• 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

evildave

Unregistered
E
The problem is simple. People do crazy or brutal things to gain regional, national or international media attention for their plight or favorite causes. Often the methods used to gain this attention result in tragic consequences, like deaths (accidental and intentional).

There should be a safe and sane alternative to human sacrifice that yields the same results as a bloody act.

This would be a new internationally founded and treaty endorsed foundation like the 'Red Cross' that works with international media to provide front-page level news access for groups who feel disempowered.

Something like an international 'public access channel' for people with human rights issues.

Currently I am at a loss to figure out how to filter down all the billions of instances of seperate grievances, such that the organization could function effectively.

Perhaps some sort of peaceful act, such as one or more people engaged in a monitored hunger strike, or some other such method could be used to propel your cause into the news?
 
Don't forget that nowadays when people have access to up to hundreds of TV channels, the matter becomes a little more complicated than just a struggle for media attention. It's a struggle for your attention.

What would you have been more inclined to watch? A pre-9-11 interview with a hunger-striking Usama bin Laden, where he explains why he thinks the greedy bastards in the Saudi royal family ought to be replaced by a fundamentalist-communist regime, or two airplanes crashing into the WTC skyscrapers?
 
Uh-huh...
bin Laden was really just looking for attention. If we'd merely given him a cable-access TV show, the world would be a different place - no 9/11, no angry jihadists.
You are insane.
 
Actually, EvilDave has a pretty good grasp on the reasons. If Bin Laden wasn't interested in getting the attention of the general public of the US, he would not have attacked a civilian target, or at least not one so difficult to attack (let's face it, even pre 9/11, what they did was not a simple plan.)

I disagree, however, with EvilDave's solution. While it has merit in its pacifism and desire to end bloodshed, it is a bit too simplistic in that it does not take into account the "drama" necessary to grap a person's attention, as was mentioned above.

In all honesty, I don't have a solution. I couldn't tell you how to prevent terrorism. I can tell you how to slow its spread, though, and that is by not giving the terrorists a rallying point like the situation in Abu Ghraib.
 
He stated that he wanted to strike the US at its head and heart... the government (Pentagon, WHite House, Congress) as well as its wallet - the WTC. While publicity certainly was a beneficial byproduct, the central goal of the attack was to damage our country, not draw attention to the plight of Arabs (or whatever dave maintains was the objective).
Terrorism isn;t very terrifying if attacks are kept secret, but the 9/11 attacks were distinctly different from, say, a generic carbombing somewhere.
 
Hey Dave,

If I brainwash some guys into hijacking four planes and killing in excess of 3,000 people in one day, do I get my own show as well?

Wow! Talk about rewarding terrorism! Hell, we ought to give Arafat his own satellite so that he could broadcast his hatred of Jewishness worldwide.

So Dave,...once you hand over a few free tv shows to the terrorists what happens when people prefer to watch re-runs of "Friends"?? If I were a terrorist I'd have to just keep killing people until my ratings numbers went up. Perhaps if I killed a few thousands I'd get my own channel? A few hundred thousand, my own satellite....cable company..... where does it end Dave?

How much $tuff buys our way out of watching innocent people blown up in buses? Do we give them their own network?? Why? So they can indoctrinate that many more "martyrs"??

Are you really that naïve?? Astounding!

-z
 
evildave said:
The problem is simple. People do crazy or brutal things to gain regional, national or international media attention for their plight or favorite causes. Often the methods used to gain this attention result in tragic consequences, like deaths (accidental and intentional).

There should be a safe and sane alternative to human sacrifice that yields the same results as a bloody act.

This would be a new internationally founded and treaty endorsed foundation like the 'Red Cross' that works with international media to provide front-page level news access for groups who feel disempowered.

Something like an international 'public access channel' for people with human rights issues.

Currently I am at a loss to figure out how to filter down all the billions of instances of seperate grievances, such that the organization could function effectively.

Perhaps some sort of peaceful act, such as one or more people engaged in a monitored hunger strike, or some other such method could be used to propel your cause into the news?
Click to expand...

This is the single stupidest thing I've ever read here. Have you been sharing a bong with KOA, or is this (I hope) a sick joke?
 
Umm, so this is what's going on in the mind of an Islamic liberation fighter?

