an entire class of men who have no jobs (partly because they feel they are above menial labor) and feel hopeless. Then you have someone like Bin Laden come along who is angry for whatever reason and he can give these hopeless men hope (in the form of dying "honorably" for Islam). If you work to improve arab society then you can cut off terrorism by eliminating the supply of hopeless people willing to sign up. It's very obvious that violence doesn't solve the problem.

Originally posted by The Man
A war on terrorism is a pointless war, though, because terrorism has existed since practically the dawn of mankind. So you're just saying that we should just let terrorists do what they want, killing thousands, perhaps millions of innocent people? Why - because there's no way to completely eliminate terrorism? That may be true, but it is certainly a lot better to have as little terrorism as possible that it is to do nothing at all.

Originally posted by eestlinc
Look, there has to be a reason people are willing to kill themselves to destroy others. It isn't because they enjoy destruction. In the case of arabs, the huge problems in arab society have created an entire class of men who have no jobs (partly because they feel they are above menial labor) and feel hopeless. Then you have someone like Bin Laden come along who is angry for whatever reason and he can give these hopeless men hope (in the form of dying "honorably" for Islam). If you work to improve arab society then you can cut off terrorism by eliminating the supply of hopeless people willing to sign up. It's very obvious that violence doesn't solve the problem. Yes, improving the society that produces terrorists will help to eliminate the supply of terrorism. At the same time, though, the evil and violent portions of that society - the terrorists - need to be removed, or they will continue to manifest anger and hatred. You can't get a weed out of a garden by watering it.

there has to be a reason people are willing to kill themselves to destroy others.
Sure there is. They're evil, despicable human (?) beings that deserve death. :)

Point being - you should fight, regardless of the odds, and regardless of the supposed motives of your enemy. Don't try to understand their perverted view on things, and don't try to change yourself, to fit them.

The problem is in order to kill the weed you end up killing half the grass too. If we can stop terrorist leaders, that's great, but destroying countries to do so is counterproductive and feeds into the hatred and hopelessness that cause people to become terrorists in the first place.

Yes, but when we (the US) "destroy" those countries, we also put a lot of effort and money into rebuilding them beyond what they were before we took military action.

Maybe we do. I hope we do. I don't think we did a very good job in "rebuilding" South America, though. The US government doesn't seem too intent on actually fixing Iraq. And what about the rest of the arab nations in the middle east? Are we going to invade them all and fix them all too? We can't even provide good public schools to everyone in the US. How are we going to find the resources to rebuild an entire region of the world?

Then again, we don't seem to do a good job at "destroying," either. Billions of dollars are put into research each year to develop - and employ - precision munitions, which will only destroy what is needed, with minimal collateral damage. It's not like we carpet-bombed Baghdad.

There are other ways to destroy a country than just through bombs. It's not even really the US military doing the destruction as much as the governments of the countries themselves, but still. Once we get involved in bringing the old way down, we should really be involved in building the new way up. If we aren't willing to do that, we shouldn't have jumped into the fire in the first place.

<i>The problem is in order to kill the weed you end up killing half the grass too. If we can stop terrorist leaders, that's great, but destroying countries to do so is counterproductive and feeds into the hatred and hopelessness that cause people to become terrorists in the first place.</i> --eestlinc

If someone kidnapped your wife/mother/daughter and held a knife to her throat and said "Try to understand my position!", would you care what he has to say? I wouldn't. I'd kill him with my bare hands the first chance I got. A terrorist does this, only on a large scale. Maybe they have really nice and valid political views, who knows. I wouldn't really care anyways. Maybe this person is poor and needs food and money; that wouldn't stop me from tearing his heart out if I could. Poverty isn't an excuse for killing people. If Arab countries have problems, they should fix the problems themselves. Overthrow their dictators, reject the views that keep them ignorant and poor. It's not my fault Arabs live in countries with huge problems. I didn't cause their problems. Why should I care about them? Why is it OK to kill me to fix them, or to kill me to get other people to listen to them? The point where they decide it IS my problem, and it IS OK to kill me to fix their own problems, that's the point where I am granted the right to defend myself.

How about state-sponsored terrorism?

In the mid 1980s, French intelligence agents bombed a civilian vessel, the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior, in New Zealand waters to prevent it sailing to Mururoa to protest at nuclear weapons testing. This was a blatant act of terrorism, even an act of war against New Zealand. Then there were the CIA's many terrorist crimes in central America during the same period, including the bombing of ships and docks in Nicaragua, for the purpose of undermining the communist regime.

