How to win the war on terror

[ProfJohn]

The idea has been floating around for a while that the key to ending the war on terror is to end the wholesale poverty and hopelessness that exists in many parts of the middle east.

It is a fact that most terrorists and sucide bombs are poor and have very little to live for. It has been written time and time again about how the people of Gaza and the West Bank are poor, unemployed and have little to no hope of ever living what we would call a normal life.

The terror leaders use this as tool to attract supporters, they point to Israel and America as the reason for their suffering. They lead people to believe that if Israel is eliminated that they will be freed from all this suffereing.

Hitler used the same type of poverty and suffering in his rise to power. He blamed the Jews for the problems of the German people, he made the same types of promises to lead the German people to a better way of life.

There is a great Wall Street Journal opinion piece about how Hezbollah did not really win the fight with Isreal. Right near the end there is an important paragraph supporting what I say.

"There was a time when Shiites represented an underclass of dirt-poor peasants in the south and lumpen elements in Beirut. Over the past 30 years, however, that picture has changed. Money sent from Shiite immigrants in West Africa (where they dominate the diamond trade), and in the U.S. (especially Michigan), has helped create a prosperous middle class of Shiites more interested in the good life than martyrdom à la Imam Hussain. This new Shiite bourgeoisie dreams of a place in the mainstream of Lebanese politics and hopes to use the community's demographic advantage as a springboard for national leadership. Hezbollah, unless it ceases to be an instrument of Iranian policies, cannot realize that dream."

That is the key, to get the people of the Arab world more interested in buying a new car or new house than they are at killing themselves in the name of martydom.

Hezbollah Didn't Win
Arab writers are beginning to lift the veil on what really happened in Lebanon.
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008847

 

[Screech]

This might hold true in the immediate area of Gaza and the West Bank, but what about the plans to blow up the UK-US flights? those attempted terrorism suspects weren't in poverty.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: screech
This might hold true in the immediate area of Gaza and the West Bank, but what about the plans to blow up the UK-US flights? those attempted terrorism suspects weren't in poverty.

Correct, but the majority of the movement is poverty driven. If we can eliminated the wholesale poverty and suffering in the middle east and create societies that don't breed the kind of hoplessness that terrorism feeds off of then maybe we can make progress to end the mechanism that drives people into becoming terrorist.

Would the British terrorist have hatched this plot if they didn't see themselves as being part of some bigger over all war on the west?

Finally, maybe we can't end ALL terror this way, but if we can slow down the movement then we would be making progress.

What we see in Lebanon over the next six months could be key. Do the people of Lebanon stand up to Hezbollah and say "no more" or do we go back to the way things were?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: screech
This might hold true in the immediate area of Gaza and the West Bank, but what about the plans to blow up the UK-US flights? those attempted terrorism suspects weren't in poverty.

But they probably deserve to GET REVENGE on us and the british for all the killing we have done of their people in Iraq and other places..

How many innocents have WE killed recently?

Anyhow.. back to the topic.. The US likes to be known more as a state that will kill you and your people (guilty and innocent) rather than a state that is a shining example of what can be done with great wealth and influence

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: screech
This might hold true in the immediate area of Gaza and the West Bank, but what about the plans to blow up the UK-US flights? those attempted terrorism suspects weren't in poverty.

But they probably deserve to GET REVENGE on us and the british for all the killing we have done of their people in Iraq and other places..

How many innocents have we killed recently?

Anyhow.. back to the topic.. The US likes to be known more as a state that will kill you and your people (guilty and innocent) rather than a state that is a shining example of what can be done with great wealth and influence

How many innocents have we killed?

And how many of the terrorists killed in Iraq and elsewhere? And while were at it, how many Iraqis died under Sadam? Some where between 100,000 and 200,000 or more.

Now how about the 60 million people in Iraq and Afganistan that no longer have to worry about thier government coming into their house and night, taking them into the street and shotting them in the head.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Now how about the 60 million people in Iraq and Afganistan that no longer have to worry about thier government coming into their house and night, taking them into the street and shooting them in the head.

So what.

That's their problem, not ours.

Show me in the Constitution where it say the U.S. is the World's Policeman.

Welcome to P&N BTW

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: screech
This might hold true in the immediate area of Gaza and the West Bank, but what about the plans to blow up the UK-US flights? those attempted terrorism suspects weren't in poverty.

But they probably deserve to GET REVENGE on us and the british for all the killing we have done of their people in Iraq and other places..

How many innocents have we killed recently?

Anyhow.. back to the topic.. The US likes to be known more as a state that will kill you and your people (guilty and innocent) rather than a state that is a shining example of what can be done with great wealth and influence

How many innocents have we killed?

And how many of the terrorists killed in Iraq and elsewhere? And while were at it, how many Iraqis died under Sadam? Some where between 100,000 and 200,000 or more.

Now how about the 60 million people in Iraq and Afganistan that no longer have to worry about thier government coming into their house and night, taking them into the street and shotting them in the head.

If you were honest what would the estimated number of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan be?

Innocents should include those who never attacked us, right?

Seems to me that the Iraqi Govt is still murdering the minority religious members in great numbers... Now they don't have to worry about Saddam so much as they do their own neighbors and and other members of different religions..

I am sure you will find it very difficulty to be honest enough with your heart and soul when you estimate the number of innocent people we collateral damaged-murdered recently... right?

 

[dahunan]

And another thing... You do realize we were on Saddams nutsack WHILE HE WAS KILLING the people you say he is responsible for killing.. right?

 

[imported_dna]

Poverty has nothing to do with terrorism, at least not directly.
There are plenty of people in the West that have a hard life, yet they don't even think of blowing themselves up; maybe some resort to crimes of varying violence, but not blowing up a plane.
Also, I won't be so quick to associate hopelesness with standard of living; you could have people content of living in a tent, while you had plenty of superstars and rich people in the west that committed suicide due to various reasons.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: dahunan
And another thing... You do realize we were on Saddams nutsack WHILE HE WAS KILLING the people you say he is responsible for killing.. right?

You do realize that if all the Muslims in the world had an issue with that, then they could've done something about it... right?

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: screech
This might hold true in the immediate area of Gaza and the West Bank, but what about the plans to blow up the UK-US flights? those attempted terrorism suspects weren't in poverty.

Correct, but the majority of the movement is poverty driven. If we can eliminated the wholesale poverty and suffering in the middle east and create societies that don't breed the kind of hoplessness that terrorism feeds off of then maybe we can make progress to end the mechanism that drives people into becoming terrorist.

Would the British terrorist have hatched this plot if they didn't see themselves as being part of some bigger over all war on the west?

Finally, maybe we can't end ALL terror this way, but if we can slow down the movement then we would be making progress.

What we see in Lebanon over the next six months could be key. Do the people of Lebanon stand up to Hezbollah and say "no more" or do we go back to the way things were?

I don't think the majority of the movement is driven by poverty. So many mujahideen are from upper class families, not just in the west but in the middle east as well. I think Sayyid Kutb is a good example of what drives the mujahideen. They are not terribly concerned with wealth and comfort in this life, but with wealth in the afterlife, hence their willingness to trade material comforts or even their lives directly (ie, pre-planned suicide) for the cause.

They are revolutionary/reactionaries who see their religion and lands as being under attack and they respond with violence.

The same situation exists in Iraq, where Sunnis kill Shia because Shia's pray to saints and not just Allah. Their lives would be better without this but religion takes priority for them. Material comforts MIGHT, MIGHT help things but I suspect not that much.

Remember, Kutb's main fear of the west that generated his radical response was that materialism and comfort would seduce muslims away from the way of Islam.

The "war on terror" to describe the problem is massively inept.

 

[straightalker]

There's no such correct terminology as the phrase "war on terror". Using that phrase means you've been psyopted.

Terror is a tactic not a Nation. No Nation, not the USA not anybody, can formally declare war on a tactic. But here's the further reality rub. The USA and Isreal have been caught repeatedly attacking themselves and blaming that attack on quote: "terrorists". In the UK for decades, the British attacked themselves and blamed it on IRA "terrorists".

