OK, We've talked about alternatives to war with Iraq. I'd like to broaden the scope and ask about alternatives to the war on terror. I will try and pose some clear questions to keep the thread on track.

1. Is there a way to curb international terrorism without using troops and bombs?

Since we cannot travel back through time, please refrain from discussing what we could have done differently in the past.

If you think the answer to the question is "no," please state why you think this is so.

I would love to get some responses from people who do support military action on this matter, in this regard: if the military option were not viable, how would you go about countering terrorism?

I do believe the US can do more to shape productive foreign policy than it is doing. This applies to anything from supporting human rights consistently and loudly (even in the face of opposition from "allies"). To using our relatively enormous power and influence to help disadvantaged countries(with responsible leadership) to establish themselves as stable productive allies. We can also be more even-handed in our involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and push for Israel to comply with UN resolutions, even in the face of terrorism. This could persuade the reasonable people of the world that the US is not the enemy.

However, just as it is important to strike a balance between security and freedom, the US must remember to shape it's policy according to what is best for the country and the world. If this does not fit with the demands of terrorists, then so be it.

This is because no reasonable amount of compromise will convince unreasonable terrorists that targeting our civilians is not justified.

We must change bad policy.
We must not be bullied into changing good policy.

I do not believe terrorism will be most effectively fought through diplomatic or military methods alone. The wise use of both will prove most useful for our security.

I think we could curb a lot of terrorism by not forcing ourselves on so many foreign countries. I'm not saying a complete withdraw, but we should ask the countries if they actually want us there (Suadi Arabia has asked us to withdraw after Saddam is taken care of)bin laden doesn't hate America because "we are free" he hates America because we militarily occupy Islams most holy land, Saudi Arabia. (home to two out of three of Islams most holy sites)

I think a lot of ME terrorism could be curbed by stopping the constant flow of money and supplies to the apartheid state of Israel, many of who's leaders are bent on the utter elimination of the Palestinians from the west bank (either through extermination or forced exportations)

I think there are some ways to stop terrorism without war. What we can't do is compromise our beliefs in democracy and freedom. We need to support democracies in the middle east like Isreal. I don't think War on Terror means war with smart bombs and Cruise missles. It is more like the war on poverty and drugs. The War on terror to me is about fighting against racism and fanatisism. We can't win the war on terror by dropping bombs. The only way we can win is by beating religous fanaticism and racism.

Here lies the problem with fighting terrorism through only non-military means. The US government cannot stop religious fanaticism and racism through reasonable action. Religious fanaticism and racism are inherently unreasonable. We can change policy to be reasonable and supportive of what is best for the world, ourselves, and human rights. But past that, any change in policy is bending to unreasonable pressure and allowing terrorists to violate our sovereignty, which should not be an option.

RU we do need to support democracy and governments that allow so-called natural rights for all individuals. However, Israel is an example of a government that is stifling an ethnic group to keep its democracy. I do not think that is much higher than having a government that grants citizens rights while allowing for slavery inside that system.

Israel was born in conflict but it needs to come to terms with Palestininas and allow them to form an independent country and grant Palestinians inside Israel unrestricted citizenship as well.

Jewish and Democratic State

Because of this split in civil rights for Israeli citizens in favor of the definition of the country as a Jewish state, there is inherent discrimination in Israel.

The Jews need a state. There is widespread hatred for Jews everywhere except Isreal, L.A. and NYC. They both had a state way back when. Then the Arabs where too bothered to have Jews near them and said we want it all. It is true a only Jewish state is a little racist but so are all the Muslim states around Isreal. The Jews have just as much right to have a jewish state as Saudi Arabia has to have a Muslim state. If all the Middle Eastern governments became secular democracies and anti-semitism went away Isreal could become one state for Arabs and Jews. There is no democracy for Jews or Arabs in Saudi Arabia.

This is my first post to the site so I will try to be smart, insightful and funny. NO, I don't think that there is an alternative to bombs and war to stop or deter terrorism. I take this position with two main points in mind.

First: I don't think that the United States is about to withdraw from interests within the Middle East anytime soon. In most respects, the economic interests of the United States are VERY dependent on the uninterrupted and generous flow of crude oil from our "friends" within the Middle East. If anyone thinks any differently, one just needs to look at the signage of the local service station. Keep this thought in mind, how can unrest in one South American country have such a profound effect on the American ecomomy? There is certainly a direct effect of stability of the Middle East and the stability of the American economy.

You're probably asking " What does this have to do with terrorism?"

Two: With the exception of a few isolated radical individuals, one of the largest vulnerabilities of our society is the potential impact of organized terrorism. Without question, one needs to look no farther than the Middle East and southwest Asia for organized terror groups. These groups are motivated by religious furvor and the belief that there cause is just.

Here lies the paradox. We need the oil. They have direct control of the region and they are resolved in their beliefs. In the case of religious conviction, diplomacy does not work.

Saddam & Bin Laden need to go. No question. If not, prepare for further unrest and ultimate attack. Additionally, there are other countries within the region that should pay attention. They too have some culpability in this issue and need to show a tremendous amount of support for the US. We have not missed the details. Saddam and Bin Laden will not leave power and/or there cause without direct military intervention.

In the case of Saddam, diplomacy does not work. He has ignored resolutions from the UN for the better part of 12 years. He will not disarm and he will not leave power until he is forcibly removed (Read: removed=bombs)

Bin Laden does not warrant the effort of diplomacy. He has appeared on Al Jazera and has in all respects claimed credit/responsibility for the attacks of 11Sep01. This is not a "brain buster". Bin Laden must go. NaNa Na Na NaNa Na Na Hey Hey Hey Good Bye!!! (Read: Goodbye=Bombs)

While these two individuals do not shoulder the burden of terrorism alone. Let's obtain our victories and improve our security in the most demonstrative method possible.

There is only one possible way to win this war against terrorism (although it's not really a war). Eliminate the most dangerous threats by proxy instead of beating up who we hate the most (i.e. saddam).

We can't win this war against terrorism on our own. Anybody that thinks we can, is woefully uninformed. I would put every stinking country in the world on notice. Clean your house or we will do it for you.

Define a terrorist as anyone that targets civilians. Get rid of the "well, they're just freedom fighters" or "they just have no hope and no other recourse" defenses. The foreign governments need to take responsibility for their own. If they can't, we should.

That's my biggest beef with this invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq has never been into international terrorism. Of course, they could start, but my uncle could grow boobs and become my aunt as well.

But we ignore Saudi Arabia funding terrorists groups, Korea supplying anybody with cash anything they have to offer, and Russia with an out-of-control black market (just to name a few) so we can go kick someone's butt that at this moment, is already thoroughly defeated.

The best way to end terrorism is to change the environment that fosters it. Terrorists like the hijackers on Sept. 11th or the suicide bombers in Israel act out of despair and desperation.

Statements like this do not help your credibility.

This thread is about alternatives to the War on Terror. I'm assuming by your post that you feel that there is no other way to fight the war against terror except with troops or bombs. Please tell us why you feel that terrorism can not be curbed without using troops and bombs or provide us with viable alternatives to the use of violence.

Terrorists need to be backed into corners, through the use of intelligence and the law, but ulitmately they need to be put into situations where even they can see that abandoning terror and moving towards more civilised forms of disagreement (i.e. democracy) will be more likely to achieve their long-term goals.

This approach paid dividends in Northern Ireland (or at least, it has so far) and ultimately it will be the solution in Israel.

Groups like al-Quaeda, though - and please note, there are many of these groups, with only the tenuous "links to al-Quaeda" that have been a feature of all terror groups in modern history, i.e. they are all linked to one another - are more tricky, as there are so many of them, from so many different local circumstances, that it will be enormously difficult to draw their teeth.

However, ultimately, nobody sensibly resorts to terrorism when they have a nice life in a democracy that represents their views. However, even in nominal democracies, some groups of people can convince themselves that they are not well served; witness McVeigh etc. Terrorism will never go away, because it works, at least to the extent of making the perpetrators 'important'.

If we could conceive of a way in which we could ignore terrorism and get on with our lives, making it's impact negligible on wider society, the maybe people would stop feeling the need to do it. I think the attitude on the British mainland to IRA bombing campaigns helped in this regard - there was a determination not to do anything much differently, aside from the temporary changes caused by damage to infrastructure (railway stations, pubs, etc.). All it got the IRA was more determination from their opponents.

