There has been much discussion regarding the "war on terror" and what's wrong with it. I was interested in what other opponents of this "war" felt we, as a nation, should be doing rather than, say, illegally invading countries which had nothing whatsoever to do with the September 11 attack and which posed no threat at all to the United States.

Amber Amundson, whose husband died in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, wrote the following in An Open Letter to Our Nations Leaders:

I lost a cousin, a fireman, at the World Trade Center the same day - and my aunt, his mother, feels exactly the same way. She hates what this administration has been doing "in response" and is disgusted by her son's death being used as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq, for example.

Three years before the attack on the WTC and Pentagon, Robert Bowman - a combat pilot who flew over 100 missions in Vietnam, now a Catholic bishop - wrote an article in the National Catholic Reporter called "We're Terrorized Because We're Hated" in which he said:

I am inclined to agree. Terrorism is usually rooted in deep - and legitimate - grievances. That is certainly the case in terms of acts of terror committed against the US. These grievances are not complicated or hidden. They include the stationing of US troops in the terror-sponsoring nation of Saudi Arabia, site of the holiest of Moslem shrines (which adherents believe, with all the conviction of a Jerry Falwell, to be a desecration of their religion); our continued support of Israel's occupation of territories not granted to it in 1948 (including billions of dollars in military aid), and the fact that, as Epus. Bowman describes it, "in much of the world, our government stands for dictatorship, bondage, and human exploitation".

Obviously, addressing any of these root causes of terrorism would require some radical changes in our foreign policy - and such changes would be strenuously resisted by the military-industrial interests which dominate both of our political parties (and the hegemonic interests which currently dominate our Executive). Not only could such policies be seen to weaken our standing as a military superpower with the ability to wage unprovoked war anywhere around the globe at a moment's notice, but would also be dismissed - out of hand, with no discussion, no consideration, no compromise - as "appeasement".

Well, maybe it's time to become a humanitarian superpower - and maybe it's time to do a bit of appeasing - or, at the very least, a bit less inciting. I am not arguing that perpetrators of acts of terror should go unpunished by any means. Nor am I suggesting that we acquiesce to specific demands by terrorist organizations. But surely there's more that we could be doing to address some of the reasons that we are a target of such acts...

To debate, then: Are there specific and viable alternatives in combatting terrorism to our current policy of violence? If so, what?

Specific viable alternatives:

1. Dry up their source of funding (we're already doing this with some success, but we need to focus harder on that).

2. Work with local governments to root out and eradicate terrorist cells in foreign lands.

3. Mount a counter-propaganda campaign on the order of al Jezeera in those regions where it makes the most sense. This may be the most crucial for both destabilizing the region's governments AND producing pro-USA governments not interested in fostering hatred against us.

4. Use our financial strength to assist in eliminating anti-USA propaganda in those states that are currently using it to prop up the government. This could come in the form of aid, etc.

Invading and violence should become our weapon of last resort, not our first thought when dealing with a problem.

Are there specific and viable alternatives in combatting terrorism to our current policy of violence? If so, what?

I think that the best way to combat terrorism is to take away both resource as well as the reason for dislike. Most often this can be done by rebuilding countries with a heavy base of terrorists as well as, not allowing American Corporations to be allowed to abuse the human rights in Third World Countries.

Hopefully by doing this we can take away the thought of America as a Corporate entity. I am not certian but I do think that by limiting the power of a corporation, you can control it for the best interest of the people and by doing so, protect the people.

Monty

amf,

I think you just summarized the actual War on Terror.

Iraq is really tangential to the War on Terror. The need to go into Iraq is related to the War on Terror, the justification is somewhat based upon the principles guiding the War on Terror, but the Iraq problem pre-dates 9/11 and the Iraq problem needed to be resolved.



Bush has pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia (one cited cause of Muslim discontent).

Clinton embraced the Palestinians and tried to bring them to the table with Israel. Have we distanced ourselves from them? No, we have not, because they continue to be the target of terrorist attacks. Don't talk about 1948 borders when Israel's expansion is largely from territory acquired in defensive wars. How hard is it to understand that were the US to abandon the Israelis , the violence in all likelihood would escalate?

So, if I understand your position, Bush has addressed point one. For point two, you would abandon a 50+ year long alliance with Israel because of pressure brought by suicide bombers. I guess that is your simple and straightforward solution?

The radical Islam terrorists are not motivated by such simple motives as Wertz points out. They are driven by a much simpler one : pure, unadulterated hate for non-Muslim, and especially Jewish, nations. They are driven by intolerance, and the fires are fanned by radical clerics within the Muslim religion.

It is THAT simple. But if you can point out a simple solution to that simple motivation, I am all ears.

I think you are mistaken here. I don't think Iraq needed to be resolved. Not in the least bit. Espicially with the Kay Report showing that Iraq was in fact complying with the UN. Perhaps, you do not understand that, this war was not neccessary. Saddam is a person America put into power during the Reagan Administration. He was nudged by the US to do most of the acts that he would be charged with. One of the reasons I do believe America is not having his trial with the UN.

No I do not think the Iraq problem needed to be resolved



I must have missed that one. Care to prove it?



I believe wertz tried to do just that. Motivation is a funny word and what motivates the leaders of these terrorist groups may not be the same as what motivates the people in them. One of Osama's biggest complaints with the US was that he was not allowed to fight against Iraq once the first Desert Storm occured. He had been trained by the American army(the reason for the Saudi bases) to attack Iraq and to take out the leader. At last moment. The Americans went in due to the fact that Iraq had invaded Kuwait. To add insult to injury he was not allowed to fight and he saw american woman combatants go to fight, what some might consider insult to injury.

Monty

How to avoid terrorism against the United States:

-Dismantle bases in nations around the world where the populace is clearly against you. (Saudi Arabia, Okinawa, ect) In particular in the Middle East.

-Reduce foreign and military aid to Israel (Eliminating it is simply not feasable, but reducing it significantly is)

-Agree that the cold war is over. (End absurd sanctions against Cuba and attempt to normalise relations.)