Germany attacked itself. Hitler burned down the German Parliment building and blamed it on "terrorists". He set up the phony terror attack on Germany that gave him the phony excuse he needed to invade Poland. His entire rampage across Europe was a war on terror that Joseph Goebbels masterminded as the excuse the German people could be placated with. The evil Communist terrorists were the big bad enemy of Germany. That psyopted the German people into accepting the surprise invasion off Russia. That resulted in total disaster.

No. The way to win the phony "war on terror" is for the people to win control of the Governments of the USA, Israel and Britain. That way the people control the foriegn policy. Not some Dictator feeding them one BS excuse after another for PRE-EMPTIVELY attacking a string of Nations.

 

[Jaskalas]

Hatred is preached in their teachings. Until that changes their living conditions are irrelevant to peace.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: dahunan
And another thing... You do realize we were on Saddams nutsack WHILE HE WAS KILLING the people you say he is responsible for killing.. right?

You do realize that if all the Muslims in the world had an issue with that, then they could've done something about it... right?

Some did, they bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Hatred is preached in their teachings. Until that changes their living conditions are irrelevant to peace.

Not it isn't. What is "preaching hate" anyway, that's too simplified and not really saying much

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Some did, they bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon

To avenge the Iraqis in the name of the Palestinians, right?

 

[alien42]

quit constructively and actively thinking. that is not the way things are done currently.</sarcasm>


i would say that education is as much a part of the solution as ending poverty.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: screech
This might hold true in the immediate area of Gaza and the West Bank, but what about the plans to blow up the UK-US flights? those attempted terrorism suspects weren't in poverty.

But they probably deserve to GET REVENGE on us and the british for all the killing we have done of their people in Iraq and other places..

How many innocents have we killed recently?

Anyhow.. back to the topic.. The US likes to be known more as a state that will kill you and your people (guilty and innocent) rather than a state that is a shining example of what can be done with great wealth and influence

How many innocents have we killed?

And how many of the terrorists killed in Iraq and elsewhere? And while were at it, how many Iraqis died under Sadam? Some where between 100,000 and 200,000 or more.

Now how about the 60 million people in Iraq and Afganistan that no longer have to worry about thier government coming into their house and night, taking them into the street and shotting them in the head.

Thats Great, now they just have to worry about the rest of their populations.

 

[sandorski]

Elimination of Poverty is part of the solution, but not the whole. Many of the Foot Soldiers of Terrorism in the mid-East certainly are poor, but much of the Leaderhip isn't/wasn't. Much of what motivates the Leadership has to do with outside interference in the Region. Both Religiously sensitive interference(non-Muslims on Holy Land) and Political interference(supported non-Democratic States considered corrupt by the common man).

Iran is the perfect example of what the Mid-East will look like once the Common Man takes control of countries like Iraq or even Saudi Arabia. Mid-Eastern(except Israel) Self-Interest extends to selling Oil to the West, but not much beyond that. Their anger towards the West is not born out of nothing or even Poverty, it is born from the Oppressive Leaders the West has Installed, Supported, and continues to Support to this day. Iran and Others will likely defy International Treaties and especially appeals from the West, simply because the West already had its' chance to show the way to a better Life/Society. Iraq was too little too late and with how it all came down, just another reason for the Mid-Eastern Muslim Common Man to not trust the West.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons and still hope they are telling the truth about their program. However, if I was them I most certainly would get a Nuclear Weapon, because it seems that's all the West is willing to accept as the standard that determines policy towards a Nation. No Nukes, defiance is dangerous. Nukes, let's talk as equals. The Mid-East didn't make these Rules, we did in the West.

 

[LunarRay]

Have you ever noticed that Terrorists tend to interest themselves with folks who somehow impede their interests..
Not heard of many events in Iceland or Greenland from folks of ME heritage, for instance.

So the easy way to win this terror issue is not to be on their list... let them sort out their issues and deal with who ever is left.

At some point ya gotta calculate the cost of winning versus the prize.. I personally don't see a prize worth one US life let alone thousands.. and sure folks will die there.. not the same ones but maybe less in total... That is how you win.. You let them win their own battles first... Then after that look see if there is a reason to stick our nose in there and just how much will get chopped off if we leave it there.

 

[imported_guru]

Originally posted by: dna
Poverty has nothing to do with terrorism, at least not directly.
There are plenty of people in the West that have a hard life, yet they don't even think of blowing themselves up; maybe some resort to crimes of varying violence, but not blowing up a plane.
Also, I won't be so quick to associate hopelesness with standard of living; you could have people content of living in a tent, while you had plenty of superstars and rich people in the west that committed suicide due to various reasons.

You can't compare western democratic nations with dictatorships in the middle east. The poorest nations in the west is about as wealthy as the riches nations in the Middle east. And in the middle east there is a huge difference in wealth between the people. This makes the average person extremely poor by western standards. And it is much harder to make a living out of crime since there isn't that much wealth and valuables to steal. And don't forget that the punishments are much harder. Torture and dismembering is not that unusual.

In Pakistan for example most children have only two choices, work or go to terrorist school since most families can't afford an education for their children.

I studied some political science and most professors in political science are agreeing that a certain wealth is essential to create a stable and democratic nation. And most nations in the middle east have plenty of people below that line.

When people are under oppression or in poverty they will use extreme actions to try and solve the situation. Many also seek to religion to ease their mind. This combination is what has created a large part of the situation in the Middle East.


This is what happened in Iran during between 1953 and 1979.

This is also why the Iranians are so pissed at the US right now. So if you don't know the story read ahead.

The brits had purchased all of Irans oil by bribing corrupt leaders in Iran. Later when the elected Iranian leader wanted the Iran to have a cut of all the exported oil the negotiations failed. So the Iranians nationalised their oil. In return the Brits blocked the Iranian ports, and a war was very close but instead the Brits contacted the CIA. And in 1953 CIA and the brits removed the Iranian leader in a coup. The CIA installed a dictator and a puppet government that ruled Iran for 25 years. The US, the brits and some other western nations splitted the Iranian oil resources between themselves. And during all the 25 years the US supported the cruel dictatorship that oppressed the Iranian people.

( Operation Ajax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax )

During the oppression a underground movement was gaining more and more support from the people. The movement was the Islamists. And by 1979 the support against the US supported government resulted in the Iranian revoluton.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution )

So if you wonder why they are pissed at you. It's not only because the US government oppressed them for 25 years you also helped to drain the nation of wealth.

The Iranian revolution is also the reason why the US started to support Saddam and helped him in his WMD programs. This was because the the US didn't want to lose the strategical control of the middle east.

The Iranian revolution is also the reason Osama Bin Laden got pissed at the US. Because the Iranian revolution took the US administration and the CIA completely off guard. And to prevent the same thing happening in Saudi Arabia the US started to increase their military in Saudi Arabia. This oppressed the large masses of the Saudi arabian people.

The US presence in Saudia Arabia and support to the Saudi Arabian dictatorship during all the years have also created many terrorists. After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 were saudis, but invading Saudi Arabia was not an option since Saudi Arabia is a huge investor in Washington. What the US does when they support the rich in Saudi arabia is to push down all the poor millions in the nation. That creates terrorism.

And from what I've read in Egyptian and Afghanistan newspapers, Osama Bin Laden probably died in december 2001. There where articles about his funeral at that time, why the news never reached the west I don't know. But I don't find it too unlikely that the US government prevented it so that "the neverending hunt for Bin Laden" could start...

After all, the US government blocked two very interesting tapes from Bin Laden, sent to western media shortly after 9/11... If you are interested I can tell you what those tapes said. I can give you a hint: It's something the US government didn't want you to hear.

And by the way, English is not my primary language...

 

[Polish3d]

Sure let's hear what the tapes said, I'm curious

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Sure let's hear what the tapes said, I'm curious

/agree

 

[Noobtastic]

Only way to win the war on terror is to cut the life support.
The insurgents have a never ending supply of recruits. For each insurgent killed, 4 replacements are issued. Funding should be the #1 priority. Cut the funding, you end weapons shipments and new recruits.


Saudi Arabia and Iran are the insurgents #1 financial support. Our relationship with both countries is disgraceful and absurd. We moan and groan about terrorism, yet we exchange phone numbers with the largest contributer to Islamic Terrorism.

 

[dwell]

Three phase way to win:

1) Find a 100% alternative for foreign oil.
2) Stop babysitting/defending Israel.
3) Pull of of the Middle East outright and let them all fend for themselves.