The key word of course is "sensibly"...

One of the first rules of conflict resolution is not to back someone into a corner. Nothing fights like a cornered rat; if they feel they have no graceful exit they might decide to go out in a blaze of (what they consider to be) glory. That's not good.

That doesn't mean appeasement. It doesn't mean being soft. It just means that, once you have the goods on someone and they know it, you give them a way to lay down their arms and face the consequences in a civilized way instead of fighting to the bitter end. The most likely scenario for any "rogue nation" initiating acts of nuclear/bio/chem terrorism is when they think they're about to be destroyed anyway.

You back terrorists into corners & you can be sure that something bad will happen

In the Gulf War, Saddam fired scuds at Israel because he was backed into a corner

Who's to say if a terrorist group isn't backed into a corner, he won't start blowing things up

I believe that as long as there are people in the world with the ability to form an opinion, there will be terrorism, but I do think that we could curb terrorism by addressing the root causes, and trying to change them if it is in our power. Terrorists act because they feel like they are being oppressed in some way. Each terrorist group has a different grievance, and they really need to be looked at on an individual basis. Sometimes these feelings are valid and sometimes not, but it is my feeling that war and violence only succeeds in breeding more terrorism.

I sincerely believe that the majority of the Middle Eastern terrorism is a product of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and a deep resentment towards the U.S. that has developed out of our past policies in the region. Knowing that we can't change the past, I think that we should do what we can to show good will in the present. That doesn't mean that we should bend to their every wishes, but as Turnea said, a more even-handed policy towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would help. I also think that we should re-evaluate some of the sanctions that we have against certain Middle Eastern countries, and we should support democratic regimes with good human rights records or movements within individual countries that advocate these ideals.

Other ideas:
Reducing our dependency upon foreign oil
Encouraging ethical business practices at home and abroad
Securing our own country rather than trying to "cleanse" the world of terrorists.
Being receptive to the idea that our way may not be the best way for everyone.
Encouraging programs that promote dialogue between two vastly different cultures.

Obviously, there are some terrorist groups that will not be receptive to this, but I do think that these ideas would reduce terrorism.

DaytonRocker can't have it both ways. We can't " put every stinking country in the world on notice and demand that they clean their house" unless they are convinced without question, the cleaning can be done- unilaterally. (Cleaning=the US assuming the identity of Mr. Clean)

We must , and currently do, have the biggest stick on the block for a reason - we have to.

The freedom fighters are motivated by religious beliefs that the US is the " evil infidel". These beliefs are promoted through years of teaching that we (the US) are bad people (Bad people= alliance with Israel). Religious beliefs = terrorism. People do not strap bombs to their persons unless they believe that their god will recognize that the effort is a devoted action on their part. These people will not comply with the wishes of their government to "knock it off" if they feel their superior being (their God) is on their side and has their back. These folks, whoever they are, will understand ( or better yet be taken out by) bombs, bullets and the death penalty. Diplomacy and reliance on their own governments will NOT register.

Secondly, Saddam has brought the wrath of the US upon himself. You cannot control 10-15% of the oil supply within the world and act like a "jackass" Additionally, one cannot control that much of the worlds' oil supply and then roll into a bordering nation (Kuwait which supplies another 10 percent) and expect not to cause consternation within the one country in the world that relies upon oil the most.

Before 1991, the US supported Iraq in their war against Iran for that very reason. We like oil. WE NEED OIL. Saddam is the spoiled child that has now earned himself an appointment in the corner.

This is not a brainbuster. And I am in NO WAY dismissing the ENORMOUS affects of 11Sep01. But do the math folks, what event has had more of an impact on the US ecomony. 11Sep01 or the recent escalation of fuel prices?

SADDAM= economic terrorism....

Uhhh, 9/11 it cost billions of dollars, triggered a crisis in insuring businesses, sent the airline industry spiralling more quickly into bankruptcy, caused an accelerated dip in the value of the stock market that has not yet recovered, and it triggered an expensive war on terror that has created an environment of economic uncertainty that seems to be preventing an economic recovery.