Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think you can eliminate terrorism with guns and tanks. The only real, lasting and effective solution to terrorism is through dialogue, and diplomatic and economic cooperation.

    Consider some of the most conservative Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar. You don't hear too many news bulletins about people blowing up buildings and cars in those countries. This is even after when most of the terrorists are from Saudi and other Middle Eastern countries. However, take a look at somewhat moderate Islamic countries like Pakistan. You continuously hear suicide bombing stories from Pakistan and Iraq. I think this is because affluent societies tend to much more peaceful than poor societies. Money is a major force behind terrorism and extremism, so only economic cooperation can help fight it.

    We can also compare Africa and Europe on the same grounds. Africa is poor, so there are lots of conflicts. There aren't any in Europe, because Europe is rich.

    Mohammad Yunus received the Nobel Peace Prize even when his prize should fall under the Economics category. This was explained by the Nobel committee that they believe peace is intimately related with affluence.

    What do you think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In Europe there are conflicts. In Pakistan you find find cultural and ethical differences. I think mainly the terrorism in Pakistan is due to an uneven balance. While the East of Pakistan is rich, it leaves west Pakistan poorer. Just Compare Punjab with NWFP or Baluchistan (despite having natural resources)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely.

    Though I think guns and tanks have their role as well. If terrorism becomes state-sponsored, as it was in Afghanistan under the Taliban, its extremely hard to stop it. You simply end up with a self-perpetuating cycle where the population becomes increasingly radicalised, but no development occurs. Under these circumstances, its almost impossible for the country to develop and become rich.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Buy and drive SUVs. Lots of SUVs.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Nuking the Middle East would be a start.........
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Terrorism is an instrument of war for people who do not have access to conventional weaponry. It will exist as long as this inaccessibly continues.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frodz)
    Nuking the Middle East would be a start.........
    Please don't post if you really don't want to contribute. Thanks.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by accelerator)
    I don't think you can eliminate terrorism with guns and tanks. The only real, lasting and effective solution to terrorism is through dialogue, and diplomatic and economic cooperation.
    It hasn't worked so far
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    It hasn't worked so far
    Mainly because it hasn't been applied ever.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The economics idea seems good but take a look at this article. The way Indonesia has dealt with terrorism seems to have worked quiet well.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...651213,00.html


    "In early June, the Indonesian authorities made a stunning capture. After pursuing a suspected militant to a safe house in central Java, police say they shot him in the leg as he tried to flee. The target was Abu Dujana, the alleged head of the military wing of the extremist group Jemaah Islamiah (J.I.). That same day, the police made more busts. A squad of Indonesian commandos stormed into a home in Yogyakarta, nabbing Zarkasih, whom the authorities say is a veteran jihadist and J.I.'s overall leader. And just a few months earlier, the police uncovered an arsenal of deadly bombmaking materials in another house in central Java, including potassium, TNT, detonators and ammunition for a grenade launcher, all of which might have been used for a massive new terror attack.


    Since the first Bali bombings five years ago, Indonesia has transformed itself from a country riddled with radical Islamist movements and terror threats — Indonesians once called autumn "the bombing season" because attacks had become so regular — to one of the world's few triumphs in fighting terrorism. Even better, Jakarta has succeeded without resorting to the draconian antiterror tactics increasingly preferred by governments from Sri Lanka to Iraq.

    In recent years, Indonesian authorities have arrested or killed some 300 alleged militants. Indonesia has won removal from the Financial Action Task Force's list of nations not complying with global standards on fighting money laundering and terror, and earned praise from the U.S. State Department, which lauds its "new urgency on counterterrorism." The International Crisis Group's Southeast Asia project director, Sidney Jones, probably the world's leading expert on Indonesian terror, agrees, concluding that J.I. is "certainly much weaker" today than ever before.

    With the recent British bomb plots focusing attention again on terror, what lessons can the world learn from Indonesia's success? First, counterterrorism has to be seen as a local fight, rather than something imposed by the West. After Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was elected Indonesia's President in 2004, he made a public declaration of war on terrorism and vowed to convince his countrymen that Islamic radicalism was a threat not just to the West but to Indonesians themselves. Contrast that with the approach of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Though he has been locked in battle with extremists since the army assault on Islamabad's Red Mosque last month, he has yet to acknowledge the strength of al-Qaeda militants based in Pakistan. As a result, when the U.S. points to al-Qaeda's presence in Pakistan, the Pakistani public can easily write off the remarks as American propaganda.

    Another element of the Indonesia model is the recognition that the words of militants matter more to other potential militants — say, young men thinking of joining a terror group — than some sermon from Muslim moderates. Yudhoyono has enlisted not just prominent clerics but militants themselves to combat extremist ideas; to cite one example, contrite former terrorists appear on television and admit how they shed Indonesian blood. It's a strategy that could work in other countries where there is already some public anger at terrorists. In Sri Lanka, for example, the government could play on the disgust many moderate Tamils have for the brutal tactics the Tamil Tigers employ by running televised statements of captured Tigers regretting what they did.

    Crucially, too, the Indonesia model relies upon effective police work rather than military force. Yudhoyono seems to understand that, in many developing nations, the military is not the best institution to tackle terror. Instead of relying on Indonesia's armed forces, elements of which have a reputation for corruption, Jakarta has worked with the U.S. State Department to create an élite counterterrorism force called Detachment 88. It has taken the lead in fighting J.I., and helped make the arrests in June. Indonesian security forces were once known for employing harsh methods of interrogation. But, today, rather than tossing terrorism suspects in jail indefinitely or torturing them, as is the case with suspects in Iraq or Russia's Chechen Republic, the Indonesian government successfully prosecutes cases against these militants in court, keeping public opinion on Jakarta's side.

    Terrorism hasn't disappeared from Indonesia — the International Crisis Group worries, based on its own extensive reporting, that militants may be preparing to strike in Poso, on the island of Sulawesi, potentially sparking again the communal violence that once ravaged the area. But Yudhoyono and other top officials remain confident they have turned the corner in fighting terror. That's good news for Indonesia — as well as the world"
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    All these peace treaties, foregin talks by world leaders, UN resolutions, etc have been tried and failed. Fighting terrorism with terrorism is the way its being done now, and thats heading into a dead end as well.
    I'm not sure how it will be ever solved as its being going on for the last 40 years espieclaly this isreal and palestine conflict.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Even more importantly Indonesia used a deradicalisation program:
    To win militants’ hearts and minds, Indonesia instituted a program called deradicalization. Realizing that hard-core militants will not listen to prominent Muslim moderates, whom they view as soft, as irreligious or as tools of the government, the deradicalization initiative employs other militants – former terrorist fighters or trainers. These are men like Nasir Abas, once a Jemaah Islamiah leader, who have sworn off most types of violence. Former fighters who agree to help the deradicalization program often receive incentives, such as reduced sentences or assistance for their families.

    The co-opted radicals are sent as advocates into Indonesian prisons, major breeding grounds of militants. In the jails and other sites, they work to convince would-be terrorists that attacking civilians is not acceptable in Islam, to show that terror actually alienates average people from their religion, to suggest that the police are not anti-Islam and to exploit internal antagonisms within terror networks to turn militants against each other.

    These intense debates, which rely partly on Koranic scholarship, can last for months. Meanwhile, other former militants appear on Indonesian television to express remorse for having killed their countrymen and women.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Terrorism will always exist to some degree. Look at the unibomber in the US, the IRA, Somalia, Sudan, abortion clinic bombing, etc. People can suck and if they are outgunned, they'll just disguise themselves and trigger a bomb through a cell phone. Opening up economic opportunities might seem like a good start, but aren't you just allowing the same disenfranchised youth more access to weaponry, technology, and networks?
    It is the culture of terrorism that must change and the injustice that terrorism was created to fight that must be addressed. For instance, the only reason the Palestinians have poor terrorists is that everything was taken, paved, or blown up. The Pakistani tribes in the north are probably richer than they have ever been before, yet they still find a moral obligation to fight. I think it is the ideology more than the economy, though playstation wars are better than real ones .
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You could try to talk to them but that only works if (and this is the big if) they're willing to talk back.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    All these peace treaties, foregin talks by world leaders, UN resolutions, etc have been tried and failed. Fighting terrorism with terrorism is the way its being done now, and thats heading into a dead end as well.
    I'm not sure how it will be ever solved as its being going on for the last 40 years espieclaly this isreal and palestine conflict.
    The main reason behind terrorism is the US segregation of the world into two parties: US "allies", and rest of the world. Unfortunately, countries will fall under "rest of the world" category tend to receive severe US hostility. And, since US is a superpower dominating the UN, we can't say everything the UN does is for the greater good and is unbiased. The US policy has always been to use force over diplomacy. A change in US foreign policy which reduces military operations and increases trade and friendliness can be the most effective way of fighting terrorism.

    No wonder it is said, an idle brain is evil's workshop.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by accelerator)
    I don't think you can eliminate terrorism with guns and tanks. The only real, lasting and effective solution to terrorism is through dialogue, and diplomatic and economic cooperation.
    I don't think you can eliminate terrorism with just guns and tanks.

    But guns and tanks will still be needed so that terrorism attacks will not develope into actual invasion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by accelerator)
    The only real, lasting and effective solution to terrorism is through dialogue, and diplomatic and economic cooperation.
    What would you say about well-funded, efficient, highly motivated and fundamentally ruthless Intelligence Services?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by accelerator)
    The main reason behind terrorism is the US segregation of the world into two parties: US "allies", and rest of the world. Unfortunately, countries will fall under "rest of the world" category tend to receive severe US hostility. And, since US is a superpower dominating the UN, we can't say everything the UN does is for the greater good and is unbiased. The US policy has always been to use force over diplomacy. A change in US foreign policy which reduces military operations and increases trade and friendliness can be the most effective way of fighting terrorism.

    No wonder it is said, an idle brain is evil's workshop.
    Erm........ what?

    The main reason for Terrorism is the US? Any country not allied with the US experiences severe US hostility? Please. You've got to be kidding me.

    Saying the UN is US-dominated is fantasy. The UN is clearly not dominated by the U.S. given the large number of overwhelmingly anti-US resolutions that have been passed in recent years. Its simply wrong to say that the UN is biased towards the US; if anything its the other way round. Its true that the Security Council can't pass something anti-US, but then again the Security Council can't really do anything because of Russia vetoing anything it doesn't like. In actual fact, the US is quite apathetic towards the UN and doesn't really care what it thinks.

    Its also untrue to say that the US foreign policy has always been to use force over diplomacy. The US has traditionally been isolationist!
    Diplomacy has and continues to be used. Saddam was left in power after the first Gulf War for goodness sake!
    The problem is diplomacy is not always appropriate. You are living in a total fantasy land if you think diplomacy would work with the Taliban, work in Rwanda or work in the Congo; and it clearly failed with Saddam (whether you think the invasion was justified is another matter entirely).
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by accelerator)
    Please don't post if you really don't want to contribute. Thanks.
    Please don't post threads if you don't want people's opinions.......
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Erm........ what?

    The main reason for Terrorism is the US? Any country not allied with the US experiences severe US hostility? Please. You've got to be kidding me.

    Saying the UN is US-dominated is fantasy. The UN is clearly not dominated by the U.S. given the large number of overwhelmingly anti-US resolutions that have been passed in recent years. Its simply wrong to say that the UN is biased towards the US; if anything its the other way round. Its true that the Security Council can't pass something anti-US, but then again the Security Council can't really do anything because of Russia vetoing anything it doesn't like. In actual fact, the US is quite apathetic towards the UN and doesn't really care what it thinks.

    Its also untrue to say that the US foreign policy has always been to use force over diplomacy. The US has traditionally been isolationist!
    Diplomacy has and continues to be used. Saddam was left in power after the first Gulf War for goodness sake!
    The problem is diplomacy is not always appropriate. You are living in a total fantasy land if you think diplomacy would work with the Taliban, work in Rwanda or work in the Congo; and it clearly failed with Saddam (whether you think the invasion was justified is another matter entirely).
    I'm not kidding. Name a country which is on US's "unfriendly" list and still manages to live on perfectly.

    The UN is virtually powerless. When US makes a decision the sensible world doesn't agree with, the US just ignores the UN and goes ahead solely. But whenever someone else tries to do that, even with a lot of sense, the US will do just about everything, including violating international laws, to prevent that (using UN's name of course). Doesn't this make the UN an institution of the US?

    I never said diplomacy would work with the Taliban (but it did in the 1980s :rolleyes:). And, the conflicts in Africa are not acts of terror, but Civil Wars, so a somewhat different issue.

    Are you comparing the 19th century with the 21st century :confused: Yes, the US was isolationist, but that's gone long ago. Now it tries to act as the "protector" of the global population. With its current foreign policies, I'm afraid it has failed miserably. Heck, even most Americans agree :rolleyes: Let's hope Obama brings fresh ideas on the table which aren't selfish.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.