"Hmm, my people have been repeatedly subjugated by a culture that prides itself on its imperialistic, anglo-saxon heritage, and goodness, all I want is some attention...Yes, that's all, I'm certainly not trying to fight for my personal liberation or genuinely trying to terrify the dominator culture."

I have no love for these people either, but you are being absurdly reductionistic. These people are certainly not just after the attention.
 
The problem is simple. People do crazy or brutal things to gain regional, national or international media attention for their plight or favorite causes.

Not really. They do it to kill as many jews / infidels / Americans / Catholics / Protestants / whomever (depending on the group) as they can.

Often the methods used to gain this attention result in tragic consequences, like deaths (accidental

Oooops! I just blew myself up on a bus full of children! Sorry about that!

Oh, s--t! Are those the twin towers??? Dammit, I just wanted to get ATTENTION TO MY PLIGHT when I hijacked the plane!

and intentional).

Oh yeah, there is THAT, too...

There should be a safe and sane alternative to human sacrifice that yields the same results as a bloody act.

This would be a new internationally founded and treaty endorsed foundation like the 'Red Cross' that works with international media to provide front-page level news access for groups who feel disempowered.

Yes, but you have to kill AT LEAST 1,000 innocent people for starters to get access.

No fair giving free airtime to those who claim to be terrorists but never showed their "desperate call for attention" was GENUINE.

Something like an international 'public access channel' for people with human rights issues.

...like the Taliban, Muhammad Atta, Yasser Arafat, the IRA...

...yup, terrorists are best known for their concern for "human rights issues".

Currently I am at a loss to figure out how to filter down all the billions of instances of seperate grievances, such that the organization could function effectively.

Simple. The more people they kill, the more grievences they have, and the more airtime they get. After all, this is supposed to be a solution for terrorism, right?

Surely, the point is to get terrorists on the air, then, not just any whiner who didn't even kill a single infidel yet.

Considering the make up of current terrorist groups, I can see the schedule now:

9:00-10:00 The price is right if the Taliban say it's right
10:00-11:00 Mad about everything
11:00-13:00 "A book for our listeners": The protocols of the elders of zion read aloud (weekly histroy series)
13:00-14:00 It's a mad, mad, mad, mad , mad world
14:00-15:00 When I grow up, I want to be a suicide bomber (children's hour)
15:00-16:00 Suicide belts for beginners
16:00-17:00 Religion: does the Koran say jews the sons of DOGS, or of PIGS? Hear both sides of the issue
17:00-18:00 Classical Music: Exploding version of the Blue Danube
18:00 signing off.

Perhaps some sort of peaceful act, such as one or more people engaged in a monitored hunger strike, or some other such method could be used to propel your cause into the news?

Hmmmmmmm. Terrorists on hunger strike. Sounds like a problem that solves itself, doesn't it?

(sigh......................)

You know evildave, the sad thing is:

a). you're actually SERIOUS,
b). you obviously have not the slightest idea what impression this post of yours makes.
 
What happens when people get sick and tired of seeing fanatics bleating about how hard done by they are and simply turn off

Terrorism isnt soley about getting a message across to the authoritys if it was they'd hand in petitions signed by their followers to the respective governments,and its not about getting a viewing audience to hear their plight or they'd recieve funding for a broadcast, its about killing in the name of something they believe it to show to what extremes they will go to get their way

Give Bin Laden a prime time slot and he'd still be sending people to kill for him
 
So, violence and drama are what get people "interested". Get their attention? Perhaps the "drama" of this cycle of retaliation is the only one that many people will generally understand.

What a lack of imagination many people must have.

Certainly, I don't expect to come up with an ingenious universal answer to world peace in one short post that states the problem.

I disagree with the notion that every 'freedom fighter' or 'terrorist' or 'illegal combatant' or 'revolutionary' is just a raving, frothing at the mouth lunatic. They have a goal, but they are using what can be deemed "improper" tactics. Of course, in many cases they're simply tools of other governments that have a goal in mind, and need some convenient "cat's paws".

If some system even partially as effective as 'terrorism' at embarassing, influencing and/or toppling governments can be derived that is *bloodless*, I think many that might otherwise apply violence to their problems would use this (as yet unknown) technique, instead.

In order for a non-violent solution to be found, there must be some "faith" that a non-violent solution exists to be found, or nobody will ever bother to look for one. Of course, this solution is probably prone to be subtle, and different for every situation, requiring planning and thoughtfulness, while violence is always very obvious and requires little or no thought.

That's quite a mountain to overcome. Pure, bloody-minded human stupidity and the lust for a "simple" answer (like 'rock+head').

Naturally, if nobody wants to find a positive solution to international terrorism, and everybody wants to stick with the status quo, I suppose the terrorists will eventually find a way to get bigger headlines anyway. The tendency has been toward bigger and more damaging attacks. It may just be that people "like" having that drama in their lives, and having terrorists around is just way too popular for anybody to give it up. Something like a gambling addiction, perhaps?
 
This topic started from a reply to "Why does Greenpeace do things like this?", and in that particular case, it was climb on a power plant smokestack and put up a banner about pollution.

Why? Basically for reasons similar to why terrorists do things. Raise awareness. Effect change.

Perhaps the normal channels of negative feedback to a population's government and/or industries are cut off. The people feel disempowered. They look for a way to have power. To make change.

If it's not what the terrorist organization is about, it's probably a very potent dynamic for recruitment.

How do you empower people so that they don't turn to terrorism? Make sure that the 'brutal psychopaths' that want violence remain unaided?
 
I wish you all the best in your quest to start the Al Qaeda channel. I think AL Jazeera beat you to it, though...
 
crackmonkey said:
I wish you all the best in your quest to start the Al Qaeda channel. I think AL Jazeera beat you to it, though...
Click to expand...

Of course, there's also the problem of ratings: I doubt too many in the target audience would be too interested in listening to "500 reasons I hate you disgusting infidels" or "1000 ways you can help bring about the collapse of the racist capitalistic system" type shows the "airing of grievences" channel would undoubtebly be broadcasting.

Well, come to think of it, EvilDave's solution to terrorism is actually good, he just forgot a crucial step.

His solution:

1). Create a radio station.
2). Get all the terrorist to broadcast their views from it.

He forgot the crucial step:

3). Bomb the station to kingdom come during the broadcast.
 
Originally posted by evildave
I disagree with the notion that every 'freedom fighter' or 'terrorist' or 'illegal combatant' or 'revolutionary' is just a raving, frothing at the mouth lunatic. They have a goal, but they are using what can be deemed "improper" tactics.
Click to expand...

This is a very dangerous attitude. Terrorists are NOT a threat solely because of the tactics they use. Often, as in the case of Islamofascist terrorists, their very goal is evil. The imposition of a Taliban-like regime on any part of the world, for example, is simply evil, and to think that you can make the problem go away be redirecting the methods of those who strive for such a thing is to burry your head in the sand. Enabling them to achieve their goals through non-violent means amounts to appeasement, and if you give them an alternative method (say, some platform for publicity) but they don't succeed, why would they then renounce violence as a back-up? No, evildave, I'm afraid you really don't understand the evil that we are confronted with.
 
I'm mesmerized by evildave's insightful, unconventional, thinking-out-of-the-box genius. Please - share more of these gems with us, dave. Teach us.
 
Absolutely. At least I'm *looking for* a positive approach to do something, as opposed to extending the cycle of retribution.

The Red Cross/Red Crescent is an international organization that was created by treaties that protects human rights. They quietly go in, and inspect prisons and keep violations "quiet", so long as they're fixed. A good thing to start from.

Education about alternatives to violence is a good start. Comming up with and providing a free curriculum to existing governments that teaches people about positive methods to effect *legal* change without violence, within whatever sort of government structure that people live in, and positive ways for that government to respond would be a start.

Getting news media involved seems to have benefits and problems. Violence gets an automatic A-page entry. First story on the TV news. Repeated story on the radio news. Cover page of printed media. Basically little or no story telling goes into *why* the terrorists did something. It may be that the terrorists are doing it "just because", or because they "Hate America", as the propaganda goes. For example, why do they "Hate America"? It couldn't have anything to do with the way America has supported ruthless dictators and tyrants friendly to its business needs for generations, while preaching "freedom and democracy", could it?

"Nah!" say the nay-sayers, "They just like slaughtering people and committing suicide!"