"Terrorism" doesn't just mean Islamic fundamentalist groups who despise Western culture and its "unholy" influence and values. However, where government-sponsored terrorism is concerned, negotiation is just as futile. Ronald Reagan refused to admit that the Central America bombings were illegal, claiming that the world court was full of communists and therefore couldn't be trusted. The point is, anyone - government, terrorist, whoever - is usually in possession of a single-minded, anflappable conviction that "I am right and you are wrong no matter what anyone says or does", just like the 'childish tantrum' analogy used earlier.

However, views can change. Look at Northern Ireland. Negotiation, communication and understanding has helped to resolve the long-running violence between Ireland and Britian. The IRA no longer bombs British sites, and peace is largely maintained. No need for the annihilation of one 'side'.

Like it or not, terrorists always have a reason for what they do. Understand this, though: reason does not equal justification. Almost always, the idea is to protect something. The US and France carried out the above-mentioned terrorist acts to protect their economic and/or military interests. Al Qaeda see Western lifestyles and cultural influence as an abomination against what they believe is God's will. Bank robbers hold up banks to earn money. These are reasons, not just "they're evil". Certainly, many terrorist acts are evil, as are those responsible for them. But pure evil alone is almost never the reason behind such an act.

Understanding why something happens is not the same as believing others' views or supporting their acts. Just saying "they're evil" is simply a cheap excuse to justify utterly destroying your enemy by any means, no matter how base. I'm sure the Christian Crusaders believed that Muslims, Jews and heretics were "evil", and that provided all the reason they needed to attempt genocide on several occasions.

Of course, when a nation suffers a terrorist crime it must respond. Force must be met with force, those who kill must be killed or brought to justice. It is fair, it is necessary to survival. There's no getting around that. However, trying to apply labels such as "good" and "evil" will accomplish nothing except to give one side the excuse to go to any lengths to wipe out those they oppose. It elevates the "good" side to a kind of divinity, above restriction and judgement, completely beyond reproach or restriction, while guaranteeing a sentence of death for anyone associated with the "evil" side. If Westminster had fought the IRA on "good versus evil" terms, then the bloodshed would be continuing to this day, with ever-increasing death tolls and ever more depraved acts of horror taking place on both sides.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by DocFrance
So you're just saying that we should just let terrorists do what they want, killing thousands, perhaps millions of innocent people? Why - because there's no way to completely eliminate terrorism? That may be true, but it is certainly a lot better to have as little terrorism as possible that it is to do nothing at all.Agreed, but going out trying to eliminate all terrorism in the world ever, as Bush is allegedly doing, is a futile fight. It's as futile as a war on drugs, IMO. It's a war that can never be won, and while it's quite arguably worth fighting, putting it in such black and white terms as Bush has is pointless.

Yes, trying to combat terrorism is a noble cause, but trying to target every country that harbours terrorists is pointless and ignorant, not to mention hypocritical as there's plenty of terrorists from the U.S. as well.

So more or less what eest said.

I don't support terrorists or approve of their actions, but I'm saying that if you want to truly fight terrorism, you need to do more than retaliate. You need to find out why people become terrorists for various causes and do what you can to change that.

Yeah, and that's what's being done.

How exactly is that being done? By turning Iraq into an anarchy? By leaving and letting the Shi'ite fundamentalists take over? By turning a blind eye to the hideous state of life in Saudi Arabia?

I thought the topic was 'if we weren't actively eliminating the causes of terrorism and suddenly somebody set us up the bomb', what would we do? Sure we could discuss the merits of peaceful or more effective solutions of combatting terrorism, but that's for another day. Right now they've got the bomb and [insert city here] is in trouble.

I think that for the sake of maintaining power over the individuals, the state should never give in to threats or demands. Even if we knew that the terrorist in question would 'make good on his word' and release the hostages/not nuke Thailand or something, the idea that the state would just let terrorists do as they wish is not very helpful for maintaining the semblance of safety in the population. Besides, if you try to stop the terrorists, there is a chance you could succeed, and then you will be that much better.

<i>How about state-sponsored terrorism?</i>--Big D

I agree with you that governments can and do do things that are wrong too. I don't see how that's relevant to the topic at hand.

<i>Understand this, though: reason does not equal justification.</i>

Qualify it to say "Reason does not ALWAYS equal justification" and I'll agree with you. Some reasons are right, and some are wrong. Religion, for example, is a wrong reason. Self-defense against an unprovoked attack is a right reason.

<i>However, trying to apply labels such as "good" and "evil" will accomplish nothing except to give one side the excuse to go to any lengths to wipe out those they oppose. It elevates the "good" side to a kind of divinity, above restriction and judgement, completely beyond reproach or restriction, while guaranteeing a sentence of death for anyone associated with the "evil" side.</i>

I believe in good and evil. I believe people who want to kill me without justification are evil. I don't agree in claming "I'm automatically right in all circumstances, and those guys are automatically evil" without justification; that's not valid. But that doesn't mean there is no good and evil. Hitler was evil, for example; you must agree with that. The reason: he purposefully killed innocent people, and he attacked other countries for nothing more than to gain power. Other countries fought him because he was evil. Saddam Hussein is evil; you must agree. Why? He purposefully killed innocent people on a large scale, and he attacked other countries for nothing more than to gain power, among other reasons. Terrorists are evil. Why? They purposefully kill innocent people for nothing more than to gain something they want.