There, done. In the short term the effect will be limited, in the long term it will be enormous. The hatred for the US in paerticular from the Midle East is largely due to the US meddling in Middle Eastern Affairs, in particular with their unwavering support for Israel.

There was a time when israel depended on Western support to survive, but they are the big boys on the block now, and no longer need such unquestioning US aid.

There is still the matter of cultural imperialism, but that is not the 'fault' of the US, it is simply a byproduct of the strong media and market influence of the US.

Saddam became the Iraqi head of state in 1979. Reagan was inaugurated on January 20, 1981. Not only do I not see the relevance of blaming the current administration for something a past administration may have had a hand in, but the perpetuation of the lie that Reagan was in power when this happened.


To quote you.....I must have missed that one. Care to prove it?


From The Guardian


I think that the withdrawl of our troops from the muslim holy land, a peace settlement between Israel and the palestinians, and the handover of Iraqi government to the Iraqi's will go along way to reducing the need for a war on terror

An alternative to our current war on terror should have been Bush's original doctrine.

If you supply or harbor terrorists, you are with the terrorists. That Bush doctrine was blunt and to the point. Unfortunately, he made Israel negotiate with Arafat (the king of all terrorists) and launched an invasion against a country that had nothing to do with international terrorism - thereby invalidating his own doctrine.

If you go to www.cia.gov and find out who the key suppliers of WMD and WMD technology are, Iraq doesn't even come on the radar screen. We should have started with the key suppliers of WMD and the biggest sponsors of international terrorism.

Unfortunately, North Korea can fight back, so that true clear and present danger went straight to the back burner. Saudi Arabia has control of too much oil, so they went by the wayside as well. However, these two are clearly the largest and clearest threats.

Bush did good by going to Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban. I wish he would have finished the job though. They are reconstituting their ability to strike us again and we don't have the resources to beat them back down because we're too involved in nation building. To make matters worse, we really can't get any help from anybody because the world thinks WE are the bigger threat now and we're pretty much on our own. Finally, a great deal of the Muslim population that was passive became active against us.

As far as what to do now? I think it's pretty simple, but not politically correct.

First, quit taking our civil liberties away and go back to life before 9/11. Nothing we are doing is helping or will help. The great Ollie North quote "how many terrorist attacks have occurred against us since 9/11" is too bogus for words. Throughout almost all the 90's, we had no Homeland security department, were not searching diapers, and had no attacks (with the exception of course of Timothy McVie, but that has nothing to do with international terrorism either).

Secondly, tell terrorist states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Libya that if we are attacked by WMD and can trace the attacks back to their respective countries, we will retaliate with WMD 10 fold. This includes North Korea and other suppliers of WMD technology.

We can't police the world, but we can force nations to take responsibilities for their own citizens. If they don't want to get nuked, THEY can start searching grandmas underwear for box cutters and the like. Let's see one of them get destroyed and see how the rest of the world gets on board.

The burden does not have to be on us, but we foolishly accepted that burden when we decided to enforce UN resolutions without the UN. It's time to unload that burden and put it back where it belongs.

Aye, there's the Rub.

See, the US has got itself between a rock and a hard place now, because they cannot simply hand over the Iraqi government to Iraqis, as lest to their own devices Iraqis will at this point likely elect a religious, and very likely elect an anti-American government. While such a government, given recent past will not likely be openly hostile, they will likely mally with nations in the region (Iran or Saudi Arabia- which wuld be worse?).

Otherwise, the US must establish a puppet stste, in which the Iraqis run the country, but only Iraqis chosen by the US, as is happening now. (Brenner makes appointments, the apointees make appijtments, no actual election) This will increase tension both in Iraq and in the US as soldiers continue to come home in boxes...

To end terroroism the US needs to get out of the Middle East, but in doing so they may eventually find themselves withing Hussein were still in power of his secularist, unallied Iraq.

I admit being wrong on both subjects. But the history of Osama is quite interesting in Afghanistan. Perhaps, more should take a read and realize the american involvement in it. here is a couple links.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html
http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/o...aden.profile%2F


I knew the hate for osama was not ungrounded and it kind of shows why in this respect. It does have to do with Saudi Arabia as well as Afghanistan.

Monty

Dang I was salivating over those remarks and was gonna provide the proof on my lunch hour, but you beat me too it. We do however disagree on the withdrawel and support for a Palestinian state reducing the need for a war on terror. IMO the terrorist groups won't be happy until every Israeli and non-muslim for that matter is out of the Middle East. They have said the same in numerous messages. I support a Palestinian state however I believe it will only increase the violence. When Palestine is its own state it gives the Israeli's the right to defend themselves.

The debate thus far seems to be taking sides, and I dont belive the situation is as binary as this. Terrorism has such a range of causes; some of them preventable, some of them not. I do not believe it is possible to ever totally eradicate it, because like most forms of extremism, the brainchilds are irrational and sometimes do not have legitmate grieviences.

US Foreign Policy is not the only factor, and arguably not even the most important factor for the growth of terrorism. (And Given how critical I usually am of US Foreign Policy this is saying something!!)

Islamic Fundamentalism has deep historical roots. Some claim it began, and has propagated ever since, the medieval period and the Crusades. I however diagree with this, since although Ancient Battles can help the develop imagined communities, or at state level, nationalism, they rarely have the capability to incite such extreme behaviour alone. Take for example the genocide and ethnic conflict in the Balkans. Milosevic used to cite stories of the Serbian defeat at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, as a motivation to kill Muslims in the present. This was just another tool of propaganda in his toolbox, and alone, it was not powerful enough.

The historical spectre of the crusades therefore, whilst linked, is hardly a major factor - Though it does feature heavily in the rhetoric. Like Milosevic, they are using Ancient complaints to legimitse their present actions. The West, and America specifically, are therefore called, according to Bin Ladens Fatwah, the "Crusader-Zionist Alliance".

The historical roots of Terrorism are far more relevant in the modern period. The Middle East has been at our Mercy for 100 years; chopped, tossed and dictated by whatever out interests decided. America therefore is not unique, the Islamic Fundamentalists hate global powers of all kinds. In the words of Mullah Muhammad Mar, former leader of Afghanistan:



In Bin Ladens Fatwah, declaring war on the Americans in 1998 - foreign policy does certainly play a role. He criticises, albeit in a racist way, Israel by stating,



Of course he fundamentally objects to the concept of Israel, but the terrorism of the Israeli government, that is, terrorizing the civilians of Palestine, is a legitimate complaint of the Muslim People. The actions of Hamas are inot linked to the innocent poeple, and it is even arguable that Palestine itself , due to its lack of state mechanisms can stem the actions of Hamas. This however is debatable, but the main point is that Israel is mudering Palestinians, just as Hamas are murdering Israelis. But in the eyes of a Muslim, and especially a Palestinian, they will feel very threatened being at the complete mercy of Israel - the most powerful state in the East - and America - the most powerful in the world.

The very concept of the state of Israel, and alien settlers - which is what they are - did concern the Muslim world. Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt started in the 1920's; the very same time that Theodor Herzl's ideas of Zionism were becoming of interest to the Great Powers of Britain and France. This is not a coincidence. The growth of Fundamentalism therefore - and Fred Halliday, a leading scholar of the region, supports this - can, in part, be attributed to the whole concept of a Jewish state. Removing the US's funding, and withdrawing its support could therefore only have a limited effect - Fundamentalists do not only hate the way Israel conducts itself, but they hate the very existence of such an entity.

The impact of Foreign Policy on the growth terrorism can also be undermined on an abstract as well as a historical level. The Fundamentalists not only hate our behaviour in the international world but they hate the very fundamental nature of our ways of life.

They hate everyting that tends to summerise Western Culture: multiculturalism; urbanisation; liberalism; individualism; humanism and rationalism. They dispise sexual freedom, freedom of speech and secularisation. If we are to stop Fundamentalism hating the West, we would have to change out entire way of life, and actually remove some of the great qualitites and opportunities we in have in our Society. This abstract hatred they have of us, is therefore not a legitimate grievience.

This hatred is shown well in this quote by the Al Queda spokeman, Abu Gaith, in 2002 and taken from Walter Laqueur's book No End to War:



The Fundamentalists therefore hate democracy and secularisation. Samuel Huntingdon goes further, in the eyes of Al Queda:



So despite the historical conflict between Christianity and Islam, it is the fruits of modern Western Society that they despise the most - and these will never change. As long as we continue our wonderful way of life - though we are not at liberty to say if it is superior to any other - Fundamentalism will continue as well.

Their hatred of us is compounded by our strength, as Huntingdon writes:



The result of this mentality is a sensation and disbelief of how this "western menace" has become so powerful, and overtaken the great cultures of the ancient world. This is of course compounded, and turned from bafflement into anger and frustration by our Foriegn Policy, as Shibley Talhami writes:



Therefore, there is a link between abstract idealogical complaints and foriegn policy.

Even in the first Gulf War the Muslim world were worried that America was going to dominate the region, since they weren't likely to believe that we were going in to save the Kurds, given that we didnt blink an eyelid for thirty years and actually supported Saddam. All The Muslim world sees, in the words of Bin Laden are:



Thus far we have abstract complaints that we cannot change, and foreign policy ones we can. The third broad cause for Terrorism can - in a loose and debatable sense - be changed, though it is very difficult to do so. It is a belief that Terrorism grows from the nature of the way of life in the Middle East. Walter Laquer is a strong proponent of this.

The weak and inefficent state structures have lead to massive poltical disenchantment. Coupled with the economic downslides many of the countries have had to face, the youth have become radical and angry at their world position. That is why Afghanistan, an absolute wasteland, was the breeding ground for Al Queda. The Taliban was such a dull regime, its citizens - if you can call them that - turned to radicalism as a reason to explain the poverty and complete and apparent inefficency and failure of the Muslim World. To return to an earlier point; they are convinced of their superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.

This point highlights why the US attitude, which is that, terrorism cannot exist without state sponsorship is incorrect. If you want to stop terrorism, in a typically isloationist way, strong dictatorships are a good not a bad thing. Secular dictatorships, like Iraq, are usually very effective at stemming internal terrorism. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia also had this ability. To Saddam, religous extremists were a threat to his authority - he was hardly likely to want to increase their power.

Terror, as I and what has already been mentioned, has some causes which can be stopped.

Some causes however, most significantly the idealogically abstract dimension cannot be prevented, and this, for the brainchilds of Al Queda is a very significant reason for their outward manifestation of violence.

The War on terror therefore, if it is to suceed, cannot only be "offensive", to use Dick Cheney's term, and it cannot only be progressive - that is attacking the ground in which Terrorism is fertile.

It requires, due to its complexity, a multi-faceted approach of intervention when required, though it should be done with utmost care - though it never will be - and with a great degree of selectivity - which it also never will be - and a subtle approach to attack the fundamental causes.

The first port of call however, in the words of Noam Chomsky,



If we act carefully, and with sincerity in International politics it will help to remove a large basis of the support for Fundamentalism. We will never stop the Bin Laden's, but by removing some of its causes and by helping the respective countries do the same we can pull out the carpet from Bin Laden's feet.

That, and not the desturction of Terrorism as a whole, is all we can hope for. Running Alongside this in the meantime - since this process is lengthy - we should take appropirate steps to ensure we are not victim to another attack in the immediate future. This involves better communication between the state and the federal and a worldwide network of intellgence between countries. A truly Global effort in other words. Terrorism affects everybody, not just the US. Since 911 we have had attacks, again to quote Cheney, in: Riyadh, Casablanca, Mombassa, Bali, Jakarta, Najaf and Baghdad. The Fight on Terror must not be, and will not suceed if it takes a unilateral form. When the countries of the world are attacked, the last thing we want is to have divisions amongst oursleves. Co-operation is the only viable way forward, and that does not mean within the Western nations alone. The Middle East and the West need to create better relationships - this is of utmost importance.

The Patriot act however, is of course, not an appropriate step and is a reason not to take this idea of national security too far.

Remember, there is such a thing as National Neurosis..

Actually, I didn't summarize the badly named "War on Terror". I summarized what I would do.

We have not done #3 in my list. That's a big thing. Changing their minds by changing their media offerings.

The "War on Terror" has also spawned numerous "security" measures that inconvenience without actually securing anything. It has also caused the harrassment of numerous citizens.

A co-worker went down to the local DMV to change his address for his driver's license. Because he's originally from Iran -- but a CITIZEN -- they wanted proof that he was a citizen. When he couldn't produce it, they TOOK AWAY his license and said he could have it back if he could prove he was a citizen. So he had to drive home -- without his license -- to get his passport, then drive back to the DMV and show it to them, whereby the apologized profusely and claimed it was all the name of "homeland security". Do you feel safer? I don't; if he was here with an illegal ID, don't you think he wouldn't care about going to the DMV to change his address?? Idiotic.

Anyway, enough of that rant.

Iraq was also definitely NOT a necessity. But that's another thread that I think we should open on the nature of negotiating with Arab states.

Just curious what it will take to get those who make believe in this mistaken notion to accept the reality of the situation? I have posted numerous times how Iraq was in fact related to the attacks of 9-11, and the anit-US sentiment expressed by those who perpetrated it, and was therefore indeed a threat to the United States. None of the people who continue to repeat this sentiment have offered any rebuttal to this argument, yet the sentiment is repeated. So, for clarity, please allow me to repeat:

These are the stated reasons for the attacks of 9-11:

1. American troop presence in the Holy Land. Why is this? Because of Saddam's refusal to comply with the UN Resolutions concerning the end of the Gulf War. ie, because of the situation in Iraq.

2. Implied American terrorism on Islamic civilians. What does this refer to? The sanctions imposed by the UN because of Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions concerning the end of the Gulf War, ie, because of the situation in Iraq.

3. The 'Paper Tiger' syndrome exhibited in various other actions (or inactions) the US had taken, but also exemplified by Saddam's apparent ability to continue to thwart UN resolutions and US will without repurcussion, thereby creating the belief that an attack on the US was both possible and could also cause the US to pull out of the area, granting the terrorists their goal, ie. because of the situation in Iraq

These are simply facts, and they point directly to Iraq's involvement in the attacks of 9-11 and the continued threat the situation in Iraq posed to our security. So, please, can we stop the mistaken rhetoric? If you want to debate whether the solution was appropriate or would bring about positive change, fine. But to continue to ignore the reality of the problem defeats any chance of relevant discussion

Perhaps we are sticking with our point of view because your opinions -- and that's all you've posted is opinions with no direct correlation to 9/11 -- are not at all convincing to us. Why bother to rebut that? Give us some facts that point to a DIRECT (as opposed to "implied") correlation between the 9/11 nut cases and Iraq.

Oh, and do it in another thread so we can thoroughly discuss it. This one's reserved for the question about the WoT.

Are you SERIOUS about linking Iraq with 9/11? Nobody, not even the Bush administration, considers that a serious prospect.

I suppose that after 3 weapons inspectors have declared we screwed up in terms of our WMD search, that they are all wrong?

No offense, but out of all the legitimate arguments (however wrong) that could be made to justify invading and occupying a country that never attacked us, the 9/11 link is the least credible and is now bordering on absurd.

The first key is the ‘holy war’ as pointed out by others. Nothing is scarier than an individual who is willing to die in the name of religion and fighting a state of mind is next to impossible without eliminating the rest of the carbon that tows the dementia. It’s like fighting racism here in the states: you can educate and only hope it filters itself out after generations.

I also agree that we should minimize our involvement in the Middle East. Completely remove oil from the equation and we certainly wouldn’t be in Iraq and wouldn’t be showing our biased to ‘favorite oil producing countries’ who have clear ties to Al Queda. So alternative fuels could be the first step in ridding ourselves of involvement in a region of the world that’s been fighting since they were walking. The longer we’re there the more hatred we foster.

What ever the solution the one thing it will take is a united front by all countries and currently that means the UN. And if we want the UN to assist in the WoT then we need to start by respecting the very policies we helped establish and not dismiss them at out convenience. We can’t do it alone.

Couldn't disagree with you more. Apparently you haven't heard about the meetings the head of Iraqi inteligence had with Al-Queda members. Come on, Sadam Hussein made alot of money black marketing oil to Syria, Turkey, he didn't spend that money on hospitals and roads! He gave some to Bin Laden and Hamas, Hezbollah, so on. I love how armchair quarterbacks know so much more than the CIA and other inteligence services. I could less about WMD, Hussein was financing terrorism, that is enough, and a better reason to have wiped him out. I want someone out there to actually say that taking out Hussein was not good, no lucid thinking person can say such.

Are there specific and viable alternatives in combatting terrorism to our current policy of violence? If so, what?

1. Repeal all of the alarmist, reactionary civil rights violations disguised as laws that we passed directly after 9/11 (i.e. The Patriot Act). Doing this is exactly what the terrorists hoped for. By causing us to alter our ways of life, and shred the Constitution just a little bit they have already scored a huge victory for their side. We should combat terrorism using the laws we have held dear for centuries without resorting to removing the civil rights of our citizens.

2. Viciously attack and seize financial assets from terrorist organizations. We have accomplished a little bit in this arena, but we could do so much more here. If a terrorist organization doesn't have money, then they won't be able to operate. Training, weaponry, intelligence and protection all cost money.

3. Rebuild alliances with governments worldwide, strengthen the UN and NATO. I think that it is also key here that as these alliances are strengthen, Islamic nations are involved and treated as equals. It seems to me that a lot of this extremism springs from the perception that western countries are crusading against islam and conspiring to keep those countries as underdogs with marginal power.

4. Spend the money seized from terrorist organizations and additional humanitarian funds collected from countries over the world to build infrastructure, industry and jobs in countries that are traditionally sponsors of terrorism. Terrorism is an easy way out when you face a life of poverty with no job prospects or quality of life. After you have lived that life for a while then the propaganda of extremist groups starts to sound pretty attractive. Don't attack terrorists with more propaganda, instead attack them by taking away their base of support. If the young men of Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, etc can make a decent living and see marked improvements in the quality of their life, why would they turn to terrorism?

5. Come up with a clear and concise plan to pool our intelligence resources from various agencies and allow cooperation and coordination. The Homeland Security Department is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. The FBI, CIA and countless other agencies are huge political battlefields. If we could only break down some of those political barriers then maybe real information sharing and cooperation would be possible. As it stands right now everyone is looking out for #1.

To fight a war against terrorism, you can't do it all with tanks and cruise missiles, you have to attack the causes of terrorism, not just try and deal with the end results. To do so is a futile enterprise because for every terrorist you kill 4 more will spring up in his place because a US bomb mistakenly hit a hospital or economic sanctions cause citizens to go without bread. We may think these are effective measures but they only increase the number of our enemy.

Please cite one example of this. Even Feinstein disagrees with you on this.



It's being done, thank to you #1 act helping. I agree much more needs to be done.



Why? Why would we want to court people that wish to do us harm? How are WE keeping them down? You are general;izing you can rationally deal with these people...fatal mistake.



Please note..this is only if you are dealing with people that can be rationally talked to. You are using 21st century value system to 16th century mentality.



It is happening. Once again I think the the Democrats so hand-tied the CIA as to render them inept. We need to repeal those terrible laws of the 70's and get with it.



That is one way to look at it. I look at this more like surgery and killing the cancer. You confuse economic santions to what is going on now and it makes little sense. I personally have no problem killing every terrorist on site. If they want to goto Allah so bad I say send them right away.

cusbilla

Just wanted to indicate why I posted what I did, and why I feel it is very relevant to the discussion here. Having a discussion on the alternatives to the WoT requires an agreement on the fundamental problems such alternatives would need to address. Failure to recognize these fundamental issues will lead to incorrect conclusions as to the proper means of addressing them. As to the specifics of my argument, I fully agree that those are best debated in a separate thread, which is being done. But doesn't detract from their relevance here, IMHO.

Absolutely. Instead of the whole Iraq thing the "War on Terrorism" should fight the very source of terrorism. Improve the life standard, build up an economy that will help to ease the tension. Stop weapon exports. Treat their culture and religion with respect.

There are quite a lot of alternatives, I found one when researching another topic:

http://www.policyreview.org/OCT02/asmus.html

Here's a few non-violent remedies

1.)Take our case before the U.N. World Court-and war crimes tribunal, once these entities are given "teeth" then we will get those who perpetuate terrorist attacks. Work to ferment democratic movements in other nations through cash & advisors; only non-violent tactics would be encoruaged. (don't believe me?-look at Milosevic) Use this as the only instrument to catch terrorists.

2.)Appoint a committee of clerical, political, and cultural leaders to engage in dialogue with other nations. Adopt their recommendations as to how we can stop offending their sensibilities and help them.

3.)Drop all foreign arms shipments and sales immediately.

4.)Develop crack teams of peace negotiators and send them out to tackle various continental conflicts(i.e.-a team Africa; Asia; etc.)

5.)Increase cultural exchange programs

You recommended>>>>

Here's a few non-violent remedies

1.)Take our case before the U.N. World Court-and war crimes tribunal, once these entities are given "teeth" then we will get those who perpetuate terrorist attacks. Work to ferment democratic movements in other nations through cash & advisors; only non-violent tactics would be encoruaged. (don't believe me?-look at Milosevic) Use this as the only instrument to catch terrorists.

[COLOR=red] Milosevic was not a terrorist, he was a despotic leader. (Hussein was both a despot and a supporter and perpetrator of terrorism) We (with NATO) removed Milosevic from Bosnia-Herz. by force after the UN had screwed it up for years. We met his misdeeds with force, but he was easy; he was the leader of a nation state. The international terrorists that have hit us and continue to threaten us are not nation-states, so we have to take the fight to them where they are. There is no such thing as diplomacy and negotiations with terrorists. You don't stop terrorists by weakly applying violence, killing some, and *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off the rest. We stop terrorist by killing them ALL.. no one left to be angry.


2.)Appoint a committee of clerical, political, and cultural leaders to engage in dialogue with other nations. Adopt their recommendations as to how we can stop offending their sensibilities and help them.

[COLOR=red] Again, nation states are not the prime issue in the GWOT. We have no beef with the people of Afghanisan, Iraq or any other nation state. Many of these countries that have terrorist strongholds lack the power to control these elements within their borders. (We can't even totally cotrol them in our own borders!) The solution is talking decisive violence to the terrorists and applying it accurately. This kind of violence is good and just.


3.)Drop all foreign arms shipments and sales immediately.

[COLOR=red] I agree with this one. It will cut way down on the availability of arms to people that should not have them, and it would slow down the speed of R&D needed to maintain our own edge in weaponry. Now, if we can just convince the other arms makers of the world to do the same. (France is the biggest whore in the international arms market)


4.)Develop crack teams of peace negotiators and send them out to tackle various continental conflicts(i.e.-a team Africa; Asia; etc.)

[COLOR=red] The only problem is that no one knows how to do this.

5.)Increase cultural exchange programs

[COLOR=red] I'm not sure what you mean here, but most of the leadership of international terrorist groups received their education in the USA and other western nations.

In the end, anything we can do to eliminate terrorists, and promote democracy is good in the end goal of snuffing terrorism.

Yet more reasons as to why we need more viable options to all out war. We have the right to respond, but not in kind.



and...

-From the February 8th, 2004 New York Times

That is called a red herring. Unless you are implying that those deaths were intentional. When it comes to terrorists, there is only one option. Not killing them were they live got 3000+ killed on 9/11/01.

To answer the questions:

1.Are there specific and viable alternatives in combatting terrorism to our current policy of violence?


There are now. For too long we have been thought to be soft, and about every 10 -20 years we have to show we are not. Bin Laden made that mistake, and Afghanistan proved otherwise. Iraq, for whatever reason we went, at the very least showed the world one thing. We are prepared to use force, when we deem our interests are at stake.

