Evildave's Solution To Terrorism

[Jocko]

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.

Don't forget the straw. Lots and lots of straw. After all, have you ever met a scarecrow with cancer? No? Do I have to connect the dots for you?

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.

Considering these petty little tantrums are a response to someone (or multiple someones, according to you) who have taken the position, "Kill them all, America can do no wrong," how about you identify these people?

Or is the premise of your argument as full of it as your conclusions?

 

[Phrost]

Believe it or not, I actually appreciate seeing a Liberal that's trying to propose a solution to a problem as opposed to just standing around pointing and yelling about how bad things are *cough* Mikey Moore *cough*.

Since you asked, so polite-like, here's what I'd do:

* Dismantle and re-establish the United Nations. Membership would be restricted to nations with truly democratic, representative governments. Establish a world-wide "Bill of Rights" that guarantees each human on the planet basic freedoms, which would be the mandate of the new UN to preserve.

* Seperate the functions of Neo-UN into diplomatic and judicial branches.

* Streamline the resolution process and remove as many legal 'grey areas' as possible. Terms included in any resolution must be clear, no vague "serious consequences".

* Outlaw asymetrical warfare, or state-sponsored terrorism, across the board, with well defined consequences for states participating and/or supporting terrorist organizations.

* Consistently investigate and prosecute any countries known for supporting such terrorism, and/or trying to circumvent the system. If this means going to war against a regime and establishing a democracy in its wake, so be it.

 

[karl]

I think most people would agree that the "ideal" way to combat terrorism is through preventative measures. Identify potential conflict hotbeds and help people settle their differences peacefully before they start pounding on each other. That said, evildave, there will always be cases of terrorism that can't be fought that way. Where no amount of air time or outside help can eliminate the problem, simply because there is no compromise that will satisfy everyone. (Close-by examples: pro-life vs. pro-choice, veganism vs. the meat industry.)

And then we have to deal with a very basic human drive: when you realize that a matter you feel strongly about will probably never be settled to your liking, you start grasping for the kind of straws that will at the very least drag other people down into your misery. Depending on the context and culture, it can be flame wars, obstruction, excessive litigation or violence. While your formal target is of course your opponent, it's always a bonus if, when he retaliates, he also lashes out against an innocent bystander. Because then other people will see him for the bastard you know he really is. Now, don't try to deny it. We all get these impulses from time to time.

I have no idea what would solve this, frankly, short of some "Prozac for the disenfranchised" program. But one thing is for certain, rikzilla, Grammatron, et al -- if you are going to use force, it can't be the bull-in-a-China-store approach we've seen so much of lately. The US, Israel and Russia all have horrible track records and seem to create two new terrorists for each one they kill or capture. (Which would be fine if they had unlimited defense budgets and their goal was to wipe out an entire ethnic group. Sometimes I'm not so sure.)

I mean, have you ever wondered why Palestinian terrorist organizations keep mounting new attacks against Israel, despite having been shown month after month, year after year, that this will only lead to retaliation with even more people killed and more innocents suffering on the side they claim to fight for? Is it because they never learn? Or because they think that this time it will be different? No, they know perfectly well what is going to happen. And deep down they like it. The more innocent Palestinians who get killed, the more people will hate Israel and follow in their footsteps. Hatred is their legacy. Again, this isn't unique to terrorists.

Yes, yes, it can be argued all day that the people the terrorists fight in the name of ought to see through this and rightly blame the terrorists for their misfortune. And many do. But that requires an intellectual effort. It's easier to hate the side that killed your child than the one that provoked them. Especially if you got no apology whatsoever and it's the latter side that offers you its sympathies. This is something the proponents of the War on Terror must take into account. Tread lightly.

 

[evildave]

Thank you phrost and Karl for your thoughtful views. It's refreshing to get frank, honest discourse from *anybody* (left, right or anywhere in between) about what can be done about the world situation. I mean besides "shut up about it".

