Your Strategies Against Terrorism

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
We've seen a gaggle of threads in AppleOutsider playing Monday morning quarterback to America's involvement in world affairs over the last two years. Post your ideas for alternate strategies that we might employ from this point forward toward reducing the danger of terrorism directed toward the West from terrorist organizations.



Project into the future. How would your plan work? Be wordy, write in complete sentences. Don't look back and whine, look forward and strategize.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    ban terrorists.
  • Reply 2 of 43
    giaguaragiaguara Posts: 2,724member
    my anti-terrorism act: whenever i see a certain neighbor driving thru the parking lot wrong way, i call the cops. i don't trust that weirdo. i already saved someone that he attacked. i hope he acts like a jerk to some people who will make him pay for every jackoness he is and has been.
  • Reply 3 of 43
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Depends what kind of terrorism.



    Most obvious thing is to cut their motives. Think what makes them angry and make that go away. A good start would be to force a peace on Israelis and Palestinians until the border thing is settled. Promote education in poor countries. Promote unbiased media. Never tell lies in public, not to other countries, not to your own citizens. Never attack other countries with fake "evidence" and invent new motives as the "evidence" is proven wrong.



    Then cut down the terrorists' material and manpower support. Take the stance that terrorists are criminals and they will be caught primarily by police methods, not by military. Most importantly, freeze their money and pay for good in-person undercover work in stead of building more spy satellites and strategic missile defenses. Only attack a whole country if there's real proof that the country sponsors terrorism. If there are a few terrorist camps along a border in an undeveloped country, feel free to shoot them up with cruise missiles, no need to go to war and demonize the whole country for that.



    I think it's a waste of time to put a lot of resources to static defense like guarding specific targets. The terrorists are just going to hit something else. Static defenses only stop idiots and give people a false sense of security.
  • Reply 4 of 43
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by drewprops

    Post your ideas for alternate strategies that we might employ from this point forward toward reducing the danger of terrorism directed toward the West from terrorist organizations.





    Why just the west ?



    Here is an idea:



    Wish on your enemies' children that which you would wish for your own.



    A future filled with hope & understanding.



    Amen
  • Reply 5 of 43
    Stop letting people with vested interests in continuing warfare run your country. This applies to Israel, Palestine and the US amongst others.
  • Reply 6 of 43
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire



    Here is an idea:



    Wish on your enemies' children that which you would wish for your own.



    A future filled with hope & understanding.





    And act according to your wish.



    Merry christmas everyone.
  • Reply 7 of 43
    Liberalize and democratize, particularly the Islamic world.
  • Reply 8 of 43
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,421member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gon

    Depends what kind of terrorism.



    Most obvious thing is to cut their motives. Think what makes them angry and make that go away. A good start would be to force a peace on Israelis and Palestinians until the border thing is settled. Promote education in poor countries. Promote unbiased media. Never tell lies in public, not to other countries, not to your own citizens. Never attack other countries with fake "evidence" and invent new motives as the "evidence" is proven wrong.



    Then cut down the terrorists' material and manpower support. Take the stance that terrorists are criminals and they will be caught primarily by police methods, not by military. Most importantly, freeze their money and pay for good in-person undercover work in stead of building more spy satellites and strategic missile defenses. Only attack a whole country if there's real proof that the country sponsors terrorism. If there are a few terrorist camps along a border in an undeveloped country, feel free to shoot them up with cruise missiles, no need to go to war and demonize the whole country for that.



    I think it's a waste of time to put a lot of resources to static defense like guarding specific targets. The terrorists are just going to hit something else. Static defenses only stop idiots and give people a false sense of security.








    Oh My God. There we have it. The United States is not responsible for creating terror. There are plenty of poor, underveloped nations where terror does not thrive. We are talking about an extreme sect of Islam hell bent on converting the world or destroying it in the process. We are talking about a sect that is the most extreme of the extreme....and you want to "promote unbiased media" to fix it? You want to "shoot them up with cruise missles"....oh, GOOD IDEA, Mr. Clinton. I suppose in that instead of burning a hornet next we should jsut kick it and poke it with a stick. It's too much work and too much risk to burn it and be rid of it forever. Also, let's not have any defense against regimes who may be capable of lauching an ICBM at us in 5-15 years. Oh, and for good measure let's stop punishing nations who support terror and stop guarding fixed targets here in the US on top of it.