<i>I don't support terrorists or approve of their actions, but I'm saying that if you want to truly fight terrorism, you need to do more than retaliate. You need to find out why people become terrorists for various causes and do what you can to change that.</i> --eestlinc

Exactly what obligates us to help our enemies? They have the right to hurt or kill me, but I have no rights, only OBLIGATION to help them in some way? That seems completely backwards.

We don't have any obligation to help our enemies, but we would be wise to treat those in the middle east who have not yet become our enemies from becoming our enemies. If we just say "screw you, bye" after waltzing in and taking out their evil leaders, we aren't fixing anything and the resentment will remain and the source of terrorism will remain.

And we don't do that. Why do you think we still have thousands of troops in Iraq? For fun?

Not to throw this entire thread into chaos, but the question comes to my head now:

Since terrorism is such an obviously HUGE problem, why are we focusing on anything besides it really, globally? What is the point of declaring we're going to Mars in 20 years, unless Bush and others are planning to send either all the terrorists who only have interests in taking lives, up there, or perhaps, all of Earth will eventually leave....

It just seems to me that almost all governments have become less and less interested in this issue that in my opinion is still white hot. Perhaps, because the elections are coming up in America and elsewhere?

Really, the great problem with politics is that those who are vying for power care more about securing their position than actually doing things that would benefit the country and world as a whole. Just once, I'd like to have a President who didn't suddenly abandon all his policies because the re-election machine needed to get started. I believe that if you truly are determined to fix problems, focus on those and don't even worry about getting re-elected. I have faith in people that they'll come around and see the admirable job you are doing and reward you as such.

Just one man's opinion.

Take care all.

I know we still have troops there, but Bush keeps talking about pulling out and transferring sovereignty by this summer. Even if we stay in, we need to fix things the right way and not just do a half-assed job. I'm not sure that I trust any US government officials in that regard, on either side of the aisle.

The right way to deal with terrorists is to think like them. They don't care about human life? Well, neither should you. If they kidnap someone, you found out where they are, and send in an assault team. No negotiations, nothing, whatever the cost may be.

Terrorism should be handled with not roughly, but brutally. Islamic terrorists, for example, should be burnt wrapped in pork-skin. That was done by Russia, and it brought an end to suicide bombings there. Russia is a fine example of how one should deal with terrorism, of any kind. Sure, they get lots of criticism from the world, but in the end, they're doing the right thing for them. They deal with terrorism using the only way - force, and the more of it, the better.

You scare me very, very much.


Sure there is. They're evil, despicable human (?) beings that deserve death.

OK, here is the classical maniacheist speech. Well, I think thats a preety simple-minded analysis on the situation. "They kill because they are evil". And why are they evil and despicable? Because they were born like this? God, somewhere out there, in hell, heaven or whatever, Freud is crying.

And why are they evil and despicable? Because they were born like this?
Probably. Take into account the primitive, cruel and barbaric way of their culture, and you'll get an explosive combination (God, I love puns.. XD).

You scare me very, very much.
Understandable. Those who fight are always scarier than those who sit around doing nothing. Sitting on your bum saying sweet, nice and peaceful things is looked upon brightly in Western societies, while saying one should fight is frowned upon by most. That's because most don't know how their 'freedom' is earned.

Take into account the primitive, cruel and barbaric way of their culture

Like burning people wrapped in pork skin? Yeah, probably.

Those who fight are always scarier than those who sit around doing nothing. Sitting on your bum saying sweet, nice and peaceful things is looked upon brightly in Western societies, while saying one should fight is frowned upon by most. That's because most don't know how their 'freedom' is earned.

Huh? You fight? Sitting in your bum saying salty, not-nice and violent things? I should give you a medal.

Plus, how do you know I don't fight? You know nothing about my life, I could be....say....Subcomandante Marcos posting from Lacandona.

On the other hand, the text above I just quoted, the fighting one, could easily apply to a terrorist. Plus, previously you said:

But, sometimes, it's also good to strike fear.

Isn't that what the terrorists do? Strike fear to get to a cause? Then, you are defending terrorism against terrorism? If for fighting the mosters you have to become a monster yourself, please take Nietzsche out of your signature.

Like burning people wrapped in pork skin? Yeah, probably.
Dead mass murderers.

Isn't that what the terrorists do? Strike fear to get to a cause? Then, you are defending terrorism against terrorism? If for fighting the mosters you have to become a monster yourself, please take Nietzsche out of your signature.
Yes, unfortunatly, you must descend to their level in order to achieve victory. That is, there is no victory over terrorism without physical combat. You must battle them ferociously, or there won't be any hope of defeating them.

Nietszche's quote is just a reminder not to go too far, and also a reminder for the cost a fighter against evil has to pay - he loses some of his humanity.

That is, there is no victory over terrorism without physical combat. You must battle them ferociously, or there won't be any hope of defeating them.

Each terrorist you kill is like a brach you cut out from a tree, but branches grow up again. How then, are you going to end the problem? Exterminating a whole culture?

From that analogy, it seems that you're implying that terrorism is a culture.

Virtually all terrorists become what they are because of cultural influences. Most Islamic terrorists feel that their culture and beliefs are threatened by Western/Christian/Jewish lifestyles and practices, and strike out against it. The IRA believed that Northern Ireland would never be 'free' as long as it was under British rule - they felt that their culture and people were being oppressed. The ANC, who fought long and hard against apartheid in South Africa, were branded 'terrorists' by their government; they too were fighting so that their culture wouldn't be forced to continue an oppressed and downtrodden life.

Terrorism itself is not a culture, but culture greatly influences those who choose to become terrorists.

From that analogy, it seems that you're implying that terrorism is a culture.
Almost, yes. It's a cultural norm. It almost always exists in backwards socities, where power reigns and violence solves almost all problems.

What Big D said.

Almost, yes. It's a cultural norm. It almost always exists in backwards socities, where power reigns and violence solves almost all problems.

Violence dosen't tend to solve problems, it just covers them up. Anyway, then if terrorism is like a culture, you defend ending with that culture?

Violence dosen't tend to solve problems, it just covers them up.
Oh, it solves problems alright. Question is, are you willing to suffer the consequences of your actions, most often legally, and if not that, than morally.

Anyway, then if terrorism is like a culture, you defend ending with that culture?
I assume this slightly awkward-built question means whether I am willing to battle terrorism using terrorism. The answer is no, but not a clear no. I am willing, and I also think it is needed, to go pretty far in order to defeat or at least weaken terrorism.

Well, I don't think instilling fear on a population (And thus hate) is going to make terrorism weaker. It's not like an army: The more pressure you instill, the more people will be willing to fight you back. And since they don't have an army, they will fight back with terrorism.

I frankly don't believe there is a way of solving terrorism asides from dialogue. Violence may bring them back for a while, but the next strike will be more powerful, you just give them more reasons to be violent. And no, I am not basing this in mere supposition, here in my country we have terrorists too, and the closer we have been to end their killing has been through dialogue, but of course, it means you have to listen to them and give something, and thats not easy, not at all. But you know, if people are willing to blow themseleves up to kill people in your side, it's because they consider you responsable or partly responsable on the problem they have, because I don't think someone who lives well would go and blow themselves up for anything at all. My point is, many times (Not always) the institution (Not the people) being attacked is in fact facing the consequences of a bad administration of that institution. Is there another way to solve this other than attempting to reach to a deal with the people going against the institution? So far I can't think of a modern terrorist group that has ended it's killing because they were repressed with violence, however I can think of two groups that stopped or have decided to cease fire for a while (IRA stopped, ETA ceased fire for 18 months).

Of course, there's the other argument: If you give the terrorists what they want (Or at least part of what they want reaching to a deal) you are showings signs of weakness and fomenting the idea that terrorism is a way of getting things. Well, I wouldn't call it weakness, it takes courage to be able to face problems for what they are and come up with a real solution despite all the criticism, and about the second point...yes, you are giving that image. Well, thats too bad, but no solution is perfect here. And truth is, terrorism IS a way to get what you want, it's not ethical or socially acceptable, but it is a way, violence is a very effective transformation engine. Of course, I'd never defend a group killing innocent people as a way of getting to their objective, but it is a way of getting things. Suppose someone blackmails you to show pictures of you doing whatever to the newspapers, and you are a famous person. Well, you can either try to solve it in a civilized manner or raid into the person's house and shoot them in the face. Probably, if you don't get discovered, the second one may proove effective and give results, but of course, it's not ethical.

As for fighting terrorism, I can use the same example. The only problem here is that I don't believe the violent solution is going to solve anything: You just become as bad as them. Oh, well, I admit there is a way of stopping terrorism through violence, yes: Arab terrorists are bombing this and that. Well, this suicide bombers tend to be religion fanatics (Ah, religions, see, quite a nasty thing if not used correctly) so every religious person is bound to become a fanatic if put under pressure. Thus, the only solution would be to just kill every arab in the world to solve the problem, just like Hitler wanted to do with the Jews. Of course, that would make you the biggest genocide in mankind's history, but hey, you'd solve overpopulation problems.

Well, I don't think instilling fear on a population (And thus hate) is going to make terrorism weaker. It's not like an army: The more pressure you instill, the more people will be willing to fight you back. And since they don't have an army, they will fight back with terrorism.
Too true. Terrorism almost always results from a culture feeling threatened, for whatever reason. Increasing the threat will just increase the response.

Reasoning with terrorists might be the easiest and most practical way of solving a problem, but that doesn't make it the most moral. I don't believe in reasoning with evil people. To do so is to accept and validate their views. If you accept evil as valid, you're evil yourself.

If someone was holding a school full of children hostage, and they said "Hey Unne, take this one baby and kill it, right now. If you do, I'll let all these children go. If not, I'll kill a hundred children". Would you say it's right for me to kill the baby? That's what it means to bargain with terrorists. If I allow myself to be controlled by evil people, what does that make me? It makes me evil too. If a government allows itself to be controlled by evil people, what does that make it? That is what bargaining with terrorists is: willfully granting the terrorists control. The only moral thing to do is to stop the terrorists. Never to do what they want.

There's always a choice. You can let the terrorists dictate the terms; that's what negotiating with terrorists is, because that's what they want. If you do so, you're admitting surrender. Good surrendering to evil; what do you think the result of that will be?

Or you can play by your own rules. For example, the rule "Never, ever kill innocent people", or even "Never kill anyone; just talk about stuff". If you do so, you will fail, because the enemy doesn't respect your rules. Wishing for something doesn't make it so. Telling someone to be peaceful doesn't make them do it. Proclaiming killing to be wrong doens't stop killers. If the enemy violates your rules, then what? If you decide everyone should be peaceful, and a terrorist kills people anyways, then what?

The other alternative is to play by the bad guys' rules, and win. The only thing to stop force is force. If terrorists hide in a church and shoot rockets out the window at your troops, blast the church into the ground; it's not you killing any innocents who may be inside, it's the terrorists for forcing you into the situation. If a 4-year-old runs at you with a bomb on her chest, kill her before she gets to you. It's not you who just killed that child, it's the one who strapped a bomb to her. If there's any possible way to avoid killing, then don't kill. If there is no way to avoid killing, then kill, and kill as well as you can kill, because anything less will result in failure.

So far as I'm concerned, there are two rules for war. First rule: Be sure you're right. Second rule: Win. In the case of terrorists, I am sure that I don't deserve to die, because I've done nothing to anyone to warrant death, and someone who is trying to kill me is wrong. What's left is to do what's necessary to win, and that usually involves killing. No more than what's necessary; I don't condone needless destruction. But just as importantly, no less. The difference between us and a terrorist: we are right, and they are wrong. They started it, we'll finish it.

OK, first of all I don't like to talk about good and evil, because it is a moral value dependant on the subject, or in other words, it is relative, and even if the idea of good is the same for us all (Oposite to evil, another created concept), the way of understanding good is different. OK, so let me get your own idea and twist it arround so you understand the problem:

Reasoning with terrorists might be the easiest and most practical way of solving a problem, but that doesn't make it the most moral. I don't believe in reasoning with evil people. To do so is to accept and validate their views. If you accept evil as valid, you're evil yourself.
The difference between us and a terrorist: we are right, and they are wrong. They started it, we'll finish it.
The only thing to stop force is force.
If terrorists hide in a church and shoot rockets out the window at your troops, blast the church into the ground; it's not you killing any innocents who may be inside, it's the terrorists for forcing you into the situation.

Well, to start with, terrorist fight you because they feel you are opressing their culture, and truth is, in most cases they are probably right. As an opressor of culture, you're evil too. Sometimes it's not THAT bad to listen to what they have to say. For them, they are right and you are wrong, you opress their culture, then they decide to act in response so you may listen, and are willing to negotiate with evil, in this case, you. Well, thats from the terrorists' perspective. They feel a force (Opression) acting against them, and following your logic, the only force against force is force.
When you shoot that missile into the church, you are killing innocent people, and you say the terrorists force you to do so. I'll let aside my moral understanding of such action (I must only point out that I find it lacks of any value for human life). Well, the terrorist may use as argumentation they had no choice but to do such action of taking people hostage in order to act against opression, thus you forced them to kidnap people in order to be listened. Also, wouldn't blowing uo te church be worse than killing the baby in the school?

Sure, I don't agree with terrorist logic, but sometimes it is positive to try to understand the reasons that leads them to such actions. Once you try to analyze seriously the topic, you see it's not balck and white or right and wrong. Terrorists don't kill because they are Born Evil, only a really simple-minded individual would get to such a ridiculous conclusion. So in the end, this guys that blow themselves up may be bastards, but the goverment that has enforced the situation is not a saint either.