Yes, surely there will always be the Ted Kaczynski's and McVeigh's and Eric Rudolph's and various serial killers and such. People who will turn to violence because it turns their crank. Given. These remain exceptional cases.

It does seem clear that some restructuring of international programs and treaties is in order, and it's certainly clear that if it is to be an upstanding member of any international institution, the U.S. will not always get its way.

A segment of UN that only contained upstanding governments and provided very strong benefits for its members would be very useful. It might be desirable to go further than that, however. Trade benefits, relative currency stabilization, and a pooled defensive strategy would also be helpful. After all, in the event one nation is attacked (by whatever method), it would be nice to know that their partners are *truly* backing them up.

'Asymetrical warfare' is problematic, in that lots of those same 'upstanding democracies' have 'special forces' and 'black ops' people they spent a lot of resources to develop, and that they want to keep. The actions of 'black ops' personnel can be indistinguishable from those of a 'terrorist' (i.e. sneak into a place, break things, kill people), or even designed to look like "terrorists did it". I fully endorse eliminating certain kinds of 'black ops' activities, but then again, if one ten cent bullet can prevent a huge war that costs a million of lives...

Possibly having a standard 'special forces' shared by the 'upstanding governments' with strict rules that can only be mobilized by a security counsel's concensus?

We still have a need for some international ties with the so-called 'developing' or 'not so upstanding' nations as well. After all, something like the former smallpox or some future malaria eradication would still require international cooperation, even with the less reputable nations.

Another thing that would be interesting to see in the UN would be an elected body for human rights. Instead of representatives appointed by governments, have elected ones with votes per population. Humanitarian, human rights, etc. positions in regards to nations shouldn't be appointed by their governments. If fair and impartial elections are not possible in a nation, perhaps someone should be appointed by the U.N. to oversee that nation's interests, or their vote defaults to the Red Cross, or something.

It's a sad thing that in an envirionment that could have fueled international concensus for change, the U.S. single-mindedly alienated its self from the international community and allowed prisoner scandals to develop.

 

[Phrost]

You're welcome. And all things considered and given your apparent views I'm suprised you appreciate the need for some things to operate in the shadows (re: special forces), and applaud it.

Ultimately the problem is corruption in the UN that's undermined it as an effective organization. I think that limiting membership to truly representative, democratic governments (be the demo-socialists, demo-communists, or demo-capitalists) would clean up the UN greatly and give the developing countries (and the people suffering under tyrany) a reason to move toward freedom themselves, and possibly with Neo-UN's help

 

[Dancing David]

While restructuring the UN might have some benefits it defaets the purpose of the UN, which is to not be a sloution but simply a possible solution.

The problem with the democracy thing is that there have too many times the US government has called countries 'democracy' that were clearly dictatorships.

I think that the OP has potential for creating an enviroment where terrorism is no longer the option that it is today. However I don't feel that all terrorism is publicity based soem is just pure revenge.

But if the world community has open media and communication about situations like Darfur, Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzogovina , it is more likely that the perpetrators of terrorism will eventualy be held accountable.

First we have to hold the US government accountable for not supporting countries that stomp on human rights.

 

[varwoche]

Outlaw asymetrical warfare, or state-sponsored terrorism, across the board, with well defined consequences for states participating and/or supporting terrorist organizations.

If asymetrical warfare were outlawed the US would have to lay down arms.

 

[Phrost]

If asymetrical warfare were outlawed the US would have to lay down arms.

Please send all pithy comments to O'reilly@foxnews.com...

...because the rest of us are trying to have a reasonable discussion here.

 

[evildave]

First we have to hold the US government accountable for not supporting countries that stomp on human rights.

That would be a start. Then there's the 'stomping' it's been doing in person, so to speak.

Not a great way to 'win hearts and minds'.

If asymetrical warfare were outlawed the US would have to lay down arms.

Do you mean the U.S. being the bigger half of any conflict would have to stoop to the level of the other side, or that the U.S. is dependent on its 'dirty tricks'?