    Wow.
  • Reply 9 of 43
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,421member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by stupider...likeafox

    Stop letting people with vested interests in continuing warfare run your country. This applies to Israel, Palestine and the US amongst others.







    What page of the Liberal HandBook is that on again? I can't find it right now.
  • Reply 10 of 43
    I don't expect miracles, but I do say this:



    Saudi Arabia is the enemy. So instead of spending money on warfare, put all that money you were going to spend on tanks into research groups that are developing new power sources, and fuel cells. For the sooner we don't need oil, the sooner one-crop oil economies fail, and the sooner Islamic fundamentalists lose their bank accounts.
  • Reply 11 of 43
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Why saudi arabia? Pakistan is proliferating nuclear tech, the ISI and al-qaeda are totally intertwined and, some of you might forget, there is even a trail left by $100,000 straight from the head of the ISI to Atta.



    Compare that to the Saudi connection. When you hear 'the Saudi royals financed 9.11' what is being referred to is a donation by Princess Haifa that, through a contorted path, possibly eventually made its way to being used for 9/11.



    Who's Princess Haifi?



    Quote:

    When George and Barbara Bush visited the troops in Saudi Arabia during theThanksgiving holiday in 1990, Bush called Bandar, who was in Saudi Arabia at the time.Bandar went to the private quarters in the royal palace where the Bushes were staying. Bush had tears in his eyes, and Bandar, worried, asked what had happened. Bush explained that Dorothy, their recently divorced daughter, was alone at the White House with her children. They had called her from the airplane and learned that Bandar's wife, Haifa, had invited Doro and her children to spend Thanksgiving with her. ("I don't have parents now," Haifa told me. "The Bushes are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them.")



    http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/in...ce-bandar.html



    Anyway, all I'm saying is that there clearly is a more complex reason why the US is not going after pakistan. As for Saudi Arabia, I don't see why people keep on forgetting about the relationships involved. Think about it. Baker was in a meeting with Osama's brother on the morning of 9/11.



    Speaking of coincidental meetings on the morning of 9/11, the head of the ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, the same one that it appears wired $100,000 to Atta, was in washington meeting with Graham and Gross, the heads of the senate and congressional intelligence committees. They had all just met two or three weeks earlier in Pakistan.
  • Reply 12 of 43
    Islam is a foreign religion to Iran and Pakistan. I predict that in time it will become regarded as such, and discarded. SDW2001 and Splinemodel are correct. SA is the medusa's head. Flanking them through Iraq was the correct move. But I don't think the US is yet ready to take them head on. I'd opt on taking down the lesser tin can regimes first. Of cos the US still has its hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Reply 13 of 43
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Regarding my comment "against the West" it was because the majority of the members of this board are Westerners. Feel free to take it beyond that.



    I'd like to deconstruct some of what Gon posted...Gon's comments are italicized, mine are in maroon text.



    Gon: Most obvious thing is to cut their motives. Think what makes them angry and make that go away. A good start would be to force a peace on Israelis and Palestinians until the border thing is settled.



    D: What makes them angry? The mere existence of "the West". We are an anethema to their religious beliefs and will never be accepted so long as we do not comply with their orthodox perception of the religious tenets that they hold dearest. The only way to "cut their motives" would be for us to cease to exist. Forcing peace is not peace. It just isn't.





    Gon: Promote education in poor countries.



    D: We do this already, as it benefits the world as a whole.



    Gon: Promote unbiased media.



    D: How do you do this? No, really, do they get gold stars? I don't think it could be done. Tax breaks? Who decides? Who decides if the media is being unbiased at any point in time. You can have a news broadcaster's report examined by two people of differing beliefs and they would both interpret that broadcaster's message to be biased. That one is too slippery to accomplish.



    Gon: Never tell lies in public, not to other countries, not to your own citizens.



    D: An open, transparent system of information is one of the best ways to keep things on an even keel....but in times of war or conflict those open paths should become as devious and twisty as necessary to accomplish the ultimate safety of the nation. Clean up the mess afterwards, because there will be a mess. I think that this more than anything is where I disagree with a lot of people who identify themselves as "liberal". I'm willing to acknowledge and anticipate a time when things can get murky and ugly while they would like to remain on a clean and balanced playing field. But in war, such a thing doesn't exist. The left-leaning people in the Democratic party are among the craftiest, most ruthless strategists in existence...they'd be a true asset in operations devoted to defending the nation (and perhaps many already do?).



    Gon: Never attack other countries with fake "evidence" and invent new motives as the "evidence" is proven wrong.



    D: If by this you refer to Bush's administration going into Iraq using the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as a sole justification I would agree with you - especially since the "proof" was far less meaty than we'd been led to believe. I personally feel that the action taken against Iraq should have been allowed to build over a longer period, but the result might have been a missed opportunity and another decade of Saddam's rule, another chance for thousands of people to die in wood chippers and torture rooms. Be careful of your terminology; the motives never varied, the justifications did. I anticipate that the end result will be that President Bush's actions will be viewed as courageous and far-sighted, regardless of the people who currently decry his methods and actions. I live in a country that was stolen from the indigenous peoples by European invaders....as do most of the rest of you. Do you look back at the forefathers of this freedom-loving country with pride or disdain...or a little of both?



    My own thoughts on how to beat terrorism, worldwide, is a continued homogenization of cultures - something that I personally disdain. As cultural identities are diminished we lose enmity for others, but we lose our uniqueness in the process.



    The reality is that there are far too many people on the planet to ever become one unified bloc, and conflict will continue as long as this is the case.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    War.



    Choose the means now, or they will be chosen for you later.
  • Reply 15 of 43
    once a day mandatory checking of underwear.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by drewprops

    Post your ideas for alternate strategies that we might employ from this point forward toward reducing the danger of terrorism directed toward the West from terrorist organizations.



    We must go after the terrorists where they are, and we must take the fight to them before they take the fight to us. Step one, I think, is obvious: invade and conquer Texas.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 17 of 43
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    once a day mandatory checking of underwear.





    Check!

    Oh jeepers, I think Al Queda done bombed my underwear....ewwwww.
  • Reply 18 of 43
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Disengage from Israel until Sharon is ousted from power and someone at least semi-rational steps up to the plate. Someone who is willing to publicly share the blame for the state of affairs, and work with, not against the process the US is trying (again and again) to put in place.



    Otherwise, my terrorism strategy is to get lucky and not be nearby when the next attack comes, in whatever form it might take. Or not be nearby and then get lucky as the case may be....
  • Reply 19 of 43
    I'd say let the Israelis lose on them already. Stop holding them back. I'm sure they have many unsettled scores to settle.
  • Reply 20 of 43
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Terrorism: As defined by the FBI: "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)



    It's plain that everyone is a player, or potential player. Let's all fight each other.







    Although there's no universal way of stopping terrorism, one way of starting the ball rolling would be to get the international community to (put into place a scheme to) make sure that no group of people on this earth is to ever be put in a position where they have perpetually unresolved grievances, where the only ways of making their grievances heard are therefore via violent means. (easier said than done, but humans are creative, resourceful creatures). The grievances which eventually cause violent reaction are, for example, oppression, foreign occupation, humiliation, hopelessness, extreme poverty, ruthless exploitation, and non-representation. SDW talks about how some poor and undeveloped nations don't foster terrorism. That is most of them, by the way! Of course they don't! Human beings do NOT have to be materially wealthy or exist in an industrialized society with lots of *things* to have a meaningful or fulfilled life on this planet. However, if people in those nations are exploited to the point of realizing the conditions I mention above, then the terror mindset will fester, until it suddenly becomes cancerous. The US is now the world's sole superpower, and a responsible way of conducting the "war on terror" could be accomplished by formulating our foreign policies so as to make sure the conditions which allow the development of terrorism don't get started in other territories, for example in Central and South America over the next decade or 2 or 3. If we think we have problems now with the middle east now....



    And another thing....we should exercise extreme discretion and caution as regards which evil dictators and brutal regimes our defense contractors (and those of other industrialized nations) make mega$$$ by selling weapons (including parts to manufacture WMDs) to! In these instances, free trade be damned, and to hell with the arms dealers. Adnan Khashoggi and all the other scumbags....go rot in hell.
Sign In or Register to comment.