Political Crossfire Forums

[Kane]

As contradictory as this title seems...I've come to the conclusion that terrorism cannot be "annihilated" through military incursions into such state supporters. I think that in order to effectively root out any such terrorism the change must come from inside the country. How...I'm not quite sure.

Afghanistan could prove to be a counter to my argument but I believe it to be an example of the only such country that was so impoverished it generally approved of self-destruction in order to rebuild. My point is this: There are few countries today that don't have populations exhibiting a certain fondness of their already established infrastructure (Yes, there's that word again) regardless of what type of government system rules over them.

When that infrastructure is attacked, regardless of the intended actions of the offending country, the perception will generally be one of disdain towards such actions. This perspective will eventually lead to the once peaceful populations siding with the resistance in order to preserve what they deem important (i.e. country, infrastructure, normality).

I believe the idea that foreign military forces can dissuade terrorist activities by use of force is so terribly naive now...

And I'm going to emphasize foreign...

That's my rant for the night. Just a thought.

[thatisnotme]

In the Cold War era, containment was a good strategy, only because the USSR was ruled by people who were still rational -- knowing that under the Mutual Assured Destruction, both sides would kill each other. In the present conflict, the terrorists (most are Islamic terrorists), they do not fear death. In fact, they look gleefully at dying since it means instant martyrdom for them. Then the strategy of containment under a MAD cover no longer works.

But military action has its drawback, since most of these terrorists are willing to hide among the civilians, knowing that if they get hit, so will the civilians, bringing world opinion against the military action. So the question remains what to do? Not acting emboldens the terrorists who will perceive us to be too weak to act. Acting to punish them brings along civilian casualty and world condemnation. The terrorists are in a win-win situation.

Diplomacy only brings more time for the terrorists to strenghten their positions, by rearming and recruiting. So we are out of luck with containment, military action and diplomacy won't work with this enemy. There is an old saying: if you can't beat them, then join them. The only remaining suggestion is that you start reading the Qoran and prepare to convert to Islam. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ToonArmyIsComing]

thatisnotme wrote: There is an old saying: if you can't beat them, then join them. The only remaining suggestion is that you start reading the Qoran and prepare to convert to Islam.

Absolutely. One of the greatest problems is the lack of people who can actually read the Quran and interpret its messages in ways that are consistent with human rights and freedoms. Instead, the Quran has become a tool of fundamentalists who use it to justify their moves by interpreting its messages their own ways without being challenged.