• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evildave's Solution To Terrorism

So, all you need to do is convince the folks in the Middle East that their heroes and martyrs are all Nazis, and all the problems will go away?

The point is that you do not try to appease, or aid, Islamic militants in any way, for the same reason you do not try to appease, or aid, the Nazis in any way: it doesn't work, and greatly increases, not decreases, terror and other agression.

Establishing such a radio channel as you profess is the equivalent of England in 1938 establishing a radio channel in London, in English, to spread Nazi propaganda and love of Fascism among the British populace, with the rationale that if the Nazis get more time to "air their grievances", then Hitler won't want war any more. Even Chamberline, whose name became synonymous with "appeaser", would have rejected such a suggestion as insane.

You are supporting a suggestion--appeasing murderous, ideologically-driven fanatics--that failed 100% whenever it was tried, costing rivers of bloods; solely in order to keep your fantasy that the terrorists are merely "misunderstood" and are, at bottom, good people who just want "attention" alive a little longer.

Call me cynical, but I don't see the point of others paying with their lives to keep your fantasies intact.
 
Grammatron said:


Well for starters they should stop terrorist from killing people. Or don't you count those deaths?
Click to expand...

Oh, I do. It's just that "repaying" attrocities with attrocities does not seem like the right approach.
 
evildave said:


Oh, I do. It's just that "repaying" attrocities with attrocities does not seem like the right approach.
Click to expand...

And a global version of Jerry Springer is?

Get bent.
 
Skeptic said:
So, all you need to do is convince the folks in the Middle East that their heroes and martyrs are all Nazis, and all the problems will go away?

The point is that you do not try to appease, or aid, Islamic militants in any way, for the same reason you do not try to appease, or aid, the Nazis in any way: it doesn't work, and greatly increases, not decreases, terror and other agression.

Establishing such a radio channel as you profess is the equivalent of England in 1938 establishing a radio channel in London, in English, to spread Nazi propaganda and love of Fascism among the British populace, with the rationale that if the Nazis get more time to "air their grievances", then Hitler won't want war any more. Even Chamberline, whose name became synonymous with "appeaser", would have rejected such a suggestion as insane.

You are supporting a suggestion--appeasing murderous, ideologically-driven fanatics--that failed 100% whenever it was tried, costing rivers of bloods; solely in order to keep your fantasy that the terrorists are merely "misunderstood" and are, at bottom, good people who just want "attention" alive a little longer.

Call me cynical, but I don't see the point of others paying with their lives to keep your fantasies intact.
Click to expand...


OK, so let's hear your solution to terrorism, stated in your own words.
 
evildave said:


Oh, I do. It's just that "repaying" attrocities with attrocities does not seem like the right approach.
Click to expand...

So what happens when they repay kindness with "attrocities" [sic], as in Somalia? I guess we'll have to airdrop TV sets before the next UN relief mission, huh?

It's a little more complex than you grasp. Actually, a whole lot.
 
Evildave

While I don´t think that your approach is all there is to this, I wholeheartedly commend you for taking it. At last, someone has voiced a thoughtful opinion that goes beyond "bomb the bastards". You should have anticipated taking lots of abuse from the usual suspects, though - they just can´t help themselves.


My own idea of, while certainly not eliminating terrorism, then at least reducing it greatly, is not as simple - although just as likely to be flamed :(

If you take a look at the Middle East, or the Muslim world in general, you´ll soon see that many of the terrorists group enjoy a great amount of popular support. The experience with terrorism in the recent decades has shown that terrorists can operate much more easily if they can draw on the support of the population. They get money, recruits, hiding places help in carrying out their plans...whatever they can ask for.
So I think the reasonable approach is to eliminate this public support.

In most cases I know of, said support stems from the fact that terrorists are the only ones who fight for - or at least pretend to - some group that has been more or less grievously wronged. That group may or may not actually share the goals and ideology of the terrorists, but they will probably think: "If this is the price for getting the only help I will ever get, I will pay this price."
If, on the other hand, someone else were to help these people, and give them something that is worth dropping the support of terrorists in order to keep it (something more than just not being killed, I mean), then I predict most, if not all, will stop supporting the terrorists.

I admit that this will not eliminate terrorism - but if terrorists are no longer supported by the population, this will make it much harder for them to operate, it will reduce (or eliminate) their ability to recruit new terrorists, and so on. If the people (those that now no longer have to turn to terrorists to get help) now feel that the others, the terrorists´ targets, are of more help to them than the terrorists, they might even actively fight the terrorists.

Now this is not the "easy-as-pie, catch all, fool-proof way of eliminating terrorism forever" that some people belief their "bomb the bastards" is, but unlike that, it will actually work. Not right at once, but over time.
 
Chaos said:
Evildave

While I don´t think that your approach is all there is to this, I wholeheartedly commend you for taking it. At last, someone has voiced a thoughtful opinion that goes beyond "bomb the bastards". You should have anticipated taking lots of abuse from the usual suspects, though - they just can´t help themselves.


My own idea of, while certainly not eliminating terrorism, then at least reducing it greatly, is not as simple - although just as likely to be flamed :(

If you take a look at the Middle East, or the Muslim world in general, you´ll soon see that many of the terrorists group enjoy a great amount of popular support. The experience with terrorism in the recent decades has shown that terrorists can operate much more easily if they can draw on the support of the population. They get money, recruits, hiding places help in carrying out their plans...whatever they can ask for.
So I think the reasonable approach is to eliminate this public support.

In most cases I know of, said support stems from the fact that terrorists are the only ones who fight for - or at least pretend to - some group that has been more or less grievously wronged. That group may or may not actually share the goals and ideology of the terrorists, but they will probably think: "If this is the price for getting the only help I will ever get, I will pay this price."
If, on the other hand, someone else were to help these people, and give them something that is worth dropping the support of terrorists in order to keep it (something more than just not being killed, I mean), then I predict most, if not all, will stop supporting the terrorists.

I admit that this will not eliminate terrorism - but if terrorists are no longer supported by the population, this will make it much harder for them to operate, it will reduce (or eliminate) their ability to recruit new terrorists, and so on. If the people (those that now no longer have to turn to terrorists to get help) now feel that the others, the terrorists´ targets, are of more help to them than the terrorists, they might even actively fight the terrorists.

Now this is not the "easy-as-pie, catch all, fool-proof way of eliminating terrorism forever" that some people belief their "bomb the bastards" is, but unlike that, it will actually work. Not right at once, but over time.
Click to expand...

So, you admit that the EvilDave solution is no solution at all...then you propose more or different methods of appeasement!? When will you guys get it through your heads that ANY "affirmative action" we take in the ME which is prompted by the actions of terrorists will be seen by the populace AND terrorists (and properly so) as a full on REWARD for their activities. You want more terrorism? Keep rewarding it...and remember that anything you subsidize you get more of. The way to end terrorism and popular support for terrorism is to kill or jail the terrorists and attack their support organizations.

Now, well meaning pacifists have delt with the terrorist Arafat for many years. His terrorism was rewarded by the German government as they caved to extortion and released the Black September terrorists. The UN rewarded Arafat at least twice that I remember...they welcomed him to speak before the general assembly as if he were an honored statesman and not a killer. As recently as 1998 Arafat's terrorism was the driving force behind an Israeli-backed "Gaza International Airport". A huge piece of expensive modern infrastructure which should have been an area of economic growth for the Palestinian people. Wow! Now they had something good....something to lose that is if they continued their terrorist ways. That's your liberal mindset at work. But it didn't work, did it? This is why:

Hey! If terrorism wins us our own international airport...maybe if we keep it up we'll end up winning everything we want!!

That's just human nature. If a tactic is proven to bring rewards why ever would you give it up?? The only way to end widespread or state-sponsored terrorism is to offer it nothing but pain.

-z
 
Evildave is quite correct that the application of terroristic acts thoughout the years has been more often devoted to gaining notoriety and support for the terrorist group's political goals.
That is a key factor in understanding terrorism, and all of the reurgitated sound bites such as 'That's why they hate us', or 'Let's roll!' do nothing to promote critical analyses of the situation.


As far as the proposed solution, I doubt that those who have decided to take the violent route believe that their cause would get the attention desired without the use of violent acts as a device to rivet public attention.
 
Evildave, I see what you are saying. If we gave people a voice, they wouldn't kill people for attention.

I disagree, and you are an idiot. In the US right now, there are dozens of reality shows, Jerry Springer-like talk shows, and plenty of other ways to get on TV. Has crime gone down in the US as a result? ◊◊◊◊ no.

Getting your message out might be important to these guys, but they don't want people to listen to them, they want people to PERFORM THEIR POLITICAL ACTIONS, and giving them a 10-minute spot on 60 minutes isn't going to accomplish that. If they go on TV, does it make Israel pull out of Palestine? Does it make the US pull bases out of the holy land that controls Mecca and Medina? No.

Think a little bit.
 
Dorian Gray said:
Evildave, I see what you are saying. If we gave people a voice, they wouldn't kill people for attention.

I disagree, and you are an idiot. In the US right now, there are dozens of reality shows, Jerry Springer-like talk shows, and plenty of other ways to get on TV. Has crime gone down in the US as a result? ◊◊◊◊ no.

Getting your message out might be important to these guys, but they don't want people to listen to them, they want people to PERFORM THEIR POLITICAL ACTIONS, and giving them a 10-minute spot on 60 minutes isn't going to accomplish that. If they go on TV, does it make Israel pull out of Palestine? Does it make the US pull bases out of the holy land that controls Mecca and Medina? No.