So making a long story short, terrorism tends to be (not always) a fruit of the bad administration of the state. Thus, if a state leads to opression, it must face the consequences, this is either terrorism, revolution or coupe d'etat (Yet this dosen't fall into opression, but awful economical administration). I do not, by any means, defend terrorism, but neither I defend opression, so for me in the end there is no good side, just two sides defending their ideology.

And still, you have't explained how violence could stop terrorism instead of making it rise stronger. I mean, it's my main point in all of this, it's why I believe violence wont work.

<i>OK, first of all I don't like to talk about good and evil, because it is a moral value dependant on the subject, or in other words, it is relative, and even if the idea of good is the same for us all (Oposite to evil, another created concept), the way of understanding good is different.</i>

Morality isn't relative, but that's another topic for another thread, maybe. If your premise is "Morality is relative", then sure, no one has the right to do anything to anyone, or then again, everyone has the right to do everything to everyone; the terrorists are right, since everyone is right; killing innocent people is OK, since there is no such thing as non-OK; etc. etc. I disagree with your premise.

<i> Well, to start with, terrorist fight you because they feel you are opressing their culture, and truth is, in most cases they are probably right.</i>

I "oppress culture", so they get to kill me? That's wrong. Do you think "oppressing culture" is grounds for killing innocent people? If you do, you're insane. What is "culture oppression"? Introducing language, music, customs into an area? Changing people's religion? I don't understand.

If a culture changes, it's because people want to change. You can't change a culture by force, even if you tried, unless you rule a country by force, and we do not rule any other country by force. We enforce human rights, we protect ourselves from threats, that's about it; if that's seen as "culture oppression", if your "culture" includes beliefs and practices which violate human rights and harm human life, tough crap, your culture doesn't deserve to exist.

<i>They feel a force (Opression) acting against them, and following your logic, the only force against force is force.</i>

"Oppressing culture" is not physical force. Force should be used to stop physical force or the threat of physical force which is brought against you unprovoked.

<i>Terrorists don't kill because they are Born Evil, only a really simple-minded individual would get to such a ridiculous conclusion.</i>

No one is born evil. People make choices, and people who make evil choices are evil people. Terrorists kill because they choose to kill. If their reasons are faulty, then they're evil to do it.

<i> So making a long story short, terrorism tends to be (not always) a fruit of the bad administration of the state.</i>

You view people as unable to control themselves, then? The state does something, and that automatically forces people to become terrorists? Interestingly, I thought people made choices for themselves.

<i> And still, you have't explained how violence could stop terrorism instead of making it rise stronger. I mean, it's my main point in all of this, it's why I believe violence wont work.</i>

It will work when the bad guys are dead, or afraid of being dead. You haven't explained how allowing terrorists to do whatever they want, and moreover, rewarding their actions by giving in to their demands, will stop terrorism. I'd say if we have any chance of stopping them, it's by fighting them.

Um....Unne, I believe you think I am thinking about USA when I write this things. No, I am thinking about Russia and Chechenia.

Morality isn't relative, but that's another topic for another thread, maybe. If your premise is "Morality is relative", then sure, no one has the right to do anything to anyone, or then again, everyone has the right to do everything to everyone; the terrorists are right, since everyone is right; killing innocent people is OK, since there is no such thing as non-OK; etc. etc. I disagree with your premise.

Morality is not a real thing but a way humans have to understand everything arround them. I do not defend total relativism, I simply defend that good and evil are terms created by us in order to organise. There is a way of acting we can see as negative, and that is based on the whole moral of the categoric imperative, or at least it is my outlook on things, but seriously, moral as an artificial concept, and as such it can be relative, yet most humans agree on a series of basic concepts, and a community will attempt to stop that wich acts against their collective superego. But as you said, this goes into another topic.

I "oppress culture", so they get to kill me? That's wrong. Do you think "oppressing culture" is grounds for killing innocent people?

No, I don't.

What is "culture oppression"? Introducing language, music, customs into an area? Changing people's religion? I don't understand.

Invading a land and treating the people that used to live in it as second class citizens?

We enforce human rights, we protect ourselves from threats, that's about it; if that's seen as "culture oppression", if your "culture" includes beliefs and practices which violate human rights and harm human life, tough crap, your culture doesn't deserve to exist.

Again, please explain how Russia, Israel or China enforce human rights on Chechenia, Palestina and Tibet. Again, I am not talking about USA. I don't think USA enforces human rights either, no way it does, but USA suffers from whats known as international terrorism, it's another whole topic I don't want to go into now.

"Oppressing culture" is not physical force. Force should be used to stop physical force or the threat of physical force which is brought against you unprovoked.

Again, think of the army invading the lands of the three countires I mentioned above. That is physical force.

You view people as unable to control themselves, then? The state does something, and that automatically forces people to become terrorists? Interestingly, I thought people made choices for themselves.

Exactly, I do. I do not believe people have complete freedom over their actions, and this reflexes in the dialectical nature of history. If the Russian army launches an attack and kills your family, you have a lot of probabilities of becoming a terrorist with thirst of revenge. For example, not long ago during the whole Moscow theatre thing, quite a horrible tragedy, one of the terrorist, a woman, explained how their children were killed by the Russian army. OK, isn't it natural such actions lead to her mental inestability and thus fanatic thirst of revenge, leading to those horrible actions? Of course, what she does may not be right from our perspective and from any reasonable perspective, but she is not doing it just for fun.

It will work when the bad guys are dead, or afraid of being dead.

Bad guys being dead- As long as opression and fanatism continues, more bad guys will come.

Afraid of being dead- I don't think someone that enters a bus full of people and makes a bomb he has attached to his body explode is exactly afraid of being dead. They don't fear death because they are desperate people with nothing to loose. Isn't it pathetic?

You haven't explained how allowing terrorists to do whatever they want, and moreover, rewarding their actions by giving in to their demands, will stop terrorism.

I don't think "rewarding" is the term, it is probably more like....making peace? And how will it work? Well, it worked with IRA, it nearly worked with ETA.

It is not a reward, it is the only way of dealing with the problem. Probably they don't deserve to be listened, yet probably they didn't deserve to be invaded either. Everyone is a sinner in this game, and I don't believe negotiating is the perfect, ultimate solution, I simply believe it is the less bad one, and the one that spills less blood.

In the perfect world with colourful flowers and happy talking animals, all opressed nations in search of independence work in the style of Gandhi, with peace and wisdom. What a shame it's not the case, sometimes you just have to choose between the less bad of the evils.

There will always be terrorism. Negotiations won't stop it. Violence won't stop it. In a world where people aren't willing to accept responsibility for their problems, there will always be scapegoats, and where there's a scapegoat, there'll be a terrorist to bomb it. It doesn't matter if the US interferes in the Middle East. If we become isolationist, problem regions will still be problem regions, and those who would be terrorists would find a new cause for all their problems, and then bomb it. If Israel didn't exist, some other country would be the cause of the Palestinian hardships. It's always someone else. Saudi Arabian terrorists go on bombing raids because American culture is oppressing them, while not considering their vain abbhorance to manual labor (a result of the oil discovery a few decades ago) is the true source of their ills.

So how do we stop terrorism? We don't. We can't. It's like any other crime. We won't ever stop it. Why bother trying? We should change our focus. When a person is murdered, the victim's family doesn't crusade to stop future murders. They crusade to get vengeance on the criminal. That's all we can do here. We can't prevent terrorism. We can't stop it. We can make ourselves feel better by exacting merciless retribution. It's not about justice, or peace, or any other diplomatic catchphrase world leaders toss around when discussing these issues. It's about making the citizens appeased by avenging ourselves on the aggressor - and winning.

Shadow Nexus: I misunderstood then, I apologize. If a country invades another country without provocation, like I think China and the Russia have in the past, that's not what I'd call "oppressed culture". That's something I do think should be fought against, with force if necessary. However I still disagree with the means of terrorists. Killing innocent people just to get your opinion heard can't be justified if there are other means, and there are. Large-scale resistance to the army who's actually conquered you, for example.

<i>Everyone is a sinner in this game, and I don't believe negotiating is the perfect, ultimate solution, I simply believe it is the less bad one, and the one that spills less blood. </i> --Shadow Nexus

I agree that sometimes (maybe most of the time) it is the case that both sides in a conflict are wrong. When that happens, it's just a huge mess, and probably the only right thing to do is for both sides to stop fighting like a bunch of morons.

But I don't agree that both sides are wrong in all wars. I believe sometimes war can be justified. Self-defense being the example that comes to mind.

it was definitely right for the allied forces to fight against germany in world war ii, i'll say that. there's times when war is justified. but unfortunately, these times are not nearly as numerous as the times war has been fought.

Any war is virtuous if you win.

Garland, are you the reincarnation of Machiavelli?

it was definitely right for the allied forces to fight against germany in world war ii, i'll say that. there's times when war is justified. but unfortunately, these times are not nearly as numerous as the times war has been fought.

Yes, I guess it was at the time the allied forces declared war on Germany, because the situation was simply irreversible. Either you fight or you get conquered. However, it would have been better to limit Hitler from the start, that may have avoided all his crazyness. Or...it would have been wiser not to sign that stupid Versalles treaty. But well, that treaty was an error in history and I bet it wont be repeated, WWII was horrible enough to teach us the lesson.

(Not directed at anyone in particular.) Hitler was initally successful because the world feared war, and was willing to give anything (even the nation of Czecheslovakia) to avoid another. It's an example of peace talks at their finest. To avoid the horrors of a crazy dictator conquering all of Europe, Europe's brilliant idea was to give it to him willingly, so that he wouldn't conquer anywhere else. Killing civilians in death camps is one thing, but killing soldiers in battle was apparently too much for politicians to deal with. Is that what should be done with terrorists? Should we, to avoid making them angry, simply give them everything they want? Every war can be avoided. It's as easy as surrendering prior to every argument. Imagine an entire nation of people wearing white flags on their backs to avoid confrontation with aggressors - it's not a nice thought.

Garland makes a startlingly good point. I suppose you could logically compare giving into terrorists' whims to Europe's "appeasement strategy" in the early 1940s.

There's a profound difference between "communicating with terrorists" and "giving in to terrorists' demands".

If someone's holding a knife to your loved one's throat, and says he'll release the captive if you hand over $200, what do you do?

(1) Say "No! I'll never give in to evil lowlife scum like you!"

(2) Hand over the bling-bling.

If you choose (1), then your moral position is certain and clear, but your loved one is certainly dead, and possibly you are too. If you choose (2), then there's a good chance that your loved one will survive, and the criminal will flee, allowing the authorities to set about apprehending him before he can strike again. "Giving in", under such circumstances, has more to do with common sense than with cowardice.

Even better is the art of negotiation.

"Gimme the money or I'll knife him!"

"Take it easy, man. Tell me why you need the cash, and maybe I can help..."

A peaceful solution may result. If not, (2) is still an option. Option (3), "blow his smegging brains out", should only be used if you can be sure it'll free the captive unharmed and completely eliminate the threat posed by the criminal and his associates. If he happens to be a member of a large underground criminal network, you can see how unlikely that result is. Immediate force might have a single short-term benefit, but in the long term it'll only lead to more terror and retaliation.

Good points. Still, I would imagine that a terrorist who's willing to destroy himself for his cause is beyond negotiation. The gravity of the demands that would cause a person to destroy thousands of innocent civilians aren't the sort of demands that A) can be compromised at a middle ground, or B) are reasonable to concede to, even temporarily. I'm under the impression (the IRA being the exception) that terrorist organizations are beyond compromising. It's down to all or nothing. Israel and Palestine demonstrate this mentality. Middle ground concessions that seem reasonable to the rest of the world are insulting to both sides there. Peace talks are best saved for reasonable world leaders between reasonable world leaders. Reasoning with the unreasonable is a sound lesson in futility.

Eh, Garland, I hope you are not offended by the Machiavelli thing, I just said that because in many things you do sound like him. Specially when you said how good war was great to keep people away from internal issues. And take that question mark off your title :b


On the other hand, I don't know if IRA and ETA are the only terrorists you can negotiate with. Well, at least first you'd have to try with all those religious fanatic terrorists, I bet debating with them is not easy, but I can't think of another solution. It's not like ending terrorism is that easy!

Offended? Nah - you always give me good ideas for custom titles. Knight Sophist, Machiavelli Incarnate, they're better than keeping Knight Errant all the time.

Machiavelli incarnate is perfect, yes. Now you give me an idea.

<i>If you choose (2), then there's a good chance that your loved one will survive, and the criminal will flee, allowing the authorities to set about apprehending him before he can strike again.</i> --Big D

Like I said, you're relying on the honor of a criminal. It's just as likely that he takes your money and demands more. Or takes your money and kills you both anyways. In which case fighting is the only option. It's only logical to assume the worst, because the person you're dealing with has already proven to you that he has no morals. Assuming and hoping for the best is just wishful thinking.

Garland makes a good point too. How much are you willing to give? Because once you prove that people can get whatever they want through force, do you think they're going to stop trying to get more?

Bling-bling, if I'm not mistaken, means flashy jewelery. Just wanted to point that out, because the bad guy wanted 'money'. I found it funny that Big D is using ebonics though. (Has idea for new thread)

Not negotiating with criminals is often the best course of action imho.

I think it depends on the reason they became terrorists. The IRA *only* wanted the brits out of Northern Ireland. Al Qaida wants to destroy the west or make us muslims. Usama wants to destroy america altogether.

Negotiations work with IRA types because they want to achieve a political goal and that's all. If they get all that they ask for they'll stop. For that to work with al qaida all of the us government would either have to commit suicide or form a new sharia based government. I don't think america could become islamic enough fast enough, so there's really nothing to negotiate.
:magus:


just in case you think I'm making this up:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP65504