It's interesting to hear all the people telling me that dropping bombs from an airplane, or launching a cruise missile is more "noble" than car bombs or suicide bombs. Then people claim we should "nuke 'em", as if that would do less indiscriminant damage than crashing airliners into buildings. "They're all evil, they all deserve it!" "Evil" is such a convenient label. Is every man woman and child in a region "Evil" because of the actions of a few? Our bombs generally kill a lot of bystanders, wherever they're dropped, for whatever reason.

There should be a way to fight terrorism without using their own tactics; i.e. becomming more brutal, ugly and casually treacherous and violent.

The hijackings on 9/11/01 killed 2,995 people, in a nation with a population around 280,000,000.

As a result of our air operations in Afghanistan, 3,000 - 3,400 civilian deaths in Afghanistan with a population of somewhere above 13,051,358.

Around 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq with a population somewhere above 25,000,000.

Let's see how this scales...

Iraq
10000 * 280 / 25 = 112,000

Afghanistan
3700 * 280 / 13 = 79,692

U.S.
3000 * 280 / 280 = 3,000

The likelihood someone will know someone else who died as a result of U.S. actions is proportionally higher in Iraq or Afghanistan than the original attack in the U.S. The maimings and other injuries scale similarly.

Because 'Saddam is evil', we killed a proportionally larger part of their population than we killed in Afghanistan for protecting Al Qaeda. Of course, now there really is Al Qaeda operating actively in Iraq, and there are people sympathetic to their cause, because there are a LOT more people per capita there who know what it's like to be bombed by Americans. Furthermore, our bombings occurred over a larger portion of Iraq and Afghanistan territory.

In short, current methods of "fighting" terrorism merely promote it. Like fighting fire with gasoline. Collapse the security infrastructure of a state, disrupt communication and commerce, and kill a lot of people to boot, and the terrorists will find it easy to get in, easy to get set up, and easy to find a lot of unemployed and unhappy people, with "nothing to lose". Throw in a big, fat torture scandal, and it's all candy for terrorists.

Are you sure you wouldn't like to even try to explore non-violent (or less violent, or at the very least, more effective) alternatives to fight terrorism than bombing people? Fighting terror with greater terror is only, well, being a terrorist yourself, and elevating terrorism to mainstream "accepted practice". After all, if it's good enough for the U.S. to kill people randomly with bombs to 'reciprocate' for some offense, then from the perspective of those who receive this treatment, they are merely 'reciprocating' in kind.

The cycle of retribution continues. Fighting terrorism with terrorism only legitimizes terrorism.
 
The likelihood someone will know someone else who died as a result of U.S. actions is proportionally higher in Iraq or Afghanistan than the original attack in the U.S. The maimings and other injuries scale similarly.

Indeed so. Absolutely correct.

Which is why, of course, WWII was an unethical, disgusting, and morally bankrupt war: the US forces killed significantly more Germans and Japanese than the other way around, therefore making it far more likely for a German or Japanese to know someone who was killed or maimed by the US Armed forces than the other way around.

The US should really have started shooting its own soldiers on purpose occassionally, to keep the victim ratios more equal and therefore to make the war more just and moral.

If only the US had given Hitler and Tojo had their own public access radio channel to air their grievences, instead of fighting them, the world today would have been so much better. After all, EvilDave says so, and he is a genius, so we'll just have to take his word for it.

In case Germany and Japan preferred to use their own rather well-developed radio propaganda networks (a certain Dr. Goebbles seems to have been quite an expert with "airing grievences" and "points of view" on the Radio, as I recall), at the very least the US should have reimbursted the German and Japanese governments' expenses in that sphere.

Hey, at least that would have been looking for a positive attempt to do something instead of extending the cycle of retribution. Who knows, maybe it would have worked?
 
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?

Very insightful.

Or do you believe the U.S. should start carpet bombing the Middle East? Oh, I'm sorry, resume carpet bombing the Middle East. We've used the B-52s already. Perhaps wars of genocide against the people there to "wipe out" the terrorist threat once and for all, as a grand and final solution to teach everybody a "lesson"?
 
evildave 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?

Very insightful.

Or do you believe the U.S. should start carpet bombing the Middle East? Oh, I'm sorry, resume carpet bombing the Middle East. We've used the B-52s already. Perhaps wars of genocide against the people there to "wipe out" the terrorist threat once and for all, as a grand and final solution to teach everybody a "lesson"?
Click to expand...

Well for starters they should stop terrorist from killing people. Or don't you count those deaths?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom