Discussion of methods of preventing/stopping terrorism..

Hopefully this thread will be more constructive than the last one.

I think a more joined approached should be taken. In my opinion isolating the people commiting such crimes is essential. Right now terrorist have plenty of support and the very aggressive stance taken by some countries and the invasion of afghanistan and Iraq have not helped. If before Al-qaida was just a minor terrorist group with a small number of followers now it seems it has become very easy to recruit more people.

Another important step would be to resolve the Israeli Palestine dispute. THis is one of the most important steps. The terrorist groups seem to use this as an excuse. Im in no doubt that if there was a peace process they would still find another reason for attacks however this would undoubtebly lower the support and isolate them even further. Of course such an achievment is easier said than done as we have witnessed before.

This is not a war on terror simply because even if you catch some people others will follow. Rather than engage in actions after such attrocities have happened the best course of action would be looking at the main causes and remove this threat from eleminating its core sources rather than wasting more lives in a pursuit of ghosts which might be caught but will not stop others from continuing in their barbaric ways..

You change US/UK foreign policy and they win..... whether it is right or wrong now is irrelevant. The moment you pick up arms and start killing civilians a state cannot back down from its stance or it will encourage other dissident groups to do likewise.

What foreign policy are you talking about in particular ?

What foreign policy in particular are you talking about ? I hear this excuse thrown around so often by those of the anti-war movements, yet no one can provide exact points.

So tell me....what exactly do you mean by change foreign policy ?

these events will not be stopped

Correct. My view on the matter is simple. War will increase the threat, likelihood and effect of terrorist activity. Capitulating to the demands of terrorists will increase the threat, likelihood and effect of terrorist activity. As such, the correct response is to have the security services do the best they can to prevent terrorist attacks. After the event, they need to do the best they can to bring these people to justice. All of us though need to accept that no course of action will prevent Islamic fundamentalists, nor any other terrorists, continuing to strike at civilians across the world. With the growth of man's capacity to kill, the capacity of terrorists to do so has grown too.

I agree with Vienna that we must prevent at all costs the acquisition of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons by these people. I expect I disagree on the way in which to ensure that prevention. I will not put words into Vienna's mouth - my view of how that is to be prevented is a complicated one.

Fundamentally, I see war, particularly in the style of the Iraq conflict, as in opposition to the goal of preventing terrorism and preventing terrorist acquisition of WMD. CIA director George Tenet is in agreement and prior to the Iraq war sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee chair, Senator Bob Graham, reporting that although there was little likelihood that Saddam would initiate a terrorist operation with conventional weapons or any chemical or biological weapons he might have, the probability would rise to "pretty high" in the event of US attack.

The FBI also reported concerns "that a war with Iraq could trigger new domestic terrorism risks," as did the head of Homeland Security. The leading international military-intelligence journal and allied intelligence agencies drew the same conclusions, adding the further observation that a US attack could "globalize anti-American and anti-Western sentiment. . . . Attacking Iraq would intensify Islamic terrorism, not reduce it": "a war in Iraq threatens to fuel unrest and create new terrorist threats, European security and police officials are warning their governments," recruiting new young people "to the evergrowing anti-US stand."

Such wars don't simply increase the propensity of the world's people towards terrorism. They actually risk arming the terrorists with the weapons we fear them acquiring the most. In this, terrorism specialist Daniel Benjamin agrees. In the build up to the Iraq war he observed that an invasion might cause "the greatest proliferation disaster in history." Saddam Hussein had proven himself to be a brutal tyrant, but a rational one. If he had chemical and biological weapons, they were kept under tight control and "subjected to a proper chain of command." He would surely not put them in the hands of the Osama bin Ladens of the world, a terrible threat to Saddam himself. But under attack, Iraqi society might collapse, and with it the controls over WMD, which might be offered to the huge "market for unconventional weapons".

At the current time, I can see no conventional war, whether in the US style or any other, preventing the growth and armament of terrorists across the world. War suits highly mobile, highly intelligent terrorists perfectly fine - it globalises anti-American and anti-West sentiment, makes available enormous stocks of weapons, creates thousands of new recruits to their cause, brings their enemy to them and demonstrates to them and others the enormous impact of their crimes. Above all, it brings us no closer to finding intelligent terrorists and even if it did, they are prepared to die for their cause.

Foreign policy must not bow to the demands of terrorists but it must consider the lives of those who, if pushed to it by invasion, poverty and loss, could become terrorists. These are normal people attempting to live normal lives.

Domestic policy should not involve the undue sacrifice of liberty. The security services must do their best to prevent terrorists entering the country and to prevents events like those we saw yesterday. When they do happen, as they likely will, since no security service can hope to be successful every time, the emergency services need to be able to respond with the speed and efficiency they showed today.

Internationally, we must work with foreign governments to prevent terrorism. This will require different interactions with different governments - with some we can coordinate our security services. With others, we can provide training for their own. With some, we will not receive cooperation - we can however seek the jurisdiction of international courts in the apprehension of known terrorists. A day may come when war is necessary against a country supporting terrorist activity of such a large scale as to demand that that government be removed. Some would argue Afghanistan was such a country under the Taliban. I am undecided.

What I am certain of is this - at this time, the correct way to make Britian safe does not lie with capitulation to terrorist demands. Nor does it lie with aggression and war. Nor does it lie with the turning away of potential immigrants and those who seek asylum here in Britain. It is disrespectful to the dead and insulting to the living to suggest otherwise.

Woooaaww....Copy and Paste?

I borrowed a bit of the information from a good book on American foreign policy. But no, I just think before I hit Submit Reply. Making some four-line throw away comment on the correct response to terrorism is a bit pointless in my opinion. Read what I said.