Now that we have used the stick, the carrot (see Libya) seems all the more acceptable for other nations. I would imagine we will see more of this in the immediate future, until 10-15 years down the road when someone thinks we've gotten soft again.

Sanctions, oil for food programs, cameras, IAEA, and foreign aid were at best only successful part of the time (South Africa is one great example of diplomacy, NKorea and Iran were woeful examples of it's inadequacy).

These diplomatic tools will now be much more useful, given that sanctions or actions promised in resolutions will be more thoughtful considered by the offending nation/group.

The downside to the "stick":

1. Sanctioning/Inspecting bodies will be more cautious with their wording/implications of failure of future resolutions.

2. We lose mostly American lives for the freedom of other nations. Yes, we benefit indirectly, but the cost must be weighed much more carefully when our troops are involved without a direct benefit to American citizens. (and no, I'm not an isolationist.)

At this point, I think, we can safely say that Iraq had no interest in attacking the United States or it interests. Thus, it would be incorrect to say that the invasion of Iraq was any part in a greater 'war on terror'. An 'act of terror' would be more like it.

As to the original question, I believe it will be many decades before anger over American policy in the Middle East subsides. Before we can realistically begin to devise a policy that would lead to peace, we need to make a sincere attempt at understanding why so many feel such resentment towards the US. We must then evaluate how to remedy the situation by revising policies that create the resentment in the first place.

We need to adopt a consistent policy towards relations with undemocratic regimes. Either we turn a blind eye towards atrocities by dictators across the World, or we formulate a policy whereby we discontinue relations with regimes that exercise human rights abuses and terror. No longer can Saddam Husseins be propped and supported by us one year, and fought against the next.

We also need to develop a truly unbiased stance on the Israel/Palestinian problem. We cannot pretend that atrocities are only being commited against the Israeli people. We must make clear and consistent moves in the direction of settling the Palestinian refugee crisis- a crisis we're in part held responsible for sustaining.

I agree with what's been said here, but I must add another:

Crack down on Saudi Arabia. Cutting off Saudi money from terrorist organizations would put Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad out of business. They were the ones who funded the Pakistani nuclear bomb. They spend billions on schools in the region that preach fundamentalism. They are our enemy.

First, we must end our dependence on Saudi oil, or no politician will ever have the cajones to stand up to the royal family.

I am totally new here but have to put in my two cents worth. The war on terror began with the attacks on the world trade center. They are events that are joined together no matter how hard some try to separate them. It seems simple to my admittedly simple mind. The world knows that to endanger the vital interests of the U.S.A. anywhere in the world is to risk confrontation and the consequences of it. To kill thousands of innocents on our home soil in a terror attack was the act of a suicidal group of madmen. I realize they were emboldened by the military bumblings of the Clinton administration, but still should have realized what they were bringing on themselves and any country remotely involved with them. In the middle east the borders of nations have less to do with intentions than the fact of the religious fanaticism that is rampant in that area of the world. We, as Americans are not attacking Canada or Sweden or Mexico. Our nation was attacked by Middle Eastern muslim fanatics from more than one of those little nations. The responsiblity for the destruction, and collateral damage we have done and will do in the future rests solely with the perpetrators of the 911 attacks and those who supported them. As for restraint and policing the world, the U.S. could have, probably should have turned the region into a shiny parking lot in short order, dared anyone to do anything about it and problem solved. However. we are not that kind of a people. The muslim islamic world called down the thunder on itself. They should consider themselves lucky we have not rained harder on their parade. Phil

U.S. Debuts Its TV Station Aimed at Arabs

I watched (I think it was) the director of the network on C-SPAN's Washington Journal the other day. If everything he said is to be believed, this could definitely go a long way in 'winning the hearts and minds'. Of course he took in the usual 'right wing propaganda' blather from some callers, but I'm willing to give it a chance to see if it makes any headway against the breeding of young terrorists.

That is when the US opened it's eyes War on Terror. The Arabs have been fighting this war since at least 1993 in the first WTC bombing. Then there was the bombing in Tanzania, Dar Salaam, the USS Cole in Yemen, and to a lesser extent the 1972 Olympics. Arabs have been unhappy with the American foreign policies for a lot longer then 9/11/01.

How many innocent deaths was the US responsible for during the Iran/Iraq conflict, the first gulf war, after the first gulf war, indirectly in the Palestinian conflict. The US has been fueling this hatred for decades, but has waited until it has gotten a black eye to deal with it.

Ok, then who is responsible for the collateral damage we have done in the Arab world prior to 9/11.

Yes, because we all know that violence has always been the best cure for hatred.

As your question is phrased the answer is no.

The problem with this question is the use of the term “terrorism”. What do you specifically mean by the use of this term?

For example, according to the Bush administration, any Iraqi fighting U.S. occupation forces is a terrorist. This contradicts the Geneva Convention and other international treaties which recognize the rights of a people to fight and wage guerilla war against occupying forces. Under Bush’s liberal definition of terrorism the French Resistance would have been labeled a terrorist organization for fighting the German occupation. George Washington would also have been classified as a terrorist for commanding armed resistance to the British occupation of the American colonies.

You correctly note that there are alternatives to solving the varied and complex problems that result in the violent conflicts we see throughout the world. The problem is that when you classify all these acts under the very broad and very vague notion of terrorism then any real solution to any of these problems becomes impossible.

Try approaching this issue without resorting to the use of propaganda terms such as “terrorism”. If you do so, then I believe you will begin to see that many of these conflicts can be solved through non-violent means.

What about the Christian terrorists? For instance the NLFT which has been terrorizing Hindu's, and is supported by Southern Baptists. Should we consider ourselves lucky that the Indians haven't rained harder on our parade for supporting terrorists?

Dear Rev. The Southern Baptists in the United States, calling for believers to "spread the light" as mentioned in the same reference you cite can hardly be compared to a muslim call for a holy war. In the Islam the faithful are required to either convert the nonbeliever or to kill him. There is no where in the Bible that Jesus called for anything remotely similiar to that nor can you find any sane Christian believer who would call for the killing of someone because they are not a Christian. The acts you reference were commited by people from the same area of the world as the muslim fanatics I spoke of. It must be something in the water over there, but people from that region of the world tend to twist religions into a reason to kill. Yes terrorism has been carried out against the U.S. long before 9/11 and as ususal we have acted much to slowly, trying to use common sense and restraint to deal with people who do not understand such things and take it as weakness. If we had struck quickly and hard after the first few incidences of terror against the country, such as hijackings, against the nations of origin of the terrorists as we have now, I firmly believe the World Trade Center would still exist.

There is a wise saying that if a person means to kill you with no thought of harm to himself, you can not stop him. Attempting to foil individual acts of political or religious terror may work for a while but cannot stop a well planned attack such as 9/11. However if the inciters of such acts, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussien, and other muslim leaders and clerics, know without a doubt, that to incite such acts will not result in the U.S. changing its policies, but in the total destruction of whatever group or nation they happen to belong to and their so called holy cause along with it, the incentive to incite such acts is taken away. Do not get me wrong, I do not agree with all of our foreign policy, far from it. I do agree however with our present course of action except that it may not be strong enough. For example when Turkey refused the U.S. passage into Irag during the last war we should have simply went thru anyway. The same for the border of Pakistan as we sought to capture Bin Laden in Afganistan. We should have occupied and sealed off that border to prevent his escape regardless. This country gives out aid to world by the trillions of dollars at a time. Even to those that would happily wipe us out of existence if the could. It is time that the world is put on notice. Disagree with us? Fine. Betray us? Also fine. Attack our forces in other parts of the world at you own risk, but also fine. However, any group or government of any nation that attacks the U.S.A on our home soil brings certain and quick destruction on itself, by any means nessacary to accomplish it. Once that is done, the days of terrorism agaisnt the U.S. will be over. .

And how many soldiers lives would be spent in occupying Turkey or Pakistan? Sure you MIGHT manage to achieve it, although Turkey has a large and well equipped army, whilst Pakistan has a nuclear deterrent, so you stand the risk of either losing a lot of troops in a bloody conflict or precipitating a nuclear attack.

The US will never be strong enough to achieve its aims through military force alone....not without paying an enormous price in soldiers and taxes. Regardless of the destruction that Bin Laden caused, risking war with Pakistan to catch him would not have been worth it.

Hmm, killing people because of there religion, sounds about the same to me, except the Christians call it saving them.


The same can be said about Muslims. No SANE Muslim would call for the killing just they are not Muslim. If you think the main point of the war on terror is about religion you have totally missed the point. They use religion as a common ground to band together to go against the American foreign policy.

Or we could have not starved hundreds of thousands in Iraq and blindingly followed Israel despite world opinion and the WTC might have still have been there.

If the US cannot stop a man with nothing to lose, how do you expect the third world country that they came from to stop them? If we destroy the country anyways don't you think that will just create more people with nothing to lose?

Not listening to the wish of other nations is what got the US into this situation in the first place. Was Pakistan supposed to just open its borders to American troops. If Musharraf did don't you think the people would have overthrown his government? Think about what would have happened if OBL was now hiding in a country and was now in control of nuclear weapons.

I will try to state my point more simply. I don't think anyone would argue that the southern baptists in the United States were calling for the killing of anyone when they mentioned "spreading the light". It was the fanatic folks in the third world countries were the killings took place that took that call and turned it into a call to kill.
The same can be said about Muslims. No SANE Muslim would call for the killing just they are not Muslim.

Actually, unless you want to classify all of the major clerics and leaders of the muslim world that call with great frequency for a holy war, which clearly means killing infidels, insane, then yes sane muslims will and do call for the killing of folks that do not succumb to their religous beliefs. The act of killing unbeleivers is called for in the Koran.
[QUOTE]If the US cannot stop a man with nothing to lose, how do you expect the third world country that they came from to stop them? If we destroy the country anyways don't you think that will just create more people with nothing to lose?

I did not say "with nothing to lose". [QUOTE]There is a wise saying that if a person means to kill you with no thought of harm to himself, you can not stop him.

This simply means that short of killing him a person that means to harm you with no fear of harm to his individual person most likely will succeed in his purpose. My point being that trying to set up defenses against suicide attacks usually will not work. However if the person or persons that incited that individual to commit the attack in the first place, such as governments and groups that harbor and support terrorists, realize that to do so will result not only in the death of the terrorist himself but the utter and complete destruction of themselves and their power base, then there is no incentive to incite the attacks in the first place since they and their so called cause will no longer exist to argue about.

Attacks on the U.S. it would seem that anyone could see, will never cause a change in our policies but rather set them in stone. If this nation were to change its stand in response to terror attacks hoping to pacify one group without violence there would shortly be another group with gripes attacking in order to get the same response. Violence can never be answered succesfully by appeasement, either in individuals or on the world stage. That only emboldens those who commit the acts in the first place. The only answer to violent attacks such as these is a swift, overwhelming, military response that either, one, demonstates to the terroists that the response they will get is not the one hoped for, or two, failing convincing them of that fact, eradicates them from the face of the planet therefore reducing the whole matter to a moot point. As I stated before, the day these third world holy warriors are taught once and for all that to attack the U.S. on its home soil is to bring the full force of American military power onto themselves until they are unable to continue with this foolishness or until they no longer exist, will be the day that terror attacks on this country will cease. And the sooner the better. Thanks for listening to my opinions.

It think I heard these same words from some of those same muslim clerics you referenced earlier. How do you expect them to respond when you starve the people with sanctions, use bunker busting bombs to kill innocent women and children in bomb shelters, fund their oppressors? Go to the UN? Wait when the Palestinians try the US vetos, and when the Iraqis try they ignore the UN. So should the Arabs be appeasable to the this latest violent crusade?

Care to back up this statement with any links? I think you will find there aren't any, and those that might be used are dubious. Jihad is a vastly misunderstood concept within the Islamic community, and certainly more so within the West. In fact, tolerance is the method explained in the Quran. Violence is only to be used to overcome persecution. The 'justification' used is that the West is currently practicing such persecution against Islam. It is NOT because Christians are non-believers. In fact, the Quran states to treat Christians with respect, as they are brothers.



Responsible? Hmmm, an interesting term. I would argue, in the cases stated about innocent lives being lost in the First Gulf War (and the second, as far as that goes), that the person responsible would be Saddam Hussein. If it weren't for his actions (or inactions, as the case may be), none of the collateral damage would have occurred. Saying it is the US's fault is much like the criminal blaming the police for being in jail--certainly a misplaced sense of responsibility, to say the least.

In the cases mentioned involving Palestine, I also think it would be difficult to make a case that the US is 'responsible'. Rather, we seem to be the one consistent voice for mediation and resolution. Certainly, the Isrealis and the Palestinians have done far more to create the current climate than we have. The rest of the Middle East has also done precious little to resolve the issue.

Were there things done prior to the First Gulf War that helped led to the current situation? Sure. However, and this is extremely important, even in those cases there is a clear distinction in intent between our actions and actions taken against us. If mistakes were made in our actions, there were through short-sightedness or naivety as to the full ramifications of the action. I don't think the intent was ever to inflict harm upon the Middle East. This is precisely the intent of the actions taken against us. Even in these situations, if you examine them closely, the concept of 'responsibility' is very difficult to apply. There is always a precursor event--who's to say where the 'responsibility' lies?

No, I think it more like if that criminal was robbing a bank, and the police came in there guns blazing wounding the the victims the robber was originally harming. Even though the robber was caused them to be in the bank he did not force them to pull the trigger. Although I do agree that the US has put forth a good effort in the Palestinian conflict, it has stood by Israel despite world opinion in very crucial incidents, like the bulldozing of the refugee camp in Jenin where the US blocked UN inspectors to go in to survey the damage.

In reference to the the example above, the officers would be held accountable for their actions and possibly face charges of negligence, why should the US government be held to different standards?

Ok Hobbes, I guess I am poor at making my points so I will try to clarify. My statement meant to imply that the Muslem religion does have instructions on using violence, the Christian religion says to turn the other cheek. Ok now that is cleared up I hope, I do not think that the acts of terror are prompted simply because Muslims hate Christians, or that it really has much to do with it at all.

The simple facts are; middle eastern muslims have been performing terroist acts for years and years from hijacking planes in order to try to force countries to free some of their members, to bombing planes, bases, WTC towers, embassys, resturants, and anything else they can get near with a suicide bomber, in the name of the United States being the great satan of the world. As mentioned and passed over by others the U.S has tried again and again to bring the Palistinians and Israel together for a peaceful solution. Neither side is serious when they do talk peace and abandoning Israel will only result in more violence without any restraint on Israel by the United States. The Palistinians would be worse off than they are now, as Israeli forces would make short work of them in an open military conflict.

As far as Iraq goes as soon as the fanatics quit blowing up the buildings that we did not already blow up with terrorist bombings of their own country Im sure we will do what we have always done after defeating a nation. Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, utilities, and cities, give them trillions of dollars to behave themselves and then watch on television as they burn our flag in the streets because we are the great satan.

The countries of the Middle East will always be at each others throats for one reason or another. Even the Iragi people, without someone to tell them what to think as a whole and enforce it, are broken into many many small factions all based on some form of Islam or another quabbling about what kind of government that they will have. They are lucky they are being given the choice. Had it been Russia or any number of other countries now occupying Iraq, it would most certainly be that nations soverign territory by now.

The point everyone seems to miss when they say that the U.S. acts only in its own interests without a care for what happens to anyone else is this. If America is as it is portrayed by the rest of the world, we would simply go in conquer the middle eastern nations militarily, claim them as our territory, take control of their vast oil reserves, make some money for a change by selling that oil to other countries, and dare anyone to do anything about it. We have the might to do it but that would not make it right. That is why we dont do it! It wouldnt be right and the American people would not stand for it. Our leaders know that.

I would like for someone to name a nation past or present that being in the position of the worlds only super power with the ability to do pretty much what it pleases across the world that did not use that power to conquer and expand its territory as far as it wished or was able to. America has shown great restraint thru its history in the face of aggression, insult, betrayal, and now outright attack on our home soil.

strait up violence for violence will never solve the problem unless we want everyone wants to die. what we need to do is address the economic and social problems that cause terrorism, i.e. globalization, exploitation of workers, etc.

If you go out and actually try to pinpoint a geographic location from which terrorists generate from you really can’t put it all in one place. More to the point such a question of why a person does such activities is rather broad in scope and generally not understood very well or not even cared about to say the least.

My take from learning what i can is that many nations or areas in which people that collectively belong to Muslim culture face a harsh reality. such things as the only thing you may eat in a day is a stale slice of bread and you work for nothing as a child. Many times such youth are taken in by camps that teach them the kind of things that can lead to becoming a terrorist. Like in one documentary the first thing the person came in contact with was children asking her in a rather angry tone if she was an infidel. Not to say that America or western culture is to blame for current living conditions on whole for such a culture or religious group but we have not helped if you follow history.

I think that their are many different ways to go about ridding terror that will be much more effective then tanks or bombs. It is something though that would require harder work then war. Like learning about such a group of people, the various makeup of their culture and ways of life.

The bottom line to me is the same thing that leads to racist groups like black panthers and the KKK can also be tied to why terrorism comes about and most likely armies. I find it points more to a product of human nature really.

The last point is that nations in the middle east such as Kuwait changed for the better, to our interests and to making terrorists. A positive reform without war can occur, but I don’t think its possible if the people involved are ignorant of so much, or lack the more favorable aspects of humans, like something you may call compassion.

Maybe if such things that terrorists use to recruit people were stopped the recruiters would have a harder time to find people. education, better standard of living overall would have a very large impact on such, the only problem is trying to do so without it looking like an attack on there culture.

the current mindsets right now of both Americans and Muslims in the world is the larger problem. I strongly feel that wars will not end this problem or the very thing that makes terrorists, you don’t have to look far, Palestine is not a great place to live and the fighting is something that is just replayed in time, it really gets people nowhere.