Reaction to Terrorist

[kreeden]

In another thread in General Discussion , Booko and I were discussing crimes in one's neighbourhood and how we would react if the police refused to handle it .

Actually , looking back , it started with Pah and her , then I stuck my nose in ... Oh well .

Pah made the post "
But even if responsibily is accepted, what voice can be raised in action against. extremism. It seems pretty clear cut that antagonists can go out and kill the extremist, what does the mainline do?

To which I replied " And that is a very good question . One I have asking myself the past few days . The only idea I have is to treat it as a crime , not an act of war ."

And Booko brought up this analogy

If there was a crack house in your neighborhood, you might not approve, but beyond calling the cops, what could you do?

If the cops won't respond -- then what?

(Although I suppose you could do what some guys in a Detroit neighborhood did a few years back -- they torched the crack house when no one was home.)

The rest can be found here http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36109&page=5

Now , the thing is , it is easy for me to be cool and detached about terrorism because it hasn't directly effected me . But what if I were living in a area where everyday could be my last . Where going to work could mean that I may be blown to pieces , or shot . Would I stll view terrorism as a crime and not as an act of war ?

Yes , I would try to . Crimes happen in war too . Although I have to admit , as time went on , it would become harder and harder not to just view everyone " on the other side " as criminals . Perhaps even war criminals ? But what good does that do ? It leads to hate , and that is all that it does .

I say that for terrorism to stop , several things have to happen first .

• First the world as a whole has to define international crimes like terrorism . It does no good for me to define it only to have you with another defination .
• Then there has to be an international policing force with the power to enforce the laws that the world community has decided upon . The U.N. has no power for the simple reason that the world powers refused to give up their power , thus making a " paper tiger " as some like to call it . This force would have to be answerable to a " world court " of some kind , but there can be NO vetos in that court .
• Then the international police force would have to have to ability to go into any area they need to , and enforce the laws without destorying half of the country .

Will this ever happen ? Not likely . So it is my guess that terrorism will be with us for quite some time ...

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor...]

It will not happen. Simply because this would mean nations would have to give up the power and sanctity of their governments. Unless a new world order were created, an empire so to speak, it has no chance. Dont get me wrong I still have hope, but peace needs a potent soap.

 

[kreeden]

It will not happen. Simply because this would mean nations would have to give up the power and sanctity of their governments. Unless a new world order were created, an empire so to speak, it has no chance. Dont get me wrong I still have hope, but peace needs a potent soap.

Which is why I say that terrorism is likely to be with us for quite some time . Even a " world empire " wouldn't likely stop it as that would leave only " terrorism " to fight such an order . One would have to have different enthics and world views to make it work , and even then ...

 

[TashaN]

Everybody has his/her own definition for terrorism and all do so to make it fit to their needs and desires.

 

[kreeden]

Everybody has his/her own definition for terrorism and all do so to make it fit to their needs and desires.

I agree Truth . Which is why I said that the FIRST step would be to get an international , world defination .

 

[Flappycat]

Hire the Russian mafia to take care of it, then. They're effectively the government of Russia, and they'll do literally anything for the right amount of money. Russia's official government may not like it, but, to tell you the truth, I dislike them, anyway.

 

[cardero]

I say that for terrorism to stop , several things have to happen first .

• First the world as a whole has to define international crimes like terrorism . It does no good for me to define it only to have you with another defination .
• Then there has to be an international policing force with the power to enforce the laws that the world community has decided upon . The U.N. has no power for the simple reason that the world powers refused to give up their power , thus making a " paper tiger " as some like to call it . This force would have to be answerable to a " world court " of some kind , but there can be NO vetos in that court .
• Then the international police force would have to have to ability to go into any area they need to , and enforce the laws without destorying half of the country .

Will this ever happen ? Not likely . So it is my guess that terrorism will be with us for quite some time ...

The only way to stop terrorism is to abolish fear and ignorance..so yes, I am inclined to agree with your last statement.

 

[OneStraw Revolutionary]

"Terrorism"

How true it is, Truth, that the word is used as propaganda to further agendas. I remember when terrorists would hijack a commercial airline or bullet train on bad movies. But since the most famous act of "terrorism" occurred, now "terrorists" seem to be poised to kill and destroy both the people of the western world and their ideals. It is dangerous that these "acts of terrorism" are not viewed as acts of war from individual factions, but as a single foe to be fought against in our valiant "war on terror".

Why is this so? Is it because these violent acts are not coming from an official state or country? England must have considered the United State's revolutionaries "terrorists" then. It might be safe to assume that these "terrorists" are really revolutionaries, at least in their own view.

A world police force is no answer. The presence of our regular police doesn't prevent all crime. What reason is there for anyone to think a world police could counter all terrorism? No, the answer would be to look at these "terrorist's" motivation.

I live a happy life. I am free to chose my religion. I am free to speak my mind. I have a job, friends, plenty of free time, goals, ideals. And you know what I don't want to do? Kill my self and as many others as I can at the Mall of America with a bomb strapped to my stomach. So what on earth could motivate somebody to make such a horrifying, terrifying choice? They must not lead happy lives. Their rights might be restricted, their opportunities limited. These sound like people who are at their wit's end, so to speak, with no choice, or no future worth not-blowing-themselves-up for. Maybe they can even make a difference.

Western countries and their foreign policies, especially when dealing with the middle east, have been economically based, at the expense of the populace. Greedy corporations pour money into underdeveloped nations for resources without regard to who is really profiting in the deals. The people aren't, that's for sure. The reasons are many, the issues complex, but a good amount of them can be tied to foreign policy.

If England didn't give a reason for American revolutionaries to revolt, it wouldn't have happened. The same can be said for these "terrorists".

 

[sindbad5]

I say that for terrorism to stop , several things have to happen first .

• First the world as a whole has to define international crimes like terrorism . It does no good for me to define it only to have you with another defination .
• Then there has to be an international policing force with the power to enforce the laws that the world community has decided upon . The U.N. has no power for the simple reason that the world powers refused to give up their power , thus making a " paper tiger " as some like to call it . This force would have to be answerable to a " world court " of some kind , but there can be NO vetos in that court .
• Then the international police force would have to have to ability to go into any area they need to , and enforce the laws without destorying half of the country .

Will this ever happen ? Not likely . So it is my guess that terrorism will be with us for quite some time ...

i 100% agree with you, a total defination for the terrorism must be agreed upon by all countries, i repeat all countries, not just the ones who hold the keys of power and media.

a defination that answer the questions like:

what types of terrorism maybe exist?
killing civilians in a train, blowing oneself up n a market under claims of revenge, deforming and demonizing others,
setting up a seige on a whole nations, providing support to tyrants and dictators,
air striking an enemy car in a crowded street killing tenth of people and probably injuring the enemy,
making advantage of other nations resources, and leave them live in agony.
use economical power to impose unjust conditions and terms on poor countries.
absorbing elites from poor nations.

what's the acceptable level of collatral damage that deffrintiate between justifiable war and unjustifibale terrorism ?

what limits exists between legal resistance and terrorism?

what's needed to call someone/organization/country a terrorist?

all people should share in an open, unbiased, democratiec, constructive discussions that yeild an accurate defination.
and then, peole think of how to impelement this in reality

ofcourse we will not create a utopia, but at least decrease the sufferings of millions of people.

 

[sindbad5]

If England didn't give a reason for American revolutionaries to revolt, it wouldn't have happened. The same can be said for these "terrorists".

frubals
yeah, i still say that, terrorism is a reaction, a symptom, something that comes up triggered by another.
if we failed to diagnose and treat the original ill, so simple, the symptom continues, even worse.