Turn on thread page Beta

Discussion of methods of preventing/stopping terrorism.. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    what happened to the last one ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Twas removed, as it was all banter/insults.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    lazy mods cant be bothered deleting individual posts and instead just delete the entire thread ? For example, it wasn't too much trouble to outright ban people who were fear mongering on the initial thread about the attacks in london ? So why delete the entire thread ?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    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..
    My sentiments exactly. I had posted on the other thread to say that action to stop terrorism must follow a two strand solution, working in tandem.

    To bring the perpetrators of terrorism to justice whilst acting to resolve the causes of terrorism.

    Many political observers have said that the threat from Muslim extremists results from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Agree, it also begs the question how do you deter with punishment someone who is not afraid of death?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Collective punishment is one suggestion......the israelis use it and it has been somewhat successful. However being in a liberal western democracy it goes against all we stand for really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    you do realise that the post-afghanistan al-qaeda network is estimated to be a 7000 members undrground group-with nearly 10 times that number of sympathisers. US &UK foreign policy is the cause. We change that and stop being so hard headed then things improve-we will never be able to stop terrorism by any other methods.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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 ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I must apologise to anyone I may have insulted last night, it was not intential. I didn't set out to upset or offend anybody, and if I did then I am truly sorry. Hand on heart.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    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 ?
    If you don't change foreign policy then these events will not be stopped. Do not be under illusion that being extra extra tough will bring results, quite the opposite more people will be prepared to commit atrocious crimes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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 ?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    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 ?
    They are all explained in the original post. Excuse? anti-war movement? I thought everyone does not want war?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    I disagree, if anything the war in afghanistan and iraq has shown that America and her allies have the balls to take the fight to state sponsors/harbourers of terrorists. Iraq has provided the military with a platform from which they can relearn the lessons of COIN and learn they are. The insurgency will be defeated its just a matter of time. Once Iraq has become a stable state democracy will flourish.

    Another important step would be to resolve the Israeli Palestine dispute.
    Like thats ever going to happen. Extremists on both sides will make sure it never ever happens no matter what the US/UK do. I also think it is illogical to believe Palistinians would be recruited by al-qaida when they have the enemy on their very doorstep.

    This is not a war on terror simply because even if you catch some people others will follow.
    That is the problem with counter terrorism measures available to democratic states, they are inherantly reactive.

    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..
    So you are saying that we should give terrorists what they want because its pointless fighting them ? You cannot remove all causes of terrorism it is impossible. Why ? Because there are so many different groups after so many different things, what works for one will not work for another and to give one what it wants could provoke another one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I just dont see how you can justify going into a country, creating a total mess which has left plenty of people dead and alienating the middle-east will help to stop terrorism...It's just not going to happen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    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.
    I was joking..you are bit too sensitive aren't you...

    Ye I read what you said and I agree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    War will increase the threat, likelihood and effect of terrorist activity
    Not neccessarily

    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".
    There is evidence that Abu Musab Al-Zaqawi was in the country long before the invasion and was meeting with Iraqi intel officers, also saddam gave sanctuary to one of the bombers of the wtc in 93. So there are examples of cooperation with al-qaida operatives. It wouldn't be hard to make a connection that may have happend if saddam was allowed to stay in power. Of course if they had removed him in 91 we wouldnt even be talking about this now.

    These are my suggestions for issues that need to be looked and addressed in the war on terror:

    a.) Address the Sources of funding for terrorist groups
    b.) Get an ammendment to the Geneva convention for classifying the treatment of terrorists.
    c.) Military intervention & targetting of state sponsors
    d.) Investigate the use of assassination and rendition of prominent terrorist figures.
    e.) Restructuring of civil defence to better prepare the military in the event of a large terrorist attack incl expansion of NBC prepared military police and Engineers
    f.) Infiltration of terrorist groups using means which are currently illegal (e.g infiltrating mosques)
    g.) Use of informants which are considered inappropriate by democracies
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 12, 2005

1,086

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.