The Missing Ingredient in the War on Terror (942 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 1.28 on 33 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by ozzy (View user info) at 2005-11-23 10:46:05 EST
To be honest, I usually try to steer clear of political and religious arguments. This is not because I am devoid of opinions on these matters. It is because sometimes the strength of people's religious or political beliefs leaves them unable to see the other side of the argument, but I hope I've managed to keep an objective view with this little rant.
I grew up in Australia, and watched from the safety of my living room when the Twin Towers came down. Although it was a terrible event, I felt detached from the situation; I lived on the other side of the world.
I now live in London, and was relatively close to the underground bombings in July. Ever since, the "War on Terror" has become a topic I have taken a keen interest in, for it had landed on my doorstep.
Up until then, my attitude had been "Well, if the Palestinians and Israelis want to argue and scrap among themselves, so be it. If the Protestants and Catholics want to kill each other in Northern Ireland, so be it. I'll steer clear of those places."
But now, terrorist cells operate the world over, and no country is completely safeguarded against these cowardly attacks.
In response, the so called Coalition of the Willing (the US, Britain and Australia, among others) has so far targeted Afghani militants, invaded Iraq, and introduced several policies aimed at increasing national security. All this has been touted by the respective governments as part of this War on Terror, and obviously it is the hope and duty of these governments to protect innocent civilians from further terrorist attacks.
But I can't help feeling that so far, they're going about it the wrong way. Let's start with some cold hard facts.
~~ For many years now, there has been friction between Muslims and Christians.
~~ In the last decade, extremist Islamic suicide bombers have specifically targeted civilians (killing both Christians and other Muslims) in their attacks.
~~ The coalition has responded to these attacks using force.
The profile of the average suicide bomber is a well educated, Muslim male between the age of 17 and 40.
<><><><><><><>
Ok, so now, let's identify the problem.
~~ The world would like the terrorism to stop. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus would like the terrorism to stop, and for arguments sake, if we believe the public statements made by the majority of the Muslim community, most of them would like terrorism to stop as well.
~~ Let's therefore assume that Islamic extremists are the only group who are willing to execute the problematic suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks.
~~ The coalition's invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan has appeared to only increase the level of ill feeling between Muslims and Christians. Who can blame them? The majority of them are law abiding citizens, who are unfortunately caught in the crossfire.
<><><><><><><>
So we've identified the problem, and profiled who is likely to carry out the attacks.
How do we solve the problem?
To me, the response so far has been ill directed. Don't get me wrong, I believe using force is warranted in getting rid of terrorist elements, but with the benefit of hindsight, the fact that it is the coalition who are using force has only added fuel to the fire. The global community needs to fight a smart fight, and so far we are not doing so, we are missing one vital ingredient:
The participation of the Muslim community. I realise their are some Muslim soldiers already fighting the cause, but they are in the vast minority.
In my eyes, the majority of Muslims have simply thrown their hands in the air and said "Well, we don't agree that bombing civilians is a good idea, but what are you gonna do?"
Muslim governments are not doing enough to weed out extreme elements in their society.
If Muslims seriously believe the view that they are portraying publicly, that their brethren are wrong in their actions, they should be enlisted onto the front line. Troops should be recruited from countries with an Islamic majority and join the Coalition in their War on Terror.
It has been established that terror cells require effective leadership, funding and recruitment to be effective.
Why not enlist the aid of peaceful, law abiding Muslim soldiers to assist in the search for radical clerics and extremist leaders? When these radicals have been identified, have the Muslim community remove them, by force if necessary. By doing so, you cut off both leadership and recruitment, and reduce ill feeling toward western cultures.
If Islamic extremists are weeded out by others of the same faith, and not some white "infidel" who is perceived to harbour hatred and stereotyped view of all Muslims, what possible gripe could the Islamic community have with the situation?
It is time the Muslim community was made accountable for their own bad eggs. It's time they were made to stand up and join the fight against extremism within their ranks.
<><><><><><><>
I realise this is a complex issue, but for the purposes of Uber I've tried to keep this brief, to the point and reader friendly.
User Reviews
Submitted by Stuch (user info) at 2005-11-29 11:01:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The world would like terrorism to stop? To be a little bit anal, I think the world would like the "media portrayal of terrorism" to stop.
Terrorism is the use of force or threat of use of force in attempt to instill political or social change. So, according to the dictionary, George Washington was a terrorist, George Bush is a terrorist and most the main characters in Final Fantasy 7 are terrorists. Terrorism will never stop, not while people have different religions, views and interests (and I dont mean cross-stitch or hacky-sack).
Okay. Back to the "media portrayal of terrorism", suicide bombings and like. Your idea of enlisting the help of Muslim leaders would, of course, be effective if everybody played their part. And I agree with your "cut off the head and the body will die" attitude with regards to the radical clerics and leaders.
Fuck, I had something, but it has escaped me. I was going to go down some tangent about Irish terrorism within britain and the origins of the suicide bomber from the Iran-Iraq war, but I've lost it all. Apologies. You get a +2 anyway.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-11-25 05:18:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BattlePope (user info) at 2005-11-24 18:37:00 (#)
Ranking: -1
of course. you see, war is beneficial to a country like america as a whole. it fuels economy for example. it also keeps the attention of the media very focused on the "outside" giving the leaders more power to alter for their own purposes the general idea that people have of their own country. (why? think about elections...) a "great enemy" also serves as a scapegoat and a boogeyman. i suggest you read "1984" by george orwell, you will find it enlightening.
-------------------------------
You didnt answer my question at all BattlePope. I asked why the government would not want to stop TERRORISM, and you went off on a tangent.
You merely suggested it may be beneficial to go to war, but going to war isnt necessarily the answer to solving the terrorism issue.
The way I see it, terrorism is massively destructive to a nation's economy. When the Twin towers fell, the American economy went into free fall.
When London suffered it's underground bombings, the immiediate reaction was a drop in tourism, housing prices and consumer spending. Not good news for the economy.
There is no possible way that the American government spending $1 billion a day on a war is beneficial to the economy. Imagine how much the economy would be stimulated if that $1billion was instead spent on infrastructure, housing and employment programs.
I wouldn't have thought Orwell has much to do with this issue either. My understanding is that most of his work related to Russian politics and his love affair with the socialist model. In short, zero impact on stopping terrorism.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-24 19:23:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The idea of suicide bombers thoroughly disgusts me, particularly when women are used against civilian targets. I agree that the muslim communities need to do more to demonstrate that this is wrong, and to retract some of the 'if you die this way you're straight off to heaven.'
Frankly it distresses me that we should still be reduced to such race/religion motivated attacks. I'd like there to be greater integration and more understanding.
We shouldn't hate the muslims/christians or whomever. We're all human, and at this time we should be working together to resolve problems, not pointing fingers at 'those who are to blame'.
I'm an idealist, but I truly think that this must boil down to a lack of respect and communication somewhere, and after that, it's just posturing becoming more and more aggressive until people get killed.
I don't know what the solution is, but I'm not sure labeling these people as evil and turning them into pariahs is the way to go. Desperate men act stupidly. Get their mothers and religions figures to go on television and decry the acts.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2005-11-24 19:17:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I was hoping you'd say "gravy" at some point in this post. You did no such thing.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2005-11-24 18:54:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It takes two to tango, doesn't it? I'm not justifying the attacks, not in the least, but nobody is mentionning WHY these people want to do these things.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2005-11-24 18:42:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You are all wrong. The missing ingredient for the war on terror is,,,,,,,,,,cinnamon.
Submitted by BattlePope (user info) at 2005-11-24 18:37:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
of course. you see, war is beneficial to a country like america as a whole. it fuels economy for example. it also keeps the attention of the media very focused on the "outside" giving the leaders more power to alter for their own purposes the general idea that people have of their own country. (why? think about elections...) a "great enemy" also serves as a scapegoat and a boogeyman. i suggest you read "1984" by george orwell, you will find it enlightening.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-11-24 11:13:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BattlePope (user info) at 2005-11-24 07:43:57 (#)
Ranking: -1
nice argument... but you are making an assumption here (one almost everyone does today) that the government actually wants to put an end to terrorism... people should read more george orwell and study more history. war and terrorism are bad for the population but benefit the ruling classes. think about it.
---------------
Care to elaborate BattlePope? Why would a government NOT want to stop terrorism?
I don't claim to be a political expert (far from it). I'm just curious as to how people would come to that conclusion.
Submitted by BattlePope (user info) at 2005-11-24 07:43:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
nice argument... but you are making an assumption here (one almost everyone does today) that the government actually wants to put an end to terrorism... people should read more george orwell and study more history. war and terrorism are bad for the population but benefit the ruling classes. think about it.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-11-24 07:22:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The things I've read have been, generally, to the contrary JonnyX. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but from my understanding the reason these guys are so open to extremist view points is because they are fairly intelligent, know the history of Christian violence against Muslims etc
Here's one example of the stuff I've read on the subject-
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/psych/news/department/news/?id=81
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-11-23 16:10:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2005-11-23 14:09:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
The problem is that they won't do this. They pay lip service to stopping terrorism, but thats just their governments talking because they want frendly relations with the ol' USA. The majority of rank and file muslims don't want peace, they want a world ruled by Islam.
-------
Sad but true - and the average suicide bomber isn't well-educated, quite the opposite - they recruit in the Palestinian slums, and promise 60 bucks to their family.
If you are 'well-educated', you are aware that your life is worth more than 60 bucks.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-11-23 14:26:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I cannot BELIEVE that you would leave Mongolia out of the list of the "coalition of the willing".
and
Not that this post is totally off base, but the notion that suicide bombers are religious zealots is not entirely the case. The Tamel Tigers, for example, are a secular terrorist organization who make extensive use of suicide bombing.
plus
The idea that Muslims are in a position to control the racial among their ranks is somewhat akin to asking mainstream high church Christians to do something about people like that God Hates Fags Phelps character.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2005-11-23 14:09:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The problem is that they won't do this. They pay lip service to stopping terrorism, but thats just their governments talking because they want frendly relations with the ol' USA. The majority of rank and file muslims don't want peace, they want a world ruled by Islam.
I say, if we really want this shit done, once and for all we go all out, no kid gloves. You ever seen the movie swordfish? They blow up building, we nuke a country. Simple.
Submitted by clit_commander (user info) at 2005-11-23 13:07:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Governments always tell the truth. Every muslim government that says it doesnt condone terrorists actually doesnt!
Submitted by Fabit (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:46:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is a very clever idea and a view point i've not seen before.
Excellent post.
Submitted by userpete86 (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:44:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Caulaincourt has a good point about the amount of time we had to react to these things. Having muslims at the front lines of controlling terror is a bit hard to actually do. The closest thing we have is the Iraq police taking control of Iraq very slowly. Separating this out on religion is something even Bush will try to avoid.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:16:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Extremists would be a lot harder to breed if they felt isolated, targetted by their own people. But most peaceful law abiding people muslim fear retribution. I remember a french Arab who secretly filmed illicit activities in mosques and he said in an interview: "I know I'm going to die"
Plus, most people percieved the muslim world as one big homogenous entity but in reality, it is very fractionned which makes a rally call even more complicated.
On the other hand, islam itself is wrought in a way that doesn't exactly promote moderates. Some people will make moral equivalencies with christians. Yes, hardcore Christians might be severly retarded, but at least I wouldn't have to fear for my life if I'd travel through the red states.
Unless the Muslim world goes through deep reforms (or that we convert), I'm under the impression that this complicated issue will be settled like it once was, by force.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:15:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I think one of the big problems is that we sit here asking ourselves "Why do they keep destroying themselves?" When we need to realize that they have been doing this for a millenia.
Submitted by MyTeeOne (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:10:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Zak pretty much summed up my arguement on this.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:04:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:02:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
umm, ozzy, I meant being overthrown. as in a revolution (see Iran 1979, Saudi Arabia 20??)
opposition parties and electoral discontent are not massive issues in most Islamic countries, for obvious reasons.
------------
OK, that makes much more sense now zakalwe. You make a fair point.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:03:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
it's a religious thing, spook, not a nationalist thing.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:02:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:00:58 (#)
Ranking: 2
~~ For many years now, there has been friction between Muslims and Christians.
ya...since about 1000 a.d. when the crusades killed many a muslims...9/11 was payback.
What about the fucking Moors charging into Europe? And what the fuck does that have to do with America?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:02:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
umm, ozzy, I meant being overthrown. as in a revolution (see Iran 1979, Saudi Arabia 20??)
opposition parties and electoral discontent are not massive issues in most Islamic countries, for obvious reasons.
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2005-11-23 11:00:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
~~ For many years now, there has been friction between Muslims and Christians.
ya...since about 1000 a.d. when the crusades killed many a muslims...9/11 was payback.
Submitted by Average_Dan (user info) at 2005-11-23 10:59:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Nice little rant.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-23 10:58:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-23 10:57:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You forget that most Islamic people still wallow in dirt and worship cows.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-11-23 10:56:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 10:50:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
it's a good point, but I think most Muslim governments, or rather the governments of Muslim countries, would not survive a more effective crackdown on extremists (in particular, Saudi Arabia).
<><><><><><>
By survive, do you mean keep government, or physically survive?
Presuming you mean political survival: If the stance was backed by the opposition party the government would survive. Besides even if they didn't, what is more important, a political party being re-elected, or stopping needless civilian deaths?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 10:54:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
how about this statement:
remember those people who cheered in the streets of the Middle East when the towers fell? invading Iraq sure didn't make them go away, did it?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-11-23 10:54:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I was going to mention Saudi Arabia (thanks Zak).
Just look at them, they SAY that they hate the terrorists, but MOST of the 9/11 terrorists were from there, Bin Laden is from there and they don't do JACK SHIT to round anyone up.
We need to hold them accountable.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-11-23 10:52:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Going with the benefit of the doubt +2 here. I think you are right in that, by and large, the peaceful muslim community hasn't been quite as vocal with their denunciations of terrorists as *I* would like. But that is sort of a point that was made a while back.
Why don't we hear too much about peaceful muslims hating the terrorists as much as we do? I have no idea. Maybe because they aren't saying it, maybe because the press isn't covering it - I really don't know. But it would sure make things a little easier, huh?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 10:51:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
and, to put it bluntly, the loss of the House of Saud would be a much greater blow to world order than some people blowing themselves up in the street.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 10:50:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
it's a good point, but I think most Muslim governments, or rather the governments of Muslim countries, would not survive a more effective crackdown on extremists (in particular, Saudi Arabia).