Think a little bit.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you think and research you would know we pulled the bases out of that craphole a while back.
 
Dorian Gray: "I disagree, and you are an idiot."

Jocko: "Get bent"

crackmonkey: "You are insane."

Ah, my fans!


To the others who can only think of the quest for a solution to terrorism and legal alternatives to violence as a "reward for violence", I pity you.
 
Find the Similarities:

EvilDave: "This is my new peace plan. To the others who can only think of the quest for a solution to terrorism and legal alternatives to violence as a "reward for violence", I pity you. [/B]

Chamberline: ["I bring you peace in our time. To the others who can only think of the quest for a solution to threathened war in Europe and legal alternatives to German war on Chechoslovakia as a "reward for violence", I pity you."

The King: "These are my new clothes. If you can't see how beautiful they are and can think of no solution to nakedness except for clothes that everybody can see, I pity you."
 
ED, what happens when your 'cause' is to defeat the establishment at any cost, in the hopes of forcibly spreading your religion to the world?

No amount of reason, logic, due process, and peaceful means will help you achieve your goals, because your goals are not peaceful or rational.

You seem to be of the persuasion that everyone, deep down, is a good person.

This conflicts with reality.
 
So, would you have me believe that every person really is just "rotten" inside, instead? It's equally unrealistic to propose that every powerless person that a terrorist might recruit is truly wicked and looking only for bloodshed.
 
evildave said:
So, would you have me believe that every person really is just "rotten" inside, instead? It's equally unrealistic to propose that every powerless person that a terrorist might recruit is truly wicked and looking only for bloodshed.
Click to expand...

No.

Everyone is selfish. It's hard-wired into every behavorial mechanism that makes us who we are, in order to ensure that we as a species survives.

Combine this with the fact that it's also human nature to try and simplify reality down to whatever level an individual can understand, and you have people who think they know what's best for everyone without even remotely being qualified to say.

The 'bad guys' aren't sitting in a secret fortress stroking their moustaches; they think they're doing what's right. Evil isn't about simply doing things that hurt people because it brings you pleasure.
 
alternate retro-proposal

In support of out-of-box thinking, if not evildave's specifics...

The $X billion spent on Iraq, and growing, could have been spent building the mother of all desalination plants for Israel, and a town or three for the Palestinians, with change to spare. IMO this would be an effective OFFENSIVE measure in the war on terror, far moreso than the Iraq invasion. In fact, in my view, invading Iraq has set the war on terror backwards.

No, this is not appeasement. Because I also believe we must energetically kill the bad guys. (Bad guys being islamist jihadists, i.e. the actual 9/11 perps.)

I accept the notion that the war on terror is more complex then other wars, like a game of n dimensional chess. Yet the US has bellied up to the table with checkers pieces.

Seeing as retroactive proposals aren't very useful, and this one in particuar is a fairy tale, I simply wish the US had leadership capable of thinking out-of-the-box going forward.
 
Agreed. The problem here is knowing what is right.

Might it be possible that if given a positive approach to attack problems without violence, that people who think that they would like to do right will tend to use that approach instead of killing someone at random?

And isn't it just possible that that "selfish" people who don't want to get killed, thrown into prison or executed for crimes against humanity just might give the non-violent methods a try first?

Assuming they know about non-violent methods first, of course.

Finally, if measurable success is attainable by non-violent means, are those same selfish people going to see people who bypass the safe, legal way to do things in deference to violence in a positive light?
 
evildave said:
So, would you have me believe that every person really is just "rotten" inside, instead? It's equally unrealistic to propose that every powerless person that a terrorist might recruit is truly wicked and looking only for bloodshed.
Click to expand...

Add false dilemmas to the pile of strawmen.

Hell, ED, your garage must be full by now. Isn't that a fire hazard?
 
OK, so let's hear your solution to terrorism, stated in your own words.

My cure for cancer is to run around naked covered with chocolate sauce while holding a rubber chicken and singing "Kumbaya".

What, you don't think it will work???

OK, so let's hear your cure for cancer, stated in your own words.
 
Skeptic said:
OK, so let's hear your solution to terrorism, stated in your own words.

My cure for cancer is to run around naked covered with chocolate sauce while holding a rubber chicken and singing "Kumbaya".

What, you don't think it will work???

OK, so let's hear your cure for cancer, stated in your own words.
Click to expand...

Very well: Cancer is not one, but many diseases. Some examples of causes are genetic, viral and environmental. Essentially, divide and conquor. Concentrate on the most common cancers and their causes, and continue researching and developing preventions, treatments and cures until they're all handled. "Cancer" won't be unversally cured instantly, but will eventually be. In the meantime, diet and safe, moderate exercise will do a lot more for extending your life.


Now back on the topical discussion:

I see you still have nothing topical to add at this point. Give it some thought. I'm sure you will have an idea of your very own if you try hard enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom